Blog: Dermot Cole
Paper, cardboard, wood chips considered for power potential
Published Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Growing your own takes on new meaning in the world of renewable energy.
Two local projects that may receive state grants worth $4.7 million would turn carbon-based plant matter into heat and electricity.
The grants would boost efforts in Delta to heat school buildings with a boiler fired by wood chips and a plan by Bernie Karl to build what he says will be a nearly smoke-free plant to convert paper, cardboard and brush to heat and electricity at K&K Recycling between Fairbanks and North Pole.
All told, the Alaska Energy Authority is proposing grants totaling $100 million for about 75 renewable energy projects across the state.
A legislative committee is expected to review the grants next month, but it remains to be seen how many will be approved, given the budget worries created by lower oil prices.
I have more on this in my column at http://newsminer.com/news/dermotcole
Let me get this right, this borough is blaming outdoor wood pellet burners ( by the way the majority of new ones are EPA approved)for the bad air quality and the State is funding wood burning projects as alternatives.
Hopefully with enough government handouts Bernie Karl will someday be able to stand up on his own two feet.
A trash fired power plant? No thanks, the coal is dirty enough.
That, and it is always hard to take a Hummer driver seriously when they talk about energy issues.
"The problem with Bernie is that he loves to talk about all the wonderful things he has done but he seems to leave out some details of how things were paid for....."
Ooooh yeah, the big bad evil government funded Bernie. Shame shame shame.. Don't you know Bernie that is not how a capitalist society is supposed to work? Best move your projects over to Canada because anything useful you come up with for the benefit of society here in the USA will be tainted with evil socialism. If private enterprise doesn't come up with it and fund it themselves, we don't really need it or want it. Leave the energy advancements to the BP's and Exxon's of the world, or let other countries tax payers fund these new projects. Remember Bernie, capitalism, good. Socialism, bad. That is all you need to know.
"Nope I am just saying don't pretend that your renewable energy projects are more economcial than they really are."
Sometimes there is a cost due to inaction as well. For one, what is the cost associated with continually holding a very large and expensive military presence in the middle east? What has been the cost of overthrowing the gov in Iraq, (the second largest oil reserve to Saudi Arabia)? That is one taxpayer cost simply of doing business status quo. There are arguably many industries that would not be around if there wasn't government funding to help absorb the risk factor in research and development. Not saying that this has always been the case but in today's financial markets, where investors demand double digit earnings, often there isn't enough immediate return on investment to make these projects viable with private money. Renewable energy is one. If the ratepayers were to have to absorb the total costs for a hydro project all at once they would not be able to. That is a renewable project that often gets funding from the gov. To say that we are worse off because the gov funds these types of projects that are of great benefit to society, then to not have such projects, then where else should that logic go. Roads, airports, the postal system, schools? Maybe the military? Like it or not we live in a socialist society, because everything that we use on a day to day basis would not be possible if we simply waited for private enterprise to do it. The same goes for projects to help get the US off from foreign oil once and for all. In the early 80's there was federal money for renewable energy for wind generation, and companies such as Boeing were building some impressive prototypes, each capable of producing in the 4 to 6 megawatt range. They had an 8 megawatt model in the works when Reagan cut the funding. Now the Europeans dominate the large scale wind turbine manufacturing and enjoy the economic benefits. Large scale wind farms can now be built and produce electricity on an economic par with coal and natural gas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power They have higher initial cost of construction, but over their lifetime the much lower cost of operation has a payback down the road, oftentimes too far down the road for inpatient private investors.
The Bernie Karl I came to know at the Alaska Independence party would whine about the welfare state. It just seems a little inconsistant on his part.
"Again I am not against subsidizing energy projects that make sense. Let's just be honest about it."
True, I think we need to make sure that the potential for cost savings long term will eventually pay off in any energy project we build. However I also think research and development needs to be happening in this country too and that is what projects like at Chena Hot Springs are. I would like to someday see an economical way to tap electrical energy from geothermal. I am not sure however if private enterprise has the incentive to pull this off on its own. In this instance, I think projects like Bernie's are of more value in what is learned then the little bit of power it produces.
I for one am glad that these government dollars might be flowing into our local communities. If some portion of the money that the state and national government gets from taxes, tariffs or leases goes in our direction, we are all better off. Better than going here than somewhere else, or to Los Anchorage.
"I heard him talking the other day about wanting to drill 10,000 foot wells in downtown Fairbanks"
That doesn't sound like a good investment when compared with all the other promising hydro, wind and even geothermal possibilities around the state. We should be seriously investing in projects such as the Chakachamna lake-tap project and in the same area, Mt Spurr for geothermal. Both these projects are nearby the existing railbelt grid and could be built with minimal environmental impact and would produce many hundreds of megawatts. These types of projects are what we should be looking at for the biggest bang for the buck and the long term solutions for Alaska's energy needs.
http://www.insurgent49.com/yanity_hydro....
Post a comment