Michigan used to be the car capital of the world. Now it’s experimenting with biomass:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i4kkYcH25RUuxdNcEsfar8GN3_VgD9AOLAN00

As the article notes:

“The deal between the L’Anse Warden Electric Co. and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency is the first of its kind in Michigan. It’s part of the new Biomass Crop Assistance Program, which is designed to make alternative energy more economical.

“The government will match the amount L’Anse pays individuals or businesses that supply it with waste wood for conversion to steam energy, up to $45 per dry ton.”

So if biomass is taking hold in Michigan, it can take hold anywhere.  In fact, it already is.

Don’t believe that biomass is the future? You’re right. It’s the now.

The Department of Agriculture just issued its first matching payment under the Biomass Crop Assistance Program:

http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=3083

Here is how it works:

“Under the BCAP program, the USDA will provide financial assistance to biomass producers who sell their crops to qualified biomass conversion facilities for up to 75 percent of the cost of establishing and planting eligible biomass crops within a BCAP project area. In addition, the USDA will provide annual payments to help compensate for lost opportunity costs until the crops are established, and will provide further financial assistance for the collection, harvest, storage and transportation of biomass crops by matching the amounts paid to producers by the biomass conversion facility, up to $45 per dry ton.”

I know this kind of incentive can work.  In 2002, the farm bill funded the storage and handling of peanuts at the exact same price: $45.  As a result, I saw tremendous growth in the peanut industry.

In other words, the United States government is again providing a financial incentive, this time to create biomass…not tomorrow…not next year…but today.

“>

“>

“>

“>

Yesterday, we announced the preliminary findings from the University of Idaho’s study of the Advanced Trailer for Biomass. But the power of this idea is not limited to Idaho.

The potential for biomass is huge. From the East Coast to the West Coast, from South Texas to the border of Canada, biomass has the potential to change how energy is produced. For the last few months our company has discussed creating a project with North Carolina State University. This week we filed for a Department of Energy grant with N.C. State as our partner. The grant would implement a pilot project for a biomass power plant that will use a small fleet of Advanced Drying Trailers to transport, procure and store wooden biomass. This would be the first project of this kind ever implemented that uses a semi trailer to harvest, transport and remove moisture from woodchips prior to their arrival at the power plant.

This could be another great step forward in the steady march to the future of energy.

In recent weeks, I’ve written on this blog about the need for renewable energy. But actions speak louder than words. So this week we’ll provide updates on what our company, Advanced Trailer, is doing about it.

As you know, our company has developed the Advanced Trailer for Biomass, which has the ability to dry, store and transport the woodchips that fuel biomass. This week, we’ll have three big announcements about how our company is partnering with major universities to build the future of biomass.

So check in the rest of this week for breaking news on the Advanced Trailer for Biomass!

Today we conclude our series on the myths of wind power by discussing the top three complaints.

First, we are often told that wind turbines are too noisy. Not so according to Appalachian State University:

“Today’s large wind turbines make less noise (about 45 decibels-dB) than the background noise you hear in your own home (50 dB)! According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), today an operating wind farm at a distance of about 750 to 1,000 feet is no noisier than a kitchen refrigerator or a moderately quiet room.”

Second, we sometimes hear that lots of turbines are needed just to generate minimal energy. Again, not so:

“Improved technology has enabled far fewer turbines to produce more electricity. The standard output of a turbine grew from .5 mW in 1995 to 1.5 mW in 2003.”

And last but not least, we always hear that wind turbines are not very pretty. Not true at all:

“In North Carolina, a study to determine public attitudes towards wind energy was recently conducted. The study found that 77.1% of participants who had seen first hand a utility scale turbine said that they liked its appearance. Studies from numerous US states and other countries report that a majority of people think wind turbines are graceful, elegant structures. Many people find turbines to be interesting features in the landscape, enhancing the vista overall. In the UK, the British Wind Energy Association notes that wind farms are popular tourist attractions, with thousands of people each year flocking to visit attractions.”

So the myths against wind power are just that: myths. The reality is wind is a reliable, affordable and effective way to create supplemental energy power in the United States. So what are we waiting for? Part of the answer to our domestic energy challenge can be found blowin’ in the wind!

Today we conclude our series on the myths of wind power by discussing the top three complaints.

First, we are often told that wind turbines are too noisy. Not so according to Appalachian State University:

“Today’s large wind turbines make less noise (about 45 decibels-dB) than the background noise you hear in your own home (50 dB)! According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), today an operating wind farm at a distance of about 750 to 1,000 feet is no noisier than a kitchen refrigerator or a moderately quiet room.”

Second, we sometimes hear that lots of turbines are needed just to generate minimal energy. Again, not so:

“Improved technology has enabled far fewer turbines to produce more electricity. The standard output of a turbine grew from .5 mW in 1995 to 1.5 mW in 2003.”

And last but not least, we always hear that wind turbines are not very pretty. Not true at all:

“In North Carolina, a study to determine public attitudes towards wind energy was recently conducted. The study found that 77.1% of participants who had seen first hand a utility scale turbine said that they liked its appearance. Studies from numerous US states and other countries report that a majority of people think wind turbines are graceful, elegant structures. Many people find turbines to be interesting features in the landscape, enhancing the vista overall. In the UK, the British Wind Energy Association notes that wind farms are popular tourist attractions, with thousands of people each year flocking to visit attractions.”

So the myths against wind power are just that: myths. The reality is wind is a reliable, affordable and effective way to create supplemental energy power in the United States. So what are we waiting for? Part of the answer to our domestic energy challenge can be found blowin’ in the wind!

Another classic myth that you often hear about wind turbines is that they kill birds. Well, maybe a few birds.  But comparatively speaking, not many.

The North Carolina Wind Energy Site at Appalachian State University has thoroughly refuted this claim:

http://www.wind.appstate.edu/windpower/myths.php

The website notes that:

“Although birds do infrequently collide with turbines, wind energy poses less of a threat to birds than many other commonplace structures. In fact, the National Audubon Society has stated that it supports the development and use of wind power. Based on numerous studies that have taken place in Vermont, Colorado, Wyoming, Minnesota, and California, collision with turbines result in 1-2 bird deaths or less per turbine per year. For comparison, each year at least 60 million birds die in collisions with vehicles; at least 98 million in collisions with buildings and windows; and at least 4 million in collisions with communication towers. Important consideration should be given to placement of wind turbines to ensure that turbines are not located along migratory bird flight paths or the flight paths of threatened or rare species.”

So yes, I guess wind turbines do kill birds.  But not nearly as many as buildings, windows and cars.  And no one seems to be opposed to those.

The argument that wind power kills birds gets blown away by the wind.

This week we continue our series on renewable energy and why you shouldn’t believe the myths generated by its critics.

Another key myth is that wind turbines are ugly, ruin the view and make too much noise. Here is an article about a rancher in Wyoming who wants to lease his land for wind turbines. The only problem is his neighbors don’t like the idea much:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hPppDb6c_44-I-7TjoNgGhoSD3TwD9A8RKMG1

If you were to go back in time, you might have heard some of these same arguments when the oil boom was hitting: The derricks are ugly…they ruin the view…they make noise! But before long, people realized that derricks created economic opportunity. At that point, they didn’t look so bad anymore. Soon, the derricks became part of the landscape.

And by the way, we’ve had windmills on farms for years and years and they’ve also become iconic parts of the rural landscape. The wind turbine is the same basic concept. And as for the noise, it’s a low level hum that is quite soothing.

By the way, I know what I’m talking about: I’ve had wind turbines on my ranch.

Another one of the myths about renewable energy is that there is nothing that can be done to store the energy when it’s not needed.

For example, what happens if the wind is blowing the turbines but the demand for energy is down at that particular time? And how do you store solar power when the sun goes down?

This criticism makes the perfect the enemy of the good.  Just because renewable energy can’t be used all the time doesn’t it mean it can’t be use a lot of the time. Besides, there are new concepts being developed that will allow us to store and transmit renewable energy.

Not long ago I met with executives at TXU who talked about a concept to build two bodies of water. On days with strong wind and small energy demand the electricity produced would be used to pump water through a pipeline from the lower lake to the upper lake. On days with peak energy demand the upper lake would open the floodgates on a hydro electric dam and the water would flow into the lower body of water, thus being ready for the next high wind-low demand day to pump.

Another idea that is being discussed is using the electricity to power large compressors that would compress air in old vacated oil and gas wells. The pressure would be held until days with peak demand and the valves would be opened thus releasing air to turn aditional turbins to create more electricity.

So there are ways that are being developed that can take advantage of wind, water and solar even when there is not peak demand.  And in the meantime, let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good!

One of the myths about wind power is that it is too expensive.  The reality is, it’s one of the most affordable sources of energy around.

Consider the folks out in Sweetwater, Texas who are hoping to build a new clean coal plant:

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2009/apr/21/tenaska-coal-plant-will-need-more-than-carbon/

Talk about costly!  It is estimated that the plant will cost $3.5 billion just to build.

As the article notes:

“The plant will use low-sulfur coal from Wyoming to generate 600 megawatts electricity, losing perhaps 200 megawatts in the process of capturing carbon dioxide.

“Tenaska then plans to sell 85 percent to 90 percent of carbon emissions captured from the plant for use in oil production in West Texas – location of the world’s largest market for carbon.”

In other words, this coal plant ain’t paying for itself. The idea is to use cap-and-trade sales to cover the deficit. Talk about expensive!

In contrast. wind power does pay for itself. The turbines are relatively affordable to build. And then the electric company begins paying fees to the owner of the land. Everybody wins.

So don’t believe the myth that wind power is too expensive.

Recently, much has been made in the media about the cost of renewable energy. So I thought I would shed some light on what is going on in this area and what it means for the future of energy in America.

First, it needs to be stated that renewable energy is not cheap. In 2007, wind power cost about $1 million per megawatt. In 2008, that number jumped to $2 million per megawatt. This price includes construction cost, turbin, transmission, infastructure, everything.

So if you were putting up 100 1.5 meg in wind power that would be $300 million.

Since it’s so expensive, the government offers tax credits to encourage renewable energy. It comes in the form of income tax offsets of 2 cents per kwh. This is a substantial amount of money if you consider that the wholesale price of energy on wind turbins was 4.9 cents per kwh. This would be an additional 40% of income.

Here is how it worked:

Prior to the recession many companies were seeing large profits. They could purchase a tax credit for .89 to .90 cents on the dollar and use it to offset income. Many big banks and financial institutions would pre-buy all of your tax credits for the entire 10-year term. Many lenders would finance the project if they were able to buy all the tax credits from a project. This huge amount of upfront money would normally be the equity that would go into a project. So if a developer was doing a $300 million project, he would likely pre-sell the tax credits to a tax credit investor (like a bank) for $89 million and that bank would finance the project and credit the $89 million to equity. So the loan for the $300 million project would only have $211 million in debt against the project. The only problem is that two years ago the tax credits were in high demand. Now with companies not making the profits they did they don’t need to buy tax credits. Companies like Wachovia are now stuck with tax credits they may or may not need. Thus they try to sell them (syndication) to other companies that have profits.

In today’s economy, no one is fighting over the tax credits like they were a year ago. In January at a wind power conference in California we learned that there were over 20 wind farms financed in 2008. But just 3 pre-sold the tax credits prior to generating the power.

So today’s economy presents challenges to renewable energy. But renewable energy is more needed than ever before.

“>

Want to know why the time has come for alternative energy? Because the time for oil may have already passed:

http://www.orato.com/business-career/the-economic-importance-of-peak-oil

As this article notes, we may have already experienced peak oil:

“In 1995, several scientists applied Hubbert’s method with current data, coming up with a revised peak oil date of between 2004 and 2008. Modelling with alternate data sets has placed peak oil as early as 2000, and no later than 2011. Peak oil will be reached in the next couple of years if it has not already, with drastic consequences for the world economy and society unless there is a major shift to alternative energy sources.”

I’m an optimist. I see the end of the oil era as the beginning of a new era of alternative energy. Besides, for national security reasons, we have to begin using less oil from the Middle East.

And the best part is, we are fast approaching the day when we won’t need oil because of wind, solar and biomass. We have the resources. We have the technology.

But do we have the vision to see a future fueled by renewable energy?

Last week, the United States government did something very smart: it decided to bet on the future.

The Energy Department and the Treasury Department announced they would begin accepting applications for some $3 billion set aside to fund renewable-energy projects:

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200907311245dowjonesdjonline000770&title=us-government-accepting-applications-for-renewable-energy-funds

As the article notes:

“The departments estimate that they will distribute at least $3 billion in financial aid to about 5,000 bio-mass, solar, wind and other types of renewable- energy production facilities.”

Before now, the government has offered tax credits and loan guarantees for renewable energy projects. Now, it’s offering cash. And why not? Renewable energy is the future. And that future is already beginning.

Having trouble keeping up with what all is in the stimulus package?

Here is a useful comparison between the House and Senate versions of the stimulus legislation from the Associated Press:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j81g2abYnnR730DbzIZpkDsGPAJwD966UPL80

Since I’ve been somewhat critical of this plan, let me take a minute and point out a positive: renewable energy.

According to the AP, here is what the Senate version of the stimulus package proposes on energy:

“Senate — About $40 billion for energy programs, focused chiefly on efficiency and renewable energy, including $2.9 billion to weatherize modest-income homes; $4.6 billion for fossil fuel research and development; $6.4 billion to clean up nuclear weapons production sites; $11 billion toward a so-called “smart electricity grid” to reduce waste; $8.5 billion to subsidize loans for renewable energy projects; and $2 billion for advanced battery systems.”

I believe that now is the time to get serious about renewable energy. For both economic and national security reasons, we must find ways to create affordable, renewable energy right here in the United States.  The $8.5 billion in subsidized loans is a great way to generate interest and development in renewable energy.  I encourage Congress to keep this provision in the final bill.

Renewable energy is a great way to not only stimulate the economy, but build the future.

-Randy Hill