Welcome to the Kauai Energy Sustainability Plan blog!

Recommendation #10: Legislate Feed-in Tariffs

2010-01-19T14:22:00.009-10:00

This blog provides a broad overview of the ninth of 10 recommendations from the Draft Kauai Energy Sustainability Plan ("the Plan"). Please review each post and comment on those recommendations that are of most interest to you. Note that the comment period is open through February 16th. If you would like to comment to Doug Hinrichs personally, please e-mail dhinrichs@sentech.org or call 301-219-7647. Mahalo!

To view the entire recommendation in the text of the Plan, please visit: http://www.kauainetwork.org/get-involved.asp.

The tenth recommendation, which relates to the electricity sector, is detailed below.

Recommendation #9: Adopt 2009 IECC Building Codes for New Homes

2010-01-19T14:18:00.006-10:00

This blog provides a broad overview of the ninth of 10 recommendations from the Draft Kauai Energy Sustainability Plan ("the Plan"). Please review each post and comment on those recommendations that are of most interest to you. Note that the comment period is open through February 16th. If you would like to comment to Doug Hinrichs personally, please e-mail dhinrichs@sentech.org or call 301-219-7647. Mahalo!

To view the entire recommendation in the text of the Plan, please visit: http://www.kauainetwork.org/get-involved.asp.

The ninth recommendation, which relates to the electricity sector, is detailed below.

Recommendation #8: Adopt LEED Standards for New Commercial Buildings

2010-01-19T14:15:00.007-10:00

This blog provides a broad overview of the eighth of 10 recommendations from the Draft Kauai Energy Sustainability Plan ("the Plan"). Please review each post and comment on those recommendations that are of most interest to you. Note that the comment period is open through February 16th. If you would like to comment to Doug Hinrichs personally, please e-mail dhinrichs@sentech.org or call 301-219-7647. Mahalo!

To view the entire recommendation in the text of the Plan, please visit: http://www.kauainetwork.org/get-involved.asp.

The eighth recommendation, which relates to the electricity sector, is detailed below.

Recommendation #7: Energy Savings Performance Contracting for Existing Commercial and Public Buildings

2010-01-19T14:11:00.008-10:00

This blog provides a broad overview of the seventh of 10 recommendations from the Draft Kauai Energy Sustainability Plan ("the Plan"). Please review each post and comment on those recommendations that are of most interest to you. Note that the comment period is open through February 16th. If you would like to comment to Doug Hinrichs personally, please e-mail dhinrichs@sentech.org or call 301-219-7647. Mahalo!

To view the entire recommendation in the text of the Plan, please visit: http://www.kauainetwork.org/get-involved.asp.

The seventh recommendation, which relates to the electricity sector, is detailed below.

Recommendation #6: Incentives for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)

2010-01-19T14:06:00.005-10:00

This blog provides a broad overview of the sixth of 10 recommendations from the Draft Kauai Energy Sustainability Plan ("the Plan"). Please review each post and comment on those recommendations that are of most interest to you. Note that the comment period is open through February 16th. If you would like to comment to Doug Hinrichs personally, please e-mail dhinrichs@sentech.org or call 301-219-7647. Mahalo!

To view the entire recommendation in the text of the Plan, please visit: http://www.kauainetwork.org/get-involved.asp.

The sixth recommendation, which relates to Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs), is detailed below.

Recommendation #5: Land Repurposing

2010-01-19T14:04:00.003-10:00

This blog provides a broad overview of the fifth of 10 recommendations from the Draft Kauai Energy Sustainability Plan ("the Plan"). Please review each post and comment on those recommendations that are of most interest to you. Note that the comment period is open through February 16th. If you would like to comment to Doug Hinrichs personally, please e-mail dhinrichs@sentech.org or call 301-219-7647. Mahalo!

To view the entire recommendation in the text of the Plan, please visit: http://www.kauainetwork.org/get-involved.asp.

The fifth recommendation, which relates to ground transportation, is detailed below.

Recommendation #4: Biofuels integrated Refinery Partnership

2010-01-19T13:58:00.005-10:00

This blog provides a broad overview of the fourth of 10 recommendations from the Draft Kauai Energy Sustainability Plan ("the Plan"). Please review each post and comment on those recommendations that are of most interest to you. Note that the comment period is open through February 16th. If you would like to comment to Doug Hinrichs personally, please e-mail dhinrichs@sentech.org or call 301-219-7647. Mahalo!

To view the entire recommendation in the text of the Plan, please visit: http://www.kauainetwork.org/get-involved.asp.

