Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Renewable Energy Assessment for Jackson & Josephine Counties Presentation of Results Central Point, Oregon December 14, 2011 Joshua Proudfoot, Principal.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Renewable Energy Assessment for Jackson & Josephine Counties Presentation of Results Central Point, Oregon December 14, 2011 Joshua Proudfoot, Principal."— Presentation transcript:

1 Renewable Energy Assessment for Jackson & Josephine Counties Presentation of Results Central Point, Oregon December 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 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

5 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

6 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 renewable energy assessment

7 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

8 results of regional GHG inventory context

9 comparison of per capita emissions context

10 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

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

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

13 regional electricity use vs. generation sources context

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

15 exporting capital context Source: US Energy Information Agency,

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

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

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

19 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

20 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

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

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

23 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/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) renewable technologies: opportunity

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

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

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

27 wind energy type: intermittent likely technology: small- or utility-scale future potential: 27 MW levelized cost: $ EROEI: 18 – 34x C-intensity: kg CO 2 e/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 renewable technologies: opportunity

28 wind: potential local project renewable technologies: opportunity

29 wind: potential local project renewable technologies: opportunity

30 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

31 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

32 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/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 renewable technologies: opportunity hydro

33 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

34 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

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

36 anaerobic digestion: local feedstock inventory renewable technologies: opportunity

37 levelized cost comparison conclusions Renewable Fossil $ 334

38 jobs and economic impacts per $1 million conclusions

39 regional electricity use vs. generation sources context

40 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

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

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

43 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

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

45 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 results: energy (continued) Southern Oregon Regional GHG Inventory

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


Download ppt "Renewable Energy Assessment for Jackson & Josephine Counties Presentation of Results Central Point, Oregon December 14, 2011 Joshua Proudfoot, Principal."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google