Turning manure into fuel means dealing with a lot of red tape.

Anybody with a working sense of smell probably would think twice about journeying through a field full of cow dung or a compost heap at all costs. But the secret to generating cheap electricity could be lying within those not so olfactory friendly confines. Despite the efforts of methane harvesters, there have been roadblocks along the way.

In the United States, the harvesting of bio methane gas for electricity generation has been a slow moving process. Even with programs like the U.S. EPA’s AGStar program, that promotes and educates energy producers in the process of producing biogas, the rest of the world is still ahead of the United States. The numbers are not even close.

Currently, the United States, has roughly 150 biogas generators operating, mostly in rural areas. This pales in comparison to 8,000 projects being funded by the European Union and an estimated 8 to 17 million anaerobic methane digesters in China, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

One explanation for the discrepancy in project numbers between the U.S. and other countries is their disparity in the cost of producing electricity through alternate means. The high costs of producing electricity in Europe through more traditional methods provide economic justification for bio methane gas production.  Domestically, however, some farmers do not want to harvest methane because of the high costs to produce, store and transport the bi-product of the waste for burning.

In the case of John Fiscalini, whose farm is located just outside of Modesto, Calif, politics get in the way of generating biogas. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that Fiscalini has enough manure for his anaerobic digesters to supply enough methane to power his entire 530-acre farm, his cheese factory and an additional 200 homes. California Air Quality Control regulators will not issue a license for the digester, claiming that it creates high of levels of carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons in the recovery process.

While biogas burning is considered carbon dioxide neutral and is not supposed to yield additional greenhouses gases that normal fossil fuels would, improperly recovered biogases can contribute up to 20 percent more greenhouses gases than if methane is combusted normally.

The process of harvesting biogas consists of collecting any organic waste, usually manure, and dropping it through an inlet tube that leads to an underground dome or tank. When bacteria eats away at the sludge, a bi-product of methane and carbon dioxide is produced and the gas is gathered through an outlet tube of the tank. From there, the gas is compressed and stored for burning.

Some argue that the need for more biogas digesters is necessary because they make good use of organic wastes, create fertilizer from the residue and can run cooking, heating, gas lighting and gas powered engines. The process does not require that aseptic conditions exist, the risk of explosion is less than that of pure methane and that anaerobic digestion inactivates pathogens and parasites thereby reducing the number of water born diseases.

A study of E3 Biofuels conducted by energy expert and writer, Robert Rapier, tested the ability of the company to produce enough bio-methane to power their entire plant. Their biogas system consisted of: Growing corn, producing ethanol, feeding the byproducts to the cows, harvest, and produce methane from the manure, use the methane to fuel the boilers and then use the remaining residue as fertilizer. Rapier found that even after carrying out all of those processes, additional gas had to be used to power the plant. Rapier noted, however, that the process used significantly less fossil fuel than a grain ethanol plant.

At this juncture though, Fiscalini and others who hope to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels by producing their own bio-methane need to wait for air quality control regulators to approve those projects.

Chet Culver, Chairman of the Governors Wind energy Coalition is leading the charge to push Congress towards minimum wind energy requirements.

An assembly of 29 governors is urging Washington to enact Federal legislation that would mandate electric companies to obtain a minimum of 10 percent of the power they provide through renewable energy within two years.  The proposal, allegedly designed to stimulate job creation as well as climate reform, was presented today by letters to the White House and to Congress from the Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition.

“Right now, this is about jobs,” said Rhode Island Gov. Donald Carcieri (R).

“We don’t want these things to get caught up in the broader debate and discussion [i.e. global warming] that will only slow us down,” added Iowa Gov. Chet Culver (D), chairman of the bipartisan Coalition, which includes the governors of 29 states.

With national attention focused on health reform proposals, the group is concerned that the Federal government has become sidetracked from the agenda of getting Americans back to work.

“Congressional action on the energy bill seems to have stalled,” said Carcieri in a statement. “It is our hope that these recommendations — and the national bipartisan consensus they represent — will advance the energy deliberations now under way in Congress.”

