Office of Sustainability

December 30, 2010

A quarterly update on the progress of our feasibility study has been posted HERE.

December 16, 2010

Representatives from McKinstry met with the Sustainability Council on December 6th to review their study findings and conclusions. Their conclusions, within the context of technical and economic feasibility, were that biomass gasification could replace our current natural gas system, meet regulatory requirements, and provide reliable heat to the campus at an energy savings sufficient to justify this as an energy savings project. Their presentation is available HERE.

The Council then discussed our internal process and remaining facets of this multifaceted study. See the presentation HERE.

November 17, 2010

On October 15th, the College accepted a $3.7 million grant from the state Department of Commerce to continue our deliberative process on the biomass gasification project. This process is contingent upon the results of our feasibility study demonstrating that the project can meet our stated environmental, technical and financial criteria.

The feasibility study, as defined by the Sustainability Council and the college, extends beyond the engineering, economic, and regulatory analysis required for capital projects of this nature. It also includes an expert review of data/studies related to the broad range of questions raised (e.g. what’s a “sustainable” forestry practice, what are the life-cycle emissions comparisons for our biomass scenario compared to natural gas, etc.) and assurance of the project’s ability to meet our criteria (in addition to a demonstrable net greenhouse gas reduction — the primary motivation for the project).

This grant provides a small (26%) portion of the financial resources necessary to support the project. We have yet to clearly identify a source or sources for the remaining $11 million or so necessary to complete the project. Adequate funding is an essential component of the project and must be pursued now because of the nature of state budget cycles, but it is not the determining factor, as stated above. If the proposed project fails to meet the College’s criteria or any external requirements for proceeding with the project the College will so notify the Department of Commerce and return the grant.

Please refer HERE for an overview of the project proposal (as of August 2010) and to our REFERENCES page for background information.

September 22, 2010

Evergreen’s study of biomass gasification as a carbon neutral replacement for natural gas remains in the works. We hope that you will choose to get involved. There will be a series of charettes on campus this fall, beginning with one during Orientation week this Thursday, September 23rd (1 to 3 pm), during which we will work through the renewable energy question at Evergreen and how it should be evaluated.

The biomass proposal calls for a substantial change in the way that we acquire, handle, and account for our energy use on campus. Like any large change, it has sparked concern and opposition, which can be beneficial for us all.

There should always be at least some opposition to change. Most changes are proposed to resolve a specific goal, such as we need to be carbon neutral. But, no single goal or perspective can really define the complex network of associated impacts and tradeoffs in our world today. Sustainability demands a broad, systemic perspective on all of our decisions. We can no longer rely upon simple cost/benefit analyses, so we must attempt to include as many perspectives as possible in our decision making process.

Opposition to change, when done properly, widens our perspectives and enhances our understanding so that we can make our decisions wisely. However, opposition can easily polarize into competing ideas, those for and those against, who subsequently do battle over which idea shall win. Since none of us can really grasp the entire web of complexity around us, though, we will gain more by blending our opposing perspectives so that we can begin to see enough of the whole picture to make truly sustainable decisions.

We encourage scholarly, logically rigorous, and critical evaluations of all aspects of this proposal to help the Sustainability Council shape their final decision on the project.

September 16, 2010

As students and faculty arrive back on campus, it’s a good time to catch up on some of the sustainability work that’s been continuing over the summer.  Here’s an overview of some of the fundamental questions that have been raised over the summer and references to the background research that has been performed internally.

It seems like all I hear about is biomass gasification.  Shouldn’t Evergreen be concentrating first on energy conservation?

Evergreen is actively pursuing energy conservation, waste reduction, recycling and other environmental initiatives at the same time that students, staff and faculty are looking at ways to reduce our carbon footprint for heating by exploring biomass gasification.  Working together, we reduced overall energy use by 20% last year and we’re operating well below our baseline levels from 2005 (despite serving far more students).  Here’s the most recent update on our energy savings. While conservation is critical, and there’s still room for improvement, future gains in this area will be a challenge to achieve and sustain.  And even if we enjoy continued success in energy conservation efforts – with support from across the campus – we can’t conserve our way to carbon neutrality.  We need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

I’ve heard about a “feasibility study” for biomass gasification.  What’s the process and timeline?

