Fanning the Flames of Waste to Energy

Momentum for waste to energy is still building. Our chronic fixation on simple fixes (burn trash) for complex problems (limited landfill space on a small island) is driving our state and county leaders to support an unproven technology that is oppositional to the County of Kaua'i's Zero Waste Resolution. In my last blog post I explored the technology and ramifications of waste to energy but I brushed over the politics. Which is the key to understanding why plasma gasification is being warped from experimental technology to touted solution for our landfill crisis.

A few days ago an anonymous comment was left on my waste-to-energy blog with a link to a Hawai'i Free Press article with this opening:

If approved, Hawaii taxpayers could find themselves providing $44M in loan guarantees to an Indian company's jet fuel deal in England. HB1515 and SB1047 would provide up to $44M in Special Purpose Revenue Bonds for Pelatron Q, LLC. According to the text of the bill, 'Pelatron Q, LLC's power plants will use a patented gasification and vitrification process which will be used to convert waste to jet fuel in London, to convert waste to energy in Hawaii.'

According to the state, "Special purpose revenue bonds (SPRBs) are a type of municipal revenue bond authorized by Hawai'i's legislature that can be issued by the State to provide loan financing to assist qualifying private capital improvement projects (for example, certain hospital or school construction) in the public interest." While funding for SPRBs comes from private investors (and not taxpayer funds), they must be for projects which are "in the public interest." How is a technology that has never been commercialized, that will derail current diversion efforts, and that has failed repeatedly at the municipal level in the public interest? It's politics.

Hawai'i Free Press (HFP) elaborates in another article that the Pelatron Center for Economic Development (PCED) is chaired by OHA Chair Robert Lindsey with Hawai'i Senator Brickwood Galuteria also on the payroll. According to HFP the "PCED is a non-profit corporation wrapped around a for profit subsidiary, Pelatron, inc." In their view, that makes Senator Galuteria an unregistered lobbyist for Pelatron. Which partially explains the state's support for waste to energy. But, what about the county?

Joan Conrow recently published a blog showing air travel expenses for the mayor and council members. The County of Kaua'i paid for Mayor Carvalho and Councilmember Kagawa to fly to London. In the words of Councilmember Kagawa (as quoted by Conrow):

I went on the trip with Mayor Carvalho to meet with representatives from British Airways and Pelatron to meet and discuss a proposal to solve our landfill problem regarding MRF and waste to energy. British Airways will be producing jet fuel from the waste in London, which currently sends their waste to Switzerland. Jet fuel is very similar to diesel, is my understanding. It is a very new technology that uses plasma arc to a higher level with practically no emissions and a much smaller end product called slag, unlike the large amount of emissions and ash that is the result of older technology like H-power.

They also have newer science that cleans the gasses to a higher level that produces more energy than current waste to energy plants produce. We have approximately 6.5 years left at Kekaha landfill. This project proposes to extend the life of Kekaha another 30 plus years…

From his quote it's not clear why they flew to London when the waste to energy facility doesn't yet exist and when Pelatron is based out of O'ahu. How does it benefit Kaua'i for our leaders to meet with British Airways when construction hasn't even begun on their proposed plant? While Councilmember Kagawa referenced biomass to liquid (BTL) in his quote above ("jet fuel is very similar to diesel"), from all of the available Pelatron Q literature, it seems clear that BTL (producing diesel fuel from waste) is not the technology that Pelatron Q is pursuing for Kaua'i.

Though special interest groups and well connected politicians are an integral part of understanding state support for waste to energy, I do not think that county support falls along the same dubious motives. While I can understand the political attraction of a quick technological fix to our landfill crisis, it's important that we differentiate between good politics and good policy. Flying to London seems way beyond due diligence for an unproven technology that is oppositional to our Zero Waste Resolution.