The fourth recommendation, which relates to ground transportation, is detailed below.

Recommendation #3: Develop Integrated Ground Transportation Demand Management Plan

2010-01-19T13:52:00.007-10:00

This blog provides a broad overview of the third of 10 recommendations from the Draft Kauai Energy Sustainability Plan ("the Plan"). Please review each post and comment on those recommendations that are of most interest to you. Note that the comment period is open through February 16th. If you would like to comment to Doug Hinrichs personally, please e-mail dhinrichs@sentech.org or call 301-219-7647. Mahalo!

To view the entire recommendation in the text of the Plan, please visit: http://www.kauainetwork.org/get-involved.asp.

The third recommendation, which relates to ground transportation, is detailed below.

Recommendation #2: Efficient Vehicle Incentives

2010-01-19T13:49:00.005-10:00

This blog provides a broad overview of the second of 10 recommendations from the Draft Kauai Energy Sustainability Plan ("the Plan"). Please review each post and comment on those recommendations that are of most interest to you. Note that the comment period is open through February 16th. If you would like to comment to Doug Hinrichs personally, please e-mail dhinrichs@sentech.org or call 301-219-7647. Mahalo!

To view the entire recommendation in the text of the Plan, please visit: http://www.kauainetwork.org/get-involved.asp.

The second recommendation, which relates to ground transportation, is detailed below.

Recommendation #1: Fuel Tax (Ground Transportation)

2010-01-19T12:08:00.008-10:00

The following 10 blogs provide a broad overview of the 10 recommendations from the Draft Kauai Energy Sustainability Plan ("the Plan"). Please review each post and comment on those recommendations that are of most interest to you. Note that the comment period is open through February 16th. If you would like to comment to Doug Hinrichs personally, please e-mail dhinrichs@sentech.org or call 301-219-7647. Mahalo!

To view the entire recommendation in the text of the Plan, please visit: http://www.kauainetwork.org/get-involved.asp.

The first and most publicized recommendation is detailed in the images below.

Public opinion has been varied, but passionate. See the Garden Island news articles for some opinions that have already been expressed:

January 15, 2010: Members criticize ‘ridiculous’ 50-cent fuel tax proposal

January 7, 2010: Energy Plan Calls for a 50 Cent/Gallon Gas Tax

Clean Energy Policies in Hawai`i: The Lost Barrel Tax and an Introduction to Other Local Clean Energy Policies

2009-08-03T14:00:00.019-10:00

As a continuation of our blog, we have decided to introduce the topic of local clean energy policies. This topic is timely, as the 2009 legislative session just recently came to an end. While a number of progressive clean energy policies passed this season, the much-talked-about "Barrel Tax" did not make it into law. This blog provides a background on this policy, why the bill didn't pass, and what this means for the future. The blog continues by introducing two other clean energy policies that are being pursued and implemented by Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO), and how they could apply in Kaua`i.

Before commenting on this topic, please keep in mind the following:

We are still not making specific recommendations; this is simply a primer to educate the Kaua`i community on local energy policies as well as to gather feedback on these policies.
This report is no where near an all-inclusive review of every clean energy policy out there-- the blog is not intended for that in-depth of a discussion.

Thanks for taking the time to read the blog. The SENTECH Hawai`i Team is looking forward to receiving your comments and integrating them into the Kaua`i Energy Sustainability Plan.

Aloha,
Marguerite Harden
mharden@sentech.org

___________________________________________________________________

Introduction

A number of well documented barriers to renewable energy penetration exist, which could limit the development of renewables unless policies are enacted to overcome these barriers and place renewable energy on a level playing field with traditional energy options (1). There are a number of policy choices that create clean energy funds that can provide a source for stable, long-term funding; each policy comes with particular advantages and disadvantages (2). The purpose of this blog is to review the State’s most recent attempt at creating a source for clean energy funding (the barrel tax), introduce and review other policies that are being considered locally, and create a forum for discussion on other policy options that could be implemented by the State, County, or Kaua`i Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC).

House Bill 1271: The Barrel Tax

In the State’s 2009 legislative session, House Bill (HB) 1271 was introduced to establish clean energy funding through a $1 surcharge on each barrel of oil imported into Hawai`i. Had this bill been enacted, over $30 million annually would have been generated and used for special funds established for energy security, energy systems development, and agricultural development and food security (3). The tax was expected to increase the State’s gas prices 2-3 cents/gallon at the pump.

During the legislative session an overwhelming majority in both the House and Senate supported this bill. However HB 1271 was vetoed by Governor Lingle due to the current economic situation, and the fact that the tax would ultimately impact consumers in utility prices and goods and services. The Legislature expected the bill to be vetoed, but at the last minute failed to override the veto due to lobbying by the airline industry and other heavy fossil fuel users (4). Ultimately, the policy was never enacted.

Why a Barrel Tax?

Proponents of the barrel tax saw the policy as necessary income to support renewable energy development, stabilize energy prices, and provide a price signal for consumers. For example, Kaua`i’s Representative Hermina Morita (14th District; Chair on the Energy & Environmental Protection Committee) stated that the tax was necessary to “put our money where our mouth is”; in other words, there needs to financial backing for the Hawai`i Clean Energy Initiative (www.hawaiicleanenergyinitiative.org) and the aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS) set by the state (5).

The barrel tax policy’s basis is in economic and political theories that are supported by historical evidence. Governmental policy has the ability to affect energy use by setting energy prices through taxation of non-renewable, polluting sources. The raising of fixed prices or the taxation of non-renewable, polluting sources can effectively direct consumer trends toward more efficient energy use and toward increased use of other energy sources.

Additionally, many analysts believe that a barrel tax allows for the internalization of externalities, which is necessary to avoid price distortion and reduce economic waste. Externalities occur as a result of the decisions and actions of producers or consumers, which affect the common resources of all, for better or worse. When externalities exist, market prices fail to signal a commodity’s actual cost to society. According to this view, environmental and societal costs of polluting energy sources should be accounted into the fixed price of that energy source (e.g., through a tax). Failure to internalize recognized externalities may be seen as implicit governmental subsidizing of polluting energy sources (6). Some renewable energy advocates believe that this form of subsidy is the main reason why fossil fuels continue to dominate the energy market. Thomas Friedman, for example, supports a carbon or gasoline tax as a price signal to encourage energy independence (7).

Why Not a Barrel Tax?

In Hawai`i, resistance to the barrel tax was met strongly by large fossil-fuel users, such as the airlines industry, whose business is negatively impacted by the rising price of oil. Considering the current economic situation, Governor Lingle did not want to pass another tax that would ultimately affect consumers and businesses that are reliant on the oil.

Opponents of barrel taxes also note that a tax on energy will disproportionately affect middle- and low-income households more, since a larger percentage of their income is spent on gasoline. In the U.S., the second lowest income quintile devoted 5.4% of their average annual expenditures to gasoline and motor oil in 2006, while the highest income quintile devoted just 3.7% (8).

Beyond a Barrel Tax: A Revenue-Neutral Barrel Tax

Because of the strong legislative support for HB 1271, one might speculate that this issue will be a priority in the next legislative session. However, the next legislative session is around elections, and passing legislation that increases taxes is historically very difficult during election seasons.

There is, however, the option to create a revenue-neutral barrel tax. A revenue-neutral barrel tax is politically savvy since it blunts the "no new taxes" demand that has been voiced by Governor Lingle and has held sway in American politics for over a generation. Revenue-neutral means that little if any of the tax revenues raised by taxing oil would be retained by the government (9). The vast majority of the revenues would be returned to the public through one of two primary return approaches listed below:

Rebate the revenues directly through regular (e.g., quarterly) equal dividends to all Hawai`i residents. In effect, every resident would receive equal, identical slices of the total revenue pie. This type of program has existed for three decades in Alaska, where residents receive annual dividends from the state’s North Slope oil revenues (10).
A “tax-shifting” approach causes each dollar of carbon tax revenue to trigger a dollar’s worth of reduction in existing taxes (for example Hawai`i’s sales or payroll taxes). As barrel-tax revenues are phased in, existing taxes will be phased out and, in some cases, eliminated. This “tax-shift” approach would ensure that the barrel tax is revenue-neutral, and also has the potential to benefit middle- and lower-income classes more, depending on how the taxes are shifted. This approach is supported by environmentalist and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who would like to see a carbon tax (which is more generally than a barrel tax in that it applies to all energy forms that release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) (11).

Other Local and Near-Term Clean Energy Policies to be Aware of

On July 18, 2009, at a speech that declared the date as “Clean Energy Day” in Hawai`i, Lt. Governor Duke Aiona said the oil tax wasn't proper for the current economy and that there are other ways to fund the energy initiative (12). But what are the other policies being considered (or implemented) locally? The following two policies (Public Benefits Fund and Feed-In Tarrifs) are currently being implemented by the HECO Utilities. KIUC has both the advantage of viewing how these policies are enacted locally, as well as the perceived responsibility to follow suit or take on a leadership position.

Public Benefits Fund (PBF)

Public benefit funds (PBFs) are state-level programs typically developed during electric utility restructuring by some states in the late 1990s to ensure continued support for renewable energy resources, energy efficiency initiatives and low-income energy programs. These funds are most commonly derived from a very small surcharge on electricity consumption. PBFs commonly support rebate programs for renewable energy systems, loan programs, research and development, and energy education programs (13).

A well-designed and administered PBF increases public and private sector investments in cost-effective energy efficiency, resulting in reduced energy costs for electricity customers, emission reductions, and enhanced reliability. PBF charges generally range from $.27 to $2.50 on a residential customer’s monthly energy bill (14).

In January of 2009, HECO, MECO, and HELCO customers began getting a PBF surcharge on their utility bill. On July 1, 2009, a third-party PBF administrator—Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)—took over the energy efficiency program from HECO, MECO and HELCO (15). Having a third-party administer the fund for energy efficiency is thought to be preferential since the utility is not incentivized to reduce electricity demand (i.e., if the utility sells less electricity, the utility loses money, creating a fundamental conflict between the utility’s interest in selling more energy and the public interest in conserving it). If a PBF is deemed appropriate for Kaua`i, a third-party administrator may not be necessary since the utility is a cooperative, operating with the community’s interest at heart.

Feed-In Tariffs

While Feed-in Tariffs (FITs) do not produce a clean energy fund in the same way as a barrel tax or PBF, a FIT acts as a price support mechanism for renewable energy that strongly encourages renewable energy development and overcomes significant barriers that renewable energy developers face. Under FIT legislation, the regional utility is obligated to buy renewable electricity at above-market rates as set by the government. The government does not fund the FIT; rather, the costs are passed on by the utility and shared equitably by all grid customers. The higher price helps to reduce the risk to renewable energy developers, and ultimately results in higher penetration of renewable energy (16). In addition to being based on the cost of generation, successful feed-in tariffs typically include three key provisions:

guaranteed access to the grid;
stable, long-term contracts (typically on the order of 15-20 years); and
a guarantee of payments for the entire electrical output of the renewable energy system.

In October 2008 the HECO utilities (HECO, HELCO, and MECO) and the Consumer Advocate (CA) signed a joint proposal that lead to the opening of Docket 2008-0273, which is considering the implementation of FITs for islands supplied by these utilities (17). The PUC is expected to release a publication on Hawai`i’s FIT legislation any day now, however the terms and structure of the price support is integral to its success, and this lengthy decision making process has therefore delayed implementation (18).

Other Innovative Policies

FIT legislation and PBFs are only two of many policy options that could support renewable energy development in Kaua`i. These two policies were selected due to their applicability in the local context, but do not indicate that Kaua`i is limited to these options. For example, policies such as decoupling; time-of-use energy rates; carbon cap and trade legislation; and innovative rebates, loans, tax credits, and project financing are being considered and implemented at global, federal, regional, and local levels.

At the community and stakeholder meetings held for KESP, a number of ways to build clean energy funds and reduce costs for renewable energy developers were suggested. The suggestions that encouraged the most support include the following:

improve net energy metering and interconnection standards to encourage more distributed energy,
perform a cost/benefit analysis of alternative energy and assign a risk-adjusted rate of return for the various renewable energy technologies, and
streamline the permitting process to reduce upfront costs for renewable energy developers (19).

In the blog space below, please comment on the policy options described above and/or offer suggestions for other clean energy policy options that are applicable to Kaua`i’s situation. Your comments will be considered for the KESP.

