renewable energy

[Note: this article is written by long-time wood stove cheerleader, John Ackerly.  It's nice to see him admitting that his wood-burning dreams are about to be dashed by solar power.  Energy Justice does not support combustion sources for heating, since non-burn alternatives exist, and since there are many pollution and health problems relating to wood stoves.]

- John Ackerly, May 1, 2015, Biomass Magazine

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"471","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"302","style":"width: 333px; height: 210px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","title":"Photo: Industrytap.com","width":"480"}}]]Most of us have looked at the explosive growth of solar photovoltaic systems as just a parallel and complementary renewable energy technology.  Solar panels make kilowatts while wood and pellet stoves make Btus, right?  Wrong.

To stay relevant, the biomass heating industry needs to keep abreast of rapid advances in the solar industry. We also need to think of ways to integrate our technology with other renewables, and we need to explore how that integration can happen right away, because renewable energy policy decisions being made now will impact our industry in coming decades.

The solar industry has a vision, ambition and plan for rapid expansion that is largely absent in the wood and pellet stove community.  Pathways for rapid expansion of pellet technologies are being developed in Europe, but not in the U.S.  While solar advocates are focused on a wide range of financing options, regulatory frameworks, R&D, utility partnerships, the wood and pellet stove industry seems to put more effort into trying to maintain the status quo and fight against regulations. 

- by Chris Matera, Massachusetts Forest Watch 

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"468","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"346","style":"color: rgb(73, 73, 73); line-height: 20.671998977661133px; width: 425px; height: 306px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"480"}}]]Some people might call it a media failure that tree-fueled biomass energy, one of the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive forms of energy that exists, has a “clean” and “green” reputation with much of the public. 

It is not a media failure, it is a media success when we acknowledge that the mainstream media does not work for the public, or for uncovering the truth about matters of importance, and has devolved into nothing but paid distributors of misinformation used to benefit their corporate masters.   

That so many can be led to believe that a drastic increase in cutting and burning of forests is going to “lower” carbon emissions, and “help” the environment, in spite of indisputable, strong scientific evidence and common sense to the contrary, is a sad testimony to this malevolent power. 

This serious problem of media disinformation at the service of wealthy and powerful interests cuts across all issues of importance to the public. If called upon to do so by their paymasters, these "presstitutes" will diligently work to convince the public of anything, even that water runs uphill.  

With biomass energy, even the label "biomass" is indicative of the spin applied to most issues today. If the public were told they are going to be forced to subsidize a massive increase of cutting and burning of forests to “help” the environment, they would likely object. 

Instead they are sold industry funded, think tank created, focus group tested fuzzy labels like “biomass” and convinced that fact is fiction, and yet again, society marches off on the exact opposite path we need to be on, in order to do the bidding of a few self serving vested interests. 

In this case, the timber and energy industries, with the crucial support of the "presstitute" media, have snookered a well intentioned public into thinking they are sacrificing to help our environment, when in fact, under a “green” fog, they are literally paying the planet wreckers to increase cutting and burning of forests, which is just about the worst thing possible for global warming, air pollution and forest protection.

- by Mimi Lau, April 9, 2015, South China Morning Post

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"464","attributes":{"alt":"Chinese Incinerator Protest","class":"media-image","style":"width: 333px; height: 250px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","title":"Photo: SCMP pictures"}}]]A western Guangdong city has cancelled a plan to build an incinerator that prompted a protest - of up to 10,000 people on some accounts - during which three police cars were flipped and a duty office vandalised.

Luoding city government posted two letters on its website on Wednesday announcing the decision. One informed the Langtang township government that it had decided to cancel the project, which Langtang had brokered with China Resources Cement Holdings. The second urged residents to stop blocking roads, vandalising property or disturbing public order.

The decision came after residents of the town engaged in a defiant stand-off with police on Tuesday, in protest against what they said was the violent handling of a peaceful sit-in against the incinerator on Monday.

"People are angry with the site selection of the incinerator as it is within a 1km radius of people's homes," said one young resident. "The cement factory is producing enough pollution, we don't need another polluter."

- by Patrick O’Grady, April 15, 2015, Valley News

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"463","attributes":{"alt":"wheelabrator incinerator in claremont new hampshire","class":"media-image","style":"width: 333px; height: 197px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;"}}]]The shuttered Wheelabrator incinerator on Grissom Lane was sold at auction Tuesday for $1.63 million, with the buyer saying he plans to use it to burn municipal waste.

As several bidders stood outside the plant hoping to pick up pieces of equipment at a bargain price, auctioneer Stuart Millner explained that he would allow a bidder to buy everything, including about 9 acres of land.

