DOCSLIB.ORG

Biopower Technical Strategy Workshop Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biopower Technical Strategy Workshop Report Preface The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE/EERE) invests in a diverse portfolio of energy technologies to achieve a stronger economy, a cleaner environment, and a secure energy future for America. The Biomass Program is an integral component of DOE/EERE’s efforts to diversify our energy supply. The program works with industrial partners, national laboratories, and other stakeholders to develop the technologies and systems needed to cost-effectively turn our abundant, domestic biomass resources into clean, affordable bioenergy. This report summarizes the results of a workshop sponsored by the DOE/EERE Biomass Program in Denver, Colorado, on December 2–3, 2009. The workshop was convened to identify and discuss challenges to the expanded use of biopower and the possible solutions, including technology research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) as well as policies and other market transformation mechanisms. This report underwent a formal public comment period during 2010. The comments that were received have been incorporated in this document in some form or addressed through other actions. For more information, contact: EERE Information Center 1-877-EERE-INFO (1-877-337-3463) www.eere.energy.gov/informationcenter Biomass Program Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585 www.eere.energy.gov/biomass Cover Photos Wood chips. Source: Verenium. Industrial turbine. Source: Brand X Pictures, Steven Allen Photography. Biomass gasifier at McNeil Station,Vermont. Source: NREL. Credit: Warren Gretz. Power lines. Source: IStock. Hybrid cottonwood tree farm. Source: NREL. Credit: Warren Gretz. BIOPOWER TECHNICAL STRATEGY WORKSHOP SUMMARY REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 GENESIS OF THE REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 6 2 CURRENT STATE OF THE BIOPOWER INDUSTRY .............................................................................. 7 2.1 GENERATING CAPACITY AND FEEDSTOCKS ............................................................................................. 7 2.1.1 Generating Capacity ................................................................................................................. 7 2.1.2 Feedstocks ................................................................................................................................ 9 2.2 TRENDS AND DRIVERS ......................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 STATE OF TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 12 2.3.1 Direct Firing ............................................................................................................................. 14 2.3.2 Combined Heat and Power ..................................................................................................... 15 2.3.3 Cofiring.................................................................................................................................... 15 2.3.4 Gasification ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.3.5 Pyrolysis .................................................................................................................................. 16 2.3.6 Torrefaction ............................................................................................................................. 17 2.3.7 Anaerobic Digestion ................................................................................................................ 17 3 PRETREATMENT AND CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................................... 19 3.1 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS ......................................................................................................... 19 3.1.1 Technical Challenges .............................................................................................................. 19 3.1.2 Non-Technical Challenges ...................................................................................................... 20 3.2 PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS............................................................. 21 3.2.1 RD&D Priorities ....................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.2 Priorities for Analysis............................................................................................................... 22 4 LARGE-SCALE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 29 4.1 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS ......................................................................................................... 29 4.1.1 Technical Challenges .............................................................................................................. 29 4.1.2 Non-Technical Challenges ...................................................................................................... 30 4.2 PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS............................................................. 31 4.2.1 RD&D Priorities ....................................................................................................................... 31 4.2.2 Priorities for Analysis............................................................................................................... 31 5 SMALLER-SCALE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 39 5.1 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS ......................................................................................................... 39 5.1.1 Technical Challenges .............................................................................................................. 39 5.1.2 Non-Technical Challenges ...................................................................................................... 41 5.2 PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS............................................................. 41 5.2.1 RD&D Priorities ....................................................................................................................... 41 5.2.2 Priorities for Analysis............................................................................................................... 42 6 FEEDSTOCKS FOR BIOPOWER..................................................................................................... 49 6.1 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS ......................................................................................................... 49 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.1.1 Technical Challenges .............................................................................................................. 49 6.1.2 Non-Technical Challenges ...................................................................................................... 50 6.2 PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS ............................................................. 51 6.2.1 RD&D Priorities ....................................................................................................................... 51 6.2.2 Priorities for Analysis ............................................................................................................... 51 7 MARKET TRANSFORMATION AND OTHER ACTIONS ....................................................................... 59 7.1 MARKET AND OTHER NON-TECHNICAL BARRIERS ..................................................................................59 7.2 LESSONS LEARNED .............................................................................................................................. 61 7.3 CRITICAL STRATEGIES AND PRIORITIES FOR MARKET TRANSFORMATION ................................................ 61 8 CROSS-CUTTING THEMES........................................................................................................... 74 8.1 TECHNICAL AND ANALYTICAL ................................................................................................................ 74 8.2 POLITICAL AND SOCIETAL ..................................................................................................................... 74 Appendix A: List of Contributors ................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B: Workshop Agenda ................................................................................................... B-1 Appendix C: References ................................................................................................................ C-1 Appendix D: Acronyms .................................................................................................................. D-1 Appendix E: State-level
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BEYOND PUBLIC CHOICE and PUBLIC INTEREST: a STUDY of the LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AS ILLUSTRATED by TAX LEGISLATION in the 1980S
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 139 NOVEMBER 1990 No. 1 ARTICLES BEYOND PUBLIC CHOICE AND PUBLIC INTEREST: A STUDY OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AS ILLUSTRATED BY TAX LEGISLATION IN THE 1980s DANIEL SHAVIRO" TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................. 3 II. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF CYCLICAL TAX LEGISLATION ... 11 A. Legislation From the Beginning of the Income Tax Through the 1970s: The Evolution of Tax Instrumentalism and Tax Reform ..................................... 11 t Assistant Professor, University of Chicago Law School. The author was a Legislation Attorney with theJoint Committee of Taxation during the enactment of the 1986 tax bill discussed in this Article. He is grateful to Walter Blum, Richard Posner, Cass Sunstein, and the participants in a Harvard Law School seminar on Current Research in Taxation, held in Chatham, Massachusetts on August 23-26, 1990, for helpful comments on earlier drafts, to Joanne Fay and Michael Bonarti for research assistance, and to the WalterJ. Blum Faculty Research Fund and the Kirkland & Ellis Faculty Fund for financial support. 2 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 139: 1 B. The 1981 Act and Its Aftermath ................... 19 C. The 1986 Act ............................... 23 D. Aftermath of the 198.6 Act ......................... 29 E. Summary .................................. 30 III. THE PUBLIC INTEREST THEORY OF LEGISLATION ........ 31 A. The Various Strands of Public Interest Theory .......... 31 1. Public Interest Theory in Economics ............ 31 2. The Pluralist School in Political Science .......... 33 3. Ideological Views of the Public Interest .......... 35 B. Criticisms of PublicInterest Theory .................. 36 1. (Largely Theoretical) Criticisms by Economists ... 36 a. When Everyone "Wins," Everyone May Lose ..
    [Show full text]
  • The Illusory Distinction Between Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Result
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1992 The Illusory Distinction between Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Result David A. Strauss Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David A. Strauss, "The Illusory Distinction between Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Result," 34 William and Mary Law Review 171 (1992). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ILLUSORY DISTINCTION BETWEEN EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND EQUALITY OF RESULT DAVID A. STRAUSS* I. INTRODUCTION "Our society should guarantee equality of opportunity, but not equality of result." One hears that refrain or its equivalent with increasing frequency. Usually it is part of a general attack on gov- ernment measures that redistribute wealth, or specifically on af- firmative action, that is, race- and gender-conscious efforts to im- prove the status of minorities and women. The idea appears to be that the government's role is to ensure that everyone starts off from the same point, not that everyone ends up in the same condi- tion. If people have equal opportunities, what they make of those opportunities is their responsibility. If they end up worse off, the government should not intervene to help them.1 In this Article, I challenge the usefulness of the distinction be- tween equality of opportunity and equality of result.
    [Show full text]
  • Barriers, Opportunities, and Research Needs Draft Report
    Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program FINAL PROJECT REPORT TASK 5. Biomass Energy in California’s Future: Barriers, Opportunities, and Research Needs_ Draft Report Prepared for: California Energy Commission Prepared by: UC Davis California Geothermal Energy Collaborative DECEMBER 2013 CEC‐500‐01‐016 Prepared by: Primary Author(s): Stephen Kaffka, University of California, Davis Robert Williams, University of California, Davis Douglas Wickizer, University of California, Davis UC Davis California Geothermal Energy Collaborative 1715 Tilia St. Davis, CA 95616 www.cgec.ucdavis.edu Contract Number: 500‐01‐016 Prepared for: California Energy Commission Michael Sokol Contract Manager Reynaldo Gonzalez Office Manager Energy Generation Research Office Laurie ten Hope Deputy Director Energy Research & Development Division Robert P. Oglesby Executive Director DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The California Goethermal Energy Collaborative would like to thank the California Energy Commission and its Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER) for sponsoring this important work as well as the Geothermal Energy Association for assisting in tracking down the most up to date data both within the United States and abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaking “Truth” to Biopower
    4.BLOOM.MACRO.12.29.11 (DO NOT DELETE) 1/20/2012 11:46 AM SPEAKING “TRUTH” TO BIOPOWER Anne Bloom* INTRODUCTION Left-leaning plaintiffs‟ lawyers sometimes describe their work as “Speaking Truth to Power.”1 The “Truth” they speak usually involves tales of government or corporate wrongdoing, while the power they confront is usually institutional.2 I am a long-time supporter of the plaintiffs‟ bar and believe that the work that they are doing is important. At the same time, I would like to propose an alternative way of “Speaking Truth to Power” that involves somewhat different understandings of both truth and power. I call this strategy “Speaking „Truth‟ to Biopower.” “Speaking „Truth‟ to Biopower” is a pragmatic strategy for legal activism that incorporates postmodern insights regarding the nature of both “truth” and “power.” “Truth” is in quotes to emphasize its contingency – the impossibility of understanding what truth means outside of a particular political and social context. “Biopower” replaces “Power” to highlight the ways in which the body is a key site of contestation in contemporary political struggles.3 While these insights are postmodern,4 the strategy I propose is not. Instead of rejecting legal arguments that rely upon foundational beliefs or “truths” (as would be characteristic of a postmodern approach),5 I argue it is more useful to strategically deploy legal “truths” in * Professor of Law, the University of the Pacific/McGeorge School of Law. Thanks to Danielle Hart for her efforts in putting together this symposium and for her comments on earlier versions of this essay.
    [Show full text]
  • Exco55 P1 a Global Operational Status of Co-Firing Biomass And
    Global operational status on cofiring biomass and waste with coal Experience with different cofiring concepts and fuels Jaap Koppejan1, Larry Baxter2, 1 Project manager Bioenergy systems, TNO-MEP, PO Box 342, 7300 AH Apeldoorn, Netherlands, phone +31 55 5493167, fax +31 55 5493287, email [email protected] 2 Professor Chemical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84601, USA, phone: +1 (801) 422-8616, fax: +1 (801) 422-0151, email [email protected] 1. Primary motivations for biomass-coal cofiring One means of reducing the environmental impacts of fossil fuel combustion is to increase the fraction of renewable and sustainable energy in the national energy supply. Renewable energy technologies have, however, struggled to compete in open electricity supply markets with fossil energy, due to their low efficiencies, high costs, and the high technical and financial risks. The result is that they usually require the introduction of subsidies or other financial instruments to support their implementation. The co-firing of biomass with the coal in traditional coal-fired boilers makes use of the large investment and extensive infrastructure associated with the existing fossil-fuel-based power systems, while requiring only a relatively modest capital investment, typically up to $50-$300 per kW of biomass capacity. [i]. These costs compare very favorably with any other available renewable energy option1. Worldwide, each percent of coal that is substituted with biomass in all coal fired power plants results in a biomass capacity of 8 GWe, and a reduction of approx. 60 Mton of CO2. At a typical cofiring ratio of 5% on energy basis, this would correspond with a global potential of approx.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioenergy Action Plan for Ireland
    BioEnErgy Action PlAn for irElAnd Report of thE MinistEriAl Task forcE on BioEnErgy Table of Contents Foreword 2 Executive Summary 3 Chapter Energy Trends in Ireland 990 to 2005 8 Chapter 2 Land Use in Ireland 3 Chapter 3 Bioenergy for the Transport Sector - Biofuels 6 Chapter 4 Bioenergy for the Heat Sector - Biomass 2 Chapter 5 Bioenergy for the Electricity Sector 26 Chapter 6 Public Sector Leadership - Driving Bioenergy Demand 32 Foreword Ireland has a significant bioenergy potential in the form of agricultural land, forestry and recycled waste from municipal, agriculture and industrial sources. All of these sources can be used to generate electricity, refined into fuel for the transport sector, provide heating/cooling for the building sector or as a source for biochemical raw materials for Irish industry. The development of our bioenergy resources will contribute to our overall security of energy supply and fuel diversity objectives. Increased use of these resources will also contribute to our renewable energy targets, our climate change mitigation policies, our waste policies and, at a time of great change in our agricultural sector, assist in rural development by providing new markets and employment development opportunities for our farming and forestry sectors as well as community enterprise. The sustainable development of our bioenergy potential and its deployment in the electricity, transport, heating and chemical sectors requires a fully coordinated approach across a number of Departments and State Agencies, working together across the sectors and with all stakeholders. In light of this challenge, the Government established a Ministerial Bioenergy Task Force which oversaw the delivery of the Action Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers
    DOE/EE-0288 Leading by example, saving energy and Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers taxpayer dollars Using this time-tested fuel-switching technique in existing federal boilers in federal facilities helps to reduce operating costs, increase the use of renewable energy, and enhance our energy security Executive Summary To help the nation use more domestic fuels and renewable energy technologies—and increase our energy security—the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) in the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, assists government agencies in developing biomass energy projects. As part of that assistance, FEMP has prepared this Federal Technology Alert on biomass cofiring technologies. This publication was prepared to help federal energy and facility managers make informed decisions about using biomass cofiring in existing coal-fired boilers at their facilities. The term “biomass” refers to materials derived from plant matter such as trees, grasses, and agricultural crops. These materials, grown using energy from sunlight, can be renewable energy sources for fueling many of today’s energy needs. The most common types of biomass that are available at potentially attractive prices for energy use at federal facilities are waste wood and wastepaper. The boiler plant at the Department of Energy’s One of the most attractive and easily implemented biomass energy technologies is cofiring Savannah River Site co- fires coal and biomass. with coal in existing coal-fired boilers. In biomass cofiring, biomass can substitute for up to 20% of the coal used in the boiler. The biomass and coal are combusted simultaneously. When it is used as a supplemental fuel in an existing coal boiler, biomass can provide the following benefits: lower fuel costs, avoidance of landfills and their associated costs, and reductions in sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, and greenhouse-gas emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • 2007: the Role of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard in Reducing Greenhouse
    FINAL The Role of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Protecting Our Economy Executive Summary Transportation accounts for more than 40% of California’s annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the state relies on petroleum-based fuels for 96 percent of its transportation needs. Petroleum use contributes to climate change and dependency on oil leaves workers, businesses and consumers vulnerable to price shocks from an unstable global energy market. No business should be hostage to a single supplier for its most critical raw materials; neither should any state or nation. To protect our jobs and wages, clean our air and maintain our way of life, we must diversify our fuel sources and reduce our reliance on oil. As one of the world's largest energy consumers and the national leader in energy efficiency, alternative energy and greenhouse gas reduction, California has the opportunity and ability to diversify its transportation fuel supplies, decrease the greenhouse gases emitted from those fuels, and establish a sustainable market for cleaner-burning fuels. Accordingly, by Executive Order the Governor will establish a first-of-its-kind policy to reduce the greenhouse gas impact from California's use of transportation fuels and in so doing diversify the state's transportation fuels portfolio. Specifically, Executive Order S-XX-07 will establish: 1. A Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels sold in California, and 2. An initial LCFS goal of reducing the carbon intensity of California's passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. The LCFS is the world’s first global warming standard for transportation fuels, and as with other groundbreaking California policies, it may serve as a model for state, federal and international standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Experience of Indirect Cofiring of Biomass and Coal
    Experience of indirect cofiring of biomass and coal Rohan Fernando CCC/64 October 2002 Copyright © IEA Clean Coal Centre ISBN 92-9029-370-9 Abstract There has been increasing interest in the use of biomass for power generation in recent years. The principal reason for this is that the use of biomass can significantly reduce net CO2 emissions. Other advantages of utilising biomass are that it diversifies the power plant’s fuel portfolio, it can lead to reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions and that such use can help to dispose of a solid waste. There are some disadvantages of firing biomass which relate to its supply, transportation and composition and these can be reduced if the biomass is cofired with coal. Cofiring can be direct, where the biomass and coal are fired in the same boiler, or indirect, where the combustion or gasification of biomass occurs in a separate unit. This report concentrates on indirect cofiring which is taken to mean technologies in which the ash from the coal and biomass are kept separate. Direct cofiring is relatively straightforward but can lead to several technical concerns. Indirect cofiring incurs greater costs and is particularly suitable for biomass containing troublesome components or when the quality of the ash is of importance. Indirect cofiring is less common than direct cofiring. The report discusses the relative advantages and disadvantages of direct and indirect cofiring. It then describes the following plants which indirectly cofire biomass: Aabenraa in Denmark, Amergas in the Netherlands, Avedøre 2 in Denmark, Kymijärvi in Finland, Zeltweg in Austria and Västerås in Sweden.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Creative Workers' Attitudes May Reinforce Social Inequality
    This is a repository copy of ‘Culture is a meritocracy’: Why creative workers’ attitudes may reinforce social inequality. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/121610/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Taylor, M.R. orcid.org/0000-0001-5943-9796 and O'Brien, D. (2017) ‘Culture is a meritocracy’: Why creative workers’ attitudes may reinforce social inequality. Sociological Research Online. ISSN 1360-7804 https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780417726732 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Culture is a meritocracy: Why Abstract The attitudes and values of cultural and creative workers are an important element of explaining current academic interest in inequality and culture. To date, quantitative approaches to this element of cultural and creative inequality has been overlooked, particularly in British research. This paper investigates the attitudes of those working in creative jobs with a unique dataset, a web survey of creative Using principal components analysis and regression, we have three main findings.
    [Show full text]
  • Nathan Glazer—Merit Before Meritocracy - the American Interest
    Nathan Glazer—Merit Before Meritocracy - The American Interest https://www.the-american-interest.com/2019/04/03/nathan-glazer-... https://www.the-american-interest.com/2019/04/03/nathan-glazer-merit-before-meritocracy/ WHAT ONCE WAS Nathan Glazer—Merit Before Meritocracy PETER SKERRY The perambulating path of this son of humble Jewish immigrants into America’s intellectual and political elites points to how much we have overcome—and lost—over the past century. The death of Nathan Glazer in January, a month before his 96th birthday, has been rightly noted as the end of an era in American political and intellectual life. Nat Glazer was the last exemplar of what historian Christopher Lasch would refer to as a “social type”: the New York intellectuals, the sons and daughters of impoverished, almost exclusively Jewish immigrants who took advantage of the city’s public education system and then thrived in the cultural and political ferment that from the 1930’s into the 1960’s made New York the leading metropolis of the free world. As Glazer once noted, the Marxist polemics that he and his fellow students at City College engaged in afforded them unique insights into, and unanticipated opportunities to interpret, Soviet communism to the rest of America during the Cold War. Over time, postwar economic growth and political change resulted in the relative decline of New York and the emergence of Washington as the center of power and even glamor in American life. Nevertheless, Glazer and his fellow New York intellectuals, relocated either to major universities around the country or to Washington think tanks, continued to exert remarkable influence over both domestic and foreign affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Plutocracy: the Marketising of ‘Equality’ Within Neoliberalism
    City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: Littler, J. (2013). Meritocracy as plutocracy: the marketising of ‘equality’ within neoliberalism. New Formations: a journal of culture/theory/politics, 80-81, pp. 52-72. doi: 10.3898/NewF.80/81.03.2013 This is the published version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/4167/ Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.3898/NewF.80/81.03.2013 Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected] MERITOCRACY AS PLUTOCRACY: THE MARKETISING OF ‘EQUALITY’ UNDER NEOLIBERALISM Jo Littler Abstract Meritocracy, in contemporary parlance, refers to the idea that whatever our social position at birth, society ought to facilitate the means for ‘talent’ to ‘rise to the top’. This article argues that the ideology of ‘meritocracy’ has become a key means through which plutocracy is endorsed by stealth within contemporary neoliberal culture.
    [Show full text]