A couple of elements of the feasibility study are already underway.  First, the college has hired a firm called McKinstry to perform the following:

• Estimate capital and operational costs
• Evaluate compatibility with our existing boiler system
• Estimate expected emissions, emissions regulations, permitting process, and air control technology recommendations
• Perform investment grade audit of wood waste biomass fuel sources, including supply, storage, and handling considerations
• Define long-term operating and maintenance impacts
• Estimate fuel cost savings in comparison to natural gas
• Develop an estimated project schedule for design and construction (should the college choose to proceed)
• Include emissions reduction controls including NOx and an electrostatic precipitator

That work is expected to be completed by November.

Second, since last spring we’ve been gathering research, talking with regional and national conservation and alternative energy research groups, and getting input from community members, area experts and environmental advocates to ensure that we’re asking the right kinds of questions beyond the scope of the McKinstry work.

Based on that research and input, we’re expanding our feasibility work this fall to confirm CO2 reduction potential, assess other emissions (including health implications related to those emissions), and explore additional issues related to fuel supply (beyond raw amounts of material available – what are the forest and forestry implications, what constitutes a “sustainable” approach to fuel acquisition, etc.).  Our plan is to assemble an expert panel or panels (including faculty, others with topical expertise and potentially outside experts as well) to review relevant scientific and research.

While the details have not yet been worked out, the general approach will be to develop answers to key questions (some of which have arisen over the summer from community input — though most of the general topical areas were already on the radar), have the experts report back to the campus and the Sustainability Council (made up of students, faculty and staff) regarding the ability of the project to meet the criteria, consider other relevant input (from the campus and community), and then have the Sustainability Council make a recommendation to the president and vice presidents.  This timeline will probably carry us into early winter.

We’re also putting the project in for state and federal funding, but if the biomass project cannot meet our criteria, we would withdraw those requests (or refuse the money if it was allocated).  Given external funding timelines, if we didn’t seek money now and we eventually find that the project meets our criteria, our ability to greatly reduce our carbon footprint could be delayed two years or more.  Since our goal is carbon neutrality by 2020, two years could make a big difference.  Of course it’s also possible that funding will not be available.  So that would delay things as well.

What other renewable energy alternatives did we consider (other than biomass gasification)?

When students, staff and faculty started developing our Climate Action Plan, we set practical criteria for any replacement of natural gas for heat.

• Functionally on-demand, reliable, and compatible with our existing heating infrastructure
• Emissions comparable to burning natural gas, including nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), particulates, carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), etc.
• Existing technology suitable to our location that can be located on our campus
• Access to a dependable and sustainable fuel supply
• Minimal impact on the campus and surrounding community (emissions, noise, traffic)
• Cost comparable to burning natural gas
• Potential to create an alternative energy learning opportunity

We were not able to find any perfect replacements for natural gas, since it is already one of the most convenient fuels available. However, based on the criteria above, we eliminated some options from further consideration for overall campus heating:

• Ground source thermal – seemed to have potential and was explored in the remodeling and energy efficiency upgrade design of the College Activities Building (CAB). Unfortunately, these systems run on electricity and would require a complete change of heating infrastructure at the college, nor do they promise sufficient savings to meet responsible energy project funding guidelines (and were therefore cost-prohibitive). Ground source will still be considered for future new construction that must rely on a separate heat source (independent of the main heat distribution system).
• Solar Photovoltaic – is not available on demand, especially in winter, given our climate and location. It creates electricity, which is not the most efficient fuel to use for heating and is not compatible with our current infrastructure. While solar does offer savings, the payback timeframes, even with state energy subsidies, are simply too long. Our 9 KW demonstration solar panels on the library building have a simple payback period of more than 100 years, far longer than the equipment will last, and would not have been possible without external grant funding.
• Wind power – we currently pay for Renewable Energy Credits to support wind-generated electricity to meet all of our electricity needs, but wind doesn’t fit our heating criteria. Our local wind patterns on campus don’t lend themselves to on-site generation or on-demand access; also, the output would be electricity – again, not the most efficient way to produce heat.
• Tidal or wave power – this is an emerging/unproven technology, tidal action in our immediate area is not optimal, and the output is electricity.
• Kinetic energy – the technologies are still in early, unproven stages, potential for energy production is too low, and the output is electricity.

More graphic information on renewable resource availability in our area and around the US is available at: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/maps.html

What makes biomass attractive?