References

Union of Concerned Scientists (Retrieved July 28, 2009), “Barriers to Renewable Energy Technologies”, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/barriers-to-renewable-energy.html.
Environmental Protection Agency (May 2008), “Advancing State Clean Energy Funds”, http://epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/clean_energy_fund_manual.pdf.
House Bill 1271 (2009). “Food and Energy Security”, http://www.capitol.Hawai`i.gov/session2009/bills/HB1271_CD1_.pdf.
Blue Planet Foundation (July 15, 2009), “Senate Delivers Setback to Clean Energy Future”, http://www.blueplanetfoundation.org/releases/hb1271failure.pdf.
Hawaii Public Radio (July 2009), “Increasing the Barrel Tax”, http://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/hpr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3475&Itemid=71.
Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (1999). “Federal energy market interventions 1999: Primary energy”, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy/pdf/sroiaf(99)03.pdf.
Whitlock, S. (September 2008) “NYT’s Tom Friedman on ABC: Slams McCain Energy Plan, Wants More Taxes”, http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2008/09/08/nyts-tom-friedman-abc-slams-mccain-energy-plan-wants-more-taxes.
Center for American Progress (June 2008), “Running on Fumes: Rising Gas Prices Add to the Strain on Families’ Already Squeezed Budgets”, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/pdf/food_gas.pdf.
Lugar, R.G. (February 1, 2009). “Raise the Gas Tax: A Revenue-Neutral Way to Treat Our Oil Addiction”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013002728.html.
Hartzok, A. (2002) “The Alaska Permanent Fund: A Model of Resource Rents for Public Investment and Citizen Dividends”, http://www.earthrights.net/docs/alaska.html.
National Public Radio (July 17, 2008) “Al Gore’s Speech on Renewable Energy”, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92638501.
Shikina, R. (July 19, 2009) “Oil tax debate overrides debut of Clean Energy Day”, http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20090729_oil_tax_debate_overrides_debut_of_clean_energy_day.html.
Database of State Initiatives for Renewables and Efficiency (June 2009), http://www.dsireusa.org/.
EPA, (April 2006), “Clean Energy-Environment Guide to Action: Policies, Best Practices, and Action Steps for States”, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/gta/guide_action_full.pdf.
Hawaii Energy Efficiency Program (July 2009), http://www.hawaiienergyefficiency.com.
Hinrichs, D. (2008), "Feed-in Tariff Case Studies", http://www.kauainetwork.org/_library/documents/kesp/technical%20libray/feed-in%20tariff%20case%20studies.pdf.
Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism (October 2008). “Energy Agreement Among the State of Hawaii, Division of Consumer Advocacy of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, and The Hawaiian Electric Companies.” http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/agreement/signed2008oct20.pdf.
FIT-Hawaii (June 2009), http://www.fit-hawaii.com/?FIT_proceedings_in_Hawaii.
Kaua`i Energy Sustainability Plan website (May 2009), http://www.kauainetwork.org/_library/documents/kesp/meeting-notes/all%20stakeholders%20meeting_5.14.09_v2.pdf.

The Basics of Waste to Energy on Kaua`i

2009-06-04T17:01:00.018-10:00

Aloha, welcome to the first "issue oriented" posting on the Kaua`i Energy Sustainability Plan blog. The SENTECH Hawaii Team debuted the blog at the final stakeholders meeting as a way to maintain open communications with the Kaua`i community after the online survey, 10 stakeholder meetings, and 5 public meetings had wrapped up. With this post, we encourage everyone who reads it to weigh in on the issue laid out below for the next couple of weeks, then we'll add another "issue oriented" posting which we hope you'll respond to as well.

So, the first issue is waste to energy (WTE), one possible way to turn municipal solid waste (MSW) to energy through some type of conversion technology.

We have heard many perspectives on WTE--from, "it's dirty, dangerous, unneeded, and way too expensive" to "with an aggressive Reduce/Re-use/Recycle campaign, there won't be enough MSW supply to feed the WTE technology, so what, then we import waste from other islands?" to "modern WTE technologies can turn waste into clean energy with only minimum impact on the environment--and that's a lot better than letting landfill gases escape--unflared!--into the atmosphere." And so on.

At the final "All Stakeholders" meeting, the SENTECH Hawaii Team asked the participants to address the WTE issue in the context of the energy sustainability plan that we're drafting. In this sense, waste can be seen as an energy resource--and without wanting to wade into the debate on whether or not waste is renewable, we (the Team) feel compelled to add some objective analysis to the issue so informed decisions can be made when it's time to make them. We do not intend to step on anyone's toes or take a position at this time--we just want to share some facts that we've gathered to date.

Mad props to our Technical Lead, Jill Sims, for doing some great research and analysis--see below--on Kauai's situation, WTE technologies, and potential issues related to WTE.

Please let us know your thoughts. Mahalo.

Doug Hinrichs, SENTECH Hawaii Team Lead
dhinrichs@sentech.org
301-219-7647

_________________________________________________________________

The Situation

The current waste diversion rate for the County of Kauai is approximately 25%, with over 250 tons per day (tpd) being sent to the Kekaha Landfill. Phase II of the Landfill has a capacity until May 2010, at which point a phased expansion would have to take place. The first phase is expected to expand capacity to October of 2013 at a cost of $12 million, the second phase would expand capacity until January 2017 at a cost of $9 million, and the third phase has a conceptual capacity of 5.4 years (until mid-2022) at a cost of $13-30 million.1

Kauai is also faced with volatile and rising energy costs. Utilizing municipal solid waste (MSW) to generate energy is one potential component of a local energy portfolio. The benefits of WTE include reduced landfilling (and potential reductions in landfill pollutants to Kauai's air, land, and water), reductions in Greenhouse Gas emissions, creation of a local energy resource, and potential useful products and by-products (reformation of syngas or biogas, slag, etc.). However, these benefits are balanced by the potential issues listed below.