Other recommendations by the governors include:

• Developing new interstate electric transmission system infrastructure to facilitate access to these resources nationwide.
• Greater federal support for coastal and off-shore wind farms; and
• Extending the Treasury Department’s financing program that offers cash up front instead of the Investment Tax Credit, as well as a renewable energy production tax credit.

Senator Chuck Grassley, Iowa (R), thinks the Governors' joint proposal sets unrealistic objectives.

“People want more renewable energy. Congress can’t ask for a clearer signal for what works politically than what’s working at the state level.” says Reid Detchon, executive director of the Energy Future Coalition, told the Christian Science Monitor.  ”These governors coming forward like this is just one more indicator of public sentiment in favor of stronger requirements for renewable energy.”

Congress does not unanimously subscribe to the notion that the Coalition’s mandate presents realistic objectives. Indeed, Culver has not convinced his own State’s senior senator that the mandate can be reached by 2012.

While Iowan Senator Chuck Grassley (R) claims to have supported renewable energy portfolios in the past, he believes the Coalition has bitten off more than can be chewed.  “Probably not ten-percent by 2012,” Grassley says, “I don’t think that that’s possible but I surely think 15% by 2020 is possible.”

Washington, D.C. — An innovative coal-drying technology that will extract more energy from high moisture coal at less cost and simultaneously reduce potentially harmful emissions is ready for commercial use after successful testing at a Minnesota electric utility. The DryFining™ technology was developed with funding from the first round of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).

The United States has about 280 power stations burning high-moisture coal, generating more than 100 gigawatts of electricity, which equates to about one-third of the electric power generated by coal in the country.

Great River Energy of Maple Grove, Minn., has selected the WorleyParsons Group to exclusively distribute licenses for the technology, which essentially uses waste heat from a power plant to reduce moisture content in lignite coal. Great American Energy, a 50-50 joint venture of Great River Energy and the North American Coal Corporation, will also market the technology, whose first user will be the utility’s Spiritwood Station under construction near Jamestown, N.D.

In addition to using power plant waste heat to reduce moisture, DryFining also segregates particles by density. This means a significant amount of higher density compounds containing sulfur and mercury can be sorted out and returned to the mine rather than oxidized in the boiler. The end result is more energy can be extracted from the coal while simultaneously reducing emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, major potential pollutants that result from coal-based combustion.

As part its CCPI-funded project, Great River Energy tested a 115-ton prototype dryer in the company’s 546-megawatt Coal Creek Station Unit 2 in Underwood N.D. Following a successful increase in boiler efficiency and reduction of emissions, Great River Energy expanded the project by building full-scale dryer modules for the entire Coal Creek Station. The Office of Fossil Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory manages the CCPI program.

Lignite is one of four major coal types produced in the United States, accounting for about 7 percent of annual production, and is an important energy source for electricity generation. In general, lignite has a higher moisture and ash content, resulting in a lower power efficiency and higher rate of emissions than coals with less moisture. Great River Energy’s innovative technology reduces the cost of drying coal by using the waste heat and segregating particles by density, thereby generating energy with less coal while reducing emissions and emission-control costs.

At the Coal Creek Station, the technology increased the energy content of the lignite from 6,200 to 7,100 Btus per pound, thereby reducing fuel input into the boilers by 14 percent. At the same time, sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions were reduced by more than 40 percent, nitrogen oxide by more than 20 percent, and carbon dioxide by 4 percent.

These results are important to energy consumers because the United States has about 280 power stations burning high-moisture coal, generating more than 100 gigawatts of electricity, which equates to about one-third of the electric power generated by coal in the country.

Release: National Energy Technology Laboratory

Daniel Yergin considers fracking natural gas from shale rock as the most effective means for reducing Americas dependence on oil.

With the advent of gas shales, North America is blessed with three times as much potential natural gas supply as they were in 2007, according to a study released Wednesday by IHS-Cambridge Research associates.

But the question remains whether America is willing to tap its potential.

“This is simply the most significant energy innovation so far this century,” said Daniel Yergin, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power and chairman of IHS-Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

The trick is to convince the public that recently discovered surpluses of natural gas should be relied upon to offset dependence on oil.

