By TODD MYERS
GUEST COLUMNIST
Here's a little known secret. Environmental activists don't care about global warming.
Carbon in the atmosphere is increasing steadily and burning fossil fuels contributes to that trend. Altering that trend apparently is issue No. 1 for environmental activists. Their actions, however, don't always match that goal.
This is surprising, especially because Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels made leadership on climate change a central theme of his administration, including Seattle's plan to meet the Kyoto carbon emission targets in 2012. The mayor promised to spend $37 million in the next two years and millions more to achieve that goal -- about $21 to $42 for every ton of carbon emissions reduced.
The high cost, however, leads one to question if reducing carbon emissions is the mayor's primary goal. The city of Seattle could go to established organizations such as the Oregon Climate Trust, which charges only $10 per ton of CO2 reduced, or the Chicago Climate Exchange, where carbon credits cost $4 per ton.
Those organizations offer programs that reduce carbon emissions elsewhere to offset Seattle's emissions. Buying offsets would reduce carbon far more than funding expensive public works projects.
That's not the only example.
Environmental activists advocate "green building standards" for state buildings. Paying a little more up front on energy systems in new buildings, they say, will reduce energy use later. Many of these "green" buildings such as Seattle City Hall, however, end up using more energy than those they replaced. A "green" Tacoma middle school used 25 percent more energy in its first year than a comparable non-"green" school built at the same time in the same district.
The reaction of environmental activists to such data is illustrative. Instead of demanding improvements, they defend the failed standards. One proponent of such standards admitted that "the certification process doesn't audit actual performance of the building or how much energy it really uses."
Further, market-oriented solutions that successfully reduce carbon emissions often are shunned. That was made obvious recently in Europe. Energy producers who reduce carbon emissions may sell credits to others who exceed the emission cap. In Britain, energy firms earned 1 billion pounds ($1.88 billion) from such trading. Instead of celebrating this confluence of environmental responsibility and profit motive, the World Wildlife Fund called for a "windfall tax" on that profit.
Their discomfort with "profit" outweighed concern about global warming. Taxing the profit serves only to reduce the incentive of companies to reduce carbon emissions.
In Washington state, green power advocates actively oppose our largest source of carbon-free, renewable energy -- hydropower. Although they claim that no new sources of significant hydropower exist, they added additional barriers to potential development by classifying major hydro as non-renewable in Initiative 937.
That same initiative, however, counts other renewable energy sources an extra 20 percent toward required targets if the project is built using union apprentices. Such efforts seem to indicate that they are willing to sacrifice carbon reduction for an economic ideology.
Environmental activists frequently lament we are not taking global warming seriously. The gap between their words and actions undermines their credibility. Until they are willing to support effective market-oriented environmental solutions that preserve consumer choice, we have to wonder whether they really care about reducing carbon emissions, or are just using the issue to achieve other goals.
Todd Myers is director of Washington Policy Center's Center for Environmental Policy. Contact Washington Policy Center at 206-937-9691 or online at washingtonpolicy.org.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, LANDFILL GAS, AND BIOGAS
Another source of biomass is our garbage, also called municipal solid waste (MSW). Trash that comes from plant or animal products is biomass. Food scraps, lawn clippings, and leaves are all examples of biomass trash. Materials that are made out of glass, plastic, and metals are not biomass because they are made out of non-renewable materials. MSW can be a source of energy by either burning MSW in waste-to-energy plants, or by capturing biogas. In waste-to-energy plants, trash is burned to produce steam that can be used either to heat buildings or to generate electricity.
In landfills, biomass rots and releases methane gas, also called biogas or landfill gas. Some landfills have a system that collects the methane gas so that it can be used as a fuel source. Some dairy farmers collect biogas from tanks called "digesters" where they put all of the muck and manure from their barns. Read about a field trip to a real waste-to-energy plant or learn about the history of MSW.
In landfills, biomass rots and releases methane gas, also called biogas or landfill gas. Some landfills have a system that collects the methane gas so that it can be used as a fuel source. Some dairy farmers collect biogas from tanks called "digesters" where they put all of the muck and manure from their barns. Read about a field trip to a real waste-to-energy plant or learn about the history of MSW.
