Wind Power | Onewind Plans 1GW of Wind Development in Australia

The first of five newly proposed wind farms for Australia is planned to be operational by 2015 according to the newly formed venture known as OneWind Australia. The combined capacity of the five projects, which are planned to be developed in New South Wales, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland, could be as much as 1,000 megawatts.

The first of the wind projects that is expected to be completed will be a 100MW wind project at Glen Innes.

OneWind Australia is backed by Denham Capital Management LP which is a private equity fund in the US that is focused on mining and energy. The group has agreed to invest $US75 million in the wind power projects to be developed. They will join other partners Enersis Group’s Australian unit, National Power and Kato Capital Pty to form OneWind.

OneWind Australia Wind FarmsAccording to Managing Director Michael Toke the declining cost of wind power in Australia is a factor that the venture intends to take advantage of. The stated renewable energy goal of Australia is to have 20 per cent of the nation’s power originate from renewable energy by 2020.

According to Toke, “Compared with other places in the world, wind is quite competitive in this market. It’s a combination of the competitiveness of wind and the need for new renewables here. There’s an opportunity to generate good returns.”

As well as the project in Glen Innes some of the other projects that are in advanced stages of planning are a 250MW project at Lincoln Gap in South Australia, a 90MW wind project at Archer Point in Queensland and a 240MW development at Cattle Hill in Tasmania. The aim is to achieve financial closing on key phases of the projects in the second half of 2013 or 2014.

Wave Power | Aquamarine Power Oyster Device Approval Granted

Approval has been given by the Scottish Government to move forward with plans to install up to 50 wave energy devices off the north-west coast of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides. The device is called the Power Oyster 800 and it has been developed by Aquamarine Power. See the original story about the Oyster 2 Device here.

Aquamarine Oyster 800This device has been under trial at the European Marine Energy Center (EMEC) in Orkney since 2012 and that testing is continuing as further development of the Oyster devices continues. Aquamarine Power hopes that the devices might begin to be installed by late 2017 or early 2018 and that the installation might continue to progress over the following decade. Should the planned 50 wave devices be installed as part of this project it could produce as much as 40MW of electricity.

While the Oyster devices are proving to be successful in their job of producing sustainable energy there is the question of the infrastructure that needs to be in place for the project to be connected to the national grid.

The fact that the Scottish Government has given its approval for the development is one of the milestones that is very significant for the wave power industry as a whole. The announcement was made by the Scottish Government’s Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism Fergus Ewing at the All Energy conference in Aberdeen.

The Chief Executive Officer of Aquamarine Power, Martin McAdam, said “The goal of our industry is to become commercial, and to do this we need two things – reliable technologies and a route to market.

“Our engineers are currently working hard on getting the technology right and we now have a site where we can install our first small farm, with a larger-scale commercial build out in the years ahead.”

He added: “We believe wave energy presents an important opportunity for the Isle of Lewis. Our development could provide significant economic benefit to the local community.

“In Orkney, for example, we have spent over £5 million in the local economy during the installation of the first two Oyster devices and have worked with over 40 local companies as part of our commitment to sourcing much of the services and expertise we require locally.”

Aquamarine Power has provided an animation which represents how the Oyster 800 device works and how it might be connected to the mainland.

How the Oyster 800 Wave Power Device Works

The energy generated by nearshore waves is captured by the Oyster device and this is converted into clean electricity that is sustainable. The movement of the waves allow the large hinged flap to move forwards and backwards so that it acts like a pump to push high pressure water which can drive a hydro-electric turbine that is located onshore. The device is attached to the seabed and is designed to sit at depths of between 10 and 15 metres at a distance of around half a kilometre from shore.

The majority of the Oyster 800’s hinged flap is underwater and the exaggerated forward and backward movement serves to drive two hydraulic pistons and these pump the water through an underwater pipeline to the turbine.

In the case of a farm where multiple Oyster 800 devices are installed, the subsea pipelines will connect all of the devices to a single onshore plant. Technically this type of farm could be scaled up until it is capable of generating hundreds of megawatts of electricity.

The proposed location of these devices and their nearness to the shore is beneficial to the success of the project in a couple of ways. The first is that it will keep the costs down to connect up to the hydro-electric plant and the second is that it will avoid the severe storms which tend to be located further out to sea.

The marine renewable energy industry in Scotland has been significantly boosted by the support from the Scottish Government. Not only that but the wave power industry, which has not yet brought anything to commercial scale production will also greatly benefit.

Biomass | Chateaugay Biomass Power Plant, New York

The Chateaugay Biomass Power Plant produces electricity through the burning of woody biomass that has been sourced from nearby forest sources. The facility is owned and operated by ReEnergy Holdings LLC after it acquired the operation from Boralex Inc in December 2011.

The ReEnergy Chateaugay facility has an operating capacity of 20MW and is capable of producing enough electricity to power almost 17,000 homes. The biomass materials that are used as fuel for the facility are primarily green forest residue that would otherwise be left to decompose on the forest floor. However the facility is also allowed to use other types of wood such as treated wood as fuel if necessary.

The Chateagay biomass facility is located near the Canadian border in Franklin County, New York and sells the electricity that is produced to customers such as utilities, energy services companies and municipal co-ops. The electricity that is produced forms a reliable base-load energy that is supplied at a reasonable price.

In February 2012 there was speculation that the facility would be shut down between February and May because of poor market conditions. ReEnergy Holdings made no such announcement.

At this time the Chateaugay Biomass facility is part of a ReEnergy biomass portfolio that includes other facilities across 4 states including other biomass power plants in New York – Black River and Lyonsdale, Maine – Ashland, Fort Fairfield, Livermore Falls and Stratton, Connecticut – Sterling, New Hampshire – Gateway ERRCO Recycling and Gateway LL&S Facilities in Epping and Salem.

Biomass | Woodville Renewable Energy Project, Texas

A new biomass power plant has been proposed for construction near Woodville, Texas in Tyler County. The power plant is being developed by East Texas Electric Cooperative (ETEC) and will be a wood-fueled biomass plant that will process wood chips in producing a maximum capacity of 50MW of electricity.

The design and construction of the power plant has been awarded to Argan Inc through its wholly owned subsidiary Gemma Power Systems. It is expected that the power plant will be completed and operational by December 2014.

The length of the construction period of the power plant is anticipated to be 30 months and during that time around 250 construction jobs will be generated in the area. When the power plant is fully operational it is projected to require 25 full-time employees at the plant with more than 3 times that figure required to produce and deliver the wood chips that will be required to fuel the plant.

The biomass fuel will operate a biomass-fired stoker boiler and steam turbine-generator. The plant will also be equipped with start of the art air quality control systems, fuel storage and handling equipment, a cooling tower and switchyard. The steam that is produced by the boiler will be used directly to drive the steam-driven turbine-generator.

The water that will be used to convert into steam will come primarily from treated recycled water from the City of Woodville. Two three-mile pipelines will be built by ETEC between the power plant and the city wastewater plant.

The problem of possible emissions from the power plant is being addressed with tight combustion controls. The utilization of start of the art equipment should ensure that any emissions will be kept to an absolute minimum.

The woodchip fuel will come from local sources and will consist of residual and unsellable timber such as forestry thinning and debarking. It will be turned into woodchips locally and then will be trucked to the power plant.

At this point the project has received its air permit from the State of Texas which is required for construction to commence.

Biomass | Fourche Creek Treatment Plant, Arkansas

There are a number of ways in which necessary utilities can improve their usefulness and efficiencies with some of them proving to be incredibly innovative. The Fourche Creek Treatment Plant in Arkansas makes use of the natural “products” that are treated every day to produce up to 1.5MW of electricity that it uses to operate the plant. This wastewater plant is part of the plants operated by Little Rock Wastewater.

The treatment plant reduces its pollution output by up to 90% thanks to the combination of a clever treatment system as well as the use of the methane that comes from the sludge that is produced within the plant.

Up to 16 million gallons of wastewater can be processed in the plant each day. The plant takes in the wastewater from southwest Little Rock where it is treated through a biological treatment process using three sets of aeration basins and clarifiers.

The sludge that is produced at the end of the treatment process is stored at the Fourche Creek plant is thickened, digested and stored. The storage process takes place in an oxygen-free chamber over a 30 day period during which time naturally occurring bacteria consume over half of the organic solids and produces water and a number of gases, one of which is methane.

The methane gas is captured and piped to a Generator Building where it is used to produce electricity. Enough methane gas is produced to generate enough electricity to meet up to 60% of the plant’s operational needs.

Here is yet another way in which the renewable energy that comes under the broadly descriptive term of biomass can be used to benefit the community and the environment.

Biomass Power Plants In the United States

Biomass has been and continues to be a viable and sustainable method of producing electricity from renewable resources. When the collection and transport of the biomass fuel is managed properly and the power plant itself runs efficiently it is possible for the production of electricity to be performed relatively cleanly. We are seeing more and more coal-fired power plants converted to either 100% biomass fueled plants or co0generation plants that are partially powered by biomass stock.

Listed on this page are US biomass power plants producing commercial levels of electricity. Where possible more information about the power plants have been provided on a separate page. It will be possible to read about those projects by clicking on the links provided.

This list is by no means complete and more projects will be added as they come to our notice. Ultimately it is envisaged that this page will provide as complete register as possible of biomass power plants that are either in operation or are in the process of being developed.

Biomass Power Plants In the USA

Plant Name State County / City
Capacity
MW
On-line Year
Alabama Pine Pulp Alabama Monroe 32.09 1991
Alabama River Pulp Alabama Monroe 22.32 1978
Mobile Energy Services LLC Alabama Mobile 14.35 1985
SOU_AL_Biomass Alabama NA 0.03 2011
APS Biomass I Arizona Eagar 2.85 2006
Snowflake White Moun Arizona Navajo 24.00 2008
Western Renewable Arizona Apache 2.50 2004
Century Flooring Co Biomass Facility Arkansas Izard 1.70 1980
Fourche Creek Wastewater Arkansas Pulaski 1.50 1983
Potlatch Southern Wood Products Arkansas Bradley 10.00 1991
STEC-S LLC Arkansas Arkansas 4.00 1997
Warren Biomass Facility Arkansas Arkansas 8.70
AES Mendota California Fresno 25.00 1989
Bieber Plant Biomass Facility California Bieber 7.00
Blue Lake Plant Biomass Facility California Blue Lake 11.00
Burney Forest Products California Shasta 31.00 1989
Burney Mountain Power California Shasta 9.75 1985
CA-S_CA_Biomass California NA 2.20 2011
Chinese Station Biomass Facility California Chinese Station 25.00
Chowchilla Biomass Facility California Chowchilla 10.00
Collins Pine Project California Plumas 12.00 1985
Commerce Refuse To Energy California Los Angeles 7.00 1986
Covanta Stanislaus Energy California Stanislaus 18.00 1988
Delano Energy California Kern 49.00 1993
DG Fairhaven Power Biomass Facility California Eureka 17.50
Diamond Walnut Biomass Facility California San Joaquin 4.20 1981
Dinuba Biomass Facility California Dinuba 11.50
El Nido Biomass Facility California El Nido 10.00
Fairhaven Power California Humboldt 17.30 1986
Fresno Biomass Facility California Fresno 25.00
Gas Utilization Facility California San Diego 4.60 1985
HL Power California Lassen 30.00 1989
Imperial Valley Resource Recovery Plant California Brawley 15.00
Madera Biomass Facility California Madera 25.00
Martinez Sulfuric Acid Regeneration Plt California Contra Costa 4.00 1978
Mecca Plant California Riverside 47.00 1991
Mendota Biomass Facility California Mendota 25.00
Monterey Regional Water Cogen Facility California Monterey 1.50 1991
Mt Lassen Power California Lassen 10.50 1985
Mt Poso Cogeneration Power Plant California Kern 44.00 2011
Pacific Lumber California Humboldt 33.50 1989
Pacific Oroville Power Inc California Butte 16.50 1985
Pacific-Ultrapower Chinese Station California Tuolumne 19.80 1985
Plant No 2 Biomass Facility California Orange 13.50 1993
Rio Bravo Fresno California Fresno 24.30 1988
Rio Bravo Rocklin California Placer 24.40 1989
Rocklin Biomass Facility California Rocklin 25.00
Shasta 1 Biomass Facility California Anderson 50.00
Shasta 2 Biomass Facility California Anderson 3.00
Sierra Pacific Anderson Facility California Shasta 5.00 1999
Sierra Pacific Burney Facility California Shasta 16.33 1986
Sierra Pacific Lincoln Facility California Placer 17.22 2004
Sierra Pacific Loyalton Facility California Sierra 13.08 1989
Sierra Pacific Quincy Facility California Plumas 28.84 1986
Sierra Pacific Sonora California Tuolumne 5.45 2001
Sierra Pacific Susanville California Lassen 12.60 1985
Sierra Power California Tulare 7.00 1985
Southeast Resource Recovery California Los Angeles 27.95 1988
Stockton Regional Water Control Facility California San Joaquin 2.94 2000
Susanville California Lassen 13.00 1985
Total Energy Facilities California Los Angeles 24.00 1986
Tracy Biomass California San Joaquin 18.75 1990
Ultrapower Chinese Station California Tuolumne 19.80 1985
Wadham Energy LP California Colusa 25.50 1989
Westwood Biomass Facility California Westwood 12.00
Wheelabrator Martell California Amador 15.00 1985
Wheelabrator Shasta California Shasta 55.40 1987
Williams Biomass Facility California Williams 25.00
Woodland Biomass Power Ltd California Yolo 25.00 1989
WWTP California Alameda 5.85 1985
WWTP Power Generation Station California Alameda 5.85 1985
Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Colorado Adams 9.80 1985
American Ref-Fuel of SE CT Connecticut New London 12.00 1991
Covanta Bristol Energy Connecticut Hartford 13.20 1987
Covanta Mid-Connecticut Energy Connecticut Hartford 112.80 1988
Covanta Wallingford Energy Connecticut New Haven 8.40 1988
Plainfield Renewable Energy Biomass Plant Connecticut Plainfield 37.50
Wheelabrator Bridgeport Connecticut Fairfield 61.25 1988
Wheelabrator Lisbon Connecticut New London 13.00 1995
Bay Resource Management Center Florida Bay 10.00 1987
Bryant Sugar House Florida Palm Beach 26.52 1962
Buckeye Florida Biomass Facility Florida Taylor 25.00 2006
Cargill Fertilizer Florida Hillsborough 75.90 1988
Cargill Fertilizer Bartow Florida Polk 80.00 1985
Cargill Fertilizer Mulberry Phosphates Florida Polk 19.53 1985
Covanta Lake County Energy Florida Lake 12.50 1990
Hillsborough County Resource Recovery Florida Hillsborough 26.00 1987
Jefferson Power LLC Florida Jefferson 7.50 1990
Lee County Solid Waste Energy Florida Lee 39.00 1994
McKay Bay Facility Florida Hillsborough 18.00 1985
Miami Dade County Resource Recovery Fac Florida Miami-Dade 71.62 1981
North County Regional Resource Florida Palm Beach 43.50 1989
Okeelanta Cogeneration Florida Palm Beach 74.90 2006
Okeelanta 2 Biomass Facility Florida South Beach 50.00
Pasco Cnty Solid Waste Resource Recovery Florida Pasco 26.00 1991
Pinellas County Resource Recovery Florida Pinellas 58.10 1983
Ridge Generating Station Florida Polk 47.10 1994
SI Group Energy LLC Florida Jefferson 7.50 1990
Southernmost Waste To Energy Florida Monroe 2.30 1986
Telogia Power Florida Liberty 12.50 1986
US Agri-Chemicals Fort Meade Florida Polk 32.00 1982
US Sugar Biomass Facility Florida Bryant/Clewiston 20.00
Wheelabrator North Broward Florida Broward 56.00 1991
Wheelabrator South Broward Florida Broward 57.90 1991
Mitchell Georgia Dougherty 96.00 2012
Plant Carl Project Georgia Franklin 20.00 2007
Port Wentworth Biomass Facility Georgia Chatham 42.70 1991
Hawaii Comm. And Sugar Hawaii Puuene 12.00
Olokele Biomass Facility Hawaii Maui 4.00
New Meadows Biomass Facility Idaho New Meadows 4.50
Plummer Forest Products Idaho Benewah 5.77 1982
Potlatch Idaho Pulp Paper Idaho Nez Perce 27.20 1981
Tamarack Energy Partnership Idaho Adams 5.80 1983
Biodyne Congress Illinois Cook 12.60 2001
Biodyne Pontiac Illinois Livingstone 12.60 1999
Davenport Water Pollution Control Plant Iowa Scott 1.60 1995
Cox Waste to Energy Kentucky Taylor 3.30 1995
Agrilectric Power Partners Ltd Louisiana Calcasieu 12.20 1995
Baton Rogue Biomass Facility Louisiana Lake Charles 13.50
IMC Phosphates Company Uncle Sam Louisiana St. James Parrish 20.46 1968
Jeanerette Biomass Facility Louisiana Jeanerette 2.00
Ashland Biomass Facility Maine Ashland 40.00
Boralex Beaver Livermore Falls Maine Androscoggin 35.88 1992
Boralex Fort Fairfield Maine Aroostook 31.00 1987
Boralex Stratton Energy Maine Franklin 45.70 1989
Bucksport Mill Maine Hancock 23.25 1965
Deblois Biomass Facility Maine Deblois 22.00
Domtar – Woodland Mill Maine Washington 23.00 1966
East Millinocket Mill Maine Penobscot 19.04 1954
Forster Strong Mill Maine Franklin 0.85 1980
Fort Fairfield Biomass Facility Maine Fort Fairfield 36.00
Greenville Steam Maine Piscataquis 19.00 1988
Indeck Jonesboro Energy Center Maine Washington 26.80 1987
Indeck West Enfield Energy Center Maine Penobscot 25.60 1987
J & L Electric Maine Franklin 0.35 1980
J & L Electric Maine Franklin 0.50 2004
Jonesboro Biomass Facility Maine Jonesboro 24.50
Lincoln Paper & Tissue Maine Penobscot 10.00 2007
Livermore Biomass Facility Maine Livermore Falls 40.00
Maine Energy Recovery Maine York 18.00 1987
MMWAC Resource Recovery Facility Maine Androscoggin 2.10 1992
NENG_ME_Biomass Maine NA 16.00 2011
Penobscot Energy Recovery Maine Penobscot 21.20 1987
Regional Waste Systems Maine Cumberland 11.50 1988
S D Warren Westbrook Maine Cumberland 26.88 1982
Sherman Biomass Facility Maine Sherman Station 20.00
Somerset Plant Biomass Facility Maine Somerset 38.13 1976
Stratton Biomass Facility Maine Stratton 50.00
West Enfield Biomass Facility Maine West Enfield 24.50
Wheelabrator Sherman Energy Facility Maine Penobscot 21.00 1986
Worcester Energy Maine Washington 13.00 1989
Montgomery County Resource Recovery Maryland Montgomery 54.00 1995
Wheelabrator Baltimore Refuse Maryland Baltimore City 61.30 1984
Covanta Haverhill Massachusetts Essex 42.78 1989
Pinetree Power Fitchburg Massachusetts Worcester 17.00 1992
Pioneer Valley Resource Recovery Massachusetts Hampden 7.50 1988
SEMASS Resource Recovery Massachusetts Plymouth 80.00 1988
Ware Cogeneration Massachusetts Hampshire 4.09 2006
Wheelabrator Millbury Facility Massachusetts Worcester 40.00 1987
Wheelabrator North Andover Massachusetts Essex 33.00 1985
Wheelabrator Saugus Massachusetts Essex 32.00 1985
Cadillac Renewable Energy Michigan Wexford 36.80 1993
Central Michigan University Biomass Facility Michigan Isabella 0.95 1987
Genesee Power Station LP Michigan Genesee 35.00 1995
Grayling Generating Station Michigan Crawford 36.20 1992
Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Michigan Wayne 63.61 1988
Hillman Power LLC Michigan Montmorency 17.80 1987
Kent County Waste to Energy Facility Michigan Kent 15.70 1989
Viking Energy of Lincoln Michigan Alcona 16.00 1989
Viking Energy of McBain Michigan Missaukee 16.00 1988
White Pine Electric Power Michigan Ontonagon 18.00 1954
Bayport Biomass Facility Minnesota Bayport 6.00
Central Minn. Ethano Minnesota NA 0.95 2006
Covanta Hennepin Energy Minnesota Hennepin 33.70 1989
Duluth Biomass Facility Minnesota Duluth 7.00
Elk River Minnesota Sherburne 29.80 1951
Fibrominn Biomass Power Plant Minnesota Swift 55.00 2007
Hibbing Minnesota St. Louis 20.00 2007
M L Hibbard Minnesota St. Louis 48.60 1988
MRO_MN_Biomass Minnesota NA 16.50 2011
Olmsted Waste Energy Minnesota Olmsted 2.70 1987
Perham Incinerator Minnesota Otter Tail 1.20 2003
Rapids Energy Center Minnesota Itasca 22.50 1980
Red Wing Biomass Facility Minnesota Goodhue 24.00 1949
St. Paul Biomass Facility Minnesota St Paul 25.00
Virginia Minnesota St. Louis 15.00 2007
Wilmarth Biomass Facility Minnesota Blue Earth 24.00 1948
Leaf River Cellulose LLC Mississippi Perry 37.50 1984
Papillion Creek Wastewater Nebraska Sarpy 1.50 1987
NWPE_NV_Biomass Nevada NA 1.00 2011
Alexandria Biomass Facility New Hampshire Alexandria 15.00
Berlin Gorham Biomass Facility New Hampshire Coos 5.00 1948
Bridgewater Power LP New Hampshire Grafton 16.00 1987
Hemphill Power & Light New Hampshire Sullivan 14.13 1987
NENG_NH_Biomass New Hampshire NA 17.50 2011
Pinetree Power Bethlehem New Hampshire Grafton 15.00 1987
Pinetree Power Tamworth New Hampshire Carroll 20.00 1987
Schiller New Hampshire Rockingham 36.97 2006
Schiller Station New Hampshire Portsmouth 50.00
