More Garbage from the CA Senate SEQ

The Puente Hills Landfill is the largest operating sanitary landfill in the United States (and probably the world). It is scheduled to close in 2013.

Now that AB 222 has finally "passed" through the Senate Environmental Quality Committee (SEQ), the question is, does the legislation meet the vision of what has passed through the full Assembly (54-13) and the Senate Utilities Committee (6-1) last year? The answer is a resounding "NO!"

The Senators on the SEQ bowed to the traditional recycling industry lobby and gutted the bill to the point that its authors are loathe to recommend it because it will virtually kill investment in any conversion project in the state. This despite the fact that AB 222 was endorsed by more than 100 credible organizations statewide, including the California Energy Commission, the Air Resources Board and CalRecycle.

This outcome means more overflowing of current landfills and more local municipalities (including the very environmentally astute Los Angeles County Department of Sanitation/Integrated Waste Management Task Force) with their hands tied as they try to improve systems and reduce the amount of money spent diverting over 40 million tons/year of municipal solid waste from landfills. It also means that hundreds of millions in Federal grants to deploy these projects are going to other states, even though the developers and major investors live and work in California.

Here is a snapshot of the current state of AB 222 by its lead promoter, Jim Stewart, Chairman of the Bioenergy Producers Association.

--------------------------
The Senate Environmental Quality Committee Deals a Major Blow to Renewable Energy in California
by Jim Stewart, Chairman of the Board, Bioenergy Producers Association


The world’s organic waste streams represent one of its most promising and immediately available sources of renewable energy. The United States annually generates more than 1.5 billion tons of organic waste. From this single resource this nation could produce enough advanced biofuels to eliminate its need to import petroleum.

Just from the nearly 40 million tons of post-recycled waste that California places in landfills each year, a wide range of 21st Century, non-incineration, non-combustion conversion technologies could sustainably and cleanly produce 1.6 billion gallons of ethanol and 1250 MW of power.

These technologies herald a new era in recycling—the recovery of energy from waste and the recycling of carbon. During the past year, the Department of Energy has provided $600 million in direct grants to support a total of $1.3 billion in biorefinery construction.

The California Air Resources Board has called for the construction of 24 conversion technology plants by 2020 in order to achieve the goals of AB 32 and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Ethanol for organic waste is perhaps the only pathway can absolutely can meet the ARB’s goals for greenhouse gas reduction from automobiles under the LCFS.

However, current statute contains scientifically inaccurate definitions and repressive permitting pathways (more rigorous than those required to site a major solid waste landfill) that are driving biobased technology producers and investment capital away from California.

AB 222, as passed by the Assembly and approved by the Senate Utility, Energy and Communications Committee, was designed to address these issues. It would have provided a clear and achievable permitting pathway for biorefinery projects. AB 222 would have qualified the waste feedstocks processed by these facilities as landfill reduction (rather than as disposal) and would have enabled the electricity produced from the biogenic portion of solid waste to count as renewable under the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (as does landfill gas).

The bill was consistent with the Waxman/Markey bill, which would qualify the biogenic portion of municipal solid waste as a feedstock for renewable electricity production under the federal RPS. It was similarly consistent with the EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2), which enabled MSW as a feedstock for advanced biofuels production.

However, in late June, the five Democrats on the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, yielding to opposition orchestrated by lobbyists for the traditional recycling industry, stripped AB 222 of its key elements, including the RPS and landfill reduction credits. This despite the fact that AB 222, in the form that passed the Assembly, was endorsed by more than 100 credible organizations statewide, including the California Energy Commission, the Air Resources Board and CalRecycle. Further, it was approved on bi-partisan votes of the Committees that oversee energy issues in both the Assembly (11-0) and Senate (6-1), and by the Assembly itself (54-13).

And now, the Environmental Quality Committee has further amended the bill to create even more restrictive pathways for the implementation of conversion technologies in the state. These amendments place all conversion technologies, both high and low temperature, in “transformation”, a category that equates them with incineration, permanently classifying them as disposal and leaving them subject to the Countywide Siting Element. This statutory provision requires that a project proponent obtain the approval of a majority of city councils representing a majority of the population in a County before he can commence the CEQA process. In Los Angeles County, this would require a project proponent to obtain the approval of a minimum of 45 city councils.

Under current statute, even if the permitting process were successful, it would be at least four years before a solid waste-to-biofuels/green power facility could even begin construction in California. During that time, the state will landfill 240 million tons of post-recycled solid waste.

In 2010, as a nation, we have experienced a massive oil spill in the Gulf--perhaps the most devastating environmental disaster in the nation’s history—we are engaged in two wars in the Middle East, and as a nation we are paying $250 billion annually to import petroleum, a meaningful portion of which is finding its way to organizations whose goals are to destroy this nation’s value system, its economy and its way of life.

300 thermal conversion technologies are operating throughout the world and are meeting all environmental standards of their jurisdictions, and in Europe, these standards are often higher than those of California. All of these facilities create one and the same product—synthesis gas, which can be used to produce pipeline quality natural gas, power, chemicals and other products. More than 100 of these facilities--in Europe, Japan, China and elsewhere--are treating municipal solid waste in the process of producing electricity.
And now, these technologies are being introduced across North America to produce biofuels. They are a key element in enabling this nation to meet its mandate for the production of 21 billion gallons of advanced non-food derived biofuels by 2022.

For these reasons, one would expect the California legislature, particularly its Environmental Committees, to support major initiatives that could assist in reducing the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels.

However, for more than five years, the environmental committees of the California legislature have blocked legislation that would enable the permitting and construction of clean 21st century technologies that could contribute to national security, energy independence, jobs and a better environment for California.
---------------

For further information, contact:
James L. Stewart, Chairman, BioEnergy Producers Association
323-650-5096 jls.sep@gmail.com

technorati BIOblog, BIOwaste, bioenergy, biofuels, waste, pollution, urban, landfill, legislation, California

California's top energy, air quality, & recycling agencies support AB222

Environmentalists must stop letting the perfect become the enemy of the possible.
- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

For three years I have been writing about the frustrated attempts to get legislation passed through Sacramento that would enable the state's municipalities and utilities to permit diversion of municipal solid waste post-recyclables to conversion technologies that would recover energy, create biofuels and green chemicals, and reduce the volume of post-recyclables moving onto landfills by roughly 85%.

The anti-thermochemical stance of the legislation's detractors who preach that gasification "is just a more advanced form of incineration" has been the non-scientific excuse used most often to obstruct passage. In 2007 Assembly Natural Resources Committee (led by chairperson Loni Hancock of Berkeley, CA) derailed AB1090. The latest iteration of the bill (AB222 sponsored by Republican Anthony Adams and Democrat Fiona Ma) flew through the Assembly and received the support of the Utilities Committee of the Senate before it was two-yeared by the Senate's Environmental Quality Committee (which has now-Senator Loni Hancock on it). This in spite of the diverse and overwhelming support it has received throughout California.

AB222 will again be before the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, probably before the Senate breaks in late Summer. There is much more reason for the Committee to stop their irrational obstruction of this bill. It now has a letter of support from the primary energy, air quality, and recycling agencies of the current administration. More background...

Update on Assembly Bill 222 (by today's Southern California Conversion Technology Demonstration Project Newsletter)

It is anticipated that Assembly Bill 222 (AB 222) will be heard in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee later this Summer, following budget negotiations.

