Showing posts with label opposition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opposition. Show all posts

Sunday, August 18, 2013

European climate policy drives wood pellet boom in NC

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/08/17/4244134/european-climate-policy-drives.html

By Bruce Siceloff: bsiceloff@newsobserver.com
  • Chris Seward - cseward@newsobserver.com
    A worker shows a handful of the finished product at the Enviva facility in Ahoskie NC on August 12, 2013. Enviva makes wood pellets from North Carolina forest products and ships them to Europe for use in power plants there. The pellets are trucked to the Hampton Roads, VA ports and then put on ships bound for Europe..
AHOSKIE In the searing August heat, big yellow logging machines pile up the harvest from 153 acres of sweet gum, red oak and maple trees.

A roaring log loader grabs the trunks to slice off 16-foot logs and stack them for one of the sawmills that provide a traditional market for Eastern North Carolina timber. These logs are worth $20 to $40 a ton and will be turned into plywood, cabinets and veneer.

In a second woodpile, there’s new money. Limbs and leafy treetops are stacked alongside trees as big as 16 inches across. They cannot be sold as saw logs because they’re forked or knotty, crooked or hollow.

This pile will be fed into a chipper and milled at an Ahoskie factory that makes 1,000 tons, every day, of a minor American fuel product suddenly in hot demand on the other side of the Atlantic: wood pellets.

Two years ago, everything in this second pile would have been left on the ground to rot, said David Jennette, a Windsor forester who is managing this timber harvest. Now it brings $2 to $8 a ton.

“When you’re talking about 50 to 75 tons of chips to the acre, and maybe more, that’s a significant amount of money going back to the landowner that we weren’t able to get before,” Jennette said.

The wood pellet industry is enjoying a speedy, zero-to-60 growth surge across the southeastern United States. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being invested in factories – some of them converted from old lumber mills – in coastal plain forests from Virginia to Louisiana.

They are serving a market created, almost overnight, by paradoxical environmental policies that are driving European electric utilities to burn imported wood in their boilers instead of coal.

Maryland-based Enviva LP, the nation’s biggest pellet maker, opened its Ahoskie mill in 2011 and a second one in Northampton County this year. Together, they produce 865,000 tons of pellets annually to be shipped out of the port at Chesapeake, Va.

In 2015, Enviva expects to start exporting an additional million tons from a planned $40 million terminal at the Wilmington port. The company is scouting sites for two new pellet mills in southeastern North Carolina, one of them in Sampson County.

At the same time, California-based International WoodFuels has said it will produce 285,000 tons a year from a planned pellet mill in Wilson County and a new export terminal at the Morehead City port.

The pellet industry is founded on a climate-friendly, carbon-neutral rationale. Our forests use photosynthesis to soak up carbon dioxide, enough to compensate for 14 percent of all emissions in the United States. This stored-up carbon is released into the air when wood pellets are burned, but wood is called a renewable fuel because that carbon eventually is recaptured by new trees that grow in place of the old ones.

Conservationists are attacking the pellet industry’s green-energy luster on two fronts.

They worry that the booming market for pellets will encourage industrial logging and sully the sensitive ecosystems of bottomland hardwood forests. And they counter European government carbon-cycle calculations with their own assessment that burning trees is, in the words of a British environmental group’s campaign, even “ dirtier than coal.”

“It just doesn’t make sense that we’re logging the world’s forest ... burning it into the atmosphere and calling it clean, green, renewable energy,” said Danna Smith of the Asheville-based Dogwood Alliance, a network of Southern conservation groups.

A push toward pellets

The European Union and Great Britain have adopted aggressive targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. They have created incentives for electric utilities to cut back on their use of coal and will require renewable sources to provide 20 percent of all energy by 2020. Wind and solar power are expected to meet only a small share of that demand.

Power companies are looking to close the gap with biomass – primarily with imported wood pellets. Biomass use in Great Britain, 3 million tons last year, is expected to grow tenfold over the next five years.

Britain’s biggest carbon emitter is the Drax Group, a Yorkshire utility that operates the largest power plant in western Europe. Drax is converting half its plant from coal to wood pellets. Coal is one-third the price of pellets, but Drax CEO Dorothy Thompson said her company is responding to renewable-energy credits and a British carbon tax, introduced this year at $7 a ton, that will grow by 2020 to more than $60 a ton.

“And that is very substantial,” Thompson told a BBC-TV interviewer in July. “When we burn biomass, we don’t pay that. Because biomass is carbon-neutral. When we burn coal, the cost is very high.”

With coastal forests close to its seaports, the South has become the top pellet source for Drax and other European utilities. Pellet makers also are taking advantage of declines in the region’s pulp and paper industry, which uses some of the same low-grade wood. Loggers in northeastern North Carolina lost their main buyer for hardwood pulpwood a few years ago when International Paper closed a mill in Franklin, Va.

“We generally fill that void that was historically used by the pulp and paper industry,” Thomas Meth, Enviva’s executive vice president and co-founder, said during a tour of the Ahoskie mill. “We generally site our locations where we’ve had a lot of plant closings, to avoid most of the competition.”

Enviva built on the site of a Georgia Pacific sawmill that closed in 2005. Residents of a nearby Ahoskie neighborhood say they never had problems with Georgia Pacific, but they are complaining now about noise and occasional clouds of sawdust wafting from Enviva’s pellet mill.

Anne Williams, a retired hospital aide in her 70s, said she sweeps her porch once or twice a day to clean off the fine, dark sawdust that blows from Enviva across a tobacco field to her comfortable manufactured home. Dust coats cars and clogs air-conditioners in the neighborhood, she said. She keeps her windows closed.

“They claim it won’t hurt you,” Williams said. “But the way it sticks to everything out there, you know it’s got to be sticking to your lungs.”

Meth said Enviva has reduced the dust problem and hopes to eliminate it later this year.

“We have always been within our permitted limits,” Meth said. “But in order to have a good relationship with the neighbors, we’ll take an extra step and build some extra dust protection.”

Pellet makers won’t bid against sawmills for valuable timber that has higher uses, Meth said. He guided visitors through a woodlot stacked 20 feet high with treetops and whole trees, many with crooked or diseased trunks that he said make them unsuitable for saw timber.

“We use by-products of the normal harvesting process in wood fiber,” Meth said. “And residues, in the broadest sense. There’s a lot misperception as to what we actually use. The value of what we take is 10, 20 percent of the whole harvest.”

Carbon calculations

Enviva gives delivery truck drivers a flier explaining that the company won’t accept valuable saw logs, and it rejects logs wider than 26 inches at the base.

Critics say the company uses big trees that cannot be considered mere “residue.”

“Their yard was not filled with log waste,” said Debbie Hammel of the Natural Resources Defense Council, looking at photos taken by environmentalists at the Enviva site earlier this year. “It was filled with whole trees. It meant that their sourcing activity has a bad carbon profile associated with it.”

The carbon calculations are complicated. After the pellets from a single tree are burned, Hammel and the Dogwood Alliance’s Smith said, it takes 50 years for a replacement tree to absorb enough carbon to offset the pollution.

But some economists and foresters look at this differently. They argue that a healthy demand for lumber encourages woodland owners to keep planting more trees, which will absorb more carbon from the air. A landowner unhappy with the economic return from forestry is more likely to cut down the trees and divert the land to farming or urban development.

“Losing timberland to agriculture is a worse carbon story than the cycling of trees that probably would have been harvested anyway,” said Bob Abt, a forestry professor at N.C. State University.

“The carbon accounting is messier than saying that the tree is going to take 50 years to replace.”


Enviva said switching from coal to wood pellets reduces carbon emissions by more than 74 percent.

British government standards say that pellet makers must draw only on environmentally sustainable logging sources. But Abt said he agrees with environmentalists who say “the wording there is vague.”

Meth said Enviva meets the sustainable forestry standards set by professional certification organizations, including the Forest Stewardship Council.

British officials say they are taking a closer look at their pellet policies. Ed Davey, the British energy secretary, recently called biomass an interim solution.

“Making electricity from biomass based on imported wood is not a long-term answer to our energy needs,” Davey told the BBC.

Jennette, the Windsor forester, said the new pellet market brings both economic and environmental benefits. Enviva accepts more of the logging leftovers than the hardwood paper mills did in the old days, he said.

“The whole tree goes to Enviva,” Jennette said. “And the tonnage goes way up when you start doing tops and limbs and everything else.”

It can be enough money to make a difference in the profitability, and the timing, of a timber sale.

Jennette’s Hertford County client expects to clear about $1,000 an acre – most of it from valuable saw timber, but somewhere between $150 and $300 for those chips.

Replanting will be easier, too, he said.

“As clean as this site will be, we’re able to reforest for less money,” Jennette said. “As long as we reforest what we cut and we do a good job of the sustainability piece of it, we’ll never stop.”

More Information


The pellet economy:
 

Enviva estimates the economic impact of its pellet mills in Ahoskie and Garysburg and its planned export terminal at the Wilmington port:

       • Ahoskie: 74 workers, average salary $35,000. Enviva buys timber worth $21 million from North Carolina and Virginia loggers. Produces 365,000 tons of pellets for $170 a ton.

       • Garysburg (Northampton County): 79 workers, average salary $35,000. Enviva buys timber worth $35.4 million from North Carolina and Virginia loggers. Produces 500,000 tons of pellets for $170 a ton.

       • Wilmington: $40 million to build export terminal, to begin operation in 2015 with 23 workers, average salary $37,783. One million tons of pellets to be exported on 25 to 30 vessels per year.


Not included here: Two mills that will produce pellets for export through Wilmington.
 
Source: Enviva LP

Saturday, August 17, 2013

Trash talk: Worthan angry county not in the loop on biofuels company

http://www.douglascountysentinel.com/news/local/article_64c7c62e-0793-11e3-b23a-0019bb30f31a.html

Posted: Saturday, August 17, 2013 7:18 pm

While the city and county have made strides toward working together over the past year and a half, sparks still fly from time to time, as Friday’s meeting of the Development Authority of Douglas County proved.

Douglas County Commission Chairman Tom Worthan didn’t mince words when the subject of a biofuels company interested in locating at the landfill and turning trash into fuel came up.

Douglasville Development Services Director Jeff Noles told the city’s development authority Tuesday morning that landing the company “would be a big win for the county and give them an opportunity to make money where they’re not currently making money.”

But the landfill is outside the city limits and is run by the county. Worthan made clear again Friday the county wants no part of the project and that he wasn’t happy about being left out of the talks.

Noles, Chris Pumphrey, executive director of the DADC, and DADC Board Chairman Ron Wilson were all involved in a conference call with the company about three weeks ago, according to Wilson.

“I have pushed for cooperation, communication,” Worthan said. “It’s embarrassing for me that our development authority had been in contact with these people. Evidently the city development authority has.”

Wilson told Worthan the conference call wasn’t positive. The company would make fuels like synthetic diesel from the decomposition of trash. But Wilson said there were concerns about groundwater pollution and air quality if the company moved here.

Additionally, the company was looking at using the Douglas County landfill to handle the trash for all of the west metro Atlanta area, which would mean an increase from 100 garbage trucks a day on rural roads like Cedar Mountain Road and Mann Road to 1,000.

“From a development authority standpoint, we didn’t have any interest at all,” said Wilson.

Worthan wasn’t satisfied.

“Mr. Chairman, even if you didn’t have any interest in it, I should have been told that you were talking about it,” Worthan said.

Wilson said he agreed and apologized to Worthan.

Douglasville Mayor Harvey Persons said he and Worthan made a pact when he took office in 2012 the city and county would work “in the spirit of cooperation.”

“I think it’s incumbent on both of these bodies to make sure the chief elected officials of the city and county are aware of what’s going on as it relates to economic development,” said Persons.

Wilson said he believed the city and county development authorities were doing just that. But Wilson said the development authority hasn’t traditionally gone to the county and city governments with projects “we take no action on.”

Worthan said he found out about the project second-hand from a Douglasville city council member earlier this week, that even the Douglasville-Douglas County Water Sewer Authority knew about the project, but that the county “was left out of the loop completely.”

“As I’ve said all along, I push for cooperation and consolidation and whatever I could,” Worthan said. “But there’s no excuse for what happened. It just happened to happen, and I don’t expect it to again.”

Then Worthan got in the final words of the meeting, making clear one last time where the county stands on the biofuels company locating at the landfill.

“Not interested,” he said.

Also at Friday’s meeting, Atlanta Kitchen Equipment, located on Industrial Access Road in Douglasville, announced plans to add 20,000 square feet of space and an additional 20 employees.

The expansion will cost $2.5 million and the DADC agreed to help the company get tax-exempt bonds.

Also, Pumphrey also said a land owner in the northwestern corridor of the county had approached the DADC about buying 109 acres just north of the railroad tracks, which could be used to spur industrial growth in that area.

Pumphrey said the DADC is looking “to see what options are there.”

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Petroleum Industry: Relax Biofuel Requirements

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/petroleum-industry-relax-biofuel-requirements.html/?a=viewall

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Petroleum groups ask EPA for relief from biofuel mandate

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/316927-petroleum-groups-ask-epa-for-relief-from-biofuel-mandate

By Zack Colman - 08/13/13 06:07 PM ET

The petroleum industry formally asked the Obama administration on Tuesday to lower the amount of corn-based ethanol refiners must blend into transportation fuel in 2014.

Failing to adjust the Renewable Fuel Standard’s blending targets could result in “severe harm to the U.S. economy” resulting from higher gasoline prices, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) said in comments regarding a request for a waiver from the rule.

The groups' claim of economic damage relied on an API-commissioned NERA Economic Consulting study that said leaving the fuel mandate intact could raise diesel costs 300 percent and gasoline costs 30 percent in 2015.

The request from the oil trade organizations comes as the Environmental Protection Agency is showing it might bend on the fuel mandate.

Created in 2005 and expanded two years later, the rule calls for blending 36 billion gallons of biofuel into traditional transportation fuel by 2022. It’s at the center of an intense lobbying and political fight that’s drawing attention on Capitol Hill.

The EPA acknowledged last week that refiners could approach the “blend wall” in meeting the federal biofuel-blending mandate’s accelerating targets. It said it would consider tinkering with the requirements for next year to accommodate those concerns.

 
 That term refers to the point at which the oil industry says refiners would need to produce gasoline with higher ethanol concentrations than the market-standard 10 percent mix. 
 
In their formal waiver request, the groups asked the EPA to lower the Renewable Fuel Standard’s blending requirements to below 10 percent of gasoline to avoid the blend wall.

Honoring the waiver would eliminate 3.35 billion of the 18.15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol called for in 2014, providing “short-term relief” from the rule, said Bob Greco, API downstream group director, in a statement.

The petroleum industry and automakers have warned fuel blends with a 15 percent ethanol concentration, known as E15, could damage car engines. They also say tankers and gas stations don’t have the infrastructure to support the fuel.

The biofuel industry has rejected those claims. It contends that E15 is safe, noting that the EPA has approved E15 for use in cars made in 2001 or later.

Biofuel groups pushed back against the waiver request, saying that it was designed to protect the profits of oil producers and refiners.

“The actions by API and AFPM are designed with one goal in mind — to eliminate any competition from clean, green biofuels in the liquid transportation fuels marketplace,” Tom Buis, chief executive of corn ethanol group Growth Energy, said in a Tuesday statement.

The EPA has so far rejected all previous Renewable Fuel Standard waiver requests, which have centered on the corn-based ethanol that dominates the biofuel market.

Last year, poultry and meat producers failed to secure a waiver when they argued the mandate was pushing corn prices upward and harming their businesses. And several state governors also unsuccessfully lobbied the EPA for relief on those grounds.

The waiver requests are just one example of how the mandate has come under fire in Washington, D.C.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has pledged to overhaul the rule, saying that the mandate’s goals are unrealistic.

Corn-based ethanol has kept pace with original projections, but many next-generation biofuels have fallen well short of the marks Congress laid out when it expanded the mandate 2007.

Many lawmakers also say the intent of the law — to wean the U.S. off foreign fuels and drive down greenhouse gas emissions — can be accomplished with domestically produced natural gas and oil discovered since the rule was last updated.

But biofuel groups contend next-generation biofuels are just starting to come online in commercial quantities. They say changing the mandate would threaten economic development in rural communities that have come to depend on the biofuel industry.

— This story was updated at 2:56 p.m. on Aug. 14.

Monday, August 12, 2013

The Cellulosic Ethanol Industry Faces Big Challenges

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/517816/the-cellulosic-ethanol-industry-faces-big-challenges/

The advanced-biofuels industry is in danger of withering away.
A series of cellulosic-biofuel plants are finally starting to come on line after years of delay. But the new wave of plant openings, good news as it is for the emerging industry, also shows just how far it still has to go.

Last week, the chemical company Ineos started making ethanol from wood chips and other plant materials at a facility in Florida, that can produce up to 8.5 million gallons of fuel a year. By next year more than a dozen multimillion-gallon plants are scheduled to be finished in the U.S. Although the plants are considered commercial scale, they’re still relatively small compared with corn ethanol plants, which often produce 100 million gallons of fuel per year.

The facilities won’t come close to meeting the requirements set out by the 2007 renewable-fuel standard, which was central to President Bush’s efforts to bring fuels made from biomass to market.

What’s more, many of the new plants will struggle in an already saturated ethanol market.

Cellulosic biofuels, made from materials such as wood chips and corn stalks, were mandated as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. They were supposed to help end what Bush called America’s “addiction to oil.” The renewable-fuel standard called for a rapid increase in the amount of fuel that comes from conventional corn-based ethanol as well as cellulosic ethanol.

Corn ethanol production surged, but cellulosic-ethanol production has been delayed both by technical challenges and by a lack of funds for commercial plants. The renewable-fuel standard originally called for a billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol to be blended into the nation’s fuel supplies this year, but the Environmental Protection Agency has reduced the target to just six million gallons. Next year’s target is 1.75 billion, but the EPA is expected to set a new level based on what it expects companies can produce.

The new wave of biofuel plants will include a 25-million-gallon facility from the corn ethanol giant Poet and a 27.5-million-gallon facility from DuPont, but many of the others will produce 10 million gallons or less. It’s a small start. Meeting the ultimate goals of the renewable-fuel standard would require 300 biofuel plants, and each one would need to produce not 25 million gallons of fuel, but four times that amount.

Right now cellulosic ethanol can’t compete on its own. It costs more than either corn ethanol or gasoline. Wallace Tyner, a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University, says cellulosic ethanol will never be cheaper than corn ethanol. However, Poet says it hopes to eventually make cellulosic ethanol competitive with gasoline. Getting to that point, at the very least, will require support from the renewable-fuel standard to help the company build more plants and achieve some economies of scale.

The standard has always been controversial (see “The Mess of Mandated Markets”). Right now, there’s a bill before the Senate that would repeal it. This year it’s also been the subject of a series of House hearings and white papers, and the leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is now deciding how to proceed. The chairman of the committee, Republican Fred Upton of Michigan, introduced the most recent hearing by saying, “In my view, the current system cannot stand.”

“Killing the renewable-fuel standard kills whatever future there is for cellulosics,” Tyner says. For now, however, that probably isn’t a big concern: the standard is likely to remain in place, since it has the support of President Obama and many in the Senate.

In Tyner’s view, the industry faces another major challenge. “Cellulosic ethanol today is a nonstarter,” he says; there’s not enough demand for ethanol of any kind.

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Franklin plant with McAuliffe ties under a campaign spotlight

http://articles.dailypress.com/2013-08-11/news/dp-nws-mcauliffe-wood-pellets-20130811_1_terry-mcauliffe-franklin-pellets-pellet-plants

August 11, 2013|By Michael Welles Shapiro, mwshapiro@dailypress.com | 757-247-4744
 
For more than two years, talk of a new wood pellet plant has dangled the promise of jobs and new business in the rural town of Franklin.

More recently an associated storage and export facility announced late last year offered hope of a long-term tenant at a mostly vacant state-owned shipping terminal in Portsmouth.

Now that Terry McAuliffe, a business partner involved in the deals, is running for governor, the projects have become fodder in a slash-and-burn political campaign. Most recently the group Citizens United produced a 29-minute film portraying McAuliffe as a serial exaggerator in his business life and asking Franklin residents, "Where are the jobs?"

Though neither site is in service, interviews, public documents released by the Virginia Port Authority and a recent article in the trade publication Biomass Magazine all suggest progress is being made toward a pellet operation, albeit at a slower pace than was originally anticipated by a McAuliffe business partner and a Houston-based energy company involved in the deals.

Peter O'Keefe, the McAuliffe business associate, told the Daily Press in April 2011 that "if all goes well, we will be up and running in about 18 to 24 months" — or by April 2013.

He said Friday it has taken longer to finance the projects because utility companies in the United Kingdom are waiting on two much-delayed regulatory decisions before they enter into new long-term contracts to buy American wood pellets.

"They're more than a year behind where we thought they would be (on the ruling)," O'Keefe said of the U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change. But with "the way those decisions are expected to come down, the outlook is bright."

Citing confidentiality agreements, O'Keefe said he could not go into any level of detail about negotiations with International Paper over a lease site for what's called Franklin Pellets.

McAuliffe declined to discuss the wood pellet project, saying they would be better addressed by O'Keefe. But a McAuliffe spokesman rebutted several of the points made in the Citizens United film.
Pellet plants pulverize a variety of forms of wood, including waste byproduct from lumber facilities, and produce pellets that can be burned as a supplement to or substitute for coal at power plants.

The Franklin initiative is one of a number of prospective wood pellet plants that have sprouted up across the southeastern part of the country. Existing pellet plants and the prospective new facilities seek to take advantage of a European Union subsidy program that created a hunger among British and European utility companies for U.S. and Canadian product.

The partnership with McAuliffe ties is hoping to build a plant called Franklin Pellets on land leased from International Paper, which runs a large campus that is now home to a fluff-pulp mill and a recycled tissue company. Using a separate corporation, the group is more than 11 months into a lease negotiation with port officials.

There are several indicators that there's been progress on both sets of negotiations, according to three sources familiar with the talks who all declined to speak on the record citing the confidentiality agreements.

"They're trying to make a go of it and get the (Portsmouth Marine Terminal) lease together," one source said.

The 20-year lease includes a six-month interim early termination period that gave CMI and MultiFuels an opportunity to walk away. That period expired Feb. 28. The Daily Press obtained a copy of the lease from the port authority.

"There's no effective date yet as far as occupancy goes, but they did not walk away from it," the source said. "They're trying to finalize the lease and an occupancy agreement but they have to find a buyer (for their pellets)."

That would put Franklin Pellets in the same position as numerous other would-be pellet operations.
Seth Ginther, a Richmond lawyer and head of the U.S. Industrial Pellet Association, said the financing for a wave of new wood pellet developments are on hold pending an environmental policy decision in the U.K. that's expected to stoke more demand for U.S. pellets.

"If you're a developer in today's market for export to Europe you're constantly juggling three different balls — European policy, raising money for a project for when the policy gets in place, and also logistics," Ginther said.

"Once you have that policy certainty, you finance your facility on the back of that off-take agreement," he said, referring to a contract, typically with a utility, to ship a certain amount of pellets from a manufacturing plant.

Monday, August 5, 2013

Judge dismisses case against biomass plant

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/judge-dismisses-case-against-biomass-plant/nZFKt/

Posted: 3:23 p.m. Monday, Aug. 5, 2013
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 

An administrative law judge has dismissed a lawsuit from a group of DeKalb County residents opposed to a proposed biomass plant near Lithonia.

Judge Amanda Baxter said the Citizens for a Healthy and Safe Environment, or CHASE, did not respond in a timely manner to various court orders in its challenge to a state air permit for the facility.

Green Energy Partners had secured the state permit for the $60 million facility on Rogers Lake Road, which calls for burning wood chips to create energy that it will sell to Georgia Power. County Commissioners approved a rezoning chance for the plant in 2011, and company officials plan to break ground on the facility later this year.

Friday, August 2, 2013

Biomass Plant & Jobs Headed to Lithonia

http://www.gpb.org/blogs/georgia-works/2013/08/02/biomass-plant-jobs-headed-to-lithonia#

By Chip Rogers 
 Posted August 2, 2013 1:50pm (EDT) 
Georgia has become a national leader in the production of Biomass material for energy production
Georgia has become a national leader in the production of Biomass material for energy production
Green Energy Partners has been given the green light by an administrative law judge to construct a biomass plant in Lithonia, GA.

The facility will be located on 21 acres and will cost $60 million to construct.

Green Energy will ultimately sell the energy it creates to Georgia Power.

The construction process is expected to create more than 100 jobs.Once complete the facility will employ 25 people or more on a full-time basis.

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Judge Rules Biomass Plants Have to Obey the Law, While Usefulness is Questioned

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25085

07/25/2013 11:16 AM

A federal appeals judge has ruled that power plants that turn biomass into energy also have to obey the Clean Air Act.

It closed a loophole under which the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) exempted biomass plants from the same emission rules that all other power plants are subject to.


“Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous, polluting, and ought to be limited to protect people and the environment,” says Kevin Bundy, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, which challenged EPA's policy. “This important decision will reduce respiratory ailments, protect forests and help ensure a healthier, more livable climate.” 

The ruling reflects recent research that finds biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more carbon per kilowatt than fossil fuel power plants - even coal. It can take decades before that excess carbon is “re-sequestered” by subsequent plant growth, explains the Center for Biological Diversity.

“Today’s ruling upholds EPA’s authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The court’s decision is grounded in an understanding that the science shows that biomass fuels, including tree-burning, can make climate disruption worse,” says Ann Weeks, legal director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for petitioners, which include the Conservation Law Foundation and Natural Resource Council of Maine. “The court clearly noted that the atmosphere can’t tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees.” 

"The court's decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clearcutting the region's wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts," says Frank Rambo of the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represented the Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and Wild Virginia in the case. 

In the case of wood, the adverse impact is exacerbated because of the large amounts of carbon released from deep forest soils as a result of disturbances such as logging, finds research released in June by Dartmouth College. Most global atmospheric studies don't consider deep soil, which could store up to half of all carbon in forest soils. 

Clearcutting

"Our paper suggests the carbon in mineral soil may change more rapidly, and result in increases in atmospheric CO2, as a result of disturbances such as logging," says Dartmouth Professor Andrew Friedland. "Increased reliance on wood may have the unintended effect of increasing the transfer of carbon from mineral soil to the atmosphere." 

Woody biomass including trees grown on plantations, managed natural forests and logging waste, is used for 75% of global biofuel production. 

“If we are going to start changing recommendations and tell people to leave oil and coal in the ground, and burn more wood, we first need solid science behind that recommendation,” says Friedland. “Wood still might be a green choice, but let’s know all the consequences of everything that we do—and some of these consequences are not currently being discussed or appreciated or evaluated.” 

Next-Generation Biofuel Investments in Doubt 
 
Meanwhile, Europe’s biggest oil companies, BP and  Shell, are scaling back investments in biofuels because they don't see them becoming economical to produce until at least 2020. Exxon (remember all those algae TV ads?) and Chevron gave up several years ago, when they didn't see enough profit.

Why bother with these longer term investments when they're making a killing on their core business, oil and gas?
 
Both Shell and BP, however, continue to expand in their sugarcane ethanol businesses in Brazil. Shell has 23 refineries there and BP is spending $350 million to double production.

Global investment in biofuel production was $57 million in the first quarter, the lowest since 2006 and off significantly from a peak of $7.6 billion in the last quarter of 2007, reports Bloomberg
 
“Progress in deploying these technologies has been slower than many had anticipated and what’s needed to keep on track with our aspirations,” Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), told Bloomberg. “Many potential producers have found it difficult to secure the capital they need.” 

"This is very capital intensive," Phil New, head of BP's biofuels program, told Bloomberg. "There's lots of difficult engineering. It will take time for scale-up."

Last year, BP scrapped plans for a $300 million refinery in Florida, although it just opened a $520 million wheat-to-ethanol facility in the UK with DuPont. Shell canceled plans in April for a straw-to-ethanol facility and also pulled back funding for biofuel enzymes at Codexis and an algae venture with HR BioPetroleum.

"All of these technologies are capable of working technically," Matthew Tipper, Shell's head of alternative energy, told Bloomberg. "It was purely on cost that this technology couldn't be taken forward. Fuels have to be cheap enough to burn. Otherwise no-one will buy them."

Both the US and Europe are counting on biofuels to help reduce emissions that contribute to global warming. To meet climate targets, biofuels must account for 27% of transportation fuels by 2050, up from just 3% in 2012, says IEA. 

