by jboullion | Nov 30, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article by Joe Knight in the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram:
“This is the age of oil, but the age of oil is about to end,” said Lori Snyder of UW-Eau Claire’s geology department.
In 1950, the U.S. did not import any oil. Today, we still like our cars, and we have to import 60 percent of the oil we use to support our driving habit, she said.
Vehicles may have gotten a smaller and more fuel efficient since the 1950s, but our appetite for energy – the majority of it coming from fossil fuels – is huge. Today the average American uses three times the amount of energy we used in 1950, Snyder said.
Snyder and J. Brian Mahoney, also of the geology department, discussed the future of fossil fuels and energy Tuesday night for an “Ask A Scientist” program at UW-Eau Claire.
An audience of mixed ages attended, and many asked questions of the scientists, but the answers they received painted a less-than-reassuring picture of our energy future.
Fossil fuel basically is solar energy trapped by plants and bugs – sometimes millions of years ago – that never completely decomposed. We have extracted the fuels and used it to power our cars, heat our homes and generate our electricity, but supplies are becoming scarce, the geologists said.
Oil supplies in the U.S. peaked in the 1970s, Mahoney said. World supplies of oil that is readily accessible are peaking now, he said.
There are some alternative sources of oil, such as sand tars in Alberta, Canada, which are being mined, but they require a substantial amount of energy to extract and are costly to the environment, Mahoney said.
We still have an abundance of coal in the U.S. – enough to meet our electrical needs for 200 to 250 years, Snyder said. Unfortunately, coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel for emissions. We’re already altering the composition of the atmosphere, and continuing at the current rate or increasing emissions brings about more questions about climate change and what life on Earth might be like in 100 years, Mahoney said.
“It’s taking us to a place we don’t really understand,” he said.
by jboullion | Nov 25, 2009 | Uncategorized
From a news release issued by Wisconsin Environment:
Madison, WI – Far from a solution to global warming, nuclear power will actually set America back in the race to reduce pollution, according to a new report by Wisconsin Environment. Leading environmental organizations, consumer groups and energy experts gathered today to release the report and call on state and federal leaders to focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy instead of nuclear power as the solution to global warming. . . .
Wisconsin Environment’s new report, Generating Failure: How Building Nuclear Power Plants Would Set America Back in the Race Against Global Warming, analyzes the role, under a best-case scenario, that nuclear power could play in reducing global warming pollution. Some key findings of the report include:
• To avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global warming, America must cut power plant emissions roughly in half over the next 10 years.
• Nuclear power is too slow to contribute to this effort. No new reactors are now under construction in the United States. Building a single reactor could take 10 years or longer. As a result, it is quite possible that nuclear power could deliver no progress in the critical next decade, despite spending billions on reactor construction.
• Even if the nuclear industry somehow managed to build 100 new nuclear reactors by 2030, nuclear power could reduce total U.S. emissions of global warming pollution over the next 20 years by only 12 percent — far too little, too late.
• In contrast, energy efficiency and renewable energy can immediately reduce global warming pollution. Energy efficiency programs are already cutting electricity consumption by 1-2 percent annually in leading states, and the U.S. wind industry is already building the equivalent of three nuclear reactors per year in wind farms. America has vast potential to do more.
• Building 100 new reactors would require an up-front investment on the order of $600 billion dollars – money which could cut at least twice as much carbon pollution by 2030 if invested in clean energy. Taking into account the ongoing costs of running the nuclear plants, clean energy could deliver 5 times more pollution-cutting progress per dollar.
• Nuclear power is not necessary to provide clean, carbon-free electricity for the long haul. The need for base-load power is exaggerated and small-scale clean energy solutions can actually enhance the reliability of the electric grid.
To address global warming, state and federal policy makers should focus on improving energy efficiency and generating electricity from clean sources that never run out – such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal power, according to Wisconsin Environment and the coalition groups that attended today’s event.
by jboullion | Nov 24, 2009 | Uncategorized
From a fact sheet issued by the Homegrown Renewable Energy Campaign:
An innovative way to encourage more smaller-scale renewable energy systems by paying premiums to customers for wind, solar, biogas or biomass electric generation.
How are they different from standard utility buyback rates?
Unlike standard buyback rates, Renewable Energy Buyback Rates provide a fixed purchase price for the electricity produced over a period of 10 to 20 years. They are set at levels sufficient to fully recover installation costs along with a modest profit. Because the purchase price is guaranteed over a long period, Renewable Energy Buyback Rates make it easy for customers to obtain financing for their generation projects.
Why don’t utilities pursue these small-scale renewable projects themselves?
In general, the smaller the generating facility, the less likely it is owned by a utility. Utilities tend to favor bulk generation facilities that employ economies of scale to produce electricity at a lower cost. Renewable power plants owned by
utilities—such as large wind projects—are sized to serve their entire territory, not just a particular distribution area. For that reason utilities have shown little appetite for owning and operating distributed generation facilities powered with
solar, biogas, wind, and hydro.
If utilities won’t invest in small-scale renewable projects, how will they get built?
Clearly, the capital needed to build smaller-scale renewable projects has to come from independent sources—either customers or third parties. There is no shortage of investor interest in these systems, and sufficient capital is available. What’s needed to finance these projects is a predictable, long-term purchasing arrangement that assures full capital recovery if the project performs according to expectations. That’s where Renewable Energy Payments come into play.
by jboullion | Nov 23, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an Associated Press article by John Flesher in The Mining Journal (Marquette, Michigan):
PARK FALLS, Wis. – Forests are a treasure trove of limbs and bark that can be made into alternative fuels and some worry the increasing trend of using that logging debris will make those materials too scarce, harming the woodlands.
For centuries, forests have provided lumber to build cities, pulp for paper mills and a refuge for hunters, fishers and hikers. A flurry of new, green ventures is fueling demand for trees and the debris leftover when they are harvested, which is called waste wood or woody biomass.
”There simply is nowhere near enough waste wood for all of these biomass projects that are popping up all over the place,” said Marvin Roberson, a forest policy specialist with the Sierra Club in Michigan.
Waste wood has become a sought-after commodity, prompting concerns that the demand might overwhelm supply and damage the ecosystem. But government officials say there’s plenty available and they point to guidelines that are aimed at maintaining tree debris to give the soil nutrients.
Many biomass projects are tied to the forests that extend across Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and part of Ontario. Among them is Flambeau River Papers, a mill in Park Falls, Wis., that emerged from bankruptcy three years ago and is pinning its hopes for profitability on generating its own heat with woody biomass.
In another Wisconsin town 50 miles away, a power company is switching from burning coal to producing combustible gas from logging leftovers. And in Michigan’s neighboring Upper Peninsula, a plant under development called Frontier Renewable Resources will convert timber into 40 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol a year.
Researchers led by University of Minnesota forest expert Dennis Becker reported this summer that many would-be investors are uneasy about supplies of waste wood.
They fear environmental reviews and litigation could make some public woodlands unreliable sources, particularly in the West, where most forest lands are under federal ownership and logging often raises legal tussles, the report said.
Another problem with woody biomass is that much of the supply is in protected areas, or so far from markets that removing and transporting it would be too expensive, Becker said.
He led a separate study that found a realistic estimate of biomass available in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin was 4.1 million tons a year. Annual demand soon could reach 5.7 million tons, it said.
by jboullion | Nov 20, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article by Chad Dally in The Daily Press (Ashland):
Six municipalities, one transit system and more than seven million kilowatt hours of electricity consumed.
That is one of many initial discoveries of local government officials, the Alliance for Sustainability and others through a Wisconsin Energy Independent Communities pilot project.
The Chequamegon Bay region was one of 10 communities — and the largest of the 10 — that took part in the pilot project, which in the first phase attempted to pin down a baseline assessment on energy and fuel consumption for the past three years. The initiative is one of the first steps in Wisconsin’s 25 x 25 Plan, which set a goal of generating 25 percent of the state’s energy and transportation fuel from renewable sources by 2025. Also included is the goal of securing 10 percent of the nation’s emerging bio-industry jobs within Wisconsin. Generating more alternative and renewable energy and fuel within the state and especially within the Chequamegon Bay region has huge implications, since Wisconsin spent more than $21 billion on energy in 2007.
