Biomass


From a media release posted on Marketwire.com:

DE FOREST, WISCONSIN–(Marketwire - Oct. 7, 2008) - Sanimax and StormFisher Biogas announced today a strategic alliance to build eight biogas plants, for a total investment of over $160 million. These plants will transform organic by-products from the food processing industry, restaurants and institutions like schools into renewable energy and organic fertilizer. Once operational, these eight plants will offset the carbon dioxide equivalent of 120,000 tonnes and divert half a million tonnes of organic by-products every year, creating enough energy to power 20,000 homes.

Biogas plants naturally decompose matter into nutrient-rich solids and liquids-which can be used to help grow agricultural crops and residential gardens-and into methane, a biological replacement for natural gas. These eight biogas plants are not energy intensive and do not use crops as feedstock, instead transforming by-products from food services, the meat and vegetable processing industries, bakeries and dairies into energy.

Effective immediately, the two companies will jointly pursue partnerships with major food processing companies to source this material for its plants, which will be located in the Great Lakes region. The first plant will be located at a site yet to be determined in Wisconsin and will process materials from Sanimax’s De Forest facility, among others. “This alliance completely aligns with what Sanimax has been doing since the 1800s: extending the food supply chain by transforming waste into high demand goods and sustainable energy,” states Sanimax’s Vice-President of Energy, Jeremy Goodfellow, “and the positive environmental impact of this venture is significant.”

A reminder from the Midwest Renewable Energy Association (MREA):

Wisconsin - - Home and business owners around the state are sharing their secret: renewable energy is technology for today! The public is invited to see renewable energy up close during the 2008 Wisconsin Solar Tour, October 3 and 4.

The tour features over 150 sites around the state that are open to the public for free tours. Sites will showcase advances in energy efficient construction, new products, sustainable landscaping and renewable energy technologies.

“The tour demonstrates that renewable energy is practical, reliable and affordable in today’s economy,” said Amy Heart, Programs Director for the Midwest Renewable energy Association (MREA). The MREA organizes the yearly tour. “You have the chance to talk with those who live and work with renewable energy and green building features,” said Heart.

Business tour sites will be open Friday, October 3 from 10 am – 4 pm. Home tour sites are open Saturday, October 4 from 10 am – 4 pm. For a complete list of sites visit www.the-mrea.org or call 715-592-6595 to have a guide mailed to you.

The best way to see these homes and businesses is through a guided bus tour. Guided bus tours will take place in Green Bay, Madison, Milwaukee, Stevens Point and Ashland. Sign up online at www.the-mrea.org or call 715-592-6595.

The Wisconsin Solar Tour is sponsored by the Midwest Renewable Energy Association and Focus on Energy (focusonenergy.com). The Midwest Renewable Energy Association is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting a sustainable future through renewable energy. For a complete listing of tour sites or to sign up for a guided bus tour please contact MREA: info@the-mrea.org, 715-592-6595, or visit www.the-mrea.org.

RENEW’s Executive Director wrote the following response to a post by “Greenie” on a local forum:

Forumite Greenie writes: “The biggest problem with the federal production tax credit for renewable energy is that it only covers wind and solar. In the state of Wisconsin where our wind resource is low, the production tax credit is what’s driving wind developers to put turbines where they don’t belong.”

Inaccuracies abound in that statement. One, the federal production tax credit covers wind and closed-loop biomass and biogas from livestock manure. Two, it does not cover solar. There is a 30% investment tax credit specific to most solar energy systems (not solar pool heaters). Three, the wind resource in Wisconsin is pretty good in certain locations, like along the Niagara Escarpment. At the two recently completed wind projects—Blue Sky Green Field and Forward—capacity factors should average 30%. The same should be true of the two wind projects under construction, Cedar Ridge and Butler Ridge. Fourth, the tax credit is based on output. The greater the amount of kilowatt-hours produced at a particular site, the greater the value of the tax credits. Furthermore, the tax credits are good for 10 years. After that, the turbines on their own, Since they are built to last 25 to 30 years, there had better be a decent resource where they are located, which is the case with every wind turbine operating in Wisconsin

Greenie continues: “They [manure digesters] would take nitrates out of the water, help farmers with their high electrical bills and provide power to the surrounding community. The Crave Brothers who produce excellent cheese on their farm put in a manure digester that not only took care of their $6,000 a month electrical bill, but also supplies electricity to the 126 homes around them. The nitrates no longer go into the ground water. They’re left with very clean compost material which can be used for many things. So why won’t they get any production tax credit money?”

Not only are manure digesters eligible for the federal production tax credit, they are also eligible for State of Wisconsin financial incentives through the Focus on Energy program. A manure-to-methane electric generation system can receive up to $250,000 in financial support from Wisconsin utility ratepayers. Generally, these incentives account for 10% to 25% of the installed cost of these systems, depending on their size.

RENEW Wisconsin strongly supports generating electricity or renewable natural gas from livestock manure. In several rate cases, RENEW argued that the utility should provide a higher buyback rate for manure-to-methane electric generation system. Several utilities have raised their buyback rates, though they still fall short of what is needed to cover installation costs. Having said that, Wisconsin has more livestock biogas generation systems than any other state. And several companies that are active in this market, including Clear Horizons, the company that installed the system at the Crave Brothers farm, are RENEW members,

More from Greenie: “For Wisconsin, industrial scale wind farms will always depend on coal burning power plants to operate.”

This is simply false. As any utility grid operator can confirm, a new wind farm does not need new baseload capacity to back it up. There is an abundant amount of reserve generating capacity in Wisconsin to absorb many new windpower installations.

Greenie again: “The production tax credit makes it so developers turn profit on inefficient and inappropriately sited turbines which are destroying so many Wisconsin communities.”

Name one Wisconsin community that has been “destroyed” by wind turbines.

We Energies, which owns the 88-turbine Blue Sky Green Field installation, is hosting an open house this Saturday. At the open house you’ll have the opportunity to see and hear the turbines with your own sensory apparatus. While you’re in that part of Fond du Lac County, ask the locals for their opinion of the installation. You’ll discover that the project is quite popular with Marshfield and Calumet township residents.

Greenie’s on a roll: “ If you feel like looking deeper into this if you follow the roots of the wind industry, state mandates for renewable energy standards (almost all of it going to WIND) the production tax credit (almost all of it going to wind) and the green credits (Wind again) you’ll end up at ENRON — once one of the biggest wind developers in the country.”

There is a simple reason why wind has become the dominant resource among renewable resources—it’s the only one that can produce power in bulk. Let’s compare the scalability of wind with dairy cattle manure. A Vestas V-82 turbine at Blue Sky Green Field has a capacity of 1.65 MW and will average about 4 million kWh/year (probably more), which is 28% of its rated capacity. How many cows does it take to produce the same amount of energy? Biogas producers agree that the energy value of dairy cow manure equates to 0.2 kW. It takes five cows to constitute one kW of generating capacity, 5,000 cows to constitute 1 MW. If you take the manure from one cow and put it into a digester/generation system that operates 90% of the time, it will produce an average of 1,577 kWh/year. Divide four million into that number and you’ll see that it takes 2,536 dairy cows to produce the same amount of energy as one commercial wind turbine. There are perhaps a dozen dairy operations in Wisconsin that have 2,500 cows, as compared with the 88 wind turbines at the 10,000-acre Blue Sky Green Field project, which should produce about 350,000,000 kWh/year. By my calculations, one would need 223,168 dairy cows to produce enough livestock manure to equal the output from Blue Sky Green Field. To put number that in perspective, we’re talking about nearly 20% of the state’s entire population of dairy cows (currently estimated at 1,252,000, according to the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board [www.wisdairy.com]), all located in specialized dairy operations where their manure is captured and fed into anaerobic digesters.

How many residential solar electric systems is needed to produce 4,000,000 kWh. About 1,700.

By the way, Enron’s wind division was one of the few divisions in the company that generated a profit, which is why GE bought it after Enron filed for bankruptcy.

Greenie closes with this gem: “Why do lobbying groups like Renew Wisconsin carry the flag for wind and almost nothing else? Where is their money coming from?”

In addition to the wind industry, RENEW Wisconsin advocates on behalf of solar energy (electric and hot water), hydro, biomass, and biogas. We do this in many forums: at the Public Service Commission, at the State Legislature, in schools and at numerous county board and town hall meetings. We count among our members such companies as North American Hydro, H&H Solar, Full Spectrum Solar, GHD, Inc., Pieper Power, Lake Michigan Wind and Sun, and Lake Breeze Dairy. Our 330 members contribute about 20% of our revenues in a typical year. The other 80% of our funding comes from foundation grants and Focus on Energy work.

Allow me to ask a question of you, Greenie: Where do you get your misinformation from?

Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin

An editorial from the Wisconsin State Journal:

America’s effort to develop cleaner, more sustainable energy sources is threatened by the looming expiration of federal tax credits that boost renewable energy production and use.

Congress should respond this month by extending and enhancing the credits, which encourage investment in solar, wind, biomass and other renewable power sources.

A significant risk exists that at the end of this year Congress will let credits worth $500 million a year lapse, as it did three previous times. In those cases, investment in renewables fell dramatically before Congress revived the credits. Investment in wind power production, for example, fell 93 percent following the expiration of tax credits in 2000.

This year the vast majority in Congress supports extending the credits, available to homeowners, businesses and investors for buying equipment to use or produce renewable energy. But legislation extending and improving the credits is stalled by a dispute over what to do about the impact on the federal budget deficit.

The credits are part of a larger package of tax breaks scheduled to expire at the end of the year. Extending the breaks would cost the treasury $50 billion over 10 years.

Plans call for Congress to offset the lost revenue by raising fees or taxes or by cutting other programs.

Many senators and representatives are balking at the offsets.

Congress deserves praise for making sure the credits do not exacerbate the already-enormous budget deficits. But its members should also recognize the value the renewable energy tax credits have to an economy weighed down by the high cost of fossil fuels and to an environment threatened by pollution from burning fossil fuels.

With Congress scheduled to adjourn for the year at the end of this month, it’s time for its members to compromise on a package of tax credits that can be offset with reasonable fee or tax increases and program cuts.

Wisconsin has much at stake. The state has great potential to become a national leader in renewable energy.

Tax credits spur the industry by making it more cost-effective to invest in equipment to use renewable energy in homes or businesses. The credits also make it more cost-effective to invest in starting or expanding renewable energy production plants.

Allowing the credits to expire would be a setback with costly consequences.

Wisconsin’s congressional delegation should help engineer a resolution that extends the credits without enlarging the budget deficit.

The American Wind Energy Association makes it easy to contact your U.S. representatives and senators, through a page dedicated to urging members of Congress to act.

Michael Vickerman submitted testimony on behalf of RENEW Wisconsin in the proceeding of the Public Service Commission on Alliant’s proposed generation plant near Cassville:

In my testimony I will survey the windpower prospects under development by independent power producers (IPP’s) in the parts of Wisconsin served by WPL. This information will include an estimate of their annual production (in the aggregate) as well as the current permitting and interconnection status for each prospect. The second half of my testimony outlines RENEW’s concerns with WPL’s proposal to co-fire biomass at Nelson Dewey 3 [proposed Cassville plant] . . . .

From the testmiony submitted by Michael Vickerman on behalf of RENEW Wisconsin:


In my testimony I will survey the windpower prospects under development by independent power producers (IPP’s) in the parts of Wisconsin served by WPL. This information will include an estimate of their annual production (in the aggregate) as well as the current permitting and interconnection status for each prospect. The second half of my testimony outlines RENEW’s concerns with WPL’s proposal to co-fire biomass at Nelson Dewey 3 [proposed Cassville plant] . . . .

There are seven IPP-owned wind prospects under development. All range in generating capacity from 50 MW to 100 MW, totaling 609 MW altogether. . . .

RENEW’s reservations about WPL’s stated plans to co-fire biomass at NED3 flow from the specifics of the proposal. RENEW strongly supports using biomass for space and process heating. RENEW also supports generating electricity from dedicated biomass facilities that are considerably smaller than a new baseload facility.

One reservation we have this proposal is the idea of marrying a low-grade biomass fuel to a very expensive new power station with a capacity cost of about $4,000/kW. There are less expensive avenues for acquiring renewable energy, such as windpower, that have lower capital costs and zero fuel costs. There are also less expensive venues for burning biomass for electricity, such as the soon-to-be-retrofitted E. J. Stoneman plant or Xcel’s Bay Front 3 unit. Unlike building a new 300 MW coal plant, retrofitting those power stations to burn biomass fuel won’t require a capital investment in excess of $1 billion. It is a far more efficient use of ratepayer dollars to wed biomass fuel with smaller power stations (<50 MW) than with a larger and very expensive brand-new power plant. With smaller power plants, it is possible to configure them as dedicated biomass generating units. This is not possible with a 300 MW facility.

RENEW’s second reservation is triggered by the configuration of NED3. WPL’s selection of a circulating fluidized bed combustion boiler creates an opportunity to co-fire biomass energy sources at NED3. WPL’s plans, however, call for the biomass fuel to supplement the coal being fed into the boiler, which could easily be fueled with 100% coal. There is nothing about the boiler design that is dedicated specifically to biomass generation. Coal is the mainstay in this configuration, while biomass is simply an opportunity fuel to be used when available. The possibility of being unable to acquire enough biomass fuel for co-firing will not in any way hinder the operation of NED3, because there will always be enough coal on hand to operate the plant at its full rated capacity. Also, because the biomass portion of the plant’s output can vary, depending on how much biomass fuel is available, there is no possible way to predict how many renewable kilowatt-hours will be produced at the plant. Depending on NED’s variable biomass output to help satisfy in-state renewable energy requirements introduces a level of risk that can be avoided by relying on other renewable generation strategies.

Our third reservation stems from WPL’s need to lock up significant supplies of fuel sources of wood and energy at a lower cost than what the same resources would fetch in other markets, especially the biomass thermal market. As a general proposition, burning biomass in an electricity-only facility is a low-value use for a resource that can deliver substantially more energy to an end-user in the form of space and process heat. If biomass is burned at NED3, two-thirds of the energy value of the fuel, be it wood, agricultural residues, or switchgrass, is discharged into the atmosphere. In contrast, a modern wood-fired heating system serving a forest products company can convert 65% of the energy embedded in the fuelwood to useful heat. The higher the conversion factor of a particular energy application, the greater the energy return, which generally translates into a higher economic return. Thermal market participants are well-positioned to pay top dollar for the fuel they use, because they receive an energy return that is double what the same fuel yields when burned in a biomass electric facility. Because NED3 will, if approved, have a low thermal efficiency, WPL would be at a disadvantage if forced to match the prevailing biomass fuel price set by thermal market participants in order to secure upwards of 300,000 tons of biomass a year. . . .

Clean Wisconsin and the Citizens Utility Board filed testimony with the PSC further questioning the proposed plant, according to a story by Rick Barrett in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

From a story posted on the Web site of The Business Journal of Milwaukee:

The three owners of the Elm Road Generating Station in Oak Creek will pay $105 million over a 25-year period for Lake Michigan protection projects to end a three- year legal battle over the water intake structure at the power plant, Clean Wisconsin and the Sierra Club said Wednesday.

Clean Wisconsin and the Sierra Club filed suit after the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources issued a permit allowing the use of a once-through cooling system at the coal-fired power plant. The organizations claimed that once-through cooling did not represent the best available technology for cooling the plant and thus should not be permitted.

Under the settlement, the three utilities that own the generating station — We Energies of Milwaukee, Madison Gas & Electric of Madison and Wisconsin Public Power Inc. of Sun Prairie — agreed to the following:

- Funding $4 million per year from 2010 through 2035 for projects to address water quality issues in Lake Michigan such as invasive species, polluted runoff, toxic loadings, and habitat destruction;

- Purchase or construct 15 megawatts of solar generation by Jan. 1, 2015; and

- Support legislative efforts to establish a renewable energy portfolio standard of 10 percent by 2013 and 25 percent by 2025.

We Energies will also retire two coal-fired units in Presque Isle, Michigan and ask the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin for approval to construct 50 megawatts of 100 percent biomass-fueled power in Wisconsin.

In a media release, Mark Redsten, Exeuctive Director, of Clean Wisconsin said:

“We’re happy to have reached an agreement that has significant benefits for both the lake and the fight against global warming. These environmental protections help ensure Lake Michigan is a healthy natural resource for generations to come.”

From a separate release from the Sierra Club:


“In the long run, this agreement will result in dramatic improvements to the overall health of Lake Michigan and will contribute to the development of renewable energy sources such as solar and biomass,” said Jennifer Feyerherm, Wisconsin Clean Energy Campaign Director.

“It will help us address two of the most critical issues of our time—climate change and protection of one of the world’s greatest freshwater natural resources.”

From an article by Judy Newman in the Wisconsin State Journal:

Wisconsin Power & Light ’s proposal to build a coal- and biomass-fired power plant at Cassville would not be the least expensive option or the least polluting way to meet the Madison utility ’s electricity needs, and it could disrupt an eagle-nesting area, mussels habitat and a culturally significant site, a state report shows.

But the final environmental impact statement on the proposal, made public Tuesday, does not recommend for or against the plans for a 300-megawatt power plant.

In fact, there are few changes from a draft report issued in May, even though WPL announced in June that if state regulators OK the proposal, it will use wood and grasses for 20 percent of the plant ’s fuel, up from 10 percent, will close an aging coal-fired plant near Sheboygan and boost its wind power production.

Those amendments came in too late to be analyzed for the environmental report by staff of the state Public Service Commission, Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

“We ‘re still evaluating some of that, ” PSC spokesman Timothy Le Monds said.

From an article by Paul Snyder in The Daily Reporter:

Wisconsin Power & Light Co. is lining up candidates to deliver biomass fuel to a plant expansion it doesn’t yet have approval to build.

The company, a subsidiary of Alliant Energy Corp., announced it selected five Wisconsin companies as candidates for a supply chain for the expansion of the Nelson Dewey Generating Facility in Cassville.

Alliant spokesman Rob Crain said the field of five candidates includes Premier Cooperative, Mt. Horeb; Midwest Forest Products/InDeck Energy Services Inc., Hayward; Bioenergy Products LLC, Lancaster; Futurewood, Hayward; and Marathon-based Marth Wood Shaving Supply Inc. He said the field will be narrowed to one or two companies later this year.

But that’s only if the project gets approval from the state, said Mark Redsten, executive director of Clean Wisconsin Inc., a nonprofit environmental group opposing the expansion.

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin is reviewing the expansion proposal and must issue its decision by Dec. 15.

Although Alliant promised 20 percent of the plant’s generation will come from renewable sources, the fact the plant would be predominantly coal-fired garnered continuing opposition from groups such as Clean Wisconsin and the Sierra Club.

Most of Alliant’s recent press releases about the project, which is estimated between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion, highlight the company’s commitment to renewable energy.

Redsten said he’s still not buying it.

“We’ve been hitting them hard,” he said. “I wonder if this announcement (about biomass suppliers) is just an attempt to make the project seem more palatable.”

From Cows to Crops
Thursday, July 31st
10:30 am – 11:30 am
Room 300 SE, Wisconsin State Capitol
and
1 – 2:30 pm, Room 411, DATCP, Madison, Wisconsin

Summary: High food and crop prices are straining farmer and consumers. But this briefing will explore an innovative approach to use dairy manure as a resource to heat greenhouses and grow locally produced, high quality food, and clean up potential pollution concerns from waste.

The National Produce Production Development Company Inc. (NPPI) will discuss its proprietary Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion (TAD) technology and plans to build the first network of profitable greenhouses in the United States, enabling local grown, quality produce food for consumers while cleaning our air and water.

Speakers: Steven Siegel, NPPI CEO, will present their patented process and WI prospects,

Brett Hulsey, Better Environmental Solutions, How dairy farmers can light our homes, run our cars, clean our air, provide us high quality food, and protect our streams.

Brett Hulsey, MNS
President, Better Environmental Solutions
Practical Solutions Today for a Better Tomorrow
222 S. Hamilton, Suite 14
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 608-238-6070
Cell: 608-334-4994
Email: Brett@BetterEnviro.Com
Website: www.BetterEnviro.Com

Next Page »