Vail Resorts, Inc. -- the largest ski and mountain resort operator in the world -- has announced a comprehensive sustainability commitment that calls for "zero net emissions by 2030, zero waste to landfill by 2030 and zero net operating impact to forests and habitat." According to the company, Vail Resorts' "Epic Promise for a Zero Footprint" will give resort guests and employees "the opportunity to enjoy the natural environment and resources without leaving an impact."
Vail Resorts' subsidiaries operate 11 mountain resorts and three urban ski areas, including Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge and Keystone in Colorado; Park City in Utah; Heavenly, Northstar and Kirkwood in the Lake Tahoe area of California and Nevada; Whistler Blackcomb in British Columbia, Canada; Perisher in Australia; Stowe in Vermont; Wilmot Mountain in Wisconsin; Afton Alps in
Minnesota and Mt. Brighton in Michigan. The company also owns and operates hotels as well as a real estate planning and development subsidiary.
In a July 25, 2017, press release, Vail Resorts announced its "Epic Promise for a Zero Footprint" sustainability commitment. Pointing to Whistler Blackcomb's environmental commitment as inspiration, Vail Resorts announced its intent "to go beyond setting a partial emissions reduction target by executing on a more expansive and ambitious plan."
With respect to net zero emissions from operations by 2030, the Vail Resorts plan calls for continued reduction of the company's electricity and gas use by improving operating practices and investing $25 million
in innovative, energy-saving projects, such as low-energy snowmaking
equipment, green building design and construction, and more efficient
grooming practices and equipment. Among other measures, it envisions purchasing 100 percent renewable energy equivalent to Vail Resorts'
total electrical energy use and working with utilities and local,
regional and national governments to bring more renewable energy to the
grids where the company operates its resorts. As an interim goal, the plan states the company's intent to achieve a 50 percent reduction in its net emissions by 2025, based on 2016 levels.
Other 2030 goals set in the Vail Resorts plan include "zero waste to landfill" (by diverting
100 percent of the waste from its operations to more sustainable
pathways) and "zero net operating impact to forests and habitat" (by measures including mitigation, tree planting and forest restoration, and minimizing or eliminating the impact of any future resort development).
Energy powers society; society's choices shape energy policy. A blog about our energy resources and the choices they present for society.
Showing posts with label waste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label waste. Show all posts
Maine considers nuclear energy law change
Monday, April 13, 2015
The Maine legislature is considering a proposal to amend state laws regarding the siting and construction of new nuclear power plants. The bill known as LD 1313, "An Act To Amend the Laws Regarding Nuclear Power Generating Facilities", is listed as a "Governor's Bill", indicating its origin from Maine Governor Paul LePage. What might LD 1313 mean for Maine?
Maine is not currently home to any operating nuclear power plants. From 1972 to 1996, the Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant operated a 900 megawatt reactor in Wiscasset. While it operated, Maine Yankee was the state's largest generator of electricity. But a Nuclear Regulatory Commission investigation launched in 1995 identified safety and other problems that ultimately rendered continued plant operation uneconomic; the site was decommissioned from 1997 through 2005, with spent fuel remaining on site to date.
Maine Yankee was controversial from its inception, with significant opposition to its construction from anti-nuclear groups and others. Partially in response to this controversy, in 1987 Maine enacted a law "to provide for citizen participation in any decision to construct a nuclear power plant within the State." As part of that law (as amended in 1999), the Legislature enacted a finding "that construction of a nuclear power plant is a major financial investment, which will have consequences for consumers for years to come." The law also included a finding that, "In the recent past, investments in nuclear power plants have caused severe financial strain on consumers." In addition, the law required a statewide voter referendum prior to the construction of any nuclear power plant in Maine, and prohibited construction of a nuclear power plant without this voter approval.
Governor LePage's proposal would amend those two sections of existing law relating to the process for siting nuclear power plants. First, LD 1313 would delete the legislative finding that "In the recent past, investments in nuclear power plants have caused severe financial strain on consumers." Second, LD 1313 would limit the referendum requirement to nuclear power plants "with capacity greater than 500 megawatts."
LD 1313 would appear to encourage the construction of relatively small nuclear power plants in Maine -- that is, those with capacity of 500 megawatts or smaller, roughly half of Maine Yankee's size. But of the approximately 100 nuclear power plants in commercial operation in the U.S. today, nearly all can generate more than 500 megawatts of power. The Omaha Public Power District's Fort Calhoun plant in Nebraska is rated at 476 megawatts, and is one of the only commercial reactors in the U.S. smaller than 500 megawatts. The technical and security aspects of nuclear power have traditionally pushed utilities to develop relatively large nuclear power plants, making the development of small but traditional nuclear power in Maine relatively unlikely.
Perhaps more likely to benefit if LD 1313 is enacted would be the development of small modular nuclear reactors. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, small modular reactors offer the advantage of lower initial capital investment, scalability, and siting flexibility at locations unable to accommodate more traditional larger reactors. They also have the potential for enhanced safety and security. The Department of Energy has expressed interest in advancing small modular reactor technology. If LD 1313 is enacted, it could eliminate the requirement of statewide voter approval of the construction of a nuclear power plant using small modular reactor technology.
But whether LD 1313's enactment would actually lead to the construction of small modular reactors in Maine is unclear. Is the voter referendum requirement really the chief obstacle to small modular reactor construction in Maine? Or can Maine's lack of small modular reactors be explained by other limitations -- like technology, financing, or safety regulations?
LD 1313 has been referred to the Maine State Legislature's Joint Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology. To date, no public hearing has been scheduled.
Maine is not currently home to any operating nuclear power plants. From 1972 to 1996, the Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant operated a 900 megawatt reactor in Wiscasset. While it operated, Maine Yankee was the state's largest generator of electricity. But a Nuclear Regulatory Commission investigation launched in 1995 identified safety and other problems that ultimately rendered continued plant operation uneconomic; the site was decommissioned from 1997 through 2005, with spent fuel remaining on site to date.
Maine Yankee was controversial from its inception, with significant opposition to its construction from anti-nuclear groups and others. Partially in response to this controversy, in 1987 Maine enacted a law "to provide for citizen participation in any decision to construct a nuclear power plant within the State." As part of that law (as amended in 1999), the Legislature enacted a finding "that construction of a nuclear power plant is a major financial investment, which will have consequences for consumers for years to come." The law also included a finding that, "In the recent past, investments in nuclear power plants have caused severe financial strain on consumers." In addition, the law required a statewide voter referendum prior to the construction of any nuclear power plant in Maine, and prohibited construction of a nuclear power plant without this voter approval.
Governor LePage's proposal would amend those two sections of existing law relating to the process for siting nuclear power plants. First, LD 1313 would delete the legislative finding that "In the recent past, investments in nuclear power plants have caused severe financial strain on consumers." Second, LD 1313 would limit the referendum requirement to nuclear power plants "with capacity greater than 500 megawatts."
LD 1313 would appear to encourage the construction of relatively small nuclear power plants in Maine -- that is, those with capacity of 500 megawatts or smaller, roughly half of Maine Yankee's size. But of the approximately 100 nuclear power plants in commercial operation in the U.S. today, nearly all can generate more than 500 megawatts of power. The Omaha Public Power District's Fort Calhoun plant in Nebraska is rated at 476 megawatts, and is one of the only commercial reactors in the U.S. smaller than 500 megawatts. The technical and security aspects of nuclear power have traditionally pushed utilities to develop relatively large nuclear power plants, making the development of small but traditional nuclear power in Maine relatively unlikely.
Perhaps more likely to benefit if LD 1313 is enacted would be the development of small modular nuclear reactors. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, small modular reactors offer the advantage of lower initial capital investment, scalability, and siting flexibility at locations unable to accommodate more traditional larger reactors. They also have the potential for enhanced safety and security. The Department of Energy has expressed interest in advancing small modular reactor technology. If LD 1313 is enacted, it could eliminate the requirement of statewide voter approval of the construction of a nuclear power plant using small modular reactor technology.
But whether LD 1313's enactment would actually lead to the construction of small modular reactors in Maine is unclear. Is the voter referendum requirement really the chief obstacle to small modular reactor construction in Maine? Or can Maine's lack of small modular reactors be explained by other limitations -- like technology, financing, or safety regulations?
LD 1313 has been referred to the Maine State Legislature's Joint Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology. To date, no public hearing has been scheduled.
Energy Department offers $4 billion loan guarantee program for renewable energy and efficiency projects
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
The U.S. Department of Energy has announced a $4 billion loan guarantee program for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.
The Renewable Energy and Efficient Energy Projects Loan Guarantee program is intended to support the first commercial-scale deployments of the next wave of innovative clean energy technologies. Through the program, the Energy Department solicits applications for loan guarantees. When a successful applicant borrows money for project finance from a commercial bank, the federal government promises to assume the borrower's debt obligation if that borrower defaults. This guarantee serves as a credit backstop for the borrower, ultimately reducing its cost of financing because the lender knows it has resort to federal funds if the borrower cannot repay the loan.
The current program follows a series of previous Energy Department loan guarantee programs. These programs have helped finance projects including the NRG Solar, LLC's 290-megawatt Agua Caliente solar photovoltaic array (the world's largest), NRG Energy, Inc.'s 392-megwatt Brightsource concentrating solar power (CSP) plant (also the world's largest), the 845-megawatt Caithness Shepherds Flat wind project, and Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass of Kansas LLC's cellulosic ethanol plant. While not all of the previous programs' awardees have been successful -- for example, failed solar panel maker Solyndra -- the Department touts the programs as aligned with President Obama's Climate Action Plan, by supporting investment in domestic energy resources and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
To be eligible for the present solicitation (48-page PDF), a project must be located in the United States and meet both of the following criteria:
Under the solicitation, the first round of application materials is due on October 1, 2014. For more information on the opportunity, contact the Energy Department, or consult a professional experienced with financing and developing energy projects.
The Preti Flaherty team advises our clients on all aspects of energy project development, including the pursuit of federal funding and financial support. For more information, please contact Todd Griset at 207-623-5300.
The Renewable Energy and Efficient Energy Projects Loan Guarantee program is intended to support the first commercial-scale deployments of the next wave of innovative clean energy technologies. Through the program, the Energy Department solicits applications for loan guarantees. When a successful applicant borrows money for project finance from a commercial bank, the federal government promises to assume the borrower's debt obligation if that borrower defaults. This guarantee serves as a credit backstop for the borrower, ultimately reducing its cost of financing because the lender knows it has resort to federal funds if the borrower cannot repay the loan.
The current program follows a series of previous Energy Department loan guarantee programs. These programs have helped finance projects including the NRG Solar, LLC's 290-megawatt Agua Caliente solar photovoltaic array (the world's largest), NRG Energy, Inc.'s 392-megwatt Brightsource concentrating solar power (CSP) plant (also the world's largest), the 845-megawatt Caithness Shepherds Flat wind project, and Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass of Kansas LLC's cellulosic ethanol plant. While not all of the previous programs' awardees have been successful -- for example, failed solar panel maker Solyndra -- the Department touts the programs as aligned with President Obama's Climate Action Plan, by supporting investment in domestic energy resources and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
To be eligible for the present solicitation (48-page PDF), a project must be located in the United States and meet both of the following criteria:
1. Use renewable energy systems; efficient electrical generation, transmission, and distribution technologies; or efficient end-use energy technologies; andBeyond these general criteria, the Energy Department's Loan Programs Office has identified five target areas for awards:
2. Meet both of the following requirements : a) Avoid, reduce, or sequester anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases; and b) employ new or significantly improved technology as compared to commercial technology in service in the United States.
- Advanced Grid Integration and Storage: mitigating issues related to variability, dispatchability, congestion, and control of renewable energy systems by incorporating technologies such as demand response or local storage, enabling enhanced integration of renewable energy into the grid.
- Drop-In Biofuels: developing biofuels that are more compatible with today’s engines, delivery infrastructure and refueling station equipment, enabling nearly identical bio-based substitutes for crude oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel.
- Waste-to-Energy: projects using waste materials which are otherwise discarded, such as landfill methane and segregated waste, as energy sources.
- Enhancement of Existing Facilities: incorporating renewable generation technology into existing renewable energy and efficient energy facilities to significantly enhance performance or extend the lifetime of the generating asset.
- Efficiency Improvements: projects incorporating new or improved technologies to further improve on energy efficiency that would substantially reduce greenhouse gases.
Under the solicitation, the first round of application materials is due on October 1, 2014. For more information on the opportunity, contact the Energy Department, or consult a professional experienced with financing and developing energy projects.
The Preti Flaherty team advises our clients on all aspects of energy project development, including the pursuit of federal funding and financial support. For more information, please contact Todd Griset at 207-623-5300.
Biofuels lead growth in U.S. biomass energy
Monday, March 24, 2014
The use of energy from biomass resources in the United States grew more than 60% over the decade between 2002 and 2013 -- primarily in the form of increased use of biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel that are produced from biomass.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, biomass accounted for about half of all renewable energy consumed in 2013 and 5% of total U.S. energy consumed. The three primary sources of this biomass are wood and forest products byproducts, waste including municipal solid waste and landfill gas, and raw organic feedstocks like corn and soybean oil used to produce biofuels.
Of biomass energy resources, biofuels experienced the greatest growth over the last decade. From 2002 to 2013, biofuels created from biomass grew more than 500%, driven largely by increases in U.S. production of ethanol and biodiesel for blending as transportation fuels. These biofuels are typically produced from feedstocks such as agricultural crops and other plant material, animal byproducts, and recycled waste. For U.S. ethanol production, corn is the dominant feedstock, while biodiesel producers rely on soybean oil for just over half of feedstock needs and an array of biomass resources for the rest. Market demand for these biofuels comes in part from federal mandates such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires the blending of certain volumes of biofuels into gasoline and diesel.
Meanwhile, EIA data shows that consumption of wood and waste energy increased just 4% over the decade. About two-thirds of U.S. wood energy is consumed for industrial processes, while nearly all U.S. waste energy is consumed for electric generation or industrial processes.
If this trend continues, woody biomass and waste energy will continue to hold their positions in our portfolio of energy resources, while continued growth in the conversion of biomass into biofuels for transportation and other needs will increase biofuels' weighting in the nation's energy mix. At the same time, debates continue over the cost and value of programs encouraging the growth of corn as a biofuel feedstock. What does the future hold for biomass in the U.S.?
 |
| A fuel pump displays prices for gasoline blended with up to 10% ethanol. |
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, biomass accounted for about half of all renewable energy consumed in 2013 and 5% of total U.S. energy consumed. The three primary sources of this biomass are wood and forest products byproducts, waste including municipal solid waste and landfill gas, and raw organic feedstocks like corn and soybean oil used to produce biofuels.
Of biomass energy resources, biofuels experienced the greatest growth over the last decade. From 2002 to 2013, biofuels created from biomass grew more than 500%, driven largely by increases in U.S. production of ethanol and biodiesel for blending as transportation fuels. These biofuels are typically produced from feedstocks such as agricultural crops and other plant material, animal byproducts, and recycled waste. For U.S. ethanol production, corn is the dominant feedstock, while biodiesel producers rely on soybean oil for just over half of feedstock needs and an array of biomass resources for the rest. Market demand for these biofuels comes in part from federal mandates such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires the blending of certain volumes of biofuels into gasoline and diesel.
Meanwhile, EIA data shows that consumption of wood and waste energy increased just 4% over the decade. About two-thirds of U.S. wood energy is consumed for industrial processes, while nearly all U.S. waste energy is consumed for electric generation or industrial processes.
If this trend continues, woody biomass and waste energy will continue to hold their positions in our portfolio of energy resources, while continued growth in the conversion of biomass into biofuels for transportation and other needs will increase biofuels' weighting in the nation's energy mix. At the same time, debates continue over the cost and value of programs encouraging the growth of corn as a biofuel feedstock. What does the future hold for biomass in the U.S.?
Flow chart of 2011 US energy use
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
A flow chart released by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory illustrates the sources and uses of energy in the United States. It depicts information about all the energy sources used to power society, as well as the breakdown of how that energy is used - or wasted - in electricity generation, transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial contexts.
On the energy source side, petroleum - oil, gasoline, and similar products - provides the largest share of the energy we consume, slightly more than a third of total energy. Natural gas comes in second, providing about a quarter of total energy, with coal coming in at another 20%. Altogether, these fossil fuels provided about 82% of the energy consumed in the U.S. in 2011. Nuclear power provided about 8% of the energy used. The remainder came from renewable resources including biomass, hydropower, wind, geothermal, and solar.
About 40% of the energy from these sources was used to generate electricity. The remainder was used directly for other purposes such as transportation, heating, and industrial processes.
On the use side, transportation consumed the largest share of energy, about 28%. The industrial sector consumed another 24% of the energy. Households consumed about 11%, and commercial businesses consumed about 9%.
This analysis of energy use leaves about 27% of the energy unaccounted for. This energy was consumed in the generation of electricity, but was "rejected", meaning that it could not be captured for a useful purpose. Waste heat being emitted from a generator is a classic example of this rejected energy. End users from industry to residences also waste or reject energy; in fact, according to the chart, 57% of the total energy consumed in the U.S. in 2011 was rejected, while only 43% was put to a useful purpose.
About 40% of the energy from these sources was used to generate electricity. The remainder was used directly for other purposes such as transportation, heating, and industrial processes.
On the use side, transportation consumed the largest share of energy, about 28%. The industrial sector consumed another 24% of the energy. Households consumed about 11%, and commercial businesses consumed about 9%.
This analysis of energy use leaves about 27% of the energy unaccounted for. This energy was consumed in the generation of electricity, but was "rejected", meaning that it could not be captured for a useful purpose. Waste heat being emitted from a generator is a classic example of this rejected energy. End users from industry to residences also waste or reject energy; in fact, according to the chart, 57% of the total energy consumed in the U.S. in 2011 was rejected, while only 43% was put to a useful purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
