These rules received significant attention from those within the the biomass power industry as they defined biomass as a fuel subject to its boiler air toxics rule. More specifically, this meant that the boilers using clean wood waste to generate power would be subject to strict regulations under the commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI) rule. Regulating biomass fuel under the CIWSI rules poses significant burdens for those using biomass power, and threatens the future of the industry.  BusinessWeek recently reported that recognizing the challenges these rules posed, EPA’s Lisa Jackson sent a letter to Maine’s Senator Olympia Snowe “saying the agency will issue a ‘clarification’ on biomass as a fuel in boilers and heating units.”  The Waste Business Journal summarized the conclusions of Jackson’s letter saying the EPA ”will revise its rule defining which non-hazardous secondary materials are considered solid waste when burned in combustion units to define biomass as fuel, as part of broader revisions to its stayed boiler maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule and strict emissions limits for commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI).”

We look forward to reading the EPA’s clarification of biomass and we are eager to see increased certainty surrounding the regulation of biomass as a fuel for the production of alternative energy.

The gasification of difficult-to-recycle waste material solves two problems simultaneously: the landfilling of waste and the production of high-quality alternative energy. Through the commercialization of gasification technologies like Ze-gen’s Liquid Metal Gasification, we are able to reduce the landfilling of energy-rich resources while also generating a fuel source that can replace or supplement fossil fuels.

If you’re unable to attend the conference, be sure to check out the GTC website where they have posted some videos and fact sheets to provide a broader understanding of gasification.

Read more from Greentech Media here.

The GoingGreen Global 200 winners were selected from among thousands of domestic and international greentech technology companies nominated by investors, bankers, journalists, and greentech industry insiders.  The AlwaysOn editorial team conducted a rigorous three-month selection process to finalize the 2011 list.  A full list of all the GoingGreen Global 200 winners can be found on the AlwaysOn website.

“The urgent need for advanced solutions to confront global waste continues to grow,” said Walter Howard, Ze-gen’s CEO. “Ze-gen’s technology is at the forefront of global efforts to translate the energy content in waste streams into renewable energy using environmentally superior conversion technology. We are honored to be recognized by AlwaysOn as a GoingGreen Global 200 winner.”

“Ze-gen was founded with the fundamental belief that there must be a better way to manage waste material than simply burying it. Ze-gen’s proprietary advanced waste gasification technology can convert a variety of waste materials into an exceptionally clean syngas. Presently, we are exploring alternatives with strategic investors, with the help of an advisor, to fund our future progress.”

Joe Fargione, lead scientist with the Conservancy’s North America Region, replied writing, “Waste-to-energy is a good idea, with a major advantage being that it avoids the land use impacts associated with most other form of energy production.” In fact, Fargione continues,   “The United States already converts a significant amount of waste to energy. For example, of the municipal waste that is not recycled or composted, about 18% is combusted for energy production.”

Read more about Fargione’s response, and whether waste resources have a shot at replacing current coal or natural gas plants, here.

Due to the overwhelming response to the decision to include biomass, the EPA deferred biomass from the Rule for three years while it studies the science and policy of regulating biomass energy. Biomass Magazine wrote about this decision, stating that the EPA “will conduct a detailed examination of the science associated with biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources. The EPA will then send the study to the Science Advisory Board for peer review.” The biomass industry applauds this approach, since recognizing biomass plants as carbon neutral will help to further diversify the nation’s base load alternative energy sources.

However, those opposing energy from biomass, disagree with the EPA’s decision to postpone the ruling. Biomass Magazine reported last week that a number of groups filed suit with the EPA over the delay. The groups argue “that increased demand for wood fuel from existing and proposed biomass power plants could exceed the supply of available wood waste, leading to the cutting of standing trees”. It is understandable to debate whether or not using virgin wood is or is not appropriate as the primary feedstock for biomass power plants. However, the use of waste wood, which would otherwise rot in the forests or be sent to landfills, is most certainly appropriate and should be encouraged.

EPA regulation that does not recognize any sources of biomass as carbon neutral only serves to stifle our ability to rely on non-fossil fuels for base load energy. This issue warrants thorough and careful examination from many stakeholders, and the lawsuit only threatens this process. According to Biomass Magazine, biomass comprises 50 percent of the country’s renewable portfolio, which is unsurprisingly given the abundant forest land in the United States. The lawsuit could potentially halt the EPA’s scientific analysis and thus threaten the advancement of the country’s renewable energy efforts. As we keep an eye on the developments, we are hopeful that clear and thoughtful policy will eventually be enacted to encourage the development of innovative energy from biomass technologies.

The loan guarantee program has faced some controversy over the years for the projects its chosen to support, but it has also contributed significantly to spurring the development of a number of large-scale renewable energy projects. In his article “Loan Programs Wind Down”, Bill Opalka of RenewablesBiz Daily interviews Jeff Silver, the loan guarantee program’s executive director. Silver notes, “Since March 2009, the office has issued 42 conditional commitments for loans and loan guarantees totaling over $40 billion with total project costs of $63 billion.”  Examples of projects currently underway with loan guarantee funding include: a 290 MW solar project in Arizona, the nation’s first commercial-scale cellulosic bio-refinery, and the world’s largest wind farm. As these examples show, the projects the DOE has selected are large-scale and required significant government support in order to receive the necessary financing.

In 2009, Ze-gen applied for a loan guarantee for a commercial project the company was developing in New Bedford. At the time we applied, the DOE had indicated to their desire to finance smaller scale projects, especially for start-up companies where securing project financing for capital intensive renewable energy projects can be even more challenging.   When the DOE did not select our project and others like it, and then seeing the projects that have received financing over the past 2 years, it became clear that in the rush to provide funding and minimize risk, the DOE was only interested in sponsoring large projects supported by well-established companies. While Ze-gen does not fault the DOE with this path, we share the frustration of many small innovative companies which were encouraged to apply and who had trouble navigating the challenging and expensive application process.

As the loan guarantee project winds down, it is now time for the DOE to find ways to improve upon their past programs and offer support for alternative energy technologies seeking to scale from the R&D phase to the commercialization phase, no matter their size. In their Politico Op-Ed, Tom Seyer (founder and co-managing partner of Farallon Capital Management) and Hemant Taneja (managing partner of General Catalyst Partners and co-founder of the New England Clean Energy Council) write that with the debate over the debt ceiling over (for now) the focus on Washington must shift to creating valuable new companies, exportable products, technologies, and high-paying jobs, and this can all be done with the “advanced energy industry.” According to the recent Brookings Institution study, the clean energy economy employs 2.7 million American workers, and with a shift in focus that number can grown considerable. Seyer and Taneja elaborate on how this shift can occur writing, the “Washington must understand that the advanced energy industry has the potential to boost the economy the way the Internet did.”

Through the support of startups and innovative renewable energy projects, the government can bolster the clean economy job creation as well as reducing the country’s fossil fuel dependence.  Whether it’s continuing to extend the 1603 Treasury grants in lieu of credits program, writing legislation that lends certainty to energy policies, or creating a “green energy bank” there are a myriad of options available for the government to support the successful advancement of the clean energy industry.

The army is rolling out this strategy gradually, starting with five net zero energy installations, five net zero water installations, and five net zero waste installations. These fifteen installations will work to achieve Net Zero by 2020. Gradually, the Army will add additional installations in each category, who will strive to achieve net zero by 2030.

The dedication to sustainable practices that effectively manage the precious resources of energy, waste, and waste can have far-reaching effects outside of the army. As the installations establish new protocols and install new technologies to reach their goals, they will become models, not only for other installations across the Department of Defense, but also for other communities.  The Army notes, “In an era of persistent conflict, a true stabilizing factor can be that of appropriate resource management.” Adopting new technologies and best management practices can propel the Army on a path to a more sustainable future and sets an example that other organizations can follow.

For example, the net zero waste strategy establishes a waste management hierarchy that puts waste disposal last. After resource reduction and recycling, the repurposing of waste for energy recovery not only offers the army a source of reliable renewable energy, but it also reduces their environmental footprint through the reduction of landfilling.

Whether it’s ending the landfilling of waste coming from an Army base or the construction of our homes, net zero waste is a goal that can help the entire country establish a more sustainable future.  As the Army takes the first steps to achieving net zero energy, water, and waste we hope that the technologies and strategies employed will serve as showcases for all communities.

Presently, the New England Clean Energy Council (NECEC) and the Clean Economy Network (CEN), along with a number of executives from New England’s cleantech companies are in Washington, DC to advocate for comprehensive national clean energy legislation.  Undoubtedly, the Brookings report serves to bolster their cause. For a great, concise look at the results of the report related to each New England state, please click over to NECEC’s blog.  As the Brookings report confirms, the clean energy economy is growing, but as Peter Rothestein of NECEC reminds us, “This data cannot speak by itself. To give it voice we must couple it with the stories of entrepreneurship and growth which we in the New England cleantech sector are all familiar.” While the debt talks may have created a grim Washington news environment lately, it is reports like Brookings’ and the stories from New England’s cleantech sector that are on display in DC this week that can help to get national clean energy policy rolling.

Last year, MassDEP and the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs released the Draft 2010-2020 Solid Waste Master Plan. The Master Plans are released every ten years to establish a plan for how Massachusetts will manage its solid waste for the next ten years.  (To read more about the Draft Master Plan, read our post from last year). Establishing long-term waste management goals is extremely important because of the time and resources required to implement programs to meet those goals.   A key component to the plan is the requirement to collect and publish the annual solid waste generation and disposal data. The annual reports help to set the goals in the Master Plan and help us to see whether or not we’re meeting our milestones on an annual basis.

In 2009, the total disposal of waste was 5,800,000 tons, which represents an 11.5% decrease from 2009. The report notes that this decrease was not a result of increase recycling or composting, instead it came from a decrease in total waste generation. MassDEP acknowledges that the economic slowdown was a factor in the reduced waste generation, but they go on to state that it is not clear how much of the change was due to the economy versus source reduction activities. The inability to determine how much of the change was due to the economy or source reduction activities makes it harder to tell what programs are or aren’t working for MassDEP.  There is no denying, however, that decreasing the amount of waste that requires landfilling, whether it’s through source reduction or increased recycling is significant for the State on both the economic and environmental front. In Massachusetts, landfill space is constrained and expensive. Reducing  waste we send to the landfill conserves space, reduces pollution, and reduces greenhouse gas generation, as landfills produce methane, a greenhouse gas more than 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO₂).

While decreased landfill use in Massachusetts is a laudable accomplishment, it is also important that we focus reducing landfill use in general. To reach this goal, we must decrease the amount of waste that is exported to other states. From 2008 to 2009, overall exports of waste decreased in Massachusetts. However, waste continues to the leave the State to be buried or burned elsewhere at unacceptable numbers. For example, Ohio received close to 230,000 tons of Construction & Demolition (C&D) waste from Massachusetts in 2009, while Maine received around 165,000 tons of C&D.  Trucking the waste out of the State does not make economic or environmental sense. Burying the waste in landfills in Ohio only transfers the pollution effects to the mid-west, and sending the material to Maine to be burned allows Maine to reduce their fossil fuel use at the expense of jobs in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts cannot restrict the movement of waste across borders, but there are certainly ways to incentivize more sound waste management practices.  Ensuring that secondary markets exist for recycled materials through regulations that allow for innovation in recycling is a sure way to decrease waste exports.  It also encourages growth in secondary markets for materials that would otherwise be landfilled or burned elsewhere.    A good place to start would be to end the moratorium on using C&D as fuel for energy generation. Instead of banning the secondary use of this material, the State should focus on regulating the air emissions, which will help to encourage the commercialization of new technologies that can both help to reduce the amount of waste exported while generating a domestically produced, renewable fuel.