Nominate Your Favorite Renewable Energy Project for The 2009 Excellence in Renewable Energy Awards
click here for more information
Close
 
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (9) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
1 rating - Sign-in to rate this article
October 19, 2009

The U.S. Government Has a Long History of Financing Energy Infrastructure

by John Plaza, Imperium Renewables

There is almost universal recognition among our defense and national security experts that achieving energy independence and combating climate change are essential to our long-term national security. In fact just last year, the National Intelligence Council – with input from 16 U.S. intelligence agencies – concluded that dependence on foreign oil and global climate change pose major risks to U.S. national security.

Despite this consensus on the dual threat posed by energy dependence and climate change, there has been and continues to be significant criticism of the government’s support of renewable energy technologies. While often recognizing the grave threat we face, skeptics argue that monetary support of a new energy infrastructure amounts to nothing more than government handouts to special interests and is an unacceptable foray into the market by the government. I often hear detractors say, “If it’s such a good idea, then why can’t it succeed without tax breaks?”

Before you believe the naysayers who lambast the government’s efforts at revamping our nation’s energy infrastructure, it is important to remember that over the last one hundred years the federal government has consistently provided financial support to promote the development of new energy technologies deemed critical to our national security and the national interest. As critics of government support of renewable energy so often ignore, over the last six years alone the fossils fuels industry has had a little help from the federal government — nearly $73 billion worth in tax breaks — while the renewable energy industry has received less than half that. Renewable energy technologies like wind, solar and biofuels should be entitled to the same government support and incentives as their coal, petroleum and nuclear predecessors currently still enjoy.

In earlier eras, policymakers always stepped up to support the development of our energy technologies because they understood that a diversified energy supply was crucial to our nation’s economy as well as our national security.

Take hydroelectric power, now the largest source of renewable power in the United States. In 1920, policy makers recognized that new sources of energy were vital to the national interest, leading them to create the Federal Power Commission as a way to spur the development of hydroelectric power plants. The result is a nationwide network of hydroelectric dams that provide our country with clean, domestically-produced energy.

Would the dams at the Niagara Falls or Grand Coulee have been built by a group of ambitious entrepreneurs and a handful of angel investors? Of course not. It took a combination of entrepreneurial spirit, back-breaking labor, long term vision and investments by the federal government to create a network of regional — and ultimately national — power generation facilities that literally supplied the energy for our country‘s growing economy and helped propel us to global leadership and prosperity.

Monetary support by the federal government also played a key role in the development of nuclear energy. While more than $100 billion of government-funded research went into the development of nuclear power for defense technologies during World War II, in the postwar era the federal government provided a combination of loan guarantees, R&D support, and tax incentives to help commercialize the technology for civilian use to further diversify the nation’s energy supply.

The important point here is that none of these industries would have reached scale without significant government support, including tax incentives, land easements, purchase/off-take agreements and other programs.

Today, our policymakers can easily do the same for our nation’s renewable energy industries as they did for the hydroelectric and nuclear power industries in earlier eras: make short-term investments that help make us more energy independent and safer in the long-term.

For example, the reasonable goals laid out in the 2007 Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) could be achieved by mandating up to five percent of each gallon of petro diesel be replaced with domestically-produced biofuel. The cost would be a maximum of three cents per gallon at the pump to consumers – an investment of $1.15 billion by the federal government.

The results would be tremendous for our country. A reduction of 27 million barrels of foreign oil over two years and retention of $2 billion that would otherwise go to foreign governments. Compare this relatively small government investment with the cost of the recent Cash for Clunkers program – more than $3 billion, a valid and helpful yet short-term influx of cash to our economy. With today’s biodiesel technology, we can create energy independence without increasing costs.

Volatile claims about why it is not the government’s place to support the development of new renewable energy technologies distort our national history by denying the crucial role that government support has played in building our country’s energy infrastructure. We need to move the debate, and our country, forward into a brighter energy future. The time for leadership is now, and biofuels can provide a significant pathway forward for a clean and strong America.

John Plaza is CEO of Seattle-based Imperium Renewables, which owns and operates a production facility in Grays Harbor County with a nameplate capacity of 100 million gallons per year.

Image Gallery (1)
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

Reader Comments (9)
 
October 20, 2009
".. achieving energy independence and combating climate change are essential to our long-term national security essential to our long-term national security.."

It's rather hard to achieve energy independence when biodiesel producers like Imperium were exporting their product to Europe, right up until the E.U. finally put a stop to it with a hefty tariff. Imperium and dozens of others were undercutting European producers with the dollar per gallon blending subsidy they received (paid for by fellow Americans). Don't be fooled. Like oil, biofuel is all about money. The energy independence argument is rather obviously a canard. Reminds me of the Milo character in the book Catch-22.

The following is a quote from Martin Tobias, a former chief executive of Imperium:

"..It seems kind of silly for us to be sending our fuel to Europe and then importing crude from Saudi Arabia.."

Source: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/american-biodiesel-makers-reeling/

"Combating global climate change?" The orangutan will be extinct in the wild in less than a decade and tiny Indonesia has just moved from fourth largest GHG emitter to third thanks to the destruction of forest and wetland carbon sinks.

"..In its filing, the company [Imperium Renewables] said that palm oil is the cheapest feedstock available and noted that shifting public opinion about the use of palm oil could hurt its business.."

Source: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/316946_imperium24.html

Not to mention:

"..there has been no measurable impact on imports from our massive ethanol ramp-up.."

Source: http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2009/09/does-ethanol-reduce-petroleum-imports.html

And according to this recent article in Nature, GHG emissions is just a small part of the problem:

http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/10/transgressing-identified-and-quantified.html
Comment 1 of 9
October 20, 2009
When the price of palm oil spiked from biodiesel speculation, Imperium turned to more affordable American sources of food for their fuel, oh, wait a minute. No they didn't, they also bought that from another country. Snap!

And according to an international research team led by Paul Crutzen, the Nobel Prize winner for his work on the ozone layer, biodiesel made from Canola can be up to 70% worse for green house gas emissions than regular diesel just from nitrous oxide, and that's without land displacement impacts.

"..What we are saying is that [growing many biofuels] is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse.."

Source: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/389/2008/acp-8-389-2008.pdf

So let's summarize the argument for food based biodiesel so far:

1) Shipped to foreign countries
2) Made from foreign sources of food
3) Worse for global warming than diesel

"..It took a combination of entrepreneurial spirit, back-breaking labor, long term vision and investments by the federal government to create a network of regional — and ultimately national — power generation facilities .."

Projects like Grand Coulee had absolutely nothing to do with "entrepreneurial spirit." The vast majority of entrepreneurial experiments fail. It is a weeding process that finds good ideas, discards bad ones. Having bad ideas perpetually propped up with tax money, like corn ethanol has been for well over thirty years, also has nothing to do with "entrepreneurial spirit" and neither does biodiesel made from food stock.

Imperium is a failed entrepreneurial experiment. Who would have guessed that food producers would compete with fuel producers for the same food crops?

I wonder whatever happened to the $10 million invested in Imperium by the City of Seattle employees' retirement fund?

Source: http://blog.seattlepi.com/venture/archives/129605.asp
Comment 2 of 9
October 20, 2009
"..The important point here is that none of these industries [nuclear or hydro] would have reached scale without significant government support.."

Another important point here is that, along with occasional successes, government often makes mistakes. Witness the subsidies to coal and oil (and food-based biofuels).

"..be achieved by mandating up to five percent of each gallon of petro diesel be replaced with domestically-produced biofuel…"

Translation: Force food-based biodiesel down the American consumer's throat.

"..an investment of $1.15 billion by the federal government.."

Translation: Take $1.15 billion from taxpayers and hand it to food-based biodiesel producers.

"..The results would be tremendous for our country. A reduction of 27 million barrels of foreign oil.."

Translation: The result would be less than half of one percent of our oil use. That's not what I would call tremendous.

"..over two years and retention of $2 billion that would otherwise go to foreign governments.."

Translation: spend a few billion in tax dollars to save a few billion in imports for a net savings of approximately zero. If taxes always result in savings, the tax rate should be moved to 100%. We could apply this strategy to everything we import, cars, computers, cell phones. Everything would be domestically produced. The problem would be, as with biofuels, cost to consumers.

"..With today's biodiesel technology, we can create energy independence without increasing costs.."

Maybe with future biodiesel technology, but not with today's technology (using food to make it).
Comment 3 of 9
October 20, 2009
"..Volatile claims about why it is not the government's place to support the development of new renewable energy technologies.."

That is clearly a strawman argument. Subsidizing our electric power grid was a good idea. Using it as an analogy for food-based biofuels just does not work. Subsidizing food base biofuels, coal, and oil are bad ideas. Our government's batting record is far from perfect.

"..and biofuels can provide a significant pathway forward for a clean and strong America."

That just does not ring true, coming from a company that was buying food stock from foreign countries, turning it into biodiesel using the tax payer funded dollar per gallon blending subsidy, and shipping it to Europe.

"..As critics of government support of renewable energy so often ignore.."

It isn't accurate to lump critics of food-based biofuels in with critics of government support of renewable energy, and they don't ignore the fact that our government subsidizes food-based biofuels along with coal and oil. They would very much like to see and end to that.

"…over the last six years alone the fossils fuels industry has had a little help from the federal government --nearly $73 billion worth in tax breaks while the renewable energy industry has received less than half that.."

Three environmental groups, highly critical of oil subsidies, found that oil subsidy to be less than 15 cents per gallon. Compare that to the dollar per gallon received by food-based biodiesel refiners.

Source: http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/desiremore/biofuelmyths1.htm#bookmark14

"..Renewable energy technologies like wind, solar and biofuels should be entitled to the same government support ... as ... coal, petroleum ... currently still enjoy.."

Biofuels get more per gal than oil. Food-based biofuels receive roughly 80% of the renewable energy subsides, leaving 20% for wind, solar and geothermal combined.

Source: http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img28.gif
Comment 4 of 9
No image available
October 21, 2009
I was about to write that I am amazed that Renewable Energy World would publish this piece of propoganda as an "article", but actually I am not surprised. REW knows on which side its bread is buttered, so if an agrofuel producer wants to make a case for corporate welfare that will benefit his company, who is REW to bother to say no, much less ask the author to back up his claims with verifiable facts?

There is not much that I can add to what Russ has already said. But I would underscore the following:

It is no secret that where and on what governments decide to invest public money in often driven by electoral considerations. The pork gets spread around. Sometimes that expenditure turns out to be profitable for society, as has been the case (ignoring damage to rivers) of many hydro-electric dams. Often it turns out to be a waste of money.

What Mr. Plaza is talking about, however, is not even so much government investment in infrastructure (which in the case of hydro dams it owns), but government subsidization of the product -- biodiesel in the case of Imperium -- of private companies. Moreover, once those subsidies get started, and productive capacity that is dependent on those subsidies gets built, they are very hard to stop. Tax credits for biofuels are the gift that keeps on giving.

Of course, even the $1 per gallon federal tax credit (plus the Small Producer Tax Credit, and sundry state and local subsidies) for biodiesel was not enough to make the U.S. industry viable. For that they needed to sell their biodiesel somewhere where the price was higher -- e.g., that provided exemptions from fuel-excise taxes -- and that somewhere was Europe. When the European Commission finally put a halt to that practice earlier this year, by imposing hefty countervailing and anti-dumping duties on specific U.S. producers, including Imperium, a substantial portion of U.S. capacity closed down.
Comment 5 of 9
No image available
October 21, 2009
So, naturally, unable to sell their product profitably, they want lawmakers to force consumers to use it.

And the rhetoric to do that involves waving the flag ... vigorously. But, of course, as Russ points out, that case was undermined once it became clear that the biodiesel industry was just as happy to take the subsidy and sell their product elsewhere.

But let's look more closely at what Mr. Plaza is asking for. He advocates a 5% blending mandate for biodiesel, but also clearly wants to retain the Federal Tax credits. He writes:

"five percent of each gallon of petro diesel [could] be replaced with domestically-produced biofuel. The cost would be a maximum of three cents per gallon at the pump to consumers – an investment of $1.15 billion by the federal government."

Let's start with the $0.03 per gallon at the pump for consumers. Does he mean that the consumer price would be higher for blended biodiesel? If that is the case, then that works out to an additional $0.60 per gallon (=0.03/0.05) of biodiesel. He then speaks of an "investment of $1.15 billion by the federal government" -- i.e., the cost to taxpayers. But that is only the ongoing cost of the main ($1/gallon) federal tax credit over two years. Presumably Mr. Plaza does not advocate that tax credit ending after two years, so what we are talking about is total direct costs to consumers and taxpayers of $1.60 per gallon of biodiesel ... indefinitely. It is not an "investment", it is a producer subsidy.

But the costs do not stop there. The world market for vegetables and animal fats is a tiny fraction of the world market for diesel fuel. So any substantial demand for those oils and fats for biodiesel drives up the costs of those feedstocks. Hence consumers -- not only in the USA but also in poor countries -- pay more, much more, for their cooking oil.

There are many cheaper ways, through efficiency improvements in trucks, to reduce diesel demand by 5% than to continue subsidizing biodiesel.
Comment 6 of 9
No image available
October 21, 2009
Finally, let's consider this comment by Mr. Plaza:

"As critics of government support of renewable energy so often ignore, over the last six years alone the fossils fuels industry has had a little help from the federal government — nearly $73 billion worth in tax breaks — while the renewable energy industry has received less than half that. Renewable energy technologies like wind, solar and biofuels should be entitled to the same government support and incentives as their coal, petroleum and nuclear predecessors currently still enjoy."

No, critics of WASTEFUL government support to energy industries (whether most biodiesel should be called "renewable" is debatable) do NOT ignore the subsidies to the fossil-fuel industry. But let us put these numbers into perspective. Even if one allocated all of the $73 billion over 6 years (slightly more than $12 billion per year) just to the petroleum America consumed over those six years (a bit more than 300 billion gallons a year), that works out to around $0.04 per gallon. Contrast that with $1.60 per gallon.

Should "renewable energy technologies like biofuels" be entitled to the same government support and incentives as their coal, petroleum and nuclear predecessors currently still enjoy? If the comparison were on a per gallon, or per unit of energy basis, perhaps yes. But what Mr. Plaza seems to be suggesting is that the ABSOLUTE amounts of the subsidies should be the same across energy industries.

In that case, I have established a fledgling -- completely renewable -- energy industry producing candles from earwax. Where's my $12 billion check?
Comment 7 of 9
No image available
October 21, 2009
Why is the government subsidizing a profitable business like petroleum? They may have needed help from time to time, but if a company is making a profit after the governments assistance, the assistance should stop.

The problem I see is that Americans have forgotten our country became great due to self reliance and a "Can Do" attitude. Today the concept is to put in as little as possible and take out as much as possible, all else be damned. The reason we won WWII and then lost in Vietnam is a lack of willingness to marshal all required resources to solve a problem and then, go do it, like in WWII.

If this trend continues Big Brother (already in the room) will have made us all so falsely desperate that we will all drink the purple kool-aid happily as the Constitution is quietly burned.

A valid and "do-able" solution is located here:

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2009/10/21/50-hottest-companies-in-bioenergy-registration-closes-competition-begins-for-more-than-1000-companies-reader-poll-on-hot-fuels-feedstocks-and-technologies/
Comment 8 of 9
October 22, 2009
The free market system made this country profitable from its resources and the manipulation of its profits by the banksters has made money manipulation a profit "deserving" business to the tune of hundreds of billions of government bailout moneys for its stupidity (stupidity being ignorance sent to college). The government failed to do its job of regulation so that the free market could function as it was intended. Rather, the government has become a subsidizer instead of a regulator because of the special interest money fed into the money sucking political machine. The Federal Banking System is the "Frankenstein" movie of production. Its only "real" function is to subsidize and protect the wealth of the wealthy.
Untill the voter/tax payer is suficiently strapped to the stone of outcome of their deeds will no change come for the lemmings that worship money. The time has come to follow your little god over the cliff. Subsidies will soften the fall so you will hardly know it is occuring, but the corrupt system crash is yet occuring. Everyone is paying big time for the fiat money of bailouts that (always) subsidize the wealthy classes first. Can we find that perfect arrangement for the deck chairs on the Titanic?
Comment 9 of 9
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Geothermal Energy Association Green Energy Promotions Solar Electric Power Association Universal Energy Garrad Hassan America Inc. ULVAC Technologies, Inc.
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo