10. Renewable Energy

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

10. Renewable Energy 10. Renewable Energy Figure 10.1 Renewable Energy Consumption (Quadrillion Btu) Major Sources, 1949–2020 6 Biomass [a] 4 Hydroelectric Power [b] 2 Wind [a] Solar [a] 0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 By Source, 2020 By Sector, 2020 4 8 7.0 3.0 3 6 2.6 2.1 2.0 2 4 1.2 2.3 1 2 1.3 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 0 0 Wind [a] Hydroelectric Wood [a] Biofuels [a] Solar [a] Waste [a] Geothermal [a] Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Electric Power [b] Power Compared With Other Resources, 1949–2020 100 Fossil Fuels 80 60 40 20 Nuclear Electric Power Renewable Energy 0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 [a] See Table 10.1 for definition. Web Page: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#renewable. [b] Conventional hydroelectric power. Sources: Tables 1.3 and 10.1–10.2c. 176 U. S. Energy Information Administration / Monthly Energy Review August 2021 Table 10.1 Renewable Energy Production and Consumption by Source (Trillion Btu) Productiona Consumption Biomass Total Biomass Total Renew- Hydro- Renew- Bio- able electric Geo- Bio- able Woodb fuelsc Totald Energye Powerf thermalg Solarh Windi Woodj Wastek fuelsl Total Energy 1950 Total .................... 1,562 NA 1,562 2,978 1,415 NA NA NA 1,562 NA NA 1,562 2,978 1955 Total .................... 1,424 NA 1,424 2,784 1,360 NA NA NA 1,424 NA NA 1,424 2,784 1960 Total .................... 1,320 NA 1,320 2,928 1,608 (s) NA NA 1,320 NA NA 1,320 2,928 1965 Total .................... 1,335 NA 1,335 3,396 2,059 2 NA NA 1,335 NA NA 1,335 3,396 1970 Total .................... 1,429 NA 1,431 4,070 2,634 6 NA NA 1,429 2 NA 1,431 4,070 1975 Total .................... 1,497 NA 1,499 4,687 3,155 34 NA NA 1,497 2 NA 1,499 4,687 1980 Total .................... 2,474 NA 2,475 5,428 2,900 53 NA NA 2,474 2 NA 2,475 5,428 1985 Total .................... 2,687 93 3,016 6,084 2,970 97 (s) (s) 2,687 236 93 3,016 6,084 1990 Total .................... 2,216 111 2,735 6,040 3,046 171 59 29 2,216 408 111 2,735 6,040 1995 Total .................... 2,370 198 3,099 6,557 3,205 152 68 33 2,370 531 200 3,101 6,559 2000 Total .................... 2,262 233 3,006 6,102 2,811 164 63 57 2,262 511 236 3,008 6,104 2005 Total .................... 2,137 561 3,101 6,221 2,703 181 58 178 2,137 403 574 3,114 6,234 2006 Total .................... 2,099 716 3,212 6,586 2,869 181 61 264 2,099 397 766 3,262 6,637 2007 Total .................... 2,089 970 3,472 6,510 2,446 186 66 341 2,089 413 983 3,485 6,523 2008 Total .................... 2,059 1,374 3,868 7,192 2,511 192 74 546 2,059 435 1,357 3,851 7,175 2009 Total .................... 1,935 1,570 3,957 7,625 2,669 200 78 721 1,935 452 1,553 3,940 7,608 2010 Total .................... 2,217 1,868 4,553 8,314 2,539 208 91 923 2,217 468 1,821 4,506 8,267 2011 Total .................... 2,213 2,029 4,704 9,300 3,103 212 112 1,168 2,213 462 1,934 4,609 9,204 2012 Total .................... 2,151 1,929 4,547 8,886 2,629 212 159 1,340 2,151 467 1,890 4,508 8,847 2013 Total .................... 2,338 1,981 4,816 9,418 2,562 214 225 1,601 2,338 496 2,014 4,848 9,451 2014 Total .................... 2,401 2,103 5,020 9,766 2,467 214 337 1,728 2,401 516 2,077 4,994 9,740 2015 Total .................... 2,312 2,161 4,992 9,729 2,321 212 427 1,777 2,312 518 2,153 4,983 9,720 2016 Total .................... 2,299 2,275 5,077 10,425 2,472 210 570 2,096 2,226 503 2,287 5,017 10,365 2017 Total .................... 2,263 2,344 5,103 11,200 2,767 210 777 2,343 2,185 495 2,304 4,983 11,080 2018 Total .................... 2,356 2,397 5,239 11,509 2,663 209 915 2,482 2,261 487 2,283 5,032 11,302 2019 January ................ 203 195 437 945 221 18 52 216 196 39 177 413 921 February .............. 184 177 397 875 204 16 56 201 176 36 172 384 862 March ................... 197 191 426 992 235 18 84 230 189 38 186 414 980 April ..................... 186 193 415 1,032 248 16 95 257 178 36 185 398 1,015 May ...................... 193 202 432 1,065 285 17 102 230 185 36 199 421 1,054 June ..................... 