WOOD AND WOOD WASTE
The most common form of biomass is wood. For thousands of years people have burned wood for heating and cooking. Wood was the main source of energy in the U.S. and the rest of the world until the mid-1800s. Biomass continues to be a major source of energy in much of the developing world. In the United States wood and waste (bark, sawdust, wood chips, and wood scrap) provide only about 2 percent of the energy we use today.
About 81 percent of the wood and wood waste fuel used in the United States is consumed by the industry and commercial businesses. The rest, mainly wood, is used in homes for heating and cooking.
Many manufacturing plants in the wood and paper products industry use wood waste to produce their own steam and electricity. This saves these companies money because they don't have to dispose of their waste products and they don't have to buy as much electricity. The photograph to the right is of biomass fuel, probably wood chips, being stored and dried for later use in a boiler.
About 81 percent of the wood and wood waste fuel used in the United States is consumed by the industry and commercial businesses. The rest, mainly wood, is used in homes for heating and cooking.
Many manufacturing plants in the wood and paper products industry use wood waste to produce their own steam and electricity. This saves these companies money because they don't have to dispose of their waste products and they don't have to buy as much electricity. The photograph to the right is of biomass fuel, probably wood chips, being stored and dried for later use in a boiler.
BIOMASS -- ENERGY FROM PLANT AND ANIMAL MATTER
Biomass is organic material made from plants and animals. Biomass contains stored energy from the sun. Plants absorb the sun's energy in a process called photosynthesis. The chemical energy in plants gets passed on to animals and people that eat them. Biomass is a renewable energy source because we can always grow more trees and crops, and waste will always exist. Some examples of biomass fuels are wood, crops, manure, and some garbage.
When burned, the chemical energy in biomass is released as heat. If you have a fireplace, the wood you burn in it is a biomass fuel. Wood waste or garbage can be burned to produce steam for making electricity, or to provide heat to industries and homes.
Burning biomass is not the only way to release its energy. Biomass can be converted to other usable forms of energy like methane gas or transportation fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. Methane gas is the main ingredient of natural gas. Smelly stuff, like rotting garbage, and agricultural and human waste, release methane gas - also called "landfill gas" or "biogas." Crops like corn and sugar cane can be fermented to produce the transportation fuel, ethanol. Biodiesel, another transportation fuel, can be produced from left-over food products like vegetable oils and animal fats.
Biomass fuels provide about 3 percent of the energy used in the United States. People in the USA are trying to develop ways to burn more biomass and less fossil fuels. Using biomass for energy can cut back on waste and support agricultural products grown in the United States. Biomass fuels also have a number of environmental benefits.
When burned, the chemical energy in biomass is released as heat. If you have a fireplace, the wood you burn in it is a biomass fuel. Wood waste or garbage can be burned to produce steam for making electricity, or to provide heat to industries and homes.
Burning biomass is not the only way to release its energy. Biomass can be converted to other usable forms of energy like methane gas or transportation fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. Methane gas is the main ingredient of natural gas. Smelly stuff, like rotting garbage, and agricultural and human waste, release methane gas - also called "landfill gas" or "biogas." Crops like corn and sugar cane can be fermented to produce the transportation fuel, ethanol. Biodiesel, another transportation fuel, can be produced from left-over food products like vegetable oils and animal fats.
Biomass fuels provide about 3 percent of the energy used in the United States. People in the USA are trying to develop ways to burn more biomass and less fossil fuels. Using biomass for energy can cut back on waste and support agricultural products grown in the United States. Biomass fuels also have a number of environmental benefits.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Colorado getting serious about renewable energy
When Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter campaigned last year on a theme to diversify the state’s energy economy and make it a leader in alternative energy, it could have been easy to dismiss the goal as too optimistic or far-fetched.
A pair of developments this week, however, shows that the state is making progress in setting itself up as a hub for alternative energy.
The Colorado Center for Biorefining and Biofuels was announced this week as a cooperative effort among the University of Colorado, Colorado State University, the Colorado School of Mines and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
The goal of the new project: to convert the abundant crops grown by Colorado farmers into fuel that can be used to power cars and other machines used in the modern world.
Initial funding for the project is $2 million, but organizers hope that energy companies will pay into the research ventures from the lab and universities.
While the governor certainly shone a spotlight onto the need for renewable energy during his campaign, the work between the universities and the federal lab predates his administration.
Last May, the same four entities were grouped into what was called the Northern Colorado Clean Energy Cluster. This week’s announcement shows the state is ready to put money behind the effort.
But while the state has a role in jump-starting a renewable energy effort, it is still private businesses that will lead the way in bringing technological advancements to the marketplace.
That’s why it was heartening this week to see the Danish company Vestas Wind Systems Inc. announce plans to build a plant near Windsor that will produce the turbine blades needed for capturing wind energy.
The 400 jobs the company will add to the regional economy are certainly cause for celebration, but even more so, the move signals that Colorado is serious about alternative energy and friendly to companies that want to do business here.
The energy needs of the future will be met by a combination of products that are not now in the marketplace. The events of this week should encourage Coloradans that this state could be the source of some of those products and help drive the economy for decades to come.
A pair of developments this week, however, shows that the state is making progress in setting itself up as a hub for alternative energy.
The Colorado Center for Biorefining and Biofuels was announced this week as a cooperative effort among the University of Colorado, Colorado State University, the Colorado School of Mines and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
The goal of the new project: to convert the abundant crops grown by Colorado farmers into fuel that can be used to power cars and other machines used in the modern world.
Initial funding for the project is $2 million, but organizers hope that energy companies will pay into the research ventures from the lab and universities.
While the governor certainly shone a spotlight onto the need for renewable energy during his campaign, the work between the universities and the federal lab predates his administration.
Last May, the same four entities were grouped into what was called the Northern Colorado Clean Energy Cluster. This week’s announcement shows the state is ready to put money behind the effort.
But while the state has a role in jump-starting a renewable energy effort, it is still private businesses that will lead the way in bringing technological advancements to the marketplace.
That’s why it was heartening this week to see the Danish company Vestas Wind Systems Inc. announce plans to build a plant near Windsor that will produce the turbine blades needed for capturing wind energy.
The 400 jobs the company will add to the regional economy are certainly cause for celebration, but even more so, the move signals that Colorado is serious about alternative energy and friendly to companies that want to do business here.
The energy needs of the future will be met by a combination of products that are not now in the marketplace. The events of this week should encourage Coloradans that this state could be the source of some of those products and help drive the economy for decades to come.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
US ethanol decision to impact on Aust car exporters
Australian car manufacturers say an American decision to have their new vehicles able to run on biofuels will push up costs for Australian car exporters.
America's biggest car companies have announced that almost half of their new cars will be able to run on 85 per cent ethanol in five years.
It follows a plan by US President George W Bush to reduce petrol consumption by 20 per cent over the next decade.
Chamber of Automotive Industries chief executive Peter Sturrock predicts the ethanol decision will add thousands of dollars on the costs of vehicles sold overseas.
"That change is unfortunate in the sense that it will require additional cost and some unique production arrangements in Australia and that being the case, it will add some complexity in cost," Mr Sturrock said.
"However, if that decision has been taken, I would imagine it would in fact impact on vehicles being exported to the US in the next few years."
Mr Sturrock says it is too early to say how much extra it will cost manufacturers to make cars for the US.
"I imagine it will run into some hundreds of dollars, maybe into the thousands of dollars per vehicle to be modified for the US specifications but we would have to study that more closely," he said.
'Few benefits'
He argues the environmental benefits from switching from a non-renewable to renewable fuels are almost negligible.
"In the first instance, the science reflects that it may be marginally beneficial but we have to remember that to produce ethanol in the first instance, there is a process required to take the product from grain or sugar cane and that itself uses a good deal of energy," he said.
"So we need to just examine the whole picture in terms of the energy consumption requirements to go from grain crops to ethanol to put into fuel to be put into vehicles."
Greenpeace energy adviser Paul Cleary agrees that ethanol, which is made from corn, is not a greener choice.
"At the moment, to produce ethanol, it requires a huge amount of energy in the growing of the crops and most importantly, in the electricity that's used in manufacturing it," he said.
"Most of that electricity in Australia, 88 per cent in fact, comes from coal-fired power stations."
Ethanol is a hot-button issue in America's mid-west, which produces almost half the world's corn.
The flashy Indy race cars, with their screaming V8 engines, have become unlikely pin-ups for the car makers' decision.
The IndyCar Series is set to become the first in motor sport to use a renewable fuel source. IndyCars will run on 100 per cent ethanol this season.
America's biggest car companies have announced that almost half of their new cars will be able to run on 85 per cent ethanol in five years.
It follows a plan by US President George W Bush to reduce petrol consumption by 20 per cent over the next decade.
