Showing posts with label public. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public. 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

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.

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

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Chevron Defies California On Carbon Emissions

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-18/chevron-defies-california-on-carbon-emissions.html




Chevron Corp. (CVX) helped write the first-in-the-nation rule ordering reduced carbon emissions from cars and trucks. Its biofuels chief spoke at the ceremony where California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the executive order in 2007, the same year the oil company pledged to develop a gasoline replacement from wood.

Now Chevron is leading a lobbying and public relations campaign to undercut the California mandate aimed at curbing global warming, two years after the state started phasing it in. Research on commercially viable climate-friendly products has come to naught, stymied by the poor economics of coaxing hydrocarbons from plants’ stubborn cell walls, according to Chevron officials.

  Oil Firms Break Promise on Biofuels as Chevron Defies California
An employee works on a Chevron Corp. sign at a gasoline station in San Francisco, California. Like other major investor-owned oil companies, Chevron and ExxonMobil accept climate-change science and acknowledge carbon emissions contribute to global warming. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg 

April 18 (Bloomberg) -- Chevron Corp. helped write California's first-in-the-nation law ordering reduced carbon emissions from cars and trucks. Now Chevron is active in lobbying and public relations efforts to undercut the mandate. Bloomberg's Kevin Thrash reports. (Source: Bloomberg)
 
“We’ve looked at 100 feedstocks, 50 conversion technologies, worked to shape this law the best we can, and we have not come up with a solution to be able to comply,” said Rhonda Zygocki, Chevron’s executive vice president of policy and planning, in a Feb. 4 talk at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. Rick Zalesky, the Chevron official who celebrated the order’s signing with Schwarzenegger, was blunt last June when he declared the low-carbon standard “not achievable.”

While still promoting its commitment to renewable energy, the second largest U.S. oil company quietly shelved most of its biofuels work in 2010, according to internal documents and former Chevron officials. It decided products with potential returns of at least 5 percent weren’t enough for a multinational used to margins triple that, said Paul Bryan, a former vice president of biofuels technology.

Cutting Funding 


“The best outcome for the oil companies is if nothing changes,” said Bryan, who left Chevron in 2010 after 15 years. “You can make money today making advanced biofuels -- you just won’t make as much money as the oil companies would like.”

Chevron’s switch is part of the fossil fuel industry’s hardening line against efforts to supplant petroleum in the $500 billion U.S. transportation fuels market.

ExxonMobil Corp., the largest U.S. oil company, has also retreated from a biofuels effort. It slashed funding for research into making the fuel from algae, according to former employees involved in the project, and with Chevron is pressing California to postpone the low-carbon standard. In Europe, meanwhile, carbon credits for December plunged to an all-time low yesterday, making it cheaper for companies to buy the right to emit more carbon dioxide gas under the European Union’s system for controlling global warming.

‘Shockingly Small’


Like other major investor-owned oil companies, Chevron and ExxonMobil accept climate-change science and acknowledge carbon emissions contribute to global warming. They say they’re pushing back against the California rule because it demands technology that may not be available for years, and will cost jobs and send pump prices soaring if not rewritten.

The oil industry is lobbying to stop other states from following California. All the while, oil companies are dedicating few resources to the advances in biofuels they talk about needing to make, said Mary Nichols, head of the California Air Resources Board, which enforces the carbon rule.

“It’s shockingly small given their profitability,” Nichols said. “We’re dealing with companies with revenues in excess of the state of California.”

San Ramon, California-based Chevron had its second most profitable year in 2012, posting net income of $26.2 billion on $222.6 billion in sales, the vast majority from petroleum. California’s revenue in fiscal year 2012 was $87.8 billion.

Doomed Project


The company touts its biofuels program on its Facebook page and website. “It’s time oil companies get behind the development of renewable energy,” a headline on the website says. The text says a joint venture with Weyerhaeuser (WY) Co., Catchlight Energy LLC, is “working to commercialize advanced biofuels made from forest-based biomass.”

While Catchlight still exists, Chevron and the forest products company three years ago scratched a plan to spend more than $400 million and build commercial plants by 2014, according to an internal Catchlight business plan.

The plants were expected to generate a profit of 5 percent to 10 percent, according to Bryan and other former Chevron officials -- short of the average 17 percent the company earns on capital investments, including oil and gas exploration and production, for which it has budgeted $33 billion this year.

The Catchlight plan was doomed when management decreed biofuels had to compete with fossil fuel projects for funds, said Bryan, a lecturer in chemical and biomolecular engineering at the University of California at Berkeley. He said he left Chevron, taking a severance package during a staff downsizing, because he didn’t believe the company was committed to biofuels.

Too Ambitious


Chevron was optimistic when it worked on the low-carbon fuel standard with Schwarzenegger’s team in 2007, said Desmond King, president of Chevron Technology Ventures, which oversees emerging technologies. Former biofuels chief Zalesky, now the company’s general manager of crude and manufacturing strategy, was among several Chevron officials who helped craft the rule.

As the company put theory into practice, trying to make a propellant out of wood’s sugar-rich fibers, it realized the rule was too ambitious, King said. The research didn’t lead to anything that would be commercially viable, he said.

Even a 10 percent potential profit wasn’t attractive because the average payback from other projects is so much higher, he said. “It’s hard for Chevron to make major investments in anything that would be dilutive to its return,” he said. “It all comes down to getting good enough returns for our shareholders.”

Algae Fuel


Spending on biofuels has shrunk, he said, declining to give details. A leading producer of geothermal energy, Chevron expects to spend about $2 billion between 2012 and 2014 on renewable energy and energy efficiency, according to Morgan Crinklaw, a company spokesman.

To try to make algae fuel, Irving, Texas-based ExxonMobil said it would spend up to $600 million and hired Synthetic Genomics Inc. in 2009 to identify and modify algal strains that yield high amounts of oils. The oil company promoted the work in ads with a scientist saying, “We’re making a big commitment to finding out just how much algae can help to meet the fuel demands of the world.”

Research hit a snag in 2011 when a strain that made enough oil in a California greenhouse to meet a required milestone in the contract failed to perform in a pond at an ExxonMobil facility in Texas, according to J. Craig Venter, Synthetic Genomics’ chief executive officer and co-founder and one of the first scientists to sequence the human genome.

Long Term


ExxonMobil recast the contract, leading to layoffs of more than half the Synthetic Genomics employees working on biofuels for the oil company, according to former managers and scientists involved in the project. The effort now focuses on long-term research and development rather than commercial production, said Heather Kowalski, a spokeswoman for La Jolla, California-based Synthetic Genomics.

Charles Engelmann, a spokesman for ExxonMobil, declined to discuss details of the partnership or comment on the company’s opposition to the low-carbon rule’s timeline.

That’s being targeted by Fueling California, an advocacy group whose major funder is Chevron and that spent more than $327,000 in 2011 and 2012 lobbying on fuel and transportation policies, according to state disclosure forms.

The Air Resources Board’s Nichols said regulators haven’t been swayed by the arguments, among them that the economy will suffer if implementation of the rule isn’t delayed. “At this point we’re not seeing any need to change course,” she said.

Corporate Representatives


Both Chevron and ExxonMobil help finance the Houston-based Consumer Energy Alliance, which runs ad and Web campaigns warning low-carbon mandates could cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. After the alliance lobbied in New Hampshire last year, lawmakers passed a law prohibiting the state from participating in any low-carbon fuel program without legislative approval.

In January, the Washington-based American Legislative Exchange Council, which writes bills it recommends to legislators, endorsed a measure based on the New Hampshire law that it’s urging other states to adopt.

The council is made up of lawmakers and corporate representatives. Company memberships cost from $7,000 to $25,000 annually, and those that belong include ExxonMobil, the coal concern Peabody Energy Corp. and Koch Industries Inc., a chemical, textile, trading and refining conglomerate whose co- owners, Charles and David Koch, have supported the Tea Party.

Front Line


The council opposes government dictating Americans’ fuel choices, said Todd Wynn, director of the energy, environment and agriculture task force at the group. It also encourages legislators to repeal mandates -- which exist in 29 states -- requiring renewable energy from solar, wind and other sources to be part of the electric power mix.

This year, 30 bills to kill or weaken renewable rules have been considered in 16 states, according to the North Carolina Solar Center in Raleigh, which tracks such measures. None have passed so far.

California, the most populous state, is the front line: Emission controls enacted there since 1966 have been models for federal car-pollution and miles-per-gallon rules.

The state began to phase in the low-carbon standard in 2011. When it’s fully in effect in 2020, greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation fuels are supposed to be 10 percent less than they were in 2010.

Transportation Mix


The state’s 32 million vehicles consume 15 billion gallons of gasoline each year, according to state data, and emit 160 million metric tons of greenhouse gases annually, 36 percent of all such emissions in California.

Right now, the state is on track to achieve the goal, according to Stanley Young, a spokesman for the Air Resources Board. Neither the agency nor Chevron and ExxonMobil will disclose how the companies are complying with the rule.

The U.S. government first spurred interest in biofuels, after President George W. Bush signed laws in 2005 and 2007 ordering more non-petroleum ingredients in the fuel supply.

The laws required refiners, importers and blenders to put 16.6 billion gallons of renewables into the mix by 2013. At least 1 billion gallons would have to come from cellulosic biofuels, which, unlike the widely used ethanol supplement derived from corn, are harvested from non-food crops, including switch grass and woody debris.

Fading Appetite


To meet its obligations, Chevron in 2008 teamed up with Weyerhaeuser to start Catchlight. Its goal was 17 plants by 2029, making 2 billion gallons annually, with spending of $370 million by 2013, according to a Catchlight business plan.

“There was a lot of enthusiasm that we would move forward on a path to develop something significant,” said Denny Hunter, Catchlight’s chief technology officer in 2008 and 2009 and a former vice president of technology for pulp, paper and packaging at Federal Way, Washington-based Weyerhaeuser.

Chevron’s appetite for biofuels began to fade after about a year, according to Hunter, Bryan and other former officials affiliated with Catchlight. A key reason, they said, was the shrinking federal cellulosic biofuels directive.

The laws Bush signed instruct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to adjust requirements based on supplies, which have never reached the goal. The EPA’s cellulosic biofuels mandate for 2013 is 99 percent below the original target.

‘No Urgency’


Chevron’s biofuels plan wound up in the cross-hairs of cost analysts in 2009 when they determined it would be a better bet to buy renewable fuel credits rather than keep trying to make the product, according to Bryan and two other former employees who asked not to be identified because they were discussing confidential company information. Credits, purchased from the government or producers who exceed low-carbon obligations, allow non-reducers to abide by clean fuel regulations.

After the cost analysts’ report, the Catchlight budget was stripped of money for plants, said Hunter, the former chief technologist who said he retired in 2009 because he was unhappy with the joint-venture’s direction. Chevron “no longer wanted to be a leader in biofuels,” he said.

In April 2010, Chevron and Weyerhaeuser told Catchlight to ratchet back, according to an internal business plan that set the 2013 budget at $8.9 million -- 98 percent lower than previously envisioned.

The Catchlight board said in the plan there was “no urgency” to commercialize and that, “in the absence of mandates,” the first plant “should be driven by financial returns.” The return on the investment would have to “meet or exceed” 20 percent, according to the plan.

‘Technical Winner’


That shocked scientists who were confident they’d come up with a process that would work, called solvent liquefaction, according to Jim Stevens, a chemist who researched technologies for 29 years at Chevron before being laid off in December 2010.

They’d constructed a contraption the size of a Winnebago that used a chemical solvent to turn woody biomass into fuel. It began producing in February 2010. “This was a real technical winner,” Stevens said.

Catchlight roughed out the numbers for a $504 million solvent liquefaction plant producing 92 million gallons a year at a cost of $2.18 a gallon, according to a 2010 internal report that laid out the technical and economic prospects for producing biofuels on a commercial scale. Making gasoline costs between $2 a gallon and $2.75 a gallon when oil prices are $70 a barrel to $100 a barrel, according to another Catchlight document.

‘Still Learning’


The joint venture never performed final tests on the biofuels process, Stevens said. “They just quit trying.”

Chevron hasn’t stopped working on developing biofuels products, according to Crinklaw, the company spokesman.

Taxpayers will help pay for future solvent liquefaction research. It will be conducted at Iowa State University with a $3.5 million federal grant covering 80 percent of the costs, and Catchlight the rest.

Catchlight is also supplying wood chips to Pasadena, Texas- based KiOR Inc., a biofuels producer that announced its first shipment of cellulosic diesel in March. Chevron has a contract to purchase some of KiOR’s renewable fuels. Weyerhaeuser is happy with the joint venture’s status, said David Godwin, vice president of minerals and energy products.

In October 2010, six months after Chevron and Weyerhaeuser put the brakes on at Catchlight, Chevron ran television and print ads about its work on non-petroleum fuels. “Something’s got to be done. So we’re doing it,” the ads said. “We’re not just behind renewables. We’re tackling the challenges of making them affordable and reliable on a large scale.”

Chevron officials didn’t respond to questions about the advertising campaign.

“We remain interested in the solvent liquefaction technology but, like other biofuels production technologies, it is early in its development, and we’re still learning about it,” Crinklaw said in an e-mailed statement. “Unfortunately, the technology hasn’t advanced as quickly as we hoped.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Ben Elgin in San Francisco at belgin@bloomberg.net; Peter Waldman in San Francisco at pwaldman@bloomberg.net
 
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Gary Putka at gputka@bloomberg.net

Monday, March 25, 2013

Country forestry banquet set for Tuesday

http://dailysoutherner.com/community/x1221097993/Country-forestry-banquet-set-for-Tuesday

March 25, 2013
 
TARBORO — Persons with an interest in the timber industry will gather Tuesday at the East Carolina Agriculture and Education Center for the annual Edgecombe County Forestry Banquet.

The meal portion of the event will get under way at 6:30 p.m. and the program will begin at 7:15

Clay Altizer, Utilization Forester for the North Carolina Forest Service, and Edward Sontag, director of fiber sourcing for Envira LP, will deliver the main presentations.

As recently as the third quarter of 2011, the forest products sector in North Carolina included 2,299 manufacturing facilities and provided 67,613 jobs and an annual payroll of $2.7 billion.

The overall economic benefit to the state was estimated at $23.8 billion with a total related work force of 178,498.

Sontag will talk about the future of palletized woody biomass.

Enviva is one of the largest manufacturers of processed biomass fuel in the form of 100 percent wood pellets in the United States and Europe.

Enviva operates a pellet facility in Ashokie capable of producing 350,000 metric tons of wood pellet annually and is scheduled to bring a 500,000 metric ton plant online in Northampton at mid-year.

Woody biomass is made up of the trees and woody plants, including limbs, tops, needles, leaves, and other woody parts, grown in a forest, woodland, or rangeland environment, that are the by-products of forest management.

The National Energy Policy Act, signed into law on August 8, 2005, recognized the importance of a diverse portfolio of domestic energy. The policy outlined 13 recommendations designed to increase America’s use of renewable and alternative energy. One of these recommendations directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Energy to re-evaluate access limitations to federal lands in order to increase renewable energy production, such as biomass, wind, geothermal, and solar.

On June 18, 2003, The Departments of Energy, Interior, and Agriculture announced an initiative to encourage the use of woody biomass from forest and rangeland restoration and hazardous fuels treatment projects. The three Departments signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Policy Principles for Woody Biomass Utilization for Restoration and Fuel Treatment on Forests, Woodlands, and Rangelands, supporting woody biomass utilization as a recommended option to use to reduce hazardous fuels rather than burning or employing other on-site disposal methods.

In North Carolina, North Carolina General Statutes 105-277.2 through 105-277.7 provide an incentive for farmers and foresters to keep agricultural and forested land in those uses through property tax deferments as part of the use value program.

In order to qualify for forestry use, there must be at least 20 acres of forested land, and you must present to the tax assessor a Forestry Management Plan, showing the forested land is under a sound management program.

For more information, contact Bob Filbrun at 641-7815.

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.
 

Construction on Clinton biofuel refinery could start as early as fall

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2013/03/18/1243607?sac=fo.business

Published: 07:22 AM, Mon Mar 18, 2013


Construction on a $170 million refinery in Clinton to convert 20 million tons of grass into fuel each year could start as early as this fall.

Chemtex, an international company with offices in Wilmington, plans to build the refinery on 166 acres in Sampson County. The plant would mirror one already built in Italy. If construction begins as planned, the plant could open in 2015.

Yet hurdles remain.

"We're working very hard to try to make it a reality," said Dennis Leong, an executive vice president at Chemtex. "I'm very confident that in 2015, this plant will be open somewhere, and I should say we're still very hopeful and it's our intention to open in North Carolina. It's really making sure it's a project that's welcome in the state."

It will take at least 20,000 acres of energy crops such as miscanthus and switchgrass to feed the refinery. Chemtex has developed its own technology to extract the energy from green plants and soft woods.

The plan is to sign up farmers near the plant to grow materials on land they aren't already using to grow food.

Chemtex estimates the facility will help create more than 300 jobs in the region while helping the nation reduce its dependence on foreign oil. And that could be just the beginning. Chemtex documents say North Carolina has enough available land to support as many as 15 refineries, which could mean 5,000 new jobs and a $2 billion boost to the state's economy.

The N.C. Biofuels Center has identified 100,000 acres of spray fields in Sampson, Duplin and Wayne counties that could potentially be used for biocrops. But state environmental workers are still studying how to plant the crops in spray fields in a way that complies with waste regulations.

The ethanol produced at the plant could be sold to fuel blenders and end up in cars' gasoline tanks.

Staff writer John Ramsey can be reached at ramseyj@fayobserver.com or 486-3574.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

EPA approves new cellulosic, advanced biofuel pathways

http://www.biomassmagazine.com/articles/8669/epa-approves-new-cellulosic-advanced-biofuel-pathways

By Erin Voegele | February 26, 2013
 
The U.S. EPA has published a new final rule, qualifying additional fuel pathways under the renewable fuel standard (RFS) for advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based diesel. The rulemaking covers two new feedstocks, camelina and energy cane. It also qualifies renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstocks made from certain feedstocks as cellulosic biofuel.

Under the new rule, ethanol, renewable diesel (including jet fuel and heating oil) and renewable gasoline blendstock produced using energy cane feedstock can now qualify to generate cellulosic biofuel renewable identification numbers (RINs).

According to the EPA, for the purposes of this rulemaking, energy cane has been defined as a complex hybrid in the Saccharum genus that that has been bred to maximize cellulosic rather than sugar content.

Within the final rule, the EPA addresses several comments made by members of the public during the rulemaking process, including those related to invasiveness and land use change potential. The EPA states that energy cane does not raise significant concerns about the threat of invasiveness. Regarding land use change, the EPA specifies that energy cane is most likely to be grown on land once used for pasture, rice, commercial sod, cotton or alfalfa, which would have a less international direct impact than switchgrass because those commodities are not as widely traded as soybeans or wheat. “Given that energy cane will likely displace the least productive land first, EPA concludes that the land use GHG impact for energy cane per gallon should be no greater and likely less than estimated for switchgrass,” said the agency in the rulemaking.

According to the rule, EPA believes that cellulsoic biofuels produced from the cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin portions of energy cane will have similar or better lifecycle GHG impacts than biofuel produced from switchgrass.

Biodiesel and renewable diesel (including jet fuel and heating oil) made from camelina feedstock are now eligible for biomass-based diesel or advanced RINs. In addition, camelina-based naphtha and liquefied petroleum gas can qualify for advanced biofuel RINs.

While the EPA notes in the rulemaking that some parties submitting comments on the proposed camelina pathways expressed concern over the potential threat of invasiveness, the EPA states that it believes the production of camelina is unlikely to spread beyond the intended borders in which it is grown.

The EPA also specified that the crop is currently being grown on approximately 50,000 acres of land throughout Montana, Washington, North Dakota and South Dakota. Overall, the EPA estimates that approximately 9 million acres of land in a wheat/fallow rotation is available for camelina production nationwide.

“Current information suggestion that camelina will be produced on land that would otherwise remain fallow,” said EPA in the rulemaking. “Therefore, increased production of camelina-based renewable fuel is not expected to result in significant land use change emissions; however, the agency will continue to monitor volumes through EMTS to verify this assumption.”

Regarding renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstocks, the rulemaking qualifies fuels produced from crop residue, slash, pre-commercial thinnings, tree residue, annual cover crops, and cellulosic components of separated yard waste, separated food waste and separated municipal solid waste (MWS). The rule also specifies that, when utilizing natural gas, biogas and/or biomass as the only process energy source, thermochemical pyrolysis, thermochemical gasification, biochemical direct fermentation, biochemical fermentation with catalytic upgrading can all be used with the listed feedstocks to generated fuel qualifying as cellulosic biofuel. In addition, any other process that uses biogas and/or biomass as the only process energy sources to convert the approved gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock feedstocks into biofuel also qualifies for cellulosic RINs.

A full copy of the rulemaking is available on the EPA website.