Thursday, January 18, 2007

One Coal Plant Gone

Tri-State's Board is
altering its
proposal for Holcomb, to build two plants at total of 1400MW instead of
at 1200MW. So. . . One Down, Two to Go!

A little excitement yesterday.
Some of you may already know, and now confirmed through Bill Griffith,
Sierra, and Jake Meffley, Colo Environment, that Tri-State's Board is
altering its
proposal for Holcomb, to build two plants at total of 1400MW instead of
at 1200MW. So. . . One Down, Two to Go!

Western Resource Advocates states in an email, "This represents a
shift from the plan we reviewed in October. While things are moving in
right direction, our work is far from done. TOO COSTLY, NOT NEEDED".

For whatever reasons this is indeed good news. Perhaps we'll get more
details later. I do know that one of the major co-ops in Colorado,
which I sent out to you earlier is now involved in an education campaign
Western Resources Advocates (WRA) to give presentations to other co-ops
purchase power from TriState and are subject to escalating costs due to
perceived overbuild plans by TriState.

Also I must speculate that the preponderence of good testimony at KDHE
had a
rippling effect. Keep writing to the Governor and KDHE. TOO COSTLY,

And send congratulations to our new LT Governor, Mark Parkinson and KEC
Co-Chair, Ken Frahm for their recent testimony at the legislature, and
which hit
the news this week, "State energy officials Tuesday urged lawmakers to
measures to increase wind energy and promote conservation. 'We believe
there are
tremendous opportunities for the state,'said Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson,
serves as co-chair of the Kansas Energy Council." "Ken Frahm, the other
told the House Energy and Utilities Committee that conservation and
efficiencies alone in Kansas could erase the need for a new electric
generation plant."
Quotes from Lawrence Journal World, January 17, 2007.

(Lt Gov Mark Parkinson and KEC Co-Chair Ken Frahm may be posted at the
Energy Council office: 1500 SW Arrowhead Road, Topeka, KS 66604, or
c/o "" - I'm sure words of encouragement are

From the Governor: "In her budget proposal, Gov Kathleen Sebelius has
recommended that the state spend $1 million to spur construction of a
line for wind-generated electricity (I think this is primarily for
planning and
to get a coordinated plan in place with Southwest Power Pool to spur
development). "In addition, Sebelius said, the state should produce 10%
of its
electricity needs from wind by 2010 and 20% by 2020." These
welcome words.

All for now -- good work! SARAH S. DEAN



Climate Change visible in trees.

Climate change affecting where certain trees thrive....could lead to changes in ecosystems.

By Patrick O'Driscoll, USA TODAY
Rising temperatures are allowing Southern trees to thrive farther north and stressing trees used to colder weather, according to new national guidelines issued by planting experts.
The National Arbor Day Foundation last month updated the Agriculture Department's "hardiness zones" map, which was last issued in 1990. The group acted after noticing that some tree species were thriving where they had not before, while others were doing poorly in what had been a suitable region on previous maps.

The shift in zones may allow people in northern areas to experiment with flowering Southern trees such as apple and cherry where they used to plant only fir, spruce and pine, says group spokesman Woodrow Nelson.

The map divides the nation into 11 planting zones tied to average low temperatures. It shows significant boundary changes as the continent has warmed. For example, in southern Texas, the edge of one zone moved more than 200 miles north to the Panhandle. A few locations jumped two zones.

The map is based on 15 years of minimum temperatures from 5,000 observers used by the National Weather Service.

Last year was the warmest on record for the USA. Twelve of the top 25 warmest years have been since 1990.

The foundation cautions not to dig up gardens or cut down trees just because zones have shifted. The map is a guide for new plantings, especially for seedlings, which are more vulnerable to temperature change than mature trees.

The Agriculture Department has been reworking its map for several years using 30 years of data instead of 15 but has set no release date. The department's Kim Kaplan says the 1990s "were a very warm decade, but is that a weather cycle or is that a climate cycle? We think 30 years represents the best compromise, smoothing out the natural fluctuations of weather."

Nelson says the foundation will distribute 10 million seedlings this year. "Those need to be planted under the most up-to-date information."



The Big Three

The numbers behind ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel in the

By Maywa Montenegro
04 Dec 2006
America devours oil like no other country in the world. Representing 5
percent of the global population, the country consumes fully a quarter
of the world's oil. Every year, to move ourselves and our goods around,
we burn 140 billion gallons of gasoline and 40 billion gallons of diesel
-- enough to propel the average U.S. car around the world 1.6 billion
times. But rising prices, climate change, and seemingly endless crises
in the Middle East have sparked a reckoning.

We love to pump, and it shows.
We love to pump, and it shows.
While there is plenty of disagreement about how best to end what
President Bush has called our "addiction to oil," a rough consensus has
formed in support of biofuel as an alternative to crude oil. But biofuel
-- energy gained from plant or animal matter -- is a broad category. The
term lumps together a number of energy sources that are, in fact, quite
different, from turkey innards to corn stalks. (Mmm, sounds like
Thanksgiving dinner.)

So far, three fuels have emerged to lead the U.S. biofuels pack, whether
in practice or in our collective imagination: corn ethanol, cellulosic
ethanol, and biodiesel.

They are hailed as carbon-neutral solutions for an emissions-happy era.
And in one sense, all biofuels can indeed be thought of as CO2 neutral,
since any carbon released at the tailpipe was recently captured by the
plants for photosynthesis. But plant-derived fuel doesn't emerge from a
vacuum. Crops must be cultivated, harvested, moved, and transformed --
processes that are hardly carbon neutral. And here is where the vast
discrepancies cloaked by the term "biofuels" emerge.

Conventional Ethanol

People have been making conventional ethanol for about as long as
they've been getting drunk. Creating it involves leaching simple sugars
from plant matter and fermenting them into alcohol, just like the
process for making "corn liquor," or moonshine. It's affordable and
effective -- Henry Ford even reckoned that ethanol would power his Model
T cars .
(Presumably he was sober at the time.)

What about cob?
What about cob?
Since conventional ethanol relies on simple sugars, it works best when
derived from crops that concentrate starches in their seeds. That's why
corn makes a better feedstock than wheat, and sugarcane makes a better
feedstock than corn. But the same quality also limits conventional
ethanol's efficiency when it comes to mass production: since it can use
only a relatively small portion of each plant, a lot of biomass goes
unused in the process.

In the United States, corn, the nation's most prolific crop
, is by far its
dominant ethanol feedstock: some 95 percent of all ethanol produced in
the U.S. comes from the starchy yellow kernels. Corn-based ethanol
remains the only biofuel produced in serious quantity in the U.S.,
though biodiesel is making a push (see below). Yet even after brisk
recent growth, ethanol producers will churn out the equivalent of just 3
percent of U.S. gasoline consumption in 2006.

Still, production trends point steeply upward. Output was 3.9 billion
gallons in 2005, and increased to a projected 4.8 billion gallons for
2006 -- the largest jump in production since 1980, the year industry
began tracking such data. Production is expected to swell to 7.5 billion
gallons in the next few years, and the number of ethanol plants under
construction in the U.S. has gone from 16 in 2005 to 33 today.

Rising oil and gasoline prices have clearly spiked recent interest in
ethanol, but its boom in popularity has other sources too. The Energy
Policy Act passed by Congress in 2005 includes a Renewable Fuel Standard
stipulating that gasoline sold in the U.S. must include a certain amount
of renewable fuel. This year, 4 billion gallons of renewable fuels must
be used in gasoline, rising to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. Gasoline
refiners have also begun turning en masse to ethanol as an alternative
to the octane booster MTBE, which many states have recently banned.

Among environmentalists, however, the growing consensus is that
corn-based ethanol is more fool's gold than eco-treasure.

Conventional agriculture relies on fertilizer and pesticides derived
from fossil fuels. Diesel powers the tractors and other machinery that
plow, plant, and spray crops, as well as the vehicles that haul away the
final product (due to ethanol's tendency to absorb water, it must be
transported in special containers on trucks or trains instead of in the
cheaper pipeline system used for oil and gasoline). Figure in the fuel
-- mainly coal and natural gas -- burned in the distillation process,
and experts reckon each gallon of ethanol takes the energetic equivalent
of roughly three-quarters of a gallon of ethanol to produce.

Then there are greenhouse-gas emissions. After accounting for the coal
and natural gas burned to process it, the nitrous oxide -- a greenhouse
gas hundreds of times more potent than CO2 -- generated from fertilizer
production, and other factors, a recent study in /Science/ found that
ethanol use reduces greenhouse-gas emissions by just 13 percent compared
to gasoline use.

