IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) unveils renewable energy plan.
By on Aug 23rd, 2006 at 1:54 pm
IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) unveils renewable energy plan.
The $1.2 billion proposal would invest $225 million over the next five to ten years to build up to 20 ethanol plants, “five soy biodiesel plants and four facilities that would make ethanol from plant waste like corn husks.” In addition, biofuels would be used to met half the state’s demand for gasoline by 2017.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
$225 million??!! That’s less than we spend in Iraq in one (expletive deleted) day.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:02 pm$1.2 billion??!! Slightly more than a month.
Good start! Now how bout that Tesla technology and the Mazda rotary hydrogen powered vehicles>? How Bout a coupla billiion each for those?????
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:03 pmNow we’re talk’n!
How about heavy investments into R&D too?
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:09 pmI wouldn’t get too excited about the whole biofuels movement. Consider for a moment that the process boils down to converting topsoil into fuel. Sounds good, doesn’t it – until you realize that fields that now produce exclusively food stocks are now in competition with demands for fuel. Think about it for a moment or two & see whether that still seems like a good idea.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:16 pmEthanol is not a silver bullet, and has it’s own complications.
“Unfortunately, ethanol cannot be transported by pipeline due to its chemical volatility. It currently is transported by railways and barges.”
“Ethanol contains approx. 34% less energy per gallon than gasoline, and therefore will get 34% fewer miles per gallon”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel
Not too mention, the water usage for an ethanol plant and the concerns that raises…
Tread carefully.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:16 pmLet’s see more patriotic governors following Chicago’s lead by investing in American ingenuity again!
All you republican yes-men best get your money out of foreign oil and start inveting in America again… voters are going to see what Chicago is doing and say, “Damn straight, Democrats have an alternative plan — it’s calledkeeing jobs and faith in America!”
yeee-haw!!
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:18 pmI’ve said for years if we could harness the raw power in the corn syrup we consume we could fix obesity and fuel shortages in a single stroke.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:21 pmWhat does biofuels have to do with dirt?
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:23 pmwind, water, solar, biomass – renewable
farming for fuel – not renewable, takes away existing land that supplies food, and the energy to grow and harvest is a net loss for that 34% less efficient fuel
we have an abundance of coal, mandate heavy-duty scrubbers, convert it to elecricity for EVs
as an aside, how much of that $1.2 will be going to companies like adm & monsanto, just wonderin’
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:26 pmSpudge_Boy: What does biofuels have to do with dirt
Everything. Most plants (you know, where the biofuels come from) absorb nutrients from one of three sources: sunlight, air, or root system. The root system absorbs water and other nutrients from the ground. So, like, you gotta grow the plants somewhere. Somewhere with dirt.
The problem with biofuels is that there’s a persuasive argument to be made that we just can’t grown enough of it. Which is a shame, because I’m about as big a supporter of alternative energy sources as you’re likely to find.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:30 pm#9 – wind, water, solar, biomass – renewable
farming for fuel – not renewable
You’re dead-on.
This might be easier for most to understand:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/renewable.html
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:32 pm#1 – $1.2 billion??!! Slightly more than a month. try less than a week
#4 – that now produce exclusively food stocks are now in competition with demands for fuel. Think about it for a moment or two & see whether that still seems like a good idea
YEah because we eat all the corn the US produces. The governemnt subsidizes corn so heavily we could easily take away 3/4ths of it and still feed ourselves.
#5 – we’re a GREAT LAKES state, we’re not worried about water for irrigation.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:34 pmyea i remember reading that ethanol production and transport is very energy intensive and can even be a net negative energy producer. got that? more energy going in than coming out. i know there’s new ways of ethanol production that are far more efficient and definitely worth investing in. i dont know the detials of this guy’s plan but i hope its not just some excuse to shovel subsidies to agribusiness.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:35 pmThe immediate target appears to be Monsanto Co.’s patented Roundup Ready
soybeans, which comprise more than 80 percent of U.S. soybean production.