Springfield Power LLC Biomass Facility New Hampshire Springfield 16.00
Tillotson Rubber New Hampshire Coos 0.70 1978
Wheelabrator Claremont Facility New Hampshire Sullivan 4.50 1987
Wheelabrator Concord Facility New Hampshire Merrimack 14.00 1989
Whitefield Power & Light New Hampshire Coos 14.50 1987
American Ref-Fuel of Essex New Jersey Essex 60.00 1990
Camden Resource Recovery Facility New Jersey Camden 30.00 1991
Covanta Warren Energy New Jersey Warren 10.00 1988
Middlesex Generating Facility New Jersey Middlesex 18.80 2001
Union County Resource Recovery New Jersey Union 37.50 1994
Wheelabrator Gloucester LP New Jersey Gloucester 12.00 1990
Southside Water Reclamation Plant New Mexico Bernalillo 6.40 1987
American Ref-Fuel of Hempstead New York Nassau 67.70 1989
American Ref-Fuel of Niagara New York Niagara 18.00 1980
Chateaugay Biomass Facility New York Chateaugay 20.00 1993
Covanta Babylon Energy New York Suffolk 14.36 1989
Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency New York Dutchess 7.20 1987
Huntington Resource Recovery Facility New York Suffolk 25.00 1991
Lyonsdale Biomass LLC New York Lewis 19.00 1992
MacArthur Waste to Energy Facility New York Suffolk 4.60 1990
Montgomery Biomass Facility New York Montgomery 24.00
Ogdensburg Power New York St. Lawrence 25.00 2009
Onondaga County Resource Recovery New York Onondaga 30.00 1994
Oswego County Energy Recovery New York Oswego 3.34 1986
Wheelabrator Hudson Falls, LLC New York Washington 11.50 1991
Wheelabrator Westchester New York Westchester 51.00 1984
Craven County Wood Energy LP North Carolina Craven 48.00 1990
Green Power Kenansville North Carolina Duplin 32.40 1986
New Hanover County WASTEC North Carolina New Hanover 3.60 1991
Sauder Power Plant Ohio Fulton 7.20 1993
Biomass One Oregon White City 30.00
Biomass One LP Oregon Jackson 1985
Co-Gen II LLC Oregon Douglas 6.98 1987
Co-Gen LLC Oregon Grant 6.98 1986
Covanta Marion Inc. Oregon Marion 11.50 1986
Evergreen Biopower LLC Oregon Lyons 10.00
Klamath Falls Power Plant Oregon Klamath Falls 42.00
Medford Operation Biomass Facility Oregon Jackson 7.50 1956
PNW_OR_Biomass Oregon NA 13.20 2011
Prairie City Biomass Facility Oregon Prairie City 10.00
Riddle Biomass Facility Oregon Riddle 7.50
Rough and Ready Lumb Oregon Josephine 1.70 2007
Short Mountain Biomass Facility Oregon Lane 3.20 1993
Wauna Mill Biomass Facility Oregon Clatsop 20.00 1996
American Ref-Fuel of Delaware Valley Pennsylvania Delaware 80.00 1991
Koopers Susquehanna Plant Pennsylvania Lycoming 11.50 1988
Lancaster County Resource Recovery Pennsylvania Lancaster 32.40 1990
MACW_PA_Biomass Pennsylvania NA 30.00 2011
Montenay Montgomery LP Pennsylvania Montgomery 28.00 1991
Montgomery Biomass Facility Pennsylvania Montgomery 7.50
P H Glatfelter Pennsylvania York 22.40 1993
Spring Grove Biomass Facility Pennsylvania Spring Grove 24.00
Viking Energy of Northumberland Pennsylvania Northumberland 16.00 1988
Wheelabrator Falls Pennsylvania Bucks 48.10 1994
York County Resource Recovery Pennsylvania York 28.00 1989
Charleston Resource Recovery Facility South Carolina Charleston 9.50 1989
Stone Container Florence Mill South Carolina Florence 15.27 1974
Stone Container Florence Mill South Carolina Florence 7.63 1963
McMinnville Tennessee Warren 1.80 2005
Celanese Biomass Facility Texas Gray 13.00 1964
ENTG_TX_Biomass Texas NA 14.20 2011
ERCT_TX_Biomass Texas NA 50.09 2011
Lufkin Power Plant Texas Lufkin 50.00 2009
Nacogdoches Power Plant Texas Sacul 100.00
Rhodia Houston Plant Texas Harris 6.00 1970
Snider Industries Texas Harrison 5.00 1983
Woodville Renewable Energy Project Texas Tyler 50.00
Wasatch Energy Systems Energy Recovery Utah Davis 1.40 1986
Berkshire Cow Power Vermont Franklin 0.30 2007
Blue Spruce Farm Ana Vermont Addison 0.30 2005
Burlington Biomass Facility Vermont Burlington 50.00
Green Mtn Dairy Vermont Franklin 0.30 2007
J C McNeil Vermont Chittenden 52.00 1984
Montagne Farms Vermont Franklin 0.30 2007
Ryegate Power Station Vermont Caledonia 20.00 1992
Covanta Alexandria/Arlington Energy Virginia Alexandria 29.00 1987
Covanta Fairfax Energy Virginia Fairfax 79.00 1990
Multitrade of Pittsylvania LP Virginia Pittsylvania 79.64 1994
Scott Wood Biomass Facility Virginia Amelia 3.40 2003
SPSA Waste To Energy Power Plant Virginia Portsmouth 46.50 1987
Stone Container Hopewell Mill Virginia Hopewell (city) 20.35 1980
Aberdeen Biomass Facility Washington Aberdeen 12.00
Colville Indian Power & Veneer Facility Washington Okanogan 12.50 2002
Everett Cogen Washington Snohomish 36.00 1996
Kettle Falls Generating Station Washington Stevens 50.00 1983
Longview Fiber Power Washington Longview 54.00
PNW_WA_Biomass Washington NA 16.25 2011
Sierra Pacific Aberdeen Washington Grays Harbor 16.50 2003
Sierra Pacific Burlington Facility Washington Skagit 25.00 2006
Simpson Tacoma Biomass Facility Washington Tacoma 50.00
S.P. Everett Biomass Facility Washington Burlington 20.00
West Point Treatment Plant Washington King 3.90 1983
Wheelabrator Spokane Washington Spokane 26.00 1991
Bay Front Wisconsin Ashland 74.00 1954
E J Stoneman Station Wisconsin Grant 50.00 2009
French Island Biomass Facility Wisconsin La Crosse 28.00 1940
MMSD South Shore Wastewater Wisconsin Milwaukee 1.40 2000
Minergy Neenah Biomass Facility Wisconsin Winnebago 6.50 1999
Project Apollo Power Plant Wisconsin Milwaukee 40.00

