Opposition to ethanol plants on the rise
In at least 14 of the States of the Union, ethanol plants are facing all kind of challenges for their installation. Problems such as NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard), zoning board decisions, economic benefit questions, industry distrust, environmental concerns and water use issues. Opponents are also going to court for any number of reasons. This makes the process long and difficult, and adds litigation costs.We can guess which side of the fight an article in Ethanol Producer magazine is, but it does have details about opposition cases in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri (or did you think that everybody in the Midwest was in favor of ethanol?), New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
But not all news is bad news for promoters of ethanol plants. Plaintiffs in several places are losing. The article also gives hints on how to address opposition from a legal point of view.
[Source: Ethanol Producer Magazine]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
TX CHL Instructor 9:57AM (3/28/2008)
"Problems such as NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard), zoning board decisions, economic benefit questions, industry distrust, environmental concerns and water use issues."
Plus, there is the fact that ethanol is at best a mediocre fuel, and the Politically Correct feedstock (corn) is a lousy, uneconomic source.
Reply
rgseidl 12:15PM (3/28/2008)
There are NIMBYs opposing every infrastructure project and lawyers to support them. It's an aspect of the environmental justice system.
Lawsuits are on the rise because the ethanol industry is booming and encroaching on communities that don't live on corn alone. Also, rising food and feed prices plus a growing awareness that corn ethanol is both highly subsidized/protected and not nearly as green as is claimed are generating resistance.
If farmers were co-producing biomethane and natural fertilizer from pulped corn stalks on their property, things would be different. This is especially true if the CO2 stripped from the biogas was used to grow algae, either for fuel or more prosaically, as feed for fresh water fish polyculture:
http://www.ag.auburn.edu/fish/international/polycul.htm
In the absence of heavy metals and antibiotics, fish are healthy food. Farming them consumes much less water than hog or cattle farming does. However, if a farm produces meat, slurry can be used as feedstock instead of or in combination with corn stalks.
The biomethane can be fed into existing gas distribution networks for electricity generation or preferably, to run CNG cars and trucks.
Reply
TimJ 4:06PM (3/28/2008)
From the article: “The number of lawsuits is amazing,” Krohn says. “People would rather keep shelling out their dollars to go overseas to the Middle East. I just don’t get it.”
Hmm . . . more of our oil imports come from Canada and Latin America than from the Middle East. What do you call the bias opposite from NIMBY?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Reply
Bob Moffitt (Bob from ALAMN) 4:11PM (3/28/2008)
It would be interesting if every community had to choice between an oil refinery or an ethanol/biodiesel plant -- they had to pick one or the other.
Provide everyone with all the facts on pollution, health risks, fire/explosion hazards, etc.
Which do you think they would choose?
Reply
GenWaylaid 7:02PM (3/28/2008)
Simple, they would choose neither. Then they would drive a hundred miles to the nearest job. That's how NIMBYism works.
Reply