The Environmental Nightmare of Wind Energy & Energy Efficiency!

Sustainability

Today's blog is a follow-up of our last post on the "message of fear" that continues in the media over biomass energy (e.g., the Huffington Post article -- Green Nightmare: Burning Biomass is Not Renewable Energy). To refresh everyone's memory -- the author of this article states that the development of biomass energy will lead to the destruction of forests world-wide.

The dishonesty of these types of arguments is that no approach to energy production or conservation is exempt from the need to be sustainable and environmentally pro-active -- not even wind energy or equipment that improves energy efficiency.

Now, we think that most "Greens" would agree that the practice of "mountain-top removal in coal mining" is a travesty that continues in the Appalachian Mountain region of the U.S. Click Here to see a horror video of this practice.

Today's New York Times has an article describing the environmental destruction that is occurring through the mining of "rare earths" that are used in the manufacturing of wind energy and energy efficiency equipment -- which appears to be just as bad as mountain-top removal for coal.


Unlike the Huffington Post article which states that forests world-wide WOULD be destroyed IF biomass energy is advanced, we could point to the N.Y. Times article and say -- Wind energy and energy efficiency IS ALREADY creating environmental destruction through mining practices.

Based on this fact of mining destruction, should world-wide Policymakers abandon green technologies of wind power and energy efficiency?

And the answer is -- of course not.

No commentsRead more

The Radical Greens -- Eco-Terrorism through the Media.

Energy Policy

Two stories on biomass energy caught our attention this week where "misinformation of fear" continues to be presented in the media:

Huffington Post: Green Nightmare: Burning Biomass is Not Renewable Energy

New York Times Op/Ed: Clear-Cutting the Truth About Trees.

The purpose of these articles is to advance a "message of fear" -- that adopting policies of biomass energy will lead to the mass destruction of forests throughout the world as clear cutting will occur.

As scientists, engineers, and farmers, we can provide a real-world "message of hope" from our efforts in Florida that we strongly believe will be more representative to provide biomass for power generation and transportation fuels.

In our approach that we call a catalytic "Genesis Effect", we have taken environmentally damaged marginal lands to grow energy crops in a sustainable and environmentally pro-active way -- with a key emphasis of soil carbon building/sequestration.


The following two pictures are of the same land area at one of our energy crop farms, showing the "before" and "after" results of the Genesis Effect. Before energy crop planting, the site had been invaded by a mono culture plant (cogongrass, that according to the USDA is the 3rd most invasive weed in the world). Typically, environmentally damaged lands have very little Soil Organic Matter or Soil Organic Carbon (SOM/SOC).


After creating energy crop tree farms on these marginal lands (where the trees coppice or re-grow after cutting), we have seen (working in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge National Lab) a dramatic increase in SOM/SOC after just a few years.


An additional environmental benefit that is occurring on our energy crop tree farms is the re-establishment of native flora and habitats (where in 3 years, ~30 native species plants have emerged on the forest floor).


Our response to the radical "Greens" is that there is a message of hope (not fear) in developing biomass energy in a "responsible and right way"!

No commentsRead more

Why Biomass Energy is Important (Part 2) -- CO2 Emissions from Coal Use in Generating Electricity

Coal Use

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has an excellent technical paper explaining why CO2 emissions associated with coal-fired generation are significantly higher than the use of natural gas.

EPRI's comparison basis is called the "carbon intensity" ratio and reflects:

The higher carbon content of coal versus natural gas and oil, and

The lower energy efficiency of existing coal power plants versus generation technologies that use natural gas (e.g., combined cycle).

Fossil Carbon Intensity(lb. Carbon/MBTU)
Many Environmentalists (and apparently Policymakers also) believe that in reducing greenhouse gas emissions that the key is just to develop more solar and wind energy generation resources -- and its just that simple.

The problem is that in the "Real World", there is more to the story -- based on something called the integrated resource dispatch grid.

Generally, wind and solar power generating resources are considered either peaking or intermediate units and on the "dispatch grid" will displace natural gas generation resources.

Generation options such as nuclear, geothermal, and biomass energy resources are typically classified as "base load units" and most often will displace coal units.

No commentsRead more

Why Biomass Energy is Important (Part 1) -- CO2 Emissions from Coal Use in Generating Electricity

Coal Use

My Grandfather used to tell me -- "Don't strain at gnats when elephants are running through your garden". The simple message is to focus on the big things first in dealing with a problem.

We spend a lot of time talking about coal use in the U.S. to generate electricity, and we don't do this with any intent to bash the coal industry or electric utilities. We present coal data to explain to Policymakers and Environmentalists where the problem is (the "Elephant") in greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation.

The below graph from U.S. Department of Energy 2007 data shows that coal fired resources represent ~51% of all electricity generation -- and that ~82% of all CO2 emissions from electricity generation come from these coal fired units.



Understanding this above point is key in understanding why biomass energy technologies are so important.

First, through biomass co-firing at an existing coal power plant the existing fuel mix is changed from 100% coal to approximately 90% coal and 10% biomass -- directly reducing coal consumption and its resulting CO2 emissions.

Second, biomass electricity generation units (as well as geothermal) are typically base load facilities which will directly displace base load coal fired generation. Conversely, wind and solar power are typically peaking or intermediate generation resources and will displace natural gas units (not coal base load units).

