PPL To Install 4.8 MW Renewable Energy Power Plant in Vermont (landfill methane)

[jpak]

http://www.renewableaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50531

PPL Renewable Energy, a subsidiary of PPL Corporation, announced last week that it will develop and install a 4.8 megawatt methane-to-electricity power plant at a landfill in Moretown, Vermont. The 200-acre Moretown Landfill will provide 2.4 million cubic feet of methane gas per day.

Methane-to-energy systems at landfills have a dual benefit for the environment—they generate electricity from renewable fuel while also eliminating emissions of methane, a gas that contributes to global warming. Methane is created when refuse in landfills decomposes.

"This project is consistent with our company's vision of being the best possible partner to all of our constituencies, local communities, customers, employees and shareholders," said Frank E. Celli, chief operating officer of Highstar Waste Holding Corp. "By developing this project with PPL Renewable Energy, the Moretown Landfill creates a beneficial use for a naturally occurring byproduct of our waste management operations and reduces greenhouse gas emissions."

<not much more>

[Nederland]

1. 4.8 megawatts?

That's tiny, hardly worth the effort...

[jpak]

2. Obviously it is because there are >1000 MW of similar landfill methane power projects

currently operating in the US (and more planned).

The reduction in methane emissions *alone* is "worth the effort"...

[Nederland]

3. What happens to the carbon?

Methane contains carbon--where does it go? The article doesn't say...

[jpak]

4. It's combusted to CO2 - and carbon neutral in that form

n/t

[Nederland]

6. And released into the atmosphere?

[jpak]

8. ummm...it's carbon neutral

That methane was produced from the degradation of non-fossil organic matter - there is no net increase in atmospheric CO2 and no net increase in anthropogenic climate forcing (which would have occurred if the methane was not oxidized to CO2).

That's what carbon neutral means...

[NickB79]

9. Did they use fossil fuels to grow that rotted organic matter?

Or are those rotten banana peels, corn cobs, and orange peels grown entirely without diesel fuel, fertilizers, or gasoline on the farms? Were those dead cornflakes transported from the factories to the grocery stores on the backs of pack mules?

We use 10 calories of oil to grow 1 calorie of food in the US. Any methane produced from waste food products in the US, even organically farmed food products, is far from carbon-neutral.

Of course, burning the methane for power is far better than allowing it to escape into the atmosphere, but it's still making the best of a bad situation.

[jpak]

11. Vermont garbage - without a doubt - traveled fewer miles and used less fossil fuel to get there

than yellowcake mined in Canada, Africa, Australia or Russia, converted in Illinois, enriched with coal-fired electricity in Ohio and Kentucky, fabricated in Oklahoma and transported to Vermont Yankee nuclear plant (and then shipped to parts unknown as spent reactor fuel).

A far more environmentally friendly journey than VT Yankee uranium...

[NickB79]

13. Who mentioned anything about yellowcake and uranium?

I thought we were talking about methane from landfills here.

Does Vermont not use imported oil, shipped in from overseas in 1,000-foot oil tankers, or imported fertilizers made from natural gas, to grow their vegetables? I'm betting that the majority of the thousands of tons of fresh vegetables sold each week in the dead of winter in Vermont aren't grown in greenhouses (though I know that a small percentage is), but are trucked in from Florida, California, Mexico, etc. No matter how you slice it, methane-derived electricity is NOT carbon-neutral, despite your claims that it is.

[jpak]

14. It most certainly is carbon neutral

That methane was derived from non-fossil carbon - that's the definition of carbon neutral.

Biogeochemistry 101

[NickB79]

15. Ugh, are you intentionally not listening, or haven't you been on a farm before?

The rotting organic material was grown USING fossil fuels; they were shipped hundreds, if not thousands of miles, USING fossil fuels. That organic material that produces the methane wouldn't exist (at least, not in anywhere near the volume it does today) without fossil fuels to produce them. So yes, many tons of non-fossil carbon was released to create the organic material to create the methane.

[jpak]

16. ugh, are you intentionally ignoring photosynthesis and the carbon cycle???

The carbon in that methane was fixed into non-fossil organic matter (food and fiber) by photosynthesis. It ended up in a landfill as refuse - not fuel. It was converted to methane in that landfill by archaea and oxidized back to CO2 by a generator.

That carbon was rapidly cycled back to the atmosphere and there is no net increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result.

[NickB79]

17. You know, I just realized how ironic this argument is, coming from you

In the past, you've argued that nuclear power isn't truly carbon-neutral, because of all the fossil fuels used to mine, refine, and transport the fuel, as well as the CO2 released when the reactors are built. Yet now, when I apply your very own standards to electricity from landfill biogas, by pointing out all the fossil fuel inputs to create the organic matter to decompose to methane, you object.

That is rich.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. Hmmm

Whilst I'd agree that burning the methane is better than just venting it, I think describing the gaseous emissions from the collected detritus of the most wasteful nation on the planet as "carbon neutral" is pushing reality a little too far, don't you think?

Or do plastics in US landfills not decay, ever? And all the rubbish moved by hand-cart? and no fossil-based fertiliser ever makes it's way into the waste via food, right?

That's alright, then. Fuck recycling and compost, just throw everything into the trash and use it to make electricity.

The planet is saved!

[Nederland]

12. Fair enough

I guess I'd view this as a method of reducing methane emmissions rather than a significant source of energy. And like you say, that alone is worth the effort.

[kestrel91316]

5. YAY. I am a big fan of methane (from waste)-to-electricity.

The methane is gonna "happen" come hell or high water. Best that we convert it into something less harmful (CO2) and generate electricity from it in the process.

[DCKit]

7. Exactly, Methane is many times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Far better to capture and burn it than allow it into the atmosphere.

For the detractors who say 4.8MW is too small, what if there were fifty of these in every state?

Big Oil doesn't bother with small wells either, but there are many small companies doing very well off many 10bbl/day wells in CA, TX, OK, PA, etc....