Despite its clearly limited environmental benefits, domestic ethanol
draws plenty of help from Washington. Since 1978, the fuel has qualified
its producers for a federal tax credit, which now stands at 51 cents to
the gallon. Ethanol producers also benefit from a 54 cent-per-gallon
tariff on sugarcane ethanol imported from Brazil
-- a country
where production is not only cheaper but more efficient, given
sugarcane's superiority as a feedstock.

And now U.S. automakers, also with a boost from Washington, are jumping
on the ethanol bandwagon. Advertising campaigns like GM's "Live Green,
Go Yellow"
are plugging flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on gasoline or a
mixture of gasoline and ethanol. E85 -- a mix of 85 percent ethanol and
15 percent gasoline -- can now be pumped at some 650 service stations
nationwide, a threefold increase since 2004. And at the same time, the
federal government's "dual-fuel loophole" provides automakers a 1.5
mile-per-gallon credit toward meeting fuel-economy standards --
/without/ requiring that flex-fuel vehicles actually run on alternative

The government estimates that flex-fuel vehicles run on ethanol blends
less than 1 percent of the time, hardly surprising since the E85
infrastructure has a long way to go before it catches up to gasoline. As
a result, even while 2005 saw more flex-fuel vehicles on the roads than
ever before, Americans consumed 80,000 more barrels of oil than in the
previous year. Meanwhile, legislative plans are on tap to either
increase the credit for selling flex-fuel vehicles or extend it beyond
2014, effectively removing any incentive for carmakers to move toward
lighter, more efficient vehicles.

Ethanol's proponents argue that a homegrown fuel could be good for the
American farmer. Alas, these tax credits and import tariffs accrue not
in the bib pockets of corn farmers, but in the well-lined coffers of
companies that blend ethanol with gasoline. Archer Daniels Midland, the
largest of the processing firms, controls an estimated 40 percent of the
ethanol market, while the top 10 producers together control an estimated
70 percent. To date, farmers own less than half of all ethanol plants on
line, according to statistics compiled by the Renewable Fuels
Association. So this homegrown dream may be something of an industrial

Cellulosic Ethanol

If criticism of corn ethanol grows even as production booms, the
opposite problem haunts cellulosic ethanol. Nearly everyone loves the
idea of it, yet no one's making it on a commercial scale.

Switchgrass may be our salvation.
Switchgrass may be our salvation.
Cellulosic ethanol, a fuel chemically identical to the conventional kind
but instead derived from "biomass," a term encompassing everything from
waste materials like corn stover and paper pulp to fast-growing plants
like switchgrass, willow, and poplar. Roughly two-thirds of this
cellulosic matter is complex carbohydrate, which can be broken down into
fermentable sugars, and from there, into ethanol. Lignin makes up the
remaining dry weight and carries an energy content similar to that of
coal. Most models of cellulosic ethanol production, in fact, use lignin
combustion to power the process, thereby closing the energy loop.

As end products, cellulosic and conventional ethanol are
indistinguishable; gallon-for-gallon, both yield roughly two-thirds the
energy of gasoline. But take into account the resources it takes to
churn out a gallon of corn ethanol versus a gallon of ethanol from
cellulose, and their energy profiles could hardly be more different.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, corn-based ethanol provides
26 percent more energy than is required for its production, while
cellulosic provides 80 percent more energy. And while conventional
ethanol reduces greenhouse-gas emissions 10 to 20 percent below gasoline
levels, the reductions with cellulosic range from 80 percent below
gasoline to completely CO2 neutral.

Switchgrass -- a word first heard by many in the notorious "addiction to
oil" speech -- holds the
key to large-scale and ecologically sound ethanol production, many
think. A perennial prairie grass native to North America, switchgrass
requires little water or fertilizer to grow and thrives in places
unsuitable for most crops, ranging from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada and
from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Some five to nine feet tall, this
gangly weed also yields twice as much ethanol per acre as does corn.

But do we have enough land to support a cellulosic-ethanol industry
without also competing with food or destroying the environment? The
answer is ... maybe. According to a recent study from the University of
Tennessee, as many as 100 million acres of cropland and pasture will
need to be devoted to switchgrass to produce enough ethanol to offset 25
percent of petroleum use. Currently, U.S. farmers have about 80 million
acres in corn, 15-20 percent of which goes into ethanol production.

