(I didn’t have the chance to write this up this week, but I’m glad someone did. – promoted by JulieWaters)
On Thursday morning, 8/20, Sen. Bernie Sanders held a hearing at the State House in Montpelier under the auspices of his Green Jobs Subcommittee of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. There was a panel of 10 pubilc officials, alternative energy entrepreneurs, educators, union officials and others, followed by Sanders questioning the panelists, and a half hour for public comments at the end. The main focus was on documenting the potential for solar, wind, and energy efficiency in Vermont and the associated job creation potential.
There was also a focus on the potential for a large scale conversion to alternative energy in VT, with David Blittersdorf of Earth Turbines, and founder of NRG Systems, saying that 100% renewables is a realistic possibility here (including small scale biomass) if we are able to realize the potential for up to 80% reductions in energy use in buildings through conservation and efficiency. The CEO of Green Mt. Power responded that we might be able to exceed their provisional goal of 10% in-state renewables. As usual, her focus was on promoting the VT Yankee nuclear plant and their contracts from Hydro Quebec for power from Quebec’s mega-dams. There was also considerable focus on implementing new technologies in VT, from smart grid technologies to plug in hybrid cars, the limited availability of working capital for even the most cost-effective, short-payback alternatives, and the need for ongoing workforce training.
During the question period, I raised several questions around the focus on carbon trading (cap-and-trade) in the climate bill recently passed by the House, and soon to be addressed by Sanders’ Senate committee. I briefly outlined the likelihood of financial manipulation, the carbon market’s volatility and its negative effect on the investment climate for alternatives, as well as the underlying problem of corporate giveaways (more on these issues at http://www.zcommunications.org… Sanders responded briefly by saying we certainly don’t want to give anything more to ‘our friends at Goldman Sachs.’ He pointed out that in ’07, around Sen. Lieberman’s climate bill, he spoke against subsidies for the coal and nuclear industries and insisted that funds for renewables at least equal those. He also raised the analogy with FDR’s reorienting of the US economy toward war production at the beginning of US involvement in World War 2, saying that climate change is a national security issue. (This is becoming one of the Democrats’ leading talking points, as reflected in recent mainstream media coverage.). He also said that this year’s stimulus bill raised more funds for renewables and conservation than in all previous history.
Some other relevant statistics from the hearing:
* Vermont currently spends $2 billion/year on fossil fuels. A third of our energy use is for space heating.
* With current state and federal subsidies and tax credits, a typical homeowner can get all their electricity from photovoltaic panels for around $10,000, with a payback of around 10 years. PV costs have fallen 30% in just the past year. Still many homeowners can’t get the financing they need. A home-scale wind system now costs around $25K, but the cost is projected to fall by half in 5 years.
* The renewables bill passed by the VT legislature this year aims to reduce energy use by 25% in 25% of VT housing stock (80,000 homes) by 2020, but much bigger gains are feasible, with savings up to 80%.
* Vermont gets more sun than Germany, which has the highest level of solar energy use in Europe.
* 2 medium-sized biomass power plants (such as are now being fought all over Massachusetts, for example) would consume VT’s entire current wood harvest. We need to be careful in allocating how our forest resources are used, and favor smaller, more local projects (with adequate pollution controls, as smaller generators can be more polluting).
Put in simpler terms, photovoltaic electricity costs about 50 cents a kWh (I count tax credits and subsidies as if they cost something). Efficiency Vermont gets electricity savings for about 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour.
Vermont is doing a fine job at getting cheap power through efficiency but much more can be done at a much lower cost than the $.50/kWh that PV power costs.
The situation for fossil fuels is much worse. Programs to improve fossil fuel efficiency in commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings are just about non-existent. Savings in those sectors could be achieved at a small fraction of the PV investment. Lots more jobs would be created and more greenhouse gases saved.
Yet there are many millions of $$ for PV’s but none for these important efficiency improvements.
PJ
This quote can be misleading.
The statistic that is put forth is that two additional McNeil sized power plants (50 MW – the largest in Vermont) would consume most of the easily harvestable, waste wood (not the “entire current wood harvest”) based on current practices and landowner acceptance. The Biomass Energy Resource Center has studied this subject and you can check their website for more info.
The larger the facility burning wood, the more extensive the pollution controls. The McNeil plant has electrostatic precipitators and other controls and is nearly pollution free.
However, the net efficiency after conversion to electricity and transmission is low, especially because the waste heat isn’t used by McNeil.
Wood combustion for heat in modern systems is used directly and is therefore a more efficient use of the wood.
PJ
We know the end point. It’s a geological certainty: 100% renewable, 0% non-renewable, because non-renewable is, well, non-renewable. The only two real questions are 1) When will non-renewables reach the point of non-affordability for most people, and 2) will we be ready when we reach that point?
My general answers are 1) sooner than we’d like to think, and 2) Probably not.
I am in the PV business and I tell every customer to do their efficiency work before they invest in electronics. That said, no matter how efficient we are we still need some power from somewhere. Better to invest in renewable energy now. It’s like pulling the ripcord on your parachute before you get too close to the ground.
We need to be very cautious about how much we rely on biomass. I once calculated that in order to replace all the #2 fuel oil burned in New England we would have to intensively manage and harvest from every single acre of northeastern hardwood forest. That doesn’t include the propane and natural gas. Even with massive improvements in building thermal efficiency and combustion efficiency we would be pushing the practical limits of our forest. The solution is going to include some very reluctant adjustment to lower levels of comfort.
Without subsidies the levelized cost of PV electricity is about $0.22/kWh, given an installed cost of $6.50/watt. That’s the going rate for large residential direct utility-tied systems. Large scale wind is pushing down into the $0.04 to $0.06 range without subsidies. What the cost of coal fired, natural gas fired, or nuclear electricity would be without subsidies I wouldn’t even like to guess.
Any biomass plant needs to also market the excess heat generated. There is no reason that steam can not be “piped” considerable distances. Plus, heat is needed in Vermont.
Whatever your theory about burning biomass for energy you have to admit that a new burner is a raw deal for those who live or run a business near the proposed site. This is due to the high levels of particulates, volatile organic compounds and other unsavory enissions these plants send up the stack, which inevitably have negative health effects on those who can not move away or successfully resist the plant’s siting plan.
This is all playing out just south of the border in Greenfield where two legal challenges to the “Pioneer Renewable Energy” incinerator have been announced.
The first was filed by a business whose work on electric motors would be hurt by the mist of chemically treated sewage mix the plant plans to use in its cooling tower.
The second was filed by homeowners who are concerned about their property values and the air quality issues mentioned above.
Several months ago I spoke to a member of a Greenfield group that had worked for years to bring a small heat-generating biomass boiler to Greenfield. She was very upset at the biomass plan being foisted on the town and took responsibility for have attracted the predatory developer to town with her group’s pro-biomass publicity.
I can’t tell you how many times speculators have cited the “small friendly biomass burner” as a way to justify their incinerator plans.
The fact is that we, as a nation, have to renounce burning stuff and work on conservation and non-carbon releasing power generation.
The biomass-is-carbon-neutral story line originated in the early 1990’s and has been superceded by more recent science that recognizes that mature, intact forests sequester carbon more effectively than cut-over areas and that that when a tree’s carbon is released into the atmosphere in a single pulse (the Greenfield burner plans to burn a ton of damp, green wood chips each minute) it contributes to climate change much more than woodland timber rotting slowly over decades.
It may be a matter of theory to a speculator or engineer contemplating a taxpayer financed incentive-laden deal, but to the working family downwind from the plant it is quite different: a hit to their home’s value and a new, frighteningly local source of air pollution that will impact the health of children or elderly parents for years.
I think it is safe to say that since the average age of trees in the forests of Western New England is around 75 – 100 years, it will take a similar amount of time to regrow trees that are burned for biomass and resequester their carbon.
To address global warming it is essential to reduce our carbon emissions immediately – we don’t have 75 years. In general, forests lock up atmospheric carbon dioxide best when they are undisturbed by forestry operations.
In fact mature temperate forests, like Vermont’s, may be the some of the world’s most efficient at locking in carbon:
“In tropical forests, dead plant material is rapidly decomposed and carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere through respiration. By contrast, moist temperate forests are warm enough to encourage good growth rates, dead plant material decays much more slowly and carbon-rich dead biomass lasts much longer…the findings reinforce the role of forests in storing carbon and in mitigating climate change…..the research especially underscores the importance of protecting carbon-dense forests in developed countries.”
