California's showdown over waste feedstocks

A showdown is looming in the California State Senate this summer over an issue that is at the heart of the nationwide drive to develop and deploy bioenergy conversion technologies.

In a state that prides itself on its landmark achievements in outlining Global Warming Solutions (AB 32), Bioenergy Action plans, and Low Carbon Fuel Standards, access to some of the most sustainable feedstocks for conversion to bioenergy is currently blocked by inexact statutory language and permitting regulations. As a result, municipalities and utilities are frustrated in their ability to exercise local authority over how they meet stringent waste diversion goals to reduce reliance on landfills for dumping post-recycled waste.

Post-recycled municipal solid waste is considered to be the most sustainable feedstock for biomass conversion into biofuels and biopower because, unconverted, this waste emits greenhouse gases while it decomposes. It is the only feedstock that has "negative" cost - receiving facilities receive per ton "tipping fees" that vary from region to region. Socially, it could provide good urban jobs that cannot be off-shored.

At the rate that municipal landfills are filling up and closing down, there is no time to wait. The state's largest landfill in Puente Hills, which services Los Angeles County, is scheduled to close in 2013. MSW currently disposed of there will instead be sent by train to a landfill 200 miles away!

Legendary former California State Senator (President Pro Tem) David Roberti and his Bioenergy Producers Association (BPA) is working overtime this month lining up support for passage of the bipartisan California Assembly Bill 222. With over 60 organizations supporting it (including municipalities, utilities, labor organizations, waste disposal facilities, and others) the bill was unanimously approved by the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee on April 27, 2009, and passed the State Assembly by a vote o 54-13 on Monday, June 1st. The Senate is expected to be a much more challenging battleground where, without support, the act might not get out of committee.

AB 222 proposes to update the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. It is one of those seemingly innocuous pieces of legislation that only a policy wonk could love, but it is extremely important because without its passage municipalities will continue to find it virtually impossible to permit and fund deployment of municipal solid waste conversion technologies around the state. In a Catch-22 they are penalized for not deploying solutions that achieve minimum state diversion targets..

If passed, deployment of such facilities could divert approximately 30 million tons of post-recyclables from landfills while producing biopower and biofuels in accord with state (AB 32) and national initiatives (EISA, the Farm Bill, and pending Waxman/Markey cap and trade bill) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The strongest opposition to the legislation is being coordinated by Californians Against Waste (CAW). They see the bill as a threat to their sizable influence over waste streams in California. The BPA acknowledges the contributions that CAW has made to reducing, reusing, and recycling MSW in the state but dispute the contention that this measure will set recycling back. Instead, they emphatically assert it will help expand recycling in the state.

To point out other discrepancies, BPA is currently distributing a document titled CAW Misrepresents Renewable Energy Bill (AB 222) throughout Sacramento itemizing CAW's objections ("myths") and countering them with the facts at the foundation of AB 222 as written. The document charges that "Californians Against Waste has repeatedly attempted to discredit or thwart legislative and regulatory initiatives that would make possible the production of advanced biofuels and green power from these resources."

At a common sense level, if society can't even agree that post-recyclables are qualified feedstock for conversion to alternative forms of energy then the likelihood of other feedstocks being qualified is virtually nil. It is time for legislators to put more authority back in the hands of municipal governments to meet their diversion goals and to determine what is and what is not safe and sustainable. Public and private industries will always have to meet stringent standards on emissions and pollution for any solutions they deploy.

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

Green Collar Workers for the Renewable Energy Economy

Perhaps the most overlooked issue for all sectors of the renewable energy paradigm is the availability of trained manpower. Maybe it should be the prime issue rather than a secondary one. It certainly will be once new technologies have emerged because widespread implementation and deployment will depend on the availability of a generation of new laborers for work that cannot be off-shored.

A leading advocate for the building this green collar workforce now is Van Jones, a legal scholar and an Oakland, California activist who has just received notification that his new book, The Green Collar Economy, has been listed on the NY Times Bestseller list. Any author would be thrilled but you get the feeling that it means more to him than better market exposure for the book. The book is, afterall, a means to an end. It is the cause that matters and Jones is nothing if not passionate about the cause.

What is the cause? The subtitle of the book is "How One Solution Can Solve Our Two Biggest Problems." The two problems are the fossil based economy and its impact on the economy. The "one solution" proffered by this book is the creation of new, meaningful green collar careers for the underemployed and often unskilled urban and rural workforce in America and other parts of the world.

Clearly, with a new administration headed to Washington (coupled with a clear Democratic majority in both houses) social policymaking and budget allocation is going to change. Add to that the threat of global economic collapse and the question isn't is the government going to address the needs of the middle class - it is how is it going to do it? Surely, this administration will attempt to get more Americans back to work.

Public works programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), not seen since the days of FDR, are already being forecast above the fold in major newspapers. The likely projects will involve not only energy production, but also energy efficiency and transportation infrastructure. That is good because new bioenergy projects in particular will be dependent on increased traffic of heavy vehicles on good roads.

This is what is making Van Jones' book so timely. He addresses the economic justice issue by advocating a new spirit of survival collaboration (Noah and the Ark) in place of counterproductive confrontation (David vs. Goliath). He presents numerous case studies that document different ways that community-based organizations are changing their landscape, employment picture, and can-do self image.

In the back of the book is a list of online resources for learning more and getting involved. Some of my favorites are ACORE, the Apollo Alliance, the Los Angeles Coservation Corps, Andy Lipkis' Tree People, and Majora Carter's inspirational Sustainable South Bronx.

Perhaps the most obvious choice for getting involved is the Green For All website - a sophisticated online resource for engaging stakeholders, advocating policy, and expanding public awareness of the need and potential for "Green Jobs Now!" It too is a means to an end, leveraging the power of the internet to coordinate events as well as defining the scope of the campaign.

What I see missing in the book is a comparable campaign for rural America. The forests, farms, and rangelands of the countryside will provide a host of opportunities for growth of meaningful green collar jobs. Who will run the new equipment, build and operate green power plants and biorefineries for an increasingly decentralized renewable energy paradigm? Unless we stop the leaching of jobs from our depressed rural cooperatives and enterprises, much of the existing infrastructure will need to be refinanced and rebuilt and new manpower trained to deploy regional solutions. These are issues that are part of the agenda of 25x'25 and many national industry associations.

----------------
technorati manpower, waste, pollution, urban, landfill, legislation

The Greening of American Business

Joel Makower comments on the opportunities and challenges presented by the green economy

For twenty years Joel Makower has been a prolific and insightful communicator about businesses and their role in developing environmentally sustainable practices. He has his own website and Two Steps Forward blog. Many recognize him for his frequent speaking engagements at Clean-tech, business, academic, and investment conferences throughout the country. In short, he is a multi-media "bridge-builder" - as high a compliment as I am accustomed to making.

Joel is co-founder and executive editor of Greener World Media, Inc., which produces GreenBiz.com and its sister sites, ClimateBiz.com, GreenerBuildings.com, and GreenerComputing.com. He also serves as a senior strategist at GreenOrder, a sustainability consultancy, as well as co-founder and principal of Clean Edge Inc., a research and publishing firm focusing on building markets for clean energy technologies.

Joel Makower is also the author of more than a dozen books, including his latest titled "Strategies for the Green Economy: Opportunities and Challenges in the New World of Business" which I found to be a very illuminating snapshot of the operational successes and marketing shortcomings of environmentally conscious American businesses in today's economy. Joel offers a constructive discourse on the way many businesses assess the challenges and address the opportunities of "going green."

To be sure, many business marketing campaigns, in a vain attempt to appear green, are "all hat and no cattle" - calling themselves green for marketing purposes without any substantial impact on their environmental footprint. But Joel is fair in assessing which are making sincere attempts and he cites many examples that help define and illustrate what truly contributing to environmental sustainability is all about.

One of my favorite chapters is titled "You Gotta have CRED" - an acronym for Credibility | Relevance | Effective Messaging | Differentiation. Created by GreenOrder, a business strategy firm that he is affiliated with, CRED is the framework for crafting green strategies and messaging that work. He explains what and how necessary each element is and then simply concludes "Bottom line: You can start anywhere. The important thing is to cover all the bases."


Another chapter with particular relevance to my BIOwaste and BIOstock Blogs is titled "A Tale of Two Circles" which has pie charts I hadn't seen paired before (see my rendition above). It not only shows the total (.2 billion tons per year) and breakdown of municipal solid waste in the U.S. but also shows it to be a minor component of total trash in the country that comes from industrial waste.

In a recent post on his blog, Waste is a Profitable Thing to Mind he summarizes the import of the graphic:

The annual 13 billion tons of Gross National Trash is a costly burden on the environment, not to mention the companies that create these wastes and have to responsibly dispose of them. And it represents a vast untapped business opportunity for Waste Management and the world's other haulers and recyclers to find new ways to create value from these waste streams, or to eliminate them in the first place.

One of the true benefits of the new push for bioenergy would be the development of technologies that can efficiently clean up and tap the energy contained in the organic content of these waste streams.

Another important question that he addresses in the book is "Is green business a fad or a trend?" He then gives ten reasons why he thinks it is an enduring issue for businesses for years to come. Among them are: 1 - The problems aren't getting any better, 2 - The environment has become a fiduciary issue, 3 - Companies are moving beyond "sustainability" and 4 - There's money to be made.

Read the book to learn about these topics and others relevant to issues covered in the BIOenergy BlogRing.

You can hear Joel Makower interviewed for a NewPage OnPaper podcast recorded October 1st at the SustainCommWorld Live after his keynote speech.

----------------
technorati BIOblog, BIOwaste, bioenergy, biofuels, waste, urban, legislation

Capturing energy from unrecycleable waste

Implementing new technologies to solve chronic problems is hard work. A generation filled with expectations of instant gratification is sure to be frustrated by the seemingly slow pace of change to correct obvious environmental challenges.

Take recycling for example. In the last twenty years we have made great strides to reduce, reuse and recycle trash from our waste streams as we hover around 50% diversion from landfills throughout major portions of California. And yet, with the simultaneous growth of volume of trash, we seem unable to reduce beyond that threshold.

Beginning in 2004 the County of Los Angeles engaged in a program to take a major leap forward in reducing the accumulation of seemingly unrecycleable waste that ends up going from county material recovery facilities (MRFs) to landfills. Their vision is to deploy emerging conversion technologies at the MRF that can cleanly reduce trash volume by as much as 85% without emitting toxins or greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. As a substantial bonus, renewable bioenergy could be captured through the generation of green electricity and/or biofuels - depending on which specific technology is chosen.

A team of seasoned experts have just issued an evaluation report of their progress to date. Titled the Los Angeles County Conversion Technology Evaluation Report: Phase II - Assessment it details the thorough screening and evaluation of technologies from throughout the world - Israel, Japan, Europe, and the United States - that are competing for deployment at one of the county's best suited MRFs.

In recognition of the public's interest in the program's operations and environmental sustainability, public outreach programs and state regulatory reform efforts are already underway. A decision on the final site and technology to be funded will be made in early 2008. In view of the environmental costs of doing nothing and the painstaking efforts the Department of Public Works and allied agencies are making to deploy a solution that is in the best interest of all stakeholders, the decision by the parties involved in this effort is certain to be one that deserves public support.

Below is the latest (October 31, 2007) press release on the report.

------------------------------
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RELEASES FINDINGS ON NEW ALTERNATIVES TO LANDFILLS
County report finds viable conversion technologies to tackle Southern California's looming trash problem

Los Angeles - 36,000 tons per day! That's how much trash is deposited into landfills on a daily basis from Los Angeles County. Within a few short years, many of those landfills will be reaching capacity. This includes the Puente Hills Landfill, currently the largest operating landfill in the United States, which will close in 2013. That leaves Los Angeles with one very large problem.

After years of exhaustive research and evaluation of conversion technology facilities from around the world, the County of Los Angeles has announced the official release of a report summarizing its findings and outlining the next steps in its conversion technology program. In the next year, the County will select one or more projects to be among the first commercial-scale demonstration facilities in the United States, laying the groundwork for a fundamental shift in how the region deals with its garbage.

"Los Angeles County is promoting cutting edge technologies that have been proven effective in Japan, Israel and Europe. Trash doesn't have to be a problem, it can be a resource for clean energy and other marketable products," stated Paul Alva, chair of the County's Alternative Technology Advisory Subcommittee.

Conversion technologies encompass a variety of advanced processes that convert normal household trash into renewable energy, biofuels and useful products. These technologies provide an alternative to landfills by offering a clean and safe way to turn residual trash (which cannot be recycled economically) into a valuable resource.

"Through first hand evaluations of operational facilities in Europe, Israel, and Japan, we have found that conversion technologies are viable and environmentally friendly means of managing our solid waste," said Alva. "These technologies offer real solutions to California's waste and energy crises."

The report identifies four viable technologies that are capable of managing Southern California's residual waste in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner. In addition, the report identifies four recycling facilities where a conversion technology facility could be co-located. The County will request that these "short-listed" technology developers and recycling facilities form partnerships and submit formal proposals to be among the first commercial-scale conversion technology demonstration facilities in the United States. Early next year, a competitive bid process will determine which project will receive the County's support. A final decision will be announced by mid-2008.

The technology finalists are: Arrow Ecology (anaerobic digestion); International Environmental Solutions (pyrolysis); Interstate Waste Technologies (gasification); and Ntech Environmental (gasification). The site finalists are: Del Norte Regional Recycling and Transfer Station (Oxnard); Perris MRF/Transfer Station (Perris); Rainbow Disposal (Huntington Beach); and Robert A. Nelson Transfer Station and MRF (Rubidoux).

In conjunction with the report's release, the County has launched a new and improved conversion technology Web site. The www.SoCalConversion.org.

The mission of the Southern California Conversion Technology Demonstration Project is to evaluate and promote the most promising conversion technologies from around the globe, and work with communities throughout the region to develop demonstration facilities that showcase the technical, economic and environmental viability and benefits of conversion technologies.

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

Hurdles to Waste Conversion Technologies

At the 23rd Annual BioCycle West Coast Conference in San Diego April 16th, 2007, Coby Skye of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LA/DPW) gave a presentation about the hurdles waste conversion technologies (CTs) face in Southern California.

Coby leads a group within the Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force (SWMC) that has been given the responsibility of recommending a CT for construction of a demonstration facility in Los Angeles that would be co-located with a materials recovery facility (MRF). The objective is to provide a first step toward significant diversion of otherwise un-recyclable waste from landfill to conversion into biofuels, green electricity, and bioproducts. Among the five technologies under review are Arrow Ecology (anaerobic digestion), Interstate Waste Technologies (pyrolysis/gasification), Changing World Technologies (thermal depolymerization), International Environmental Solutions (pyrolysis), and Ntech Environmental (gasification).

During his presentation, Coby cited many of the hurdles that the LA/DPW expects to face aside from the substantial technological ones.

The three main that we have been facing, especially in California, are Cost, Regulatory Hurdles, and Misconceptions.

Cost is an issue because landfill disposal in California is relatively cheap. We still have landfills within Los Angeles County that charge $25 or so per ton. It is very difficult for a new technology that doesn’t have the infrastructure to compete. That’s definitely going to change as we move forward. We are disposing in farther locations. There’s going to be more regulations on landfills due to AB32 (California’s Global Warming Solutions legislation) and other laws relating to environmental controls to limit greenhouse gas emissions. So we are going to see costs, probably within a decade, going toward the $75-$100/ton range. The technologies we are looking at would fall between the $50-$75 per ton range. You can see how the changes in the economy and the markets will come very quickly.

The Regulatory Hurdles [suffer] from not having any kind of framework. We are looking at our demonstration project as we are moving forward and we are not sure which permits will be required or how they will be processed. There is no “check box” for us [indicating allowable technologies] when we are trying to permit these. As a government agency we want to make sure that we go through every requirement and meet or exceed every environmental regulation so it is especially a challenge for us when we have regulations that don’t exist for the facility that we want to develop or that are unrealistic - for example, the zero air emissions requirement that is currently a statute.

The third challenge is Misconceptions. There are environmental groups that perceive all of these technologies or some of them as the same as incineration. We want to make sure that the public that is going to be most impacted by these facilities understand what they really are and [we want to know] what their concerns might be so we can address these concerns as early on in the process as possible. That is why Los Angeles County has a public outreach component specifically for relating with the public and for accurately getting the word out about conversion technologies.

Tens of millions of dollars are being invested in an effort to face the future squarely now, to begin a process to mitigate the challenges posed by growing trash demands, shrinking landfills, greenhouse gas emissions, and the need for renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels. The efforts of the LA/DPW to surmount these hurdles are commendable.

However, it is imperative that the public outreach program succeed in painting an accurate assessment of the looming dangers of the status quo and the necessity of allowing the utilities to deploy new clean technologies in their neighborhoods. It is imperative that the CA state legislature enact regulatory reform that will enable practical, expensive developments such as this LA/DPW demonstration project to proceed.

So far these efforts have been derailed by the political power of well-meaning but mis-directed "environmental" groups who are stubbornly misinformed about the difference between incineration and gasification. The costs of delay and of doing nothing far outweigh the perceived dangers of deployment, especially given the strict oversight of the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).

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

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