[GreenYes] Re: House Passes Federal Renewable Electricity Standard

["Reindl, John" <Reindl@no.address>]

Pete ~

 

For the past two years, the majority of my time has been spent on the management of livestock manure.

 

I do not see a connection between the recovery of energy from manure and either retention ponds or field spraying. To me, these are entirely separate issues.

 

John

 

PS ~ My girlfriend's daughter is against energy recovery from livestock manure because she believes that such systems provide a profit to CAFOs and such a profit would encourage CAFOs.  I have never seen an energy recovery project of livestock manure that is economical just on the basis of the energy. While there are other benefits of anaerobic digestion (such as pathogen destruction and odor reduction), such benefits can be obtained from much less costly systems.

-----Original Message-----
From: GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address]On Behalf Of Pete Pasterz
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:14 PM
To: Mark Snyder; GreenYes@no.address
Subject: [GreenYes] RE: [html][bayes][heur] [GreenYes] Re: House Passes Federal Renewable Electricity Standard

The issue is that this is viewed by some as a subsidy to the operators of CAFOs [factory farms] to allow them to continue to pollute the air and water via their retention ponds and field spraying run off in the name of energy production.  Surely there may be environmental benefits to systems which are totally sealed, but most as proposed are only partially contained at best....similar to the landfill efficiency issue with methane.

 

Pete Pasterz.

---

From: GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address] On Behalf Of Mark Snyder
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:59 PM
To: GreenYes@no.address
Subject: [html][bayes][heur] [GreenYes] Re: House Passes Federal Renewable Electricity Standard
Importance: Low

I'm presuming that the "gasification of animal waste" was included so that anaerobic manure digestion could be included. What exactly would be wrong with that?

 

There are a number of organizations that have done some great work with anaerobic digester projects, including Native Energy - see the various methane projects listed at http://www.nativeenergy.com/projects.html and the Minnesota Project - see http://www.mnproject.org/e-biogas.html

 

Mark Snyder

Minneapolis, MN
 

On 8/8/07, Dave Ciplet <dave@no.address> wrote:

On Saturday, the U.S. Congress passed a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) that says incineration of municipal solid waste is NOT a source of renewable electricity.

 

Many of you took action last week to prevent incinerators from qualifying as a "renewable" source of energy in the federal energy bill (HR 3221). On Saturday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an energy bill that includes a 15% by 2020 Renewable Electricity Standard. Thanks to your efforts, the Renewable Electricity Standard specifically excludes the incineration of municipal solid waste, recyclable postconsumer waste paper, painted, treated and pressurized wood, and wood contaminated with plastics or metals from qualifying as a renewable source of electricity. This is an important development for the anti-incinerator and zero waste movements.

 

As this bill moves to the Senate in September, it is critical that we continue to speak out to let decision-makers in Washington D.C. know that incineration and other false solutions are NOT sources of renewable energy! We will keep you informed as this bill moves forward.

 

It is important to note that the Renewable Electricity Standard in its current form DOES falsely qualify landfill gases and the gasification of animal waste as sources of renewable energy. I encourage others to do their own analysis of the bill at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3221 (The Renewable Electricity Standard is amendment 748).

 

 

DISCLAIMER:
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.