I was very happy to hear about governor Patrick's commitment to sustainable energy, and am always excited by the wealth of information presented in the sustainable energy diaries appearing here (with a few minor concerns). But (sorry folks, in my diaries there is always a "but") I must admit to a few reservations, given that what I am hearing, both from governors councils and contained within diaries right here, doesn't quite match up with the reality I'm seeing on the ground, both in terms of local politics, and definition of basic terms.
I have long felt that the "answer" to sustainability is not a monolithic solution, but a list of solutions , predicated on local and regional conditions, geography, and concerns. I also have become convinced that this silver BB approach needs to be determined, planned (or perhaps evolved), and enacted regionally and locally. The rise of corporate agriculture, and just general corporate mendacity in general, has more than demonstrated the folly of specifying and funding an overall policy of this magnitude from one location in time and space without taking into account the regional differences of the country and the people making it up. acknowledgment of the regional differences in even something as straight forward as insolation shows the folly of a one size fits all solution emanating from Washington after being devised on K street and carefully optimized to maintain the status quo of those who will financially benefit from it.
Being something of an outsider in the local alternative energy community, while working in the same field, gives one a bit of perspective (I'm on the outside as I am a johnny come lately to the area, and disagree vehemently with many on some financial and planning issues), and the local political response to biomass and wind solutions is anything but favorable, and if not dealt with is likely to throw a monkey wrench into any enactment of sustainable technology, governor Patrick's commitment not withstanding. Case in point, Biomass.
Here in the northeast, biomass for non-transport applications largely means wood, or at least forest products. The relatively short growing season, and the geography of the region (we got rocks) make this one of a small number of practical options, especially if one projects transport costs going forward, and works under the assumption that perhaps the best land in the valleys should be reserved for local food production. That being said, I don't support the big corporate biomass plants being proposed and constructed in the southern portion of the state...they aren't sustainable.
This may sound ridiculous after having government and industry push economies of scale at us year after year as justification for the mega projects, and mega plants, but interjection of the issues of sustainability and efficiency into the equation change everything. First off, sustainable harvest of forest products is about 20-25 million BTU's per acre per year, and the highest efficiency and greatest sustainability calls for selective harvest rather than clear cutting. second the shorter the transport chain, the more efficient and sustainable the overall process will be, and the more likely the "profits" from such operations will remain locally for re-investment. thirdly, economies of scale can (and are) reversed if local or micro plants are designed to allow for CHP (waste heat utilization) for local processes.
Right now the current state of the art for micro-scale utilization of woody biomass is the wood stove or wood furnace. Admittedly, there are problems with the technology, they put out smoke (particulate matter) and don't yet generate electricity. They do emit 50% of the CO2 of an oil furnace, per BTU generated, and none of it is fossil derived, they keep control of the energy source in local hands...so why are we outlawing them in virtually every city and town in western MA? ??? I dearly wish I had an answer. As much as an immediate, personal problem, (how am I going to heat my house/dairy), it presents a substantial impediment to development of ANY local or community based biomass solution, be that solution micro (<1MBTU), intermediate (1-50 MBTU) or a large scale solution. The laws as written also don't take into account any advancement of the technology, and contain the implicit assumption that fossil fuel technologies are inherently benign and biomass technologies are inherently dangerous to human and community life. <br> Passing into the realm of disbelief, wind power is being painted with the same brush out here in the hinterlands. In my immediate area, there are about 7 towns with ideal geographies for wind power. Residents of these towns, with the assistance outside groups supplying scare tactics either have or are in the process of making wind power either outright illegal or effectively impossible to implement. The assumptions behind these laws tend to be based in either outright fallacy, or predicated on the outdated notion that destruction of the "viewshed" will "destroy others property values" and "destroy the local tourist economy". I would like to note that we are not talking about 400 ft multi megawatt projects here, even 85 ft 7 KW off grid projects are being shut down or having their implementation stretched into years...
This seems to be the approach, propagated by "grassroots" organizations of dubious progeny...invent a set of scare stories and unfounded statistics around a potential solution. Scare the hell out of a local board with an impact to an illusory economy or circumstance, and discredit any local advocacy as "industry lackeys".
If anyone from the governors council or advisers reads this, email me, you have a problem out here, and we need to fix it.