There have been debates about how involved the government
should be in overseeing the development and implementation of renewable energy
projects in the U.S. The E.P.A. already regulates emissions and some think it
should take on a larger role to ensure that new technologies reduce the carbon
footprint. Here at Better BTU, we’ve studied this matter in depth and continue
to debate amongst ourselves. One thing we call all agree on is that it might be
good to take a page from the European Union’s book.
 |
In 2009, the European Commission established the Renewable
Energy Directive, a committee that studied and reported on sustainability
criteria for biomass. While the Commission elected to adopt a report on
sustainability requirements for use of solid biomass and biogas in electricity
and heating, they stopped just short of making it legally binding.
Biomass Technology Group, out of The Netherlands, compiled a
report for the Commission in February 2008 on the benefits and drawbacks of
sustainability criteria as well as certification systems for biomass
production. The study acknowledged that while biomass certification would
guarantee greenhouse gas savings and protect biodiversity such as high
conservation forests and wildlife habitats, the cost would form a serious
barrier to small biomass producers.
Instead, the Renewable Energy Directive asked each member of
the EU to file a national action plan yearly and recommended criteria relating
to, among other things:
(b) a common greenhouse gas calculation methodology which
could be used to ensure that minimum greenhouse gas savings from biomass are at
least 35 percent (rising to 50 percent in 2017 and 60 percent in 2018 for new
installations) compared to the E.U.’s fossil energy mix
The goal of this strategy is to advise member states on
development in order to minimize risk of “varied and possibly incompatible
criteria at the national level, leading to barriers to trade and limiting the
growth of the bioenergy sector in the European Union.”
On this side of the pond, 17 of 50 states have adopted a
Renewable Portfolio Standard that mandates that by 2020 a certain percentage of
the state’s energy come from renewable energy sources. The states are free to
pursue this goal in any matter, and while we like that it promotes growth in
the industry through trial and error, it also lacks an overarching set of
standards to help customers understand exactly what they are purchasing.
We’ve discussed the need for a standardization of language
in the past (see Gasification:
Definition, Please! and Definition
Please - Part II) but we also would like to see a set of standards for
calculating greenhouse gases so that you can compare technologies across a
baseline. Currently, there is quite a bit of variety on how companies arrive at
these numbers (ex. Is the fuel consumed by transportation or processing outside
the biomass facility included?).
 |
| Environmental Protection Agency Watch Dog? |
At Better BTU, we all agree that what we need is more
leadership, not more regulations. Whether that leadership comes in the form of
a government committee set up to develop a national roadmap for states to
achieve its renewable energy goals or a non-partisan third party institute
remains to be agreed upon. There are concerns that if it becomes a governmental
issue, it will end up being run by the E.P.A. which has become known for being
more political than practical.
We recognize that what works for Alabama won’t work for
Wyoming and we don’t want to create a mold that everyone must try to fit in.
But a group that can create a national roadmap for sustainability through
clarification of definitions and rules of engagement could be exactly the type
of guide dog this country needs.
Other Resources:
The EPA would love nothing more than to regulate all forms of gasification, so as to stifle and control them.
ReplyDeletePick any example of any industry that they regulate and it can be shown that over time where they are defined the emission they then went on to regulate and control them.
In innovation and establishing any new industry it is always better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.
So far as I'm concerned the use of "waste materials" for pyrolysis or gasification shouldn't be regulated as such. There will be battles between the compost industry and biomass industry for these resources, but as there will also be some crossover between the companies I think this issue will work itself out. The question then will become about management practices for our private and national forests and ensuring that we are not subsidizing food crops for energy use.
ReplyDeleteThese are issues that already have some government over site. As the elected government is largely dominated by oil/coal interests I'm not sure that more government regulation is the solution.