Mina Morita (previous chair of the PUC) also recently expressed hesitation towards the proposal. She assessed Pelatron Q's proposal based on the US Department of Energy's Technology Readiness Assessment Guide and came to this conclusion:

...where level 1 reflects basic technology research and level 9 indicates the actual system operated over the full range of expected conditions. In reviewing the Pelatron Q website and its link to to Solena Q website, there is no indication that there are any Solena Plasma Gasification and Vitrification (SPGV) technology projects in commercial operation… with the limited information available on-line, it appears SPGV may not have progressed beyond a Level 5 at most. Key decision makers must be prepared to address and assess risks of early adoption of new technologies and seek unbiased review of these technologies to better understand what side of a hype curve a technology falls. 

So, with all of that, this is is a summary of what I know:

• While Solena (Pelatron Q's partner) has signed letters of intent with at least 11 waste to energy partners (municipalities and airlines), none have gotten off the ground. While many have tried, there are currently no plasma gasification plants in the US and the technology has never been done commercially with the scale and efficiencies claimed by Pelatron Q.

• Waste to energy at the scale proposed by Pelatron Q for Kaua'i is clearly oppositional to our island's Zero Waste Resolution. 

• The Solena Q facility in London was first announced in 2010 and was supposed to be operational by 2015. Yet, construction has not yet begun. All proposed plasma gasification plants in the US have been plagued by delays until they were ultimately cancelled. If there are any currently under development, I am not aware of them.   

• The county of Kaua'i flew Councilmember Kagawa and Mayor Carvalho to London to "meet with representatives from British Airways and Pelatron." Despite the fact that Pelatron is based out of O'ahu and the British biomass to liquid (BTL) facility doesn't yet exist. 

• Pelatron Q's Kaua'i proposal opens with this line: "Pelatron Q is prepared to arrange a capital investment of $43.5M to design and construct a clean plasma gasification system on the Kekaha landfill." 

• Sequentially, the state legislature is poised to approve "special purpose revenue bonds in a total amount not to exceed $44,000,000… for the purpose of assisting Pelatron, Q, LLC.."

• The chair of OHA and a state senator are part of a non-profit closely affiliated with Pelatron. 

Regardless of the motives for waste to energy, momentum is building behind closed doors. If we act as test subjects for Pelatron Q and the technology works then our county's Zero Waste Resolution should be the first thing that they incinerate as we're committing our island to producing a level of waste that is incompatible with wide scale diversion. The more likely scenario is that Kaua'i ends up like every other municipality that has tried plasma gasification: we waste a decade and countless financial resources in pursuit of a technology that doesn't yet exist. All while our landfill continues to grow and actual solutions (like a Materials Recovery Facility used in conjunction with Pay as you Throw under the guide of the Zero Waste Resolution) get pushed aside. In pursuing waste to energy, we are heading down a dangerous path with no positive outcomes for Kaua'i.

Liquefied Natural Gas: Bridge or Barrier to Renewable Energy?

The Environmental Defense Fund calls it a bridge fuel in the transition to renewables. The American Gas Association says that it's driving our country's economic recovery. Civil Beat has been covering it extensively and even NPR and Time Magazine have jumped on the media bandwagon. While a lot remains to be answered, one thing is clear: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is coming to O'ahu. And with proponents saying it's cheap and clean, KIUC is currently doing its due diligence in looking at whether it is economically feasible for Kaua'i:

According to a 2012 report commissioned by the Hawai'i Natural Energy Institute, bulk LNG yields fuel savings of 40-50% compared to oil on Oahu, and 22-44% on the neighbor islands. LNG also has a lower carbon footprint on a smokestack basis, with roughly half as much Co2 emissions as coal and 25% that of oil… Besides potentially delivering substantial cost savings to the State, LNG is clean and flexible. It complements the growing share of intermittent renewable energy since gas turbines can be quickly ramped up and down.

Like all things too good to be true, there has been a lot of contention over the high infrastructure costs, the price and sourcing issues, and the environmental effects of fracking and emissions from LNG. Part of the problem, acknowledged by the media, the university researchers, and the utilities is that so much is undecided. It's not clear where the LNG will come from (Jones Act makes it difficult to find domestic sources), how it's going to get here, or what the actual emissions are (its extraction process is notorious for leaking unknowable amounts of methane). Because the figures are so debateable and have been covered so extensively in the media, for the purpose of this blog I'll take the State and industry's word* that it's cheap and clean.**

So, let's step away from that contentious debate and look instead at our energy objectives. Is there an economic or moral imperative to reduce our dependence on overseas fossil fuels? Is it our responsibility to minimize our contribution to climate change? Are we looking at what's best for the next generation? If those answers are "yes," then is LNG good for the future of Kaua'i? 

The answer lies in amortized power plants and the economics of climate change. With that buried, wonky, and off-putting lede, I urge you to bear with me. Because what follows is vitally important for the long-term future of Kaua'i.

When a power plant gets built it's amortized over its life span and the customers (us) pay for that power plant with every unit of electricity that we consume. When we pay an electric bill, we're paying for not only the direct cost of fuel, but also all of KIUC's overhead. The extremely high cost of retrofitting for LNG (gasification plants, holding tanks, pipelines, new generators, etc) means that the per unit cost of that electricity is somewhere around 80% amortized overhead and 20% direct fuel cost. Because the infrastructure already exists for oil derivatives, the cost structure is reversed: 20% for infrastructure overhead (including amortized debt) and 80% for direct fuel cost. LNG is so cheap, that even with the extremely high cost for new infrastructure the total cost (overhead + fuel cost) still works out cheaper than oil and on par with renewable energy. Sounds good, so what's the problem?

You might remember from my post on climate change that if we want to keep climate change on the "safe" range of 2 degrees celsius, then we have a planetary budget of 565 gigatons of Co2, yet if the current reserves held by the major fossil fuel companies are burned, we will release 2,795 gigatons of carbon. What does that mean? That, at some point, we need to say "no" to new fossil fuel infrastructure. According to the best available climate models, that means that emissions need to peak in 2020 and decline by 10% per year until 2045. The longer we wait, the faster emissions have to fall. And, as you will see, retrofitting our island for the costly infrastructure of LNG will ensure that we will fail to make the timely transition to renewables.

The life-span for LNG generators are 35 years. Their high infrastructure cost gets amortized over the entire 35 years, regardless of whether we're using it. Remember, carbon emissions should start declining by 10% per year in 2020 and we need to reach full decarbonization by 2045. Yet, we will be paying for the LNG infrastructure well past 2050. Assuming that LNG stays cheap, it ensures that renewable energy won't compete because every unit of renewable energy will be bundled with the debt burden of the natural gas infrastructure. Because that is the crux of this entire piece let me say that again in different words: as we displace 10% of our fossil fuel infrastructure per year after 2020, the overhead for that infrastructure will fall on the new renewable energy products.

As a quick aside, let me clarify that the big problem with renewable energy is its inconsistency, so one unit of solar power is not the equivalent of one unit of fossil fuel generated base line power because clouds and nighttime stop the flow of electrons. So, when I put "renewable energy" in direct comparison with LNG I am talking specifically about hydroelectricity (including pumped storage) and biomass, which can provide power 24/7. If you're not thoroughly confused yet, then back to the argument. 

Even if additional renewable energy is cheaper per kilowatt than LNG (when amortized over its lifespan), if it results in decommissioning our LNG infrastructure (as we start converting 10% per year in 2020) the renewable energy source will have somewhere around 80% tacked onto the price from the LNG infrastructure debt. And, because this is so important, let me give an example:

Imagine that you buy a car for $35,000 and plan to pay it off over 35 years with a 0% interest rate (your friend must be the bank manager). The only catch with this fantastic deal is that you can't ever sell the car. So, you're paying $1,000 per year for the car and every year, without fail, you drive 1,250 miles. Which works out to an overhead of $.80 per mile driven. Let's assume that Costco gas averages $3.50 per gallon over the next 35 years and your car gets 17.5 MPG--  so your fuel costs are $.20 per mile and total cost per mile cost = $1, which works out to $1,250 per year. Still with me? In ten years a solar powered car comes out. This car costs nothing to drive, but it's $43,500. Your friend at the bank again offers you 0% interest over 35 years, which works out to an annual payment of $1,243. So, you do the quick math and the new car will cost you a total of $.99 per mile driven-- one cent cheaper than your gas guzzler.

