Energista - Biomass - Comments

How Tepid of him!

christopher — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 08:08:51 -0600

Reducing energy intensity is a nice way of saying, don't stop business as usual technological development. Energy intensity and water intensity has been going down naturally along those lines naturally for decades.

Non-petroleum based transportation reductions? Awesome! We need to switch our oil importation with natural gas importation.

Given the gravity of the looming energy situation, I think the past 6 years will be known as the do-minimum President and do-nothing Congress. I hope this new Congress changes that.

Info

christopher — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:25:25 -0600

I plan to focus on this and comment on it as soon as I finish my work for the semester (with luck, will be done on Friday). Until then, you can listen to Pawlenty's podcast on this energy initiative (12 MB mp3) which I found via his podcast list.

Thanks

shadoweyes — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:24:30 -0600

Darrell, thanks for putting this up, I was really curious how the conference went!

But...

solarkismet — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 09:46:07 -0600

Wind isn't firm power; biomass is. The better comparison is new coal to new biomass - I don't know the prices of Big Stone II or Mesaba Gasification, but they aren't 2 cents or even 5 cents - 6? 8? The average system cost isn't a "market" price for a biomass plant to compete against - it's new additions (or on the MISO market, the final bid price for that hour/day). But I think there is a) value in a diversity of renewable technologies and b) value in pushing the envelope on a variety of new technologies.

10cents wholesale

zorak — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:26:35 -0600

That's 10 cents wholesale, not retail. The 8 cents you quote is retail. Our electricity system in MN is primarily coal-fired power plants selling wholesale electricity for around 2 cents. The difference between 2 cents and 8 cents retail is transmission and distribution.

Its kind of insane that we have policy mandating 10 cents/kWh renewable energy when we live in a state with such an abundant wind resource. I estimate (without checking - top of my head) that wind sells for around 4-6 cents/kWh. So you get twice as much wind as biomass electricity for the same money. Our biomass electricity mandate was a well-intended policy that failed to take into account economics.

Biomass should not be sold into electricity markets - it just doesn't compete well with coal. It competes very well, on the other hand, with natural gas and petroleum. Policy should focus on those markets, not electricity.

I have no insights on district energy. I think they're unique because they can sell heat as a value-added product with a better market price than electricity. Plus they're a small plant, which means they'd have to pay more for their coal. Large coal plants get very cheap coal because it comes in by the unit train, and unloading is automated and efficient (among other reasons - like owning the coal supply).

Biomass $$

Joe — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:43:29 -0600

I wonder how 10 cents/kWh compares to District Energy in St. Paul, given that they claim biomass is their lowest cost fuel. It doesn't seem too excessive given that the average price of electricity in MN is roughly 8 cents/kWh. It would be interesting to see what the total cost of energy is once heating is factored in as well.

Some DG can work

Timothy DHT — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:03:48 -0600

Just a few comments:

Despite the costs of small local power, their are some real cost advantages to be realized in some situations; I've heard more Kenyans are hooking up to solar panels than to the electric grid - very different lifestyle, but it works for the poor.

I agree that in many cases for urban use local biomass co-gen is very limited (again supply at urban density is limited). However, other heating systems, solar thermal heat and particularly ground-source heating are very cost-effective - I heard the Green Institute in Minneapolis got 3 year paybacks on their ground-source heat system. Lots of houses are doing it too. Ground source is pretty much applicable anywhere.

David Morris from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance made an interesting point at the Humphrey Institute Conference: northeastern Illinois is getting better economics on its industrial scale turbines than MN, despite having worse wind - local Chicago demand.