Chamber of Automotive Industries chief executive Peter Sturrock predicts the ethanol decision will add thousands of dollars on the costs of vehicles sold overseas.
"That change is unfortunate in the sense that it will require additional cost and some unique production arrangements in Australia and that being the case, it will add some complexity in cost," Mr Sturrock said.
"However, if that decision has been taken, I would imagine it would in fact impact on vehicles being exported to the US in the next few years."
Mr Sturrock says it is too early to say how much extra it will cost manufacturers to make cars for the US.
"I imagine it will run into some hundreds of dollars, maybe into the thousands of dollars per vehicle to be modified for the US specifications but we would have to study that more closely," he said.
'Few benefits'
He argues the environmental benefits from switching from a non-renewable to renewable fuels are almost negligible.
"In the first instance, the science reflects that it may be marginally beneficial but we have to remember that to produce ethanol in the first instance, there is a process required to take the product from grain or sugar cane and that itself uses a good deal of energy," he said.
"So we need to just examine the whole picture in terms of the energy consumption requirements to go from grain crops to ethanol to put into fuel to be put into vehicles."
Greenpeace energy adviser Paul Cleary agrees that ethanol, which is made from corn, is not a greener choice.
"At the moment, to produce ethanol, it requires a huge amount of energy in the growing of the crops and most importantly, in the electricity that's used in manufacturing it," he said.
"Most of that electricity in Australia, 88 per cent in fact, comes from coal-fired power stations."
Ethanol is a hot-button issue in America's mid-west, which produces almost half the world's corn.
The flashy Indy race cars, with their screaming V8 engines, have become unlikely pin-ups for the car makers' decision.
The IndyCar Series is set to become the first in motor sport to use a renewable fuel source. IndyCars will run on 100 per cent ethanol this season.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
It’s a bird! It’s a Plane! No! It’s a Solar-Powered Plane!
Going non-stop around the world in a hot-air balloon may seem like the pinnacle of air travel, but circling the globe in a solar-powered plane might be even better. The only person who will really know is Bertrand Piccard, a Swiss psychiatrist who could be the first person to make the trip around the planet in both contraptions.
Yesterday the appropriately named Piccard, who made the first trip around the world in a hot-air balloon with his co-pilot, was awarded funding from Deutsche Bank to build the first solar aircraft. Bloomberg news reports that:
The record-breaking flight is planned for May 2011 along the Tropic of Cancer. Construction of a smaller prototype with a 61- meter wingspan will begin next month. The first test flights are scheduled for next year. The biggest challenge will be to develop an aircraft with batteries capable of storing enough solar energy to fly through the night, said Piccard.
Deutsche Bank covered 15 percent of the total cost of the project, which is called Solar Impulse. The donation reflects the company’s belief in supporting alternative energy technologies, said Joseph Ackermann, the chief executive officer of Deutsch Bank AG.
Air travel currently requires fossil fuels and in the United States, accounts for 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting. Some day, solar-powered planes could help decrease our dependence on non-renewable resources and emissions.
Right now, the only thing standing in the way of everyone using solar-powered planes is the technology. According to the Solar Impulse website, the current wingspan of 80 feet will only allow one man to fly for 24 hours. But the team members seem hopeful:
But if we go back into history, when the great Wright brothers got their first plane to fly a distance of 200 meters in 1903, could they have imagined that 66 years later, two men would walk on the moon?
We’ll certainly be looking to the sunny skies in 2011 for a plane that’s soaring to new heights. And that’s not just a bunch of hot air.
Yesterday the appropriately named Piccard, who made the first trip around the world in a hot-air balloon with his co-pilot, was awarded funding from Deutsche Bank to build the first solar aircraft. Bloomberg news reports that:
The record-breaking flight is planned for May 2011 along the Tropic of Cancer. Construction of a smaller prototype with a 61- meter wingspan will begin next month. The first test flights are scheduled for next year. The biggest challenge will be to develop an aircraft with batteries capable of storing enough solar energy to fly through the night, said Piccard.
Deutsche Bank covered 15 percent of the total cost of the project, which is called Solar Impulse. The donation reflects the company’s belief in supporting alternative energy technologies, said Joseph Ackermann, the chief executive officer of Deutsch Bank AG.
Air travel currently requires fossil fuels and in the United States, accounts for 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting. Some day, solar-powered planes could help decrease our dependence on non-renewable resources and emissions.
