There are more than 100 different types of arthritis and in 2005 there were 66 million adults in the USA who were living with some form of arthritis. There are four basic ways to treat arthritis; exercise, diet, heat and cold therapy, and acupuncture. Harvard Medical school publishes a 48-page Special Arthritis Report. It costs $16 and you can order it at Harvard Health Publications, P.O. Box 9306, Big sandy, Texas 75755-9306.
I broke my ankle a couple years ago and I now have arthritis in my left foot. It has caused a lump in my instep that has forced me to buy other shoes that will fit over that lump. I am overall kind of stiff in the morning but it gets better as the day goes on.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
annexation issues
While its not difficult to outperform the Springs Council at almost anything, neither they nor VG has really done anything close to due diligence on this annexation issue. There has been little or no mention of zoning, possible pollution, or mitigation fees so far by either entity. If the County at some point in the future decides to dump all their peep shows,sex motels, and/or low income housing into these unincorporated areas because they are out of the way, what redress will the municipalities have if they have NO control over zoning? If the County is sure the pollution concerns are minimal, they should put it in writing that THEY will be responsible for any cleanups necessary, or take out a multimillion-dollar insurance policy against that possibility. Equitable boundaries are still an issue and the development potentials, and lack of same, are concerns that need to be addressed still. What about the 100+ million dollars in infrastructure needed and planned for by the County from 36 st to 58 st? Are there similar plans for South of 36 street? Area 9? What about the MIA developments? For anybody to compare themselves with the MS Council and management is not setting the bar very high as they have a LONG history of VERY expensive projects, fiscal irresponsibility, disorganization, waste, lack of transparency,questionable numbers, and mismanagement throughout the city administration. While they are surely not the only ones with these issues, this ineptitude and incompetency affects us directly and comes out of our pocket, at the end of the day. Larry, Moe,and Curly make a lot of people look smart.
Friday, September 5, 2008
VG annexes moon
Surely VG didnt even suggest that 58th street was a natural boundary for them, did they? That would be ridiculous. Its like MS saying that Bird Road is our natural Southern boundary, lacking in ANY sense of credibility or belief. A preposterous claim that has no present or past history, in fact. To even suggest 58th street, or 41st street as a possibility as a natural boundary is to lose any possible claims of credibility. VG will next claim the moon and the stars as their next annexation targets and SETTLE for just the moon. Blind ambition strikes again. While asking for the moon is recognized as a negotiating tool so one can settle for less and eventually get what is really wanted, at some point reality has to make an appearance. Making outlandish claims with NO basis in history or fact does not lend itself to good-faith negotiations, or relationships, and cant really be taken seriously. Again, the tail is attempting to wag the dog.
unemployment at 6 yr high
WASHINGTON - The nation’s unemployment rate zoomed to a five-year high of 6.1 percent in August as employers slashed 84,000 jobs, dramatic proof of the mounting damage a deeply troubled economy is inflicting on workers and businesses alike. The Labor Department’s report, released Friday, showed the increasing toll the housing, credit and financial crises are taking on the economy. The report rattled Wall Street again. The Dow Jones industrial average was down nearly 100 points in morning trading. All the major stock indexes tumbled into bear territory Thursday as investors lost hope of a late-year recovery. With the employment situation deteriorating, there’s growing worry that consumers will recoil, throwing the economy into a tailspin later this year or early next year. The jobless rate jumped to 6.1 percent in August, from 5.7 percent in July. And, employers cut payrolls for the eighth month in a row. Job losses in June and July turned out to be much deeper. The economy lost a whopping 100,000 jobs in June and another 60,000 in July, according to revised figures. Previously, the government reported job losses at 51,000 in each of those months.So far this year, job losses totaled 605,000.The latest snapshot was worse than economists were forecasting. They were predicting payrolls would drop by around 75,000 in August and the jobless rate to tick up a notch, to 5.8 percent. The grim news comes as the race for the White House kicks into high gear. The economy’s troubles are Americans’ top worry.“With the unemployment rate over 6 percent, it is a clear warning sign that this economy is continuing to soften faster than we thought. It is a real concern,” said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors. “Businesses have decided to hunker down. They are not hiring, and they are paring workers where they can. That is making things pretty tough out there.”
Unemployment leads to foreclosures and a glut of houses on the market; further depressing property values and tax revenues for municipalities. This is a time to take on further debt???? Absurd. Ridiculous. Fiscally irresponsible. Stupid.
Unemployment leads to foreclosures and a glut of houses on the market; further depressing property values and tax revenues for municipalities. This is a time to take on further debt???? Absurd. Ridiculous. Fiscally irresponsible. Stupid.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
annexation issues
Youngs read the definition of natural boundaries in Council and it seems that 36th street meets every requirement listed. 41st street is not a main thoroughfare and never has been. Its not even worth wasting our breath over. Case closed. In other news, nothing was mentioned about any 100+ million in capital improvements that may be being considered by the County. IF that is true, it puts a whole different light on this entire annexation process. The Council or the Mayor needs to ask that specific question of the County and get it on the record. North from 36 street to 58 street is the parcel MS is interested in and this would affect MS greatly. MS is currently running a deficit for this year and will have at least a 1.5 million dollar deficit NEXT year. We cant afford to pay our bills now, without going into the Reserve Fund, how could we afford MORE debt? If Hurricane Ike wipes out our reserves in cleanups, we are in deep doo doo.
annexation issues
Why would ANYBODY in their right mind give away 6 lucrative parcels of land to VG, and receive NOTHING in return? The properties lie on the North side of 36 st, the natural boundary between the parcels WE want to annex and those they want. The stockade also lies on the North side of 36 st and we will receive NO taxable income from that property at all. We have agreed to take the good with the bad. While the overall taxable numbers are very important, other considerations should come into consideration. For instance, if both VG and MS annex land worth a billion dollars each, and the expenses of one are 20-30% more than the other, for whatever reason, that should be part of the consideration. Examples of such possible situations might be a pollution or construction debris cleanup, or additional necessary policing like we have at the Embassy Suites. It is the net benefit that matters at the end of the day. Another concern would include the development potential of each area under consideration, as none of them are equal. It is a difficult and elusive concept to quantify but surely there are honest and independent people who have expertise doing exactly that. Hire them.
blind ambition, part 2
Where ARE those maps of toxic waste sites? They were in MS City Hall lobby for a while a couple of years back. Where are they NOW, when we need them? Has anybody from VG Council looked at them? If not, why not? If they did, what was their findings? It is apparent that VG has done minimal due diligence in this annexation undertaking and, as a result, are uninformed about the potential risks involved. Sounds like another case of blind ambition more than due diligence and fiscal responsibility, very similar to MS. Is VG saying they are willing to annex these properties WITHOUT any control of the zoning? They would be under the total control and at the mercy of the County. VG sounds recklessly ambitious and uninformed, at best, if they havent considered all of these possibilities thoroughly and in detail, much like MS.
recession
Stocks sustained their worst losses since late June and fell back to bear market territory today on worries about job security, slowing economies around the world, weakening financial companies and falling commodity prices.
The Dow Jones industrials fell 345 points, or 3%, to 11,188. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index was down 38 points, or 3%, to 1,237, and the Nasdaq Composite Index tumbled 75 points, or 3.2%, to 2,259.
The losses were the worst for all three indexes since June 26, when the Dow fell 358 points, and the Dow's fourth-worst loss of the year.
Moreover, the Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq finished the day down about 21% each from their all-time highs in October. A loss of 20% from a top is the popular definition of a bear market.
We are in a bear market, a recession. What part of recession dont our city officials understand?
The Dow Jones industrials fell 345 points, or 3%, to 11,188. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index was down 38 points, or 3%, to 1,237, and the Nasdaq Composite Index tumbled 75 points, or 3.2%, to 2,259.
The losses were the worst for all three indexes since June 26, when the Dow fell 358 points, and the Dow's fourth-worst loss of the year.
Moreover, the Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq finished the day down about 21% each from their all-time highs in October. A loss of 20% from a top is the popular definition of a bear market.
We are in a bear market, a recession. What part of recession dont our city officials understand?
lowball numbers
It appears that the City Attorney would be handling any annexation issues. Its true that its hard to believe any of the numbers coming from the City Managers office or the Finance Dept. There is a history of lowball numbers coming out of there at the beginning of any major project. Who can forget the 150k CC addition? that turned out to be well over 400k. The 200k bathroom project that will end up costing 500k? They draw you in with the lowball numbers and then whack you with double, triple, and more once the project has begun. It WILL BE the same with the new gym project.
County insurance
If the County is sure that the pollution in the proposed areas to be annexed is minimal they should should give us those assurances in writing, no? Along with a written guarantee that they will be responsible for any cleanups, right? Without those assurances we could be buying a pig in a poke and liable for significant remediation expenses that have NOT been factored into the equation yet. Perhaps the County could get a several-million dollar insurance policy for us, or just act as the guarantor. The overall numbers need closer scrutiny too, as they seem low in at least some cases, like the police estimates. Dotson was right- VG is giving us NOTHING in supporting our area 9 proposal because we are the only ones with any contiguity there and any interest there. We would be taking a unprofitable problem off the County's back. It should be considered seperately. In return for their theoretical support they are asking for a LOT of ACTUAL tangible and financial benefit. VG wants the revenue stream of writing tickets along BOTH sides of 36 street. Thats how they keep their taxes low. That should be a point of negotiation. Lots of outlandish and outrageous demands have been made by them and Mayor Bain hasnt been able to refute them with a logical and factual approach. VG has become the little bully who THINKS it could- lots of BS, bravado, and attitude but little substance or logic to back up their arguments. Billy is getting smacked around pretty badly by Deno, with his demands and intractable position. We need, and Billy needs, an effective reliever and representative for MS in these negotiations. He should leave the negotiating arena while all he has is a bloody nose and some wounded pride. MS needs an effective negotiator who has all the facts and can make a clear and logical case for a more equitable solution.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
in relief...
