Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

New EPA Regulation May Discourage U.S. Biomass Projects

By Terry McDonald, EnergyBoom Capital
December 10, 2010   |   9 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
9 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 9
Anonymous
December 10, 2010
The caption to the figure: "U.S. Energy Information Administration electricity production data: fossil fuels vs. renewable" is obviously wrong as the figure indicates Petroleum as 37% of whatever is being plotted (and petroleum is a trivially small percentage of US electricity production). The percentages look like they are for primary energy consumption (not just electricity)....
Steven
Comment
2 of 9
December 10, 2010
The pie chart presented is for total energy production, not electricity generation. The large biomass figure is for ethanol that is used as a transportation fuel.

Also, the chart is a little dated as renewables now generate more power in BTUs than nuclear power in the US.
Comment
3 of 9
December 14, 2010
It's about time we start appreciating our biomass as an energy resource and stop burning it. There is only one optimum way to utilize it, and that is gasification to generate clean energy or clean fuels/chemicals. Stop the chimneys !
Comment
4 of 9
December 14, 2010
It sounds like the EPA has either serious schizophrenia when it comes to CO2 emissions in regard to biomass, OR they are concerned about a possible increase in unwise, indiscriminate cutting of forests and/or other plants if biomass derived electirity production is increased.

If it is the latter concern, then they need to state it explicitly, for it is a good point. As it stands, however, it sounds like schizophrenia.

If many forests that were not slated for harvesting before a rise in biomass plants start to be cut down, then the increase in CO2 emissions is real, for there would be less uptake of CO2 from plant sources as a result.

Since industrial hemp (or even kudzu for that matter) can probably create much more biomass per acre/per time period, then one logical solution might be to change biomass sources.
Comment
5 of 9
December 15, 2010
Total renewables are slightly ahead of nuclear because of hydro and biomass. Wind and solar are still a trivial 1% of total energy consumption.
Comment
6 of 9
December 15, 2010
In 2009 wind produced 70 billion kwh of electricity or 1.75% of total electric demand. Solar is so small you can hardly measure it. Nuclear is 20% of electric demand and you can depend on it. Wind turns itself on and off which is one reason it can never be a large part of electric production.
Comment
7 of 9
December 15, 2010
Does it make any sense to anyone why we still consider large scale hydro-power to be renewable?

Hydroelectric power does not count towards a states RPS, nor its not a sustainable source of electric power due to erosion, silt trapping and fish kill. Yes, its pollution free, but is that all it takes to be determined to be renewable? This gets to the core of the problem above. We need a solid standard for what is considered renewable energy. Till then, the EPA will keep coming out with BS "bureaucratic Catch 22's" and hampering the growth of renewable energy resources.
Comment
8 of 9
December 15, 2010
Yep, there are problems with the data presented in this article. But let's stay focused on the key point and that is the EPA is wound around the beauracratic axle. Rather than proactively work to fix a problem they declare it's in the the too hard locker and continue to plow on mindful that their "Catch-22" exists and could lead biomass efforts into a brick wall. It causes me to think:"What the blazes is going on?", we have a technology that has been plodding along for the past 40 years, which is finally coming to fruition and we have a team of EPA administrators who don't want to eliminate the "Catch-22" because it is too hard. Get a Life!!
No image available
Comment
9 of 9
Anonymous
December 15, 2010
Brad writes in comment #8:
"Hydroelectric power does not count towards a states RPS, nor its not a sustainable source of electric power due to erosion, silt trapping and fish kill."

If your dam silts up you can always take it down and build a new one. The energy available from the running water is entirely renewable. No one says the hardware to harvest renewable energy has to be eternal in order to be eligible to use the renewable moniker. Wind turbines and PV panels have to be replaced eventually too....

It is hard to dispute the main point of the article that there are a few screws loose over at EPA.
Steven
Steven
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP HUBER+SUHNER AG Blue Sky Energy, Inc. Schneider Electric American Wind Energy Association ClearEnergy Inc. Black & Veatch Corporation
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters