Austin Energy is striving to meet its commitments for "green" energy this decade. 30%. Like all companies with similar mandates, it is having problems finding "on demand" green... the valuable stuff you need when it is cloudy or when the wind isn't blowing 200 miles away. Again, like others in similiar situations, it has decided that "biomass" is the great saviour for its 'green' plans, and is funding a 1.2 billion dollar east Texas biomass plant.
Biomass. Wood waste products. Like what we burned before we found out that coal was a lot more energy efficient by mass and was less pollutive. Yes. Coal. And not "clean coal". How the hell is that green? you may ask yourself. It is green because of a "reality excursion" allowed in defining green stating that anything "sustainable" is green. So, burning poo or trees is green. Long, gnarly chains of carbons with huge CO2 and particulate matter side effects.
Let's consider Natural Gas for a moment. The most carbon efficient method of generating energy of any carbon (read 'bio') based fuels. It is spontaneously generated in land fills. Randall and Dewey gave an 80 BCFG recoverable reserves assessment to a land fill near DFW. It is also generated in 'Basin-Centered Gas' plays. Currently being generated AND produced. It looks, acts, and quacks like a "sustainable" energy source. But the fact that oil companies produce it makes it ineligible, I guess.
Oh well. More class warfare. My local energy company gives me the opportunity to "buy green", by which they mean I can pay 20% more for indeterminate electrons so that I can "feel better" about myself. I called and asked if I could "buy just the brown" at a lower price than average, since others were taking the green. Funny. She wouldn't sell me just the brown.
Comments