I have been living in Nevada for awhile now, not keeping up exactly with Virginia politics and government. So it was a surprise to me when I went to DSIRE to see that Virginia is listed as one of 27 states with a Renewable Portfolio Standard or Renewable Energy Goal.
Actually, Virginia is one of four states with a Renewable Energy Goal as opposed to a Standard; 23 states have actual standards. Some are mandatory, while others do not officially have penalties, but have created a credit system that creates a viable market for renewable technology in the state. Not only does Virginia lack a viable incentive program, it lacks any imagination. It seems like promise easily forgotten. No wonder Virginia makes the point to refer to their law as "voluntary".
Virginia remains a state that gets the majority of its electric power from coal. As of 2005, the production of electric energy in the state ranks 11th in total retail sales. In other words, Virginia's utilities produce and sell a lot of coal-fired power.
However, you may not know that the three largest power plants in Virginia do not produce electricity from coal. The largest is pumped storage from two reservoirs in Bath County. Of course the process isn't that efficient, but it is technically a hydropower facility. The second largest is a Nuclear plant in Louisa County and the third largest is a natural gas plant 30 miles south of Washington DC. All three of these plants are run by Dominion Virginia Power.
Aside from the Pumped Storage, which is really just a back-up generator for all intensive purposes, hydro-electric and other small renewables that count as part of the renewable energy goal make up just over 5% of the power Virginian?s receive. What is disturbing about this statistic is that back in 1990, Virginian?s received 8% of their power from these renewable sources.
Click here for more information on Virginia energy statistics.
In fact, this renewable goal; okay voluntary renewable goal; asks our utilities to achieve a 12% target by 2022. If we were 8% in 1990 that means it would take three decades to improve by 4%. What kind of goal is that? In fact, utilities are not asked to meet the 12% goal by 2022. In 2021, the goal says they only need to be a 7%, below the 1990 figure!
Now some may say that Virginia is a coal producing state and that is the reason we are able to rely on that resource. But did you know that Virginia is 12th in coal production, producing less than 1/5th the coal as neighboring West Virginia, and 1/15th the coal of Wyoming.
We have an opportunity to rid ourselves of reliance on fossil fuels. We burn more oil for power in Virginia than we use clean energy sources for power. That is inexcusable in a state so rich with resources.
The reason I bring this up is because we should all understand where we get our power from. Sure we can change light bulbs and buy more energy efficient products. We can conserve energy by being less hoggish. However, we will never get anywhere if we don?t start to demand that our power comes from sources that are cleaner. Energy bills are already rising, and with issues of climate change to contend with, a voluntary 12% goal that utilities can shirk out of if they feel like it just isn?t good enough.
Every dollar spent in agriculture multiplies itself 2.3 times by circulating and re-circulating in the local economy and thereby increasing employment 1.5 Full Time Equivalents (FTE). Every new agricultural job leads to the creation of 1.6 other jobs in the regional economy. This is called the Multiplier Effect, which is an economic metric used to measure spending.1
Investing in renewable (non-fossil fuel) biomass agriculture to grow and produce biofuels will stop the billions of dollars from leaving our Commonwealth each year while creating new jobs and growing our economy.
A successful, large scale biomass industry will lower the cost closer to coal, making it possible to lower emissions from coal fired power plants. All of this will help to stop global warming, break our addiction to foreign oil, prevent future wars, strengthen our national security, reduce our trade deficit, stimulate local economies, create new jobs that can not be outsourced, revitalize family farms and rural communities reverse rural flight and alleviate congestion in urban areas and increase our tax base, which will help pay for better transportation, health care and education.
1 Policy Issues in Rural Land Use. Vol. 9, No. 2, Dec. 1996. USDA, Resource and Managerial Economics: Cornell Cooperative Extension. 14 June 2006.
There are many concepts (and real approaches) for using agricultural waste for, for example, making charcoal, replacing coal with that charcoal, and then using the charcoal ash for fertilizer (which it could be, if not polluted with coal ash). As a system, near carbon neutral (and could be done in carbon negative in a variety of ways).
But, on a large scale, bio-fuels are and will be ever more destructive -- poor EROEI, peak soil, water issues, food vs fuel, etc ... too many factors make this a troublesome "silver bullet". There is value for some (limited) bio-fuel focus, but I would not emphasize it.
Again, however, this is an excellent discussion of electricity for which the bio-fuels is a diversion.
* FOOD vs FUEL: Hmmm ... no food vs fuel issue? What about the acres of crops being moved into corn from other crops, with not just corn but other crops going up seriously in price.
* PEAK SOIL: Ever greater biofuels will lead, again, into using ever more marginal land for production. And, how much of production in the US is now being maintained via petroleum-based fertilizer?
* WATER: Water is a stressed resource, globally, and this is only likely to get worse. Agricultural production is the largest consumer of water. Biofuels will demand ever greater agricultural activity.
Now, you use words like "competent management practices" -- that is the point, how much of agriculture globally is "competent", with sustainability a core element of the process, judicious use of water, etc???
Biofuels can be a niche part of developing a sustainable future, but, again, anyone asserting this as a silver bullet is leading us / US down a false path.
Why are typical ethanol refineries operating with EROEI of order 1.3? The reason is that they use cheap natural gas to distill the ethanol from the mash, and that they use more natural gas to dry the Distiller's Grain Solids (DGS, the mash after distillation) to make Dried DGS [DDGS] for use as animal feed. I visited a typical Midwest coop-owned 40Mgallon ethanol refinery about a year ago, and was given the cook's tour by the mechanical engineer who operates the plant. I asked him about the natural gas. He told me that he spends about a million dollars per month on natural gas. I asked him what he will do when the price rises (as it inevitably will), and he answered that he had three different engineering proposals on his desk for upgrades. I remember that one of them was to gasify some of the DGS, and substitute the syngas for the natural gas. If he does that, the EROEI of his refinery will be raised! There are many other engineering modifications to existing refineries which will raise EROEI. The best discussion of this subject is a dailyKos posting titled "Putting More ?Renewable? in Renewable Fuels by somebody with the alias "deb9" (probably an engineer in the industry). After reading this essay, I concluded that corn-based ethanol refineries will probably increase their EROEI steadily in the coming years, and may even become sustainable (EROEI~infinity) in the end.
Brazilian ethanol has been analyzed independently by a group in the Netherlands, with the conclusion that the best refining practices in Brazil achieve EROEI of order 8. The Brazilians even use renewable fuel for transportation of the biomass and fuel products. There is no fundamental reason why the USA cannot do likewise.
However, individual farmers appear to me to have somewhat enlightened attitudes. I was in an agricultural extension person meeting today in which the comment was made that "stewardship" was a good word to use when trying to persuade farmers to upgrade their technology. I have also heard agricultural research scientists talking about how much of a certain crop should be left in the field to maintain soil quality; this is definitely a sustainability issue. So I see reason to hope.
"If we follow an aggressive plan to develop cellulosic biofuels between now and 2015,
The NRDC's projected fraction of current petroleum usage is certainly not a "niche", especially in the context of the Post-Peak-Oil world, in which the total energy usage of the USA will be driven down inexorably by higher prices and frustrating shortages. In that world, the contribution of biofuels to our liquid fuel supply will loom large indeed. The NRDC report, and other reports consistent with it, are the basis for much of the current energy policy of the USA. They have also been accepted, as a practical matter, by the agricultural science community of the USA, who are energetically pursuing biofuels. You should be aware of these facts, and should factor them into your thinking on things like Energize America 2020.
2. Mea culpa, again, re "petroleum" based, I am very aware re natural gas. You might want to check out the bio-fertilizer act proposal at www.ea2020.org -- lead writer was 'deb9' -- this is specifically re: "ammonia-based fertilizer sustainably".
3. Will have to pass to 'deb9' your positive comments. For amusement & context, I'm the person who sparked that diary discussion (it was an extensive piece in a back & forth between us, as part of deb9's engagement in Energize America (again; www.ea2020.org ). We considered including that in the EA2020 proposals, but decided to see where the Bio-Fertilizer Act went first.
re (3): who is "deb9"? what is deb9's connection to the ethanol industry? The breadth and depth of technical knowledge displayed in that dKos posting was quite impressive. For example, that essay is the only place where I have seen the term 'steam compression' in the ethanol refinery context.
* Re Deb9: Engineer, renewable energy specialist. No connection that I am aware of to the ethanol industry.
Shucks, that is the 'most innovative'? Clearly among the more innovative, which is why I pushed it and why it was one of just four items that we brought to the Hill (and one of two that we worked 'hard') this spring.
1. Energy efficiency - transportation sector (double, triple fuel economy)
The way to do this? As Al Gore said recently in Rolling Stone, we need "a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system where the emissions rights are auctioned and the revenue is plowed back into renewable-energy development." And no, that does NOT have to add to peoples' tax burdern or be "regressive" in any way. Here's Gore:
Now, I just wish that people would stop wasting their time on the thought that biofuels will solve all, or even a large percentage, of our energy and environmental problems. They won't, and it's simply a distraction (and a fallacy) to constantly throw that out there as a solution.
First, when post-Peak-Oil decreases of production really set in, prices will rise rapidly and shortages will occur rapidly. The problems will get worse and worse. There won't be time enough to replace all those vehicles! There are more than 200 million of them! Efficiency is simply not an effective policy until Peak Oil occurs (Americans won't accept it), and it won't be an effective policy afterward either (there won't be time enough). However, in that post-Peak-Oil world, Americans will finally get the message. But there won't be any need for a policy -- people will vote with their feet when they buy replacement vehicles. In that world, 18-wheelers will be at an economic disadvantage compared to container trains, even more than they are now, and so once again efficiency improvement will happen without any pre-Peak-Oil policy action.
Second, Jevon's Paradox applies with full force in this situation. Be careful what you ask for! An efficiency policy action may actually have a perverse result.
Finally, I conjecture a simple axiom: Depletable resources will be depleted. It is easy to think of examples in support of this conjecture. Sigh.. efficiency can only delay the inevitable result, it can't change the result. But biofuels? Oh yes, they can change the result.
Then look at all the hogwash written about bio-fuels/synfuels, and all the people who believe that hogwash. Just when will people start to read the up to date material on this subject. Most of what is written is years old, except the scare tactic of the price of corn will go out of site. Apprently no one rides the rural areas of VA and looks at the crops. Idle field are now filled with corn cropps and they are tall and green. Why farmers can make a buck. Do all of yhose against bio-fuels want our economy to stop like the corn fields of the past.
We put a man on the moon in eeght years, are there any amonsgt you that believe that if we put our minds and the government behind a synfuels project we could have over ridden most of the horror stories of the past.
I believe in you and our government when it works for a positive goal and as long as those sit in the background and critise without proper facts, just how can we accomplish fuel indepedence.
True, I have no facts to support what I have just written, just hopes and dreams of a better USA and the belief in a good politican who keeps losing the 5th race, but hangs solid on his project of synfuels for the economy of VA. Al is hanging tough over all you skeptics. Maybe with a VA Democratic controlled Legislature he will finally get the break thru he needs.
VOTE DEMOCRAT NOV. 6
When I was a young man a few decades ago it was easy to buy a car that got at least 30 miles per gallon. When I graduated from high school in 1958 I was driving a car that got over 32 mpg, and it was a full size sedan not some tiny low power econobox. Now even Pelosi and Reid seem to be knuckling under to (pandering to) both the auto industry (Michigan) and the Big Oil corporations. Foreign auto manfacturers already sell cars in the U.S. that meet or exceed their minimal stated future mileage objectives, and that's not even counting the 50 mpg hybrids. It's ludicrous for our own elected Dems. to claim that years of (taxpayer subsidized ?)new technology development is needed. And why should pickup trucks get a pass on the mileage standards applicable to purely passenger vehicles ? Assess a large enough tax penalty on gas-guzzlers across the board and see how fast people will stop buying those vehicles, and then see how fast Detroit magically discover they already have the technology to build energy efficient vehicles. If U.S. auto manufacturers don't build what buyers want and can afford and they go bankrupt, so much the better. I say no more taxpayer subsidized bailouts to reward bad management; that's absurb investment strategy, as well as political strategy.
That leads me to the point of my subject line. I'm all for investing in alternate energy sources, with some of the exceptions noted above. But not if the investment for alternate energy sources, whether it's cleaner coal-burning electrical plants, biofuels, ethanol, biodiesel, etc., over a long period of time means diversion of billions of dollars per year in the form of subsidies to those developers and even farmers (see my para. below re my logic as it applies to farmers). There has to be a return on taxpayers' investments within a reasonable period of time. And even studies by the most ardent supporters of biomass/biodiesel development have noted that the cost of first building pilot plants and developing a distribution infrastructure is great and that it will take several years to become economically sef-sufficient and competitive. In the meantime, that leaves far less money available to build alternate energy systems such as windmill farms a few miles off the Va. Beach coastline and/or building modern nuclear power plants using current proven and safe technology(Germany, e.g., has modern very cost-effective nuclear power plants that don't pollute the air and have never had a safety problem). One other big plus in favor of nuclear power plants is that they create very high paying jobs during construction and life-cycle operation after construction.
Now for my inclusion of farmers in the comments about subsidizing development and construction corporations. I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that there is a high farm-related unemployement rate in parts of central Va. If the unemployed farm workers either can't move to areas that have other forms of employment or don't possess the skills required, we can do the simple math to determine "return on investment" if we divide the total taxpayer cost (again, read subsidy) by the total number of unemployed farm workers in these (islolated) areas. All the figures I've seen that I believe came Va. state records indicate that a few thousand farm workers are unemployed; for rough calculation puposes we could say 10K-20K unemployed. When we divide hundreds millions of dollars of new technology development plus many millions to build pilot plants - I think Al Weed said the construction cost of just one pilot plant is estimated to be around $50M - that amounts to a number on the order of $50K per unemployed person. Not what I'd call a good economic investment. I think a better investment would be to bring in modern technology manufacturing plants, IT service call centers, even a windmill plant for the off-shore Va. Beach windmill farm by encouraging those companies to come to this depressed area in the form of tax breaks and even modest subsidies. The unused farmland cost would be low since it's generating no income now, and the labor cost would be very attractive to any corporation. Of course, local unemployed people would need to be trained and to take advantage of already available cheap labor a company would have a considerable financial incentive to pay for training. Bottom line for this rough calculation would seem to support my belief that this alternative would provide a much higher return on investment and would generate new and higher paying jobs much sooner. For starters, the local workers would be able to work on the plant site development and the plant construction even before the new plant is ready to hire people for operation.
That turned out to be a much more lengthy dissertation than I'd intended. But I think you see the point that there are many viable alternatives, all of which should be considered and weighed against "cost vs. benefit" and "return on taxpayer investment" criteria.
One last thought and I'll stop: The kind of alternative farm land use I'm suggesting still leaves a lot of farm land for future planting as future biofuel technology matures and/or market demand for income producing crops grows. Respectfully submitted for your consideration. T.C.
Proud to be a Bruce Roemmelt Democrat.
Yes when I was young I rememeber far better fuel economy on larger vehicles. I also remmember 4 adults driving from Bethlehem, Pa to Atantic City, NJ in a Volks Wagon which got 40 miles to the gallon. Friday, I also looked at a new Volkswagon and the sticker said 30mpg highway. That is progress? Whose fault is that? The problem can be spread equally amongst the Governemnt, Car Maunufactors and the Consumer.
I do not have the exact figures, but keep hearing around 4 billion is what we subsidize the oil companies for many reasons that we should not. Their profits are so large they deserve no help at this time. Then there is the amount of money we spend to protect all the foreign oil distrutors so we can import that oil. Hear that is more then $4 billion dollars. So now we have roughly 8 billion dollars to spend and not having to charge ourselves any more money. How many 50 million dollar plants can we build? How much can we set aside for our scientists to improve the methods of producing synfuels. I understand that 8 billion is an annual figure, so you do the math.
Thanks and Vote Democratic Nov. 6Comments
poor EROEI
that is not necessarily true, some biofuel systems already have high EROEI, and others will increase their EROEI in the future.
peak soil
with competent management practices, recycling carbon to the soil, agriculture can be sustainable
water issues
you must be quite specific -- generally water is not going to be a barrier to biofuel implementations
food versus fuel
this controversy is greatly exaggerated even when there is actually a competition, but in the best known cases the competition doesn't even exist. In particular, cattle do not digest corn starch, so it can be used for ethanol production with no impact on food supply, as long as the cattle are fed with the (usually Dried) Distillers Grain Solids [DDGS], which are left after the ethanol distillation. The DDGS contains the corn protein on which our meat supply depends. Most critics of ethanol production have no idea that it has ZERO impact on meat production, and many of the critics do not realize that very little corn is consumed as food by humans directly, but rather most is consumed as meat.What is the highest EROEI out there? Actually being executed..
In the US, the highest biofuel EROEI is probably being achieved by the E3 Biofuels facility in Mead, Nebraska, which began production recently. Robert Rapier, in a posting titled "E3 Biofuels: Responsible Ethanol" discussed a spreadsheet supplied by the company, and concluded that E3 should be able to "quadruple the EROEI". On the basis of his assertion, I assume that E3 is operating with EROEI of order 4.What about the acres of crops being moved into corn from other crops
Farmers make planting decisions on anticipated market prices, plus crop rotation needs. It is a free market. The new use for their crop has raised their incomes substantially. This is a very positive development for the rural economy all across America. The price rises were inevitable anyway because of petroleum price increases that we anticipate post-Peak-Oil. Indeed, much of recent rises of food prices must already be due to the recent petroleum price increases. biofuels will lead, again, into using ever more marginal land for production
Warm-season grasses such as switchgrass will not need tilling after the initial planting, so erosion is not a long-term issue for this type of perennial biomass crop, which can be harvested sustainably as feedstock for cellulosic ethanol production.petroleum-based fertilizer
actually, the feedstock for ammonia production is not "petroleum", it is natural gas. This is a key fossil fuel component of 20th Century industrial agriculture. (Natural gas for fertilizer is part of the EROEI calculation for corn ethanol.) However! There are ways to produce ammonia-based fertilizer sustainably; I will let you do your own homework to find out about them (hint: check webpages in Minnesota). how much of agriculture globally is "competent", with sustainability a core element of the process
We have never had as much petroleum available to us as we do right now, so why should we economize? Natural gas is plentiful and cheap, so why should we use anything else? These are the attitudes of our fellow Americans as they merrily consume the fossil fuel heritage of our World as though there will be no tomorrow. If the citizens of our country -- and their political leaders -- hold such attitudes, why should we expect the leadership of our industries or our agriculture to be different? They are driven by almost pure profit motive, so they will give low weight to sustainability. Specifically, the Directors of the ethanol refinery that I visited are not going to authorize the capital investment in a DGS gasifier or some other natural gas replacement technology because of an EROEI (sustainability) argument, they will authorize it only if it will improve their bottom line. Biofuels can be a niche part of developing a sustainable future
The NRDC's Growing Energy report (December 2004) asserts (in its Executive Summary) that:
America could produce the equivalent of nearly 7.9 million barrels of oil per day by 2050.
That is equal to more than 50 percent of our current total oil use in the transportation
sector.. In combination with improved fuel efficiency in cars and smart growth planning
in our towns and cities, biofuels can free America from foreign oil in a cost-effective
and environmentally safe way.."
2. Energy efficiency - residential and commercial sector (e.g., "green" building
3. Energy efficiency - industrial sector
4. Energy efficiency - power generation sector (including decoupling and net metering)
5. Non-biofuel/non-carbon-emitting renewables like solar, wind, and geothermal
6. Smart growth (transit oriented development)
7. Possibly nuclear power (since it emits no greenhouse gases).I challenge the conventional wisdom that we have to pick one or the other. If you replace the payroll tax with a tax on CO2, it would discourage the destruction of the planet's environment without increasing total taxes. And a global system that caps and trades emissions would create the most effective reductions in the shortest period of time.
Energy efficiency - transportation sector
There are several misconceptions involved in the popular obsession with "efficiency" in transportation.Non-biofuel/non-carbon-emitting renewables like solar, wind, and geothermal
These are electricity generating techniques. Electricity is not our problem, Peak Oil is our problem, and that is a liquid fuel problem. Many of those 200 million plus gasoline powered vehicles must continue in operation for decades to come, and we will need fuel for them to avoid social unrest and political instability. Biofuels are an answer for that.Smart growth (transit oriented development)
This is necessary in the short term, but not sufficient in the long term. More generally, "growth" of any kind is not sustainable.Al Gore [advocates] a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system
I agree 110%. I have a DraftGore.Com bumpersticker on my 2003 Prius.I just wish that people would stop wasting their time on the thought that biofuels will solve all, or even a large percentage, of our energy and environmental problems. They won't, and it's simply a distraction (and a fallacy) to constantly throw that out there as a solution.
And I wish that people who repeatedly spout anti-biofuel propaganda would do their homework on this subject. Such people appear to me to be blinded by some sort of ideology, even though many of them have technical training which ought to enable them to view these policy questions objectively.
Does anuone ever expect a republican to put penalties on business. If you do then you are a dreamer.
As I was editing my above paragraph relating to nuclear power plants it occured to me that it might also be possible to build a nuclear power plant in the depressed farming area, which could then ship electrical power to the electrical energy high demand Tidewater area to supplement the off-shore windmill farms.
Also I take exception to the calculation of how many 50K jobs will be built with a 50 million dollar plant. That is completely ignoring all the benifits those types of industrys create. But even using those lopsided figures, ask the person who now has a job that will probably last their lifetime means to them and to our economy? That 50K vs 50M reminds me of the old saying " he who holds the pen creates the graph to their benifit".
As far as where to build a nuke plant? With the distrubution of electricity over the existing power lines that can be most anywhere on the east coast. BUT, today we need to set big money aside to find ways to get ride of nuke waste and if people care about the environment it should be done yesterday.