Moving Massachusetts to #1 for Clean Tech

By Kate Wattson

A new report prepared by Clean Edge Inc. ranks Massachusetts the #2 clean-energy state in the nation. As someone who has personally committed to living in Greater Boston and working in the clean energy industry for the rest of my life (barring any unanticipated success in the So You Think You Can Dance audition process), I feel proud of the Commonwealth for fostering an industry poised to contribute to a clean economy and a competitive urge for our dogged and over-educated Yankees to take on the hippies and techies in California for the #1 position. While I’m grateful for the many initiatives outlined in the report that lead to the state’s high ranking, I will take advantage of the report’s structured 9-point action plan for improvement to conveniently add a 10th point that has been unnerving me.

1. Establish an energy-efficiency innovation center and pursue a national Department of Energy (DOE) laboratory.
2. Adopt aggressive financial incentives for clean energy.
3. Establish a Massachusetts “Green Bank” to accelerate funding for clean-energy and energy-efficiency startups and projects.
4. Continue to increase commercialization of clean-energy research advances.
5. Institute an on-bill repayment system for energy-efficiency enhancements.
6. Boost regulations for building efficiency.
7. Streamline and hasten the local permitting process for clean-energy projects.
8. Take carbon-reduction leadership to the next level: nationwide
9. Play to the state’s strengths.
10. Educate the public on renewable energy technologies to facilitate more in-state renewable projects.

Our company is headquartered in Waltham, MA, a Boston suburb that has attracted several cleantech start-ups and venture capital firms. A well-established composting infrastructure for yard waste in Massachusetts provides an excellent base for creating a food waste recycling infrastructure throughout the state, a concept that is well supported by the Department of Environmental Protection and many commercial food businesses. With Massachusetts’ aggressive renewable energy goals and limited ability to site renewable energy generation projects within the state, high solids anaerobic digestion of food and yard waste to create renewable biogas energy seems like a no-brainer.

An anti-biomass energy initiative that will appear on the ballot this fall (and a corresponding bill that will be voted on by the legislature tomorrow) could prevent using our local resources wisely. A group of NIMBYs (Not-In-My-Back-Yard project opponents) opposing several large biomass burn plants in Western Mass decided to stop those plants by attempting to pass a law via referendum that would prevent all biomass-to-electricity facilities from earning renewable energy credits (RECs) through the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Overall, anaerobic digestion is a carbon neutral or carbon negative process; however, the combustion step that generates electricity will result in carbon dioxide emissions that would disqualify anaerobic digestion from receiving RECs under this initiative. RECs are necessary to make the economics of anaerobic digestion facilities work. Without them, Harvest and other companies cannot build projects in Massachusetts, resulting in lost opportunities for green jobs, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and innovative green businesses.

Harvest strives to be a leader in energy from organic waste.  We need your support for biomass energy to build a facility in our backyard. While the recent federal approval of the Cape Wind project (one of the most high-profile examples of NIMBY opposition) will greatly help our renewable energy economy, we can’t meet our renewable energy goals without biomass. Massachusetts needs to support a biomass industry through public education to dispel myths and highlight the benefits of biomass energy. Without the support of the citizens of the Commonwealth, a green economy in Massachusetts will never truly take off. The state and its related agencies, through research and information dissemination, need to be actively involved in gaining the support of the public for in-state renewable energy projects.  Let’s make Massachusetts #1 in leading the clean tech economy.

Energy or Compost From Green Waste? (We think both.)

A study in Europe compared two approaches for recycling green waste: composting and waste-to-energy (see below).  Harvest Power represents the best of both worlds: its high solids anaerobic digestion (HSAD) technology harnesses renewable energy from green waste, then the remaining digestate gets composted.  The environmental benefits from HSAD and composting provide a powerhouse of CO2 savings.  We hope the next comparative study includes HSAD.  In the meantime, enjoy.

Recycling green waste as compost could match the environmental benefits of converting it into renewable energy, in terms of CO2 savings, according to new German research. It suggests that the two forms of waste management should be seen as complementary and both should receive subsidies.

Green waste is biodegradable waste, usually from gardens and parks, and includes grass, hedge trimmings, leaves and tree trunks. It can be used to produce energy in biomass power stations and receives a renewable energy subsidy in Germany. It can also be recycled as compost, which reduces the extraction of peat – an important sink for CO2. However, composting does not receive financial support in Germany. The EU is currently developing policy to encourage composting and develop standards for composting across the EU.

The research compared the environmental benefits of energy recovery from green waste and of recycling green waste using 81 samples. It analyzed the CO2 balance of each system by estimating the release and savings of CO2 at the different stages of the process chain. For energy recovery this included the transport, shredding, incineration and the CO2 saved from the renewable energy produced. For recycling this included stages such as transport, composting and CO2 saved by replacing peat. Four different types of green waste were considered that differed in their amount of wood, herbaceous/grassy material and soil.

The results demonstrated that waste with a high percentage of wood produced the most CO2 savings for both composting and energy recovery whilst those with only herbaceous and soil components produced the least savings. The CO2 savings from energy recovery varied from 126 to 1040 kg of CO2 saved per tonne of green waste, depending on the type of waste and its composition. The CO2 savings from recycling varied from 259 to 1193 kg of CO2 per tonne of green waste, again depending on the type of waste. This indicates that the environmental gains, in terms of CO2 savings, were similar for both energy recovery and recycling of green waste.

Notably, green waste with a high percentage of herbaceous/grassy content and soil content had twice the CO2 savings from recycling as from energy recovery. This is probably because this type of waste has low heating values, due to high water and ash content, and is therefore better for composting purposes.

The researchers suggested that energy recovery and recycling of green waste should be judged as complementary systems. It is unlikely that one method on its own will achieve the desired reduction in CO2 levels and a combination is more likely to lead to a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. As such they recommend that recycling of green waste be awarded equivalent financial support as the use of green waste to produce renewable energy.

See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/index.htm

Source: Kranert, M., Gottschall, R., Bruns, C. & Hafner, G. (2010). Energy or compost from green waste? A CO2-based assessment. Waste Management. 30: 697-701.

Contact: martin.kranert@iswa.uni-stuttgart.de

Composting at the US Capitol

by Sameer Rashid, Business Development Manager

I had lunch with some of my colleagues at the Longworth Cafeteria in Washington, DC a few weeks ago.  We were discussing the food waste composting opportunities in the DC metro area.  You might be thinking, “Harvest employees talk about food waste and renewable energy???  Shocker.”

What made this discussion unique was the setting. The Longworth Cafeteria isn’t just any old place to grab lunch.  In fact, it is the main cafeteria for the US House of Representatives and serves over 140,000 people per month.  What makes it even more special, is that a large majority of the waste generated at the cafeteria is compostable and more importantly, that organic material is actually composted.

In 2007, the House leadership began the ‘Green The Capitol’ initiative.  One of the key elements of this effort was to develop a compostable solution for Longworth and the other House cafeterias.  The House Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) worked w/ Aidan Murphy of Sustainable Operations Solutions, to implement an innovative but simple solution for separating organic waste at the source.   The result is a very high recycling rate for the cafeteria (close to 100%) , little to no contaminants in the separated organic waste stream, and a great example for the rest of the country.

So what was the secret to this successful source-separation program?  The House decided to make sure that all of its containers, utensils, and service-ware are compostable.  Eliminating plastics and other non-compostable packaging makes it quite easy for customers and employees to know what material should go in what bin (i.e. almost everything into compost bin).

Additionally, the design of the recycling, composting, and trash station was quite clever and built for customers who aren’t used to separating organics as the source, which is still relatively new for most Americans.  We all prefer simple and convenient solutions, especially for something as mundane as throwing your trash away.  The House design makes source-separation a decision that doesn’t require much thought but also subtly reminds you that we can make better choices about what we throw away.

The Longworth Source-Separation solution:

1. The compostable bin is clearly marked.

2. The shape of the openings are intuitive and conducive towards putting your waste in the right bin:

a) Compostables go in the large hole
b) Cans and bottles in the small round recycling hole that is becoming a common and recognizable feature for traditional recycling
c) The very few leftover bits of actual trash then go in the narrow garbage slot marked Landfill Waste

3.  Afterwards, the compostable material is inspected and its volume is reduced. The organics are stored in a green bin and are ready to be picked up by the food waste hauler.

In my opinion, this is a great example of how simple ideas and a small change in infrastructure and behavior can produce clean food waste that can be used in a much more sustainable and cost effective manner.  The House lowered its disposal costs and has implemented a program that can and should be replicated at cafeterias and restaurants throughout the country.

Hopefully soon, Harvest will be able to green our nation’s capital even further by operating a local HSAD organics recycling facility that produces renewable biogas in addition to compost using Longworth’s and other organic waste generators material!

Next Page »