State’s Hostility Toward Renewables Escalates; “Leaders” Lag Citizenry on Wind Support

Two articles from Catching Wind, a newsletter published by RENEW Wisconsin with funding from a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy:

State’s Hostility Toward Renewables Escalates
At the urging of Wisconsin utilities, several lawmakers have introduced a bill to allow a renewable energy credit (REC) to be banked indefinitely. If adopted, this measure (AB146) would constitute the most devastating legislative assault yet on the state’s renewable energy marketplace, which is already reeling from the suspension of the statewide wind siting rule this March and the loosening of renewable energy definitions to allow Wisconsin utilities to count electricity generated from large Canadian hydro projects toward their renewable energy requirements.

“Leaders” Lag Citizenry on Wind Support
Public support for wind energy development has held strong against the attacks launched by Governor Walker and the Legislature’s new Republican majority, according to a poll conducted between April 11 and April 18 by the St. Norbert College Survey Center for Wisconsin Public Radio.

Asked whether Wisconsin should "increase, decrease or continue with the same amount" of energy supply from various sources, 77% favored increasing wind power, the highest of any option (60% favored increasing hydropower, 54% biomass, 39% natural gas, 27% nuclear, and 19% coal).

Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly, Spring 2011

The Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly, the newsletter of RENEW Wisconsin, features these article:

Siting Rule Suspension Rocks Wind Industry
In a move that sent shock waves through the wind industry in Wisconsin, a joint legislative panel voted on March 1 to suspend the wind siting rule promulgated by the Public Service Commission in December 2010.

Community Biogas Project Fires Up
Home to 400 dairy farms, Dane County recently dedicated a community-scale manure-to-methane generating system designed to reduce nutrient runoff into the Yahara Lakes.

Insty Prints: Mpower ChaMpion
But if I can help other businesses make some of the harder choices by being more vocal, then I’m willing to help.

Manitoba Hydro: A Washout?
On behalf of our members and the many businesses and individuals who support the continued expansion of Wisconsin’s renewable energy marketplace, RENEW Wisconsin is here to express opposition to AB 114 (and its companion SB 81), and urges the Legislature not to pass this bill.

Verona Firm Begins Work on “Epic” PV
With the commissioning of its 1,300-module solar electric canopy spanning its parking deck, Epic Systems joins an elite group of Wisconsin companies embracing on-site energy capture to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. At 360 kilowatts (kW), Epic’s new photovoltaic system is the largest solar array in Dane County and the third largest in Wisconsin.

Calendar of Renewable and Energy Efficiency Events
June 17-19, 2001 The Energy Fair. Custer, WI. The nation’s premier sustainable energy education event. Three days of workshops, demonstrations, and exhibits highlighting renewable energy and sustainable living. For details see www.midwestrenew.org.

July 8-10, 2011 EcoFair360. Elkhorn, WI. Join hundreds of exhibitors and presenters and thousands of attendees who will Make Green Happen for three days of education, exploration and inspiration. For details see www.ecofair360.org.

July 16, 2011 Western Wisconsin Sustainability Fair. Menomonie, WI, Dunn County Fair Grounds. Exhibitors from business, government, and non-profi t groups, speakers, workshops, music, energy effi cient vehicles, a photo contest, and a tour of the Cedar Falls Dam. See http://sustainabledunn.org for more information.

July 30, 2011 8th Annual Kickapoo Country Fair. LaFarge, WI. The Midwest’s Largest Organic Food and Sustainability Festival. Food, music, bike and farm tours, cooking demonstrations, theater, kids’ activities, dancing. More information at www.kickappoocountryfair.org.

October 1, 2011 Solar Tour of Homes and Businesses. All across Wisconsin. Owners open their doors to let people see how renewable energy is practical, reliable, and affordable in today’s economy. The homes and businesses often include other energy efficiency and renewable technologies. For details see http://nationalsolartour.org.

October 26, 2011 Wisconsin’s Solar Decade Conference. Milwaukee, WI. Now in its seventh year, the Wisconsin
Solar Decade Conference is your opportunity to see fi rsthand the latest developments in the world of solar energy. For details see www.solardecade.com.

Sun Harvest Farm: Solar hot water and more

The Koerner's installed the domestic hot water system (right)in March 2006. It also provides a portion of the heat for the house.

Sun Harvest Farm, owned by Jerry and Penny Kroener, Ridgeway, WI
Renewable Energy Projects
September 2009 Update

General:
In 2005 we embarked on major renovations and additions to our old farmhouse. This included working with Focus on Energy to have site assessments performed for Solar Photovoltaic, Solar Thermal and Wind Turbine Systems. We also investigated wood burning systems because we have substantial quantities of firewood on our property. Our decisions included the following:
1. Add additional insulation, all new windows and new doors.
2. Replace our old oil burning furnace with a high efficiency propane boiler (our little Munchkin).
3. Install a Solar Photovoltaic grid-connected system to produce electricity.
4. Install a Solar Thermal (hot water) system to preheat domestic hot water and provide some house heat.
5. Install a counter-flow masonry heater fireplace using our own limestone for the masonry cladding.
6. In 2008 we built and installed a hot air collector to provide some heat in our barn workshop.
7. In 2009 we installed our 2nd Photovoltaic grid-connected system.
8. In 2009 we also upgraded our solar hot water storage tank.

Improving Efficiency
Our first goal was to improve the efficiency of the areas in the old part of the farmhouse, and to include very high efficiency within the new addition. We installed new Pella windows and doors throughout. Additional insulation was added where possible and a moisture/air barrier under new fiber cement siding, which was installed on the entire house. The new construction included R-21 insulation in the walls and blown-in R-50 in the ceiling. We removed the old oil-fired hot water heater and the oil burner from the warm air furnace. A high efficiency propane gas boiler (Munchkin T-50) was installed to be our back up for heating and the new domestic hot water tank. We also installed radiant under floor heating in the new great room area and plan to install additional radiant heating in certain of the old house areas. The existing warm air furnace was retained, with the addition of a water-to-air heat exchanger, which allowed us keep the central AC unit and also to provide warm air heating to the upstairs area. We have also installed compact fluorescent light bulbs throughout the entire house and in the barn workshop area.

Solar Thermal Hot Water System
Our system as designed to provide domestic hot water and a portion of the house heating and was put into operation in March 2006. It includes:
+ Eight 4 ft x 10 ft Heliodyne Gobi 410 collectors, ground-mounted at a 60 degree tilt angle
+ 1000 gallon concrete hot water storage tank, with EPDM rubber liner
+ Approximately 600 ft of 1 inch copper tubing made into coils for heat exchangers
+ Pump, valves, expansion tanks, controller, copper piping, propylene glycol, insulation, etc.

We performed a considerable amount of the work to install the system including:
+ Installing the concrete tank and liner
+ Bending the tubing into coils and installing them in the tank
+ Installing 14 concrete pillars
+ Digging trenches and installing piping from collectors into basement
+ Erecting the framework and the collectors

We worked with Light Energy Systems of Madison (now Full Spectrum Solar) to design the system and to provide the parts and some of the labor. The total system cost was approximately $20,000, but we received a Focus on Energy grant of $3,000 and a Federal Tax Credit of $2,000 so our out-of-pocket costs were about $15,000.

During 2009 we decided to replace the concrete tank due to excessive moisture problems in the basement area. We demolished the tank piece by piece and carried it out of the basement. We replaced it with a tank made by STSS Co. Inc from Mechanicsburg PA. The new tank is collapsible so it can be moved through regular sized doorways. When in place it will be 80 round and 4 high with all penetrations installed at the factory according to our heat exchanger specifications. It is sealed, insulated and with hold up to 822 gallons of water. We reused the copper heat exchangers that we had made for the old tank. We also installed a heat dump under the solar collectors, which was made of 24 ft of Slant Fin baseboard hydronic registers. The purpose of the heat dump is to dissipate excess heat produced during the summer when we only use the hot water for pre-heating the domestic hot water. The total costs for the new tank, including demolishing the old tank, were about $3,500.

Masonry Heater Fireplace
We investigated wood-burning systems and decided to build a masonry heater fireplace in order to take advantage of renewable resources on our property. We have an ample supply of trees on our property that we harvest by cutting dead trees. We constructed a woodshed that dries and stores about 10 cords of split firewood.

The fireplace is specially designed to be efficient and environmentally friendly because the combustion chamber burns at between 1500-2000 degrees F. The fire burns for 2-3 hours but the large amount of masonry mass stores and radiates the heat for 12-24 hours. Our fireplace is centrally located so it radiates heat over a large area of our kitchen and great room. Two stainless steel U-Tube heat exchangers are also built into the core to capture some heat, which is circulated to the solar storage tank in the basement.

The core of our heater was designed by Heat-Kit of Canada, but originated centuries ago from designs in Europe and Russia. Gimme Shelter Construction of Amherst, WI constructed the core.