The innovation is somewhat hollow unless gas producers can convince Washington and the American public to embrace “fracking for gas”.  Despite recognition that natural gas burns more cleanly than oil, leftward leaning partisans have concerns about possible groundwater contamination resulting from extracting fuel from gas shales.  Accordingly, they would prefer to advance wind and solar energy as the wave of the future.

Natural gas advocates consider talk of renewable energy on a national scale as complete hot air.  “In dealing with climate change, I’m constantly surprised by the tendency to focus on the most complex and expensive measures,” said Helge Lund, CEO of Norway’s Statoil. Lund added that natural gas is abundant, affordable and relatively clean compared to the fossil fuels predominating the market today.

The ramification of America’s capability of using shale to provide its own natural gas has had a significant impact on the international economy.  Russian gas titan Gazprom has stalled in developing its Arctic shipping lines due in large part to growing concerns that the U.S. demand for international natural gas may be a lot lower in the forthcoming years than was expected as recently as three years ago.

In 2000 only 1% of America’s natural gas was harnessed from shale rock.  Today it’s 20% and by 2035 it could be 50% according to the new IHS CERA report, titled “Fueling North America’s Energy Future: The Unconventional Natural Gas Revolution and the Carbon Agenda.”

Wind turbines may spin on American soil but many of them carry the "Made in China" label.

Washington D.C. – The war between members of the U.S. Senate and wind energy investors rages on as lawmakers try to suspend government appropriations earmarked for privately operated wind-energy projects. The complaint, raised by the Committee for Energy and Natural Resources, is that investors are funneling an overwhelming percentage of government funding toward Asian manufacturers, rather than using American companies.

With nearly $2 billion already spent on wind farm projects, several senators are leading the charge against stimulus funds that are suspected of being used for manufacturing wind mills in China that will eventually be used in the U.S. The purpose of the wind stimulus project, proposed by the Obama administration in early 2009, was to help expand the United States goal of producing wind generated energy, as well as create jobs across the country. Now, committee members are investigating the exact nature of the spending so far.

According to a report conducted by Investigative Reporting Workshop, 73 percent of the $1.9 billion in stimulus money that has distributed since Sept. 1, 2009 has been invested in foreign companies.

One particular project, a wind farm in west Texas slated to receive $450 million in government funds, has become the focal point of the debate. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), has been outspoken in his skepticism of the project since its inception last year. Schumer claims that US Renewable Energy Group (US-REG), Texas-based Cielo Wind Power and Chinese Shenyang Power Group, all responsible for financing the venture, so far have not relied on U.S. manufacturing. Instead Schumer claims the investment will provide 3,000 jobs for Shenyang and 330 for Americans -300 of those U.S. jobs being temporary.

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has hostile words for American companies using government grants to manufacture products abroad.

“It is a no-brainer that stimulus funds should only go to projects that create jobs in the United States rather than overseas,” Schumer’s office said in a statement. “These wind projects have a lot of merit, but the manufacturing should be happening here, not in China.”

In a statement released by US-REG, managing partner Cappy McGarr countered the charges by stating that his company intends to manufacture a minimum of 70 percent of the wind turbines for the $1.5 billion project domestically.  McGarr said that it is incorrect to assume that hundreds of additional jobs created aside from the direct construction and operation of the Texas plant would be outside the U.S.

The U.S. Energy Department released a statement saying that they do not support blocking stimulus payments and if projects that use foreign-manufactured turbines are cut off, even temporarily, the result could be immediate layoffs for American workers.

The current American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requires government run and financed stimulus projects to rely on American manufactured goods. Where the bill lacks coverage for protecting American jobs is in regards to privately operated projects, like the US-REG venture, that do not fall under the same guidelines.

Senate Committee members are pushing for new legislation that would require private project venturers to create jobs in the United States if they are taking advantage of federal grants. Under current law, the government has no jurisdiction to intercede by withholding grants even if the companies relying on government incentives perform all of the manufacturing abroad.

The Department of Energy has made a couple of unprecedented moves on efficiency in the last few months that have gone unnoticed by all but the most die-hard efficiency advocates.

First, as my colleague Noah Long explained, DOE has begun to actually enforce mandatory minimum appliance standards!  Crazy, right? First they announced about $3 million in fines on shower head manufacturers for failure to submit certification reports.  These are the first ever fines levied under the federal standards program, and further evidence of the new attitude about enforcement at DOE.  They then followed up by fining an air conditioner manufacturer $1.2 million for failing to certify.  I am guessing these and other manufacturers will pay a bit more attention to compliance and certification from now on.

Second, DOE issued its annual report to Congress recently, and the big news is that DOE has officially put development of national TV energy efficiency standards on its schedule.  We had been expecting this development, since DOE announced last fall that it would begin a TV proceeding “soon” in its notice repealing the outdated federal test method.

Standards for TV sets are long overdue. Congress gave DOE authority to consider TV standards in 1989, but this is the first time they’ve been considered federally.  Of course, it’s doubtful the feds would even be looking at TV standards absent the California Energy Commission (CEC) standards enacted last year and heroic efforts to develop and support those standards by the Commissioners and CEC staff through support led by NRDC’s Noah Horowitz, Pacific Gas & Electric and the rest of the CA investor owned utilities.

The federal schedule calls for completion of the federal rulemaking in June 2013.  Assuming that Consumer Electronics Association is not successful at derailing the federal process — you can bet they will try — that means federal standards would take effect in May 2016, at the earliest.  In the 3.5 years between the state standards implementation date and the earliest potential federal implementation date, about 20 million TV sets will be sold that will last 7 to 10 years.  Even if the feds do all we would want, there is still much value in staying the course in the states.

I think this DOE means business, don’t you?

During his trip to Savannah, Obama shared a lunch with a few of the locals.

Savannah, Ga. – Willing homeowners across America may soon be eligible for rebates for making energy efficient improvements to their houses, according to President Barack Obama. Standing in front of the student body and faculty at Savannah Technical College, Obama laid out the general groundwork for implementing his $6 billion HOMESTAR program, commonly referred to as the “Cash for Caulkers” program.

Obama said the plan is focused on providing rebates for consumers that purchase energy saving, home improvement upgrades such as insulation and water heaters. Under the program, vendors ranging from small independent contractors to nationwide home improvement chain stores will offer the on-the-spot rebates that will range between $1000 and $1500. The federal government will then reimburse the vendor for the rebate.

This program would also reward homeowners who have energy audits conducted and then follow through with the necessary improvements to reduce their energy consumption. Audited homes that are improved by cutting their energy costs by at least 20 percent can receive up to $3000 with the possibility of a larger rebate for any reduction over 20 percent.

Obama praised the Savannah Tech’s initiative called the YouthBuild program, geared toward pursuing energy efficient business practices through their specialized classes and training. He also drew parallels between the school’s energy education program and the White House’s current goals.

“In terms of energy usage, 40 percent of it goes into our homes and our building,” Obama said during the speech. “So as we’re looking for additional initiatives to spur hiring, I think we ought to embrace what’s happening on this campus. I think we ought to embrace the incredible potential that awaits us across America in clean energy.”

Cutting residential energy consumption and providing relief to homeowners who would partake in the plan, was not the only item on the agenda. The other task at hand for the White House, according to Obama, is attempting to provide jobs for American’s who will assist in weatherizing these houses.

Obama referred to manufacturers and contractors being ready to work and take on the possible increase in demand for labor, and even joked at one point in his speech about outsourcing.

“It turns out that energy-efficient windows or insulation, those things are products that are almost exclusively manufactured right here in the United States of America. It’s very hard to ship windows from China,” Obama said. “So that creates work for small businesses and contractors like some of the folks who are here today. And obviously construction work that’s been as hard hit as anything during this recession, so you’ve got a lot of skilled contractors ready to go.”

The White House has yet to propose the plan to Congress and several details are yet to be determined, such as its duration and costs.

Crude oil prices rise on low interest rates.

Crude oil futures gained more than $1 on Wednesday after U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke reiterated his commitment to keeping interest rates low in order to encourage lending and growth which would fuel an economic recovery.

Short-term interest rates would remain exceptionally low for “an extended period,” Bernanke said.

The rise in crude oil prices took place despite a larger-than-expected gain in crude inventories reported by the Energy Information Administration today in its weekly report.

U.S. light, sweet crude for April delivery traded up $1.14 to settle at $80.01 a barrel at the close of floor trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

“Increases in energy prices resulted in a pickup in consumer price inflation in the second half of last year,” Bernanke also noted, “but oil prices have flattened out over recent months, and most indicators suggest that inflation likely will be subdued for some time.”

Crude oil supplies gained 3.03 million barrels last week to 337.5 million, the highest level it’s been at since November of last year.

“Right now, because of the recession, there is excess capacity” of crude oil, said U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

Fuel consumption in the U.S. was up 1.3 percent from a year earlier to 19.1 million barrels a day in the four weeks ended Feb. 19, according to the Energy Department report. Gasoline demand fell 0.3 percent to 8.7 million barrels a day.

K.R. Sridhar shows 60 Minutes the heart of the Bloom Box- stacks of thin fuel cells. He says that two of them would be enough to provide energy for the average American home.

What Is That Box in Your Backyard?

That is the question you may be hearing pretty soon. Bloom Energy a company based in Sunnyvale, California, has created a power plant roughly the size of a refrigerator. They are hoping that every home in America will have its own Bloom Box cheaply producing clean energy within ten years.

In their opinion, the Bloom Box will revolutionize energy with its “power plant in a box.” K.R. Sridhar, CEO of Bloom Energy, appeared on CBS’s 60 Minutes to describe his company’s device. On Wednesday, Mr. Sridhar is expected to make a major public announcement in Silicon Valley unveiling the Bloom Box.

The Bloom Box is a collection of fuel cells, similar to skinny batteries that rely on a mixture of oxygen and fuel to create electricity. Better yet, it has no emissions.

How does it really work?

Although all the details haven’t been disclosed, the Bloom Box seems to operate using a solid-oxide fuel cell technology. The building blocks of Bloom Box are rows of fuel cells.

Front and back images of the fuel cells in the Bloom Box, the green and black inks are two solvents designed by Sridhar to chemically convert fuel into energy.

These cells are made of ordinary beach sand baked into diskette-sized ceramic squares which are painted with black and green ink. The ink is the “secret sauce” created by Sridhar –a former rocket scientist-which has the capability of cleanly transforming fuel into electricity.

Each fuel cell has the potential to power one light bulb. The fuel cells are sandwiched with cheap metal alloy plates and stacked into brick-sized towers.

The fuel cell stacks are housed in a unit roughly the size of a refrigerator. Oxygen is drawn into one side of the unit, and fossil or renewable fuel is fed into the other side. Fuel and oxygen combine within the cell and produce a chemical reaction that creates energy. Its creator claims that this creation arises without burning, combustion, or the necessity of power lines.

It would take roughly 64 stacks of fuel cells to power a small business like Starbucks.

Sridhar developed the Bloom Box concept after creating a device for NASA designed to produce oxygen on Mars. NASA scrapped the venture, but Sridhar tweaked his project by feeding oxygen into his fuel cells rather than using them to create oxygen. Nearly $400 million and 10 years later Sridhar has the Bloom Box.

Are these boxes really the wave of the future?

It is probably too early to tell. On a corporate level, the Bloom Boxes are already functioning on a limited basis Sridhar claims. Google was their first customer. FedEx, Walmart, Staples, and Ebay have also shelled out approximately $700,000 to $800,000 per box.

The boxes purchased by the corporate giants require fuel, such as natural gas, but half as much as they normally would require.

Ebay installed five Bloom Boxes nine months ago, and they fuel about 15 percent of its San Jose campus, said CEO John Donahoe in the 60 Minutes interview. “It’s been very successful thus far.  They have done what they said they would do” Mr. Donahoe says, adding that the company has saved $100,000 in electricity costs already.

The Bloom Box is designed to replace the existing power grid. But making the Bloom Box practical on a consumer level is a whole other matter.

Michael Kanellos is hopeful that Bloom Boxes can work on the consumer level, but skeptical.

Michael Kanellos, editor of Greentech Media, which covers the clean energy market, warns that “people have been trying to develop fuel cells since the 1830’s. But they’re not easy. They’re like the divas of industrial equipment. You have to put platinum inside there. You have to put zirconium.”

Cost is a huge factor. “It needs to be cheaper than wind. It needs to be cheaper than solar.” Kanellos says. “Cost is always a concern with fuel cells, as is round-the-clock, 24-7 functionality.”

Sridhar says he eventually wants to deliver Bloom Boxes to consumers “for under $3,000.”

For now, however, the company has shrouded itself in secrecy. Outside of the 60 Minutes interview, Sridhar has refused to meet with the press. Even their website bloomenergy.com posts little more than a cryptic video without divulging much if anything about the corporation.

The Bloom Energy “secret society” strategy has been designed either to hide serious flaws or to heighten the buzz.

Sridhar seems ebullient as he looks to the future. “I want a Bloom Box next to the [White House] organic vegetable garden,” he says on 60 Minutes.

As noted in DOT’s press release accompanying the announcement, “The TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) Discretionary Grant Program was included in the Recovery Act to spur a national competition for innovative, multi-modal and multi-jurisdictional transportation projects that promise significant economic and environmental benefits to an entire metropolitan area, a region or the nation.”

About half the money will go to transit and rail projects, including $83 million to fund the first phase of the long-anticipated “new Penn Station” in Manhattan.  The new facility will occupy the city’s huge Farley post office building across Eighth Avenue from the current Penn Station and Madison Square Garden.  It will be named for New York’s late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who championed the project while he was still alive.  Moynihan also was the principal author of the landmark 1991 federal transportation legislation that for the first time opened federal transportation funding to community and environmental projects.

What a great and fitting tribute to a giant among legislators.  And what remarkable evidence of this administration’s much-appreciated commitment to efficient, people-oriented transportation.

The group Friends of Moynihan Station hailed the announcement, which completes the funding necessary for Phase One of the project, which will include new entrances to the current, underground Penn Station from the Farley building, major improvements to passenger and visitor concourses, and new escalators, elevators and stairs to the train platforms.  Construction can begin late this year.  Phase Two will include, among other major improvements, an iconic, open train hall in the Farley Building.

Penn Station is the nation’s busiest transportation facility, handling over 600,000 passengers daily.

Those of us who use it, and that includes me when I travel to New York several times each year, know that the current Penn Station leaves a lot to be desired, to put it mildly.  Unlike wonderful stations in DC, Philadelphia, Paris, Berlin, and London, just to name a few, Penn station is cramped, claustrophobic, and completely devoid of natural light.  While there have been some heroic attempts at improving the place over the last 10-15 years, it is not somewhere you ever want to be if you don’t have to.  It doesn’t come remotely close to Grand Central, Manhattan’s iconic station on the East Side.

And that’s a shame, because Penn Station once was itself grand and inspiring (see photo of its interior, below).  It was demolished to make way for the current facility as a result of a litigated decision that was lost by the old station’s proponents but nonetheless galvanized the preservation movement in New York and elsewhere.

When the new project is finished, intercity passengers using Amtrak will be shifted to the Farley building, and local and regional commuters using New Jersey Transit and the Long Island Railroad will be given more space in what is now the current facility. While there is no doubt that the major upgrade to Eighth Avenue will spur additional redevelopment near the new station, the project will focus on its transportation purpose.  The New York Times saluted this decision in a recent editorial, noting that given earlier talk of an elaborate mix of major shopping, housing, and sports facilities in the project, its focus – and, given the recession, perhaps even the whole idea – was in danger of being lost.  New York’s senior senator Chuck Schumer has been credited with reframing the project to place the emphasis on the station itself, and with helping the project seek stimulus funding.

I had the pleasure of hearing Pat Moynihan speak a couple of years before his death, and it was one of the most intellectually impressive speeches by a politician that I have ever heard.  I was sitting at a large dinner with a seasoned lobbyist from the National Trust, who leaned over and said, “There will never be another like him.”  But now at least there will be a legacy.

Here’s a short video – now somewhat dated (Eliot Spitzer was New York’s governor at the time) – that was produced by the Municipal Art Society of New York, explaining the genesis of Moynihan Station and its proponents’ goals:

Principles for a Great New Penn Station from MAS on Vimeo.