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

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

California reform needed to spur investment in conversion technologies

Californians interested in supporting the clean conversion of post-recyclable waste streams into biopower and biofuels need to help support regulatory reform in Sacramento right now.

California is the crucible for this issue because of its proud history for diverting municipal solid waste (MSW) from landfills through reduction, reuse, and recycling. However there still remains some 40 million tons of post-recycled waste that fails diversion and ends up in a landfill. Why? Because the only conversion technology municipalities are allowed to receive diversion credit for is composting. However, there isn't sufficient market for compost (imagine saying that about affordable biopower or biofuels!). Excess compost gets spread onto landfills as alternate daily cover - so there is no true diversion.

A policy I advocate on this blog would allow municipalities to help meet their diversion requirements using their post-recycled waste as feedstock processed by new clean conversion technologies to create thousands of megawatts of green power and millions of gallons of biofuels.

It is incredible that, in a carbon sensitive world, there would be any opposition to such a sensible, regulated policy - but there is. That's why it is critical that new legislation, AB 222, which came out of the Assembly Rules Committee this past week, receive documented public support when the Utilities & Commerce Committee considers it at a scheduled hearing on April 27th. Late letters can still be important for when the fill ultimately reaches the Senate for a vote.

AB 222 will allow low emission thermal conversion technologies to make biofuels and bioenergy out of this waste. Antiquated regulatory definitions virtually prohibit the deployment of even demonstration size facilities for providing proof of concept and required emissions verification. Without the legislative reforms contained in AB 222, no state municipalities dare build conversion technologies to meet diversion requirements.

Below is an appeal for your written support to enable this legislation to reach the Assembly and then the Senate floor for a vote. Please follow the instructions for submitting a letter of support and fax it in today.

---------------
Letter from the Bioenergy Producers Association
From Chairman of the Board Jim Stewart

The BioEnergy Producers Association is pursuing legislation to expedite the permitting and implementation of conversion technologies for the production of renewable energy from the state's organic waste streams.

The legislation creates a new category in statute for a "biorefinery," which is broadly defined as a facility that uses "non-combustion thermal, chemical, biological and/or mechanical processes to produce renewable fuels, chemicals and electricity from any carbonaceous materials.

It will remove from statute a scientifically inaccurate definition of "gasification," which requires zero oxygen in the process and zero emissions from the entire facility, a standard required of no other manufacturing process in the state.

The bill, AB 222, has been moving forward very quickly. It came out of the Assembly Rules Committee this past week and was referred to the Utilities & Commerce Committee, which has scheduled a hearing on April 27th.

Its co-authors, Fiona Ma and Anthony Adams have asked for letters of support, and these letters need to be faxed to the Utilities & Commerce Committee before 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 21st in order to be acknowledged and listed on the Committee's staff report.

We would be pleased if you could submit such a letter. It should be addressed to Assembly Member Felipe Fuentes, Chair, Utilities and Commerce Committe and faxed to Edward Randolph (the Committee staff member who is preparing the analysis of the bill). The fax number is (916) 319-3899. I am attaching a copy of AB 222 and a bill summary, should you need it for reference. We have a comprehensive web site which you may find of interest, www.bioenergyproducers.org.

Many thanks.
Jim Stewart
Bioenergy Producers Association
Chairman of the Board
323-650-5095

----------------------------
Passage of the bill will:

• Expand the beneficial use of California’s waste streams, and in so doing, stimulate economic investment and provide high level green collar manufacturing jobs here at home, rather than exporting materials to the Far East, India and Nigeria, where essentially no environmental standards exist.

• Significantly reduce the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels and assist the State in reaching its AB 32 GHG reduction goals;

• Reduce statewide dependence on landfills and their associated methane production and waste transport costs;

• Provide alternatives to the open-field burning of agricultural residues and the agricultural land-spreading of biosolids;

• Promote energy independence and national security by enabling the in-state production of advanced biofuels, rather than importing petroleum from the Middle East or ethanol from the Midwest (one billion gallons in 2008);

• Reduce by up to 90% CO2 emissions from automobiles as compared to an energy-equivalent amount of gasoline,

• Help California achieve the goals of its Renewable Portfolio Standard, Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Bioenergy Action Plan.

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, waste, urban, 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

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