Feed-in Tariffs in America?

[EditorBob]

From http://boell.org/web/139-424.html

Feed-in Tariffs in America: Driving the Economy with Renewable Energy Policy that Works

Around the world there is growing recognition to address the economic and climate crises together rather than separately. President Barack Obama has touted a green energy sector as the best chance of jumpstarting the economy, putting Americans back to work, and securing the country’s standing in a post-carbon world.

In the last decade there has been progress in renewable energy development in the United States, particularly at the state level. There are currently 26 states with mandatory renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and other policy incentives. But despite these efforts and the huge potential of U.S. renewable energy market growth, the gains of new installations are so far modest. Looking at Europe suggests that a simpler, more comprehensive policy achieves greater renewable energy investments with less costs, but more economic benefits: a feed-in tariff. Under this policy, renewable energies are guaranteed access to the grid, and are paid a long-term premium rate that is designed to generate an adequate profit for investors. These schemes have driven rapid renewable energy growth across Europe with Germany and Denmark at the forefront. Also, this policy resulted in large-scale local ownership, with near half of German wind turbines and over 80 percent of Danish ones owned by local residents.

[LeslieH]

Originally Posted by EditorBob

From http://boell.org/web/139-424.html
Also, this policy resulted in large-scale local ownership, with near half of German wind turbines and over 80 percent of Danish ones owned by local residents.

That is the very key. Rather than a large scale grid that is a monopoly and can be taken down by a single suicidal squirrel, they allow municipalities to own their own power structure. We have a history of it in this country, but it's considered antiquated and of no value.

However, rather than the typical American macroscopic view, a change to the microscopic would be best.

Just as people started out having individual water wells for their water source, the idea of having individual power sources should also be examined. Plug into the grid for the times you need extra, or can add to the grid for others, but otherwise, be autonomous. It would be far less toxic to the land, which is a huge issue in my area right now with the natural gas drilling creating the mantra, drill baby drill.

Don't have these huge diesel generators running to pump vast sums of Natural gas out of the ground. Have individual gas 'wells' for each home, that allow the natural flow to supply the homes. An entire section of the nation would be off the grid for a century, with far less intrusion to the environment and no horizontal drilling.

Use the air movement from cars on highways to generate electricity with micro turbines. There's one that is coming out on the market now that would work perfectly for this. It works with far greater wind variables and is 2' in diameter. That's it! I'm hoping to afford one this coming spring. It is supposed to supply an average of 1/4 of an average household's electrical needs. I'll look it up if anyone is interested.

Leslie

[EditorBob]

Great comments, Leslie.

I just came back from Germany on a trip devoted to Germany's impressive efforts towards renewable energy, and they're really on the ball. They're using both that localized, personalized energy mindset and the countrywide sense of will towards embracing the future as a nation. It's exciting to see all the various interest groups working together, instead of against each other as they do here in the States.

Everything is fair game, and they've got some amazing, fresh ideas for energy generation and distribution, including widespread home-based power generation.

I've seen several new small turbine designs come out lately, and they're all very exciting. I saw a great one for homes that runs along the ridgeline of the roof that looks like it would work great, and it appears to be economical.

In Vermont, we still have a number of local utilities, and I think the idea of local power generation, especially as it can integrate local farms and agriculture (digesters, wind farms, solar, everything), could save the small, family farm.

[LeslieH]

Originally Posted by EditorBob

Great comments, Leslie.

I just came back from Germany on a trip devoted to Germany's impressive efforts towards renewable energy, and they're really on the ball. They're using both that localized, personalized energy mindset and the countrywide sense of will towards embracing the future as a nation. It's exciting to see all the various interest groups working together, instead of against each other as they do here in the States.

2 things - The EU does not have the multitude of natural resources that we do. They rely on other nations to supply them with natural gas - the major resource they lack. When other nations just decide to shut off the pipeline, there is a crisis. So, they have an extreme vested interest in becoming self sufficient. That's not a bad thing!

Do you get Farm Show magazine? My brother does and I'm seriously considering getting it. I can't do much reading, but that is MORE than worth it. The number of innovations that come out of that paper is mind-boggling. Many new wind powered generators are showing up from there. Here's a post from last year I made about the ones I found in that mag...
http://kermitsteam.blogspot.com/2008...tech-news.html

[BBiomass]

Originally Posted by EditorBob

From http://boell.org/web/139-424.html

Feed-in Tariffs in America: Driving the Economy with Renewable Energy Policy that Works


In the last decade there has been progress in renewable energy development in the United States, particularly at the state level. There are currently 26 states with mandatory renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and other policy incentives. But despite these efforts and the huge potential of U.S. renewable energy market growth, the gains of new installations are so far modest.

Since I am actually a partner into a new business that is looking to open the door to a biomass production facility that will incorporate the local agricultural industry into the commercial market for compressed biofuels made from grasses, I think that the biggest issue is the lack of funding for start up of an operation. HMMM, let's see, there are grants for the research and marketing of crops themselves and grants for the actually commercial facility burning the product but guess what, there is nothing available for the person/people in the middle.

Combined Heat and Power Plants that generate both electricity and heat need specific dimensions and specific moisture on the products they use. After holding several conversations with local CHP facility managers, I have discovered that those dimensions are less than 2" but greater than 1" to feed through the system and the moisture content needs to be less than 15%.
Without the use of dryers for all wood products, there is no way to implament this option for stoker styled CHP's without the use of compressed material.
Now, consider the amount of material that each CHP will need to just use a co-firing system when combining biomass with coal. Since biomass produced approximately half the BTU's of coal, that means if they are burning a 50/50 ratio of biomass and coal and their usage was 10,000 ton of coal per year, they will need appoximately 10,000 ton of biomass products. When researching into the production of such massive amounts, it sure does make a difference when you begin looking at machinery. Just to be able to grind and compress the material needed for just one facility is close to 1,000,000 bucks. That doesn't include the purchase of the raw materials that the farms are subsidized to plant. This also doesn't include the facility, electrical hookups (because the four 400 HP motors on the machinery need 3 phase electricity that isn't found everywhere), or the machinery needed to move the raw material around the area.
This is the most expensive part of the venture of burning biomass. Yet, there are no subsidies available for this part of the process. All of the funds need to be privately secured or found from investors. Doesn't make sense to me...but then again, I am just a small town hick who believes in a system that can work with the proper people controlling it.
Now maybe you can understand why there is such a lack of advancement into the renewable energy sector concerning biomass production. Maybe, if there were funds available to assist with the raw materials that the farmers are subsidized to produce and the commercial users were subsidized to burn, then maybe, just maybe there would be more companies popping up throughout the rural United States to assist with more of this renewable energy issue.

[LeslieH]

I would actually like to see something created on the individual level, rather than a large scale plant. If we took a micro generating approach, renewable energy would be far more accessable, and would allow the nation to not rely on the largely over drawn grid.
Heat generated could be used to both heat the buildings AND dry the fuel to specific %'s.
The business would lie in the creation of the mini CHP for the home market.

But good luck. I do understand the misguided use of funds in this country. Them that has, gets. that's all there is to it. Still.

L