About Waste to Energy (WTE) Technologies

1. Incineration
The most common WTE technology is incineration with energy recovery. Incineration is a waste treatment technology that involves the combustion of organic materials and/or substances. Incineration and other high temperature waste treatment systems (including gasification and plasma gasification) are described as "thermal treatment". Incineration of waste materials converts the waste into incinerator bottom ash, flue gases, particulates, and heat, which can in turn be used to generate electric power. The flue gases are cleaned of pollutants before they are dispersed in the atmosphere.

Incinerators reduce the volume of the original waste by approximately 70-90 %, depending upon composition and degree of recovery of materials such as metals from the ash for recycling. This means that while incineration does not completely replace landfilling, it reduces the necessary volume for disposal significantly.

WTE facilities can be a complimentary part of a modern MSW management program. Recyclable materials like glass and metal don't burn, so removing them from the waste stream feeding into the furnace makes the combustion process more efficient and reduces the amount of waste to be landfilled. This can be accomplished by integrating a modern Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) onto the front-end of a WTE facility.

2. Gasification
Gasification is a method for extracting energy from many different types of organic materials, relying on chemical processes at elevated temperatures greater than 700 °C. Gasification (and plasma gasification) can process many more types of waste and do not necessarily require pre-sorting. The product of gasification is synthesis gas, or syngas, which consists primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Gasification is potentially more efficient than direct combustion of the original fuel because the syngas product can be combusted at higher temperatures or utilized in fuel cells. The product syngas is normally used to fuel a combustion turbine power plant to generate electricity.

Waste gasification has several advantages over incineration:

* The necessary extensive gas cleaning may be performed on the syngas instead of the much larger volume of flue gas after incineration.
* Electric power may be generated in engines and gas turbines, which are much cheaper and more efficient than the steam cycle used in incineration. Even fuel cells may potentially be used, but these have severe requirements regarding the purity of the gas.
* Chemical processing of the syngas may produce other synthetic fuels instead of electricity.
* Some gasification processes treat ash containing heavy metals at very high temperatures so that it is released in a glassy and chemically stable form.

A major challenge for waste gasification technologies is to reach an acceptable (positive) gross electric efficiency. The high efficiency of converting syngas to electric power is counteracted by significant power consumption in the waste preprocessing, the consumption of large amounts of pure oxygen (which is often used as gasification agent), and gas cleaning.

There are no current commercial installations of gasification or plasma gasification facilities processing MSW in the U.S. This presents a challenge for obtaining data on startup timeframe, emissions, O&M, reliability, etc. Plasco Energy Group has a MSW test facility in Ottawa, Canada called the Plasco Trail Road Demonstration Facility that makes public larger amounts of data and information than is available from other operations. The Partnership for a Zero-Waste Ottawa is a joint project between the City of Ottawa and Plasco Energy Group and, as such, makes progress reports, environmental performance reports, and other information publicly available.2

3. Plasma Arc Gasification
Plasma arc gasification (otherwise known as "PAG", "Plasma gasification" or "Plasma arc") is a waste treatment technology that uses electrical energy and the high temperatures created by an electrical arc gasifier. This arc breaks down waste primarily into elemental gas (syngas) and solid waste (slag), in a device called a plasma converter. The solid waste is a chemically inert, glass-like slag, resulting from a process called "vitrification". The process is intended to be a net generator of electricity, depending upon the composition of input wastes, and to reduce the volumes of waste being sent to landfill sites.

Plasma gasification operates at temperatures of up to approximately 14,000 °C. Certain metals, such as mercury, lead, zinc, and cadmium, may be volatilized, depending on the temperature in the reactor. That is, if the temperature is low, the metal will be melted and become part of the slag at the bottom of the reactor. If the temperature is high, the metal will be vaporized and rise with the gases out the top of the reactor. For example, lead volatilizes at 1737 °C. Below this temperature, the lead becomes part of the slag; above this temperature, it escapes with the gases and must be captured elsewhere in the system.3

4. Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a series of processes in which microorganisms break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen. The MSW component for AD is source separated organics (SSOs). AD occurs in two phases: In the first phase a group of microorganisms referred to as “acid formers” breaks down complex materials in an acidic environment. In the second phase, a second group of microorganisms referred to as “methane formers” breaks down the output from the first phase and consume the organic material to form biogas.

Biogas from digesters is 55 to 60 percent methane; the remainder is mostly CO2. The biogas typically is used to generate heat or steam, through combustion in boilers, or it is used to generate electricity. Biogas generation varies by material. There is limited information on the comparative biogas generation of different materials in source separated organics or mixed waste streams. AD designers generally use their own proprietary data.

AD is particularly suited to wet organic material and is commonly used for effluent and sewage treatment. Until very recently, there were no anaerobic digestion facilities operating in the United States that processed MSW or source separated organic waste. In October 2006, Onsite Power Systems Inc., in association with the University of California Davis, launched their biogas energy project with the start-up of an anaerobic digester. This AD facility will initially process residential and restaurant waste from San Francisco, gradually increasing the amount to eight tons/day. Each ton of food waste is expected to generate enough bioenergy to power and heat 10 homes over a 24-hour period.

A newer trend in Europe is to market anaerobic digestion as one component of an integrated Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) system. MBT systems typically have a sorting component similar to a MRF. Traditional AD vendors have begun to partner with larger MSW processors who already have composting technologies or facilities, as well as transfer stations and/or landfills. The advantage of MBT for many communities is that organics do not have to be source separated by residents.4

Potential Issues

1. Process Emissions and Products
As part of the 1990 Clean Air Act mandates, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated new air pollution control standards for municipal waste combustors, including WTE facilities. These standards also require facilities to use the "maximum achievable control technology," and therefore are referred to as the MACT standards. No new facilities can be built unless they can demonstrate that they can meet the strict new standards.

Incineration and Gasification: The EPA also established the TCLP test (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) for determining whether the ash from WTE facilities is hazardous. This ash must routinely be tested before it leaves the facility to insure that it is not hazardous. The ash exhibits concrete-like properties causing it to harden once it is placed and compacted in a landfill. This reduces the potential for rainwater to leach contaminants in landfills into the ground. Ash landfill studies conducted over the past decade show that leachate is like salty water with a metals content at about the same level as the standards set for drinking water. In some states, waste ash is used as a substitute for aggregate in road bed materials.

AD: There are three principal products of anaerobic digestion: biogas, digestate and water. Biogas is mostly methane and carbon dioxide, with a small amount hydrogen and trace hydrogen sulfide. As with syngas, it may require treatment or 'scrubbing' to refine it for use as a fuel. Digestate is the solid remnants of the original input material to the digesters that the microbes cannot use. A maturation or composting stage may be employed after digestion, making the digestate more suitable as a soil improver. Further treatment of the wastewater is often required. This treatment will typically be an oxidation stage where air is passed through the water in a sequencing batch reactors or reverse osmosis unit.

2. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
In thermal WTE technologies, nearly all of the carbon content in the waste is emitted as carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere (when including final combustion of the products from gasification and plasma gasification). MSW contains approximately the same mass fraction of carbon as CO2 itself (27%), so treatment of 1 metric ton of MSW produce approximately 1 metric ton of CO2. In the event that the waste was landfilled, 1 metric ton of MSW would produce approximately 62 cubic meters of methane via the anaerobic decomposition of the biodegradable part of the waste. This amount of methane has more than twice the global warming potential than the 1 metric ton of CO2.

The methane in biogas can be burned to produce both heat and electricity. Biogas does not contribute to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations because the gas is not released directly into the atmosphere and the carbon dioxide comes from an organic source with a short carbon cycle.

3. Cost
Incineration: The ISWMP estimates the cost of a proposed WTE facility at $46-52 million, with an operating cost of $8-9 million/year. The facility would process 40,500 tons of MSW in 2013, or approximately 110 tons per day. The anticipated energy produced is 18,200-20,200 MWh. 5

Gasification and Plasma Gasification: The capital and operations cost of gasification WTE can be extremely high. A cost/benefit analysis will have to be performed to compare WTE to source reduction and diversion efforts, and the benefits of WTE will likely have to be significant to balance the cost differential.

There are no current commercial installations of AD, gasification or plasma gasification facilities processing MSW in the U.S., which presents a challenge when verifying capital cost and operational cost estimates provided by companies. Project costs for all WTE technologies will also be site-specific.

4. Verification of Cost and Performance Estimates
Many proposals come from new companies or vendors promoting new technologies. This presents significant issues regarding the reliability and economic viability of technologies or businesses without a proven track record.

