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
renewable energy assessment 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 (CO 2 e / 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
context 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 cost savings and emissions reductions Source: Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy , McKinsey & Company (2009)
context regional electricity grid – generation sources Source: US EPA E-Grid
context regional electricity use vs. generation sources
context existing regional renewable generation *thermal load, not electricity generation
context exporting capital Source: US Energy Information Agency, http://www.eia.doe.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=470
renewable technologies most feasible technologies • solar (PV and thermal) • wind • energy efficiency • biomass • hydro • anaerobic digestion • geothermal • landfill gas
renewable technologies: exclusion 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: opportunity 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 Source: Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 6 th Northwest Power Plan
renewable technologies: opportunity energy efficiency: regional development plan Source: Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 6 th Northwest Power Plan
renewable technologies: opportunity 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 CO 2 e / 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 Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
renewable technologies: opportunity solar electric: potential based on roof area
renewable technologies: opportunity wind • energy type: intermittent • likely technology: small- or utility-scale • future potential: 27 MW • levelized cost: $44 - 91 • EROEI: 18 – 34x • C-intensity: 6 -14 kg CO 2 e / 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 hydro • 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 CO 2 e / 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 anaerobic digestion • energy type: baseload • likely technology: dry or wet AD • future potential: 0.5 MW • levelized cost: $36 - $115 • risks: feedstock sourcing, air and water emissions, permitting, logistical issues • benefits: renewable electricity orvehicle fuel, utilizes waste feedstocks, environmental commodities (RECs, RINs, offsets), soil nutrients, diverts materials from landfill, and lower c-intensity versus landfill biogas collection
renewable technologies: opportunity anaerobic digestion: C-benefit vs. landfill
renewable technologies: opportunity anaerobic digestion: local feedstock inventory
conclusions levelized cost comparison -./012$-345/.42$$ !)'$$ 67890$ !"#$$ !('%$$ :5.;$ !"($$ !%%$$ Renewable <57=9>>$ !('($$ !&'$$ ?2;07/8/4@054$$ !(#$$ !()&$$ A.9/07B54$C51/>D7.$ !)&$$ !(('$$ E/7@F/0=98$ !%*$$ !&"$$ G9.;H88$E9>$ !'#$$ !,($$ E9>$I/9J5.1$ $334 ¡ !**($$ Fossil K798$ !+%$$ !()'$$ E9>$K7=B5./;$K248/$ !(##$$ !+)$$ !#$$ !'#$$ !(##$$ !('#$$ !*##$$ !*'#$$ !)##$$ !)'#$$ G/L/85M/;$K7>@$N!O$P:FQ$
conclusions jobs and economic impacts per $1 million
context regional electricity use vs. generation sources
Recommend
More recommend