I was NOT surprised to hear from Youngs that, of all the municipalities involved, VG has been the one who has refused to compromise. Something is wrong when the tail wags the dog. They are looking to increase the area of their village by over FIVE hundred percent! Who appointed THEM chief? They are making demands and setting the ground rules to our Mayor like they are large and in-charge. It seems our Mayor Bain has a hard time pointing out the inaccuracies and unfairness in their arguments. His longtime friendship with Mayor Deno apparently carries NO weight or impact. Perhaps we need Rob Youngs to negotiate for us, as he has been the liason throughout this entire annexation process til now and has a good grasp of the issues and complications of this process. Billy is obviously not the hardnosed negotiator the City needs to represent it when sitting down with those with hardnosed opposing views. It may be, as Youngs said, that VG is intractable, but Youngs has the best chance for our city to resolve these issues if the posibilities exist. Call for a reliever, Billy!
one small step...
The special meeting tonight was an important step towards the possibility of actually doing due diligence about the annexation issues. The posible tax revenues of each potential parcel of annexable land were discussed in some detail, although they were not complete or completely current. What was NOT discussed is perhaps JUST as important as what was discussed- there was little discussion of possible mitigation fees and NO talk of potential pollution problems or zoning concerns. The numbers required for the policing of area 9 seemed to be low. Somehow VG has become the entity that is setting the tone and making demands. For example, VG seems to believe that if we get area 9 they should get 6 plum parcels of property on the North side of 36 st where Milam dairy meets 72nd ave. They seem to think that is a fair trade. If that IS a fair trade then we should cede the rights to area 9 to them and just take the 6 parcels for MS. We can, and will, support their rights to annex area 9 in exchange for those 6 parcels! Fair enough! That would equal it out some, because at this point VG is wanting some 55 million dollars in taxable revenues more than MS. Garcia has taken the " a-little-of-the-pie-is better-than-NO pie", "lets be grateful for any little crumb thrown our way" approach. It is right to take the current tax value of all the land because it allows the comparison of apples-to-apples, for the most part. Youngs was the best informed of the lot and offerred some helpful summaries of these complicated proceedings. They agreed to look further into this annexation process. After all is said and done, its a productive first step in this process of finally, perhaps, doing real, rational, concrete due diligence. The revenue issues are relatively straightforward. It is the other issues that further complicate the process.
ruling by fiat, or royal decree
Annexation is only an oppurtunity if the probable benefits outweigh the probable liabilities. DUE DILIGENCE needs to be done before those probabilities can be sorted out. When MILLIONS of the taxpayers dollars are on the line possibilities are not enough. Would you rather invest your monies in a possibility or a probability? Due diligence is what should make the difference between a possible benefit to the residents of MS and the probable benefit to us, if, in fact, the benefits truly exist. Due diligence is needed to look at ALL the possible benefits and potential drawbacks so that an informed decision can be made, balancing one against the other. Judging from the total LACK of due diligence in the new gym caper it is extremely doubtful that the majority of the Council has any desire to, or intentions of, actually DOING due diligence! It IS their obligation as public servants and stewards of our tax monies BUT, since they pushed thru the multi-million dollar gym project without even the appearances of doing due diligence, will probably try to do the same thing again. We will see tonight if it will be a pep rally for the proponents or a serious and detailed discussion of the several important issues involved.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
blind man's bluff
One poster says annexation is back on the table; another says all but 2 are against it- who is telling the truth? VG has spoken to the land owners and looked at the property taxes in the areas under consideration but apparently there has been NO discussion of pollution, mitigation fees, or zoning as a part of their due diligence on their part. Perhaps Mayor Deno, like Mayor Bain, considers those issues, along with the boundaries, to be inconsequential and irrelevent; in which case we have the blind leading the severely visually impaired. Mayor Bain has already demonstrated that DUE DILIGENCE is merely a quaint idea to him with no real obligation or intention on his part to actually DO any of it. Could it be that Mayor Deno has learned too well from Mayor Bain? Or is this just a blind man's bluff?
annexation issues
Is it possible that the Mayor and his co-conspirators will again pack the Council chambers with pro-annexation cheerleaders, have a pep rally, and decide they are ready to annex any and all properties available? WITHOUT the vaguest hint of DUE DILIGENCE, like last time? Moe, Larry, and Curly will simply declare that the pollution, zoning, mitigation fees, and boundary issues are irrelevant (like they did with the Pistorino report on the gym project) and proceed "forward"- right over the cliff? Will they AGAIN fail to do any semblance of DUE DILIGENCE in this issue, as they are obligated to do by virtue of the trust the people have placed in them when they were elected? Are all of these issues going to get a thorough and detailed investigation and debate at this special meeting? Where is the peoples voices in these HUGE issues that will affect our community for DECADES into the future? Will going back thru generations of defunct and bankrupt annexation property owners REALLY establish anyone with responsibility or the financial ability to clean up the pollution? Will the County GUARANTEE that any cleanups that need to be done will be done at their expense? How can we regulate and control the quality of the businesses there if we have NO control over the zoning? Are we going to be stuck with 239k in annual mitigation fees FOREVER? The boundaries are not fair or equitable as they are now, and somehow, our negotiator, the Mayor, has allowed the Village of VG to dictate to us the terms of any possible agreement. We are 13k+ residents; VG is 2358 residents. Isnt this a lot like the tail wagging the dog? At last count 9 of the County commissioners did NOT want to allow any annexation so why are we being pressed to decide on this issue WITHOUT us having done DUE DILIGENCE yet? We DO plan to do DUE DILIGENCE this time, right? It would be a welcomed change.
seeing is believing?
Does anybody know how much we paid for the ramps and railings at Stafford park? How much are the barricades and the backfill costing us? Are they permananent? It has been TWO years since the bathrooms were approved- 558 square feet each- how long do you think it will take them to build 33k square feet. More importantly, HOW MUCH would it cost ? Easily over $400 a square foot for bathrooms ! and they STILL arent functional... almost unbelievable incompetence. If I wasnt seeing it with my own eyes I would NOT believe it. Could this guy work for ANYBODY else like this? No way- he would be fired a long time ago. Why is he still here ? He has NO construction qualifications, as is apparent with the abortions he has overseen recently. Hes in over his head! Get him out of there before we ALL go broke!
Monday, September 1, 2008
saving water
Setting higher prices for water where possible is therefore near the top of my prescription list. It makes a lot of sense in developed nations, particularly in large cities and industrial areas, and more and more in developing ones as well. Higher water prices can, for instance, spur the adoption of measures such as the systematic reuse of used water (so-called gray water) for nonpotable applications. It can also encourage water agencies to build recycling and reclamation systems.
Raising prices can in addition convince municipalities and others to reduce water losses by improving maintenance of water-delivery systems. One of the major consequences of pricing water too low is that insufficient funds are generated for future development and preventive upkeep. In 2002 the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that many domestic water utilities defer infrastructure maintenance so that they can remain within their limited operating budgets. Rather than avoiding major failures by detecting leaks early on, they usually wait until water mains break before fixing them.
The cost of repairing and modernizing the water infrastructures of the U.S. and Canada to reduce losses and ensure continued operation will be high, however. The consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton has projected that the two countries will need to spend $3.6 trillion combined on their water systems over the next 25 years.
When the goal is to save water, another key strategy should be to focus on the largest consumers. That approach places irrigated agriculture in the bull’s-eye: compared with any other single activity, conserving irrigation flows would conserve dramatically more freshwater. To meet world food requirements in 2050 without any technological improvements to irrigated agriculture methods, farmers will need a substantial rise in irrigation water supplies (an increase from the current 2,700 to 4,000 km3), according to the IWMI study.
On the other hand, even a modest 10 percent rise in irrigation efficiency would free up more water than is evaporated off by all other users. This goal could be achieved by stopping up leaks in the water-delivery infrastructure and by implementing low-loss storage of water as well as more efficient application of water to farm crops.
An agreement between municipal water suppliers in southern California and nearby irrigators in the Imperial Irrigation District illustrates one creative conservation effort. The municipal group is paying to line leaky irrigation canals with waterproof materials, and the water that is saved will go to municipal needs.
This is, of course, exactly what has happened in Miami Springs. For the better part of twenty years maintenance of the Water and Sewer system was postponed, not done.
Raising prices can in addition convince municipalities and others to reduce water losses by improving maintenance of water-delivery systems. One of the major consequences of pricing water too low is that insufficient funds are generated for future development and preventive upkeep. In 2002 the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that many domestic water utilities defer infrastructure maintenance so that they can remain within their limited operating budgets. Rather than avoiding major failures by detecting leaks early on, they usually wait until water mains break before fixing them.
The cost of repairing and modernizing the water infrastructures of the U.S. and Canada to reduce losses and ensure continued operation will be high, however. The consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton has projected that the two countries will need to spend $3.6 trillion combined on their water systems over the next 25 years.