Illinois farmers produce one-fifth of the nation’s soybeans. This year’s
harvest is estimated to be 3.04 billion bushels.
A resolution, approved Monday night, reflects the financial pressures on
many farmers, who chafe at paying a premium for patented seeds. It also
encouraged more research on seed technology by the private and public
sectors.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/illinois121905.cfm
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:36 pmPlant waste? How about all those lawn clippings that end up filling up landfills? Could we use those too?
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:37 pmFrom my understanding of the ethanol situation, the more energy in than you get out argument is fallacious. 1) it included the suns energy which is there regardless of what happens. 2) it includes the energy needed to plant grow, harvest and store the corn, which again is energy used whether the grain is converted to ethanol or not. Ethanol I alcohol and burning it produces less emissions than fossil fuels, using it also means that less fossil fuels are going to be used both of these mean less dependence on oil. Of course we as a people, by our actions, show that we really do not want to lower our dependence on oil.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:44 pmI also meant to add that small biodiesel plants are inexpensive to build as are small ethanol plants, so $225 million could go much further than you think when it is spread out in the form of subsidies.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:46 pmThis is a good thing. As soon as we start using Ethanol, science will push to find ways to make it cheaper. We have to take the first steps to get away from oil, not just reject it based on the science now. That’s not very forward thinking. Ethanol, according to many, should come from any kind of plant waste in the near future.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:55 pmBiodesiel doesn’t save the world, it just pushes doomsday out a couple of years. That said, there’s no reason we shouldn’t be in favor of pushing doomsday out a couple of years.
If you’re eating all of the food that’s produced “in competition with biodiesel!” then you should probably be getting more exercise from walking, biking and running anyway.
If you’re concerned that Ethanol gets transported by trains instead of, oh say, BP’s Ever-Reliable and Environmentally Safe! pipelines, then I really have no interest in engaging you in a marketplace of ideas.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:14 pmThere should be no either-or thinking here. Biodiesel and other alternatives may not be perfect (or even “good”) sources of energy. They don’t have to be right now. They just have to be “not oil”. We need to start somewhere and let our R&D ingenuity kick in. We need the will to create alternatives, the technology will follow.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:21 pmWhat the hell does Blagojevich think he’s doing? His job?
Oh yeah, he’s a Democrat. :)
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:25 pmSounds good, doesn’t it – until you realize that fields that now produce exclusively food stocks are now in competition with demands for fuel. Think about it for a moment or two & see whether that still seems like a good idea.
The US Govt pays farmers to destroy crops. The waste of unsold produce at grocery stores is enormous. We turn a heckuva lot of corn into corn syrup and our kids are obese. I guess I just don’t see the problem. Of course, I’m more for conservation before alternative fuels.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:26 pmWhat the hell does Blagojevich think he’s doing? His job?
He’s up for re-election this fall.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:27 pmWell, duh.
I was asking about this statement:
Dirt is not being turned into biofuel. Plant waste is. Plant waste is made everyday by the process you pointed out.
I still want to know how to turn dirt into biofuel.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:27 pm# 12 right you are I was so dizzy about possibly being first to post that my brain malfunctioned. $1.2 billion is what we spend in Iraq in less than a week.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:45 pmWait! What was that? Did I just hear the distant sound of … of leadership?
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:52 pmI feel dizzy. Take me to my feinting couch.
Aren’t we talking about plant waste?
So how would it take away from growing crops for food?
Also, this is not to be considered as a sole eneergy alternative but this is in addition to solar, wind, etc.
As for Blagojevich, everything he does is roundly criticized by the largely Republican newspapers here in Illinois. His opponent is a friend of former Gov. Ryan, who was convicted and going to be sent to jail soon if he can’t wiggle out of it somehow through postponements.
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:27 pmBlagojevich has many innovative ideas, but he is fighting an uphill climb against the Republiscum noise machine. (His health care for kids has been criticized on one hand for its cost, and on the other hand, for not covering everyone!)
Every headline is negative; every story that can’t be negative about him is told from the opponent’s viewpoint.
Not until 2017? Good lord.
Sure, we can grow enough… all we have to do is grow more. And our suffering farmers can be revitalized… even spur some more farmers’ jobs. But wait, republicans could care less about the lower-class.
They did have a very enlightening discussion about the fact it would double prices of corn and wheat and for very poor countries who rely on countries that produce biofuel would be devastated.
Drawbacks to everything. Including the current situtation. We have to pick the lesser of many evils. And in my mind, the planet comes before money. Unfortunately, the republicans always think economic wise and would rather destory the environment.
We have to go to some sort of biodiesel or hydrogen. Which route of those we take determines which is the lessest(?) evil.
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:14 pmNew study confronts old thinking on ethanol’s net energy value
3/28/2005, 2:49 PM CST
Ethanol generates 35% more energy than it takes to produce, according to a recent study by Argonne National Laboratory conducted by Michael Wang. The finding goes against a belief among many that ethanol production uses more energy than it creates.
Some critics of corn ethanol have argued that it has a negative energy balance, which means the energy in ethanol itself minus fossil energy used for corn farming and ethanol production.
The new findings support earlier research that determined ethanol has a positive net energy balance, according to the National Corn Growers Association. That research was conducted by USDA, Michigan State University, the Colorado School of Mines, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and other public and private entities. A USDA study released in 2004 found that ethanol may net as much as 67% more energy than it takes to produce.
http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/agNews_050328crETHANOL.xml&catref=ag1001
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:23 pmI see that people with what I like to call ‘lightswitch brains’ are in here talking about the evils of biodiesel. This argument about dirt is silly. Yes, i get your argument, and that’s why I can conclusively say it’s ’silly’.
You know what Japan looks like? Uninterrupted city? How do they get crops? Yes, they import, but they also have farms in the basement levels of their skyscrapers.
I will give you lightswitchers that the initial outlay will yeild negative return, but that’s true of any technologies. With biodeisel, it wouldn’t be unfair to expect a large positive return in >5 years if the scientific community gets behind it and Christian reformists stay out of the way. So make that 10 years.
Still a better alternative to running out of oil in 3 years and killing each other for the last tank of gas. Least, I think so.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:06 pmEthanol can help, but not the kind being sponsered here. This is about corn and soybean ethanol. If we took all the corn grown in the US, including the destroyed corn which is increasingly rare by the way, we could meet 30% of our oil needs. So we’d still be importing what, 20% to 30% or so, and, by the way, we’d have no corn for anything else. If this were cellulosic ethanol, the kind actually made from plant waste, then this would be a good thing. Sadly that technology is still years away. Ethanol, as it is currently made, is hardly a solution, and I’d hesitate to even call it a stop-gap.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:14 pmoops, that will teach me to read more carefully, I support the corn husk waste one, not the soybean ones for the same reasons I stated above, we can make enough of it out of the actual crop and feed ourselves…. I shall consider myself admonished.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:17 pmNot only that, but our gov. has heath care for children under 18 for parents who earn up to 60,000. and stem cell research.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:13 pmWe may be in the midwest but, we are alot more progressive than people would think we are. Oh, yeah, we also have Durbin and Obama for Senators.
(unfortanately that goes along with Hassert from here and our brain dead representative, Manzullo).
If the plants are commercially viable (with all the existing subsidies) the state doesn’t need to invest in the plants – the private sector will.
Notably lacking from any ‘progressive’ discourse on ethanol/biomass/etc is exactly what the production of combustible materials from FOOD SOURCES will do to FOOD PRICES. Corn is already ‘moving’ with the price of oil so I don’t think it’s necessarily a good thing – unless oil prices drop, ethanol plants become unprofitable, and there is a sudden glut of corn/soybeans/whatever.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:49 pmJames, the private sector won’t invest in something that has a distinct disadvantage of having to go up against the oil industry, which is the biggest beneficiary of corporate welfare. What do you think the use of FOOD SOURCES wil do to FOOD PRICES. I don’t know but what I do know is that agricultural subsidies would immediately become obsolete. Can you tell me if that would affect prices?