Cheaper and better for the environment, it's a no brainer, right? Except, remember the devil's bargain? You can't sell the original gas guzzler-- even if it sits idle in your garage you still have to pay it off. So, even though you would be paying nothing for fuel, the new solar powered car would cost you $1.79 per mile because you're sitting on the overhead for both cars. No matter how attractive renewable energy looks or how much you want to preserve a habitable planet for future generations, the outrageous overhead of owning both cars ensures that you stick with the gas guzzler. From an economic perspective, the solar powered car can only displace the fossil fuel car if it's less than 1/4 the price ($8,750 for the solar powered car-- or $.20 per mile driven). Whereas, if you avoid investing in the fossil fuel car to begin with, renewable energy can compete on even terms.

Replace the gas guzzler with LNG and the solar powered car with renewables and you get the point. If we adopt LNG, then conversion to renewable energy becomes economically untenable and we're stuck burning fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. As the most fossil fuel dependent state in the country, it would inextricably link us to unstable world markets and increase our contribution to climate change. The renewable industry, which has provided such an economic boom (and helped bring down electricity prices) to Kaua'i would stagnate as soon as it began to infringe on our LNG infrastructure. With high overhead and low fuel costs, homeowners with excess PV generation (in other words, lots of solar panels) will likely see their per KWH credit rates decrease (as the credit is based off the avoided cost of fuel). Decarbonization by 2045 would become virtually impossible. 

But, since I'm just a blogger, please don't take my word for it. A report in the journal Climate Change reiterates the basic idea that a natural gas "bridge" to a stable climate would be very short:

Many have recently speculated that natural gas might become a "bridge fuel", smoothing a transition of the global energy system from fossil fuels to zero carbon energy by temporarily offsetting the decline in coal use… Yet global climate stabilization scenarios where natural gas provides a substantial bridge are generally absent from the literature, making study of gas as a bridge fuel difficult. Here we construct a family of such scenarios and study some of their properties. In the context of the most ambitious stabilizations objectives (450 ppm Co2), and absent carbon capture and sequestration, a natural gas bridge is of limited direct emissions-reducing value, since the bridge must be short…***

And, a recent report on pathways to deep decarbonization in the United States highlights the danger of short-term thinking:

…to achieve emissions goals and avoid the costs of early retirement, it is critical to account for economic and operating lifetimes in investment decisions… For some important kinds of long-lived infrastructure-- for instance, power plants-- there is likely only one opportunity for replacement in this time period. Adding new high carbon generation creates infrastructure inertia that either makes the 2050 target more difficult to reach, requires expensive retrofits, or puts investments at risk.

And, more directly related to Hawai'i, a report by the Economic Research Organization at the University of Hawai'i (UHERO) clearly states that:

...we estimate that importing LNG can reduce the amount of renewable energy adopted within the market. Particularly when natural gas prices are low, it crowds out solar PV… This suggests that LNG is unlikely to serve as a 'bridge fuel' unless policies protecting renewable energy adoption are enacted and/or enforced. 

David Roberts of Grist.com sums it up perfectly:

There's an argument to be made that a temporary shift to natural gas would positively affect the political prospects for clean energy; there's an argument to be made that it would offer an economic boost; there's an argument to be made that it would reduce non Co2 pollutants like soot and mercury… But there is no credible argument that a temporary switch to natural gas is a direct means to reach a safe level of carbon in the atmosphere. It is not. It's a hedge-the-bets strategy, a way to soften the coming blows. If we're serious about the welfare of future generations, we won't keep casting about for bridges. We'll screw up our courage and make the leap.  

Because oil prices are higher here than the rest of the nation, Hawai'i is at the forefront of renewable energy integration. So, our experiences (successes and failures) have a disproportionately large impact on the world. As other utilities across the world reach the same crossroads that we are at, they will look to Hawai'i for answers on how we are dealing with the renewable energy transformation. Which is why the decision on whether or not to double-down on fossil fuels is so important. LNG is the wrong answer for Kaua'i. Future investments, even if they cost more upfront, need to go towards renewable base-line energy sources such as pumped storage and hydro. If we can accept the basic science of climate change, then natural gas is a bridge to nowhere. But, as I've written before, we don't have the luxury of just saying no without viable alternatives. What are our options for decarbonization by 2045? Can renewable integration increase while prices continue to decrease? Both are questions for next time.


* While it worked for the purpose of this blog, blindly listening to industry funded university reports is generally a very bad idea. For a relevant example, please read this article on how the "University of Oklahoma and its oil industry funders were putting pressure on OGS scientists to downplay the connection between earthquakes and the injection of fracking wastewater underground." Remember, fracking is the source of a lot of US natural gas. 

** On a similar note, it's important to highlight the mis-direction of the HNEI info cited at the top: "LNG also has a lower carbon footprint on a smokestack basis, with roughly half as much Co2 emissions as coal and 25% that of oil." In UHERO's official report (cited just above), they clarify that "if considering only out-of-stack emissions (as required by the State of Hawaii's GHG emission reduction rules for the electric sector), then introducing natural gas lowers electric sector emissions in all cases. The State's law requiring emissions reduction (Act 234), however urges the minimization of 'leakage' or the export of emissions from Hawaii elsewhere…" And, when you look at total life-time emissions (from extraction to burning) natural gas has as much as twice the emissions of oil, (though, that is also debatable depending on the emissions time scale, as methane doesn't last as long in the atmosphere). This all goes to show that attempting to directly quantify emissions between LNG and oil is extremely difficult and the information is very easily misconstrued. However, UHERO ultimately concludes that "we find that introducing natural gas increases overall GHG emissions."

*** 450ppm is increasingly thought of as too high of a target to avoid the worst effects of climate change. 

Stop Trusting Your Intuition

If you haven't looked at this dress yet, then you've either just come out of a cryogenic freeze or somehow you've managed to avoid the rest of the internet on your online journey to my blog (in either extremely unlikely event, read this before going any further). We each look at the same picture and because of some evolutionary differences in the way that we perceive colors 68% of people see white and gold and 32% see blue and black. So, since we live in a democracy does that make the dress white and gold? No. Even though most people's intuition is screaming that it's white and gold, the dress is in fact black and blue. The color we see is just our brain's interpretation of the visual evidence, and facts (such as the actual color of the dress) don't change what we see.*

Our upbringing, experiences, and mental wiring all contribute to our experienced reality as our brains continually sort through an overwhelming amount of data. The different ways we interpret information lead to our individual biases (liberal/conservative, pro-GMO/anti-GMO, blue dress/white dress, etc.), and the online media and social bubbles we surround ourselves with just reaffirm those biases. When trying to bridge that widening chasm we cite facts and then shout at each other in frustration, condescension, and self-righteous indignation. As I wrote about a few weeks ago, we become internet assholes. And, after all of that, some people still see blue and black and some people see white and gold.

But, just as the dress is in fact blue and black, there are core truths out there. As this National Geographic article clearly articulates, it's counter intuitive to believe that the earth revolves around the sun (and not the other way around), that humans evolved from sea creatures, and that carbon dioxide (which we all exhale) is changing our climate. We are notoriously bad at accepting what the truth is rather than what we want it to be. Which is why Galileo spent the last nine years of his life under house arrest, four in ten Americans continue to believe humans were created by God 10,000 years ago, and we continue to catastrophically alter our climate. 

Science can give us truths (or get us near to them), but we're still often left with shitty answers. Knowing that the only solution to climate change is a drastic reduction in carbon emissions doesn't get us any closer to reducing emissions. Only government can do that. 

And, with those five words I have successfully alienated half of my potential readers. The expansion of governmental authority necessitated by the climate crisis sets off alarm bells in the neural pathways of all conservatives. The same alarm bells that inevitably go off in 62% of the population when I say that the dress is blue and black. 

"Trust your intuition," is the response I most commonly hear when arguing the merits of genetic modification. And, yes, my intuition sets off a quiet alarm bell every time I consciously take a bite of food that I know has been genetically modified. And, for years I opposed the technology and the seed companies who perpetuate it. If your intuition also tells you that genetic modification is an assault on nature, then we're seeing the same color dress.** But, because I trust the scientific method and I understand the incredible benefits of biotech, I now go beyond my intuition to support genetic engineering. With no physical evidence to support the notion, I also believe scientists when they tell me that the earth revolves around the sun.  

In our new age of extreme tribalism, we discredit sources who we disagree with. Because I've shown my hand as a liberal by saying "only government can do that" and because I'm a committed evangelist for genetic engineering-- I have alienated myself from the large majority of people. About half the country is conservative and 80% of remaining liberals are "concerned" about genetic engineering. That doesn't leave very many people in my lonely camp. If you still regularly read my blog (or if you've gotten this far) chances are that you agree with me (somewhere around 10% of the population is in this camp). Those who disagree are back at Foxnews.com or Naturalnews.com. 

The internet makes it too easy to isolate ourselves in like minded groups and enables us to search out a limitless amount of literature and news sources that agree with us. As we drift further apart the other side looks increasingly illogical and immoral. I've repeatedly been called an industry shill for my defense of both Kaua'i Island Utility Co-op and the seed companies. Employees of the seed companies have been called baby killers. Vehement pro-GMO activists have called for the "absolute destruction of the anti-Science movement" and a testifier at a recent Kaua'i County Council meeting said that government consists of a "bunch of scum sucking parasites." If we don't understand the other side, it's easy to subscribe simplified notions to their motivations. Mayor Carvalho must be in the pocket of the seed companies and Councilmen Gary Hooser is just a self-serving politician.*** Our biases and intuitions lead us into opposing camps, those camps spit out simplified reasoning for why the other side is wrong, and it reinforces itself until we are so polarized that we can't even have a dialogue. 

But, once again, the dress really is blue and black. Buried beneath the bullshit, the flaming arrows, and the moral mud are some truths. Sometimes they are aligned with our mental reasoning and sometimes they are not. The challenge is to go beyond our intuition to find those truths. And, in so doing, to get to some solutions. 

As Larry Tool wrote in a recent Civil Beat article: "No matter how right we think we are, we need to remember that we may still be mistaken. More important yet, even if our opponent is wrong, we still need to defend his or her right to participate on equal terms. Once we forget that, we are on the way to losing the free society which makes activism possible."

I am in a camp. I see blue and black, I voted for Obama, and I am pro-vaccine. But, when I see contrary evidence (as in the case of GMOs) I have to force myself to step out of my mental comfort zone. It's what scientists, by definition, have to do. It's what a good journalist does. And it's what makes for effective leaders. Camps define us as human beings. They allow us to empathize with similar individuals and create cohesive tribes. But, our ability to step out of our individual camps and accept evidence, even when it assaults our subconscious, is what moved us from rain dances to meteorology and human sacrifices to modern medicine.  

While it may be as futile as putting on a seatbelt while at a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet, and this was a much longer introduction than I had intended, I hope to start systematically digging deeper into each of the monstrous issues we face as an island. What fundamental truths are at the base of our deepest problems, and how can those truths illuminate a path forward?**** Most importantly, how can we change the status-quo? 

Because my mind is still swirling around waste to energy, I'm going to start with energy. What are the options and can we realistically move to 100% renewable energy? I don't have much free time, so, like always, my posts will be sporadic and far between. If you're looking for moral outrage or good vs evil justifications, you won't find it here. For the small camp of readers that are still with me, thank you for reading. As much as I hope to challenge you in my writing, I encourage you to challenge me in the comments.    

* For the record, I see blue and black. But, for about 30 seconds it switched clearly to white and gold and then back again. I understand both perceptions, but I also know there is only one right answer.

** That was meant figuratively, not literally. 

*** Obviously I disagree with both of those simplified moral judgements. But, interestingly, in trying to find the term of speech for moral judgements like that, I stumbled into the Galileo Gambit: just because someone is persecuted for their belief doesn't make their belief any more true. It's tangentially relevant and worth the quick wikipedia read.   

**** Just for clarification, I am not an investigative journalist or a science reporter. Luckily, we have both on Kaua'i (check out Joan Conrow at Kaua'i Eclectic and Jan Tenbruggencate at Raising Islands). I'm just someone who likes to research and is committed to spending a few hours a week regurgitating information that is readily available online.