Comments on: U.S. Farmers Benefit from Federal Clean Energy Loans and Grants

By: USDA Provides $7.4 Million for 450 Job-Creating Rural Energy Projects

USDA Provides $7.4 Million for 450 Job-Creating Rural Energy Projects — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:59:50 +0000

[…] with an earlier round of rural energy funding, most of the money will go directly to equipment upgrades, with grain dryers being a particularly […]

By: California Ships 100% Solar Powered Rice to Japan – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:51:04 +0000

[…] for other grains as well. Last year the U.S. Department of Agriculture distributed $30 million in energy conservation and renewable energy loans and grants to farmers, and a major focus of the program was the replacement of old grain dryers with more efficient […]

By: Farmer Invents $100 Device that Replaces Diesel Fuel for Irrigation – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

Mon, 02 May 2011 14:01:25 +0000

[…] which encourages livestock farmers to generate renewable biogas at their farms. The USDA also has a renewable energy program to introduce more wind, solar, biomass and geothermal at farms, and it is offering loans and grants […]

By: Tina Casey

Tina Casey — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 23:12:37 +0000

Lawrence: Thanks for the info about the use of propane for grain drying. I had some info that indicated natural gas but I guess it depends whether there is access to a gas main (my parents had to rent one of those big propane tanks for household use because there was no gas line to their home).

By: Lawrence Landherr

Lawrence Landherr — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:22:47 +0000

Farm grain dryers seldon have access to natural gas. They burn propane which is more expensive to buy. The original solar dryer was a round steel grain bin painted flat black and encased in a plexiglass envelope.
This works great in states from Kansas south. All the farmer has to pay for is electricity to run the blower motor. If it’s too humid, shut the blower off. If the temperature inside the envelope is below a set temp., the blower doesn’t run.

By: Tina Casey

Tina Casey — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 02:26:38 +0000

Roger: Thank you for your comment. I think you’ve really gotten hold of a fundamental issue, which is that the term “earmark” is being slung around without being defined. I think it’s fair to say that in the current debate, the term is used very loosely to refer to spending federal dollars on local projects, and for that reason I did not use the term “earmark” in my post. You offer a definition but that is not generally what the public is hearing from politicians when they talk about banning earmarks.

By: Roger Lauricella

Roger Lauricella — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:22:48 +0000

Tina; I think you are misunderstanding the EARMARK issue when you say, “While some members of Congress seem to think that spending federal dollars on local projects is a bad thing,” Earmarks have traditionally been projects slipped in with bills having nothing to do with the projects as a means to circumvent the normal budgetary process for funding of items. Democrats like Republicans have used this for years almost as slush funds for local work (valid or not valid) without having to submit those projects into the normal budget process. That’s what the Republicans are committing to NOT do, no Earmarks does not mean no local projects it just means put those projects into the budget process for normal review. OR am I way off in that you sincerely believe that EARMARKs should be a valid way of doing business outside the normal budget process.??