(From a report on: “Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world’s most carbon-dense forests” by Heather Keith, Brendan G. Mackey, and David B. Lindenmayer)
http://www.abc.net.au/science/…
Online abstract of the study:
http://www.pnas.org/gca?allch=…
Respectfully Submitted:
Burlington Electric’s biomass burning McNeil Station is on record as the largest single source of pollution in Vermont:
http://www.planethazard.com/ph…
(Note that Ryegate comes in at number four.)
(All pollutant data used on this site is from the Environmental Protection Agency National Emission Inventory Database and is current as of the most recent release, 2002. (This is preliminary data – the last official release was in 1999.)
Please see:
http://www.epa.gov/
http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/ne…
McNeil Station
Total Emissions 2,096,495.23
Carbon Monoxide 1,265,900.05
Nitrogen Oxides 460,200.00
Primary PM10 (Includes Filterables + Condensibles) 59,503.40
Primary PM2.5 (Includes Filterables + Condensibles) 58,028.40
Hydrochloric Acid 48,400.29
Primary PM Condensible Portion Only (All Less Than 1 Micron) 48,067.40
Volatile Organic Compounds 35,600.00
Ammonia 22,102.00
Primary PM, Filterable Portion Only 16,240.00
Primary PM10, Filterable Portion Only 11,436.00
Formaldehyde 11,208.49
Sulfur Dioxide 10,800.00
Benzene 10,699.01
Acrolein 10,189.54
Primary PM2.5, Filterable Portion Only 9,961.00
Styrene 4,840.03
Manganese 4,075.81
Toluene 2,343.59
Acetaldehyde 2,114.33
Chlorine 2,012.43
Methylene Chloride 738.74
Naphthalene 247.10
Propionaldehyde 155.39
Phenol 129.92
Lead 122.27
Carbon Tetrachloride 114.63
Tetrachloroethylene 96.80
Chlorobenzene 84.06
Nickel 84.06
Propylene Dichloride 84.06
Methyl Chloroform 78.97
Ethyl Benzene 78.97
Trichloroethylene 76.42
Ethylene Dichloride 73.87
Chloroform 71.33
Phosphorus 68.78
o-Xylene 63.68
Methyl Chloride 58.59
Arsenic 56.04
Chromium 53.50
Vinyl Chloride 45.85
Methyl Bromide 38.21
Antimony 20.12
Phenanthrene 17.83
Cobalt 16.56
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 13.76
Acenaphthylene 12.74
Cadmium 10.44
Pyrene 9.43
Chromium (VI) 8.92
Fluorene 8.66
Anthracene 7.64
Selenium 7.13
Benzo[a]Pyrene 6.62
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin 4.08
Beryllium 2.80
Acenaphthene 2.32
2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.46
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.41
Fluoranthene 0.41
4-Nitrophenol 0.28
Benzo[b]Fluoranthene 0.25
Benzo[g,h,i,]Perylene 0.24
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]Pyrene 0.22
Octachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin 0.17
Benz[a]Anthracene 0.17
Pentachlorophenol 0.13
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 0.12
Chrysene 0.10
Benzo[k]Fluoranthene 0.09
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0.06
Dibenzo[a,h]Anthracene 0.02
Acetophenone 0.01
Benzo[e]Pyrene 0.01
2-Chloronaphthalene 0.01
Perylene 0.00
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 0.00
Octachlorodibenzofuran 0.00
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin
0.00
In terms of the carbon effects of cutting versus forest preservation, Prof. Mackey’s assessment differs from the Biomass Resource Center’s:
“…another common misunderstanding is that younger growing forests sequester more carbon than mature forests.
He says while growing forests have a greater rate of carbon uptake, it’s more important to look at the total amount of carbon stored in a forest. Since carbon is emitted much more rapidly than it is sequestered, Mackey says the best way to sequester carbon [in] forests is to protect existing old forests.”
http://www.abc.net.au/science/…
and I find it interesting, somewhat provocative and enjoyable.
Thank you.
One figure missing from the McNeil Station EPA stats is the amount of CO2 it puts into the atmosphere.
Biomass burners emit significantly more CO2 per Megawatt Hour of electricity generated than coal-fired power plants.
If we can refer to numbers from just south of the border, here is a comparison of actual numbers from the Mount Tom coal plant (that sits beside I91 and the Connecticut River as you cross the Holyoke Range) and data from a biomass developer’s Environmental Notification Form for the proposed Greenfield, MA plant (which hopes to include Vermont wood in its fuel mix.)
MOUNT TOM
Power produced = 146 mw
http://www.firstlightpower.com…
2002 Annual electrical generation = 915,318 MWhr
2002 Annual CO2 emissions = 961,342 metric tons x 1.1 = 1,057,476 tons
CO2 emissions = 1,057,476 tons x 2000 lbs / 915,318 MWhr = 2,310 lbs/ MWhr
http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/P…
1998 Annual Emissions =
http://www.catf.us/publication…
Estimated rate using 2002 annual generation of 915,318 MW hrs
NOx = 2,296 tons x 2000 lbs / 915,318 MWhr = 5 lbs/ MWhr
SO2 = 7,373 tons x 2000 lbs / 915,318 MWhr = 16 lbs/ MWhr
PM 2.5 = 43 x 2000 lbs / 915,318 MWhr = 0.09 lbs/ MWhr
PM 10 = 95 x 2000 lbs / 915,318 MWhr = 0.20 lbs/ MWhr
VOC’s = 14 x 2000 lbs / 915,318 MWhr = 0.03 lbs/ MWhr
New emissions controls are supposed to effect a 95% SOx reduction
http://www.masslive.com/hampfr…
SO2 = 16 lbs/ MWhr x .05 = 0.8 lbs per MW hr
and other new Requirements by 2008 are:
NOx emitted = 1.5 lbs/ MW hr
SO2 emitted = 3.0 lbs/ MW hr
CO2 for existing power plants = 1,800 lbs / MWhr
http://www.nga.org/cda/files/022802GGHAMEL.PPT
http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/la…
Thus approximate final Mt Tom data =
CO2 = 1,800 lbs per MWhr
NOx = 1.5 lbs per MWhr
SO2 = 0.8 lbs per MWhr
PM 2.5 = 0.09 lbs per MWhr
PM 10 = 0.20 lbs per MWhr
VOC’s = 0.03 lbs per MWhr
P.R.E. BIOMASS IN GREENFIELD
http://www.pioneerrenewableene…
Power produced = 47 mw
Expected Annual electrical generation = 378,782 MWhr per year
Expected CO2 emissions according to ENF = 489,300 tons
(Note: this number appears erroneous. The similar Russell plant claims it would release over 600,000 tons which is more in line with expectations based on calculations.)
According to the proponents understated CO2 numbers:
CO2 emissions = 489,300 tons x 2000 lbs / 378,782 MWhr = 2,583 lbs/ MWhr
According to expected carbon releases:
CO2 emissions = 600,000 tons x 2000 lbs / 378,782 MWhr = 3,168 lbs/ MWhr
Note: Average CO2 for new power plants is about 760 lbs/MWhr
http://www.nga.org/cda/files/022802GGHAMEL.PPT
Other Pollutants:
ENF Table 2-2 Boiler Stack Emissions
NOx = 164 tons per year x 2000 lbs / 378,782 MWhr = 0.87 lbs/ MWhr
SO2 = 68 tons per year x 2000 lbs / 378,782 MWhr = 0.36 lbs/ MWhr
PM 2.5 = 52 tons per year x 2000 lbs / 378,782 MWhr = 0.27 lbs/ MWhr
PM 10 = 52 tons per year x 2000 lbs / 378,782 MWhr = 0.27 lbs/ MWhr
VOC’s = 27 tons per year x 2000 lbs / 378,782 MWhr = 0.14 lbs/ MWhr
Thus final Pioneer data =
CO2 = 2,583-3,168 lbs per MWhr
NOx = 0.87 lbs per MWhr
SO2 = 0.36 lbs per MWhr
PM 2.5 = 0.27 lbs per MWhr
PM 10 = 0.27 lbs per MWhr
VOC’s = 0.14 lbs per MWhr
MT TOM COAL vs PRE BIOMASS-lbs per MWhr
Pollutant COAL BIOMASS
CO2 1,800 2,583-3,168
NOx 1.5 0.87
SO2 0.8 0.36
PM 2.5 0.09 0.27
PM 10 0.20 0.27
VOC 0.03 0.14
As we begin to work on new ways to generate energy, does it make sense to actually increase Vermont’s CO2 emissions by promoting more biomass burning?