Since land scarcity will clearly be an issue, some analysts argue that
any biofuel strategy will need to be accompanied by a strong dose of
conservation. According to "Growing Energy," a 2004 Natural Resources
Defense Council report on biofuels, the U.S. is on track to consume 290
billion gallons of gasoline for transportation in 2050. By boosting fuel
efficiencies and reigning in urban sprawl, the report says, we could
feasibly cut this figure down to 108 billion gallons.

So here's where the mathematics of biomass come in. NRDC has forecasted
that the number of gallons of ethanol produced per ton of dry
switchgrass could jump from 50 gallons to 117 gallons by 2050. Crop
experts say that current averages of five dry tons of grass per acre
could easily double under a standard breeding program. These combined
boosts in efficiency mean that enough switchgrass could be grown on a
reasonable chunk of land to produce 165 billion gallons of ethanol by
2050. And because one gallon of ethanol contains 66 percent of the
energy content of gasoline, 165 billion gallons of ethanol equates to --
you guessed it -- 108 billion gallons of gasoline.

It's an optimistic scenario, to be sure. On the efficiency side, it
demands radical cuts in fuel usage. On the ethanol side, it requires an
infrastructure of pipelines and pumps specially designed to transport
the hygroscopic fluid. (Railcars and barges currently do the job, but
this adds to both CO2 emissions and expense.) More tricky is the problem
of the ethanol production itself. Cellulosic biomass is bulky and
materially complex, unfit for the same methods of ethanol extraction
used with corn. In order to even get the stuff into manageable form,
processors must soak it in a pre-treatment bath, followed by an acidic
or enzymatic digestion that splits it into simple sugars.

Researchers are now trying to engineer a bacterium that can chomp
through all of these sugars at once, but for now the multistep digestion
procedure is a requirement. The future of ethanol production will rely
not only on streamlining that digestion, but on combining all processes
-- from pre-treatment through fermentation -- in a single genetically
engineered microorganism.

In short, the shining promise of cellulosic is still just that. "The
prospects for ethanol from cellulose may be more promising than is the
case for corn, but the benefits, assuming they exist, surely lie a
decade or more in the future," wrote Harvard environmental studies
professor Michael McElroy in a recent article
in /Harvard
Magazine/. "The best, immediate option would be to conserve: to use less


Imperatives to use less gas, unfortunately, are not something most
Americans swallow easily. Images of drive-in movies, drive-thru
restaurants, and the wide open road, after all, speckle our formative
history. But some very American icons, ranging from Willie Nelson and
Neil Young to Julia Roberts and Morgan Freeman, are hoping to lessen the
impacts of our four-wheel love affair by championing biodiesel -- a fuel
usually derived from soybean, palm, or oil-seed plants like canola and
mustard, but also acquirable from waste animal and vegetable fats, and
even, surprisingly, algae.

Biodiesel: not just for hippies anymore.
Biodiesel: not just for hippies anymore.
Begun as a grassroots network of brewers that -- without subsidies or
government regulations -- maintained a countercultural,
anti-establishment aura, the biodiesel industry is rapidly turning
mainstream. According to a recent article in the /New York Times/, about
76 commercial biodiesel plants are in production today, up from 22 in
2004. Even these can barely keep pace. Nationwide consumption of
biodiesel tripled from 25 million gallons in 2004 to 75 million in 2005,
and was expected to quadruple from that in 2006, reaching 300 million
gallons. Accordingly, 50 new larger-scale plants are under construction.

These numbers still pale in comparison to Europe, where
compression-ignition (diesel) vehicles are far more common than in the
U.S., and where nearly 90 percent of all global biodiesel is produced
and consumed. As demand rises, however, many E.U. countries will be
hoping to fulfill their Kyoto Protocol requirements with fuel imported
from Southeast Asia and Brazil. Japan, too, has expressed interest in
obtaining biodiesel, as have India and China.

None of which is surprising, since as a substitute for regular diesel,
biodiesel holds great appeal. Over its lifetime, pure biodiesel emits
about 78 percent less CO2 than conventional diesel, according to a 1998
Department of Energy study

[PDF]. Burning biodiesel also reduces emissions of smog-forming
hydrocarbons and particulate matter by about 50 percent, and emissions
of sulfur oxides and sulfates by 100 percent.