We decided to use natural limestone and sandstone from our property for the masonry cladding. Some of the stones were recovered from the foundation of our old summer kitchen. We performed the masonry work ourselves, which saved us $20,000+ in labor costs. Our cost for the core, chimney materials and mortar for the limestone was approximately $12,000.

Solar Photovoltaic Electric System # 1
This system was designed to produce about half of our annual electricity needs and was put into operation in April 2006. We chose a grid-tied system that sends excess electricity to the Alliant Energy power grid. We have a net-metering agreement where we are compensated for the power we produce at the same rate as we pay for electricity. During the first full year of operation our PV system produced 4,700 kilowatt-hours, which was 43% of our total usage of 11,100 kWh.

The PV system includes the following components:
+ 16 Kyocera 170 watt modules for a total output of 2.7 kW
+ Wattsun dual axis tracker system (the system follows the sun morning until night)
+ SMA Sunny Boy 2500 inverter/controller (converts DC voltage to AC for the grid)
+ Concrete foundation (5 yds with rebar), steel post & framework
+ Disconnect switches, wires, conduit, and other miscellaneous electrical items

Our system produces between 200-600 volts (DC current) when the sun shines. It is facing east when the sun rises and follows the sun all day so it is facing west when the sun goes down. The DC current comes into the basement, goes through a disconnect switch and into the Sunny Boy inverter/controller. This device changes the DC current into AC current and controls how the power goes out into the grid. The current goes outside through a disconnect switch, back through our main breaker panel, and then out through the meter to the grid. The best days are when we are not using much power and the meter is actually going backward!

We worked with Light Energy Systems of Madison (now Full Spectrum Solar) to design the system and to provide the parts and some of the labor.

The total cost of the system was about $25,000, but we received a Focus on Energy grant of $8,700 and a Federal Tax Credit of $2,000, so out out-of-pocket costs were about $14,000.

Solar Photovoltaic Electric System # 2
In 2009 we installed our second PV system. We took advantage of a special program from Alliant Energy where we have contracted for 10 years to sell all of the power produced by the system for 25 cents per kWh. It did require us to install a new meter pedestal, at a cost of $1,100 so that the electricity from the new system could be metered separately. We also have to pay about 41 cents/day for the new meter charge, as well as sign up for the Alliant Second Nature program (where we pay a small premium for our energy purchased, which will be from renewable sources). Our total cost for the system was $31,168, and we did some of the work ourselves (digging, concrete, trenching, wire, etc). We will get a 25% Focus on Energy grant of about $7,800 and a 30% Federal tax credit in 2010 of about $9,300. Therefore, our out of pocket costs will be about $14,000. This system has the potential to produce about an 11% annual rate of return.

We purchased the main part of the system from DH Solar. Their system uses a tracking system that they adapted from their experience with commercial satellite tracking systems. The system has 16 Suncast PV panels, each of which is rated at 210 watts, or a total of 3.36 kW. The inverter is a SMA Sunny Boy 3000US.

Barn Workshop Hot Air Collector System
In 2008 we designed, built and installed a hot air collector system on the south side of the old milkhouse. The collector was made from tempered glass, aluminum expandable tubes, painted black, and solid foil-faced insulation. The 6 outlet and inlet piping contains a bi-metallic sensor/control relay and a small in-duct fan to pipe the heat into the barn workshop. The total cost of this system was about $600. A woodstove in the milk house provides backup heat on cloudy days, which is piped with the same piping system into the barn. This is a trial and error system. It looks like we might have to reposition the system to more directly face south to maximize the heat output.

PSC Approval of Bay Front Project Advances Wood Over Coal

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 30, 2009

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Madison, WI (October 30, 2009) RENEW Wisconsin today hailed the decision by the Public Service Commission to approve a utility’s plan to repower an aging northern Wisconsin coal-fired plant with locally available wood fuel.

The approval allows Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin (NSPW), a subsidiary of Xcel Energy, to install the state’s first biomass gasifier. The system will produce synthetic gas from a variety of wood sources to produce electricity at the company’s Bay Front Power Plant in Ashland, Wisconsin.

“This project will yield multiple dividends to the utility’s ratepayers and the local economy in and around Ashland,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide advocacy group for renewable energy.

“Capital projects are few and far between in northern Wisconsin. Rather than closing down an inefficient plant that relies on imported fossil fuel, NSPW is extending its life and improving its environmental performance with this switch to a sustainable energy source,” Vickerman said.

“This proposal is an excellent resource fit for this part of the state. The money spent to acquire wood fuel will remain in the local area, instead of being exported to western coal states,” Vickerman said.
END
RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.

