Thanks for the information about a sustainable renewable energy source.

Plasma is the answer!

well someone at the empire pulled my comment for saying that we should be using Geothermal in southeast.

Geothermal co-ops is growing down south
and as far as bio-mass, plant a tree plantation for it and leave the Tongass alone.

A ground source heat pump still is a new heating load to the electrical grid... it is 1/3 that of regular resistance heating, but it still represents a new electrical load to the local utility's grid. And it is new loads to the grid that are the problem.

Geothermal is different. That is using the heat of the earth and pumping it to the building. This works where there are geothermal heat pockets.

Although I have some problems with a pellet future in a rainforest I'm glad that there are folks such as Bob pursuing something other than the same old saw. The problem is how do we get the percentage of moisture down economically in a rainforest?

This is part of the difficulty of making pellets economically here. I'd say that hydro despite it's high capital expense is the main way to get things going. Other forms of renewable energy development are being examined.

Certainly if someone can deliver an economic means to dry Tongass waste biomass, then we'll be on to something. We can't however, burn diesel to do so, it makes no sense. I realize that isn't what is being proposed.

I'm making the point that biomass isn't yet the energy panacea we are seeking. Certainly it is part of the solution, but perhaps Sealaska might purchase a fuel solution (mill and wood supply) down south where it is more economical to produce dry pellets. Certainly a local company producing less costly heating fuel and selling it to all residents seems a good idea.

Bob makes a good point that we must diversify our energy portfolio. Sealaska and the Coast Guard have brought in some energy which is less costly than heating oil. We just need some refinement to continue to make better headway on the cost of energy. We should thank Bob and others for innovating.

You make too many 'interesting' claims to respond to fully in this forum, however:

- I am not aware of hundreds of millions in subsidies for this. Please explain.

- An evaluation of the carbon budget in Southeast will show that incorporating biomass into our energy portfolio will significantly reduce the amount of CO2 we emit. Running diesel generators produces far more CO2 than burning biomass, so by freeing up our hydropower resources from space heating we can use them to eliminate the need for diesel generators at the mines, cruise ships, and even AELP during dry years.

And I assure you I am not a 'corporate collaborator'. I'm just a local Federal employee who happens to feel this is an important civic issue. And I think the small Mom & Pop operations that are planning to install pellet mills in the area would be surprised to hear themselves described that way too.

If biomass is not the answer in your book, how do you propose to meet our energy needs? This is a worthy discussion for this community to have.

Good - there have been quite a few independent studies done on various aspects of the issue, but you are correct that there hasn't been one study that pulls it all together. I think such a study is warranted. They have been done in other locations, such as in New England.

But if worse came to worst, it would still make sense to transition over to biomass if we had to import all of it from the Lower-48 or Canada. It simply costs less than oil, and we won't see the extreme price fluctuations oil experiences.

I suspect that the initial supply will be imported until the demand reaches a point where it makes sense for the private sector to install regional mills. I understand that several parties are already exploring the possibility.

First Mr. Deering, lets get this straight:

According to you, ("I'm just a local Federal employee who happens to feel this is an important civic issue.")

Really?

Are you saying you have NOT been paid thousands of dollars to study the feasibility of Tongass National Forest-derived biomass which will result in the advancement of the corporate biomass industry's pursuit of taxpayer subsidies (which in the 2008 Farm Bill alone, under the Biomass Crop Assistance Program --BCAP-- offers Taxpayer-Paid Subsidies totaling a Half a Billion Dollars? btw, BCAP is only one of many federal programs making biomass corporate profiteers rich off of taxpayer pension plans-- the American Restoration and Recovery Act (ARRA) offers hundreds of millions MORE in taxpayer subsidies to biomass corporate profiteers such as Sealaska Inc.)

Your answer is vitally important as a clarification to your specifically stated "civic" concerns (with absolutely no financial conflicts of interest disclosed, and which, of course, is easily fact checked.)

Mr. Deering said:
"show me a better option right now that we can afford."

Energy Conservation, Mr. Deering. Energy Conservation.

We cannot afford to fail to aggressively pursue energy conservation. Your suggestion that we should be replacing fossil fuel with "renewable energy" such as biomass is a well-established corporate scam.

On Energy Conservation:

When an avalanche wiped out Juneau's primary hydropower grid source recently, the citizens of Juneau responded with exemplary voluntary energy conservation initiatives. They showed how energy conservation can work magnificently -- and they sure weren't using Tongass pellets to do it.

As someone who gets his paycheck (NOT from the Dept. of Transportation, but from the Department of Homeland Security, (DHS) one would expect our DHS would regard our collective energy security with an emphasis on ENERGY CONSERVATION --

After all-- think back to our national response to the Oil Embargo and OPEC's cartel-- we reduced the national speed limit to 55mph and made aggressive national energy conservation responses such as CAFE (auto fuel efficiency standards) which quickly neutralized any threat by OPEC to control the price of oil. That threat was easily vaporized, long before we understood the far greater threat of Global Warming and Ocean Acidification.

In very short order, our national energy conservation initiatives quickly exceeded the volumes representing our dependence on Mid East Oil and broke the back of the OPEC Oil Cartel.