When the goal is to save water, another key strategy should be to focus on the largest consumers. That approach places irrigated agriculture in the bull’s-eye: compared with any other single activity, conserving irrigation flows would conserve dramatically more freshwater. To meet world food requirements in 2050 without any technological improvements to irrigated agriculture methods, farmers will need a substantial rise in irrigation water supplies (an increase from the current 2,700 to 4,000 km3), according to the IWMI study.
On the other hand, even a modest 10 percent rise in irrigation efficiency would free up more water than is evaporated off by all other users. This goal could be achieved by stopping up leaks in the water-delivery infrastructure and by implementing low-loss storage of water as well as more efficient application of water to farm crops.
An agreement between municipal water suppliers in southern California and nearby irrigators in the Imperial Irrigation District illustrates one creative conservation effort. The municipal group is paying to line leaky irrigation canals with waterproof materials, and the water that is saved will go to municipal needs.
This is, of course, exactly what has happened in Miami Springs. For the better part of twenty years maintenance of the Water and Sewer system was postponed, not done.
a national solar plan
Transportation
Written by Clayton B. Cornell
Published on March 25th, 200845 CommentsPosted in Solar power
Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.
In January, Scientific American writers unleashed an ambitious plan to halt global warming, eliminate our dependence on petroleum and the substantial trade deficit, boost the economy and create 3 million jobs, and brighten the dismal forecasts for the mid twenty-first century.
The plan is conceptually simple but would be substantial to implement:
Construct a 30,000 square mile array of solar panels in the Southwest,
along with concentrated solar power arrays and,
a massive direct-current power transmission backbone to distribute electricity throughout the country.
Excess power produced by the photovoltaic arrays would be distributed and stored as compressed air in below-ground caverns.
Development of such a system could provide almost three-quarters of the nation’s electricity by 2050.
If this sounds like fantasy-land, it’s not. The technology is already here, and even if it wasn’t the need for renewable power is very real. Some scientists are calling for an all-out Manhattan-Project-style focus on developing alternative energy sources. One thing is almost certain: if we can’t move beyond coal as our (worldwide) primary energy source, we’re in for a rocky future.
I’ve written several posts lately about plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and their need for renewable energy charging sources. PHEVs are a stepping stone as the future of transportation heads toward electric vehicles powered either by batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. Solar power would be the ultimate source of clean energy for either type of electric vehicle.
The authors of the Scientific American article think all of this energy can come from solar power. Here are some excerpts:
Utilizing only 2.5% of the sun’s energy falling onto the 250,000 square miles in the Southwest suitable for constructing solar power plants could match the total power used in the US in 2006.
With a massive investment in solar power plants and infrastructure, solar could provide 69% of US electricity and 35% of total energy (including transportation) by 2050.
If wind, biomass, and geothermal power sources were also developed, the US could produce 100% of its electricity and 90% of its transportation energy (in the form of hydrogen) from renewable sources.
To make this happen, the US would have to invest $10 billion per year for the next 40 years. For comparison, the US is now spending $12 billion per month for military involvement Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. The entire solar array would cost approximately 15% of the total bill for both of these operations. $420 billion is also less than the tax subsidies paid for the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure in the last 35 years.
A conversion to renewable energy of this scale would displace 300 coal and 300 natural gas-fired power plants, and eliminate all imported oil. Even better, greenhouse-gas emissions would be reduced to 62% below 2005 levels.
In sum, the potential is there, but it’s going to take some work. As the authors conclude:
The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan.
Written by Clayton B. Cornell
Published on March 25th, 200845 CommentsPosted in Solar power
Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.
In January, Scientific American writers unleashed an ambitious plan to halt global warming, eliminate our dependence on petroleum and the substantial trade deficit, boost the economy and create 3 million jobs, and brighten the dismal forecasts for the mid twenty-first century.
The plan is conceptually simple but would be substantial to implement:
Construct a 30,000 square mile array of solar panels in the Southwest,
along with concentrated solar power arrays and,
a massive direct-current power transmission backbone to distribute electricity throughout the country.
Excess power produced by the photovoltaic arrays would be distributed and stored as compressed air in below-ground caverns.
Development of such a system could provide almost three-quarters of the nation’s electricity by 2050.
If this sounds like fantasy-land, it’s not. The technology is already here, and even if it wasn’t the need for renewable power is very real. Some scientists are calling for an all-out Manhattan-Project-style focus on developing alternative energy sources. One thing is almost certain: if we can’t move beyond coal as our (worldwide) primary energy source, we’re in for a rocky future.
I’ve written several posts lately about plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and their need for renewable energy charging sources. PHEVs are a stepping stone as the future of transportation heads toward electric vehicles powered either by batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. Solar power would be the ultimate source of clean energy for either type of electric vehicle.
The authors of the Scientific American article think all of this energy can come from solar power. Here are some excerpts:
Utilizing only 2.5% of the sun’s energy falling onto the 250,000 square miles in the Southwest suitable for constructing solar power plants could match the total power used in the US in 2006.
With a massive investment in solar power plants and infrastructure, solar could provide 69% of US electricity and 35% of total energy (including transportation) by 2050.
If wind, biomass, and geothermal power sources were also developed, the US could produce 100% of its electricity and 90% of its transportation energy (in the form of hydrogen) from renewable sources.
To make this happen, the US would have to invest $10 billion per year for the next 40 years. For comparison, the US is now spending $12 billion per month for military involvement Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. The entire solar array would cost approximately 15% of the total bill for both of these operations. $420 billion is also less than the tax subsidies paid for the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure in the last 35 years.
A conversion to renewable energy of this scale would displace 300 coal and 300 natural gas-fired power plants, and eliminate all imported oil. Even better, greenhouse-gas emissions would be reduced to 62% below 2005 levels.
In sum, the potential is there, but it’s going to take some work. As the authors conclude:
The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan.
natural gas vehicles
Published on May 5th, 200878 CommentsPosted in CNG Vehicles (NGVs), Natural Gas
Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.
Clean Burning Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs) are hot commodities in some parts of the country, where fuel can sell for as low as $0.63 per gallon.
Unlike the world’s most fuel efficient car (VW’s 285 MPG bullet), the Honda Civic GX looks like a standard passenger vehicle. What makes it special is what you don’t see: tailpipe emissions that are often cleaner than ambient air.
The Civic GX is powered by compressed natural gas—methane—the simplest and cleanest-burning hydrocarbon available. With an economical 113-hp, 1.8-Liter engine, the EPA has called the Civic the “world’s cleanest internal-combustion vehicle” with 90% cleaner emissions than the average gasoline-powered car on the road in 2004.
And get this: in Utah, natural gas can be purchased for $0.63 per gallon.
At $24,590, buying a new Civic GX won’t exactly break your bank account, especially since up to $7,000 will come back to you in the form of state and federal tax credits. But don’t expect to find one easily. The car is only sold in two states, New York and California, and Honda can’t build them fast enough. One dealership said they have over 80 people waiting to buy.
It’s fairly obvious why densely populated states would be interested, especially since natural gas is a readily available source of heating fuel for many parts of the country. Most importantly, the Civic is the Eagle Scout of emissions certifications: it qualified for the California Air Resources Board’s Advanced Technology Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle (AT-PZEV) status, which means that it’s a Super-Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle (SULEV) with zero-evaporative emissions. To qualify for AT-PZEV, the Civic must also carry a 15-year/150,000-mile warranty on emissions equipment. It also meets EPA’s strict Tier-2, Bin-2 and ILEV certification.
Despite getting the equivalent of a good but not quite amazing 36 MPG highway/24 MPG city, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) awarded the Civic the green ribbon as the greenest vehicle of 2008. That’s the fifth consecutive year it’s taken the top prize.
So what’s the downside?
Drawbacks to the Civic GX and other Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles
Earlier this week I was clued-in to the explosion in popularity of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles in Southern Utah, and their potential to overwhelm the 91 refueling stations already in place there.
That’s the biggest drawback to NGVs:
There are only about 1,600 CNG stations nationwide (compared to 200,000 gas stations), though some areas (like Utah and California) are better served than others. To see where these stations are, see the alternative fuel locater from Mapquest (under #2 on that post).
One way to get around this is to buy your own natural gas refueling station. Since a large number of us burn natural gas for heat, this doesn’t require much more than setting up a pump. The refueling kits, made by FuelMaker, will set you back about $3,500, but that can be offset by substantial tax credits.
Second drawback: since natural gas is a compressed fuel, the tank takes up some trunk space, and only holds the equivalent of 8 gallons of gasoline. Honda estimates the vehicle’s range to be 220 to 250 miles, although Consumer Reports claimed it was closer to 180 miles.
NGV enthusiasts are getting around range limitations (and vehicle scarcity) by converting their own vehicles to run on natural gas and adding spare tank capacity. Throwing extra tanks in the bed of a truck, for example, can boost driving range to around 600 miles. The best part about converting a vehicle (as opposed to the Civic GX) is that if you run out of CNG, the system automatically switches back to gasoline.
Third drawback: NGVs don’t provide that great of a reduction in greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions when compared to their gasoline counterparts.
According to the industry group Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVA), the reduction is only 20%, which is about the same GHG reduction you get from corn-based ethanol. That doesn’t sound too impressive, but it’s still a reduction, and clean air could be worth it.
The big question mark is natural gas supply. If large amounts of biomethane can be produced from biomass (which is probably already done at your local landfill), the emissions reductions would be much greater.
But What About Natural Gas Supply?
Natural gas supplies 20% of all energy use in the US. According to NGVA: “Even if the number of NGVs were to increase 100-fold in the next ten years to 11,000,000 or roughly 5% of the entire vehicle market (a formidable goal), the impact on natural gas supplies and the natural gas delivery infrastructure would be small — equating to about 4 percent of total U.S. natural gas consumption.”
At first glance, that sounds pretty good, but any increase in natural gas usage means importing more fuel.
Taking a look at data from the Energy Information Administration, the US uses about 21.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year, most of which is produced domestically (18.5 trillion cubic feet) with the difference being imported (4.2 trillion cubic feet). Proved natural gas reserves in the US amount to about 211 trillion cubic feet. If my math is correct, without taking into account any increase in demand, the US only has about 11.5 years of natural gas left. After that, we’re back to square one: importing oil from Russia, Qatar, Iran, and Saudi Arabia
Like petroleum, two-thirds of world natural gas supply exists in just a few countries. If we’re at all worried about having domestic (let alone renewable) energy sources, basing the future of US transportation on natural gas puts us right back in the same position we’re in now.
Also like petroleum, there is an “infinite supply” argument: “Don’t worry, we won’t run out… promise.” NGVA says that if we can tap into methane hydrate ice formations that exist under 1000 feet of water at the bottom of the arctic oceans, we’ll be just fine. Right now, this is about as plausible as time travel, and methane hydrates serve a very important function—they’re a crucial sink for carbon dioxide in the global carbon cycle.
Conclusions
Whether or not we’ve learned our lesson about importing foreign energy, natural gas could still provide a functional infrastructure and technology for transition to hydrogen fuel cells. Natural gas is currently the number one feedstock for producing hydrogen, and refueling stations along California’s hydrogen highway may produce the fuel by reforming natural gas on-site. Basically, this gives us a transition fuel until we figure out how to make hydrogen sustainably.
As for the Honda Civic GX, it may be the cleanest-burning vehicle on the market, but the drawbacks listed above are likely to keep NGVs out of mainstream production for the forseeable future. It seems unlikely that natural gas will stay as cheap as it currently is in Utah, but relatively low pricing could keep the car’s popularity high in some areas. It will be interesting to see how things resolve there.
For more on the Honda Civic GX, see Honda’s Website and Consumer Reports. See more pictures below.
For more on Natural Gas, see Natural Gas Cars: CNG Fuel Almost Free in Some Parts of the Country.
Posts Related to Alternative Fuels and Green Car Technology:
Affordable Electric Cars Coming to US in 2009
How Biodiesel Fuel-Cells Could Power The Future (And Your Car)
How Solar Panels Could Power 90% of US Transportation
Six New Technologies Will Help Manufacturers Reach the 35 MPG Goal (Without Hybrids)
An Air Car You Could See in 2009: ZPM’s 106 MPG Compressed-Air Hybrid
Clean Diesel Cars Coming to US This Fall: 2008-2010 Timeline
Photo Credit: Honda
Tags: alternative energy, alternative fuels, Cars, CNG Vehicles (NGVs), compressed natural gas, Emissions, Energy, fuel, fuel cells, Fuel economy, gas, Green, green tech, hydrogen, natural gas, renewable fuels, Technology, transportation
Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.
Clean Burning Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs) are hot commodities in some parts of the country, where fuel can sell for as low as $0.63 per gallon.
Unlike the world’s most fuel efficient car (VW’s 285 MPG bullet), the Honda Civic GX looks like a standard passenger vehicle. What makes it special is what you don’t see: tailpipe emissions that are often cleaner than ambient air.
The Civic GX is powered by compressed natural gas—methane—the simplest and cleanest-burning hydrocarbon available. With an economical 113-hp, 1.8-Liter engine, the EPA has called the Civic the “world’s cleanest internal-combustion vehicle” with 90% cleaner emissions than the average gasoline-powered car on the road in 2004.
And get this: in Utah, natural gas can be purchased for $0.63 per gallon.
At $24,590, buying a new Civic GX won’t exactly break your bank account, especially since up to $7,000 will come back to you in the form of state and federal tax credits. But don’t expect to find one easily. The car is only sold in two states, New York and California, and Honda can’t build them fast enough. One dealership said they have over 80 people waiting to buy.
It’s fairly obvious why densely populated states would be interested, especially since natural gas is a readily available source of heating fuel for many parts of the country. Most importantly, the Civic is the Eagle Scout of emissions certifications: it qualified for the California Air Resources Board’s Advanced Technology Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle (AT-PZEV) status, which means that it’s a Super-Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle (SULEV) with zero-evaporative emissions. To qualify for AT-PZEV, the Civic must also carry a 15-year/150,000-mile warranty on emissions equipment. It also meets EPA’s strict Tier-2, Bin-2 and ILEV certification.
Despite getting the equivalent of a good but not quite amazing 36 MPG highway/24 MPG city, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) awarded the Civic the green ribbon as the greenest vehicle of 2008. That’s the fifth consecutive year it’s taken the top prize.
So what’s the downside?
Drawbacks to the Civic GX and other Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles
Earlier this week I was clued-in to the explosion in popularity of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles in Southern Utah, and their potential to overwhelm the 91 refueling stations already in place there.
That’s the biggest drawback to NGVs:
There are only about 1,600 CNG stations nationwide (compared to 200,000 gas stations), though some areas (like Utah and California) are better served than others. To see where these stations are, see the alternative fuel locater from Mapquest (under #2 on that post).
One way to get around this is to buy your own natural gas refueling station. Since a large number of us burn natural gas for heat, this doesn’t require much more than setting up a pump. The refueling kits, made by FuelMaker, will set you back about $3,500, but that can be offset by substantial tax credits.
Second drawback: since natural gas is a compressed fuel, the tank takes up some trunk space, and only holds the equivalent of 8 gallons of gasoline. Honda estimates the vehicle’s range to be 220 to 250 miles, although Consumer Reports claimed it was closer to 180 miles.
NGV enthusiasts are getting around range limitations (and vehicle scarcity) by converting their own vehicles to run on natural gas and adding spare tank capacity. Throwing extra tanks in the bed of a truck, for example, can boost driving range to around 600 miles. The best part about converting a vehicle (as opposed to the Civic GX) is that if you run out of CNG, the system automatically switches back to gasoline.
Third drawback: NGVs don’t provide that great of a reduction in greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions when compared to their gasoline counterparts.
According to the industry group Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVA), the reduction is only 20%, which is about the same GHG reduction you get from corn-based ethanol. That doesn’t sound too impressive, but it’s still a reduction, and clean air could be worth it.
The big question mark is natural gas supply. If large amounts of biomethane can be produced from biomass (which is probably already done at your local landfill), the emissions reductions would be much greater.
But What About Natural Gas Supply?
Natural gas supplies 20% of all energy use in the US. According to NGVA: “Even if the number of NGVs were to increase 100-fold in the next ten years to 11,000,000 or roughly 5% of the entire vehicle market (a formidable goal), the impact on natural gas supplies and the natural gas delivery infrastructure would be small — equating to about 4 percent of total U.S. natural gas consumption.”
At first glance, that sounds pretty good, but any increase in natural gas usage means importing more fuel.
Taking a look at data from the Energy Information Administration, the US uses about 21.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year, most of which is produced domestically (18.5 trillion cubic feet) with the difference being imported (4.2 trillion cubic feet). Proved natural gas reserves in the US amount to about 211 trillion cubic feet. If my math is correct, without taking into account any increase in demand, the US only has about 11.5 years of natural gas left. After that, we’re back to square one: importing oil from Russia, Qatar, Iran, and Saudi Arabia
Like petroleum, two-thirds of world natural gas supply exists in just a few countries. If we’re at all worried about having domestic (let alone renewable) energy sources, basing the future of US transportation on natural gas puts us right back in the same position we’re in now.
Also like petroleum, there is an “infinite supply” argument: “Don’t worry, we won’t run out… promise.” NGVA says that if we can tap into methane hydrate ice formations that exist under 1000 feet of water at the bottom of the arctic oceans, we’ll be just fine. Right now, this is about as plausible as time travel, and methane hydrates serve a very important function—they’re a crucial sink for carbon dioxide in the global carbon cycle.
Conclusions
Whether or not we’ve learned our lesson about importing foreign energy, natural gas could still provide a functional infrastructure and technology for transition to hydrogen fuel cells. Natural gas is currently the number one feedstock for producing hydrogen, and refueling stations along California’s hydrogen highway may produce the fuel by reforming natural gas on-site. Basically, this gives us a transition fuel until we figure out how to make hydrogen sustainably.
As for the Honda Civic GX, it may be the cleanest-burning vehicle on the market, but the drawbacks listed above are likely to keep NGVs out of mainstream production for the forseeable future. It seems unlikely that natural gas will stay as cheap as it currently is in Utah, but relatively low pricing could keep the car’s popularity high in some areas. It will be interesting to see how things resolve there.
For more on the Honda Civic GX, see Honda’s Website and Consumer Reports. See more pictures below.
For more on Natural Gas, see Natural Gas Cars: CNG Fuel Almost Free in Some Parts of the Country.
Posts Related to Alternative Fuels and Green Car Technology:
Affordable Electric Cars Coming to US in 2009
How Biodiesel Fuel-Cells Could Power The Future (And Your Car)
How Solar Panels Could Power 90% of US Transportation
Six New Technologies Will Help Manufacturers Reach the 35 MPG Goal (Without Hybrids)
An Air Car You Could See in 2009: ZPM’s 106 MPG Compressed-Air Hybrid
Clean Diesel Cars Coming to US This Fall: 2008-2010 Timeline
Photo Credit: Honda
Tags: alternative energy, alternative fuels, Cars, CNG Vehicles (NGVs), compressed natural gas, Emissions, Energy, fuel, fuel cells, Fuel economy, gas, Green, green tech, hydrogen, natural gas, renewable fuels, Technology, transportation
garbage trucks powered by garbage
300 garbage collection trucks in California will soon be fueled by the same trash that they haul. Landfill gas will be purified and liquefied, producing up to 13,000 gallons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) daily.
This facility at Waste Management’s (WMI: NYSE) Altamont Landfill in Livermore, California will begin operation in 2009. It comes with a price tag of $15.5 million, with grants providing $1.4 million.
Cleaner Fuel
Waste Management is the largest waste management company in North America and operates the largest US fleet of heavy-duty collection trucks. The company has a goal to reduce fleet emissions by 15% by 2020.
The new facility will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30,000 tons per year, according to Linde North America. LNG is a cleaner burning transportation fuel that emits less nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide and particulates than diesel-fueled vehicles.
Duane Woods, senior vice president, Western group of Waste Management, said, “This will be the largest plant of its kind and we hope to break new ground by producing commercial quantities. Natural gas is already the cleanest burning fuel available for our collection trucks, and the opportunity to use recovered landfill gas offers enormous environmental benefits to the communities we serve.”
Demand for Low-carbon Fuels
California passed a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020 and other states may follow. Demand for low-carbon fuels is expected to increase significantly in California as the state starts requiring a decrease in carbon emissions. Waste Management will be ahead of the curve by having plants like this in operation, creating lucrative business opportunities.
Related Posts on Alternative Fuels:
Landfill Gas Heats and Powers School
The Cleanest Cars on Earth: Honda Civic GX and Other Natural Gas Vehicles (NGV’s)
Natural Gas Cars: CNG Fuel Almost Free in Some Parts of the Country
Photo Credit: Waste Management
Tags: altamon landfill, California, carbon emissions, garbage land fill, garbage truck, landfill gas, linde, Liquefied natural gas, livermore, LNG, methane, reduce emissions, truck fleet, waste management
This facility at Waste Management’s (WMI: NYSE) Altamont Landfill in Livermore, California will begin operation in 2009. It comes with a price tag of $15.5 million, with grants providing $1.4 million.
Cleaner Fuel
Waste Management is the largest waste management company in North America and operates the largest US fleet of heavy-duty collection trucks. The company has a goal to reduce fleet emissions by 15% by 2020.
The new facility will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30,000 tons per year, according to Linde North America. LNG is a cleaner burning transportation fuel that emits less nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide and particulates than diesel-fueled vehicles.
Duane Woods, senior vice president, Western group of Waste Management, said, “This will be the largest plant of its kind and we hope to break new ground by producing commercial quantities. Natural gas is already the cleanest burning fuel available for our collection trucks, and the opportunity to use recovered landfill gas offers enormous environmental benefits to the communities we serve.”
Demand for Low-carbon Fuels
California passed a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020 and other states may follow. Demand for low-carbon fuels is expected to increase significantly in California as the state starts requiring a decrease in carbon emissions. Waste Management will be ahead of the curve by having plants like this in operation, creating lucrative business opportunities.
Related Posts on Alternative Fuels:
Landfill Gas Heats and Powers School
The Cleanest Cars on Earth: Honda Civic GX and Other Natural Gas Vehicles (NGV’s)
Natural Gas Cars: CNG Fuel Almost Free in Some Parts of the Country
Photo Credit: Waste Management
Tags: altamon landfill, California, carbon emissions, garbage land fill, garbage truck, landfill gas, linde, Liquefied natural gas, livermore, LNG, methane, reduce emissions, truck fleet, waste management
CleanTech Biofuels
CleanTech Biofuels is serious about turning garbage into fuel and sincerely hopes you’ll ignore the fact that your car’s fuel tank could be carrying what’s left of little Timmy’s soiled nappies.
The company has announced that it’s investigating suitable sites for commercial garbage-to-ethanol facilities — leading baby-owners everywhere to rejoice that they may never again have to feel guilty about throwing out enough diapers each day to put the elephant in this commercial to shame (and can I just be the first to say “WTF?” to that commercial).
Over the last month CleanTech Biofuels has formed major partnerships with Green Tech America and HFTA UCal Berkeley to purchase and develop novel equipment and methods they hope will make the production of ethanol from garbage a reality. CleanTech boasts that their technology can be used to produce ethanol locally using waste that would otherwise end up in landfills — potentially reducing waste disposed of in those landfills by as much as 90%. From a recent CleanTech press release:
It is estimated that Americans [each] produce 4.4 pounds of waste per day, or 229 million tons of trash annually nationwide. This waste represents a virtually endless source of cellulosic feedstock for the production of biofuels that potentially will be available to CleanTech at almost no cost, and in some locations at a profit.
The comment about receiving feedstock at a profit is what really intrigues me. As far as I know, there are no other types of ethanol production facilities that have the potential to receive feedstock at a profit. In fact, in most cases this is a major sticking point between making cellulosic ethanol at an acceptable price and seeing dreams go down the tubes.
CleanTech isn’t alone in the push to make ethanol from waste. BlueFire Ethanol (why do all these ethanol company names have to be two words shoved together but both still capitalized?) recently announced that it will be starting construction of a facility within weeks to convert landfill waste into ethanol, and Coskata Inc. is also constructing a demonstration facility that will use municipal waste as a feedstock.
It appears that these companies are on the path to becoming major competitors. They should just merge now and avoid the future pain. CleanFireCoskataBlueTech sound like a good name to you?
The great part about making fuel from garbage is that many communities already pay fees to garbage companies to accept trash - referred to as “tipping fees.” CleanTech is looking to site their facilities in communities with favorable tipping fees, allowing them to get paid before they even start selling the ethanol.
If CleanTech or BlueFire are successful, their ethanol could be the cheapest around —and you could relax knowing that those old Pokemon cards you finally threw out might actually be doing some good.
Green Options Network Posts Related to Ethanol and Energy from Garbage:
GM Announces Biofuel Partnership: Coskata Makes Cheap, Green Ethanol From Garbage
GM Announces New Cellulosic Ethanol Partnership with Mascoma Corp.
Fuel from Trash Will Power California Garbage Trucks
A Truck That Runs on Coffee Grounds (and How Wood-Gas Powers Cars With Garbage)
Run Your Car on Wood? No Joke.
2015: 30% of US Corn Harvest Will Be Gasoline
Image Credits: CleanTech Biofuels logo from CleanTech, garbage pile photo from Editor B’s Flickr photo library under Creative Commons
The company has announced that it’s investigating suitable sites for commercial garbage-to-ethanol facilities — leading baby-owners everywhere to rejoice that they may never again have to feel guilty about throwing out enough diapers each day to put the elephant in this commercial to shame (and can I just be the first to say “WTF?” to that commercial).
Over the last month CleanTech Biofuels has formed major partnerships with Green Tech America and HFTA UCal Berkeley to purchase and develop novel equipment and methods they hope will make the production of ethanol from garbage a reality. CleanTech boasts that their technology can be used to produce ethanol locally using waste that would otherwise end up in landfills — potentially reducing waste disposed of in those landfills by as much as 90%. From a recent CleanTech press release:
It is estimated that Americans [each] produce 4.4 pounds of waste per day, or 229 million tons of trash annually nationwide. This waste represents a virtually endless source of cellulosic feedstock for the production of biofuels that potentially will be available to CleanTech at almost no cost, and in some locations at a profit.
The comment about receiving feedstock at a profit is what really intrigues me. As far as I know, there are no other types of ethanol production facilities that have the potential to receive feedstock at a profit. In fact, in most cases this is a major sticking point between making cellulosic ethanol at an acceptable price and seeing dreams go down the tubes.
CleanTech isn’t alone in the push to make ethanol from waste. BlueFire Ethanol (why do all these ethanol company names have to be two words shoved together but both still capitalized?) recently announced that it will be starting construction of a facility within weeks to convert landfill waste into ethanol, and Coskata Inc. is also constructing a demonstration facility that will use municipal waste as a feedstock.
It appears that these companies are on the path to becoming major competitors. They should just merge now and avoid the future pain. CleanFireCoskataBlueTech sound like a good name to you?
The great part about making fuel from garbage is that many communities already pay fees to garbage companies to accept trash - referred to as “tipping fees.” CleanTech is looking to site their facilities in communities with favorable tipping fees, allowing them to get paid before they even start selling the ethanol.
If CleanTech or BlueFire are successful, their ethanol could be the cheapest around —and you could relax knowing that those old Pokemon cards you finally threw out might actually be doing some good.
Green Options Network Posts Related to Ethanol and Energy from Garbage:
GM Announces Biofuel Partnership: Coskata Makes Cheap, Green Ethanol From Garbage
GM Announces New Cellulosic Ethanol Partnership with Mascoma Corp.
Fuel from Trash Will Power California Garbage Trucks
A Truck That Runs on Coffee Grounds (and How Wood-Gas Powers Cars With Garbage)
Run Your Car on Wood? No Joke.
2015: 30% of US Corn Harvest Will Be Gasoline
Image Credits: CleanTech Biofuels logo from CleanTech, garbage pile photo from Editor B’s Flickr photo library under Creative Commons
cellulosic ethanol from wood and municipal waste
Ethanol FeedstocksWhat is Cellulosic Ethanol?
Virtually all ethanol manufactured in the United States is produced from the starches and sugars found in corn, sugar cane or other agricultural crops. The starches and sugars in plants are the portion of the plant mass that humans can digest for energy as well as the part of the plant that is most easily fermented into ethanol. As ethanol production from food crops has exploded in recent years, concerns are rising over the amount of arable land, once used for food production, that is being displaced for energy crops as well as the energy and pollution balance of the whole ethanol production cycle.
Starch and sugar represent a small fraction of a plant's total mass. The majority of the plant (e.g. stalks, leaves, and roots) is cellulosic biomass. Cellulosic biomass is abundant in agricultural wastes, forestry waste, and municipal garbage.
The cellulosic portion of the plant can not be digested by humans because the sugars in the material are bound together by lignin. This characteristic is also the reason that cellulosic material cannot be used in the same ethanol production processes as the sugar and starch portions of the plant.
Producing ethanol from cellulosic biomass requires using a chemical or biologic process to separate the sugars in the material from the lignin that holds them together, otherwise known as hydrolyzing the cellulose. We believe that our HFTA technology, developed at the University of California, Berkeley, has substantial advantages over any other available means to hydrolyze cellulosic material for ethanol production.
Virtually all ethanol manufactured in the United States is produced from the starches and sugars found in corn, sugar cane or other agricultural crops. The starches and sugars in plants are the portion of the plant mass that humans can digest for energy as well as the part of the plant that is most easily fermented into ethanol. As ethanol production from food crops has exploded in recent years, concerns are rising over the amount of arable land, once used for food production, that is being displaced for energy crops as well as the energy and pollution balance of the whole ethanol production cycle.
Starch and sugar represent a small fraction of a plant's total mass. The majority of the plant (e.g. stalks, leaves, and roots) is cellulosic biomass. Cellulosic biomass is abundant in agricultural wastes, forestry waste, and municipal garbage.
The cellulosic portion of the plant can not be digested by humans because the sugars in the material are bound together by lignin. This characteristic is also the reason that cellulosic material cannot be used in the same ethanol production processes as the sugar and starch portions of the plant.
Producing ethanol from cellulosic biomass requires using a chemical or biologic process to separate the sugars in the material from the lignin that holds them together, otherwise known as hydrolyzing the cellulose. We believe that our HFTA technology, developed at the University of California, Berkeley, has substantial advantages over any other available means to hydrolyze cellulosic material for ethanol production.
CleanTech uses municipal waste
Americans throw away over 250 million tons of garbage every year. Out of all that garbage, approximately 32 percent is recovered and recycled or composted, 14 percent is burned at combustion facilities, and the remaining 54 percent (or 135 million tons of garbage) is disposed of in landfills. Because of limited disposal options, many municipalities are forced to transport garbage from local transfer stations to available landfills over long distances as well as pay increasingly higher tipping fees for landfill operators to take their garbage. Landfill operators dispose of garbage by burying it under mounds of dirt where, over time, toxins in the garbage can leach into our water supplies, or by burning it in incinerators releasing many of the toxic materials in the garbage into the atmosphere. We have licensed and developed a group of technologies that used together can process municipal garbage into usable energy products. We use the cellulosic material in municipal garbage to make ethanol by first converting it into a sugar and water mixture. Our ethanol production technology uses a two-stage dilute acid hydrolysis process that recycles heat and acid from each stage of the process to efficiently make C5 and C6 sugars from cellulosic material. The resulting sugars are fermented and distilled into a fuel grade ethanol.Latest NewsCleanTech Biofuels, Inc. Engages Hazen Research, Inc. to Construct and Operate Municipal Solid Waste to Ethanol Project Read More
CleanTech Biofuels, Inc. Announces Licensing Agreement with HFTA and the University of California Berkeley Read More
CleanTech Biofuels, Inc. Announces Listing on OTC Electronic Bulletin Board Read More
CleanTech Biofuels, Inc. Announces Licensing Agreement with HFTA and the University of California Berkeley Read More
CleanTech Biofuels, Inc. Announces Listing on OTC Electronic Bulletin Board Read More
CleanTech uses municipal waste
Americans throw away over 250 million tons of garbage every year. Out of all that garbage, approximately 32 percent is recovered and recycled or composted, 14 percent is burned at combustion facilities, and the remaining 54 percent (or 135 million tons of garbage) is disposed of in landfills. Because of limited disposal options, many municipalities are forced to transport garbage from local transfer stations to available landfills over long distances as well as pay increasingly higher tipping fees for landfill operators to take their garbage. Landfill operators dispose of garbage by burying it under mounds of dirt where, over time, toxins in the garbage can leach into our water supplies, or by burning it in incinerators releasing many of the toxic materials in the garbage into the atmosphere. We have licensed and developed a group of technologies that used together can process municipal garbage into usable energy products. We use the cellulosic material in municipal garbage to make ethanol by first converting it into a sugar and water mixture. Our ethanol production technology uses a two-stage dilute acid hydrolysis process that recycles heat and acid from each stage of the process to efficiently make C5 and C6 sugars from cellulosic material. The resulting sugars are fermented and distilled into a fuel grade ethanol.Latest NewsCleanTech Biofuels, Inc. Engages Hazen Research, Inc. to Construct and Operate Municipal Solid Waste to Ethanol Project Read More
CleanTech Biofuels, Inc. Announces Licensing Agreement with HFTA and the University of California Berkeley Read More
CleanTech Biofuels, Inc. Announces Listing on OTC Electronic Bulletin Board Read More
CleanTech Biofuels, Inc. Announces Licensing Agreement with HFTA and the University of California Berkeley Read More
CleanTech Biofuels, Inc. Announces Listing on OTC Electronic Bulletin Board Read More
gasification
Under a new research directive at Ames National Laboratory, scientists are honing in on a way to perfect a process called gasification to create cheap ethanol from almost any carbon source without fermentation.
If they’re successful, crops, agricultural waste, lawn clippings, raked leaves, sewage sludge and garbage could all be turned into ethanol using the same efficient process, in the same facility, under one roof.
We’ve covered the process of gasification for ethanol production before, but this new research appears to be a huge step forward in making ethanol using gasification.
Although cellulosic ethanol made from non-food plant material and garbage is already rising quickly as the next viable source of second generation biofuel, its current production method has many built-in inefficiencies.
The current process involves the use of acids and/or heat, enzymes and fermenting microbes to get from the harvested plant material or garbage to a fuel that is usable in your car’s engine — all of which add up to significant inputs of money, time and energy.
If all of those extra steps could be cut out of the process of turning plant material or garbage into ethanol, the efficiency would go up and the amount of energy actually gained from the process would increase too.
This energy gain is important because one of the main criticisms of ethanol, and biofuels in general, is that they are an inefficient way of making fuel and, some argue, actually take more energy to produce than they put out — although this claim is very much debatable, and most probably wrong.
So how does gasification work and what are some of its problems?
Gasification is a process that turns carbon-based feedstocks under high temperature and pressure in an oxygen-controlled environment into synthesis gas, or syngas. The syngas can then be converted into ethanol using a catalyst.
Syngas is made up primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen (more than 85 percent by volume) and smaller quantities of carbon dioxide and methane. It is the carbon monoxide fraction of syngas that is converted to ethanol as it passes over a catalyst.
Ironically, although the Ames scientists envision gasification ethanol as the way of the future, the actual gasification process has been known about and used for the better part of 200 years.
Gas produced from the gasification of coal was used to light street lamps and for cooking before the invention of the light bulb and widespread production of electricity and natural gas.
In fact, people have known for a long time that gasification of carbon-based materials can directly produce ethanol when reacted with a catalyst— it’s just that, up till now, the process also produced a lot of undesirable and potentially toxic byproducts along with the ethanol.
Apparently not one to let 200 years of status quo get him down, Ames chemist Victor Lin set out to find a way to get rid of these undesireable byproducts of the gasification syngas-to-ethanol process and increase the yield of ethanol.
Along the way, his research group discovered they could greatly increase the amount of carbon monoxide generated by using a porous foam-like material in which all the interior surfaces were coated with the metal alloy catalyst.
This provided a huge amount of surface area on which the syngas could react with the catalyst, thereby enhancing carbon monoxide generation and, in turn, increasing the amount of ethanol produced while largely eliminating the undesirable byproducts.
The beauty of gasification is that it converts all of the input material (whole plants, garbage, etc.) into ethanol. In contrast, the acid/heat/fermentation process always leaves behind materials that cannot be converted to ethanol by microbes. As Dr. Lin says:
“The great thing about using syngas to produce ethanol is that it expands the kinds of materials that can be converted into fuels. You can use the waste product from the distilling process or any number of other sources of biomass, such as switchgrass or wood pulp. Basically any carbon-based material can be converted into syngas. And once we have syngas, we can turn that into ethanol.”
I’m excited and curious to see where this research leads as it seems like one of the most promising developments I’ve run across recently. Let’s hope they can get it to the demonstration phase quickly.
Anybody else out there have experience with syngas production or ethanol production from syngas without fermentation?
Posts Related to Gasification and Cellulosic Ethanol:
GM Announces Biofuel Partnership with Coskata: Cheap, Green Ethanol?
Furfural May Be the Future of Easy and Cheap Biofuels
Cellulosic Ethanol Primer: Let’s Call it “Celluline”
A Truck That Runs on Coffee Grounds (and How Wood-Gas Powers Cars With Garbage)
More on Plasma Gasification Technology
BP Invests $90 Million in Verenium’s Cellulosic Ethanol Technology
Dedicated Energy Crops Could Replace 30% of Gasoline
Prototype Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid: 88 MPG on 85% Ethanol
CleanTech Biofuels to Turn Dirty Diapers Into Ethanol
Tags: alternative energy, Ames, Ames Laboratory, automobiles, Biofuels, ellulosic ethanol, Ethanol, fuel, gasification, innovation, renewable fuels, research, Science, Syngas, Technology, transportation, Victor Lin
If they’re successful, crops, agricultural waste, lawn clippings, raked leaves, sewage sludge and garbage could all be turned into ethanol using the same efficient process, in the same facility, under one roof.
We’ve covered the process of gasification for ethanol production before, but this new research appears to be a huge step forward in making ethanol using gasification.
Although cellulosic ethanol made from non-food plant material and garbage is already rising quickly as the next viable source of second generation biofuel, its current production method has many built-in inefficiencies.
The current process involves the use of acids and/or heat, enzymes and fermenting microbes to get from the harvested plant material or garbage to a fuel that is usable in your car’s engine — all of which add up to significant inputs of money, time and energy.
If all of those extra steps could be cut out of the process of turning plant material or garbage into ethanol, the efficiency would go up and the amount of energy actually gained from the process would increase too.
This energy gain is important because one of the main criticisms of ethanol, and biofuels in general, is that they are an inefficient way of making fuel and, some argue, actually take more energy to produce than they put out — although this claim is very much debatable, and most probably wrong.
So how does gasification work and what are some of its problems?
Gasification is a process that turns carbon-based feedstocks under high temperature and pressure in an oxygen-controlled environment into synthesis gas, or syngas. The syngas can then be converted into ethanol using a catalyst.
Syngas is made up primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen (more than 85 percent by volume) and smaller quantities of carbon dioxide and methane. It is the carbon monoxide fraction of syngas that is converted to ethanol as it passes over a catalyst.
Ironically, although the Ames scientists envision gasification ethanol as the way of the future, the actual gasification process has been known about and used for the better part of 200 years.
Gas produced from the gasification of coal was used to light street lamps and for cooking before the invention of the light bulb and widespread production of electricity and natural gas.
In fact, people have known for a long time that gasification of carbon-based materials can directly produce ethanol when reacted with a catalyst— it’s just that, up till now, the process also produced a lot of undesirable and potentially toxic byproducts along with the ethanol.
Apparently not one to let 200 years of status quo get him down, Ames chemist Victor Lin set out to find a way to get rid of these undesireable byproducts of the gasification syngas-to-ethanol process and increase the yield of ethanol.
Along the way, his research group discovered they could greatly increase the amount of carbon monoxide generated by using a porous foam-like material in which all the interior surfaces were coated with the metal alloy catalyst.
This provided a huge amount of surface area on which the syngas could react with the catalyst, thereby enhancing carbon monoxide generation and, in turn, increasing the amount of ethanol produced while largely eliminating the undesirable byproducts.
The beauty of gasification is that it converts all of the input material (whole plants, garbage, etc.) into ethanol. In contrast, the acid/heat/fermentation process always leaves behind materials that cannot be converted to ethanol by microbes. As Dr. Lin says:
“The great thing about using syngas to produce ethanol is that it expands the kinds of materials that can be converted into fuels. You can use the waste product from the distilling process or any number of other sources of biomass, such as switchgrass or wood pulp. Basically any carbon-based material can be converted into syngas. And once we have syngas, we can turn that into ethanol.”
I’m excited and curious to see where this research leads as it seems like one of the most promising developments I’ve run across recently. Let’s hope they can get it to the demonstration phase quickly.
Anybody else out there have experience with syngas production or ethanol production from syngas without fermentation?
Posts Related to Gasification and Cellulosic Ethanol:
GM Announces Biofuel Partnership with Coskata: Cheap, Green Ethanol?
Furfural May Be the Future of Easy and Cheap Biofuels
Cellulosic Ethanol Primer: Let’s Call it “Celluline”
A Truck That Runs on Coffee Grounds (and How Wood-Gas Powers Cars With Garbage)
More on Plasma Gasification Technology
BP Invests $90 Million in Verenium’s Cellulosic Ethanol Technology
Dedicated Energy Crops Could Replace 30% of Gasoline
Prototype Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid: 88 MPG on 85% Ethanol
CleanTech Biofuels to Turn Dirty Diapers Into Ethanol
Tags: alternative energy, Ames, Ames Laboratory, automobiles, Biofuels, ellulosic ethanol, Ethanol, fuel, gasification, innovation, renewable fuels, research, Science, Syngas, Technology, transportation, Victor Lin
enzyme breaks down to ethanol with 30% savings
A professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology claims to have developed a catalyst that can cut the cost of making non-food based cellulosic ethanol — “celluline,” as I like to call it — by 30%.
Just for grits and shiggles, let’s say that when celluline’s finally produced in commercial amounts it will cost consumers $3.00 per gallon. If the cost savings associated with this catalyst were passed on to consumers, that would mean the same celluline would cost $2.10 per gallon.
Professor Michikazu Hara says the carbon-based catalyst can be made cheaply, and works by breaking down cellulose and creating sugar when mixed with water and heated to 100° C. Using the current celluline production methods, this step in the process uses a large amount of energy, time and chemicals.
Although more information on this new catalyst is scarce due to my inability to read Japanese and lack of peer-reviewed papers to this point, it seems that his work has focused on turning woody material into sugars using sulfonated carbon.
If professor Hara has accomplished what he claims, this would mark a major development in second generation ethanol production.
Posts Related to Cellulosic Ethanol and Scientific Research:
Gasification: Ultra-Cheap Biofuel From Any Carbon Source
Furfural May Be the Future of Easy and Cheap Biofuels
Cellulosic Ethanol Primer: Let’s Call it “Celluline”
BP Invests $90 Million in Verenium’s Cellulosic Ethanol Technology
Dedicated Energy Crops Could Replace 30% of Gasoline
Prototype Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid: 88 MPG on 85% Ethanol
CleanTech Biofuels to Turn Dirty Diapers Into Ethanol
Genetic Engineering for Cheaper Cellulosic Ethanol?
Source: Crunchgear (via Biofuels Digest)
Image Credit: from i am jae’s Flickr photostream. Used under a Creative Commons license.
Tags: alternative energy, Biofuels, catalysis, catalyst, celluline, cellulosic ethanol, Ethanol, fuel, innovation, Michikazu Hara, renewable fuels, research, Science, Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, transportation
Just for grits and shiggles, let’s say that when celluline’s finally produced in commercial amounts it will cost consumers $3.00 per gallon. If the cost savings associated with this catalyst were passed on to consumers, that would mean the same celluline would cost $2.10 per gallon.
Professor Michikazu Hara says the carbon-based catalyst can be made cheaply, and works by breaking down cellulose and creating sugar when mixed with water and heated to 100° C. Using the current celluline production methods, this step in the process uses a large amount of energy, time and chemicals.
Although more information on this new catalyst is scarce due to my inability to read Japanese and lack of peer-reviewed papers to this point, it seems that his work has focused on turning woody material into sugars using sulfonated carbon.
If professor Hara has accomplished what he claims, this would mark a major development in second generation ethanol production.
Posts Related to Cellulosic Ethanol and Scientific Research:
Gasification: Ultra-Cheap Biofuel From Any Carbon Source
Furfural May Be the Future of Easy and Cheap Biofuels
Cellulosic Ethanol Primer: Let’s Call it “Celluline”
BP Invests $90 Million in Verenium’s Cellulosic Ethanol Technology
Dedicated Energy Crops Could Replace 30% of Gasoline
Prototype Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid: 88 MPG on 85% Ethanol
CleanTech Biofuels to Turn Dirty Diapers Into Ethanol
Genetic Engineering for Cheaper Cellulosic Ethanol?
Source: Crunchgear (via Biofuels Digest)
Image Credit: from i am jae’s Flickr photostream. Used under a Creative Commons license.
Tags: alternative energy, Biofuels, catalysis, catalyst, celluline, cellulosic ethanol, Ethanol, fuel, innovation, Michikazu Hara, renewable fuels, research, Science, Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, transportation
cellulosic ethanol from wood waste
The first commercial cellulosic ethanol facility to convert waste wood materials into a renewable fuel went online last month near Upton, Wyoming. After 6 years of development, KL Process Design Group, in conjunction with the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, has produced a proprietary enzymatic method to break down wood and waste materials, such as cardboard and paper:
KL’s cellulosic ethanol plant is converting waste wood into a renewable fuel. “It is now possible to economically convert discarded wood into a clean burning, sustainable alternate motor fuel” said Randy Kramer, president of KL Process Design Group, a design firm that has been working in corn ethanol. “We’re proud of what this small company has accomplished, and believe that our design will be a cornerstone from which we can build our country’s renewable fuel infrastructure providing a better source of motor fuel, starting today.”
The press release makes no mention of production volumes or plans for expansion (I’m currently contacting KL about this), but the company could be the first to capitalize on the massive potential of cellulosic ethanol, namely, making fuel from waste products (see earlier post).
KL projects that its cellulosic technology, coupled with new applied design concepts, will allow the plants to build to match the amount and type of feed stock available near large cities, further lessening the fuel’s carbon foot print. KL’s Advanced Biofuels plants will also produce excess electricity and/or steam heat that can provide additional power sources for local municipalities or complimenting biofuel plants and manufacturing facilities.
Government officials are already worried about meeting the 2015 cellulosic-ethanol targets required by the new Renewable Fuels Standard (adding up to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels). The US Energy Information Administration Chief suggested that quotas would have to be adjusted, unless “breakthroughs in commercialization of cellulosic ethanol come faster, within a year or two…”.