5. Size
According to Kauai's draft Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP), in 2005 the Kekaha landfill received 89,156 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW), for an average of 244 tpd. A total of 27,223 tons of MSW were recycled, for a total waste generation of 116,379 tons or 319 tpd. Based on 2005 resident and tourist population of 85,806 persons, the per capita generation rate per day is 7.43 lbs, which is consistent with tourist destinations. The draft ISWMP projects a 2009 total daily de facto population of 91,900 persons with a generation of 134,670 tons, or 369 tpd.5

Many WTE technologies must take advantage of economies of scale to be cost effective, meaning that they need to process 500-1000 tpd or more of MSW. This is significantly more waste than Kauai currently produces. One solution could be to bring MSW from other islands to support a WTE facility.

Many of the AD facilities currently in operation, particularly those with operational experience of greater than five years, have capacities smaller than 20,000 metric tpy, although there is a trend to build larger anaerobic digestion facilities because of economies of scale.

6. Siting
There are significant environmental issues that may be raised by national advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club & the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). Opposition by local residents could be a significant issue when siting a project. Environmental reviews and permitting requirements could be significant. Having a WTE facility approved successfully will require an upfront analysis of inputs/outputs, including emissions, and a comparison of these with more conventional waste management strategies such as landfills.

Most of the WTE facilities in the U.S. became operational between 1980 and 1996. Only three new plants have come on line since 1996 (2 in 1997 and 1 in 2000).6 The primary reason for the slow-down in new WTE plants is the environmental concern involving existing plants. Most of these plants were installed without adequately addressing the environmental issues. The WTE industry is currently in the middle of an $800 million plant upgrade to install adequate air quality control systems that will allow the facilities to meet current EPA standards. Because of their historical emission problems, the WTE combustion plants have received and continue to receive significant resistance from environmental groups and negative reviews in the press. Groups such as GAIA and Greenaction have called alternative WTE technologies (gasification and plasma gasification) "Incinerators in Disguise" due to the combustion of product syngas to produce electrical power.

7. Odor
Modern WTE facilities are built so that a constant negative air pressure is always drawing air from the refuse pit (where incoming waste is dumped) into the furnace where the waste is combusted. At the temperatures encountered in a modern combustion system all smells/odors associated with waste are eliminated. This insures that no odor will be detected around or downwind of the facility.

8. Timeframe
The lifetime of many WTE plants is 25-30 years or more. Such long-term contracts may be inadvisable for communities and waste generators as they may stifle better options that may become available in the shorter term. Many alternative technologies such as gasification and plasma gasification remain under development and significant advances could emerge sooner than 25 years.

References

County of Kauai Department of Public Works, “Public Informational Meeting: MSW Landfill Issues, www.kauai.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=3P1sSc3vtDQ=&tabid=238
Plasco Energy Group, "A Partnership for a Zero-Waste Ottawa", http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/en/
R.W. Beck, "City of Honolulu Review of Plasma Arc Gasification and Vitrification Technology for Waste Disposal", January 23, 2003, http://www.opala.org/pdfs/solid_waste/arc/PlasmaArc.pdf
Kelleher, Maria, “Anaerobic Digestion Outlook for MSW Streams”, BioCycle, August 2007, http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001406.html
County of Kauai Department of Public Works, “Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan”, draft 3/2009, http://www.kauai.gov/
Recovered Energy, Inc., http://www.recoveredenergy.com/d_wte.html
HPower, http://www.honoluluhpower.com/
Oahu City Department of Environmental Services, "City to Brief Council on Plasma Arc Recommendations for Landfill Reduction Press Release", March 30,2004, http://www.honolulu.gov/refs/csd/publiccom/honnews04/plasmaarcrecommendations.htm

Acronyms AD – Anaerobic Digestion

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency

ISWMP - Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan

MACT - Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MBT – Mechanical Biological Treatment

MRF - Materials Recovery Facility

MSW - Municipal Solid Waste

PAG - Plasma Arc Gasification

TCLP - Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

Tpd - Tons per day

Tpy – Tons per year

WTE - Waste to Energy

Kicking off the KESP blog

2009-05-04T21:57:00.003-10:00

Aloha, welcome to the Kaua`i Energy Sustainability Plan (KESP) blog.

The SENTECH Hawai`i Team has put this blog together so we can continually get input and feedback from Kaua`i residents as we start drafting elements of the Kaua`i Energy Sustainability Plan, which will start shortly after our "All Stakeholders Meeting" on May 14, 2009.

In the meantime, feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Mahalo!

Doug Hinrichs
dhinrichs@sentech.org
SENTECH Hawai`i Team Lead for the Kaua`i Energy Sustainability Plan
www.kauaienergysustainabilityplan.com