We are thrilled to announce that AlwaysOn, the leading business media brand networking the Global Silicon Valley, selected Ze-gen as one of the GoingGreen Top 200 Winners. The GoingGreen Global 200 highlights leaders in technology and game-changing approaches that are likely to disrupt existing markets and entrenched players. Ze-gen was specially selected by the AlwaysOn editorial team and industry experts spanning the globe based on a set of five criteria: innovation, market potential, commercialization, stakeholder value, and media buzz.

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.”

Each month, the Nature Conservancy sends questions they receive for their “Ask the Conservationist” program to their staff scientists for answers. This month’s question is: “How hard and green would it be to replace current coal or natural gas plants with waste-to-energy plants that run on renewable sources like trash and livestock manure?”

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.

In May last year, the U.S. EPA issued its final “tailoring” rule for greenhouse gas emissions, and we wrote about it here.  The “tailoring rule” determines which polluters will be required to account of their greenhouse gas emissions. The regulation of biomass power plants under this rule was, and still is, the center of much debate. The rationale for exempting biomass power plants from the rule is rooted in the “carbon neutral” argument. When wood waste is combusted for energy, it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which the trees had already adsorbed from the atmosphere when the trees grew.  The assumption is that this released carbon dioxide will be reabsorbed by new trees as they grow naturally.  This carbon neutral consideration is why biomass power plants assume net zero CO₂ emissions. The combustion of biomass is widely considered “carbon neutral,” in regulation and policy in the United States and abroad. However, the EPA’s final rule stated biomass energy was not exempt, thus it was not considered carbon neutral.

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.