Biomass | Project Apollo Power Plant, Wisconsin

There are plans by developers Alliance Federated Energy to build the Project Apollo biomass power plant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The proposed plant will have a 40MW capacity and it is hoped that it will be operational in late 2013 whereupon it will be able to produce enough electricity to power 20,000 homes.

The biomass plant will use plasma gasification technology supplied by AlterNRG of Calgary to process more than 1200 tons of municipal and industrial waste per day. The technology that will go into this particular power plant has been in use in facilities that are already operational around the world. One such power plant is located in Japan and it is successfully producing electricity on a daily basis.

The site will be located on a 25-acre industrial site and it will be AFE’s first project. The design and fabrication of the power plant was originally going to be conducted by CorVal-Ryan which is based in St. Paul. In December 2010 a Joint Development Agreement was signed between AFE and Air Products and Chemicals which would see Air Products acting as advisors on the design of the project.

It is anticipated that the project will cost $225 million to complete and it will create more than 250 jobs during the construction phase. When the construction has been completed and the plant moves into operational mode it will require 45 full-time positions.

A leading waste management services company in the region, Badger Disposal of Wisconsin has already committed to supply around 30 per cent of the waste feedstock for the facility.

Plasma Gasification

Alliance Federated Energy has provided an explanation of the process of plasma gasification, how it works and what it isn’t. The explanation is as follows:

Plasma is a highly ionized or electrically charged gas. An example in nature is lightning, capable of producing temperatures exceeding 12,600°F. A gasifier vessel utilizes proprietary plasma torches operating at up to 10,000°F (the surface temperature of the Sun) in order to create a gasification zone of up to 3,000°F to convert solid or liquid wastes into a syngas. When municipal solid waste is subjected to this intense heat within the vessel, the waste’s molecular bonds break down into elemental components. The process results in elemental destruction of waste and hazardous materials.

Plasma gasification is NOT incineration. Unlike incineration, gasification creates an energy-rich syngas comprised primarily of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which is then cleaned of impurities prior to utilization for steam or electric generation, or other forms of power.

Geothermal Energy | Stillwater Hybrid Power Plant

Although this entry has been posted under the Geothermal Energy category, the power plant has developed into virtually a 50-50 mix of both geothermal and solar energy to become a new breed of hybrid.

Renewable energy developer Enel Green Power has brought the world’s first hybrid power plant that combines the continuous generation capacity of binary-cycle, medium-enthalpy geothermal power with the peak capacity of solar power online. The Stillwater hybrid power plant is located in Churchill County, Nevada and it has a grid-connected photovoltaic power capacity of 26MW. Add to that the geothermal component of it’s energy creation which stands at 33MW and the power plant has a capacity of 59MW.

