« November 2005 | Main | November 2006 »
June 25, 2006
Energy solutions for Dairy Operations
There are two documents that I want to make available to everyone. The first is a study conducted by California State University - Fullerton that assesses the health costs of poor air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. They have a short description of the study and a longer (85 pg.) PDF formatted complete report.
It is interesting to note that this study was conducted by the CSU-Fullerton Institute for Economic and Environmental Studies. These two areas, often positioned in the media as antagonistic, are in fact so tightly coupled that separation is impossible. If one of the worrisome factors for business is the economic burden of health insurance, then serious attention must be paid to the fact that, as the report clearly states, "Air Pollution Costs San Joaquin Valley $3 Billion a Year" That is $1,000 per person.
The second part of this is a report on an innovative attempt to address much of the problem There are four signifcant sources of air polution in the San Joaquin Valley: automobiles, pesticides from arial spraying, parrticulat matter from such agricultural operations as disking, and methane from dairy operations. Measurements will show that the largest source of greenhouse gas emilssion in the valley is from dairy operations as 1 in 7 of all the dairy cattle in the United States are in this valley.
The Strauss Family Creamery in California's Marin County has been frequently featured on local (San Francisco) television as a model for organic dairy operations. Of special interest here is the story of their turning poop into power.
The information on the Strauss Family Creamery web site is backed up by a report distributed by the California State Energy Commission. Another report was issued by the National Dairy Environmental Stewardship Council, most of whose members come from academia or are on staff at other Dairy organizations. Entitled "Cost-effective and Environmentally Beneficial Dairy Manure Management Practices" This covers a variety of environmentally sound practices including the use of methane digesters to capture the methane and drive electric co-generation facilities. On this subject, they conclude that "In regions where dairies can offset their electricity purchases with biogas-derived power, they are cost effective with potential payback periods of 3 to 6 years (depending on federal cost-share fund availability)."
Perhaps this has taken hold in California is the fact that the California has had some degree of net metering in its law since 1996. However, it is not permanent and it is not all inclusinve. I cite the following:
California's net-metering law, which took effect in 1996, requires all utilities to allow net metering to all customers for solar and wind-energy systems up to 1 megawatt (MW). Investor owned-utilities are required to offer net metering for biogas-electric facilities and fuel cells.
The original law applied to wind-energy systems, solar-electric systems and hybrid (wind/solar) systems. In September 2002, legislation (AB 2228) allowed biogas-electric facilities up to 1 MW to net meter until December 31, 2005, under a pilot program. This pilot program was extended until December 31, 2009, with the passage of AB 728 in September 2005. A customer-generator may continue to net meter an eligible biogas digester for the life of the facility, provided the digester meets California's best available control technology (BACT) requirements upon installation. Furthermore, AB 728 (2005) authorizes up to three large biogas digesters -- systems with a capacity greater than 1 MW but no more than 10 MW -- to net meter. There is a 50-MW statewide limit on net-metered biogas digesters. California law provides for retail cost recovery of revenue loss from net-metered biogas digesters.
Last year, Art Myatt and Chuck Jordan had a discussion about net-metering on this list. I am not sure of what the situation is in any other state besides California.
Posted by Wes at 10:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack