I’ve
avoided discussing biofuel in the past not only because of its tenuous
connection to onsite power, but also because the amount of resources needed for
many biofuel crops (including soil and water) appear to negate their associated
benefits. But what if biomass could be directly linked to onsite power with the
intent of creating a localized, distributed energy system? After all, biomass
does not just involve biofuel crops, but mill wastes, urban wastes,
forest residues, and agricultural residues. And throughout the country,
waste-to-fuel options continue to remain significantly under-utilized.
Last
month, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection
released a Program on Agricultural Technologies (authored by Gary
Radloff, director of policy and communications with the Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, and Alan Turnquist, outreach
specialist at the Program on Agriculture Technology Studies at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison)
entitled “How Could Small Scale Distributed Energy Benefit Wisconsin Agriculture
and Rural Communities.”
According to the study, by enacting policies designed to encourage “small-scale
renewable energy solutions,” Wisconsin’s agricultural sector and rural
communities could be uniquely poised to capitalized on the state’s 15
million tons of potential biomass for energy. The study concludes that “local
energy production represents an important enough part of our state’s economic
future that new policy steps should be crafted to assure that the economic and
energy returns go to rural Wisconsin residents, and that groups undertaking
distributed energy projects are able to manage risk in the nascent bioenergy
market.”
Ultimately,
the hope is that by focusing on small-scale energy systems, Wisconsin can
achieve the goal of increasing renewable energy sources, while at the same time
overcoming some of the difficult logistics involved in creating a large-scale,
centralized system. Based in part on location and in part on the massive amount
of potential biomass available, Wisconsin is uniquely poised to capitalize on a
biomass-based, distributed energy system. Additionally, the new federal Biomass
Crop Assistance Program will allow for payment of up to 75% of implementation
costs (costs to convert land from its existing use to an energy crop). This
funding could assist agricultural producers to make the switch to biomass not
just through dedicated biofuel crops, but also by supplying forest waste for
energy.
The
report itself is quite clear when it comes to the benefits of creating a system
based on localized renewable energy in a rural setting. “Studies and real-world
examples indicate that a combination of technology options including
biomass for heat, biomass for combined heat and power at small to mid-size
businesses, fuels for schools and local government buildings, anaerobic
digesters, and small to mid-size ethanol plants can provide economic
efficiency and diversity when located in rural settings.” What is
particularly striking, is that the study highlights the idea that onsite power
from renewable energy sources does not have to exist solely to supplement the
grid. By promoting biomass as an energy source in rural areas, the communities
would be able to move beyond merely energy suppliers for the grid and, instead,
integrate the source into their own localized system in order to meet their own
needs. In that scenario, everybody wins—“constructing a system where a portion
of the renewable energy dividend stays at home, and the long-term economic
benefits are shared by the landowner, farmer, forester, or local community, is
quite possible.”
As
to implementing and funding this type of project, the study looks to Europe for
answers. The study points out that in Germany, Denmark, and other European
nations, renewable energy buyback programs—those that guarantee reasonable
payment rates by utilities to small renewable energy producers who “feed energy
into the electric grid”—have “transformed Germany, Denmark, and other European
countries to renewable energy powerhouses.” These renewable buyback (or tariff
programs) can even the playing field for renewable systems by providing
“long-term investment security” for communities, businesses, and local
governments—thereby helping to justify the initial investment and financial
commitment required for the creation of a local renewable energy infrastructure,
because “investors can literally take the guaranteed tariff payback rate to the
bank as a revenue stream for long-term financing of renewable energy
projects.” Several states, including California, Minnesota, Michigan, and
Illinois, either already have similar tariff programs in place or plan to
implement them within the next couple of years.
So what do you think?
Is the idea of harnessing biomass for a rural distributed energy system
worth it? Could other ag-heavy states (like Indiana and Iowa) find similar ways
to capitalize on their own biomass resources?