The draft Southeast Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) is out for public comment until March 19. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) contracted Black & Veatch to prepare it.
The IRP proposes converting 80 percent of Southeast’s space heating to biomass within 10 years. Cost: over half-a-billion-dollars. While calling for this massive biomass program the plan gives heat pumps no role, a failure resulting from multiple instances of misinformation in the document.
For example, the claim that air source heat pumps generally require expensive air ducts is outdated and no longer true. Inexpensive split and mini-split models are easy to install and already at work here in Southeast. The IRP ignored all of the experience with heat pumps in Southeast’s hydro communities. Here in Sitka the Forest Service office has had air-source heat pumps for about 20 years, and Blatchley Middle School is converting to them right now. There are others at offices, businesses and homes. Juneau has good examples, too, including geothermal or sea-water source heat pumps at the airport and the NOAA lab. The IRP is not credible on this topic.
A crucial error is the IRP’s claim that wood pellet heat costs less than running a heat pump when power costs more than 6.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (KWh), for pellets costing $250 per ton. (IRP, Table 16-9). That alleged break-even point, which is about half the current price of hydro-electricity, is a gross error. Black & Veatch has acknowledged to me, after weeks of delay, that the correct breakeven point for pellets is 19.5 cents per KWh. Further, at the current price for pellets ($375/ton according to the IRP) pellets don’t breakeven with heat pumps until the cost of power increases beyond 29 cents per KWh.
At either price for pellets, and with hydropower currently at 9 to 12 cents per KWh in larger Southeast towns, using pellet stoves will be far more costly than heat pumps into the distant future, and perhaps always. The IRP missed this point entirely, and in error it assumed and acted on the opposite conclusion. The IRP gushes repeatedly over the low cost of biomass versus fuel oil heat, and ignores the fact that heat pumps greatly outperform biomass on economy.
AEA, too, ignores that fact. In late February, after the breakeven-point error had been acknowledged, AEA’s IRP Project Manager and its Biomass Program Manager testified to the House Economic Development Committee about the IRP, saying that wood pellet heat is much cheaper than oil heat. They failed to disclose that in the hydro communities heat pumps are far cheaper to run than pellet stoves.
The above errors and omissions — which resulted in the IRP ignoring the least-cost heat pump option — should be declared fatal to the IRP draft. The IRP is crippled from its foundation up because in a comprehensive energy plan the full and even-handed consideration to all options, particularly ones that outperform, is crucial.
What is needed now is a new, thoroughly revised draft of the Southeast IRP. The current draft is not ready to go to a final version. The public needs a reasonable, complete and fair draft on which to comment, first.
A final point is that the hydropower communities can convert from both their existing inefficient electric resistance heating (i.e. baseboards or space heaters) and fuel oil heating to heat pumps, with little burden on — or even a gain to — our existing hydro systems. This is the 10-year conversion program we need, not one for biomass, as this will leverage Southeast’s hydropower for heating at low, predictable prices at a scale consistent with existing and planned hydro capacity.
For example: In Sitka, 38% of residential heat was by electric resistance already in 2008 (and now, more). Converting those homes to air-source heat pumps would cut power consumption enough that even after also switching all oil-fired homes to heat pumps the outcome would be a net reduction in the city’s power consumption.
A further gain could be had by creating some district heating systems, supplied by seawater-source heat pumps. Scandinavian systems are good models for this.
• Edwards is a forest campaigner for Greenpeace and a long-time resident of Sitka.
Comments (31)
Add commentAnother lie from Greenpeace.
While I agree that the research done for the IRP is flawed I think that the author is misrepresenting the truth as well.
Most air source heat pumps lose their efficiency as the external temperatures fall below 5 degrees Celsius (about 41 degrees Fahrenheit). In colder climates, the system needs to be installed with an auxiliary source of heat to supplement the heat pump in the event of extremely cold temperatures when it is simply too cold for the heat pump to work at all ,generally anything less than 15F. The outdoor section on some units may 'frost up' when outdoor temperatures are between 0°C and 5°C (between 32°F and 41°F) and there is sufficient moisture in the air which restricts air flow across the outdoor coil.(most of the winter in southeast) These units employ a defrost cycle where the system switches to "A/C" mode to move heat from the home to the condenser to melt the ice. This requires the supplementary heater (resistance electric or gas) in the indoor section to activate, to temper the cold air being distributed. The defrost cycle reduces the efficiency of the heat pump significantly. These issues alone make air source heat pumps a bad choice for our climate.
Air source heat pumps are used to provide interior space heating and cooling even in colder climates, and can be used efficiently for water heating in milder climates. A major advantage of ASHP's is that the same system may be used for air conditioning in summer and heating in winter. Though the cost of installation is generally high, it is less than the cost of a ground source heat pump, because a ground source heat pump requires excavation to install its ground loop. This presents yet another problem, these systems are expensive to install and do not work well as a “whole home” heat source so one needs to install several to heat a home.
His title says it all.
"Edwards is a forest campaigner for Greenpeace"
Of course, the job description for that position entails expertise on BTUs and KWhs.
AH Ha-Ha Should Capture Heat Grinding His Axes Against Greens
Thanks for eliminating all doubt you've missed the point entirely in your rush to slash and slam.
Hint: heat pumps are not stand alone, but augment other heating sources -- and which in combination with energy efficient construction or retrofitting already-built homes can tip the scales without poisoning the air with pellet's nano particles, or accelerating climate change and ocean acidification with carbon pollution.
Take home message:
The half a billion dollars Black and Veatch is dangling like a baited hook for biomass needs to be invested in heat pumps which are hydroelectric powered and other non-carbon producing space heating.
We have massive untapped REAL renewable energy sources all around us in Southeast and it will take wise investments to create a livable planet.
Black and Veatch along with Sealaska Executive-led Advisory Working Group, supported by SEACC, are selling-out for the biomass-backwards quick fix.
The Axe is well ground...
I intend to use it to do some chopping.
1. A 500 million dollar investment would probably get the region most of the developed hydro it needs.
Provided we would ever be allowed to develop it. And of course we all know how that plays out…. Twenty years of lawsuits later a permit might be issued and some construction might start… maybe.
2. At upwards of $5000 per installed unit these are not an "efficient" source of heat for most homes if they are "supplemental"
3. Retrofitting homes to make efficient use of these systems is cost prohibitive in nearly all cases and still very hard to justify in new construction.
Skirkz, you too? (sheesh...)
Larry Edwards is plenty qualified. He first came to Alaska in 1976 as a mechanical engineer hired by Alaska Pulp Corporation, which was touting itself then as nonpolluting, by greenwashing their production processes to job applicants.
Larry quickly realized they were lying, and fought them with the help of other brave pulp mill workers.
And They Won.
Unfortunately, the taxpayers ended up with a Superfund site anyway, and a billion dollar bill inflating a Timber Bubble Economy.
Now some clueless sell-outs want to bring us-----------
Biomass-Backwards from pulp to pellets.
When will our government quit funding these pulp and pellet scams, and actually help us find sustainable solutions that don't destroy our region and planet?
Why in the world should we
Why in the world should we invest in Biomass when we have all this hydro power at our finger tips?
A far better plan would be to provide assistance to home owners to switch over to Hydro/electric power because Hydro power is cleaner than Biomass and cheaper.
SEACC
I don't even know how SEACC has any members anymore.
Davian,
If you really want to be "Green" and help with preventing wasted carbon from getting into the air, perhaps you can join the fight to stop Greenpeace from driving those oil-burning ships around Alaska accomplishing nothing except the waste of precious non-renewable natural resources. You might also ask them to be sure to have the required required spill response plan in place before they enter our waters again.
My understanding is that the
My understanding is that the SeaAlaska Native corporation is pushing the biomass project and targeting all our old growth trees in SE to burn as biomass.
I think if the public knew that this was in the biomass plan they would not support it. These trees are deserving of our protection, they are far more valuable to us left standing, than burning for fuel.
I for one will certainly be boycotting a Biomass plan for SE.
and AH HA
promptlee changes da subject...cleva my neeeeee
I thought
I thought all of Sealaska's businesses had been run into the ground by management. What's a bunch of loser greenies hanging out with that outfit for?
Is there like money in it or something?
I notice that
Skirkz is requiring competency in a given field in order to be able to intelligently comment on it and make intelligent recommendations. Most excellent! I'll be sure to remember that when everyone is screaming about climate...
C'mon, dust...