By combining the two forms of energy creation techniques in the one location the power plant makes use of multiple forms of renewable energy that will increase the level of zero-emission energy that is produced. It is estimated that the power plant will produce enough clean energy to avoid the emission of around 140,000 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The added advantage of creating this hybrid mix is that the infrastructure is laready in place reducing costs and the transmission connection has also already been made.

The geothermal plant has been in operation since 2009 and the solar panels have been installed on 240 acres of land next to it. The installation consists of 89,000 photovoltaic solar panels. It will provide the power plant with peak electricity when the thermal efficiency of the geothermal unit is at its lowest helping to meet base load power demands.

The energy that is produced by this new type of power plant will be bought by utility NV Energy and it will be used to meet the power needs of roughly 40,000 homes.

Enel Green Power has now raised its total installed capacity in North America to over 1,000MW with the commissioning of this power plant.

Extracting Water From the Air Using Wind Power

The prospect of being able to provide water that is potable for drinking in parts of the world that is in serious need of it is what the Eole Water business is all about. The technology that the company has been developing over the last 8 years or more involves using wind power to create water, seemingly out of thin air.

A Choice of Three Devices

Eole Water has developed three different water producing methods and they may either be used independently of one another or as integrated techniques.

WMS1000 Wind Turbine – produces water using wind power
WMS-30kW Solar Panel – produces water using solar energy
WMS-30kW Grid Tie – produces water from a local electricity network

Many of us have witnessed the phenomenon ourselves when we run our air conditioners. Indeed, the founder of Eole Tech, Marc Parent, came up with the possibility of building such a device when he began collecting water from his air conditioner while living in the Caribbean.

The process involves a wind turbine and the act of condensation which, when the conditions are right, can produce over a thousand litres of water per day. We will discuss the exact process of how these devices work as well as the prospects for their installation in the future.

It is still early days as far as bringing the first Eole Water wind turbine to commercial use, although a test installation has been set up in Abu Dhabi that has been reportedly producing 500 litres or more per day.

There are a number of important factors that will affect the rate at which the water can be produced. They are:

 

  • Wind speed
  • Ambient temperature
  • Humidity

The test turbines that have been in operation in Abu Dhabi have been capable of producing an average of around 62 litres per hour through conditions of 45 per cent humidity and temperatures of 24C.

The WMS1000 Wind Turbine

The model of wind device that has been in development for almost 15 years is the WMS1000 wind turbine. This current version has an installed capacity of 30kW and because the device only needs the power of the wind to produce water it is possible that it can be installed in remote locations and operate without the need for accompanying infrastructure.

The proposed lifespan of the WMS1000 has been quoted as being 20 years and, when the conditions are right can produce as much as 1200 litres of water per day. Because the device does not require any other resources to operate there is minimal impact on the environment into which it is placed.

For the WMS1000 to be capable to begin producing water it requires winds of at least 15 km/h to be blowing. When the wind does blow it is equipped with three levels of wind protection that will protect it from winds as strong as 180 km/h.

  1. A centrifugal pitch control to regulate the rotor speed.
  2. A mechanical and electrical rotor braking system to prevent damage from the blades spinning overly quickly.
  3. A tilting mast that integrates double-acting telescopic cylinders with thrust capacities of 115 Tonnes. In case of weather conditions such as hurricanes the WMS1000 wind turbine can be tilted and secured.

Due to the locations into which the WMS1000 will be most desperately needed it is also necessary to protect it from sandstorms and the presence of a great deal of sand, which could potentially affect the mechanics of the device. It is also crucial that it is capable of withstanding high desert temperatures up to 50C and this is why the decision to test it out in Abu Dhabi was a good move.

How the Process Works

The process of converting air to water may seem quite an incredible “trick” but it really is a straightforward scientific process. After all, it happens naturally almost every day in the form of dew.

The process uses condensation to transform a humid atmosphere into its liquid state. The WMS1000 does this by pulling the moving air of the wind into the turbine where it passes over a humidity condenser. When the air is cooled to dewpoint and is transformed into its liquid form it is collected and passed through a filtration system to purify it. The purified water is put through a re-mineralization process and then stored in a storage tank located at the unit’s base.

An important fact about the components that come in contact with the water such as the condenser is that they are made from a special stainless steel alloy that will continue to operate without the risk of corrosion.

Below is a look at the inner components of the WMS1000 wind turbine.

But Remember…Wind Turbines Have Another Use

While the primary purpose of this particular wind turbine is to provide drinking water by using the moisture in the air, it is still a wind turbine. The wind power that is harnessed to produce water may also be used to generate electricity. The WMS1000 wind turbine operates using the wind power that also supplies the moisture that is extracted but it is capable of generating at least 25% more electricity than it needs for its operation. This means that it could be used to provide additional electricity to the local area.

Technical Specification of the WMS1000 Wind Turbine

Type

3 blade, horizontal axis

Rated Power

30kW

Hub Height

24m

Nominal Wind Speed

10m/s

Minimum Wind Speed

7m/s for water production

Maximum Wind Speed

50m/s

Rotor Diameter

13m

Nominal Rotation Speed

100 RPM

Blade Material

Fibreglass and epoxy resin

Expected Lifespan

20 years

There are still some unanswered questions about the Eole Water Wind Turbine technology that will be important in deciding whether it is going to be a commercially viable option. Naturally, these questions relate mainly to money and the price of the devices themselves as well as the installation and ongoing maintenance.

At this stage, because the first on-site test project is still in progress the company is unable to release any possible figures with regard to costs. However, it is possible to make an educated guess based on the costs connected to installing similarly sized turbines.

According to the Wind Industry website a wind turbine under 100 kilowatts will cost anywhere in the region of $3,000 to $5,000 per kilowatt of  capacity.

The installation of the wind turbine is going to be dependent on many factors including the accessibility of the location, the cost of transporting to the site, and the actual process of siting the turbine.

Constant Wind Supplies Are Not Necessary

One of the big variables with the reliability of using the WMS1000 turbines to produce drinking water is the wind. Winds of 15 km/h are not always going to be available, particularly in some of the hotter and drier desert regions that boil under the sun most days of the year.

The answer is the WMS-30kW Solar Panel that has been devised and developed as a water production device that is solar powered. This solar panel has been made to be fully self-sufficient which means that it won’t have to be hooked into any external grid system for it to be fully operational. The WMS-30kW Solar Panel can be used in conjunction with a wind turbine either as a complementary piece of equipment or as a backup system that will continue to produce water in completely still conditions. It would be the perfect solution for desert regions where the sun shines brightly for the vast majority of the year.

The customers of the wind turbines and solar panels are expected to be government from around the world. The prospect of providing a consistent and reliable water source for the residents of some of the more isolated and arid parts of the world must provide huge motivation for any government body and it is expected that many will be more than interested in investing in the technology.

The essential mechanics of the WMS-30kW Solar Panel water generator is similar to the wind powered device in that the air is passed through a humidity condenser and cooling compressors to extract the moisture from the air. The difference is in the way the energy is created to power the process. When the unit is connected to solar panels it is able to trigger the required air flow into the heat exchanger.

The image below illustrates the main components of the water device.

The Non-Renewable Energy Option

There are parts of the world where an ample power supply is not a problem while a reliable water source is. In this case it might be a preferable solution to simply hook a unit up to the electrical network for a 24 hour water generator.

This is the 3rd option provided by Eole Water with the WMS-30kW Grid Tie. Effectively, this is a 20’ container that can be placed in the desired location and connected to the local electricity network. Rather than hooking the unit to a solar power panel system the power comes from the external electricity supply but the results are the same and a constant water supply will be available while ever the unit remains connected to the power.

Is It Commercially Viable?

This is the critical question that must be answered – and it will be over the coming months and years as more data is gathered from these early tests. Water is an essential element of life and while it is scarce in some parts of the world, man has been able to locate and use it to stay alive.

Installing a water producing wind turbine is only going to be attractive to government bodies if the price remains low enough to justify it. When Eole can come up with some definite indications as to the likely cost to install a 30kW device that is capable of supplying a significant amount of water to an area we will get more of an idea as to whether the technology will attract the buyers.

To Learn More About This Technology

There is a lot more to find out about the Eole Water Wind Turbines and the accompanying devices and the Eole Water website can provide you with much of it. You will also find contact details there.

Solar Energy | Narmada Canal Solar Project

Some of the best ideas, when it comes to the introduction of relatively new technology comes when it solves a couple of problems at the same time. The idea to cover the Narmada branch canal in Gujurat, India with solar panels is an especially clever one.

Not only will the solar power generated from the panels provide clean energy for the local residents, it will be saving an incredible amount of land. When the canal is covered over there is the additional benefit of saving huge quantities of water that would otherwise be lost from the irrigation canals through evaporation. That’s three benefits gained through the installation of solar panels and a significant saving of some of our most important natural resources.

The project has been set up as part of an experimental process by the State-owned Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (SSNNL) and the Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited. This small-scale experiment covers a 750 meter stretch of canal to generate 1MW of electricity from the panels. It has also been indicated that the solar panels are capable of producing power at a 15% premium to the power that might be generated on land thanks to the cooling effect of the water running beneath them.

This trial project suggests that there is enormous potential for large scale solar energy generation through the use of the canals considering the Narmada dam project in Gujarat consists of 85,000 kilometres of canals when you take into consideration the main, branch and sub-branch canals. Figures floated around suggest that if 10 per cent of the canal network were to be covered by solar panels the generating capabilities would be around 2,200MW. Using the canals to produce this much solar energy would save 11,000 acres of land and would eliminate the loss of millions of litres of water per year.

Naturally, whether or not the replication process is carried out over a larger expanse of the canals will come down to money and whether it is considered cost effective. The project, which was completed by Sun Edison, was completed at a cost of Rs 17.71 crore. Gurdeep Singh, managing director of Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited (GSECL) has pointed out that this cost was higher than normal because of it was the first of its kind and indicated that similar sized projects could be completed at a lower cost of around Rs 12 crore.

At this point it is only feasible to place the solar panels on the narrower sub-branch parts of the canals. But according to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, work is being done on finding a way to engineer a solution for putting the solar panels up over the wider main canals. The limitation comes down to working out a way to support the panels without affecting the water flow underneath.

part of the savings for the government that are realised by using the canal system to locate these solar panels is the elimination of the expense of procuring the land that would otherwise be required.

This is a model that holds a lot of promise, not only for the rest of the Narmada canals in India but for other similar sites around the world.