AB 222 is California legislation designed to expedite the introduction of conversion technologies that will produce advanced biofuels and/or green power from carbon-based wastes. With Republican and Democrat co-authors, this legislation has gained bipartisan support amongst the business, environmental, labor, and government sectors. The legislation removes from statute a scientifically inaccurate definition of gasification, establishes a new regulatory category for a "biorefinery" and confirms that the biogenic portion of the municipal waste stream qualifies as a feedstock for renewable electricity under the Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Last Year, AB 222 passed the California State Assembly by a vote of 54-13, after having been approved by a unanimous bipartisan vote of 11-0 in the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee. In July, it was approved in the Senate Utilities, Energy and Communications Committee. The Governor has endorsed the legislation, enabling the California Energy Commission to testify on its behalf, and there is significant support for the bill in the State Senate.

Key agency chairs sign letter of support

A letter of support from the executive branch is circulating among the Assembly and Senate leaders and their staffs. The signatories are no less than:

1. Jim Boyd, Chair of the California Energy Commission
2. Mary Nichols, Chair of the California Air Resources Board
3. Margo Reid Brown, Acting Director of CalRecycle (the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery)

Obstructing this carefully worded and negotiated legislation with this level of support would be a slap in the face of the primary agencies responsible for providing clean energy, clean air, and enlightened recycling processes to all Californians. Their reasons for support are clearly articulated in the letter:

AB222 would allow new non-incineration technologies to be used in the production of renewable biofuels, and electricity from biogenic material diverted from California's landfills. It would achieve this by removing current statutory restrictions that require thermal conversion projects to have zero emissions, a standard required of no other energy generation technology or manufacturing process in the State and one that effectively precludes any municipal solid waste (MSW) conversion technologies from qualifying for California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). ...

New conversion technologies would assist California in developing local fuel sources as part of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) thereby making better use of resources and providing other benefits...

On February 4, 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its final rule for the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) allowing the biogenic portion of post-recycled MSW to qualify for the use in the production of advanced biofuels. The renewable fuel provisions of AB 222 would make California consistent with the EPA ruling. ...

This legislation is necessary for CalRecycle and local agencies to deploy the solutions they judge, after extremely careful analysis, the solutions they find appropriate, clean, and most affordable to meet AB32, the RPS, LCFS, and other mandates legislated in California.

Los Angeles County Moves Forward with Southern California Conversion Technology Project (From the CalRecycle Conversion Technology Listserv)

On April 20, 2010, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved recommendations from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to initiate Phases III and IV of the Southern California Conversion Technology Project. Additionally, Supervisor Yaroslavsky introduced a motion that will expedite the County's efforts to identify locations in Los Angeles County for Phase IV of the project. Please click here to view the Board Agenda item.

After an extensive multi-year evaluation process, which included facility site visits, stakeholder meetings, and economic, environmental, and technical feasibility assessments, the Department of Public Works recommendation included:

1) Approval of Memorandums of Understanding between the County and three different project development teams

a. Arrow Ecology and Engineering & CR&R Incorporated ? proposing a 150 ton per day anaerobic digestion process in the City of Perris, to be located at the MRF/TS owned and operated by CR&R Incorporated.

b. International Environmental Solutions & Burrtec Waste Industries? proposing a 184 tons per day pyrolysis process in Unincorporated Riverside County, to be located at the MRF/TS owned and operated by Burrtec.

c. Entech Renewable Energy Solutions & Rainbow Disposal Company ? proposing a 360 tons per day gasification process in the City of Huntington Beach to be located at the MRF/TS owned and operated by Rainbow Disposal Company.

2) Approval of a four-year consultant contract with Alternative Resources Inc. to provide technical, permitting, and funding procurement assistance to each of the demonstration projects and to assist with the technology evaluation and development of Phase IV commercial projects within LA County.

For more information regarding conversion technologies and to view the County's reports please visit www.SoCalConversion.org

The agenda, which includes the official recommendations from the Department of Public Works, may be accessed by clicking here.

----------------
technorati BIOblog, BIOwaste, bioenergy, biofuels, waste, landfill, legislation, California

California's price for a failure to launch

Chalk one up for the fossil energy status quo.

Last Thursday, as a result of obstructive votes of five members of the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee (SEQ), a crucial piece of renewable energy legislation titled "Assembly Bill 222" has been delayed yet another year. Call it a failure to launch.

If approved, this legislation would have responsibly (and with articulated recycling and environmental safeguards) given statewide municipalities and utilities the necessary authority to deploy new technologies (in particular, gasification and pyrolysis) to meet and even exceed statewide landfill diversion mandates by converting municipal solid waste into biofuels and biopower.

Versions of this bill have been working their way through Sacramento since early 2005. This "band of five" (all SEQ Committee Democrats) voted to delay action:

• Despite the expressed support of nearly 80 organizations in favor AB 222 (vs. 19 against), which was unanimously approved by the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee in April, and which passed the heavily Democratic California State Assembly by a vote of 54-13.

• Despite approval of the bill by the California Senate Utilities, Energy and Communications Committee on July 7th.

• Despite national bipartisan initiatives to develop alternative fuels and renewable power - namely EISA, the Farm Bill, the cap and trade bill, the preponderance of state Renewable Energy Standards.

• Despite the President spurring governmental agencies to stimulate the economy by quickly approving development and deployment of renewable technologies with investment and policy incentives.

• Despite California's precedent-setting Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), its aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard, and its ground-breaking Low Carbon Fuel Standard designed to provide cleaner alternatives to fossil fuels and power.

• Despite Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Energy Commission supporting the legislation as a necessary component of his Bioenergy Action Plan.

• Despite a national and California state financial crisis that is the worst since the Great Depression. This legislation would have created jobs and drawn significant private industry investment to the state.

Had the SEQ Committee not interfered the measure was certain to pass the Senate with balanced bipartisan support.

California has a long history of facing crisis after crisis with intelligence, industry, investment, and heroic engineering. It has built paradigm changing technologies in defense, nuclear energy, water and waste management, educational systems, entertainment, environmental practices, computers, and communications that have not only funded the state's phenomenal growth and global influence, but also changed the world.

Not anymore if, as in this case, a few politicians can continue to derail progress when we need it most. Progress to introduce renewable alternatives before our valuable resources run dry. Progress to reduce fossil emissions that threaten public health and global climate change.

Waiting for perfection

What are they waiting for? In a word - "perfection." Opponents to AB 222 are holding out for zero waste and zero emissions.

Zero waste is a universal ideal that we all can agree on whether its energy, natural resources, human capital, efficiency, infrastructure, or funds that is being wasted. The question is not what is the perfect solution, rather how do we improve on the status quo? Inertia is the enemy of progress - it's a form of waste - wasting time.

You can't improve on the status quo by waiting for the perfect answer. We need to support those who spearhead new improvements that build toward better solutions.

That's why Washington is abuzz with the phrase "Perfection is the enemy of the good."

Zero emissions is another example of an ideal that is unachievable without taking progressive steps toward a solution. That's because emissions have many direct and indirect sources. The indirect land use issue is a controversial example of the interconnectedness between sources, processes, and emissions. California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard - and, until recently, the proposed federal cap and trade bill - would handicap certain biofuels for their anticipated direct and indirect impact on worldwide fossil carbon emissions. This is a classic Catch-22.

