Can A City Run On 100% Renewable Energy?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 лип 2016
- In 2014 Burlington, Vermont became the first city in the United States to run on 100% Renewable Energy. But how do they actually do it? What’s their secret?
Thanks to Miguel Franco for helping to make this episode possible
/ marioofsevenstars
Special Thanks To:
Neile Lunderville, Miro Weinberger, Mike Kanarick, Dave MacDonnell, Jon Clark and the Burlington Electric Department
www.burlingtonelectric.com/
►Subscribe: / thegoodstuff
►Let us know what you think of our show!: bit.ly/1UO0hBN
►Support us on Patreon: / thegoodstuff
►Follow us on Twitter: / goodstuffshow
►Follow us on instagram: goodstuffshow
►Like us on facebook: / thegoodstuffshow
Digital street team: goodstuffshow.com/digitalstree...
Sign up for our mailing list: eepurl.com/bnSOcH
The Good Stuff is a proud member of the PBS Digital Studios family
__________________________________________________________________
Music by:
Amarante
www.amarantemusic.com/
Driftless Pony Club
www.driftlessponyclub.com/
Whirm
whirm.com/
Rob Scallon
/ robscallon
Jason Shaw
audionautix.com/
Burning wood to make electricity is ok for a small city but it's not a solution for the national grid because trees don't regrow fast enough. Fast growing temperate trees such as pines, poplars, or willows can grow at a rate of 10-15 tonnes per hectare per year. Burning 400 000 tonnes of wood per year would therefore require a tree plantation with an area of 260 square kilometers. That's a lot.
Say you wanted to produce 44% of the US electricity consumption (around 180 GW) by burning wood. That would require 1.4 billion tonnes of wood chips per year. You would need a fast growing tree plantation with an area of 930 000 square kilometers. That's almost 10% of the area of the United States.
Thank you SO much for using our song 'The Addict' on here!
Thank you for letting us use your music! Its great!
biomass isn't a renewable resource we can use worldwide. Intentions are good but it isn't the solution we need
Biomass is a good source of energy as their is a negative CO2 output, but indeed when you scale up it isnt a sustainable source. Not sure on the math, but to power a large city, you would need to cut down an area much large than the city itself. That can be compensated by waste from agriculture, but it wont be enough.
Personally I would love to see an energy market with nuclear (which can be much more efficient and safer then is often given credit) providing a strong baseline and wind, solar, hydro and bio supplementing on a much more local scale.
That's totally true, but keep in mind that at the moment there is no single solution that will cover the worlds renewable energy needs, and there may never be. I think the key is to use a mix of sources, make the best use of what's around you, and be ready to change things up as new technology comes on line.
It's important to keep in mind that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
If we're repsonsible. The Taiga would be a good source for renewable biomass.
The goal is always to make it work locally. I live out west, and we have an absolute ton of wind and solar power, which probably wouldn't work nearly as well in Vermont. Iceland uses geothermal, which is fairly limited in its geographical reach. Do what works; don't do what doesn't.
That generating station may also just be the home for the worlds biggest guinea pig.
+
+
+
It a government cover up. They have lied to us and are actually all slaves to their giant guinea pig Overlord.
Nuclear power has not, and will not ever be profitable, until safe and definitive storage of spent fuel is available. The resources required to mine and process the fuel cost more than wind, solar, tidal, hydro or wave technologies currently. Nuclear power has never been profitable here.
The renewable technologies can satisfy, with the addition of storage, can supply every citizen residence & non-industrial structure in this country. The alternative here currently is natural gas from fracking, no ash, and coal, cleaned up with wet scrubbers to remove sulfurs, other metals and neurotoxins like mercury.
However; the finance companies are no longer interested in lending money into long term Capital construction with an unknown service life.
Since the second Great Depression of 2007, the demand for power has been cut in half. Current equipment, the 40 & 50 year old generating fleets can be retrofitted with wet scrubbers as the Clean Air Act Amendments mandated in 1990. Had corporations built those scrubbers, we would not be in our current situation. Powder River Basin coal from Montana and Wyoming requires burning 40% by mass coal than hard higher sulfur coals. So, 40% more hauling, processing, transporting and ash to store for sidestepping the required fix long term!
How much oil and coal is required to cut down, chip and haul 600,000 trees?
I had the same question.
Tom S. Yes this means 600,000 trees have to grow to replace the ones cut down. One has to wait 20 years for a tree to grow before you cut it down.
Probably substantially less than is required to mine, refine, and transport 600000 trees-worth of energy in coal.
Don't forget the fuels used in manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels.
Eventually none! New electric trucks and cars are simply better then any fossil fuel driven vehicle. You can now save money, pollution and have better performance.
Major questions/issues not addressed in this video
1: The biomass plant has pollution control...so does every coal burning power plant. What are the comparisons of Carbon Emissions between the two?
2: How much Carbon Emissions are produced in the local biomass plant vs. the calculated Carbon Emissions used in the creation of new local forests?
3: How much does electricity cost in Burlington? (including total energy bill and cost to produce vs conventional methods.
4: Micro Grids are mentioned but not discussed (that's a HUGE change for our current grid system)
5: 76% of the city's energy is reliant on wood and water, how does this help the cities in the world to go "green" when they don't have access to either?
6: It is suggested that people store the energy they gathered from their solar panels in their basement. WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN HIDING THAT MIRACULOUS TECHNOLOGY????!!
Floridian here, basements don't exist.
1. The comparison is that wood regrows, coal doesn't. harvest 1 effective acre of young trees (burn for ~270k of co2) then 20 years later new trees absorb it. Burn 270k lb co2 equivalent of coal (~47tons of coal )and then it stays there? Coal pollution even after the pollution control is still a lot worse than burning wood.
2. Carbon emissions are net zero for keeping the forest size exactly'ish the same size (trees can't grow indefinitely dense duh) Creation of new forests is just a bonus =)
3. About (attempting to add together from website): $8.50 + $0.153/kwh (first 100kWh = $11.71)
4. Logistics probably not fully developed for large scale yet
5. What's wrong with buying/selling? Solar works in a lot of places where cave dwelling is not the norm
6. Batteries? Not the most economical for offgrid but for microgrids and lower battery prices, probably.
2Awesome
6) it is not very effective solution. It is much better to sell the energy when we have too much and buy when needed.
Awesome,
if you didn't chop down the forests, they would absorb the CO2 emitted from burning coal. Coal is far more effective as it's calorific value is much higher than wood. Wood has to be processed into a type of fuel (pellets) that the boilers can use. This processing uses a lot of energy.
Co2 is not the enemy anyway, it is greening the world, we have until recently been short of atmospheric CO2. It is a life giving gas.
The difference is that biomass from trees is using carbon that is already part of the balanced carbon cycle, whereas coal is introducing carbon that has already been sequestered and is no longer part of the natural carbon cycle. In essence, coal adds extra CO2 to the atmosphere where biomass leaves it the same.
Their slogan should be: Burlington, Vermont. USA's first green city. We make every other city green... with envy.
Renewable yes, but not green. Woodchips still produce co2 and what about their trucks and trains?
the CO2 is offset by the replanted trees taking it back in to grow (hence why it's considered carbon neutral over carbon free) and trucks and trains can be electrified. electric trains are a hundred year old technology and are fairly easy to implement. electric trucks are harder but we're seeing many companies testing products now to be brought to market in the near future.
no, it isn't offset, takes 30 minutes to burn a tree, takes 50 years to regrow that tree.
It is so far from green they might as well be burning garbage and saying "we are recycling it"
Happy Fox but when trees are growing they are using CO2 to grow so the tree will be taking out CO2 in those 50 years so it can grow
" New Trees absorb more carbon than old trees "
When it comes to ash, I just want to point out that when they study the regrowth in a clear cut forest vs the regrowth in an area that was burned by forest fire, the place that was burnt has 10x the regrowth.
So please if you burn wood on a large or small scale, bring that ash back to help the forests grow 10x better. It is a very simple task and it makes a huge difference!
Australian forests explode with life after a bush a fire, and some native plants do not drop seed until fire.
The Good Stuff is so....good!
it's also stuff
There's a little the in there too
+
one would have to plant a lot more then 600,000 trees a year wait 20 years in order replace the ones you cut down. The land area needed in order supply the trees will never meet the rate of consumption (cutting)
Hemp would be a better choice. I mean if you even want a chance for it to work.
Thanks for stating this here. These buffoons are making joke out of word 'renewable green energy'
4:45. They are already returning to areas they harvested from 20 years ago
Carbon producing plants like this should be outlawed. No matter their claims, tons of carbon would be dumped into the ATMOSPHERE due to big diesel logging trucks, chainsaws, and the large man power to harvest them. 100% agree this is a joke when it comes to green, and renuable.
This was an amazing episode. Really nice, that they gave you so much insight on how their city really works. Nice work!
I love how interested you guys are when its comes to your videos, makes it super enjoyable to watch!
+
Bio-mass is dirty and takes a lot of land. Hydro is fine but is limited and is about maxed out in this country.
100% renewable energy, yet they still #FeeltheBern.
Indeed
+
Yeah, this is the same kind of "see, it can be done" as people using cooking oil in diesels. Only if you do the math you see it's 100% pure delusion and that there's no way in hell it could be extended to more than a few percent of the population, and even then, it would likely cause far more harm than just using fossil fuels or nuclear.
Biomass can't power 40% of the planet's population without destroying the environment with tree farms. Ironically 100-200 years ago coal saved the forests, trees take a damn long time to grow. Hydro is the only renewable that doesn't completely destroy the environment yet is on-demand. Seawater uranium extraction (with breeding) is "technically renewable".
a reply to The Eh Team
traditional dam based hydroelectric power systems can be extremely damaging to the environment due to a combination of the destruction of rivers and the rotting plants that can build up around the edges of the lake when water levels rise or lower and in the case of larger facilities (about the size of the hoover dam works) the frequency and intensity of earthquakes increases measurably. All current forms of renewable energy are imperfect on there own.
I applaud the feel good narrative of this video, but as a business owner in Vermont I don't feel they touched on any of the downsides that came with this. Energy prices in the state are very high and starting a small business is nearly impossible. We have long winters and strict zoning laws so Wind and Solar Power on a large scale are not all that cost effective without major government subsides. I really wish the time and money spent creating "the first 100% renewable city" could have been used to modernize the power grid and make existing power plants more efficient. This sounds more like PR to me then actual progress.
Alex Yet about one hour north of you in Montreal I pay about 8 cents Canadian per kWh for hydropower which Vermont could easily have at the cost of a few large power lines. I understand jobs and patriotism mantras, but Vermont could simply stop the Rube Goldberg routine and import huge amounts of carbon-free power from Quebec and we'd both be very happy IMHO.
Neale Lunderville seemed very knowledgeable about renewable energy and the process of energy production/consumption. He sounded like he understood the science of energy production well. Awesome spokesman for the BED :)
As per usual, this kind of setup is mostly feasible thanks to an abundance of renewable natural resources, something many places in the world don't have access to.
Personally I think nuclear is the way to go, not in the sense that we need to build a ton of reactors right now, but that we should do more to promote research into Gen IV Reactors. Right now a lot of the resources that could help nuclear reactors become safer, more energy efficient, and make use of old nuclear waste, is being poured into things like solar which is incredibly inefficient, demands vast amounts of space and a restructuring of the whole energy grid to be feasible large scale, not to mention impractical up north where solar hours drop drastically during winter.
We do need resources like solar and wind, but it's unreasonable to think that they can contribute the bulk of our energy needs.
Not Generation IV, mor like Generation V which includes Nulcear Fusion and Thorium Reactors?
Forget the -?- it was an typing error
No Name You have a lot of good points, and yes nuclear power is not a perfect energy source, but I still believe that with further development a lot of the issues would be mitigated. For example, future reactors will produce much less waste than modern iterations, and sure that's still a lot of waste created, but the aim is to reduce the waste to isotopes with half-lives in the hundreds rather than millions of years. The aim would also be to create something more scalable, which would help with integration into electrical grids. Also, regarding coolant, a lot of Gen IV reactors designs do away with water as a coolant, as pressurised water is seen as a major safety concern.
All in all, there are a lot of potential benefits to accelerating research into future nuclear technology.
The the problem in fusion is Turning on the reactor, not off. It is impossible to make a fusion reactor explode, the worse that could happen is that the walls become bacon and you have to take them, Zero enviormental or human damage. With Fission it's the Other way around, although Thorium solves this
+No “ThisIsImpossible” Name pls read up on fusion cause everything u said is completely wrong
Unless they are cutting, planting, transporting those wood chips in electric vehicles, Its still emissions positive.
pietkrijger not true! Coal burning releases vast amounts of stored carbon. Wood burning only releases carbon recently removed from the carbon cycle. The type of wood burned is from managed timber plantations not pristine virgin forest! It's a crop, like any other.
pietkrijger I'm afraid your argument became invalid when you suggested burning coal was better for the environment. I'm from the EU too unfortunately, but thanks to brexit will be leaving it in a few months- can't wait! Yes, burning trees is not ideal either, but my point about managed forests remains valid. The Scandinavian countries have had managed timber resources for centuries, why shouldn't biomass be part of that? No one is suggesting clearing virgin forest for this. Those managed forests wouldn't exist at all were it not the market for the end product.
@pietkrijger in all of your rambling there wasn't a single coherent thought, try doing something other than name calling
@@spencerwilton5831 It's a scam. Wake up!
as having lived in Burlington for 8 years, this makes me incredibly proud to see people taking interest in our little city. it really is a wonderful place, with passionate people who care about what they do, how they can best do it and how to make to accessible to every income level.
Another great episode. Thanks!
Won't be the green mountain state for long.
first thing you see is a huge diesel loco and a Caterpillar diesel powered wheel loader
Yep. Just like the ones you see at coal mines that are 8 times larger and or longer!
This was a wonderful video! Thank you so much for talking about renewable energy.
This was an exceptionally well produced episode, I felt, even for you guys who already have a high standard. Great job!
Instead of giving birth to brothers and sisters,give birth to a single child,at this stage would not be more energy requirements.
Nah man, just start another world war. that's more than enough to take care of the population problem
Factoid: Coal, natural gas, and oil are organic fuel sources just as wood chips are. Coal, natural gas, and oil are mostly plant life that has been under heat and pressure for quite a while.
Yeah but only one is renewable.
Coal and oil aren't renewable resources, but wood is. Trees and other woody plants can be regrown faster than they are used which is why it makes it a renewable resource. People are trying to move away from coal and oil because within 45 years we won't have any oil left. This is why we need to find alternatives to coal and oil now and try to cut back how much of it we use.
Not that we wont have any Oil left but rather suffer from a servere shortage of supply as new wells need to be established and there is only soo much oil you have avaliable. Also you need to clarify what type of Oil, as for instance Olive Oil may stay for longer or go faster depending on how competendly Humanity manages an upcoming Planetwide Climate Crisis. (Now there technicaly already is one, but from stating what now is normal ... dont worry though Humanity will luckily prevail ... thankfully)
How long does it take to create oil?
How fast are we using it?
Thorium reactors consume almost all nuclear waste and are much cheaper, produce no CO2. You will be greatly surprised. On the other hand oil and coal barons will fashionably support all alternatives as long as are inefficient (over all produce more CO2). That’s the way they govern us thirsty over the water and make us to be willing to pay all kind of green taxes.
my whole country runs on 100% renewable energy. Norway has been doing this for 100+ years.
So glad you guys got a summer season ! Great Episode
This place is cool af, and I love cities like this
jessie mayfield same!
I wonder what's their Electricity rates are
15.58 cents/kWh which is 25% higher than the US average (around 12 cents/kWh) but lower than the average in VT (~17 cents/kWh) and those are just residential rates, commercial rates are higher.
XDDD...they would rip your soul out if they could sell it. A lot more than meets the eye here.
Ouch!! That's well over twice my rate!!
Nearly half of my bill is delivery fee so a 25% or 100% increase in electric rate isn’t as dramatic when you do the math. Plus higher rates incentivize conservation which Americans are appalling at. IMO electricity is too cheap and our excessive waste is evidence to support that.
They are subsidized and it wouldn't surprise me if it is not all in the consumer price yet.
I live in Burlington, this makes me so proud! I should mention that the city is doing a lot now to facilitate travel by bicycle, many of the roads are changing to accommodate bikes, and it's a very nice place to ride, with many riders!!
Thought provoking video. Thanks for making this!
Hold up, the equivalent of 600,000 trees per year for 43% of a population of 42,417. That comes out to 32 trees burned per person per year. To manage that without clear cutting means only a small handful of cities can run on biomass even in heavily forested areas. So this is renewable, but at this scale isn't it also largely irrelevant to the larger carbon problem?
Great video guys! #PublicPower
I live in DeKalb!!!! I can't wait to see next weeks' video! I didn't know you guys were gonna be coming here!
Thanks for this video! I'm currently writing a research paper and policy proposal on how to promote renewable energy in large cities. Its very helpful to learn from this case in the United States.
burning wood chips........that does not sound very green thinking to me and biomass is not a renewable resource globally. The intentions here seem good but not yet at 100% renewable energy, but certainly better than a lot of other cities.
Biomass can be a renewable source; the problem is the accounting is over 20+ years and it a pretty inefficient way of collecting solar power.
ay caramba only 1 percent solar?? i expect more than that please.......burning wood should not be classified renewable...solar and wind can also be used to pump seawater uphill to reservoirs in daytime and stored as potential energy for use as a hydropower at night, that way we can use less galvanic batteries as storage
and no molten salt plants, either. totally wasted opportunities here..
Beautifully shot, great subject and the music was on point! Felt like a FF game :D
what a great video that was! it put a smile on my face
The wood chips are harvested using fossil fuels and then they are transported using fossil fuels. All the machinery including trucks, trains, conveyors and everything else involved are made using fossil fuels. It is nice to think that Burlington 'runs' on renewable energy. But it isn't really true.
and it's still better than the alternative, which is all that you described, plus actual burning of fossil fuels.. which still scar the land from acquisitions..
So destroying forest is green ... wtfit
I wouldn't say its green, but its renewable if they're able to grow the forest back at the same rate as its being cut down.
Anyone think of the little animals that live in the forest that they cut.
They do actually - they work alongside the forestry service to make sure bird and bat habitats are preserved I'll agree that anything that involves burning trees for power is not the best system, but they seem to be putting in a lot of effort to make sure that the forests are maintained.
Ge Trolli apparently you have to destroy to build anew. Wizardry right?
The Good Stuff I'd like you to explore why cities near the Canadian border don't simply import huge quantities of essentially carbon-free hydropower from Quebec, Manitoba and BC - ? Chicago or NY or even further south in the US could have plentiful carbon free electricity overnight if they'd cooperate to build high-voltage DC lines to the Canadian system as part of modernizing the antiquated US grid, no?
It looks like there is no difference between using coal and using wood, but with coal, you don't have to cut down trees.
The wood made me second guess things but I really like how they explained and talked about that in this video. Basically they are the guinea pig’s right now (as mentioned in another comment) and the renewable technology is still just beginning to kick off. So for me I see this city dropping the dependence on wood over the years as renewables get better.
It’s a bit like other places that burn rubbish for energy short term but are also looking for alternative more renewable options. So I think the point here is to do the best you can do with what you have and learn from it so you can do better. As well as help guide others seeking to follow them to do better via shared experience, in this case.
Great video, really informative and I really enjoyed it. :)
6:35 Wait, why? This is cut together strangely. Can't coal and oil and natural gas provide power 24-hours per day? Did he actually claim wood chips provide less CO2 emissions per kilowatt than fossil fuel sources? Seems like he dodged this question entirely.
Coal and Natural Gas can provide 24/7 - he was just comparing biomass to wind and solar which cannot provide 24/7 power. In terms of CO2 emissions, their argument is that if you plant as many trees as you burn, than those new trees will suck an amount of CO2 from the atmosphere that is equal to the amount being released by biomass. So in the end, if done properly, it should even out, and biomass should be carbon neutral. You can't say the same about fossil fuels though, which represent millions of years of carbon from biological material.
Thanks for clarifying about the "24/7" part. This argument that plant as many trees as you burn makes biomass carbon neutral is unconvincing. It ignores how the CO2 cycle works. By taking tree biomass out of the food web, you remove the possibility that it will be fixed into the soil. In order to make a convincing argument that wood chip biomass emits less CO2 per kilowatt than other sources, much less that it's "carbon neutral", you have to compare the environmental fate of the carbon with and without harvesting. I haven't ever seen this done, and it certainly wasn't addressed in the video.
He did say that the company collects the ashes and other particulates that result from burning the wood chips and uses them to help enrich soil around the city. I would imagine that includes the soil used on the "tree farms". Of course this doesn't answer every question but I also think if you're considering the overall amount of CO2 emissions that a city of 42,000 would normally release, maybe we could say the total amount of emissions is less in this city where they not only replenish their source of biomass but only emit CO2 by burning the wood.
Another way of viewing the argument is that by viewing two pools of carbon, one being atmospheric, oceanic, and biomass carbon (CO2 cycle carbon), and another being fossil fuel carbon, the atmosphere and biomass carbon is constantly circulating and relatively fixed in quantity. The fossil fuel carbon is isolated from the other carbon and does not exchange except by human intervention.
So when we are burning the biomass, we are keeping the carbon that is contained in the active CO2 cycle and not emitting carbon that was otherwise never going to enter that atmosphere.
+99Chemicals, this doesn't address my point. What is claimed at 6:35 is that biomass is better than burning oil or coal. The contextual implication is that this is due to its sustainability, and use in mitigating climate change. The former is obviously true. The latter claim implied in the video must be backed up by comparing CO2 emissions per kilowatt. No such comparison is offered in the video! It's a rather huge oversight.
TIL shipping in the equivalent of 3 truck loads per hour of wood chips and burning them is green energy
knpstrr It's green if you replace the burnt trees with newer trees which absorbs more carbon from the atmosphere at the same rate your burning wood
We cant control the sun or the wind, so to compensate that without any carbon emissions, maybe have to allocate lots of land to produce lots of energy and storing in lots of batteries. Is this really efficient? To have to rely on large storage facilities instead of producing power according to real time demand. Life isnt a utopia.
Or, can use biomass to reduce the need for too large of an energy storage. Biomass isnt taking carbon from underground to burn, like oil and gas is. Biomass is letting nature take carbon in the atmosphere into chemicals and then burning that carbon fuel back. So on average, unless you chop more trees than you replant, no extra carbon is released.
Zackinthesoda That is a big IF. Also, *you're...
@@de0509 batteries suck, gravity storage is even better.. pump sea water to a hill top during daytime/sunny conditions and use its stored potential for evening power or during overcast days.
@@BikingWIthPanda No shit. It took a very long time for battery powered cars to start being mainstream. And even now its still far from mainstream. But the problem lies in having the proper geography for pumped hydro to be feasible. Everything has a value. All thats needed is to figure out the numbers. Perhaps in normal places, pumped hydro is great, but in countries that are kinda flat, it would take a lot of distance from the sea to reach a higher altitude. The longer the distance needed, the less efficient pumped hydro can be. At a certain point, even batteries could be more efficient than it.
Sometimes you gotta pick the option thats available. There could be a variety of them. Why put limitation on humanity? Do everything
I spent the past eight years living within walking distance of all of the sites in this episode. The Intervale, where a lot of food is grown, is located adjacent to McNeil. And the fish elevator really is for real, part of an excellent outdoor area within Vermont's most densely populated area and adjacent to the temperamental Winooski River. I clicked on this video not knowing that it would be about my area. Man it's great to live here.
it's looks like more practical. Thanks for the video.
Chopping forests to bits, which takes lots of fossil fuel and destroys habitat, is not the noblest source of energy. The best fuel is no fuel: efficiency. Second best is passive solar, then solar, then wind.
I'm with you all the way, but trees have been growing and harvested for thousands of years. They can be replanted. Vermont wiped out nearly 80 percent of its forests during the nineteenth century. You know: for logging and to make pasture land for sheep. By 1870, Vermont found itself needed to import timber - from Canada. That 80 percent figure's been flipped due to conservation efforts. Today, roughly 80 percent of the state is now reforested.
By contrast, the oil industry has been in existence for less than two hundred years, oil reserves are running low - and we can't go back in time hundreds of millions of year to "plant" plankton so there will be more oil. I'd rather we were dependent on wood-chips than oil and gas while we're ironing the kinks out of the sun. Have a great week, Mr. Glover.
what happened to the bearded guys
he had a good shave
They'll be back in other videos! We're taking turns hosting videos for the summer season.
Awesome Video!!!!
This is pretty awesome. I wish my city was like this. I imagine it costs the city a pretty penny to get to this though.
If you look closely, this operation couldn't exist without Fossil Fuels.
it still could, electrify the rail line and use more electrified equipment in the process of the woodchip harvesting
Burning of wood creates greenhouse gas. This is silly.
jim bo not if the wood comes from managed plantations and is replaced.
@@spencerwilton5831 Yes, burning wood does create greenhouse gases, though it is an interim solution that uses trees which are already part of the carbon cycle. Oil and coal, despite Pietkrijger's claims, are not part of the carbon cycle and are nearly entirely sequestered underground, where their carbon (and noxious combustion products) are stored safely away from the biosphere's carbon cycle.
Great video guys
They are a fine example for all of us by the effort they put in, the way they are ‘ energy conscious’ and awareness they show of the environment. Most towns and cities have hardly any of that.
Really cool but I'm not convinced of his claim that biomass is carbon neutral. But either way it appears to be superior to more traditional fossil fuels. Ultimately I think our future lies in a combination of new technology like like ITER(hot fusion) and Thorium and current ideas that are growing rapidly like FV solar, tidal and wind.
Nuclear Energy is the cleanest and cheapest form of energy production long term.
All depending on how you solve the Problem with Nuclear Waste. Idealy in a better way than just locking it away for who knows how many Millenia exactly, constantly cooling and preventing leakage. Like i dunno, take it apart into its Atomic Base Componets and reassemble it as new Materials, but you have yet to research or atleast make it Viable on Industrial Scale.
@@Techischannel Thorium reactors consume almost all nuclear waste and are much cheaper, just check. You will be greatly surprised. On the other hand oil and coal barons will fashionably support all alternatives as long as are inefficient (over all produce more CO2). That’s the way they govern us thirsty over the water and make us to be willing to pay all kind of green taxes.
Only when you completely ignore the costs of safely storing the waste. Just ask the folks around Hanford, Washington. They are home to the EPA's largest superfund nuclear cleanup site. It is estimated that it will take more than $100 BILLION dollars over the next 5 decades or so. That's assuming they don't have more delays and cost overruns.
It's the US taxpayer that gets to pay for that. It seems to me that $100 Billion would be far more useful buying solar panels and wind turbines. Cleaning up those is FAR less costly.
The thing is that about 95% of nuclear "waste" is actually fuel we aren't able to use at the moment. If we invested in new of generation reactors we could use virtually all of our long lived nuclear waste and make huge amounts of power that way.
I am a major environmentalist that fully supports sustainability, green renewable energy, and greener solutions; I won't say that nuclear energy has no place in our world (because I do not know enough about it to protest against it), but I will say if we were to implement it that it shouldn't come to the point were we're dependent on it. If they can prevent it from making more fukushimas and Chernobyls, then perhaps. It should only be the means to where green energy falls short (whatever that may be). Other than that, let's go green and get every house and commercial building on Net-Zero energy.
In Austria there is a whole state (Lower Austria) running on 100% renewable energy, and it has about 40 times as much population as Burlington. 63% hydroelectric power, 26% wind energy, 9% biomass and 2% solar.
The European country, Portugal is 100% renewable energy now .
6:45 Wrong. That's not how the CO2 cycle works! To find out if something is "carbon neutral" you compare the status quo to harvesting energy. The status quo is trees grow, die, and some of their carbon is fixed into the ground directly with decomposition. Some is fixed indirectly going into the food web and eventually ending up in the ground. Burning biomass takes this carbon away so it can't decompose or enter the food web. You burn it and much of the carbon is released into the atmosphere. What you do with the ash left over matters. But we have to do the math adding up the environmental fate of 100% of the carbon in both the status quo and biomass scenarios, evaluating them separately. The fact that the trees grow back (duh) makes it sustainable, but doesn't tell you how that math adds up!
They explained the residue was used as fertelizer for the trees.
Well, Burlington Electric considers their process carbon neutral, but you make a good point. It would be interesting to see the math on this to see how close it really is to carbon neutral. One other thing to consider though - when they're logging the forest they're not burning the entire tree, so I would imagine that a lot of the wood gets used for lumber, thereby trapping a lot of the carbon. Wouldn't that also tip the scales a bit towards less carbon in the air? Just a thought.
***** I find it irresponsible to report, without apparent skepticism, what a corporation claims to be true. UA-cam content creators, especially those using the PBS logo, need to do due diligence to be sure they're reporting the truth as opposed to reciting corporate propaganda.
Understanding all the steps involved in the carbon cycle and nutrient cycle is key here. Plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere fix it into sugars (simple and complex) and as part of the plant tissues; they also absorb nutrients from the soil (such as Nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, potassium, sulphur... etc.) and incorporate those nutrients into their tissue as well. Burning releases much of the nutrients as gasses (carbon dioxide, Nitrogen varieties... etc), the remaining ash is the leftover solids that aren't vaporised away: mostly calcium carbonate, various salts and metal oxides (it makes great fertiliser so long as you watch your soil pH).
That said, it is sustainable so long as you don't clear cut forests. The reason fossil fuels are problematic here is that they add carbon to a system that is accustomed to only so much: its like a bathtub, the water in the tub is the amount currently in the system; burning wood just stirs the water, burning fossil fuels adds more water.... the problem is that we don't know how big the tub is so we don't know when it will overflow.
Non sequitur. Nobody has questioned that this technique is "sustainable". What is claimed sans evidence is that the technique is "carbon neutral". Using your analogy of a bath tub, there are pipes going in and out. These are the inputs and outputs in the carbon cycle. Keeping with the analogy, "carbon neutral" means you turn some knobs and get energy out, but don't change the net rate of flow of CO2. This hasn't, to my knowledge, been demonstrated for biomass.
of course a city can run on 100% renwable energy, it doesn't care what the source is. Really the title to this video shows a complete lack of understanding of how grid electrical systems work.
The simple fact is that the evidence from world wide use of wind and solar is that it is extremely poor at providing power when and as we need it. Biomass is considered a renewable but is capable of providing power as and when required, it just is not as good as coal or oil/gas as it's energy density is quite a bit lower. Where it falls down is if we chop down forests rather than using waste wood, forest can be replanted but far too slowly as a source of biomass fuel.
I must disagree with you about your statement that "solar . . . is extremely poor at providing power when and as we need it." Think about the capabilities of solar on a hot summer day when demand peaks for electricity due to the overwhelming use of air conditioning. The problem is that greed and politics prevent the wide-spread adoption of renewable energy sources and the means to store renewable energy by means other than batteries. The entire United States could run on renewable energy and it would be much less expensive long-term than our current energy mix. The initial cost might be slightly higher, but greed has made the cost to modernize excessive.
@@cityofabscissae Or we could just use nuclear and not destroy the environment for a lot of super large solar farms that need a large amount of space and don't give that great of a return in power generation.
@@The_Desert_Tiger, I am not in favor of solar farms at all. They are an eyesore and destroy natural landscapes. The United States has enough roof space and parking areas that could be covered with solar panels to provide the necessary power (if coupled with energy conservation) to satisfy the entire population.
Wonderful video and wonderful people x
* burns renewable energy much faster then it can regrow * Great concept guys!!!
destroys trees, thats not green.
Giclee101 then building news ones
Trees are just really inefficient solar power. It uses magnitudes more land, but at least it's storable ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Giclee101 Burning trees is apart of the recent cargo cycle we are in right now and doesn't do as much damage as coal, which is out of the carbon cycle. It is only good if your able to regrow the same amount of trees at the same rate the wood chips is being burned/harvesting as it is renewable unlike coal
Are they connected to a power grid, if so then there not really running on only renewable energy
Very cool. They r doing a great job! Wish Tx. would do this. 👏🏼 great video.
what is the background music used at the beginning of the video
renewal energy is something we need everywhere!
I admit I was wondering how you'd work around Craig's move to Texas - the format with the boys doing the intro/outro/snippets was a lot of fun. But the Good Stuff is so good and you got such a good team, I see my fears were completely unjustified.
LOVE THIS!
love the micro grid concept!
Good interviewer, asking questions the viewers are thinking.
Congrats to the town and to the channel for great work. One thing i would have liked to see in the video is a mention of how costly it is to go 100% renewable. Most of the purely renewable sources which people praise the most (think solar and wind) are intermittent and in order to cover your demand on less productive days you need to have way more capacity than you usually need, which gets expensive. E.g. if your 10MW generator is working at 20% capacity because it's cloudy, you'd need to install 5 of them to produce 10MW at any time. This would cost a lot and would be very wasteful on more productive days. This is why more steady sources like biomass and hydro are critical in any reasonable renewable energy strategy in order to compensate for intermittencies. Ask any expert and you'll know that batteries are not feasible on city or national scale and sourcing renewable energy from farther away where it may be sunny is VERY inefficient due to losses in power lines. As a result it may be much cheaper and more productive to go 80% renewable in 3 towns than 100% renewable in one.
Great video, great city! I hope what is seen in this video will be the rule in the future everywhere!
Hello from Phoenix, Arizona! We have neither an abundance of trees nor an abundance of water. I'm strongly hoping this doesn't become the rule everywhere, or else I'll be forced to move. Maybe instead we can work on mastering renewable sources of various types before assuming a one-size-fits-all solution.
+Cuix I actually was referring to the mind set, and not the use of biomass! I reckon I didn't make this clear, though!
what is you put the co2 from the plant into a algae farm and use that for generation of additional biomass.
Great explanation for biomass--you thoroughly covered all my concerns as far as sustainability, but not so much for accessibility. It's all well and good to use it in Vermont, but if you don't live near a forest, it's not a great solution. I think it would be great to implement it where possible, but most places will need to focus on other sources of renewable energy.
This is awesome
that video was good stuff !
I often wonder why we don't use much quicker growing resources like bamboo for biomass fuel. Simply because the surface you need for your resource scales linearly with the growth time of the trees.
Awesome and I really appriciate Birlinton Electric
This is just beautiful to watch
The city where I was born and raised, Lima, Peru, runs 100% on hydroelectric. Why doesn't that count?
Sounds like they are doing their best with available technology. Good job!
can they cut the power lines from outside the city then?
very good ideas
No matter of other peoples comments this video is very inspirational. Renewable energy isn't 100% perfect but its inspiring to see people like this working to make it work. Just like humans eventually learnt to harness the energy of combustion in a purposeful way, we will eventually learn to harness the energy of other sources in a purposeful way that works for both humans and the planet! Problems take time to solve but they eventually get solved.
This is so cool. However, a big city might have an issue with this, but we will eventually have to start making changes. As my grandpa always said when you doing something complex you take it one step at a time.
the good stuff feel goods
thank you for showing me this.
fish elevator?! That's so cool! How does it work?
Thank You for bringing some much needed light to this topic while keeping it fresh and interesting! #GreenerTogether
It's not 100% if they account for the carbon fuel used to harvest the wood, then produce and transport the chips to the power plant, now is it? Q. How many acres of tree does it take to produce the wood use in the plant annually? Multiply that number of acres by the 20/30 years they said it takes to grow those trees. That is how much land? Wind, solar, hydro of any kind and geothermal are the only carbon neutral sources of sufficiently safe energy we have today. Storage technology improvements need to be more had for more cost effective than we have today.
those birds have been in and around the greater Chicagoland area for a long time now. They are well established in N.W. Indiana too.
That said, yeah, they need to reduce reliance on Biomass and quickly transition to Solar, Wind or Hydro.
Amazing city! ❤ I hope other cities do this as well!
Super weird hearing them say Burlington (Vermont) so much because I live a town away from Burlington.... WA
I did a quick calculus: (((50Mw ÷ 43%) × 100) ÷ 42 000)= 27 685w per user, it's three times higher than us here, in France, where we can't pull more than 9 000w because main power supplier, EDF (stand for "Électricité - Distribution de France" ( "electricity - supply of
France" litteraly)) place a power limiter which is triggered if we use more than 45amp. On our 230V powerline.
So how still could they think they're greener than other when use three times more power than frenchs ?
I know we mainly work and rely on nuclear power, but it's adaptable like wood chips or pellets, no fuel quality problems (try to get energy out of wet woods (even the dryer won't be enough to get it dry and ready to use)), when less power is used, less power is produced too (no need to store it outside, it just last longer (so less renewings mean less transports))
Last, but not the least, coal and oil, according to the fossilization of vegetation and animals for generate it, was actually the first renewables energies, because it never start and stop without any autorisation released by a mysterious and dark administration.
And, the question that i wonder since always is: for a same weight and volume of wood, did the wood won't be more efficient in the form of log instant of wood chips ?
how long did it took again?
Georgetown, TX does already. they have contracts with wind and solar all over TX, and invested in a 10 MW/h battery that they are working on expanding to 50MW/h. they can run the entire city on battery for up to 4 hours at peak load, but so far they have never had an issue sourcing power and usually use the battery to sell power into the Austin area at peak making a nice profit