Millner started the bidding at $1.5 million and Ed Deely — who said he was there on behalf of Hybrid Tech Farms — quickly raised it to the final price of $1.63 million. Other bidders who were not present at the site communicated with Millner by phone, but it was unclear how many there were.

The sale price was referred to as “restricted,” which Deely explained means there will be restrictions, agreed to with Wheelabrator, on the municipalities from which the company can accept solid waste. Late Tuesday, Deely said it is too early to predict when the sale would be finalized or when the plant would start burning trash.

- by Jacob Fischler, April 9, 2015, Law 360

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"462","attributes":{"alt":"department of the treasury","class":"media-image","height":"222","style":"width: 227px; height: 222px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"227"}}]]MeadWestvaco Virginia Corp. slapped the federal government with a $47 million suit in the Court of Federal Claims on Thursday, alleging the U.S. Department of Treasury underpaid the company for the construction of a biomass energy generator.

Under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the government was obligated to pay 30 percent of the qualified cost to MeadWestvaco of building an open-loop biomass energy facility at its Covington, Virginia, paper mill in 2013, or about $85.9 million, the company says.

But the government paid only about $38.9 million. Most of the power produced at the facility was sold to Virginia Electric & Power Co., but the government made the reduction on the grounds that the company was reusing some of the excess low-pressure steam from the biomass facility to heat the facility itself and the nearby paper mill, the company says.

MeadWestvaco argues it was actually being more efficient in its use of the low-pressure steam and said the government’s logic was completely off-base.

“The government's determination is so erroneous and uninformed that it is entitled to no deference and should be discarded completely,” the complaint says.

Because Section 1603 is a money-mandating statute, qualifying projects automatically earn reimbursement of 30 percent of their costs for the necessary parts of the projects, MeadWestvaco says. The total cost to the company of building the biomass facility was $291 million, with $286 million used on qualifying portions.

- by George Plaven, April 6, 2015, EO Media Group

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"451","attributes":{"alt":"boardman coal plant in oregon","class":"media-image","height":"317","style":"width: 333px; height: 220px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","title":"Photo: Wweek.com","width":"480"}}]]As a potential source of renewable energy, giant cane could be the answer to saving Portland General Electric’s coal-fired power plant in Boardman long after the facility quits using coal by 2020.

On the other hand, as an invasive species, giant cane could spread wild across the Columbia Basin, choking out native vegetation and undoing years of work by local tribes to restore river habitat.

A proposed bill in Salem attempts to strike a balance between the competing environmental interests. House Bill 2183 would require farmers who grow giant cane for biomass or other commercial uses to post a $1 million surety bond with the Oregon Invasive Species Council. The money would pay for costly eradication efforts, should the crop escape from the field.

- by Jenny Lancour, April 3, 2015, Escanaba Daily Press

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"447","attributes":{"alt":"Escanaba, Michigan coal plant","class":"media-image","style":"width: 333px; height: 228px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","title":"Photo: Escanaba Daily Press"}}]]Anyone wanting to express comments on a company's recent proposal to buy Escanaba's power plant can attend a public hearing next week at city hall, according to city officials.

A public hearing on a purchase proposal submitted by Sterling Energy Group, Inc. will be held during the joint meeting of council and the Electrical Advisory Committee beginning at 6 p.m. CDT Wednesday in council chambers.

Sterling Energy has offered to buy the coal-fueled power plant and equipment for $250,000 and plans to invest additional funds into the property to convert the facility to burn biomass.

The plant has been for sale for several years because it is less costly for the city to buy power compared to generating energy by burning coal. Escanaba has been buying power from a supplier for more than three years.

Council announced SEG's proposal last month but took no action pending next week's public hearing allowing citizen input on the matter.

SEG - headquartered in Gary, Ind. - buys coal-fired plants which no longer have a useful life and retrofits them into biomass-fueled facilities.

- by Jon Collins, March 31, 2015, Minnesota Public Radio

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"446","attributes":{"alt":"alfalfa grass biofuels","class":"media-image","style":"width: 333px; height: 221px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;"}}]]A bill to create a $5 million tax credit to advance the development of the biofuel industry in Minnesota is gaining traction at the state Legislature.

Newer technologies allow the use of plants like native prairie grasses or alfalfa for conversion ethanol.

The so-called advanced biofuel tax credit was initially opposed by environmentalists because the most common ingredient, corn, can be very polluting.

"It's a summer annual that is in the summer actively soaking up water and fertilizers, but in the spring or in the fall the land is basically bare, and that's when we get the heavy pollution," said Steve Morse, executive director of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership.

But environmentalists were won over by a compromise that requires that any new biofuel plants with state support include at least 50 percent perennials like alfalfa in the biofuel feedstock within five years. Morse said perennials lead to less runoff and pollution than corn production.