Response to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel column on wind vs. cows

A column by Mike Nichols in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel seems to present an either/or dicotomy between wind-generated electricity and digester-generated electricity. Nichols wrote:

This is something to ponder as we head into a new year - and a new era. We are developing huge wind farms in Wisconsin. People are talking about setting turbines out on our Great Lakes. Breaking wind could be the key to the future. The only question now is "What kind?"

Do we harness our skies or our pies?

The Journal Sentinel published the following response from RENEW's executive director Michael Vickerman:

The statement that Wisconsin can generate more electricity from manure than from windpower is not supported by the numbers.

To make biogas from manure, a dairy farm operator has to keep the cows inside and under a roof at all times. Only in a confined setting is it possible to collect cow manure and break it down in an oxygen-free digester that results in methane. Of Wisconsin’s 1.3 million dairy cows, only one-eighth of them live in confined animal operations. The average dairy cow here is part of a small herd and spends a considerable amount of time in pasture.

As stated in the column, Wisconsin is well ahead of other states in capturing energy from dairy cow manure and generating electricity with it, and there is certainly room for growth. Bear in mind, however, that takes more than 2,000 dairy cows to produce enough methane to equal the output from one commercial wind turbine. Yes, Wisconsin now boasts about two dozen biogas generation systems attached to dairy farms. But compared with the output from the 251 wind turbines installed this year at four different projects, their electrical production is quite modest.

Though other locally available resources--solar, small hydro, woody fuels and biomethane—will certainly play a larger part in contributing to Wisconsin’s electricity mix, wind energy will remain the renewable energy workhorse for the foreseeable future.

Finally, the Governor’s Global Warming Task Force recommended a raft of policies to achieve a renewable energy goal of 25% by 2025, no small undertaking I can assure you. If we are serious about achieving that goal, we must accept expanded contributions from all eligible resources. We do not have the luxury of playing favorites.

RENEW, Farmers Union, and partners launch Homegrown Renewable Energy Campaign

For immediate release: December 3, 2008

For More Information Contact:
Adrienne Joseph or Sue Beitlich
715-723-5561/715-379-2712 or 608-769-7625
wfuadriennej@charterinternet.com or wfusueb@charter.net

WFU and partners announce launch of Homegrown Renewable Energy Campaign
Madison, Wis. (December 3, 2008) – Wisconsin Farmers Union officials gathered at the Wisconsin State Capitol today to announce the launch of the Homegrown Renewable Energy Campaign. WFU and its campaign partners laid out four state policy initiatives that will address the challenge of global climate change.

“The Wisconsin agriculture and forestry industries are essential to expanding a renewable energy economy in our state,” said Sue Beitlich, WFU president. “Renewable energy will help us to achieve greater energy and economic security, create new jobs, strengthen agricultural markets and reduce carbon emissions.”

Building on Gov. Jim Doyle’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and expand renewable energy, and the recommendations of his Global Warming Task Force, WFU along with Clean Wisconsin, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute and RENEW Wisconsin, have developed a campaign to support the following initiatives to expand energy and heat production from biomass:

• Create the Biomass Energy Crop Reserve Program, establishing 10-year contracts to pay landowners in exchange for planting bioenergy crops that are energy efficient and preserve natural resources.
• Expand Renewable Fuels for Schools and Communities by setting up funding sources for those who would like to purchase equipment for biomass systems that replace fossil fuel and save tens of thousands of dollars in fuel savings.
• Launch a Renewable Energy Buyback Program that will fairly compensate small-scale renewable energy producers who generate renewable electricity (biomass, solar, wind and hydro).
• Encourage the establishment of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard to reduce carbon intensity of transportation fuels.

“These policies taken together not only create more jobs on Wisconsin’s farms and their rural communities but could also reduce global warming emissions by 6 to 7 million tons per year, equivalent to taking 600,000 cars off of Wisconsin’s roads,” said Keith Reopelle, Senior Policy Director for Clean Wisconsin.

“Wisconsin's natural resources, employment opportunities and energy security can greatly benefit from a renewable, bio-based economy,” said Margaret Krome, Policy Director for Michael Fields Agricultural Institute. “However, we need strong policies to jump start this new economy and ensure that it will be accessible by all and sustainable.”

The four partners along with endorsing organizations, Organic Valley, Agrecol Corp., the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, Marth Wood Products, the Wisconsin Biodiesel Association, Green Diesel Wisconsin Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, Wisconsin Center for Environmental Education, Midwest Renewable Energy Association and the Partners in Forestry Landowners Cooperative, are continuing to ask organizations and individuals for their support of the campaign. For more information, the public can visit www.wisconsinfarmersunion.com.END
Wisconsin Farmers Union, a member-driven organization, is committed to enhancing the quality of life for family farmers, rural communities and all citizens through educational opportunities, cooperative endeavors and civic engagement.

August 11, 2008 - Testimony on Alliant Energy's Cassville Plant: Plenty of wind, not much biomass

From the testimony submitted by Michael Vickerman on behalf of RENEW Wisconsin filed with the Public Service Commission on August 11, 2008:

In my testimony I will survey the windpower prospects under development by independent power producers (IPP’s) in the parts of Wisconsin served by WPL. This information will include an estimate of their annual production (in the aggregate) as well as the current permitting and interconnection status for each prospect. The second half of my testimony outlines RENEW’s concerns with WPL’s proposal to co-fire biomass at Nelson Dewey 3 [proposed Cassville plant] . . . .

There are seven IPP-owned wind prospects under development. All range in generating capacity from 50 MW to 100 MW, totaling 609 MW altogether. . . .

RENEW’s reservations about WPL’s stated plans to co-fire biomass at NED3 flow from the specifics of the proposal. RENEW strongly supports using biomass for space and process heating. RENEW also supports generating electricity from dedicated biomass facilities that are considerably smaller than a new baseload facility.

One reservation we have this proposal is the idea of marrying a low-grade biomass fuel to a very expensive new power station with a capacity cost of about $4,000/kW. There are less expensive avenues for acquiring renewable energy, such as windpower, that have lower capital costs and zero fuel costs. There are also less expensive venues for burning biomass for electricity, such as the soon-to-be-retrofitted E. J. Stoneman plant or Xcel’s Bay Front 3 unit. Unlike building a new 300 MW coal plant, retrofitting those power stations to burn biomass fuel won’t require a capital investment in excess of $1 billion. It is a far more efficient use of ratepayer dollars to wed biomass fuel with smaller power stations (<50 MW) than with a larger and very expensive brand-new power plant. With smaller power plants, it is possible to configure them as dedicated biomass generating units. This is not possible with a 300 MW facility.

RENEW’s second reservation is triggered by the configuration of NED3. WPL’s selection of a circulating fluidized bed combustion boiler creates an opportunity to co-fire biomass energy sources at NED3. WPL’s plans, however, call for the biomass fuel to supplement the coal being fed into the boiler, which could easily be fueled with 100% coal. There is nothing about the boiler design that is dedicated specifically to biomass generation. Coal is the mainstay in this configuration, while biomass is simply an opportunity fuel to be used when available. The possibility of being unable to acquire enough biomass fuel for co-firing will not in any way hinder the operation of NED3, because there will always be enough coal on hand to operate the plant at its full rated capacity. Also, because the biomass portion of the plant’s output can vary, depending on how much biomass fuel is available, there is no possible way to predict how many renewable kilowatt-hours will be produced at the plant. Depending on NED’s variable biomass output to help satisfy in-state renewable energy requirements introduces a level of risk that can be avoided by relying on other renewable generation strategies.

Our third reservation stems from WPL’s need to lock up significant supplies of fuel sources of wood and energy at a lower cost than what the same resources would fetch in other markets, especially the biomass thermal market. As a general proposition, burning biomass in an electricity-only facility is a low-value use for a resource that can deliver substantially more energy to an end-user in the form of space and process heat. If biomass is burned at NED3, two-thirds of the energy value of the fuel, be it wood, agricultural residues, or switchgrass, is discharged into the atmosphere. In contrast, a modern wood-fired heating system serving a forest products company can convert 65% of the energy embedded in the fuelwood to useful heat. The higher the conversion factor of a particular energy application, the greater the energy return, which generally translates into a higher economic return. Thermal market participants are well-positioned to pay top dollar for the fuel they use, because they receive an energy return that is double what the same fuel yields when burned in a biomass electric facility. Because NED3 will, if approved, have a low thermal efficiency, WPL would be at a disadvantage if forced to match the prevailing biomass fuel price set by thermal market participants in order to secure upwards of 300,000 tons of biomass a year. . . .

In response to a rebutal of his testimony by one of Alliant's expert witnesses, Vickerman said:

WPL’s 60 MW biomass initiative is piggybacked on a power plant that, if approved and built, would add four times as much coal-fired capacity estimated to cost more than $4,000/kW.