by jboullion | Nov 23, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article by Chris Hubbuch in the La Crosse Tribune:
Local utilities support efforts to reduce greenhouse gases but differ on how to do it fairly
CASSVILLE, Wis. – The future of Wisconsin’s energy is piled high on the south lot of the E.J. Stoneman plant.
Gone is the coal that fueled the boilers for six decades. Now 40,000 tons of wood chips and railroad ties tower over construction workers building an apparatus to grind that wood into fuel.
With its yellow tile walls and dusty turbines, Stoneman hardly looks futuristic. La Crosse-based Dairyland Power built the plant in 1950 and shuttered it in 1993 for economic reasons.
But with a push to limit carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, utilities are scrambling for new sources of renewable energy to replace fossil fuels. Stoneman again is viable.
DTE Energy Systems bought the plant in 2008, stripped out the boilers and began a two-year project to convert it to biomass. Starting this summer, they expect the turbines to spin again with steam generated primarily by construction and demolition debris.
Even with a cost in the tens of millions – they don’t disclose the exact amount – DTE expects to make money because of the premium price for green energy.
On the other side of town, Alliant Energy burns wood pellets along with coal at its Nelson Dewey station as part of a yearlong test. Though Madison-based Alliant has no plans to convert the plant, the company will use the data as it examines ways to reduce its carbon footprint, spokesman Steve Schultz said.
With Congress poised for the first time to limit carbon emissions, power utilities are ramping up efforts to replace coal, a cheap and plentiful resource that long has been the major source of electricity, particularly in the Midwest.
Environmental advocates say it’s a start to slowing global climate change, and even utilities favor the principle of limiting greenhouse gases.
But not all utilities are created equal. Xcel Energy, which supplies urban households and industries, has a diverse energy portfolio bolstered by investments in renewable sources and nuclear power, which produces no greenhouse gases. Dairyland Power, which through its member cooperatives provides power for most of the Coulee Region’s rural and small town residents, relies almost exclusively on coal.
Both utilities support a congressional approach to cutting carbon emissions but differ on the details of how it should be done.
by jboullion | Nov 20, 2009 | Uncategorized
From a fact sheet issued by the Homegrown Renewable Energy Campaign:
An innovative way to encourage more smaller-scale renewable energy systems by paying premiums to customers for wind, solar, biogas or biomass electric generation.
How are they different from standard utility buyback rates?
Unlike standard buyback rates, Renewable Energy Buyback Rates provide a fixed purchase price for the electricity produced over a period of 10 to 20 years. They are set at levels sufficient to fully recover installation costs along with a modest profit. Because the purchase price is guaranteed over a long period, Renewable Energy Buyback Rates make it easy for customers to obtain financing for their generation projects.
Why don’t utilities pursue these small-scale renewable projects themselves?
In general, the smaller the generating facility, the less likely it is owned by a utility. Utilities tend to favor bulk generation facilities that employ economies of scale to produce electricity at a lower cost. Renewable power plants owned by
utilities—such as large wind projects—are sized to serve their entire territory, not just a particular distribution area. For that reason utilities have shown little appetite for owning and operating distributed generation facilities powered with
solar, biogas, wind, and hydro.
If utilities won’t invest in small-scale renewable projects, how will they get built?
Clearly, the capital needed to build smaller-scale renewable projects has to come from independent sources—either customers or third parties. There is no shortage of investor interest in these systems, and sufficient capital is available. What’s needed to finance these projects is a predictable, long-term purchasing arrangement that assures full capital recovery if the project performs according to expectations. That’s where Renewable Energy Payments come into play.
by jboullion | Nov 20, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article by Joseph Room on Center for American Progress:
A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour—triple current U.S. electricity rates!
This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today—and 10 times the cost of energy efficiency (see “Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?”
The new study, “Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power,” is one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country. It is by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance. A practicing CPA, Severance is co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976), and former assistant to the chairman and to commerce counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.
This important new analysis is being published by Climate Progress because it fills a critical gap in the current debate over nuclear power—transparency. Severance explains:
All assumptions, and methods of calculation are clearly stated. The piece is a deliberate effort to demystify the entire process, so that anyone reading it (including non-technical readers) can develop a clear understanding of how total generation costs per kWh come together.
As stunning as this new, detailed cost estimate is, it should not come as a total surprise. I detailed the escalating capital costs of nuclear power in my May 2008 report, “The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power.” And in a story last week on nuclear power’s supposed comeback, Time magazine notes that nuclear plants’ capital costs are “out of control,” concluding:
Most efficiency improvements have been priced at 1¢ to 3¢ per kilowatt-hour, while new nuclear energy is on track to cost 15¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt-hour. And no nuclear plant has ever been completed on budget.
Time buried that in the penultimate paragraph of the story!
by jboullion | Nov 20, 2009 | Uncategorized
From a fact sheet issued by the Homegrown Renewable Energy Campaign:
An innovative way to encourage more smaller-scale renewable energy systems by paying premiums to customers for wind, solar, biogas or biomass electric generation.
How are they different from standard utility buyback rates?
Unlike standard buyback rates, Renewable Energy Buyback Rates provide a fixed purchase price for the electricity produced over a period of 10 to 20 years. They are set at levels sufficient to fully recover installation costs along with a modest profit. Because the purchase price is guaranteed over a long period, Renewable Energy Buyback Rates make it easy for customers to obtain financing for their generation projects.
Why don’t utilities pursue these small-scale renewable projects themselves?
In general, the smaller the generating facility, the less likely it is owned by a utility. Utilities tend to favor bulk generation facilities that employ economies of scale to produce electricity at a lower cost. Renewable power plants owned by
utilities—such as large wind projects—are sized to serve their entire territory, not just a particular distribution area. For that reason utilities have shown little appetite for owning and operating distributed generation facilities powered with
solar, biogas, wind, and hydro.
If utilities won’t invest in small-scale renewable projects, how will they get built?
Clearly, the capital needed to build smaller-scale renewable projects has to come from independent sources—either customers or third parties. There is no shortage of investor interest in these systems, and sufficient capital is available. What’s needed to finance these projects is a predictable, long-term purchasing arrangement that assures full capital recovery if the project performs according to expectations. That’s where Renewable Energy Payments come into play.
by jboullion | Nov 20, 2009 | Uncategorized
From a fact sheet issued by the Homegrown Renewable Energy Campaign:
An innovative way to encourage more smaller-scale renewable energy systems by paying premiums to customers for wind, solar, biogas or biomass electric generation.
How are they different from standard utility buyback rates?
Unlike standard buyback rates, Renewable Energy Buyback Rates provide a fixed purchase price for the electricity produced over a period of 10 to 20 years. They are set at levels sufficient to fully recover installation costs along with a modest profit. Because the purchase price is guaranteed over a long period, Renewable Energy Buyback Rates make it easy for customers to obtain financing for their generation projects.
Why don’t utilities pursue these small-scale renewable projects themselves?
In general, the smaller the generating facility, the less likely it is owned by a utility. Utilities tend to favor bulk generation facilities that employ economies of scale to produce electricity at a lower cost. Renewable power plants owned by
utilities—such as large wind projects—are sized to serve their entire territory, not just a particular distribution area. For that reason utilities have shown little appetite for owning and operating distributed generation facilities powered with
solar, biogas, wind, and hydro.
If utilities won’t invest in small-scale renewable projects, how will they get built?
Clearly, the capital needed to build smaller-scale renewable projects has to come from independent sources—either customers or third parties. There is no shortage of investor interest in these systems, and sufficient capital is available. What’s needed to finance these projects is a predictable, long-term purchasing arrangement that assures full capital recovery if the project performs according to expectations. That’s where Renewable Energy Payments come into play.
by jboullion | Nov 20, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article by Chad Dally in The Daily Press (Ashland):
Six municipalities, one transit system and more than seven million kilowatt hours of electricity consumed.
That is one of many initial discoveries of local government officials, the Alliance for Sustainability and others through a Wisconsin Energy Independent Communities pilot project.
The Chequamegon Bay region was one of 10 communities — and the largest of the 10 — that took part in the pilot project, which in the first phase attempted to pin down a baseline assessment on energy and fuel consumption for the past three years. The initiative is one of the first steps in Wisconsin’s 25 x 25 Plan, which set a goal of generating 25 percent of the state’s energy and transportation fuel from renewable sources by 2025. Also included is the goal of securing 10 percent of the nation’s emerging bio-industry jobs within Wisconsin. Generating more alternative and renewable energy and fuel within the state and especially within the Chequamegon Bay region has huge implications, since Wisconsin spent more than $21 billion on energy in 2007.
by jboullion | Nov 19, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an announcement from Transition Wisconsin:
Transition Wisconsin is looking for individuals who would like to serve on the board or be a director for the Incorporation of “Transition Wisconsin” as a non-profit in the State of Wisconsin.
Transition Wisconsin is currently a part of the Transition Movement looking to formalize it’s involvement. It is currently involved, through its web presence, in providing people information on Peak Oil and Climate Change as well as opportunities for people to help make a positive transition to a world in which petroleum will become terminally in decline. Similarly, providing as much factual information concerning Climate Change is another priority. It is hoped that the infrastructure created would allow Wisconsin neighborhood, Town, Village or City communities as Transition initiatives with the benefits of tax exempt financial benefits working as an umbrella organization.
Anyone interested or have questions should email Rees Roberts.
Individuals have until December 31, 2009 to respond. It is hoped a diverse cross section of Wisconsin be represented.
This message will be repeated and shared widely.
by jboullion | Nov 19, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article by Steve Cahalan in the La Crosse Tribune:
The final version of a Wisconsin Department of Transportation long-range plan still has alternate routes through Eau Claire and La Crosse for high-speed passenger rail service between Tomah and the Twin Cities.
The DOT soon will study which route might be best.
The agency said Wednesday it has formally adopted its new Connections 2030 long-range plan, available online at www.wiconnections2030.gov.
Local business and government leaders argued at an Aug. 26 public hearing on the plan in La Crosse that studies years ago already had determined Amtrak’s Empire Builder route is the most ideal in the region for planned high-speed passenger rail service between Chicago and St. Paul. That route goes through Tomah and La Crosse, as well as Winona and Red Wing in Minnesota.
Backers of that route announced last week they have formed the Empire Builder High Speed Rail Coalition.
Coalition members remain convinced that is the best route, said the group’s coordinator, James Hill, who also is executive director of the La Crosse Area Development Corp.
by jboullion | Nov 19, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article by Steve Cahalan in the La Crosse Tribune:
The final version of a Wisconsin Department of Transportation long-range plan still has alternate routes through Eau Claire and La Crosse for high-speed passenger rail service between Tomah and the Twin Cities.
The DOT soon will study which route might be best.
The agency said Wednesday it has formally adopted its new Connections 2030 long-range plan, available online at www.wiconnections2030.gov.
Local business and government leaders argued at an Aug. 26 public hearing on the plan in La Crosse that studies years ago already had determined Amtrak’s Empire Builder route is the most ideal in the region for planned high-speed passenger rail service between Chicago and St. Paul. That route goes through Tomah and La Crosse, as well as Winona and Red Wing in Minnesota.
Backers of that route announced last week they have formed the Empire Builder High Speed Rail Coalition.
Coalition members remain convinced that is the best route, said the group’s coordinator, James Hill, who also is executive director of the La Crosse Area Development Corp.
by jboullion | Nov 19, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article by Joel Costanza in the News of the North:
RHINELANDER – Hoping for bipartisan support and action by next April, a group of northern Wisconsin Republican lawmakers outlined plans on Monday (Nov. 16) to make or save jobs in the state, and promote the growth of biofuels as an alternative energy source.
Rep. Dan Meyer (R-Eagle River), Rep. Don Friske (R-Merrill) and Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz) were joined by business and education officials at an hour-long news conference Monday afternoon held at Ponsse North America headquarters in Rhinelander.
Aimed mainly to help agribusiness and the forest products industry – “the two largest engines of the state’s economy” in Friske’s words – Meyer and his colleagues said they would sponsor nine bills and a resolution over the coming months to provide tax breaks and other incentives to spur economic growth.
The lawmakers said the tax relief would be modeled after $1.3 million in dairy modernization tax credits passed earlier this year.
“We’re looking to do the same thing for loggers and sawmills, for example, to help them upgrade their equipment and expand their facilities to create new jobs,” Meyer said.
Mursau said, “The same great idea for agriculture will work for our aging sawmills around Wisconsin by providing tax incentives.”
Friske conceded that the job creation plan faces an uphill fight in the Democratically-controlled legislature, but said he’s optimistic that the effort will garner support from both sides of the aisle.
“We have a common enemy, which is the slumping economy,” Friske said.
In addition to tax exemptions for businesses, the proposals are aimed at streamlining government permitting, helping educators spread the word about bio-energy, and easing worker compensation costs, which officials said put Wisconsin at a competitive disadvantage in luring new industry compared to neighboring states such as Michigan, Minnesota and many others where the business climate is friendlier.