Could this be the first of many?
Related Posts:
GM Announces Biofuel Partnership: Cheap, Green Ethanol?
Study: Your Car Can Run On 20% Ethanol
University Funding Pulled For Anti-Biofuel Research
Sources:
SW Farm Press (Feb. 7, 08): Cellulosic ethanol a reality: First American plant in production
Hoosier Ag (Mar. 4, 08): EIA Projects Cellulosic Ethanol Shortfall
KL’s cellulosic ethanol plant is converting waste wood into a renewable fuel. “It is now possible to economically convert discarded wood into a clean burning, sustainable alternate motor fuel” said Randy Kramer, president of KL Process Design Group, a design firm that has been working in corn ethanol. “We’re proud of what this small company has accomplished, and believe that our design will be a cornerstone from which we can build our country’s renewable fuel infrastructure providing a better source of motor fuel, starting today.”
The press release makes no mention of production volumes or plans for expansion (I’m currently contacting KL about this), but the company could be the first to capitalize on the massive potential of cellulosic ethanol, namely, making fuel from waste products (see earlier post).
KL projects that its cellulosic technology, coupled with new applied design concepts, will allow the plants to build to match the amount and type of feed stock available near large cities, further lessening the fuel’s carbon foot print. KL’s Advanced Biofuels plants will also produce excess electricity and/or steam heat that can provide additional power sources for local municipalities or complimenting biofuel plants and manufacturing facilities.
Government officials are already worried about meeting the 2015 cellulosic-ethanol targets required by the new Renewable Fuels Standard (adding up to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels). The US Energy Information Administration Chief suggested that quotas would have to be adjusted, unless “breakthroughs in commercialization of cellulosic ethanol come faster, within a year or two…”.
Could this be the first of many?
Related Posts:
GM Announces Biofuel Partnership: Cheap, Green Ethanol?
Study: Your Car Can Run On 20% Ethanol
University Funding Pulled For Anti-Biofuel Research
Sources:
SW Farm Press (Feb. 7, 08): Cellulosic ethanol a reality: First American plant in production
Hoosier Ag (Mar. 4, 08): EIA Projects Cellulosic Ethanol Shortfall
switchgrass for ethanol
In January, USDA researchers completed a five-year evaluation of another biofuel feedstock with the potential to make a serious dent in US petroleum usage. In the largest study to date, switchgrass has been shown to produce 540% more energy than was used to grow, harvest, and process it into cellulosic ethanol, while reducing greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions by 94% when compared to gasoline.
USDA geneticist Ken Vogel commented that the study demonstrates switchgrass’s potential to be a major renewable biofuel that reduces GHGs and could “potentially displace 30 percent of current U.S. petroleum consumption.”
Key points from the study include:
Researchers don’t expect switchgrass to replace corn fields, but see crop development occurring on marginal, highly-erodible lands.
Ethanol yields on marginal land averaged 300 gallons per acre (corn-grain ethanol produces 350 gallons per acre).
Biomass left over after converting switchgrass into cellulosic ethanol could be used to provide energy for the distilling and biorefinery processes, further adding to the fuel’s net energy balance. Comparatively, corn-grain ethanol typically uses natural gas or other power sources for processing.
Experimental switchgrass strains currently undergoing testing could potentially produce 50% higher yields than those found in this study.
Six cellulosic ethanol refineries are currently being constructed in the US, with partial funding from the DOE.
For comparison: soybean-based biodiesel offers about a 320% energy return, and grain-based ethanol produces about 125% more energy than it uses. Neither of these have the potential to displace more than a small fraction of US petroleum usage.
The study was conducted by researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and took place in North and South Dakota, and Nebraska.
USDA geneticist Ken Vogel commented that the study demonstrates switchgrass’s potential to be a major renewable biofuel that reduces GHGs and could “potentially displace 30 percent of current U.S. petroleum consumption.”
Key points from the study include:
Researchers don’t expect switchgrass to replace corn fields, but see crop development occurring on marginal, highly-erodible lands.
Ethanol yields on marginal land averaged 300 gallons per acre (corn-grain ethanol produces 350 gallons per acre).
Biomass left over after converting switchgrass into cellulosic ethanol could be used to provide energy for the distilling and biorefinery processes, further adding to the fuel’s net energy balance. Comparatively, corn-grain ethanol typically uses natural gas or other power sources for processing.
Experimental switchgrass strains currently undergoing testing could potentially produce 50% higher yields than those found in this study.
Six cellulosic ethanol refineries are currently being constructed in the US, with partial funding from the DOE.
For comparison: soybean-based biodiesel offers about a 320% energy return, and grain-based ethanol produces about 125% more energy than it uses. Neither of these have the potential to displace more than a small fraction of US petroleum usage.
The study was conducted by researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and took place in North and South Dakota, and Nebraska.
how much is enough?
There are three electrical meters at the Country Club. One is for the pro shop and their power expenses; one is definately for Mr. Santana, and the third nobody seems to know who is responsible for, according to the City Manager. It turns out that the third one ALSO pays for Mr. Santana's electrcity AND we have been paying for his power since he took over, over ONE HUNDRED thousand dollars so far, and counting. That was NOT the deal. We are giving him free rent and paying the taxes on the CC-isnt THAT enough? In addition we built a VERY expensive enclosure for him so that he could have full use of 90% the CC for his private business,and we, the public who is paying for all his bills, could have use of the remaining 10%. Now we find out that we are paying for his electricity too ??? Incredible. The City Manager is apprently aware of this and it is happening on his watch and with his approval. ANOTHER sweetheart deal with the taxpayers money!! The City is running a deficit this year and will run a BIG deficit next year. We could use that 100k to pay some bills. Is there ANY place in the contract where it says we are going to pay his electric bill too? If so, we should fire the City Manager AND the City Attorney. If not, we should demand to be repaid the money already spent and pay NO MORE power bills for Mr. Santana. ANOTHER sweetheart deal! How many sweethearts can the taxpayers afford?
solutions?
As disturbing a post as The Real Question was, they bring up an important point- how do we prevent this disaster of a City Manager from happening again? A strong Council asking the right questions would be a BIG help. It is clear that this Council has been a lapdog and rubber stamp for whatever costs the City Manager wants. Continued HUGE cost overruns, missed deadlines with NO penalties, and expensive change orders have been the results we, the taxpayers, have been asked to pay for- at least 600k at last count. Then they raise our fees and taxes to cover their butts and incompetencies, sweetheart deals, and disorganization. The buck is supposed to stop at the City Manager's desk. It certainly stops at his desk on payday, why not any other day? He blames it on the Council and says he is just following orders. The clueless Council directed him to pay over $400 a square foot for the bathrooms? The Council FORGOT to include the VERY EXPENSIVE elevations into the total price? The uninformed Council FORGOT to include the expensive costs of the electrical, water, and sewer hookups for the bathrooms? The ramps? The washed-out slab supports for the Stafford bathrooms? The rubberstamp Council is responsible for the bathrooms taking TWO YEARS and more to complete? The whatever-you-say-gym Council is responsible for there being NO penalties written into the contract AGAIN for the construction company after waiting TWO YEARS for it to be completed? Please. Every project he is associated with ends up several hundred thousands of dollars more than the usual and customary costs anybody else would have to pay! Why is that? Where is that money going? The contractors say it isnt going to them. So WHERE is it going? And this is just ONE project- there are other fiascos.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
debts
The average American household carries $8300 in credit card debt. Forty percent of American families spend more than they earn. Debt affects your credit score, which affects your car insurance rate, job possibilities, utility bills, cell phone rates, and car loan rates. It also increases your chances of foreclosure.
Spending more than you make is, of course, a certain recipe for bankruptcy. My nephew had several credit cards, one at 12%, one at 13 % and one at 19%. He will NEVER be able to pay them all off at those rates, and he is suffering. He has put his house up for sale at least once but now has taken it off and is holding on somehow. In three years he accumulated $155,000 in debt, from zero debt at the beginning. My Mother gave him the house when she died. He has no clue as to money manangement. Of course, he is not completely to blame, as his Mom, my sister, has no money management skills to teach him either. My Mom and I have tried to teach him some skills over the years but, like any young man, he didnt listen and had to do it HIS way. Well, he has done it HIS way, and is suffering. I have loaned him money in the past but refuse to loan him any more, for two reasons: one, he hasnt paid me back the original loan and still owes me over $13,000 now; and two, I am not going to bail him out so he can throw away more money. He needs to learn this lesson the hard way, it seems. So be it, as it will hopefully be a lesson he will never forget.
Spending more than you make is, of course, a certain recipe for bankruptcy. My nephew had several credit cards, one at 12%, one at 13 % and one at 19%. He will NEVER be able to pay them all off at those rates, and he is suffering. He has put his house up for sale at least once but now has taken it off and is holding on somehow. In three years he accumulated $155,000 in debt, from zero debt at the beginning. My Mother gave him the house when she died. He has no clue as to money manangement. Of course, he is not completely to blame, as his Mom, my sister, has no money management skills to teach him either. My Mom and I have tried to teach him some skills over the years but, like any young man, he didnt listen and had to do it HIS way. Well, he has done it HIS way, and is suffering. I have loaned him money in the past but refuse to loan him any more, for two reasons: one, he hasnt paid me back the original loan and still owes me over $13,000 now; and two, I am not going to bail him out so he can throw away more money. He needs to learn this lesson the hard way, it seems. So be it, as it will hopefully be a lesson he will never forget.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)