192 197 425 1,002 250 17 110 200 182 36 194 412 989 July ...................... 201 203 440 989 222 18 113 197 192 37 197 426 975 August ................. 204 199 440 946 201 18 109 178 193 37 194 424 930 September ........... 192 182 408 904 165 17 95 218 182 35 179 396 891 October ................ 194 192 423 932 163 16 85 246 185 37 191 413 922 November ............ 193 192 422 903 180 14 63 224 184 37 187 408 889 December ............ 202 203 444 942 191 16 53 237 192 39 194 425 922 Total .................... 2,340 2,328 5,110 11,527 2,564 201 1,017 2,635 2,236 442 2,255 4,933 11,350 2020 January ................ 189 203 432 994 226 17 66 254 182 39 187 408 970 February .............. 180 187 403 994 235 16 78 262 172 36 174 382 973 March ................... 188 184 410 995 210 19 94 263 178 38 162 379 964 April ..................... 179 113 328 917 197 18 112 262 171 36 112 319 908 May ...................... 187 137 360 1,033 271 18 132 252 179 36 146 361 1,035 June ..................... 177 164 374 1,044 259 17 130 263 167 33 167 367 1,037 July ...................... 181 181 397 999 246 18 139 198 174 35 179 388 991 August ................. 184 179 399 960 214 18 129 200 176 35 175 386 946 September ........... 179 175 388 891 171 18 109 205 169 33 174 376 879 October ................ 182 184 402 941 163 18 101 257 174 36 173 382 921 November ............ 184 186 405 999 194 18 81 300 175 35 173 383 978 December ............ 195 188 421 1,008 206 19 74 289 184 38 178 400 988 Total .................... 2,207 2,081 4,719 11,777 2,592 214 1,246 3,006 2,101 430 2,000 4,532 11,590 2021 January ................ 189 177 404 1,005 233 18 79 271 181 38 165 383 984 February .............. 171 140 345 885 197 17 88 238 162 33 149 345 884 March ................... 188 181 406 1,091 190 17 125 352 177 37 191 405 1,089 April ..................... 178 174 387 1,039 171 17 144 320 169 35 180 384 1,036 May ...................... 190 193 418 1,103 208 18 163 296 180 36 202 419 1,103 5-Month Total ..... 916 866 1,961 5,123 1,000 86 599 1,476 869 179 887 1,936 5,097 2020 5-Month Total ..... 924 824 1,933 4,934 1,139 88 481 1,293 882 185 781 1,849 4,850 2019 5-Month Total ..... 963 959 2,107 4,909 1,192 86 390 1,134 925 185 920 2,030 4,832 a For hydroelectric power, geothermal, solar, wind, and biomass waste, k Municipal solid waste from biogenic sources, landfill gas, sludge waste, production equals consumption. agricultural byproducts, and other biomass. Through 2000, also includes b Wood and wood-derived fuels. Through 2015, wood production equals non-renewable waste (municipal solid waste from non-biogenic sources, and consumption. Beginning in 2016, wood production equals consumption plus tire-derived fuels). densified biomass exports. l Fuel ethanol (minus denaturant), biodiesel, other renewable diesel fuel, and c Total biomass inputs to the production of fuel ethanol and biodiesel; excludes other renewable fuels consumption; plus losses and co-products from the other biofuels. production of fuel ethanol and biodiesel. d Includes biomass waste. NA=Not available. (s)=Less than 0.5 trillion Btu. e Hydroelectric power, geothermal, solar, wind, and biomass. Notes: • Production data are estimates. Consumption data are estimates, f Conventional hydroelectricity net generation (converted to Btu by multiplying except for hydroelectric power in 1949–1978 and 1989 forward, and wind. • See by the total fossil fuels heat rate factors in Table A6). Note, "Renewable Energy Production and Consumption," at end of section. g Geothermal electricity net generation (converted to Btu by multiplying by the • Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. total fossil fuels heat rate factors in Table A6), and geothermal heat pump and • Geographic coverage is the 50 states and the District of Columbia. direct use energy. Web Page: See http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#renewable (Excel h Solar photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal electricity net generation (converted and CSV files) for all available annual data beginning in 1949 and monthly data to Btu by multiplying by the total fossil fuels heat rate factors in Table A6), and solar beginning in 1973.
Recommended publications
  • 2020 ETHANOL INDUSTRY OUTLOOK 1 Focusing Forward, from Challenge to Opportunity
    RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION RFA Board of Directors Neil Koehler RFA Chairman Pacific Ethanol Inc. www.pacificethanol.com Jeanne McCaherty Charles Wilson Geoff Cooper Rick Schwarck RFA Vice Chair RFA Treasurer RFA President RFA Secretary Guardian Energy LLC Trenton Agri Products LLC Renewable Fuels Association Absolute Energy LLC www.guardiannrg.com www.trentonagriproducts.com www.EthanolRFA.org www.absenergy.org Neal Kemmet Mick Henderson Brian Kletscher Bob Pasma Ace Ethanol LLC Commonwealth Agri-Energy LLC Highwater Ethanol LLC Parallel Products www.aceethanol.com www.commonwealthagrienergy.com www.highwaterethanol.com www.parallelproducts.com Ray Baker Scott Mundt Pat Boyle Delayne Johnson Adkins Energy LLC Dakota Ethanol LLC Homeland Energy Solutions LLC Quad County Corn Processors Coop. www.adkinsenergy.com www.dakotaethanol.com www.homelandenergysolutions.com www.quad-county.com Eric McAfee John Didion Seth Harder Dana Lewis Aemetis Inc. Didion Ethanol LLC Husker Ag LLC Redfield Energy LLC www.aemetis.com www.didionmilling.com www.huskerag.com www.redfieldenergy.com Randall Doyal Carl Sitzmann Kevin Keiser Walter Wendland Al-Corn Clean Fuel LLC E Energy Adams LLC Ingredion Inc. Ringneck Energy LLC www.al-corn.com www.eenergyadams.com www.ingredion.com www.ringneckenergy.com Erik Huschitt Bill Pracht Chuck Woodside Brian Pasbrig Badger State Ethanol LLC East Kansas Agri-Energy LLC KAAPA Ethanol Holdings LLC Show Me Ethanol LLC www.badgerstateethanol.com www.ekaellc.com www.kaapaethanol.com www.smefuel.com Jim Leiting Jason Friedberg
    [Show full text]
  • Fuel Properties Comparison
    Alternative Fuels Data Center Fuel Properties Comparison Compressed Liquefied Low Sulfur Gasoline/E10 Biodiesel Propane (LPG) Natural Gas Natural Gas Ethanol/E100 Methanol Hydrogen Electricity Diesel (CNG) (LNG) Chemical C4 to C12 and C8 to C25 Methyl esters of C3H8 (majority) CH4 (majority), CH4 same as CNG CH3CH2OH CH3OH H2 N/A Structure [1] Ethanol ≤ to C12 to C22 fatty acids and C4H10 C2H6 and inert with inert gasses 10% (minority) gases <0.5% (a) Fuel Material Crude Oil Crude Oil Fats and oils from A by-product of Underground Underground Corn, grains, or Natural gas, coal, Natural gas, Natural gas, coal, (feedstocks) sources such as petroleum reserves and reserves and agricultural waste or woody biomass methanol, and nuclear, wind, soybeans, waste refining or renewable renewable (cellulose) electrolysis of hydro, solar, and cooking oil, animal natural gas biogas biogas water small percentages fats, and rapeseed processing of geothermal and biomass Gasoline or 1 gal = 1.00 1 gal = 1.12 B100 1 gal = 0.74 GGE 1 lb. = 0.18 GGE 1 lb. = 0.19 GGE 1 gal = 0.67 GGE 1 gal = 0.50 GGE 1 lb. = 0.45 1 kWh = 0.030 Diesel Gallon GGE GGE 1 gal = 1.05 GGE 1 gal = 0.66 DGE 1 lb. = 0.16 DGE 1 lb. = 0.17 DGE 1 gal = 0.59 DGE 1 gal = 0.45 DGE GGE GGE Equivalent 1 gal = 0.88 1 gal = 1.00 1 gal = 0.93 DGE 1 lb. = 0.40 1 kWh = 0.027 (GGE or DGE) DGE DGE B20 DGE DGE 1 gal = 1.11 GGE 1 kg = 1 GGE 1 gal = 0.99 DGE 1 kg = 0.9 DGE Energy 1 gallon of 1 gallon of 1 gallon of B100 1 gallon of 5.66 lb., or 5.37 lb.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Measuring the Impact on Crude Oil and Gasoline Prices Philip K. Verleger, Jr.1 This Paper
    The Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Measuring the Impact on Crude Oil and Gasoline Prices Philip K. Verleger, Jr.1 This paper examines the impact of the Renewable Fuel Standard program (RFS) on crude oil and gasoline prices. The RFS program was enacted fourteen years ago in 2005, but the particular focus of this paper is on the period from 2015 to 2018. The conclusions offered from this research are that the RFS program has provided economic benefits to consumers in the United States and worldwide. Retail gasoline prices are lower thanks to the program. The findings from an econometric model show that the savings to consumers resulting from the RFS averaged $0.22 per gallon from 2015 through 2018. Quantifying the Benefits of Renewable Fuels The first and most obvious benefit from renewables lies in the price of crude oil. The blending of approximately one million barrels per day of ethanol into U.S. motor fuels over the 2015 through 2018 period has lowered the average price of crude by $6 per barrel. This reduction has cut the retail gasoline price by $0.22 per gallon from the level that would have obtained absent the presence of ethanol in the motor gasoline supply. The lowering of gasoline prices confers a second benefit on consumers. Because gasoline demand is price inelastic, consumers have been able to allocate a smaller percentage of their total consumption budget to fuel purchases. This has allowed them to expend more on other goods. Over four years, US consumers have been able to spend almost $90 billion per year more on other goods because of gasoline prices being pulled down by renewable fuel use.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogas As a Transport Fuel—A System Analysis of Value Chain Development in a Swedish Context
    sustainability Article Biogas as a Transport Fuel—A System Analysis of Value Chain Development in a Swedish Context Muhammad Arfan *, Zhao Wang, Shveta Soam and Ola Eriksson Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, University of Gävle, SE-801 76 Gävle, Sweden; [email protected] (Z.W.); [email protected] (S.S.); [email protected] (O.E.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +46-704-400-593 Abstract: Biofuels policy instruments are important in the development and diffusion of biogas as a transport fuel in Sweden. Their effectiveness with links to geodemographic conditions has not been analysed systematically in studying biogas development in a less urbanised regions, with high po- tential and primitive gas infrastructure. One such region identified is Gävleborg in Sweden. By using value chain statistics, interviews with related actors, and studying biofuels policy instruments and implications for biogas development, it is found that the policy measures have not been as effective in the region as in the rest of Sweden due to different geodemographic characteristics of the region, which has resulted in impeded biogas development. In addition to factors found in previous studies, the less-developed biogas value chain in this region can be attributed particularly to undefined rules of the game, which is lack of consensus on trade-off of resources and services, unnecessary competition among several fuel alternatives, as well as the ambiguity of municipalities’ prioritization, and regional cultural differences. To strengthen the regional biogas sector, system actors need a strategy to eliminate blocking effects of identified local factors, and national policy instruments should provide mechanisms to process geographical conditions in regulatory, economic support, Citation: Arfan, M.; Wang, Z.; Soam, and market formation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard on Food and Feed Prices
    BRIEFING © 2021 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION JANUARY 2021 The impact of the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard on food and feed prices Jane O’Malley, Stephanie Searle Stakeholders have engaged in significant debate around the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and its impact on food and feed prices since its implementation in 2005. Various stakeholders have expressed concerns that the RFS has adverse economic impacts on consumers, livestock farmers, food manufacturers, and restaurants. This briefing paper reviews evidence of the impacts of the RFS on food prices, with a focus on corn and soy, and presents new analysis on the impact of the RFS on U.S. livestock farmers. We summarize the history of debate surrounding the RFS from the perspective of farmers, industry, and policymakers, and analyze its economic impacts relative to a counterfactual, no-RFS scenario. BACKGROUND ON THE RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD AND NATIONAL DEBATE Farmers in the United States consider the RFS to be a boon for their industry, particularly for the crops that are biofuel feedstocks, most notably corn and soybean. Today, nearly 40% of the U.S. national corn crop, or 6.2 billion bushels, is used for ethanol production while approximately 30% of soy oil produced in the United States is used in biodiesel.1 The RFS is generally believed by stakeholders to increase corn prices. www.theicct.org 1 David W. Olson and Thomas Capehart, “Dried Distillers Grains (DDGs) Have Emerged as a Key Ethanol Coproduct,” United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, October 1, 2019, https:// [email protected] www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/october/dried-distillers-grains-ddgs-have-emerged-as-a-key-ethanol- coproduct/; U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Fuels Standard
    EmergingEmerging AlternativeAlternative FuelFuel IssuesIssues May, 2007 Agricultural Air Quality Task Force Meeting Paul Argyropoulos, Senior Policy Advisor EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality FutureFuture forfor FuelsFuels MeetingMeeting inin thethe Middle?Middle? - Currently, More Questions than Answers - Environment Energy Economics The Sweet Spot ? 2 ExistingExisting andand EmergingEmerging IssuesIssues ThatThat WillWill ImpactImpact thethe FuelsFuels MixMix Production Technologies Infrastructure Sustainable Feedstocks Economics Metrics: Lifecycle, Energy, Hybrid Federal / State Incentives Energy Security, Diversity Vehicles/Engines and Sustainability Fleet Efficiency Environmental Protection: Fuel Types and Multi-Media Issues Usage Scenarios The Sweet Spot? Meeting Energy Needs, Environmental Protection Economically Sustainable 3 WhereWhere AreAre WeWe Now?Now? Federal Fuels – Systems / Integrated Approach Final National RFS – April 10, 2007 Reformulated Fuels Impact of Removal of Oxy Requirement Conventional Fuels The Re-emergence of “Alternative Fuels”? New/Future Fuels State Fuels State Air Quality Fuels (SIP Fuels) State Renewable and Alternative Fuels Other EPAct Section 1509 – Fuels Harmonization vs. Trend Toward Diversification National Biofuels Action Plan Biomass Research and Development Board National Advisory Council for Energy Policy and Technology 4 OverviewOverview ofof 20062006 U.S.U.S. FuelFuel RequirementsRequirements Source: ExxonMobil 2007 5 BoutiqueBoutique FuelsFuels fromfrom StateState
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying the Potential of Renewable Natural Gas to Support a Reformed Energy Landscape: Estimates for New York State
    energies Review Quantifying the Potential of Renewable Natural Gas to Support a Reformed Energy Landscape: Estimates for New York State Stephanie Taboada 1,2, Lori Clark 2,3, Jake Lindberg 1,2, David J. Tonjes 2,3,4 and Devinder Mahajan 1,2,* 1 Department of Materials Science and Chemical Engineering, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA; [email protected] (S.T.); [email protected] (J.L.) 2 Institute of Gas Innovation and Technology, Advanced Energy Research and Technology, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA; [email protected] (L.C.); [email protected] (D.J.T.) 3 Department of Technology and Society, Stony Brook University, 100 Nicolls Rd, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA 4 Waste Data and Analysis Center, Stony Brook University, 100 Nicolls Rd, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Public attention to climate change challenges our locked-in fossil fuel-dependent energy sector. Natural gas is replacing other fossil fuels in our energy mix. One way to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of fossil natural gas is to replace it with renewable natural gas (RNG). The benefits of utilizing RNG are that it has no climate change impact when combusted and utilized in the same applications as fossil natural gas. RNG can be injected into the gas grid, used as a transportation fuel, or used for heating and electricity generation. Less common applications include utilizing RNG to produce chemicals, such as methanol, dimethyl ether, and ammonia. The GHG impact should be quantified before committing to RNG. This study quantifies the potential production of biogas (i.e., Citation: Taboada, S.; Clark, L.; the precursor to RNG) and RNG from agricultural and waste sources in New York State (NYS).
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
    An Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles A Joint Study Sponsored by: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Energy May 1998 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Available electronically at http://www.doe.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 phone: 865.576.8401 fax: 865.576.5728 email: [email protected] Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 phone: 800.553.6847 fax: 703.605.6900 email: [email protected] online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste NREL/TP-580-24772 An Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles John Sheehan Vince Camobreco James Duffield Michael Graboski Housein Shapouri National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 A national laboratory of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Lantmännen Agroetanol, Sweden Bioenergy
    Lantmännen Agroetanol, Sweden Bioenergy Stringent CO reduction criteria lead to business Success Stories 2 success IEA Bioenergy: 02 2018 Year of implementation: 2005, updated 2015 Location: Norrköping, Sweden Technology: Ethanol biorefinery Location of the ethanol plant close to biomass-based CHP ensures deliveries of renewable electricity and process heat. Principle feedstocks: Wheat and other grains, as well as starch-rich residues from the food industry Products/markets: Fuel ethanol and co-products in the form of protein-rich feed. A further co-product here is the (biobased) carbon dioxide that is captured and sold as industrial raw material to customers in the food processing and packaging industry. Technology Readiness TRL 9 – actual system proven in operational environment Level (TRL): DESCRIPTION Lantmännen is a Swedish agricultural cooperative owned by 25,000 Swedish farmers, providing food, feed and fuel nationally and internationally. Since 2001, Lantmännen has produced fuel ethanol at a facility in Norrköping in South-Eastern Sweden based on wheat and other grains as well as residues from the food industry. The plant was initiated to develop new markets for agricultural products. Thanks to efficient processes, the use of renewable process energy from adjacent biomass-fueled CHP and important co-products in the form of protein-rich feed and biogas, the fuel ethanol produced reduces GHG emissions by more than 90 % compared to fossil fuels. From 2015, Lantmännen is also marketing a renewable ethanol fuel for diesel engines called Agro Cleanpower 95, which reduces GHG emissions by up to 90% compared to fossil diesel. A noteworthy co-product here is the (biobased) CO2 sold as industrial raw material to customers in the food processing and packaging industry, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Renewable Energy Data Book
    2018 Renewable Energy Data Book Acknowledgments This data book was produced by Sam Koebrich, Thomas Bowen, and Austen Sharpe; edited by Mike Meshek and Gian Porro; and designed by Al Hicks and Besiki Kazaishvili of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). We greatly appreciate the input, review, and support of Jenny Heeter (NREL); Yan (Joann) Zhou (Argonne National Laboratory); and Paul Spitsen (U.S. Department of Energy). Notes Capacity data are reported in watts (typically megawatts and gigawatts) of alternating current (AC) unless indicated otherwise. The primary data represented and synthesized in the 2018 Renewable Energy Data Book come from the publicly available data sources identified on page 142. Solar photovoltaic generation data include all grid-connected utility-scale and distributed photovoltaics. Total U.S. power generation numbers in this data book may difer from those reported by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) in the Electric Power Monthly and Monthly Energy Review. Reported U.S. wind capacity and generation data do not include smaller, customer-sited wind turbines (i.e., distributed wind). Front page photo: iStock 880915412; inset photos (left to right): iStock 754519; iStock 4393369; iStock 354309; iStock 2101722; iStock 2574180; iStock 5080552; iStock 964450922, Leslie Eudy, NREL 17854; iStock 627013054 Page 2: iStock 721000; page 8: iStock 5751076; page 19: photo from Invenergy LLC, NREL 14369; page 43: iStock 750178; page 54: iStock 754519; page 63: iStock 4393369; page 71: iStock 354309; page 76: iStock 2101722; page 81: iStock 2574180; page 85: iStock 5080552; page 88: iStock 964450922; page 98: photo by Leslie Eudy, NREL 17854; page 103: iStock 955015444; page 108: iStock 11265066; page 118: iStock 330791; page 128: iStock 183287196; and page 136, iStock 501095406.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Fuels Association Geoff Cooper [email protected] (636) 594-2284 16024 Manchester Road Ellisville, MO 63011
    July 31, 2020 Submitted by: Renewable Fuels Association Geoff Cooper [email protected] (636) 594-2284 16024 Manchester Road Ellisville, MO 63011 U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Research, Education, and Economics Submitted via portal: http://www.regulations.gov RE: Response to Request for Information (RFI) The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments in response to the Office of Research, Education, and Economics’ (REE) “Solicitation of Input from Stakeholders on Agricultural Innovation.” [Docket No. USDA-2020-0003] First organized in 1981, RFA serves as the prominent voice of advocacy for the renewable fuels industry. Its mission is to drive expanded demand for American-made renewable fuels and bioproducts worldwide. RFA’s 300-plus members produce billions of gallons of renewable fuel and millions of tons of valuable co-products each year and are working to help America become cleaner, safer, more energy secure, and more economically vibrant. As an initial matter, RFA strongly supports the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agriculture Innovation Agenda (AIA) initiative and encourages USDA to continue applying appropriate resources and attention to this important initiative. American growers and renewable fuel producers have a long history of rising to meet ambitious goals and taking on daunting challenges, and we are excited and eager to work with the Administration to make this new vision a reality. Not only will the AIA initiative’s Renewable Energy benchmarks, if achieved, stimulate long-term economic growth in rural America, it will also enhance sustainability, improve environmental quality, and provide lower costs and greater consumer choice at the pump.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Natural Gas: a Compliance and Voluntary Solution to Lower Greenhouse Gases BLUESOURCE IS…
    Renewable Natural Gas: A Compliance and Voluntary Solution to Lower Greenhouse Gases BLUESOURCE IS… DEVELOPER RETAILER INNOVATOR Largest and most-established carbon Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), Bluesource pioneers new offset developer in North America. Low Carbon Fuel Standard Credits environmental attribute markets, (LFCS) as well as carbon offsets creative commercial structures and 200+ Projects, 20+ Project Types proficient capital deployment. 150+ million tons of greenhouse gas emission reductions SIMPLE & EFFICIENT | UNMATCHED EXPERIENCE | COMPREHENSIVE & COST - EFFECTIVE | QUALIFIED Bluesource has been voted Best Project Developer and Best Offset Originator 4 years running by Environmental Finance. Salt Lake City San Francisco Calgary Toronto BLUESOURCE PROJECT PORTFOLIO 25+ RNG plants we pair to Voluntary Buyers, Green Tariff Utilities, Transportation End Use 3 BLUESOURCE RNG TEAM ▪ 4 hub offices: Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Calgary, and Toronto ▪ 43 employees Will Overly Lizzie Aldrich ▪ 10 employees on the RNG team Vice President Vice President of Business ▪ Will Overly- US RNG Business Unit Leader Development ▪ Sarah Johnson- US RNG director ▪ Chelle Davidson- RNG Compliance Manager ▪ Lizzie Aldrich- Ag Methane & LCFS specialist ▪ Justin Friesen- Registration & Implementation Sarah Johnson Chelle Davidson ▪ Courtney Messer- RNG Analyst Director of RNG Projects RNG Compliance Manager ▪ Jamie MacKinnon- Canadian RNG Leader ▪ Kevin Townsend- Offset, RIN & LCFS Sales ▪ Ben Massie- Offset, RIN & LCFS Sales ▪ Matt Harmer- Internal
    [Show full text]