Sources:
Electricity generation by fuel sources in the U.S.
CO2 Emissions from electricity generation by fuel source in the U.S.
Biomass Energy Quick Facts

No commentsRead more

Sustainability -- Integrating Biomass Energy, Agriculture, and Land Use

Sustainability

In trying to answer the question "What does the Common Purpose Institute do?", sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

We are advancing sustainable biomass energy development, with a key focus not just on biomass technology (bio-gasification, ethanol production, etc.) and agricultural best practices (e.g., high crop yields) but land use integration as well -- with a critical emphasis on carbon management (sequestration, soil building, environmental benefits).

(click the below image to increase the scale)

No commentsRead more

Green Energy -- Do Electric Utilities get a Grade of F in Trust?

Green Marketing

The N.Y. Times has an article today on "Green Energy" efforts of Electric Utilities -- specifically the very low participation rates on voluntary programs offered by electric utilities.

The article cites that an extremely high percentage of proceeds coming from electricity customers is going to administrative and marketing/advertising expenses rather than capital investments of new renewable energy resources.

An example was cited of the Florida Power & Light program where ~75% of customer payments for green energy was going to administrative and marketing/advertisement efforts.

Blog Readers can also go to a previous blog we posted on green energy marketing.

No commentsRead more

Environmental Groups Get F in Energy 101

Energy Policy

Let's face it -- Most Environmental Groups only begrudgingly accept biomass energy as truly green. In their view, energy options such as wind or solar are much "Greener". After all, although bio-energy can claim the "Carbon Neutral Argument", it still emits air pollutants such as greenhouse gas emissions, where solar and wind do not.

The fatal flaw in these Environmental Group's perspective is their failure to understand basic Energy 101 involving electricity generation -- and how an integrated electricity grid works.

In these Environmental Group's perception of the World, green technology generating options are viewed on a stand-alone Micro Basis. For example, solar and wind options emit no greenhouse gas emissions, where biomass energy does.

In reality, electricity generation options work on a Macro Basis of the integrated resource grid that includes all forms of energy -- both renewable and fossil fuel generation options.

In determining the value of renewable energy sources, a key question must always be: What does a specific technology option displace on the integrated grid?

To answer this question, one must understand "basic terms" of (1) base load, (2) intermediate load, and (3) peaking load generating options.

Because of availability (number of hours and when the sun shines or the wind blows), solar and wind options are typically considered either intermediate or peaking technologies on an integrated resource grid. As such, wind and solar options will displace primarily natural gas generating units (where natural gas is by far the cleanest of fossil fuels compared to coal and oil).

Conversely, biomass energy and geothermal options are typically considered base load, and would primarily displace in much of the U.S., coal fired generation.

Why is understanding things like base load versus intermediate or peaking load important? Well, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, base load coal fired electricity generation produces approximately 90% of all CO2 emissions from electricity generation.

Two good Web resources to understand these concepts can be found at:

(1) The Common Purpose Institute's webpage on Biomass Energy Quick Facts and

(2) Renewable Energy World's discussion of the Integrated Resource Grid

No commentsRead more

Congress Gets F in Energy 101 (Part 2)

Energy Policy

Renewable Energy World has a current article on the value of the "heat" component CHP (combined heat and power) from biomass energy.

The article has the following graph, illustrating the greenhouse gas benefits of the "heat" CHP component, like with using biogas for industrial product drying. Note the highest level of greenhouse gas benefits is the 3rd bar -- the scenario with the highest "heat use" component.



But, lets look at how Congress views the "heat" component of CHP in providing economic incentives under the Section 45 Tax Credit to promote biomass energy:

(1) If a biomass gasification project used 100% of the biogas for the production of electricity ONLY, the project qualifies for a 30% investment tax credit towards the capital costs.

(2) If the same above project was for CHP, the tax credit is reduced to 10%.

(3) If the project uses 100% of the biogas for an industrial processes "heat" requirement, the project's tax credit would be ZERO!

No commentsRead more

CO2 Capture at Coal Power Plants

Carbon Sequestration

The New York Times has an interesting story on CO2 capture at coal power plants.

To view the story Click Here

A couple of points of the N.Y. Times story:

For now, no one is sure what it will cost to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from coal plants because the first such project in the nation, at American Electric Power�s coal-fired plant in New Haven, W.Va., got under way only last month. At the moment, the process consumes 30 percent of the coal plant�s energy, but engineers are working to cut that in half.

Even so, experts expect the price to run to $60 a ton or more. But pure streams could be captured for the cost of drilling a natural gas well and compressing the gas into liquid form � perhaps $10 to $15 a ton, Dr. Friedmann of the Livermore laboratory said.

No commentsRead more

Congress Fails In Understanding Basic Energy 101

Industrials CO2 Importance

The below graphic is extremely informative on the sources of greenhouse gases and the critical importance of developing renewable energy projects within the industrial sector for industrial/manufacturing processes such as product drying.


As the graph's data show, greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes (16.8%) are greater than from transportation fuels (14.0%) and pretty close to emissions from power plants (21.3%).  While the U.S. Congress has provided incentives for electricity generation (i.e., the Section 45 Production Tax Credit, potential nationwide Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard) and for ethanol -- no incentives exist for applications limited only to industrial processes.

For example, if  biomass gasification was used at an industrial plant to generate electricity, a federal tax credit is available (Section 45).  However, if biomass gasification was used at the same industrial plant just for the industrial processes of product drying, no incentive is available.

Another way of stating this is that the MMBtu's from biomass energy to displace fossil fuel use for electricity generation is viewed by Congress as important (providing tax incentives).

However, the MMBtu's from biomass energy to displace fossil fuel use for industrial processes is not important.

This just appears that Congress just doesn't understand basic Energy 101 -- What do you think?

No commentsRead more