So what gives Mr. Deering?

Are you suggesting an aggressive, mandatory, national and regional energy conservation initiative is not only something we can't "afford", but something that isn't a reasonable alternative to biomass which will in fact be accelerating climate change, and threatening not only the commercial fishing industry but all future generations of Americans?

Surely you are aware of the well-established scientific evidence that the officially described carbon accounting of biomass is bogus? (There are 90 scientists on record who have warned Nancy Pelosi and the rest of Washington DC. this is the case-- are you suggesting they're all misguided?) Their arguments are based upon carbon losses due to land use change and the fact that carbon rich forests such as the Tongass, store more carbon per acre under the trees (soil, roots, understory) than the total carbon in the trees themselves. That is, the Tongass is not only a magnificent active carbon sink, but massive carbon storehouse.

Once the Tongass is (ahem) "restored" through "stewardship" (simply more corporate marketing sloganeering) with all its industrial "waste" products to profit from, it comes as no surprise formerly timber-dependent communities such as Craig would stoop to put their children's health at risk in the pursuit of "jobs".

No surprise at all.

But Mr. Deering-- Is this about "energy security" or not?

If so, why isn't our first line of defense (coming from the Department of Homeland Security) based upon mandatory energy conservation policies well-established as proven tactical strategies to the high cost of oil?

Might it be be that the greatest threat we face is not coming from the Middle East oil suppliers' Cartel but from Wall Street commodities speculators and the multi-national behemoth oil corporations currently breaking all records of Quarterly Profit taking in the history of the world? And those same corporations are determining national energy policy which you are being paid to advance?

There's much more to bring up Mr. Deering, but this will make a small dent in the numerous factually deficient claims and inferences suggested in your essay based upon your "civic" concerns.

I understand and appreciate that conservation is number one in terms of an effective energy policy. Have a look at the villages which are subject to much higher costs for energy. If one looks at a satellite image of Southeast at night, the smaller high cost electric communities don't even register with light. Those towns practice the ultimate form of conservation - they can't afford to waste any energy due to their costs.

So where the villages they go from here? Their conservation options are pretty much tapped out. Moving away from petroleum is paramount - it is just plain unaffordable. So if you cut wood instead of purchasing pellets, you are still in the carbon cycle.

Moving away from oil is necessary be it with the fishing industry and overall transportation industry. Condemning Mr. Deering's efforts while at the same time offering non-viable solutions to the politically powerless villages isn't the answer. I suspect those communities have shifted away from oil a long time ago despite their utility's oil addiction. And they are burning season wood hydrocarbons, not hydrogen.

I wonder what the building the critic lives in uses for an energy source? And how does the critic get in and out of or around Juneau? The old fashioned hydrocarbon way no doubt. I'd wager that Bob has considered conservation first, because it makes so much eco-sense - so what does one do next?

And I wonder about the 90 sources mentioned, they may be right, but in today's society some cited sources lend a great deal of credence to the assertion. In short, it is paramount that any information presented be critically examined. It has always been that way, but please don't take my word for it.

I won't be completely critical of the critic. I appreciate that corporate influence has gotten us into this mess. I don't trust them either. I'm uncertain whether the term corporate profiteer applies to Sealaska, certainly not the shareholders in that regard.

Also, when the line to Snettisham came down, yes the citizens cut use, but they also lived probably more miserably than do their Southeast village counterparts do (at least in the village they are less dependent upon electricity.) This is not the kind of lifestyle that anyone prefers.

I believe davian is right...burning "biomass" for heat and power is a losing proposition, though some production/sales outfit may, w/ immense startup subsidy, turn a profit of sorts.
The problem is this: That "waste" biomass isn't waste at all, whether from corn, soybeans, woodchips, or whatever...It's bio/energy that should be returned to it's natural cycle of decomposition, replenishing the soils it came from.
Bio energy in the broader, agribusiness sense requires ever more petro derived fertilizer, ever more of the diminishing watertable, and uses a huge portion of it's potential just for processing.
Witness corn/ethanol. We've already seen riots, gunfire and death in Central and South America over the astronomical price inflation of...you guessed it...corn tortillas. This because the growers found greater immediate profit in sales to ethanol processors. Gee, ain't the market wonderful?
We, collectively (as an endangered species) must diminish demand first and foremost. Population and demand will always outstrip production. Otherwise, Malthus will be far more important than the Beatles and Jesus combined.

interesting article.

We stopped using oil about 4 years ago. The price was going up and electric seemed like a better option. I am an electrical engineer and computer programmer so I designed a smart heating system. It separates each room of the house into its own independent zone. A motion detector lets the computer know that someone is in a room, turning on the in wall forced air electric heater and bringing the temperature up to a comfortable level. When the room is empty, the temperature lowers to save energy. The system is run by a central computer and can be controlled over the internet. The system has been working very good for the last 4 years and has probably paid for itself by now. It has reduced our bill by hundreds a month in the winter.

Actually, pellet stoves of today are one of the cleanest options around. Just a matter of whether you are buying pellets from Oregon, barged up here or made locally from waste from the current logging operations around SE that otherwise is burned or left to rot.