Right now, the only thing standing in the way of everyone using solar-powered planes is the technology. According to the Solar Impulse website, the current wingspan of 80 feet will only allow one man to fly for 24 hours. But the team members seem hopeful:
But if we go back into history, when the great Wright brothers got their first plane to fly a distance of 200 meters in 1903, could they have imagined that 66 years later, two men would walk on the moon?
We’ll certainly be looking to the sunny skies in 2011 for a plane that’s soaring to new heights. And that’s not just a bunch of hot air.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Energy challenge is North Dakota's great opportunity
Fifty-seven members of the North Dakota Renewable Energy Partnership (ndrep.org) represent a broad range of industries like Xcel Energy, Cass County Electric, Great River Energy, Ottertail Power, Soy Bean Growers, Corn Growers, regional economic development agencies, and state agencies like the ND Department of Renewable Energy and Efficiency. They all had input on developing renewable enrgy bill. Other industry experts that are not members, like John Dwyer of the Lignite Council, have been helpful in supporting #2288 and #1515, renewable energy bills that would help our state invest in the development of sustainable, home grown, renewable energy.
Producing more renewable energy will also help our state's fossil fuel industry by helping extend those non-renewable energy sources, adding renewables to fossil fuels often helps non-renewable energy sources burn cleaner, and it helps make them more marketable at a higher value.
Developing all our energy resources to their full potential in the most responsible, efficient and sustainable manner is North Dakota's great opportunity to help resolve the United States energy challenge and grow and diversify our state's revenues.
A recent survey showed 93 percent of North Dakotans (http://ndrep.org) want more state funding for home grown, renewable energy.
Please consider that one way to diversify our funding sources for vital sectors like education, human services and water, is to make significant state investments now for developing North Dakota's unmatched biomass and renewable energy resources.Biomass to biofuels does not use food for energy conversion and is among the fastest growing energy sectors in the country.
We have a fantastic opportunity this session, to invest now to diversify our energy resources and economy. Diversifying North Dakota energy development to its full potential could generate the sustainable funds to resolve our property tax problem, fund our challenges in demographics for human services along with more funds for water management and delivery.
Tennessee has budgeted a $61 million investment in biomass and cellulosic research
(http://www.areavoices.com/renewnd/). Many other states are investing as much or more, though they don't have as good of resources as ours here in North Dakota.
Please help restore funding for #2288 by contacting our North Dakota legislators this week. The appropriation for a $20 million investment in North Dakota's future is less than 4 percent of the current surplus.
As North Dakota native General Chuck Wald stated at a recent energy roundtable session, the United States energy challenge is North Dakota's great opportunity.Mike WilliamsBoard member of the North Dakota Renewable PartnershipFargo, N.D.
Producing more renewable energy will also help our state's fossil fuel industry by helping extend those non-renewable energy sources, adding renewables to fossil fuels often helps non-renewable energy sources burn cleaner, and it helps make them more marketable at a higher value.
Developing all our energy resources to their full potential in the most responsible, efficient and sustainable manner is North Dakota's great opportunity to help resolve the United States energy challenge and grow and diversify our state's revenues.
A recent survey showed 93 percent of North Dakotans (http://ndrep.org) want more state funding for home grown, renewable energy.
Please consider that one way to diversify our funding sources for vital sectors like education, human services and water, is to make significant state investments now for developing North Dakota's unmatched biomass and renewable energy resources.Biomass to biofuels does not use food for energy conversion and is among the fastest growing energy sectors in the country.
We have a fantastic opportunity this session, to invest now to diversify our energy resources and economy. Diversifying North Dakota energy development to its full potential could generate the sustainable funds to resolve our property tax problem, fund our challenges in demographics for human services along with more funds for water management and delivery.
Tennessee has budgeted a $61 million investment in biomass and cellulosic research
(http://www.areavoices.com/renewnd/). Many other states are investing as much or more, though they don't have as good of resources as ours here in North Dakota.
Please help restore funding for #2288 by contacting our North Dakota legislators this week. The appropriation for a $20 million investment in North Dakota's future is less than 4 percent of the current surplus.
As North Dakota native General Chuck Wald stated at a recent energy roundtable session, the United States energy challenge is North Dakota's great opportunity.Mike WilliamsBoard member of the North Dakota Renewable PartnershipFargo, N.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