Last year, ethanol made from sugar or corn was the major source of biofuels - almost all of the 1.9 million barrels produced a day. Next-generation technologies are focused on supplies that don't compete with food, such as switch grass, corn stalks, jatropha and algae, as well as wood waste from the lumber and paper industries. 

The first commercial-scale cellulosic biofuels plants are coming online, from companies like KiORAbengoa Bioenergy, BlueFire Renewables, Mascoma and Fulcrum Bioenergy. The plants will boost US cellulosic biofuel output 20-fold this year. At an anticipated 9.6 million gallons of production, it falls short of government’s target of 14 million gallons.

Big oil has basically decided to let these smaller firms develop the technologies and then surely they'll step in.

Last year, the EU set limits on crop-based biofuels because of rising food prices worldwide and shifted the focus to agricultural residues like straw, and potentially algae.

Monday, July 22, 2013

Policy changes should not affect wood-pellet plans at port

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20130722/ARTICLES/130729922

Published: Monday, July 22, 2013 at 3:14 p.m.
A worker piles wood pellets at a holding facility at the Georgia Ports Authority in Brunswick, Ga., in 2011. Courtesy photo
Energy policy changes across the Atlantic could affect how long the boom in the U.S. wood pellet industry will last, forestry experts and industry opponents say.

But the company that plans to invest millions into building a pellet-exporting facility at the Port of Wilmington says those changes were long anticipated and have provided certainty for the industry to continue rapid growth.

The United Kingdom, where North Carolina's pellets will be shipped, is changing some of its rules that favor use of pellets in place of coal. It is cutting out subsidies for new power plants that would burn pellets while eventually ending them for plants that are converting from coal to pellets, according to news reports. 

The U.K.'s decisions "give certainty to the major utilities there so they can make good investments in converting existing coal-fired plants to biomass (wood products) plants," Enviva Chairman and CEO John Keppler said Monday.

"We have some pretty aggressive plans under way" for the Port of Wilmington and elsewhere in North Carolina, he said.

Enviva has two pellet-producing facilities in North Carolina, at Ahoskie and Northhampton, and has identified several sites in the state for a possible third facility, Keppler said.

Enviva plans to build two concrete storage domes, rail and truck unloading stations and a ship loader/dock-conveyer system at Wilmington. Enviva is not involved in pellet-exporting plans at the Port of Morehead City, which have been scaled back. The cutback is unrelated to European environmental policies, said Laura Blair, spokeswoman for the N.C. State Ports Authority.

U.S. production of pellets is expected to increase from 3 million tons in 2009 to 10 million by 2015, according to a study by Daniel Saloni of the Department of Forest Biomaterials at N.C. State University. 

There are or will be six Atlantic ports handling wood pellets between Norfolk and Brunswick, Ga., according to the Southern Environmental Law Center, an environmental advocacy organization based in Charlottesville, Va.

Pascagoula, Miss., is joining the push, planning to spend $30 million to accommodate future pellet exports.

Viable business?

But some question the limits of the wood-pellet export boom.

Opponents of the industry are arguing that burning wood pellets to produce energy not only doesn't make environmental sense but that it eventually won't make economic sense, either.

In addition to the U.K.'s new biomass subsidy policy, Europe is looking at whether it will require stricter requirements that the wood it receives from the United States is third-party-certified as sustainable, according to Dennis Hazel, associate professor and extension specialist for the Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources at N.C. State University.

One of the largest certifying groups is the Forest Stewardship Council, which originated from the Rain Forest Alliance, Hazel said.

"If your forest is certified, every product" that comes from it is certified, including pellets, he said Monday.

Problem is, there is little third-party-certified land in North Carolina, Hazel said.

If Europe decides to require strict certification, it may cloud the long-term viability of the pellet industry in the state, he said.

Lack of certification by either independent or industry groups is not to say the state's forests are managed badly.

The U.S. Forestry Service thinks "we do forestry pretty well in the Southeast. Most of our land is adequately regenerated" after trees are cut, Hazel said. That means that most cutting, even clear-cutting, allows the forests to come back. That, in turn, shrinks the relative carbon footprint of using North Carolina pellets for power production, he said.

But the forest watchdog group Dogwood Alliance says using the state's forests to produce pellets for power production is far from the European goal to be carbon neutral – producing no more carbon dioxide than is absorbed by regenerated forests.

The alliance's executor director, Danna Smith, said burning pellets for electricity may actually increase carbon emissions compared to coal. 

But she also argued that pellet companies are limited in their ability to make money from selling to the United Kingdom.

"It is not a long-term strategy for (the companies)," Smith said. "This is not going to be a long-term development opportunity.

"The justification for this (pellet) market is emission reductions. When you burn a tree that is, say, 20 years old, all that carbon is going into the atmosphere. If that tree had not been logged it would have been storing that carbon plus absorbing more carbon from the atmosphere."

In other words, the forests just can't regenerate fast enough to make the harvesting-burning process carbon neutral, she added.

But the pellet-burning process is never going to be carbon neutral, Hazel said. It, however, can be relatively beneficial.

In the short term, burning pellets may be less advantageous than burning coal. But in the long term it looks good compared to coal, because the forests have time to regenerate, he said.

Regardless of the arguments, Keppler is confident in his company's and the pellet industry's course of high investment and growth.

Nothing, he reiterated, has changed in Enviva's ambitious plans for the Port of Wilmington.


Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Ports Authority board to vote on Wilmington wood pellet facility

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20130528/ARTICLES/130529554/-1/sports01?Title=Ports-Authority-board-to-vote-on-Wilmington-wood-pellet-facility

Published: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 at 5:54 p.m., Last Modified: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 at 5:54 p.m.
The N.C. Ports Authority’s board of directors will take a vote on one of two wood pellets facilities on Wednesday, even as the energy source comes under more heat.

Enviva’s facility at the Port of Wilmington will come to a vote on Wednesday, but the board will wait to vote on the International Wood Fuels facility in Morehead City until Secretary of Transportation Tony Tata can have more discussions with Gov. Pat McCrory. 

If the Wilmington project is approved Wednesday, its next step will be the Council of State because it involves the leasing of state land. The authority will not need the council’s sign-off on the Morehead City project, which involves state-funded construction on state property. 

Enviva, which has also built a pellet terminal in Chesapeake, Va., would build two concrete storage domes, rail and truck unloading stations and a ship loader/dock conveyor system at the Port of Wilmington. 

In the meantime, representatives of the Southern Environmental Law Center have been critical of the pellet projects, in part because of possible shifts in attitude across the Atlantic.

“That entire policy is under active consideration in Europe now,” said Derb Carter, director of the N.C. office of the Southern Environmental Law Center. “They’re examining the assumption that this is an energy path that they want to go down. There’s active meetings going on in the UK and in the EU, and if this market goes away, the state will have been involved in making major investments at the port that have no purpose.”
 
Danny McComas, the chairman of the Ports Authority’s board, said he can’t predict the future but is reassured by the Europeans’ investment in pellet plants.

In addition to the concerns about the pellets’ viability as an energy source, the Law Center raised questions about the Ports Authority’s transparency.

“In our view, if they’re going to be making decisions about a particular project and they know that in advance, then the public has a right to know what those topics will be and what will be considered at that meeting,” Carter said.

Public notices of the ports board’s teleconferences on Tuesday and Wednesday was provided by the Ports Authority, but they did not explicitly mention that the pellet projects would be discussed during those meetings.

Carter said he thinks the projects should have been the topic of a public hearing.

McComas said he’d be willing to talk with representatives of the organization about their environmental concerns after the agreements become finalized.

“After it becomes public that it’s been finalized, we can certainly talk to them,” he said.

Adam Wagner: 343-2096

On Twitter: @adamwagner1990

Dogwood Alliance launches campaign against logging for energy

http://www.mountainx.com/article/50340/Dogwood-Alliance-launches-campaign-against-logging-for-energy

By David Forbes on 05/29/2013 04:05 AM

From the Dogwood Alliance:

May 28, 2013 – Southern forests are being burned for electricity, and a new campaign announced today aims to put an end to it. Dogwood Alliance and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have launched “Our Forests Aren’t Fuel” to raise awareness of an alarming and rapidly-growing practice of logging forests and burning the trees as fuel to generate electricity

At the forefront of burning trees logged from Southern forests for electricity are some of Europe’s largest utility companies, including Drax, Electrobel and RWE. Rising demand by these companies has resulted in the rapid expansion of wood pellet exports from the Southern US. The American South is now the largest exporter of wood pellets in the world. Recent analyses indicate there are twenty-four pellet facilities currently operating in the Southeast, and sixteen additional plants planned for construction in the near-term. Market analysts project that annual exports of wood pellets from the South will more than triple from 1.3 million tons in 2012 to nearly 6 million tons by 2015. All of the South’s largest domestic utilities, including Dominion Resources and Duke Energy, are also beginning to burn wood with plans for expansion in the future.

“This rapidly expanding trend of burning trees for energy will both accelerate climate change and destroy forests,” said Danna Smith, Executive Director of Dogwood Alliance. “Southern forests not only protect us from climate change, but protect our drinking water, provide habitat for wildlife and contribute to our quality of life. We need these companies to stop burning trees for electricity and embrace a clean energy future that helps to protect, rather than destroy forests.”

“With the advancement of clean, renewable energy alternatives, the growing practice of burning trees for electricity is a major step in the wrong direction,” said Debbie Hammel, Senior Resource Specialist of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Our Forests Aren’t Fuel lets the public know about the extent of this ecological devastation and calls on utilities to end the practice. It’s an even dirtier form of energy production than burning fossil fuels, it destroys valuable southern ecosystems, and it isn’t necessary.”

Energy from burning trees – or biomass – has been widely promoted as a form of renewable energy along with technologies like solar, wind, and geothermal. Over the past two years, however, mounting scientific evidence has discredited biomass from forests as a clean, renewable fuel. Recent scientific reports document that burning whole trees to produce electricity actually increases greenhouse gas pollution in the near-term compared with fossil fuels and emits higher levels of multiple air pollutants. This fact, combined with the negative impacts to water resources and wildlife associated with industrial logging have discredited whole trees as a clean fuel source. But current European and U.S. renewable energy policies and subsidies encourage the burning of trees as a “renewable” source of energy for power generation, helping to facilitate the rapid increase in demand for trees from Southern forests to burn in power plants.

Consequently, a new industry is spawning in the South. Companies like Maryland-based Enviva, the South’s largest pellet manufacturer, are grinding whole trees into wood pellets to be burned in power stations in Europe while also supplying wood to domestic utilities like Dominion Resources. New evidence that Enviva may be relying at least in part on the harvesting of wetland forests has recently emerged. Georgia Biomass, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the German utility RWE Innogy, is also manufacturing millions of tons of wood pellets annually to be burned in European biomass facilities.

“Our Forests Aren’t Fuel” organizers reveal the scope and scale of the growing biomass industry through a series of case studies on the campaign website that include wood pellet manufacturers, domestic utilities, and European utilities. Particular emphasis is placed on the following companies:

· Enviva - one of the largest manufacturers of wood pellets in the U.S. and Europe, with manufacturing facilities and partner facilities in Mississippi, North Carolina and Virginia. The Bethesda, Maryland-based company has an annual production capacity of more than 590,000 tons. It also operates a deep water terminal at the Port of Chesapeake, which has the capacity to receive and store up to three million tons of woody biomass annually. Much of its product is sold and shipped to European utilities, like Drax. Leftover biomass “residues,” like tree tops and limbs, are sold to domestic utilities, like Dominion Resources.

· Drax – major United Kingdom-based utility that recently shifted focus from co-firing biomass in coal power plants to full conversion of its largest plant to biomass. Drax has begun building pellet mills directly through its wholly owned subsidiary Drax Biomass. In December, 2012, Drax announced it will build Amite BioEnergy pellet mill in Gloster, Mississippi, and Morehouse BioEnergy in Bastrop, Louisiana, to supply wood pellets for use in its power plants, with production set to begin in 2014.

· Dominion Resources – the Richmond, Virginia-based utility recently launched several biomass operations that could well rely on whole trees in the near future. Its 83 megawatt plant in Pittsylvania, Virginia, is one of the largest biomass power stations on the east coast. Dominion is also converting three existing peak power coal-fired power stations into full-time biomass-burning facilities. The utility currently sources much of its biomass material as “residues” from wood pellet manufacturers like Enviva that export the bulk of its product to European markets. Should the supply of these residuals become limited, Dominion’s operations could increasingly rely on burning whole trees.

Full case studies for companies driving the biomass industry can be found on the “Our Forests Aren’t Fuel” website, http://www.dogwoodalliance.org/campaigns/bioenergy/, along with recommended actions for those concerned about losing southern forests for electricity, and a list of more than 70 supporting environmental groups.

Monday, May 27, 2013

UK biomass plant exploded from Waycross wood pellets

http://www.l-a-k-e.org/blog/2013/05/uk-biomass-plant-exploded-from-waycross-wood-pellets.html

May 27, 2013

Explosions in Tilbury, England, explosions in Waycross: south Georgia wood pellet dust blowing up here and there and producing CO2 when burned there. Why is “the world’s largest wood pellet plant” a better use of Georgia foresters’ resources than solar farms, which don’t pollute and don’t explode?

Josh Schlossberg wrote for The Biomass Monitor 24 May 2013, Biomass Industry Plays With Fire, Gets Burned,
A massive fire raged inside wood pellet silos for RWE’s Tilbury Power Station in Essex, UK, on February 27, 2012. The biomass incinerator—the largest in the world at 750 megawatts—had just been converted from coal to woody biomass a month earlier. RWE claims no single cause can be attributed to the fire, but suspects that smoldering wood pellets triggered the dust fire.
In a recent editorial (apparently not online), Robert Farris Executive Director of the Georgia Forestry Commission, wrote that Georgia has nine wood pellet plants. He didn’t name them, but Biomass Magazine has a list of U.S. wood pellet plants, including these in Georgia (I added the City column):
Company Plant CityState Feedstock Capacity
Enova Energy Group – GordonEnova EnergyGordon GA Softwood 550,000
Enova Energy Group – GordonEnova EnergyWarrenton GA Softwood 550,000
First Georgia BioEnergy First Georgia BioEnergyWaynesvilleGA Softwood 38,000
Fram Renewable Fuels LLC Appling County Pellets LLC BaxleyGA Hardwood and Softwood 200,000
Fram Renewable Fuels LLC Fram Renewable Fuels – Hazlehurst HazlehurstGA Softwood 500,000
Fulghum Graanul Oliver LLC Fulghum Graanul Oliver LLC OliverGA Hardwood and Softwood 200,000
General Biofuels General Biofuels – Georgia WaynesvilleGA Softwood 440,000
RWE Innogy Georgia Biomass WaycrossGA Hardwood and Softwood 825,000
SEGA Biofuels LLC SEGA Biofuels LLC NahuntaGA Softwood 150,000
Varn Wood Products Varn Wood Products HobokenGA Softwood 80,000

That’s ten; maybe another has opened lately. Biomass Magazine lists RWE Innogy as in Savannah, but according to Georgia Biomass PR of 26 May 2011,
Georgia Biomass held its official ribbon cutting ceremony in mid-May at its new operation just outside Waycross, Ga., hosting dignitaries and officials from around the world at the opening of the world’s largest wood fuel pellet plant. The facility, scheduled to be at full capacity by this fall, can produce up to 750,000 metric tons annually.
 The facility is a venture of major German utility RWE and its bioenergy subsidiary, RWE Innogy. According to RWE Innogy CFO Hans Bunting, the Georgia Biomass project came in two months ahead of schedule and under budget. RWE COO Leonard Birnbaum noted the almost $200 million plant is only a small part of the $8 billion a year RWE invests worldwide, but is very important to the company, which is the world’s largest biomass buyer and biomass power producer. The company operates more than 50,000 giga watts of power capacity, “But the challenge is provide more of this energy sustainably,” he added.
A good portion of the plant’s output may be heading to RWE’s existing coal-fired plant in Tilbury, United Kingdom, which is being converted to biomass and would become the largest biomass-fired power plant in the world.
And less than a year later the Tilbury plant got fired up all right, burning and exploding using south Georgia wood. That February 2012 Tilbury explosion was after the Waycross plant exploded in June 2011. Teresa Stepzinski wrote for Jacksonville.com 21 June 2011, Explosion damages Waycross plant; no injuries reported
An explosion damaged the Georgia Biomass wood pellet processing plant near Waycross early Monday, crippling production at the factory that began operations a little more than a month ago.
No injuries were reported in the blast that occurred about 8 a.m. at the plant in the Waycross-Ware County Industrial Park about five miles west of Waycross off U.S. 82 and U.S. 1.
“It did extensive damage to the processing end. … They’ll probably be down an extended period of time,” Ware County Fire Chief Dennis Keen told the Times-Union.
An explosion here, and explosion there: pretty soon we might be wondering why we want “the world’s largest wood pellet plant” in south Georgia.

Georgia Biomass claims it’s carbon neutral, which we know isn’t true for biomass from trees. It was our local Industrial Authority making that very claim that convinced me as a tree farmer that biomass was a bad idea. They didn’t just try to pass off a stack of powerpoint slides as peer-reviewed research, they also, according to the VDT, made up a fake timeline. Lack of carbon neutrality is one of the reasons the VSU faculty senate voted to oppose that plant.

Fortunately, the Executive Director who tried to bring us that local biomass project is gone, and the Industrial Authority has since moved on to solar projects. But there’s still a wood pellet plant in Waycross, turning our local forests into fuel for a biomass plant in England, producing more CO2 and making climate change worse, affecting us back here that way, too.

When I paid my annual dues to the Georgia Forestry Association (GFA is a private organization not to be confused with the state agency Georgia Forestry Commission), I wondered whether Georgia tree farmers might find solar panels a better investment. I was told GFA is constantly talking to Georgia Power, so we’ll see.

Ever heard of an exploding solar panel? Me neither.

-jsq

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Waycross wood pellet plant pays fine for air emissions

http://jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2013-04-03/story/waycross-wood-pellet-plant-pays-fine-air-emissions

Georgia Biomass LLC paid $100,000 fine, will repair problems

Posted: April 3, 2013 - 5:02am

ATLANTA | A factory that produces what is supposed to be environmentally friendly fuel for electricity generation is emitting more air pollution than its state permit allows.

Tuesday, a senior executive for Georgia Biomass LLC told the Times-Union the situation would be remedied by the end of the year.

The Savannah-based company paid a $100,000 fine last month for excess emissions of volatile organic compounds at its operation in Waycross, the world’s largest facility for turning pine timber into pellets. The pellets are exported to Europe where environmental rules have prompted many utilities to use them instead of coal as fuel for power plants.

The 18-month-old Waycross plant uses new technology to dry and pelletize the wood, and once it was running, company officials discovered the emissions from an unexpected part of the process.

They reported the finding to Georgia Environmental Protection Division.

“What happened was that once they started up the process, they found that the volatile organic compounds were higher than they expected. They came to us and told us about it,” said Karen Hayes, compliance manager with EPD’s Air Branch.

She described the company as cooperative.

“I don’t anticipate any problems,” she said.

The company agreed to a fine, to apply for an additional permit and to have equipment in place by January to capture the emissions. EPD agreed to let it continue to operate in the meantime.

The agency has used a similar approach with other companies, including King America Finishing.

The company’s Screven plant paid a $1 million penalty after the state’s largest ever fish kill led to the discovery that the plant was discharging chemicals into the Ogeechee River beyond those in its permit.

King America has also applied for a new permit and continues to operate while the application is pending.

Georgia Biomass’ chief executive officer, Jim Roecker, said internal tests show there is no health concern for employees or residents near the plant.

“The total volume of emissions, that’s something that I would not like to comment on,” he said. “That’s something between us and the state.”

Friday is the final day for public comments on Georgia Biomass’ upgraded air quality permit.

Walter Jones: (404) 589-8424

Monday, March 18, 2013

Biofuels Digest’s 10-Minute Guide to Obama’s New Energy Policy

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2013/03/18/biofuels-digests-10-minute-guide-to-the-obama-administrations-new-energy-policy/

| March 18, 2013 

 

Major push from Obama on energy. 

 

From DOE: “Liquid fuels demand can be sufficiently reduced so that biomass can meet all liquid fuel needs.”

 

What’s up? What is an Energy Security Trust, anyway? The Digest’s 10-Minute Guide tells all.

 

In an address at the Argonne National Laboratories on Friday, President Obama said:

“You see, after years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to take control of our energy future.  We produce more oil than we have in 15 years.  We import less oil than we have in 20 years…But the only way we’re going to break this cycle of spiking gas prices for good is to shift our cars and trucks off of oil for good.  That’s why, in my State of the Union Address, I called on Congress to set up an Energy Security Trust to fund research into new technologies that will help us reach that goal.

“I’m proposing that we take some of our oil and gas revenues from public lands and put it towards research that will benefit the public, so that we can support American ingenuity without adding a dime to our deficit…devising new ways to fuel our cars and trucks with new sources of clean energy – like advanced biofuels and natural gas – so drivers can one day go coast-to-coast without using a drop of oil.

“And in the meantime, let’s keep moving forward on an all-of-the-above energy strategy.  A strategy where we produce more oil and gas here at home, but also more biofuels and fuel-efficient vehicles; more solar power and wind power. We can do this.”

A companion study released the the Department of Energy was, in its way, more ambitious and more specific: “TEF does not project that all liquid fuels will be eliminated from the future transportation sector, but rather that demand can be sufficiently reduced so that biomass can meet all liquid fuel needs.”

The Energy Security Trust. Is it a new idea? 


No. In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to create an Energy Security Trust Fund, which would free American families and business from painful spikes in gas prices. The President’s plan builds on an idea that has bipartisan support from experts including retired admirals and generals and leading CEOs, and it focuses on one goal: shifting America’s cars and trucks off oil entirely.

TEF-petroleum

 

How does it work?


Over 10 years, the Energy Security Trust will provide $2 billion for critical, cutting-edge research focused on developing cost-effective transportation alternatives. The investments will support research into a range of technologies – things like advanced vehicles that run on electricity, homegrown biofuels, and domestically produced natural gas. It will also help fund a small number of real-world experiments that try different transportation techniques in cities and towns around the country using advanced vehicles at scale.

 

Does it involve new taxes?


No. The funding will be provided by revenues from federal oil and gas development, and will not add any additional costs to the federal budget.

 

President Obama’s complete remarks are where?


They’re here.

 

Does the White House’s have a short take on the Energy Security Trust?


Yep. Here you are.

 

What is the Transport Energy Futures (TEF) study?


It’s a new study from the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Argonne National Laboratory that finds the United States has the potential to reduce petroleum use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transportation sector by more than 80% by 2050 – and proposes pathways towards that goal.

 

What is the strategy?


• Stopping Growth in Transportation Sector Energy Use
• Using More Biofuels
• Expanding Electric and Hydrogen Technologies

 

What’s the overall 15-point Obama Energy Strategy, again?


1. Challenges Americans to double renewable electricity generation again by 2020.
2. Directs the Interior Department to make energy project permitting more robust.
3. Commits to safer production and cleaner electricity from natural gas.
4. Supports a responsible nuclear waste strategy.
5. Sets a goal to cut net oil imports in half by the end of the decade.
6. Commits to partnering with the private sector to adopt natural gas and other alternative fuels in the Nation’s trucking fleet.
7. Establishes a new goal to double American energy productivity by 2030.
8. Challenges States to Cut Energy Waste and Support Energy Efficiency and Modernize the Grid.
9. Commits to build on the success of existing partnerships with the public and private sector to use energy wisely.
10. Calls for sustained investments in technologies that promote maximum productivity of energy use and reduce waste.
11. Leads efforts through the Clean Energy Ministerial and other fora to promote energy efficiency and the development and deployment of clean energy.
12. Works through the G20 and other fora toward the global phase out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
13. Promotes safe and responsible oil and natural gas development.
14. Updates our international capabilities to strengthen energy security.
15. Supports American nuclear exports.

 

Where’s the Fact Sheet on that?


Right here.

 

Why the transport sector, specifically?


The transportation sector accounts for 71% of total U.S. petroleum consumption and 33% of U.S. total carbon emissions.

 

What are the 9 Interconnected reports that make up the overall TEF study?


1. Deployment pathways issues including the development of, transition to, and challenges of advanced technology
2. Non-cost barriers to advanced vehicles such as range anxiety, refueling availability, technology reliability, and consumer familiarity.
3. Opportunities to improve non-light-duty vehicle efficiency for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, off-road vehicles and equipment, aircraft, marine vessels, and railways
4. Opportunities for switching modes of transporting freight, such as moving freight from trucks to rail and ships.
5. Infrastructure expansion required for deployment of low-GHG fuels, including electricity, biofuels, hydrogen, and natural gas
6. Balance of biomass resource demand and supply, including allocations for various transportation fuels, electric generation, and other applications.
7. Opportunities to save energy and abate GHG emissions through community development and built environment strategies
8. Trip reduction through mass transit, tele-working, tele-shopping, carpooling, and improvement of vehicle performance through efficient driving
9. Freight demand patterns, including trends in operational needs and projections of future use levels.

TEF-energy-savings

 

How much biofuels use does the TEF study anticipate?


Up to 100 percent of fuel needs, if the US hits its 2050 fuel efficiency, hydrogen fuel, and electrification goals as well. Even at the EIA baseline projected fuel demand in 2050, biofuels could supply as much as 50 percent of the jet fuel market, and 30 percent of the gasoline and diesel markets if EERE biofuel technology goals are met. Getting to the point where biomass could provide 100 percent of vehicle liquid fuels requires reducing the need for fuel through the efficiency and demand management measures described above, including deployment of electricity or hydrogen fuel alternatives.

 

Will this require an avalanche of infrastructure?


Some. “While new fuel types require new infrastructure, the share of infrastructure cost within total fuel costs is very small (1.5-3 percent), and these costs can be made up for in fuel cost savings of more efficient advanced vehicles.”

 

Where can I start to dig deeper into the overall plan and the TEF study?


You can start here at the TEF home page.

 

Who was responsible for TEF?


TEF is a collaboration between EERE, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). The project benefitted from the input provided by a steering committee that included some of the nation’s foremost experts on transportation energy from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), academic researchers, and industry associations.

 

What is NEPA and what is happening there?


NEPA is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, a product of the Nixon Administration.

 

Er, Nixon? What’s new there?


The President’s strategy includes requiring federal agencies, under NEPA’s authority, to include climate change impact in reviewing proposed projects. For example — leases to drill for coal, or export coal to China, or construct oil pipelines like the Keystone XL pipeline, could be reviewed not only for air pollution and water fouling, but for overall greenhouse gas impact.

 

Are the changes in NEPA reviews ho-hum, or a big deal?


Big deal. Brendan Cummings, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity told Bloomberg that the result will be “a major shakeup in how agencies conduct NEPA” reviews.

 

Does the President have this authority under NEPA?


Generally, yes. NEPA grants a right of Federal review of proposed projects for environmental impact — and climate change certainly falls broadly within that category. The devil is going to be in the details — after all, how much specific contribution to a problem like climate change be attributed to a single project?

 

Is a NEPA review capable of derailing a project?


No. A NEPA review is, at the end of the day, aimed at producing a thorough vetting process, rather than a specific outcome. Projects go through NEPA reviews — there is a robust commentary opportunity — but regulators, in the end, make decisions on permits. NEPA does establish a forum for introducing or reviewing data that will be used in a regulator’s decision — or, in lawsuits that may be filed to reverse a ruling.

 

Overall, is there going to be opposition from the right on the Energy Security Trust?


Forbes’ Houston-based energy columnist Christopher Helman writes: “This is a terrible idea — and a backdoor to the imposition of a nationwide carbon tax — that congress should not allow to pass.

“There is absolutely no reason why we need a dedicated Energy Security Trust to fund the national labs, or to fund any kind of alternative energy research. If congress wants to fund research it can pass a bill to fund research…Isn’t congressional appropriation how the federal government is supposed to pay for such stuff?

“Then consider that the Department of Energy has in recent years built up an insanely terrible record of wasting taxpayer money by directing funds to private companies, many of which have simply gone belly up (but not before paying lavish bonuses to executives).

 

Why is there opposition from the left?


Here’s some flavor. “This approach will only encourage more dirty energy production…[and] doesn’t create any additional cost for using fossil fuels, thus creating no incentive for firms to divert resources into safer, cleaner and more renewable sources of energy,” Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program, told bizjournals.com.