Renewable Energy Assessment for Jackson & Josephine Counties - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Renewable Energy Assessment for Jackson & Josephine Counties

Presentation of Results Central Point, Oregon December 14, 2011 Joshua Proudfoot, Principal

Good Company Eugene, OR

presentation overview

• introduction to Good Company
• project description and goals
• context
• renewable technologies

− exclusions − opportunities

• acknowledgements

Good Company

• sustainability research and consulting firm
• mission-driven, for-profit
• clients: government, higher ed, private sector
• National Academy of Sciences - NCHRP
• Tillamook County
• Rexius
• Community Energy Systems
• Agilyx
• Zero Waste Energy
• SolarWorld

project goals

• inventory of existing renewable generation
• assess potential for new generation by technology
• focus on jobs and reduction of fossil-fuel based

electricity generation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

• RVCOG will convene workgroups with local experts

to move forward work on the most feasible technologies renewable energy assessment

project description

• boundaries: Josephine and Jackson Counties*
• renewable technologies reviewed

− solar electric (PV and thermal) − wind − energy efficiency − Biomass − hydro − geothermal − landfill gas − anaerobic digestion

• data collection: expert and stakeholder

interviews and public data sources

*except for anaerobic digestion

renewable energy assessment

variables for assessment

• energy type: baseload / intermittent / dispatchable
• likely technology
• levelized cost
• energy return on energy invested
• carbon intensity (CO2e / kWh)
• risks

− Uncertainty − byproducts (e.g., air or water emissions) − negative impacts on people and habitats − regulations

• benefits

− byproducts − positive impacts on people and habitats − incentives

renewable energy assessment

context for a renewable energy assessment

• consumption trends
• energy prices and security
• policy factors
• incentives and financing
• distribution and interconnection
• technology and market factors
• local jobs
• GHG emissions

context

results of regional GHG inventory

context

comparison of per capita emissions

context

carbon = energy = opportunity

• see the business case now

− ENERGY STAR: lifetime savings of more than $250 billion dollars for actions through 2009 − McKinsey: U.S. can reduce GHG emissions by ~30% solely with cost-effective investments and actions − RVMPO sponsored truck outreach center in Medford − Clean Energy Works − Dry Creek Landfill LFG to transportation fuel − Brammo, Inc.

• position for opportunity in the future

context

Source: Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy, McKinsey & Company (2009)

cost savings and emissions reductions

context

regional electricity grid – generation sources

context

Source: US EPA E-Grid

regional electricity use vs. generation sources

context

existing regional renewable generation

context

*thermal load, not electricity generation

exporting capital

context

Source: US Energy Information Agency, http://www.eia.doe.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=470

most feasible technologies

• solar (PV and thermal)
• wind
• energy efficiency
• biomass
• hydro
• anaerobic digestion
• geothermal
• landfill gas

renewable technologies

geothermal

• not enough thermal potential in Jackson and

Josephine Counties to generate electricity

• opportunity to use

geothermal in buildings for heat renewable technologies: exclusion

landfill gas

• existing resource already being utilized at Dry

Creek Landfill

− evaluating gas for transportation

• closed landfills are

not producing enough gas to justify investment renewable technologies: exclusion

energy efficiency

• energy type: baseload
• likely technology: numerous
• future potential: 64 – 100 aMW
• levelized cost: $0 – $106 (average <$35)
• risks: first costs, lack of reliable information, split

incentives, sometimes a long payback, lack of easily accessible financing

• benefits: vast potential, readily available, decrease

load (but not a supply), cost-effective compared to new generation, job creation (17/$1 million invested), equitable distribution of economic benefits renewable technologies: opportunity

energy efficiency: regional development plan

renewable technologies: opportunity

Source: Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 6th Northwest Power Plan

energy efficiency: regional development plan

renewable technologies: opportunity

Source: Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 6th Northwest Power Plan

solar electric

• energy type: intermittent, peak matched
• likely technology: small-scale PV
• future potential: 35 MW (5% of roof space)
• levelized cost: $90 - $154
• EROEI: 3 – 6x
• C-intensity: 50 – 59 kg CO2e / MWh
• risks: cost, incentives uncertainty, land use and

utility interconnection (large-scale systems only)

• benefits: low O & M, carbon-neutral, no air

emissions during use, various incentives, few barriers to entry (for small scale), RECs, job creation (14 / $1 million invested) renewable technologies: opportunity

solar electric: generation matches peak load

renewable technologies: opportunity

solar electric: cost trend of PV modules

renewable technologies: opportunity

Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

solar electric: potential based on roof area

renewable technologies: opportunity

wind

• energy type: intermittent
• likely technology: small-
• r utility-scale
• future potential: 27 MW
• levelized cost: $44 - 91
• EROEI: 18 – 34x
• C-intensity: 6 -14 kg CO2e / MWh
• risks: land use and ownership, noise, aesthetics

issues, development of remote and pristine areas, interconnection, avian and bat mortality, permitting

• benefits: carbon-neutral, no air emissions during

use, various incentives, RECs renewable technologies: opportunity

wind: potential local project

renewable technologies: opportunity

wind: potential local project

renewable technologies: opportunity

biomass

• energy type: base or dispatchable
• likely technology: direct-fire CHP
• future potential: 5 – 14 MW
• levelized cost: $65 - $151
• EROEI: 3 – 27x
• C-intensity: TBD
• risks: regulatory, ability to source cost-effective

feedstock, feedstock availability, carbon- neutrality questioned, emissions, odor, noise, habitat disturbance