Also in response to the comparison of a 500 kw to 100 MW: I'm sure a portion of that cost differential is due to the efficiency of the turbines themselves, rather than the scale of the project as a whole. Small turbines get really bad efficiency compared with large ones, but I'm not sure a single (or 5-10) large wind turbines (1.65-2 MW range) are significantly less efficient than 50-100 large wind turbines. I'm a Mac student, and we have a small (10kw) turbine which has probably a 25-year payback, but we're working on a Community-Based Energy Development Turbine (2MW) in western MN that would get maybe a 7-8 year payback (the entire project, our participation would actually be much faster) - electricity would be sold on the grid (C-BED gets a special pricing deal, but regular price is 3.3 cents). Does anyone have an idea if the scale in terms of the number of large turbines makes a difference? Farmers can definately locally own large-scale turbines selling to the grid (not net-metering, but still economical due to massive scale).

I think there is more

Joe — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:09:46 -0500

I think there is more opposition in Norway, if only because there is less agricultural land and more wild/scenic/cultural areas. However, there are still people here, albeit a very small percentage of the public, who are opposed to wind energy because it kills a few birds or interupts their view (I'm thinking of Cape Wind in particular...)

Public Resistance?

shadoweyes — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:02:53 -0500

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by public resistance to wind. It seems to me that more than 75% of the population fully supports wind and a few industry groups and astro-turf front groups are pretending the general public doesn't support it.

Hidden efficiency benefits

nobody — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:16:52 -0500

Though this applies only to a very small fraction of the population, it still deserves mentioning. When people commit to going completely "off-grid" and producing all of their energy on-site, I'm guessing the cost of purchasing enough capacity is balanced by committing also to cutting their gross consumption. Though the electricity from producing it from solar and wind sources is still not cheap, the cost is recouped much more quickly when less capacity is purchased in needed from the beginning. This can make it much more feasible, especially when paired with renewable energy grants as Minnesota once had (still?) for people wanting to install their own solar panels.

Again this applies to a very small committed group of people, but they're pretty inspiring when pressed on their energy consumption and production.

There is also the issue of the cost of extending transmission lines to new homes in rural areas. Sometimes it makes more sense to install solar panels and/or small-scale wind turbines instead of extending the grid which can be prohibitively expensive in itself. So therefore, in particular instances (maybe too particular) it would be much better for a family to produce their own power than to try and rely on the grid in any way.

On-site generation

Joe — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:17:02 -0500

One other thing I'd like to point out is that there is additional opportunity for distributed generation by industrial companies. Or more accurately, on-site generation. Rahr Malting has been trying for a long while (years) to obtain the necessary permitting to be able to burn its byproducts to generate electricity for its plant. No doubt there are other examples one could find around the state- maybe a lumber mill burning its waste wood (before District Energy can get its hands on it) or a poultry operation capturing the methane from turkey poop.

Streamlining the regulatory process (both with utilities and the state) could help encourage these sorts of projects. So could involving customers in the utility integrated resource planning process. Three Northwest utilities do a good job of this - Puget Sound Energy, PacificCorp and Idaho Power, as I recall. This process can also help identify high impact Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) projects which have the biggest bang for the buck.

Transmission losses/Small scale co-gen

Joe — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:37:57 -0500

I used to be more of a fan of DG after doing a term paper on it last fall. But I've come to recognize most of the points that zorak raises. One thing I would say is that there is still opportunity for small scale co-gen in homes and businesses. I remember reading that natural-gas fired Stirling engines (essentially external combustion engines) that generate heat and power are somewhat common in Europe. They're supposedly quiet and very efficient, though I'm not sure how they would compare to today's high efficiency (90%+) gas furnaces. Of course there are large market barriers and transaction costs to dissemination of this technology in the US as well.

Spreading out power generation can improve the reliability of the grid. It has limited ability to reduce transmission however, since most distributed generators will want backup from the grid. Enough transmission capacity has to be there to supply peak demand. The economics aren't there (from what I'm told) for most customers to completely go off the grid with their own backup generators, which are usually diesel fueled.

Transmission Losses

shadoweyes — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 09:36:54 -0500

Does this account for transmission losses? I could see where transmission losses would be more costly if occuring when power is produced via natural gas because you have to use more gas to put enough juice on the wire. But do you worry about transmission losses as much with wind? I would guess you must becuase you have to build more wind generation to compensate.

