Digester could be a 'whey' to turn waste into energy

From an article by Heidi Clausen in The County Today:

TURTLE LAKE – An anaerobic cogeneration facility being proposed in Turtle Lake could help solve a growing problem for area dairy processing plants.

GreenWhey Energy, a privately held company spearheaded by Lake Country Dairy founder and project manager Tom Ludy, would recycle about 330,000 gallons of high-strength wastewater daily.

Initially, the waste would come from at least five northwestern Wisconsin processing plants within about 60 miles of Turtle Lake.

Eventually, it could be feasible to expand the facility so it could take in wastewater from as many as 11 regional plants, Ludy said.

The project would generate enough electricity to power about 1,500 homes along the Xcel Energy grid and create 242 million BTUs of heat a day. Underground pipes would transfer the heat to businesses and other buildings throughout the village.

GreenWhey plans to donate a free heat supply to the Turtle Lake School District and provide nutrient-rich solids that could be sold as fertilizer to farmers.

After the digestion process, an aerobic digestion system would clean the water so it could be discharged above ground.

Plans are to have the digester project up and running by next November on property near Lake Country Dairy in Turtle Lake, Ludy said .

Regional Transit Authority stuck in transit funding tangle

From an article by Larry Sandler in the Milwaukee Jounral Sentinel:

The Milwaukee area’s newest government body started work this week with the realization that it doesn’t have the power to accomplish its only mission.

In essence, the members of the Southeastern Regional Transit Authority were told that the state had put them in an impossible position, and only the state can get them out of it.

The 2009-’11 state budget created the new RTA to oversee the planned KRM Commuter Link rail line. It did not give the new body any power to fund or coordinate local bus systems.

Yet Federal Transit Administration officials have said they won’t approve the $207.5 million commuter railroad until the financial problems of the Milwaukee County Transit System and its Racine and Kenosha counterparts are solved, Ken Yunker, executive director of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, told RTA members.

Therefore, the RTA and the KRM will be doomed to fail without additional help from Madison, said Milwaukee County Supervisor Michael Mayo, an RTA member.

Lawmakers are working with Gov. Jim Doyle to draft new legislation that would create more transit authorities with the power to levy various taxes to support the bus systems, said Dan Kanninen, Doyle’s legislative director. Kanninen said the bill could be introduced by the end of the year, for action when the Legislature reconvenes in January.

This isn’t what Doyle wanted, Kanninen stressed. In his recommended budget, the governor proposed a single body that would oversee both the KRM and public buses in Milwaukee, Kenosha and eastern Racine counties, funded by a 0.5% sales tax.

But legislators shot down that idea in the face of heavy sales tax opposition from Racine County.

RENEW brief supports We Energies' wind park

From RENEW Wisconsin’s brief filed with the Public Service Commission in support of the Glacier Hills Wind Park:

The design of the proposed Project is in the public interest first and foremost because it will be powered by wind rather than fossil fuels. Wind energy is a locally available, self-replenishing, emission-free electricity source. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, must be imported, are available in limited quantities, and emit pollutants. Moreover, using wind energy furthers the State’s policy goal that all new installed capacity for electric generation be based on renewable energy resources to the extent cost-effective and technically feasible. Wis. Stat. § 1.12(3)(b).

In his direct testimony, RENEW Wisconsin witness Michael Vickerman outlined a number of other public policy objectives that would be advanced by the construction of Glacier Hills. These include:
1. Helping Wisconsin Electric Power Company (“WEPCO”) meet its renewable energy requirements under Wis. Stat. § 196.378(2)(a)(2)d;
2. Securing adequate supplies of energy from sustainable sources;
3. Protecting ratepayers from rising fossil fuel prices;
4. Reducing air and water emissions from generation sources;
5. Preserving working farms and pasture land;
6. Generating additional revenues for host towns and counties;
7. Reducing the flow of capital out of Wisconsin for energy purchases; and
8. Investing Wisconsin capital in a wealth-producing energy generating facility within its borders.

Geologists: Energy's future in for big change

From an article by Joe Knight in the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram:

“This is the age of oil, but the age of oil is about to end,” said Lori Snyder of UW-Eau Claire’s geology department.

In 1950, the U.S. did not import any oil. Today, we still like our cars, and we have to import 60 percent of the oil we use to support our driving habit, she said.

Vehicles may have gotten a smaller and more fuel efficient since the 1950s, but our appetite for energy – the majority of it coming from fossil fuels – is huge. Today the average American uses three times the amount of energy we used in 1950, Snyder said.

Snyder and J. Brian Mahoney, also of the geology department, discussed the future of fossil fuels and energy Tuesday night for an “Ask A Scientist” program at UW-Eau Claire.

An audience of mixed ages attended, and many asked questions of the scientists, but the answers they received painted a less-than-reassuring picture of our energy future.

Fossil fuel basically is solar energy trapped by plants and bugs – sometimes millions of years ago – that never completely decomposed. We have extracted the fuels and used it to power our cars, heat our homes and generate our electricity, but supplies are becoming scarce, the geologists said.

Oil supplies in the U.S. peaked in the 1970s, Mahoney said. World supplies of oil that is readily accessible are peaking now, he said.

There are some alternative sources of oil, such as sand tars in Alberta, Canada, which are being mined, but they require a substantial amount of energy to extract and are costly to the environment, Mahoney said.

We still have an abundance of coal in the U.S. – enough to meet our electrical needs for 200 to 250 years, Snyder said. Unfortunately, coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel for emissions. We’re already altering the composition of the atmosphere, and continuing at the current rate or increasing emissions brings about more questions about climate change and what life on Earth might be like in 100 years, Mahoney said.

“It’s taking us to a place we don’t really understand,” he said.

Geologists: Energy's future in for big change

From an article by Joe Knight in the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram:

“This is the age of oil, but the age of oil is about to end,” said Lori Snyder of UW-Eau Claire’s geology department.

In 1950, the U.S. did not import any oil. Today, we still like our cars, and we have to import 60 percent of the oil we use to support our driving habit, she said.

Vehicles may have gotten a smaller and more fuel efficient since the 1950s, but our appetite for energy – the majority of it coming from fossil fuels – is huge. Today the average American uses three times the amount of energy we used in 1950, Snyder said.

Snyder and J. Brian Mahoney, also of the geology department, discussed the future of fossil fuels and energy Tuesday night for an “Ask A Scientist” program at UW-Eau Claire.

An audience of mixed ages attended, and many asked questions of the scientists, but the answers they received painted a less-than-reassuring picture of our energy future.

Fossil fuel basically is solar energy trapped by plants and bugs – sometimes millions of years ago – that never completely decomposed. We have extracted the fuels and used it to power our cars, heat our homes and generate our electricity, but supplies are becoming scarce, the geologists said.

Oil supplies in the U.S. peaked in the 1970s, Mahoney said. World supplies of oil that is readily accessible are peaking now, he said.

There are some alternative sources of oil, such as sand tars in Alberta, Canada, which are being mined, but they require a substantial amount of energy to extract and are costly to the environment, Mahoney said.

We still have an abundance of coal in the U.S. – enough to meet our electrical needs for 200 to 250 years, Snyder said. Unfortunately, coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel for emissions. We’re already altering the composition of the atmosphere, and continuing at the current rate or increasing emissions brings about more questions about climate change and what life on Earth might be like in 100 years, Mahoney said.

“It’s taking us to a place we don’t really understand,” he said.

PSC should approve the settlement with We Energies

From an editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The state Public Service Commission [PSC] appears to have taken a reasonable approach to We Energies’ request for an increase in rates for electricity customers, granting some but not all of what the utility was asking. While any increase hurts consumers during a time of recession, the reality is that We Energies needs to cover costs related to building power plants, transmission lines costs and employee pensions.

Wisconsin needs reasonable power costs to attract and retain businesses, but it also needs reliable power. The PSC is striving to make sure the state has both.

But commissioners delayed making a decision on one aspect of the rate request. That delay could hurt Wisconsin consumers and the environment. Commissioners should reconsider, and grant the request without any delay.

At stake is a settlement We Energies reached in 2008 with environmental groups involving cooling methods for its new coal plants in Oak Creek. The settlement was a victory for all sides, allowing the utility and its partners to complete the plants in a timely manner, providing help for Lake Michigan in the form of funds for restoration initiatives and expanding renewable energy in Wisconsin.

The $105 million settlement will be paid for mostly by electric customers, but that price tag will be far less than it could have been under a protracted legal battle over the plant’s cooling system. The utilities involved and the environmental groups who fought the plant worked hard to reach a compromise that serves everyone.

But that compromise could be put in jeopardy if the PSC rejects the portion of the rate hike request designed to cover the cost of the settlement. The environmental groups could decide that their work was wasted if there is a significant delay in getting the restoration money for Lake Michigan. And re-opening the lawsuit could mean more costs to ratepayers if the groups prevail.