• benefits: local jobs, displaces open burning,

reduces fire risk, various incentives, RECs renewable technologies: opportunity

biomass: feedstock availability

• availability of cost-effective feedstock is the main

driver of feasibility

• based on current economic and market

conditions there is a lack of cost-effective feedstock

• current = 35,000 bone dry tons (BDT) at $65 / ton
• 6 months ago = 70,000 BDT
• difference is the result of demand in China’s pulp

markets

• ~$40 / BDT cost effective line

renewable technologies: opportunity

• energy type: baseload, intermittent, dispatchable
• likely technology: incremental
• future potential: 2.4 MW
• levelized cost: $10 - $136
• EROEI: 170 – 280x
• C-intensity: 3 – 18 kg CO2e / MWh
• risks: regulatory, flooding wilderness, water rights,

disrupt water flow, temperature gradients, turbidity, various permits (location dependent), fuel source dependent on weather and climate, interconnection

• benefits: carbon-neutral, no air emissions, RECs,

high EROEI renewable technologies: opportunity

hydro

• opportunity = incremental projects
• Emigrant Dam (1.8 MW)
• Talent Irrigation District (0.6 MW)
• Eagle Point Irrigation District (requires study)
• Medford drinking water supply line (requires

study) renewable technologies: opportunity

hydro

anaerobic digestion

• energy type: baseload
• likely technology: dry or wet AD
• future potential: 0.5 MW
• levelized cost: $36 - $115
• risks: feedstock sourcing, air

and water emissions, permitting, logistical issues

• benefits: renewable electricity orvehicle fuel,

utilizes waste feedstocks, environmental commodities (RECs, RINs, offsets), soil nutrients, diverts materials from landfill, and lower c-intensity versus landfill biogas collection renewable technologies: opportunity

anaerobic digestion: C-benefit vs. landfill

renewable technologies: opportunity

anaerobic digestion: local feedstock inventory

renewable technologies: opportunity

levelized cost comparison

conclusions

Renewable Fossil

$334 ¡ !"#$$ !%%$$ !&'$$ !(#$$ !)&$$ !%*$$ !'#$$ !**($$ !+%$$ !+)$$ !)'$$ !('%$$ !"($$ !('($$ !()&$$ !(('$$ !&"$$ !,($$ !()'$$ !(##$$

!#$$ !'#$$ !(##$$ !('#$$ !*##$$ !*'#$$ !)##$$ !)'#$$

• ./012$-345/.42$$

67890$ :5.;$ <57=9>>$ ?2;07/8/4@054$$ A.9/07B54$C51/>D7.$ E/7@F/0=98$ G9.;H88$E9>$ E9>$I/9J5.1$ K798$ E9>$K7=B5./;$K248/$ G/L/85M/;$K7>@$N!O$P:FQ$

jobs and economic impacts per $1 million

conclusions

regional electricity use vs. generation sources

context

implications for region, uses for assessment

• consensus-building (economic opportunity)
• citizens, businesses and government need to

work together to find win-win opportunities (upcoming working groups)

• identify opportunities in key public and private

systems

• positioning the region to seek grants
• public education

conclusions

history of energy use: percentage of total use

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

conclusions

history of energy use: absolute use

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

conclusions

thanks to those who have participated

Phil Degens, Energy Trust Thad Roth, Energy Trust Jed Jorgensen, Energy Trust Dick Wandersheid, BEF Rick Wallace, ODOE Gary Marcus, Frontier Technologies Matt Krumenauer, ODOE Lori Tella – Jackson Soil & Water Conservation District Frank Vignola, UO John Lund, OIT Blair Moody, BLM John Pine, Dept. of Forestry Al Densmore, Medford City Council Monty Mendenhall, Pacific Power Steve Vincent, Avista Natural Gas Adam Hanks, City of Ashland Don McCoy, Exit Reality Group Jeff Alan, Director OEC Dick Gordon, City of Medford Bill Hoke, City of Medford Cory Crebbin, City of Medford Brian Sjothun, City of Medford Mike Murphy, City of Grants Pass Terry Haugen, City of Grants Pass Tom Schauer, City of Grants Pass Ron Fox, SOREDI Buzz Thealman, RHT Energy Solutions Emily Ackeland, AOC Dan Moore, RVCOG Dennis Alexander, Green Jobs Council Don Sheppard, Grants Pass Irrigation District Jim Pendelton, Talent Irrigation District Carol Bradford, Medford Irrigation District Amy Wilson, NRCS Jack Leroy, Forest Energy Group George McKinley, Small DIA Collaborative Tom Suttle, City of Medford Brian Hampson, Rogue River Irrigation Larry Holzgang, Business Oregon George Peltch, Amy’s Kitchen Neff Russel, Tree Top Lee Fortier, Rogue Disposal & Recycling Jon Meadors, Wine Growers Association

Alan Journet

acknowledgements

Feel free to contact us: Joshua Proudfoot joshua.proudfoot@goodcompany.com (541) 341-GOOD (4663), ext. 213

Thank you!