You've been screaming that very requirement to comment all along. But, it's ok for some else to do if it is in agreement with your agenda. Why aren't you requiring the author's peer reviewed paper and cited sources to validate his comments? Doesn't take a lot of review of ones electric, fuel oil and firewood costs to decide whether he can afford to install a $1million ground source heat pump to "supplement" his energy consumption.
One of the last things we
One of the last things we want to be releasing into the atmosphere is more soot which is produced from burning Biomass. As an Arctic state, we really need to get our energy plan right, lets not jump at Biomass burning as a solution.
Biomass Burning: Another hidden cause of global warming
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/BiomassBurning.htm
Actually -
I completely agree with you! I'm not accepting anything the writer said at all - I just noticed your call for competency, which is great! I'd also point out that understanding BTUs and KWhs is far simpler than climate mathematics and modeling, so demand for competence in such a relatively simple arena would suggest that a more complex one would demand even greater demonstrated competency.
I made no such call.
My comment was fairly benign. Just pointing out my observation. And in my world, it's difficult to be green when it's above your means. But I try. That said, the energy that is within my means lends to the gradual mitigation of my heating energy requirements. It's called antrhropogenic global warming!
Lol!
Stuff like this always sets off the rednecks. Humorous, but please read the facts and contentions before hacking off like that!
larry edwards rocks
Isn't there some sort of Alaska conservation award of the year for individuals? If it goes to anybody other than this guy, you'd really have to question the credibility of whoever makes those awards.
air source heat pumps in ketchikan
I know a few folks in Ketchikan who installed air source heat pumps in their residences. They all paid between $1200 and $1500 for their units, from what I remember. They installed their units themselves, which saved on labor costs. Not sure what kind of issues they ran into this January with that cold snap we had. I'd be interested to find out. Otherwise, they told me their heat pumps worked great, and were affordable, too.
The Shire... concerning pellets
Pellets have their place, and so do heat pumps. In areas with cheap electricity (and an abundance of it) heat pumps are the way to go (better than regular resistance heaters), but oddly enough there is no mention of Sitka's dire electric power situation where they are out of hydro power and must run diesel generators for the town's power! You are shifting your personal oil boilers off (70-90% efficent) and using diesel to make electricity to heat your home (30% efficient) so you can feel better about the environment.
At any rate the IRP is a plan, and some people cannot make the connections that plan (with its short comings) is trying to quantify.
test
test
test
test
It's not only fatally flawed, it's a a waste of public money
Thanks for your research Larry. I'm glad there are individuals that have the expertise to spot serious flaws with the SEIRP as you identified.
Some are so busy killing the messenger, they forgot to consider the message. Black & Vetch admitted it's error in calculating the break even point for using pellets - a fact that was not disclosed to the House Economic Development Committee. That is downright dishonest.
If this plan is adopted, not only will SE residents suffer the consequences on a variety of fronts, but all residents of the State will suffer yet more waste of public funds. I know no one who likes to throw good money after bad. Isn't that why so many are upset with the federal government these days?
Clearly, the SEIRP should go back to the drawing board. But above all, we should be investing in cleaner, safer, and more modern, less expensive and less controversial alternatives than heating with wood pellets. Certainly we can do better; it is the 21st century after all.
Larry is fighting for YOUR world
Air-source electric heat pumps are approximately twice as efficient (half the cost) relative to electric resistance or oil heaters. An ASHP effectively acts as the primary heat source for homes in Southeast communities for more than 90% of the year. Heat-only units are more efficient than heating and cooling combo units (which we don’t need in SE). Very few days of the year are too cold for an ASHP to effectively deliver all the required heat in a home with a properly designed system. Even with defrosting (around freezing temps) and diminished effectiveness (at very low temps), the ASHP still outperforms the alternatives (except GSHP and OSHP). ASHP units are commonly installed for less than $4000 in new and in retrofit construction, most often in less than one day, even in a retrofit.
Larry is fighting for YOUR world (cont'd)
Larry Edwards is a genius-level individual who has studied these units (and many other alternatives) extensively. He’s working to (unselfishly) answer the tough questions with innovativeness as opposed to knee-jerk Cro-Magnon reactions. Of course, the cavemen didn’t have a critical mass of particulate matter in their atmosphere, nor did they have access to better technology. Can’t afford an ASHP? You can’t afford not to get one. Sitka wouldn’t be burning diesel to generate electricity if the hydro-electricity were being used efficiently (i.e. heat pumps). Ever heard of global warming? Calling biomass-burning “carbon-neutral” is another political maneuver intended to justify the profitability of corporate sectors. You may be OK with your wood-burning particulate matter drifting to wherever, but what goes around, comes back around. All bad (read: politically motivated) ideas eventually come home to roost. The draft IRP is useful, if you feel compelled to burn something.
Response to Ah-Ha (part 1)
Ah-Ha said: "[The IRP] makes a fine example of the kind of thing that has led a large percentage of the public to view the scientific community with a very healthy dose of skepticism."
But Ah-Ha, consultants did the IRP, not "scientists." You say the IRP as "badly flawed," so pin the blame where it belongs -- on the hired hands that wrote it and the state employees who oversaw it.
Ah-Ha also said: "I have also noted that all of [the heat pumps] proponents like to compare them to the cost of using radiant heat from electric resistance type heaters, the most expensive way to heat imaginable ..."
But Ah-ha, in the op-ed a heat pump proponent compared heat pumps to biomass heat, and biomass came out far more expensive than heat pumps. (And other commenters showed heat pump installation costs as reasonable.) Pellet stoves cost, too.
Response to Ah-Ha (part 2)
Ah-Ha said: "... every log sale is met with a lawsuit ..."
Best not to repeat stuff like that from Parnell. He was straightened out on that in SitNews last year, that in fact only a handfull out of 60-some timber sales in the previous three years had been in court.
Ah-Ha also said: "... every dam or road requires years of litigation prior to obtaining permits to build it."
That simply isn't true.
BUT I DO AGREE WITH YOU THAT the IRP is "badly flawed" and that "we really need to take a good hard unbiased look at the options and make a decision." But please turn the hyperbole down a notch, and make sure you have your gun pointed in the right direction.
Oops, posted to wrong article.
See the Wednesday op-ed.
@roughcut
I think it's about time we locked these lickleafers up and throw away the key!
Feeding pellet stoves & ductless heat pumps
Anybody know how to keep a pellet stove going longer than a few days if you don't throw a bag of pellets in the hopper? I guess there would have to be some huge exterior pellet tank with some delivery system to keep those pellets moving into the stove if you feel like going on vacation for more than a few days. I know they are doing something like that at some commercial buildings, but I've never seen such an application for residential. Maybe someone else knows if there are already systems developed to do that for residential applications. And how would a large volume of pellets be transferred from a truck to that large tank in someones yard? I don't suppose the pellets would travel through a hose as well as heating oil does. So would we all need delivery pads up to a pellet storage tank that a truck could back up on to dump pellets in the tank?
I have an 850 sqft apartment I'm remodeling. It's gutted now and I'm considering heat source alternatives. From what I've read, Ah Ha is accurate when stating that the air source heat pumps require auxiliary heat after it's below 40 degrees outside. They usually put electric heating coils inside the heat pump for the heat pump to extract the heat from. The transfer from heating coil to refrigerant to inside air results in an efficiency loss. It's more efficient just to put those heating coils into baseboard heaters to directly heat the room air. I'm looking at possibly putting in a ductless heat pump which blows it's air into the room from a unit mounted on an exterior wall. I wouldn't need to run ducts in the place, which can be a spendy retrofit. I figure I could efficiently run the air source heat pump for 8 months or so and switch to electric baseboards when it is cold. With some thermostats and switches it could maybe even be set up as an automatic transfer of heating units occurring around 40 degrees.
I guess one other cost to add to heating with pellets when comparing to hydro sourced heating is the transportation of the bulky fuel and the carbon based fuel used for the transportation. Of course, oil is currently transported to homes and other buildings. However, based on some calculations I did, pellets only have roughly a third of the BTU's per volume as oil does, so it would take three times as many trips to move the same amount of heating energy around as it does for oil. Someone has to pay for all those extra trips and that's more fuel burned and exhausted to the air.
I'm not sure air sourced heat pumps can be a sole heat source, but they may make a significant reduction in expense of other heat sources. So we need multiple heating systems. Many homes now seem to have a combination of oil, electric and wood or pellet.