While we all agree that fossil fuels and fertilizers need renewable replacement, it is unfair to base comparisons of alternatives on their current dependence on fossil fuels for production. Fossil emissions are emitting during production of renewable fuels and power because there are currently no alternatives. We won't have alternatives until we create them. Once we have them we can use biodiesel to replace diesel, and ethanol to replace gasoline, and wood pellets to replace natural gas, etc. But we need to "launch" new alternatives first - and as any Floridians can attest, escaping earth's gravity (launching) takes a significant amount of fossil energy - because that is all we have.

The space shuttle is not perfect. But it is a great example of a technology that resulted from progress through many "good" steps - from Kitty Hawk to Cape Canaveral. And created many byproduct technologies that we cherish today.

Policy-makers need to enable private enterprise ventures to research, develop, and deploy good solutions - not hamper them. Their deployments will still have to conform to economic, environmental, and social sustainability standards.

Enabling legislation is a cheap way for governments to lure investors to take on the financial risk of emerging technologies. Policy delay increases risk and, hence, reduces investment which slows the rate of change and the potential return on investment.

California has failed to launch. Let's hope that other states pick up the gauntlet and lead.

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, waste, landfill, legislation, California

Sierra Club and Worldwatch: Gasification is a "Smart Choice" for Biofuels

In February of this year the Worldwatch Institute and Sierra Club jointly released a report that supports the continued development of cellulosic biofuels using thermochemical means. From the report...

“In the thermochemical platform, heat, pressure, chemical catalysts, and water are used to break down biomass in much the same way that petroleum is refined. Thermochemical technologies include gasification, fast pyrolysis, and hydrothermic processing. These technologies can be used to convert almost any kind of biomass into fuel, from grass to turkey feathers, giving them a potential advantage over biochemical technologies that rely on developing specific enzymes to break down specific plant matter."

Smart Choices for Biofuels maps a future path for biofuels to ensure that they are more environmentally and socially sustainable and that the use of renewable fuels for transportation contributes to the global effort to reduce global warming pollution. The steps proposed in the report include an accelerated transition to cellulosic feedstocks such as switchgrass and the use of more effective agricultural practices to decrease erosion and soil nutrient depletion. Further, the report specifically identifies advanced biofuels feedstocks as including “the organic material found in urban waste."

Here are several other excerpts from the report:

"Despite ambitious government mandates and strong financial support for the biofuels industry, so-called “first-generation” biofuels have raised a variety of economic, social, and environmental concerns. New information points to the urgent need for a major shift to more-advanced biofuels to prevent negative effects on the climate, land, soil, water, air, and rural economies."

"Nearly all studies on the role of biofuels in mitigating global warming and boosting energy security have concluded that “second-generation” (or “advanced”) biofuels, which rely on non-food feedstocks and offer dramatically improved energy and greenhouse gas profiles, are necessary to make wider use of biofuels feasible worldwide."

"Cellulosic and other advanced biofuels have a better fossil energy balance than do first-generation biofuels; that is, the amount of fossil energy required to make the fuel is much lower relative to the amount of energy gained in return, which can significantly lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions."

One of the report's major policy recommendations is to:

“Re-examine the renewable energy portfolio balance to bring on cellulosic and other advanced biofuels faster and to promote biomass use for electricity generation and heat."

----------------
technorati biofuels, waste, pollution, urban, legislation

California "discriminates" against thermochemical CTs

Aligned with the goals of the California Bioenergy Action Plan there is a new amendment to a California Senate Bill (SB 1252) that seeks to expand the range of technologies that are sanctioned for the conversion of green and municipal waste into biofuels. It would, for instance, "greenlight" projects like the new BlueFire Ethanol demonstration facility being built in Lancaster, CA.

Coming AFTER the recently awarded conditional use permit for BlueFire Energy by the Los Angeles Public Utilities Commission the amendment to SB 1252 appears to be a begrudging acknowledgement that public support for innovative technologies that convert waste into biofuels is on the rise. Better jump on the public opinion train before it leaves the station.

Unfortunately, the wording in the amendment is highly selective in defining what kind of conversion technologies are now acceptable. Simply put, cold technologies are now in but hot technologies are still out. This is nothing unique, according to Dr. Kay Martin, one of most respected advocates for California waste management reform and a member of the Bioenergy Producers Association (BPA):

Aside from this bill, the same kind of discriminatory embargo of "high-temperature" technologies appears in two other bills, AB 2640 (Huffman) and AB 2866 (DeLeon), each of which exclude these technologies from state grant funding eligibility. The BPA drafted "oppose unless amended" letters to the authors of these bills as well (see SB 1252 response below).

The bottom line is that there is an unavoidable recognition that significant new landfill diversion in CA requires new tools--but there is also a pervasive bias for composting, and an enduring blockade of any proposals that facilitate development of thermal processes that utilize MSW feedstock.

Apparently, the California legislature will have to be shamed by other states into accepting thermochemical remedies before it will permit deployment here. Besides killing investment initiative, it appears to be a blatant attempt to curb municipal interest in these technologies. Courageously, Los Angeles utilities who are looking into the barrel of its landfill crisis are moving ahead with their evaluation and likely deployment of thermochemical solutions without the State legislature's "blessing."

The California legislature, like its Ninth Circuit Court, are playing politics with issues that are technological in substance. This is becoming increasingly true as concern about energy, the environment, and global warming "heat up." Ironically, it is the "progressive" aisle that is being used to stop innovation while the conservatives want to spur development in new conversion technologies.

In view of the urgency of the drivers of change (national security, oil dependence, greenhouse gas emissions, balance of trade, fuel carbon content, revamping the energy infrastructure, etc.) it seems to be a poor time for the legislature to be exclusionary of a range of thermochemical conversion technologies that are already being used in Europe and Asia - not to mention advocated and incentivized for development funding by the U.S. Congress and Department of Energy.

In February, I attended the annual Renewable Fuels Association conference in Orlando Florida. One of the keynote speeches was given by Peter Hart of Hart Research Associates - a national polling firm. He reported that a recent poll his company ran asked the question:

In which approach should we invest the most resources and efforts to address our energy problems?

The response in favor of advancing new technologies was overwhelming.

• 51% said we should "Invent our way out of the problem: develop renewable sources."
• 28% responded "Conserve our way out of the problem: energy efficiency, conservation policies/programs."
• 17% said "Drill/mine our way out of the problem: find domestic fossil fuel sources."

Not surprisingly, most Americans believe that technological innovation is the best way to go - for developing renewable sources and energy efficiency. That should be especially true in California where many of the significant paradigm shifts of the last century have been successfully germinated, researched, nurtured, funded, marketed, and deployed. For the Senate to play politics with technological innovation is distinctly unAmerican and, I would submit, un-Californian.

In light of the profound stimulus for biofuels development contained in the 2007 U.S. Energy Bill (aka, EISA), now is the time to pull all the stops restricting innovation that provides solution to our energy, environment, and global warming challenges. This amendment should greenlight thermochemical solutions to waste management in addition to the cold ones currently mentioned.

For the California Air Resources Board to draft a Climate Change Scoping Plan that targets waste management but excludes thermochemical conversion technologies from being an "arrow in the quiver" is short-sighted and political non-science.

Below is a letter sent to the authors of the amendment by the BioEnergy Producers Association that succinctly states their concern about the anti-thermochemical technology bias contained in the bill. Will the California legislature drive the train or continue to wait in the station as other states take advantage of our profligate waste of initiative?

----------------
An open letter from the Bioenergy Producers Association

To: Senator Don Perata
California State Senate

RE: SB 1252 - OPPOSE

The BioEnergy Producers Association is an alliance of companies dedicated to the environmentally sensitive manufacture of advanced biofuels, chemicals and green power from agricultural, forestry and urban biomass and plastic wastes. Among others, our membership includes electric utilities, waste haulers, biobased technology providers, engineering and consulting firms from all areas of the state.

The technologies we advocate, which include thermochemical/biochemical processes, represent California’s best hope for creating alternatives to its escalating costs of motor fuel and electricity, and its dependence on foreign petroleum. These new technologies could potentially produce 2.7 billion gallons of advanced biofuels and 2,500 MW of power from the 42 million tons of post-recycled municipal solid waste that are being placed in California’s landfills each year.

As more than 100 of these projects are now operating in Europe and Asia, and the Department of Energy is investing millions of dollars through grants and loan guarantees to introduce these technologies commercially in the United States, it is mystifying why the California legislature has so consistently, and for so long, refused to take action to encourage investment in, and expedite the implementation of, these technologies in this state. Indeed, it has established a pattern of direct economic and legislative discrimination against these technologies.

The latest example is SB 1252, of which you have just become a co-author. Here is why:

1. The definition for "lignocellulosic ethanol processing," as incorporated in SB 1252, is inaccurate, in that it is specifically limited to, and reserved for, the sugar platform via acid or enzymatic hydrolysis. The definition fails to recognize that ethanol can also be efficiently and economically produced from cellulosic materials through the biological fermentation of syngas in an engineered and controlled environment. The recognition of multiple technologies and pathways for ethanol production is consistent with the Bioenergy Action Plan and central to the objectives of AB 118 and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

2. The bill is discriminatory on its face by favoring one production pathway (the sugar platform) and technology (hydrolysis/fermentation) over all others. The granting of reduced permitting standards (transfer/processing station) and diversion credit to a single class of companies while denying these benefits to others is directly contrary to existing State policy for bioenergy development and in-state production of alternative fuels.

3. By limiting its definition of “lignocellulosic ethanol processing” to acid and enzymatic technologies [Section 40149 (a)], the proposed bill enables such technologies to be permitted as transfer or processing stations, while continuing to require the permitting of thermochemcial technologies as major solid waste landfillls. The difference in both time required and the cost of complying with the permitting process creates a market advantage for acid and enzymatic processes that is contrary to the principal of equal competition under law, and will provide “lignocellulosic” technologies, as defined in your bill, with a significant lead time to market.

4. By allowing waste streams that are consumed by acid and enzymatic technologies to qualify for a diversion credit, and by excluding thermochemical technologies from this provision, it denies municipalities of any incentive to make their waste streams available for processing by companies that are investing in clean thermochemical technologies. This wholly discriminatory action by the legislature denies these innovative technologies a level playing field and places them at a distinct competitive disadvantage.

This year, despite achieving a recycling rate of 54% (14% of which, by the way, is comprised of green wastes that are being placed in landfills for use as alternate daily cover), 42 million tons of post-recycled waste will be sent to the state’s landfills, more than was being landfilled in 1989, the year AB 939 was passed. As the state’s population is expected to grow by some 10 million people over the next 25 years, this trend cannot help but continue.

We submit that it will be impossible for the state to achieve the levels of landfill diversion mandated in SB 1252 without the application of all available technologies for waste conversion. Unfortunately, the hostile climate for thermochemical technologies being fostered by the state legislature is forcing the proponents of these technologies to construct their plants in other states, and along with them are going millions of dollars of Department of Energy grants and loan guarantees.

The victims of these policies, and bills like SB 1252, will be the people of California, who will be denied an efficient path to low-cost, locally-produced alternatives to gasoline and a cleaner environment.

The BioEnergy Producers Association strongly opposes the provisions of SB 1252 and the manner in which they are being inserted into this bill without adequate public discussion at the end of the 2008 session.

Sincerely,


James L. Stewart,
Chairman of the Board

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, waste, urban, landfill, legislation, California

Bioenergy Producers comment on California's Climate Change Scoping Plan

California Senator David Roberti (ret.) is a public servant of the first magnitude for California. I have met Sen. Roberti several times and hold him in highest esteem for his intelligence, his leadership, his respect for the lawmaking process, and socially sensitive policymaking. During his 28 years of service in the California legislature and 13 years of service as President Pro Tem of the California State Senate he provided superior understanding of the nature and process of governmental actions.

Relevant to California recycling and waste management law, he is also intimately familiar with issues that permeate the waste, recycling, and hazardous waste industry. David was chief Senate negotiator of AB 939, California’s landmark waste management legislation, and the author of California’s Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1986, the Hazardous Waste Reduction Act of 1989, as well as legislation establishing the California Hazardous Waste Hotline. After retiring from the Senate he was a member of the California Integrated Waste Management Board for four years. He is an innovator and friend of recycling who seeks to expand it in a clean and sustainable way.

Besides his law practice Roberti is also President of the Bioenergy Producers Association.

The mission of the BioEnergy Producers Association (BPA) is to advance the development and commercialization of sustainable, environmentally preferable industries that produce power, fuels, and chemicals from agricultural, forestry, and urban sources of biomass and plastic wastes.

Founders of this organization include some of the top waste management experts in California as well as two of the cellulosic ethanol technology pioneers - BlueFire Ethanol and New Planet Energy.

With such an experienced brain, law, and business trust at its disposal, the California Air Resources Board should take special note of the following comments submitted by Sen. Roberti on behalf of the BPA concerning the "Recycling and Waste Management" section of their California Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan.

--------------------
COMMENTS ON CARB CLIMATE CHANGE DRAFT SCOPING PLAN
(June 2008 Discussion Draft)

The BioEnergy Producers Association (BPA) is a coalition of private companies and public agencies dedicated to the development and commercialization of environmentally preferable industries that produce renewable sources of power, fuels, and chemicals from agricultural, forestry and urban biomass wastes and other carbonaceous materials. Our membership includes bioenergy firms, electric utilities, and waste management companies.

The BPA has reviewed the “Recycling and Waste” section of the Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, and requests CARB’s consideration of additional measures for Landfill Methane Control. Landfill Methane can be controlled by disposing of carbon-based materials that would otherwise be landfilled in the process of producing liquid and electric energy using clean thermochemcial conversion technologies.

Specifically, the Recycling and Waste Sector Preliminary Recommendation should mirror and complement strategies outlined for the agricultural sector by encouraging the use of urban biomass wastes for sustainable energy production. Deployment of bioenergy strategies is consistent with the Bioenergy Action Plan, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), and AB 32 GHG reduction goals for the following reasons:

Landfill Abatement Potential

The Draft Scoping Plan recognizes fugitive landfill methane gas emissions as a major GHG precursor, and calls for measures to reduce the volume of materials flowing to land disposal. Existing source reduction, recycling, and composting programs are credited with attainment of the state’s 54% diversion rate, and the Plan places principal reliance upon the expansion of these programs to reduce disposal tonnages in the future, virtually ignoring the potential to use these waste resources in the clean production of liquid and electric energy.

Despite the success of its recycling and composting efforts, California’s high disposal rate has remained virtually unchanged for the past 20 years. 40 million tons of municipal waste were landfilled in California in 1989, the year AB 939 was passed. This year, despite the progress of recycling, 42 million tons of waste will be placed in the state’s landfills. As the state’s population is expected to grow by some 10 million people over the next 25 years, this trend is expected to continue.

It is folly to adopt the position that the volume of material that is being placed in California’s landfills can be significantly reduced through source reduction, traditional means of recycling and composting alone. All methods of disposal must be incorporated in any effective plan, and this includes the complete disposal (i.e., destruction) of carbon-based wastes in the process of producing the liquid and electric energy so desperately needed by the state.

Approximately 70% of the residual materials placed in landfills consist of various types of biomass, only a portion of which may be feasibly composted or recycled. In short, new tools are needed. For example, compostable organics (i.e. food and vegetative wastes), comprise only about 25% of this stream. Similarly, there is no estimate of additional biomass materials, such as paper, which may be recovered through intensified commercial recycling efforts, although markets for the major portion of this stream may have already been optimized, with residuals having limited commodity market value.

In contrast, new biomass conversion technologies, such as in-vessel hydrolysis/fermentation and thermal/fermentation processes, have the potential to convert the full spectrum of landfill-bound carbonaceous waste materials into renewable energy products, including power, fuels, and chemicals. Because of their unprecedented potential to divert waste materials to beneficial use, the development of clean technology bioenergy facilities is an essential and necessary component of future landfill abatement strategies.

GHG Reduction Potential

The Draft Scoping Plan notes that commercial recycling and composting programs “could have substantial greenhouse gas benefits but their in-state reductions have not been quantified at this time.” Indeed, data on the effectiveness of current waste management practices as climate change strategies are both inconclusive and incomplete.

Composting operations, for example, have their own set of air quality concerns, including VOCs and GHG precursors. In fact, an independent study recently completed by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts1 concluded that placement of urban green waste in landfills as alternative daily cover was superior to composting these materials in terms of net GHG emissions.

The climate change benefits of recycling are generally assumed to derive from the avoidance of virgin material extraction and reintroduction of recovered materials with “intrinsic energy value” back into the remanufacturing process, although the Draft Scoping Plan admits that such benefits may not occur in California. Indeed, the majority of California’s recyclables leave the state for distant domestic or foreign markets, with the largest volume of these commodities, namely paper and plastics, being shipped to China.

The life cycle analyses on which recycling climate change benefits are based seldom calculate the global GHG impacts of trans-Pacific shipping, or of transferring the remanufacturing burden to developing nations where environmental controls are minimal or nonexistent. These atmospheric industrial pollutants drift eastward and find their way back to California in a matter of days, contributing further to the state’s GHG reduction challenge.

The CIWMB’s own studies point out the critical need to both reevaluate and expand the range of technologies employed to meet future landfill abatement and climate change objectives. For example, a comprehensive life cycle analysis of waste management practices completed in 2004 by the Research Triangle Institute2 concluded that new waste conversion technologies (acid hydrolysis, gasification, and catalytic cracking) were superior to recycling and composting with regard to energy balance, NOx emissions, and carbon emissions. Similarly, a 2006 study of thermal waste conversion technologies prepared for the CIWMB by UC Riverside3 stated:

“If conversion technologies were able to process a significant portion of California’s waste that is currently landfilled, benefits could be realized in a number of areas. These include reductions in overall greenhouse gas emissions, fugitive landfill gas emissions, and diesel truck emissions. On the energy production side, the avoided costs and impacts in exploration, production, and transportation of traditional fuels could be substantial.”

This same study concluded:

“Thermochemical technologies can process a wider variety of feedstocks and can have a greater effect on landfill reduction. Thermochemical technologies can also produce a larger variety of products, which can displace the need for non-renewable sources of energy and fuels. Other indirect effects include eliminating diesel truck trips and reducing landfill gas emissions.”

Thermochemical conversion technologies are clean technologies because nothing enters the atmosphere as a result of the gasification (waste disposal) step. The resulting synthesis gases and waste heat from the processes can be converted to liquid and electric energy. The opposition to conversion technologies that is influencing legislative and administrative policy in California stems from those who refuse to accept that 21st century technology can achieve environmentally superior waste-to-energy technologies; from the traditional recycling industry which wants to suppress competition for the state’s waste streams and from waste management firms that view conversion technologies as threats to landfills.

It is time for the state to look past these short-sighted positions and embrace these emerging technologies with the same commitment as the federal government, other states and nations. More than 100 of these plants are now operating or will be constructed in Europe and Asia during the next decade.

California should be a leader in encouraging such technologies.
However, private enterprise will continue to take these projects elsewhere until the state adopts a practical, efficient and supportive statutory and regulatory environment for their implementation and operation.

Recommendation

The BioEnergy Producers Association supports the expansion of California’s source reduction, recycling, and composting programs. At the same time, we urge that new clean-technology bioenergy strategies be applied to the state’s growing post-recycled waste stream in order to meet urgent landfill abatement and climate change goals. Timely deployment of waste-based biorefineries can provide a vehicle for integrating California’s renewable energy, AB 118, and AB32 policy objectives.

References:
1 Evaluation of Green Waste Management Impacts on GHG Emissions, Alternative Daily Cover Compared with Composting. Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, April 2008.
2 Life Cycle and Market Impact Assessment of Noncombustion Waste Conversion Technologies. Prepared for the CIWMB by the Research Triangle Institute International, 2004.
3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts of Thermochemical Conversion Technologies Using Municipal Solid Waste Feedstocks. Prepared for the CIWMB by the University of California , Riverside, April 2006.

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, waste, pollution, urban, landfill, legislation, California

Biomass and BioWaste Conference in Pittsburg this September

I have been in touch with Dr. Ines Freesen about a new conference that her company is co-hosting that will take place between September 25-27th in Pittsburg, PA. While there is plenty of excitement about corn ethanol and the emerging technologies surrounding cellulosic ethanol, there is a dearth of press and conference content about the most revolutionary concept of all - converting municipal solid wastes, sludge, factory smoke, agricultural, and forestry waste into biofuels and electricity.

This blog is an attempt to partially correct that media deficiency but the real headway will be made when pioneers in the field of waste-to-energy congregate, network, and fully explore the potential.

According to the conference website:

"energy from biomass and waste" can make a significant contribution to oil-independence and climate protection with clean power, heat, and vehicle fuels. The technology opens up new earning potentials and markets (domestic & international) for the waste management & power generation industry, as well as for new market players such as the agricultural sector. With this event we want to create the leading North American showcase and educational forum for this growth business.

Here is the press release from last February (posted on the Renewable Energy Access website) about the German/American collaborators behind this event.

-------------------
German-American Partnership To Promote Energy From Biomass and Waste
Freesen & Partner and Steel City Biofuels sign agreement to promote green energy, create international marketplace
Press Release from Freesen & Partner GmbH
Alpen,NRW, Germany / Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 21-Fe-07

The benefits of biofuels seem clear enough: they can provide a safe, sustainable domestic resource. But what does this mean for the business owner, for municipalities, the farm economy? How can the utilization of oilseed crops, switchgrass, manure, landfill gas, or residential waste make a significant contribution to save on energy and recycling costs, to reduce harmful emissions and create jobs?

Two partners from both sides of the Atlantic have joined forces to raise visibility for these issues and to create a forum that provides answers and practical assistance. Freesen & Partner GmbH, a Germany-based trade show organizer, and Steel City Biofuels, a Pennsylvania non-for-profit organization signed an agreement to use the EBW Expo & Conference, held on September 25-27, 2007 in Pittsburgh, PA to create an educational forum tailored to the information needs of multiple stakeholders.

The agreement was signed on February 15 as part of a ceremony for the signing of a Declaration of Cooperation between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of North-Rhine Westfalia (NRW). Dr. Ines Freesen, Managing Director of Freesen & Partner, and Nathaniel Doyno, Executive Director of Steel City Biofuels, were joined by Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell and NRW Minister President Dr. Juergen Ruettgers.

"We are very excited about this new venture", comments Ines Freesen. "The time is right to think about what can be done with biomass and waste to reduce the world's unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels, and there could be no better place than Pennsylvania to hold the EBW Expo & Conference. Together with Steel City Biofuels we will create a truly international forum that offers hands-on information to a wide range of energy users and 'waste producers'."

"Thanks to the leadership of Governor Rendell and DEP Secretary McGinty Pennsylvania is poised to become a national leader in the production of energy from biomass and waste", says Nathaniel Doyno. "Steel City Biofuels is very excited to partner with Freesen & Partner on this venture because we feel that the EBW Expo provides an ideal platform to bring together the technology providers, energy users, investors, policy makers, and researchers that can really launch these industries."

The agreement is focused on:
- creating educational forums during EBW tailored to the needs of multiple stakeholders, including investors, farmers, green energy producers, cities and municipalities, businesses, students, and university researchers
- determining different options and media to promote the expo and conference to all relevant stakeholders in Pennsylvania, the United States, North-Rhine Westafalia, Germany, and other regions
- organizing site tours to bioenergy and energy-from-waste projects in South Western Pennsylvania during EBW
- develop business opportunities for Pennsylvania and German companies

About Freesen & Partner:
Freesen & Partner GmbH (F&P) is a consulting and event management firm specialized in the field of energy and environmental technology. F&P owns the "Energy from Biomass and Waste" (EBW) Expo & Conference, to be held on September 25-27, 2007 in Pittsburgh, PA. EBW's mission is to educate all relevant stakeholders about the ecological and economical benefits of clean energy, and to create an international marketplace for bioenergy and energy-from-waste technologies in Pennsylvania.

About Steel City Biofuels:
Steel City Biofuels, Inc. (SCB) is a project of the Pennsylvania Resources Council, Inc. that is building the awareness, policy and infrastructure necessary for the widespread production and use of biofuels in South Western Pennsylvania. SCB pursues this mission through education, demonstration, research, and advocacy. SCB's foundation is a diverse network of partnerships that link individuals, farmers, schools, non-profits, community organizations, businesses, and governmental agencies.

For Further Information
EBW Expo & Conference Website
Steel City Biofuels website
"waste to energy" website

technorati BIOwaste, bioenergy, biofuels, waste, pollution, urban, landfill, legislation

Envirepel: Gasified waste-to-electricity in San Diego

I received a welcomed message from Anthony Arand, CEO of Envirepel Energy, Inc. who wished to clarify and expand on what has been reported here on the SDG&E press release:

I enjoyed reading your columns in trying to figure out what is our company really up to. Biomass diversion contracts? Honestly, that is the first time I have heard that terminology applied to a utility or us. Please allow me to fill you in on some of the specifics.

In San Diego County green waste is diverted as is all MSW waste via recycling, it has nothing to do with the Utility. SDG&E is after Renewable Portfolio Standard qualified suppliers of electricity, plain and simple. The connection of green waste and energy projects being restricted to green waste is incorrect.

There hasn't been a new combustion design for any type of solid feed stocks in over 50 years, the one we selected was first published in 1912, and this is where people tend to focus the discussion, on the technology. Think of it this way, people compare cars for horsepower, performance and emissions in a discussion about the type of engine the car has.....how many times have you heard them discuss the suspension, braking system, catalytic converter material selection, radiator size, or pressure drop across the system that allows the "car" to perform ?

You really don't care what technology you use, you care that the integration of those technologies (the system) works together to deliver the goals of the project. The key to clean energy generation with low emissions is to design a facility from top to bottom for that purpose using multiple technologies that when combined deliver what you want. That is what our company has done, and it is not typical to an industry controlled by bankers who don't care about the environment, and don't want to spend a nickel more than absolutely necessary to make money from a project.

Here are the design targets we set out to deliver with our facility design:

1. It can't produce emissions numbers above 15 ppm of regulated pollutants to stay under the air emissions offset thresholds for a 60 MW facility
2. It can't produce noise emissions (it has to be quiet and not bother the neighbors)
3. The fuel can't smell up the neighbor hood (ie, keep it inside the building)
4. The building has to stay under 45 feet tall from a land use building code perspective with all the equipment inside
5. After initial start up and capacity testing is complete, the solid fuel facility has to be dispatchable from zero capacity to full capacity in under 10 minutes
6. The facility has to be able to process and operate on any fuel stock (biomass includes wood, green waste, MSW, and non-recyclables)
7. A structural safety factor of three on all designs (earthquake country), and a performance safety factor of two on all system components, especially the emissions systems (reliability through redundant capacity)
8. All equipment, facility layout, and employee related safety issues are compliant with OSHA
9. Zero discharge facility from a water use or rainfall run-off facility.
10. Harvest as many pollutants and green house gases in the exhaust system as can be collected for re-use and resale (don't let money go out the exhaust)

We selected a modified gasification combustion system capable of running on any feed stocks to meet the needs of the facility design and are permitting the first ones on green waste to prove out the facility design before we construct facilities on landfills that run on post-recycled MSW.

Normally a developer only develops the site, somebody else builds it, a couple of banks then own it, and some poor schmuck gets selected to operate it and prays to the heavens that the guys the "developed" it didn't forget crucial issues on the equipment design and layout.

We chose not to go that route and went down the path to design, build, own and operate our facilities. That means we staffed up with engineers, planning, fabrication, machine shop equipment, and set about building our own equipment for our own projects.

We have operated our one to one scale demonstration test cell to show that the combustion system produces the low emissions we claimed, and our first facility in Vista will demonstrate how the system works when producing electricity with all the rest of the system equipment hooked up. The next three smaller projects are also all on green waste (easy to get and no significant air emissions issues) that allow us to flush out any design problems with the system (i.e are the bearings big enough on the conveyor belts, or is one grinder really capable of holding up to the load or should we use two types of operational and reliability issues).

After that, the system fuel stock shifts to post recycled MSW on all future sites, which happen to be landfills, and we help California truly become a Zero Waste State.

I hope that helps shed a little light on what we are doing.

technorati BIOwaste, bioenergy, electricity, waste, urban, landfill, California

Green Waste Gasified to Electricity in CA

Almost one year ago, I posted an entry on the diversion of green waste clippings from landfills to be used as biostock for a California utility electrical plant. The Bull Moose announcement was one of many planned by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) not only for biomass, but also solar and wind projects.

Yesterday another similar biomass diversion contract was announced involving a different supplier to SDG&E. Envirepel Energy, Inc. received the go-ahead on June 14th to build the 90MW Fallbrook Facility. It is the first of four separately sited facilities Enviropel is designing to supply 240MW of electricity to SDGE.

A big question concerns the amount of emissions that will be generated by the facility. Here is what Envirepel has to say about that:

Total air emissions as viewed from the stack exiting into the surrounding air are expected to be in the range as follows:

Particulates Less than 5 tons per year
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Less than 10 tons per year
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Less than 15 tons per year
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) Less than 5 tons per year
Hydrocarbons (THC) Less than 5 tons per year
Total Emissions @ 45 MW generation is approximately 40 tons per year

That's not enough to require an air emissions offset credit permit (those permits that are so costly for big natural gas fired power plants to get)...think about that, a renewable, organic power plant that doesn't pollute? That is our design goal, setting a new standard for how you should do it, not the cheapest way or the easiest, or the business as usual: way it's been done throughout the industry, but the right way to do it for today's needs.

Here is the full text of the SDG&E press release.

----------------
DG&E to expand use of biomass energy
Utility seeks to acquire more renewable energy with latest solicitation

SAN DIEGO, June 12, 2007 – San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) today announced it has signed a supply contract with Envirepel Energy, Inc. for renewable, biomass energy that will be online by October 2007. SDG&E also reported that it has received nearly 5,000 megawatts (MW) of renewable-energy-supply proposals in response to the utility’s most recent renewable Request for Offers (RFO) solicitation that ended May 30, 2007.

Every year since 2002, SDG&E has solicited supply bids for renewable power to meet California’s mandate of having 20 percent of its energy portfolio come from clean resources such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal by 2010. Envirepel’s agreement is the result of an earlier competitive solicitation. Biomass power results from burning plant-based materials such as wood.

“We are excited about the new renewable energy contract with Envirepel and with the overwhelming response we received for supplying green energy to our grid,” said Debra L. Reed, president and chief executive officer for SDG&E. “Developers are signaling their willingness to build these renewable projects. We are committed to providing the transmission pathway necessary to ensure renewable energy from any of the projects developed reaches San Diego.”

The nearly 5,000 megawatts proposed in the most recent RFO represents a mixture of renewable energy, including about 2000 MW of wind, 2,700 MW of solar, and 300 MW of geothermal, biomass and landfill gas. Several of the proposals submitted would require the addition of new transmission infrastructure to deliver energy to San Diego customers.

Today, SDG&E is more than half-way toward meeting its 2010 goal with approximately 12 percent of its future energy supply under contract to be delivered from renewable sources.

SDG&E’s contract with Envirepel will now be submitted to the CPUC for review and final approval. SDG&E’s final selection of the renewable-energy bids will be based on least-cost, best-fit procurement criteria and will be reviewed by the Procurement Review Group, comprised of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) staff, consumer advocates and other non-market participants, and an independent evaluator prior to being submitted to the CPUC for final approval.

technorati BIOwaste, bioenergy, waste, urban, landfill, California

Smokestack emissions as feedstock for ethanol

Khosla Ventures is turning its eye onto new businesses that are developing bioconversion processes for turning smokestack emissions into marketable biofuels - mainly ethanol. Such technologies offer the prospect of retrofitting carbon spewing combustion furnaces and boilers with energy saving bioreactors that, with the right combination of nutrients and organisms, can feed on the toxic gases and convert it into ethanol.

Here is the bulk of their recent press release..

---------------------
LanzaTech NZ Ltd Secures Series A Funding From Khosla Ventures for Ethanol Production From Carbon Monoxide in Waste Gases

LanzaTech, the leader in technology using bacterial fermentation to convert carbon monoxide into ethanol, today officially announced it has secured US$3.5M in Series A funding, led by Khosla Ventures and supported by two existing New Zealand based investors. This funding will support further technology development, establishing a pilot plant, engineering work to prepare for commercial-scale ethanol production and positions the company to raise significant capital in the near future.

This technology could produce 50 billion gallons of ethanol from the world's steel mills alone, turning the liability of carbon emissions into valuable fuels worth over $50 billion per year at very low costs and adding substantial value to the steel industry. The technology will also be a key contributor to the cellulosic biofuels business as it can convert syngas produced through gasification into ethanol.

"We have proven in our laboratories that the carbon monoxide in industrial waste gases such as those generated during steel manufacture can be processed by bacterial fermentation to produce ethanol. Garnering the financial and strategic support of Khosla Ventures is a significant validation of our approach, and we welcome Khosla Ventures Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Doug Cameron, to our Board of Directors," said Dr. Sean Simpson, Chief Scientist and Founder of LanzaTech.

Vinod Khosla commented, "technology to produce fuel ethanol from waste material, such as the carbon monoxide produced in steel manufacture and other industries, makes use of a low cost and plentiful point source carbon feedstock. The opportunity is a large one as carbon monoxide is a significant by-product of steel manufacture. LanzaTech has developed technology and a process to cost-effectively convert carbon monoxide into ethanol -- this ground breaking technology provides the tools to address the challenge of reducing emissions and turns waste into a valuable product, while developing new businesses based on innovative science."

technorati BIOwaste, bioenergy, biofuels, waste, emissions, smokestack

Small Town with a BIG green vision

Although located near the site of two famous Bull Run battles of the Civil War, the rural community of Warrenton, Virginia is not the kind of place you would normally expect to find revolutionary figures. Yet the town's mayor, George Fitch, envisions a future of green choice and self-reliance for his community by converting local waste and crops into bioenergy - ethanol for cars and green electricity for the grid. He may be one point of light that ignites the imagination and energy of thousands with a similar vision throughout the nation - and the world.

Apparently, someone on the U.S. Senate Energy Committee decided it was a perspective that needed closer inspection. At its Transportation Biofuels Conference on February 1, this small town mayor was a featured speaker along with representatives from Ford, Chevron, MIT, and the American Corn Growers Association.

An advocate of decentralized waste diversion into energy production Fitch's message is that local communities can be a major contributor to the goal of 20 billion gallons of renewable fuel. He said he has embarked on a plan for an integrated biorefinery at a landfill site which would produce 10 million gallons of ethanol and 8MW of electricity from a wide variety of wastes and residues.

“Most of the feedstocks would come from municipal solid wastes including construction debris which now are being buried at the landfill emitting greenhouse gases. This amounts to more than 100,000 tons annually of useable waste that can be converted into energy. The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from a biorefinery using wastes would be over 50%,” Mayor Fitch commented.

“We’ve estimated there are about 10,000 tons of forest residues, 5,000 to 20,000 tons of collectible agriculture residue and another 5,000 to 7,000 tons of sewer sludge and animal manures which could be used as feedstock for the plant. “I’ve been told there are more carbons in a 10 cent bushel of manure than a $4 bushel of corn.” the Mayor said.

“We don’t expect to get much of the agriculture residue at the beginning because it will take awhile to solve the infrastructure problem of efficiently harvesting, gathering, storing and transporting the corn stover Right now, it’s trial and error. We hope to involve John Deere which has developed a machine that allows just a single pass to pick up the grain and the residue at the same time. This would reduce the cost of corn stover to the biorefinery by at least $10 per ton.

He pointed out that the technology seems to have evolved so you can use a wide variety of biomass material to co produce ethanol and electricity at an integrated biorefinery. He added, “we are looking at three different gasification technologies from three different companies for our project.”

Mayor Fitch told the committee and audience, “there are a lot of communities like Warrenton across the country, certainly hundreds if not thousands, which could be self sufficient in renewable energy. Like Warrenton, they have a variety of biomass material right in their backyard. Collectively, that represents billions of gallons of ethanol or renewable diesel – and all of it made from waste and residues.”

“That is a major contribution, which I think has been overlooked, to the goal of 20 billion gallons of renewable fuel by the 2020. The focus seems to be on creating large scale biorefineries producing 50 to 100 million gallons a year by the ADM’s and Cargill’s of the world. Communities like mine are just as valuable. Perhaps more so because we can engage the people in our community to get behind our renewable energy initiative and be a stakeholder.”

Mayor Fitch added, the economics of small scale biorefineries now work. It used to be that you needed at least 3,000 to 5,000 tons of feedstock per day to be economical. Not any more. Our model shows that 300 to 500 tons per day will be profitable; provided it produces both ethanol and electricity.”

Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina told the audience, “Mr. Mayor, you have stimulated our thinking. We need to think about small scale biorefineries across the country using different types of wastes. He added, “decentralization of renewable energy would give our country more energy security.”

For more information, you can contact Mayor Fitch directly at: (540) 347-1101. He would appreciate supportive letters to the editor to a local newspaper article written about his plan. Address the letters to the author Cheryl Chumley.

technorati BIOblog, BIOwaste, bioenergy, biofuels, waste, pollution, urban, landfill, decentralization

PyroGenesis' BIOwaste Conversion Systems

When it comes to conversion systems some markets call for large scale solutions and other want to know how small you can go. Here are two systems that pack many features into a small footprint - small enough to fit on a ship.

PyroGenesis' Plasma Resource Recovery System (PRRS) uses a graphite arc plasma furnace to effect gasification of waste into syngas, a glass-like slag, and metal. The syngas can be used to fire boilers to generate electricity or as a fuel for combustion engines.

PyroGenesis also markets a cruise ship scaled Plasma Arc Waste Destruction System (PAWDS). With the US Navy requirements in mind, the PAWDS was designed to meet the following stringent criteria:
• Small system size and weight
• Ability to eliminate all combustible waste with minimal pre-treatment or segregation
• Quick start-up and shutdown (i.e. less than 10 minutes)
• Minimal labor requirements and high reliability
• Safe operation even under extreme weather conditions
• Compliance with existing and anticipated environmental regulations
• No visible plume

----------------
Plasma Resource Recovery System

Based on the expertise and experience gained in waste gasification and vitrification, PyroGenesis has developed the efficient 2 stage Plasma Resource Recovery System (PRRS) designed to uniquely treat a broad range of wastes, including industrial, hazardous and clinical wastes. Depending on the size and the composition of the waste stream, PRRS has the potential to be a net energy producer generating enough energy to not only operate the system but producing an excess which could be sold back to the grid. PRRS is scalable, fully automated and is targeted at processing between 0.5 to 100 TPD of waste (equivalent to approximately 150 to 30,000 tonnes per year). PRRS is significantly smaller when compared to similar capacity incinerators, produces no ash or dioxins and is a cost competitive alternative to conventional alternatives.

PRRS consists of four main processes: waste pre-treatment and feeding, plasma thermal treatment, synthesis gas cleaning and energy recovery.

Waste does not need to be pre-sorted and can be introduced into the PRRS graphite arc furnace in virtually any form (shredded material, sealed containers, liquids, sludges).

PRRS uses a graphite arc plasma furnace followed by a plasma-fired eductor to convert the organic fraction of waste into a soot-free synthesis gas (containing mostly carbon monoxide and hydrogen) and the inorganic fraction into a stable, inert slag which is a glass-like material that can be used as a construction material as well as a metal which can be recovered as an ingot.

The synthesis gas cleaning system is designed to remove any acid gases and capture any trace amounts of particulates or volatile heavy metals. The cleaned synthesis gas can then be used as a fuel in a boiler, an internal combustion gas engine or a gas turbine for the production of electricity, steam, and/or hot water.


technorati BIOblog, BIOwaste, bioenergy, biofuels, waste

MIT/PNNL Plasma Arc Waste-to-ethanol Solution

Plasma arc systems represent the very high heat end of the gasification technology scale generating temperatures at 1,000°C and above to vaporize feedstock into gaseous form. The hotter the fire, the broader the range of odious feedstocks that can be cleanly converted into syngas.

It generally takes about 160 megawatts per hour to feed the energy needs of the plasma arc from which can be derived about 600 megawatts of electricity.

An article about a MIT and Integrated Environmental Technologies collaboration to perfect and deploy the technology was recently written up in Technology Review magazine.

----------------
Liquid fuel from common trash: new technology converts municipal waste into ethanol

A new conversion technology takes organic items otherwise headed for the landfill and turns them into usable fuel. The double-punch effect of this technology comes from the fact that it vaporizes organic material, releasing a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which can be synthesized to create other gasses and chemicals. To be used as fuel, the synthesized gas would be converted to ethanol and methanol.

The originators of this technology are the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Batelle Pacific Northwest National Labs of Richland, Wash. The technology is now being commercialized by a spin-off of PNNL named Integrated Environmental Technologies, also from Richland, that already works in the waste-to-energy business.

One scientist told the magazine Technology Review that if this conversion process becomes widely available, it could reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil for fuel.

Daniel Cohn, a cofounder of IET and a senior research scientist at the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, told Technology Review that with the amount of municipal and industrial waste created in the United States, the new fuels could “replace as much as a quarter of the gasoline used in this country,” the magazine reported.

The process to create ethanol can be used not only for municipal waste, but also agricultural biomass waste. This means that it has the potential to create ethanol without relying on corn plants, which is a large part of how ethanol fuel is currently produced. By using municipal, industrial and agricultural waste instead of an agricultural crop, in theory it is a more reliable source of material.


technorati BIOblog, BIOwaste, bioenergy, biofuels, waste, pollution, urban

BIOwaste Energy as Explained on the Energy Kid's Page

The U.S. Department of Energy has an educational service operated by its Energy Information Agency. Since most adults are a lost cause, they have a spritely and simply written lesson site called the "Energy Kid's Page". If you are a science teacher of any age, you might want to direct your students to this reference site. If you want to bone up on how far educators will have to go to turn novices into decisionmakers you might also want to take a gander.

The Energy Kid's Page is, of course, hundreds of pages long. It contains energy facts, history, games, a glossary, and classroom activities. It also has a handy Energy Calculator with common units and conversions.

Here's a sample:
If you bury these items in a landfill, how long would it take them to decompose?
Diaper: 500-600 years,
Cotton Sock: 5-6 months,
Styrofoam Cup: 1 million years or more,
Glass Bottle: 1 million years or more,
Leather Belt: 40-50 years,
Wooden Block: 10-20 years,
Banana Peel: 3-4 weeks,
Paper Box: 1-2 months,
Plastic Bottle: 1 million years or more,
Aluminum Can: 200-500 years.

On the subject of Waste-to-Energy plants
Because of our limited exposure to waste-to-energy plants, we have some negative assumptions about the utility and harmful effects that could be possible. Turns out we are way behind the technological curve when it comes to our deployments of clean waste-to-energy facilities:

Many countries have built waste-to-energy plants to capture the energy in their trash. There are more than 600 waste-to-energy plants in 35 different countries. For example, the use of waste-to-energy plants in some European and Asian countries has grown, in part because they have little open space and few energy resources. The U.S. burns 14 percent of its trash in waste-to-energy plants. Denmark, on the other hand, burns 54 percent.

On the subject of Recycling

Some critics of waste-to-energy plants are afraid that burning waste will hamper recycling programs. If everyone sends their trash to a waste-to-energy plant, they say, there will be little incentive to recycle.

Recently, a study of cities that have both recycling programs and waste-to-energy plants showed higher recycling rates than other cities in the U.S. Why would these cities recycle more when they burn their trash? The results showed that people living in cities with waste-to-energy plants are more educated about municipal solid waste and strongly support their recycling programs.

So, while at first glance, recycling and waste-to-energy seem to be at odds, they can actually complement each other. That’s because it makes good sense to recycle some materials, and better sense to burn others.

It is all about the kids after all. They will inherit the legacy we leave them - and will probably pay for it as well. In the meantime, we need to educate them and ourselves if we are going to, in addition, leave a legacy of hope for their children.

------------------


technorati BIOblog, BIOwaste, bioenergy, biofuels, waste, pollution, urban, landfill, education