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:55 pmThank you # 20.
A good chunk of my consultant salary and a whole lot of other folks in the region comes from the bio-fuels industry. Bio-diesel looks great to me. Folks are eating less and less hydrogenated oil for health reasons. Extraction producers were having a glut of product. Now we can turn it into 90% diesel fuel, and 10% glycerin. As a consequence of the glut of glycerin, plants are popping up to process the glycerin into plastic feedstock.
I have concerns over the efficiency of corn based ethanol. I am inersted in the Argonne Lab study but too tired to read tonight. There are so many factors. The corn is cracked into constituent parts, basically gluten (protien/feed-makes chicken breasts yellow), the oily part and the starchy part. The oily part of the grain is sent for hexane extraction. Oil extracted here can be fed into a bio-diesel plant, with leftovers sold as feed.
The starch portion is seperated with leftovers going to feed. The starch is sent to tanks to let the yeast convert the starch sugars to about 12% alcohol. Then the 12% beer has to be distilled in towers and run through molecular sieves to remove all but trace amounts of water. Then the ethanol has to be transported and blended with gas. This is a very simple explanation, but what I have not included is the tremendous energy input to get the starch out of a kernal of corn – therin my concerns. There are massive coal fired boilers generating steam to turn electric co-generation plants. Steam and large electric motors are everywhere. So yes I can understand the notion that it takes more juice to porduce than it gives back. But…
R&D will fix that. I believe ethanol will become viable when a microbial bug is Frankenevolved to break down cellulose to yeast edible sugar. Then it could be off to the races. In the meantime..
The possible proof of a grain rich state like Illinois being able to realize 50% bio-fuel oil replacement would be Brazil. I do not know the exact number, but I think they no longer import oil due to their commitment to bio-fuel. I understand that making beer from sugar cane is more efficient than from corn so maybe that changes the model a bit.
Of course bio-fuels will only dent the supply of oil we burn nationally, but it will divert billions of dollars to our heartland from the “badlands”. It will encouarge R&D. It will help replenish lost industrial jobs and firm up the price of subsidized (due to a glut) grain.
I saw one commentor bad mouthing ADM. How many good paying jobs are out here without ADM or Cargill and the like? Everyone else has moved to Canada, China or Mexico. And these grain processors don’t like Frankensoy either – they have to test each truck and rail car to determine how they can process the food for processing. Europe pretty much bans all. Most all Frankenfood is AOK for US consumption – either animal or human and mainly both. Also, how many industries in the heartland hire many thousands of engineers and PHD scientists?
Clean coal powered electric vehicles are the answer in ten years. Anybody got a better idea than bio-fuels helping right now?
August 24th, 2006 at 1:47 amCONGRATULATIONS ILLINOIS!!!
August 24th, 2006 at 10:18 amYour state is one of the most progressive states in the country.
Your public officials look out for all of your citizens and not just a few — The state of Texas where I live now gives more to the people that have money, than they do for the people who don’t have money. Smart people live in Illinois. I will be coming back to live there again soon. Keep up the good work. Texas has nothing to give to a person except hot weather and “a lot of “hot air” (”talk”) from its officials and the president from Texas.”
Ethanol is a waste of shit benefiting the oil companies. Electric cars are here, and they are more efficient and faster.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:44 pmHere’s some info on the tesla roadster. http://youtube.com/watch?v=zIFgzx-wJcU&mode=related&search=
August 24th, 2006 at 2:54 pmInvesting In Corn Stocks
Private Equity Investing In Italian Companies
March 14th, 2008 at 6:19 amJessie
I?ll admit it. i have been to your blog SIX times since your last post looking for a new post?.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:16 am