We’re still reviewing available information, but biomass is the single renewable energy resource that is readily and locally available (please see the link above). There is also credible research to indicate that biomass gasification for heat generation (using woody biomass that would otherwise be treated as waste) has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when compared to natural gas combustion on a lifecycle basis.  Lifecycle analysis looks beyond stack emissions to include: extraction/harvest, transportation, facility construction, plant operation, plant decommissioning, “alternative fates” of the fuels,  whether the carbon in the fuel is already part of the natural carbon cycle or are being added to that cycle, and carbon sequestration dynamics for a “sustainable” forestry operation (we’re still considering the most appropriate definition of “sustainable”).  This is all especially true if the facility is:

• designed primarily to produce heat (can be 3x more efficient than electricity production);
• in an existing “district heating” system (think steam distribution);
• on a relatively small scale;
• in a geographic region with large amounts of potential biomass fuel within a short driving distance;
• using forest residue or waste (e.g. slash, thinnings, etc.), not municipal solid waste or construction waste with additional chemical content;
• using technologies that maximize energy production and minimize emissions.

Our biomass gasification proposal has all of those characteristics.

What are some examples of the “credible research” that indicates biomass would be a plausible choice for Evergreen’s renewable energy needs and should even be explored?

Please go to our References page for more detailed information.

What are the health implications related to emissions from biomass gasification?

While lifecycle analyses generally indicate that a biomass gasification plant would have comparable or lower emissions than natural gas or coal (for Nox, Sox, etc.), the college has an interest in confirming these findings. The American Lung Association source below is often cited by others as an all-out condemnation of biomass energy based on health effects. It’s helpful to read the entire document, including the characteristics noted for responsible/acceptable use of biomass, and the footnotes. The footnoted documents cited in the American Lung Association document for statements quoted widely elsewhere don’t appear to reference dioxins and PAH as indicated, so it’s hard to track down the origin of those assertions (dioxins are usually linked to biomass plants that burn municipal solid waste, old style mill boilers burning seawater saturated wood debris, and sometimes to those that burn construction debris that has other chemical content). The facility proposed for Evergreen would include technologies to significantly reduce NOx and particulates (as the Lung Association urges). That said, all emissions (in addition to CO2) are definitely a consideration in our exploration of biomass.

American Lung Association – Massachusetts Chapter – Position statement on biomass for energy production

Is the primary source of fuel for the proposed biomass incinerators to come solely from trees and tree products? Yes. The system would be designed to use chipped wood and could not use another fuel without significant operational changes and recertification of the plant operating permit.

What kind of wood will you use for fuel, how much will you use and where will it come from?

We’re interested in forestry by-products that would otherwise be treated as a waste product. Slash, forest thinning, and urban tree trimmings are the primary types of wood to be used. Leaves, needles, and urban lawn clippings are not effective fuels. Whole trees, marketable as lumber, are worth far more than the college is able or willing to pay for fuel; only forestry ‘waste’ has fuel value.

The proposed facility would use about 12,000 tons a year (about 2 truck loads a day, 300 days per year). Numerous studies have indicated that biomass fuel should be sourced within a 30-50 mile radius of the plant. Thurston and the surrounding counties have the highest concentrations of woody biomass in the country (one of a handful of such regions in the country), so access to large amounts of biomass nearby is not the issue it might be in other regions. Evergreen is interested in working with suppliers that use sustainable forestry practices. The college is exploring possible fuel sources and will be choosing a definition of “sustainable practices” that aligns with its environmental, economic and social values. That definition has not yet been determined.

Biomass fuel in Western Washington will almost certainly come from our forests. This raises a large number of concerns, questions, and fears about the resulting impacts upon those forests. Not only is this an emotional subject for many people, but it is also a complex subject in which multiple priorities must be balanced in an intricate ecosystem. Each perspective raises a different set of priorities and preferred actions. Though there is a range of opinions about what is ‘best’ for the forest and us, one key concern underlying all these discussions is the very real threat of loss of forestland, either through clear cutting, fire and disease, or economic pressures leading to the ‘conversion’ of forest land to residential or urban development.

Another consideration not always present in the concerns we’ve heard to date is that of property rights. The college has to shape its decision in a real world in which forest landowners make their own decisions about their forest management practices, though we can certainly try to have a long-term, positive influence on those decisions.

Northwestern forests play an important role in carbon sequestration, but there are two distinctive sequestration measures to keep in mind. The first measure is the Carbon Stock, which is the amount of carbon already sequestered in existing plant material. The second measure is the Sequestration Rate, which is the amount of new carbon absorbed and sequestered during a defined time period. The carbon stock and sequestration rate are not the same, though they are easily confused.

Does Washington have laws related to forest biomass?  Yes.

Forest biomass is currently qualified and defined as a forestry by-product in Washington State law.

RCW 70.235 - Limiting greenhouse gas emissions

.020 – Reporting requirements.

(3) Except for purposes of reporting, emissions of carbon dioxide from industrial combustion of biomass in the form of fuel wood, wood waste, wood by-products, and wood residuals shall not be considered a greenhouse gas as long as the region’s silvicultural sequestration capacity is maintained or increased.

RCW 79.02 – Public Lands Management – General

.010 – Definitions.

(6)(a) “Forest biomass” means the by-products of: Current forest management activities; current forest protection treatments prescribed or permitted under chapter 76.04 RCW; or the by-products of forest health treatment prescribed or permitted under chapter 76.06 RCW.

(b) “Forest biomass” does not include wood pieces that have been treated with chemical preservatives such as: Creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper-chrome-arsenic; wood from existing old growth forests; wood required to be left on-site under chapter 76.09 RCW, the state forest practices act; and implementing rules, and other legal and contractual requirements; or municipal solid waste.

RCW 79.150 – Forest biomass materials located on state lands

.010 – Findings.

The legislature finds that biomass utilization on state forest lands must be accomplished in a manner that retains organic components of the forest necessary to restore or sustain forest ecological functions.

August 11, 2010

Evergreen faculty and staff members met with Kirk Hanson of the Northwest Natural Resource Group and Rachael Jamison of the Department of Natural Resources to discuss impacts and concerns around biomass fuel sourcing.

We had an extremely valuable discussion covering sustainable forestry practices, the role and values of biomass in forestry, and the potential economic benefits of biomass fuel for depressed rural communities.

Meeting notes may be found HERE.

August 9, 2010

Members of the Sustainability Council and some faculty members met on July 22nd to discuss strategies to address the questions raised on July 16th. Notes from the meeting can be found HERE.

A follow up meeting was held on August 3rd to continue our progress on addressing additional study components. Notes may be found HERE.

July 21, 2010

About 30 people attended a biomass gasification feasibility study planning meeting on Friday, July 16. We invited a diverse group from inside and outside the college, and were able to validate and define a number of key questions to be explored during the course of our feasibility study. Please see HERE for a brief summary of those questions from the meeting. As discussed in the meeting, the final recommendations on this project have not been made. Our work now is to answer the critical questions raised.

It was clear that many people would like to have access to background research that pointed to biomass gasification as a potentially viable renewable energy alternative for campus heating. Please refer to the Renewable Energy page of this blog for that information.

The biomass gasification project is defined in our Climate Action plan as a major step towards carbon neutrality, and we must keep that goal in mind. Carbon neutrality is new territory for the whole world, and thus is a very ambitious goal for Evergreen. There are no known, proven solutions. By actively exploring and implementing carbon reduction strategies, Evergreen is working to take a leadership role in response to one of the greatest challenges of our time.

What we do know is that we will not be carbon neutral if we continue our business as usual reliance on fossil fuels. Further, we may very well have to create the support structures necessary to maintain a working solution. We need to step carefully as we move forward, but we cannot accomplish anything by standing still. Complacency is not an option when we are talking about global warming, and as a distinctive, interdisciplinary college with a history of thinking broadly and creatively, Evergreen is an ideal place to carefully evaluate new options.

We have faculty members able to provide scientific, research-based, and real-world expertise. We have students who are engaged, willing to question, and driven to find working solutions. We have an administration that fully supports this goal, and we have professional staff members fully engaged in defining a workable solution.

Whether we find biomass gasification to be feasible and carbon neutral or not, our most important strength in working to solve the larger puzzle of achieving carbon neutrality is our culture of inter-disciplinary, critical inquiry.  This is an essential asset.  We can navigate through the uncertainties that lie between us and carbon neutrality because we are a community dedicated to critical thought with the ability to apply theory in real-world practice.

June 8, 2010

Check our Frequently Asked Questions page for more information on biomass gasification. Check back here regularly for progress reports.

May 21, 2010

When a group of Evergreen’s Master of Environmental Studies (MES) students was challenged in winter 2009 to help draft a comprehensive Climate Action Plan to guide the college to carbon neutrality by 2020, alternative energy sources became a critical topic.  If Evergreen could find a cleaner and greener alternative to natural gas (a fossil fuel) for heating and cooling campus buildings, the college could greatly accelerate its progress toward carbon neutrality.

Class research into renewable energy technologies confirmed that bio-mass gasification was the best available option for on-site energy generation.

In brief, bio-mass gasification heats wood fuel in an oxygen-starved environment to create a combustible synthetic gas (“syn-gas”) that can serve as a substitute for natural gas.  This differs from some bio-mass energy solutions that burn wood or other fuels directly.  Gasification eliminates the smoke common in other bio-mass processes, greatly reduces the release of particulates and produces a by-product (ash) that can be used as a soil supplement.  Our initial research indicates that emissions from gasification are much cleaner than those from other combustion or bio-mass alternatives.

The bio-mass gasification strategy proposed by the MES student team was subsequently reviewed by Evergreen’s Sustainability Council and council work group members (including students, staff and faculty) and accepted for inclusion in the college’s Climate Action Plan adopted in September 2009 as being worth further research and consideration. Later in the fall of 2009, the student Clean Energy Committee voted to help fund the college’s feasibility study of this greenhouse gas mitigation strategy.

Evergreen is currently investigating the feasibility of an on-site, bio-mass gasification renewable energy plant designed to:

• provide heat for the campus;
• substantially reduce our dependence on fossil fuel (natural gas);
• substantially reduce our carbon footprint;
• re-direct our annual energy dollars into the local economy; and
• provide the potential capacity for co-generation of our electricity, which would divert a substantially greater energy budget from an international corporation into our regional, Puget Sound economy.

What we’re considering:

The college uses two main types of energy; purchased electricity and natural gas, which is burned to produce steam to provide heat for the campus. We currently purchase Renewable Energy Credits to guarantee that our electricity is generated by wind and other sustainable energy processes, not from combustion of fossil fuels or hydropower. We are now seeking to develop a renewable replacement for natural gas so that we can effectively eliminate our biggest need for fossil fuels.

The only reliable and consistently available source of renewable energy within the scope of our local region derives from plants (bio-mass). Wind and sunshine are not replacements for natural gas (they create electricity), nor are they adequate at this locality to meet our total energy needs. Plants, however, grow quite well in our corner of the state.

The gasification system under consideration for Evergreen uses chipped, dry wood to create syn-gas.  Possible fuel sources include forest wood waste/slash and urban wood waste from construction.  The models we have seen thus far, including those at Middlebury College (along with Evergreen, one of the top “green” colleges in the country) and Green Mountain College rely on organic fuel sources broadly available in their regions.

What it isn’t:

The bio-mass gasification process under consideration is not:

• an incinerator for trash or any other mixed-waste fuel
• a wood-burning boiler

It should be clear that this technology will not work with trash or common waste streams, nor would it be legal to change the fuel type without applying for a new operating permit from the regional clean air regulatory agency.

What remains to be determined:

Our feasibility study will research the economic, environmental, and social costs and benefits of this plan. We have defined values that we feel this project must meet, including environmentally responsible harvesting and an emissions profile that is as clean as or cleaner than our current emissions from natural gas.

We have yet to define our fuel source, as well as the environmental and economic impacts of this project if it were to be built. No final decisions have been, or can be made at this point. We are still collecting information.

How you can get involved:

We encourage anyone (students, faculty or staff) interested in or concerned about this idea to engage with our planning process and help to ensure that we develop a truly beneficial and sustainable renewable energy option. Please contact Scott Morgan in the Office of Sustainability (sustainabilityoffice@evergreen.edu) to get involved. Feasibility planning is expected to continue through January 2011, at which time a campus dialogue will inform final decisions on the project.

Apr 26, 2010

We now have a legislative appropriation equivalent to the funding dedicated by the Clean Energy Committee, as well as by the college. This is sufficient to fund a full pre-design study to address the feasibility and means of building a bio-mass gasification plant on campus to reduce our reliance upon fossil fuels and substantially reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The study will begin soon, along with a general educational process on the aspects, benefits, and trade-offs of the proposed plant.

Dec 29, 2009

Funds to match the CEC contribution have been appropriated for the pre-design/pre-planning process from college reserves, and a supplemental budget request has been submitted to the state for matching funds. Our request was not included in the Governor’s proposed budget, but will be included with all requests that the Legislature will be deliberating during this year’s session.

Nov 4, 2009

The Clean Energy Committee has dedicated funds collected for student support of renewable energy projects on campus to cover one-third of the cost of a comprehensive pre-planning process to study the full feasibility and impacts of a bio-mass gasification plant for the Evergreen campus. We are currently seeking to acquire the other two-thirds funding from college reserves and the state.

More information about the bio-mass gasification process under consideration may be found here:

http://www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/biomass%20gasification.htm

Please check back regularly for updates.

Comments or concerns may be left below.