On the downside, all diesel engines -- whether fueled by conventional
diesel or biodiesel -- still spew more toxic soot and smog-forming
pollutants than gasoline engines, and this will likely remain true until
cleaner "Tier 2" diesel emission standards go into full effect in 2009.
So making the switch to biodiesel makes great environmental sense for
the current fleet of diesel cars, buses, trucks, and heavy-duty
equipment. But for individuals deciding on their next car purchase, a
gasoline-powered hybrid (one that will soon be able to utilize
cellulosic ethanol) remains the better choice.

That said, researchers at the University of Minnesota and St. Olaf
College recently found
that biodiesel
production is highly efficient, generating 93 percent more energy than
is required to make it. They also found that biodiesel reduces
greenhouse-gas emissions by 41 percent compared with fossil fuels --
strikingly less than the 1998 DOE study's 78 percent, but still
significant. When Tier 2 emissions standards bring biodiesel up to par
with gasoline and ethanol for air pollutants, biodiesel seems like it
should be a no-brainer for green energy.

And the Winner Is ...

With the Middle East embroiled in conflict and evidence of climate
change mounting, finding a viable source of renewable energy has never
been so critical ... or so in vogue. It is tempting, almost instinctive,
to jump toward the most visible and abundant source for that energy --
in this case, corn. Some say that corn ethanol could be a "stepping
stone" to cleaner fuels like cellulosic ethanol. Perhaps. The danger is
that the stepping stone becomes the destination -- a substitute for
meaningful change, squandering precious time and public faith when it
doesn't pan out.

When it comes to biodiesel, limitations on the scale of production may
be the greatest weakness. According to the Minnesota research teams, if
the entire American corn and soybean crop were diverted to biodiesel,
that fuel would still satisfy only about 6 percent of diesel demand. To
put that into perspective, in even the most optimistic 2006 production
estimates, biodiesel will replace less than half of one percent of all
diesel consumed. Ramping up worldwide cultivation of biodiesel crops is
a possibility, but that will mean deforestation and the concomitant loss
of biodiversity. If Brazil razes more of its jungle and Malaysia and
Thailand theirs, little will be left of rainforests anywhere in the world.

Experts say that cellulosic ethanol stands a real chance to displace
significant amounts of oil. But they also say this won't happen without
great financial support from both the public and private sectors. It
won't happen unless our political leadership implements greater
efficiency standards and other incentives for companies to "go green."
It won't happen unless we as individuals are willing to cut back on how
much energy we consume, bottom line. And most important, it won't happen
unless we call for a change. Which, of course, is why it's so important
to understand why some changes are better than others.

- - - - - - - - - -

/Maywa Montenegro is a graduate of the MIT Science Writing Program, a
fledgling environmentalist, and a contributor to /The Boston Globe/./

Main Dish



Idling Gets You Nowhere

January 2007
Read this issue of Greentips online

Would you drive a car that gets zero miles to the gallon? Of course not.
Yet that is your mileage whenever your engine idles. Idling wastes
money and fuel, contributes to air pollution, and generates carbon
dioxide emissions that cause global warming. Some states even have laws
limiting the amount of time cars can idle (see the related links).

Unfortunately, many people believe that idling is necessary or even
beneficial—a false perception that has carried over from the 1970s and
1980s, when engines needed time to warm up (especially in colder
temperatures). Fuel-injection vehicles, which have been the norm since
the mid-1980s, can be restarted frequently without engine damage and
need no more than 30 seconds to warm up even on winter days.

In fact, idling longer than that could actually damage your engine in
the long term. Because an idling engine is not operating at its peak
temperature, the fuel does not completely combust, leaving residues in
the engine that can contaminate engine oil and make spark plugs dirty.
Excessive idling also allows water to condense in the vehicle’s
exhaust, contributing to corrosion of the exhaust system.

No matter what time of year, minimize your idling with the following

When first starting your car, idle for no more than 30 seconds.

Except when sitting in traffic, turn your engine off if you must
wait in your car for more than 30 seconds. You can still operate the
radio and windows without the engine running.

When the time comes to buy a new car, consider a hybrid. Hybrid
gasoline-electric vehicles switch off the engine and use battery power
for accessories when the car is not moving, effectively eliminating
idling. Visit the UCS Hybrid Center website (see the related links) for
more information on these fuel-efficient, low-emission vehicles.

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists