1 / 46

Joshua Proudfoot, Principal Good Company Eugene, OR

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

cicero
Download Presentation

Joshua Proudfoot, Principal Good Company Eugene, OR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Renewable Energy Assessment for Jackson & Josephine CountiesPresentation of ResultsCentral Point, OregonDecember 14, 2011 Joshua Proudfoot, Principal Good Company Eugene, OR

  2. presentation overview • introduction to Good Company • project description and goals • context • renewable technologies • exclusions • opportunities • acknowledgements

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. context results of regional GHG inventory

  9. context comparison of per capita emissions

  10. 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

  11. context cost savings and emissions reductions Source: Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy, McKinsey & Company (2009)

  12. context regional electricity grid – generation sources Source: US EPA E-Grid

  13. context regional electricity use vs. generation sources

  14. context existing regional renewable generation *thermal load, not electricity generation

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

  16. renewable technologies all technologies reviewed • solar (PV and thermal) • wind • energy efficiency • biomass • hydro • anaerobic digestion • geothermal • landfill gas

  17. renewable technologies most feasible technologies • solar (PV and thermal) • wind • energy efficiency • biomass • hydro • anaerobic digestion • geothermal • landfill gas

  18. renewable technologies: exclusion geothermal • not enough thermal potential in Jackson and Josephine Counties to generate electricity • opportunity to use • geothermal in • buildings for heat

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. renewable technologies: opportunity energy efficiency: regional development plan Source: Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 6th Northwest Power Plan

  22. renewable technologies: opportunity energy efficiency: regional development plan Source: Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 6th Northwest Power Plan

  23. 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 CO2e/kWh • 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)

  24. renewable technologies: opportunity solar electric: generation matches peak load

  25. renewable technologies: opportunity solar electric: cost trend of PV modules Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

  26. renewable technologies: opportunity solar electric: potential based on roof area

  27. 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 CO2e/kWh • 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

  28. renewable technologies: opportunity wind: potential local project

  29. renewable technologies: opportunity wind: potential local project

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. 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 CO2e/kWh • 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

  33. 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)

  34. 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

  35. renewable technologies: opportunity anaerobic digestion: C-benefit vs. landfill

  36. renewable technologies: opportunity anaerobic digestion: local feedstock inventory

  37. conclusions levelized cost comparison Renewable Fossil $334

  38. conclusions jobs and economic impacts per $1 million

  39. context regional electricity use vs. generation sources

  40. conclusions 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

  41. conclusions history of energy use: percentage of total use Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

  42. conclusions history of energy use: absolute use Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

  43. acknowledgements 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

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

  45. Southern Oregon Regional GHG Inventory results: energy (continued) • adjustments to U.S. per capita values • actual data used for electricity and natural gas • adjusted for regional electricity emissions factor • wood used for heating lowers regional footprint • insights • energy use by buildings makes up 18% of total • wood is used to heat 18% of homes • hydropower helps, but not as the region grows • RPS requires largest utilities that 25% from renewable sources by 2025 • distinction between building and transportation energy may blur with electric vehicles

  46. background consensus on (un)certainty From the IPCC in 2007:

More Related