With power lines running 1 million a mile (if I remember correctly) I cannot imagine how DG does not have a tremendous advantage when it comes to needing new capacity from the transmission system. At least in startup costs I guess - are you arguing that over time, this advantage is nullified by the higher recurring cost compared to a larger product?

Finally, when it comes to wind, I think we need more DG and more centralized - the DG is more for the ancillary benefits of getting revenue into rural areas that need investment just as much for the fact that we need more electricity generation.

A rebuttal

wild.bjorn — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:34:10 -0500

I'd like to say a few things concerning Mr. Rutter's post. Now, I don't assume to be an expert, yet a few things gave me pause.

First of all, grass density is an issue. However, it doesn't seem any more of an issue than say using corn kernels or even firewood, for that matter. When scaled up, harvesting dry switchgrass seems to be just as viable as those other options, and moreso since it is perennial.

Fire can also be a huge issue too. But I don't seem to remember hearing about catastrophic wheat field fires or alfalfa or other grasses used to feed livestock. To argue that fire would be a problem seems to be the ultimate use of the "strawman" strategy. Take it for what it is worth.

Comparing switchgrass to the nuclear energy industry is a bit irresponsible, in my opinion. There is no similarity. In all commodity ag products there is going to be some sort of "after" portion. Sometimes it's already there on the field. Other times we're dealing with things like ash or chaff or what have you. There is also a lot of ash left after burning garbage, coal, oil, anything combustible. Sometimes it's just going up the stack and we don't have to think about it (until recently.)

My point is, switchgrass is much more viable than sometimes made out to be. I checked out badgersett.com, where Mr. Rutter hails from, and I'm fully in support of what he is doing. I think woody agriculture has a hugely under-developed place in mainstream agriculture. Its benefits are myriad. I don't think, however, that it is useful to react negatively to a prospect that has potential to be a complement, rather than a competitor.

Please do set me straight if I have gone astray.

/bjorn

"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem-

Woodyag — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:29:33 -0500

- neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L.Mencken. I'm greatly afraid switchgrass will become the chief proof of that aphorism.

A couple critical points to add to the soup here:

1) One of the biggest factors in whether any grass can become a successful energy source is - its DENSITY. For all grass, it's really really low. Which makes it both difficult and expensive to ship and store. Any process, like firebreaks, or storing bales in the field, which further dilute the density of the crop, make it increasingly difficult to ever show a profit- as more and more of it must be shipped farther and farther- sucking up- engergy. Hey, you could fix this problem- by compacting it on the site! (uh, no- more energy expense...)

2) I've been given to understand by a switchgrass researcher that another basic reason for harvesting the grass dead dry, apart from decreasing pollution etc., is that if you harvest it green- you kill the plant. Or, at best, your harvest will drop from the fantasy levels to far below useful. He showed pictures of moribund switchgrass fields. If the acres of grass must get dry, and wait dry for harvest, FIRES WILL result; from lightning, harvest machinery sparks, teenagers looking for fun, and "evil persons". Dry switchgrass burns with 40 foot high flames- at a minimum- really fun to watch; which means your firebreaks are going to have to be VERY wide; as the updraft throws burning grass up into the wind- which means your crop density is dropping again-

3) One of the biggest failings in nuclear energy was the total disregard for the "after" side of the equation- handling waste, and disassembly of worn out power plants. Both vastly more complex and more costly than anyone admitted. Any use of grass will also have an "after" portion - the ash. Whether you burn the grass, or use it for ethanol or butanol- you will wind up with "ash". That is, minerals- nutrients. In reality ash has to go- BACK ON THE FIELD it came from. Which means hauling, spreading. Energy expenditures. And you can't spread dry ash- it will just blow away and fertilize the Atlantic Ocean. So; more processing; pelletizing; and - water.

4) The fact that you CAN make something work in a test tube, has NO bearing on whether you can make it a commercially and/or ecologically sound process. There's a really good reason in this case why nobody is already burning grass for energy- scaling the process up is extremely difficult. And quite possibly is not -possible. Philip A. Rutter/ badgersett.com