Using Waste, Swedish City Cuts Its Fossil Fuel Use

NY Times ^ | December 10, 2010 | ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

[neverdem]

KRISTIANSTAD, Sweden — When this city vowed a decade ago to wean itself from fossil fuels, it was a lofty aspiration, like zero deaths from traffic accidents or the elimination of childhood obesity.

But Kristianstad has already crossed a crucial threshold: the city and surrounding county, with a population of 80,000, essentially use no oil, natural gas or coal to heat homes and businesses, even during the long frigid winters. It is a complete reversal from 20 years ago, when all of their heat came from fossil fuels.

But this area in southern Sweden, best known as the home of Absolut vodka, has not generally substituted solar panels or wind turbines for the traditional fuels it has forsaken. Instead, as befits a region that is an epicenter of farming and food processing, it generates energy from a motley assortment of ingredients like potato peels, manure, used cooking oil, stale cookies and pig intestines.

A hulking 10-year-old plant on the outskirts of Kristianstad uses a biological process to transform the detritus into biogas, a form of methane. That gas is...

--snip--

Once the city fathers got into the habit of harnessing power locally, they saw fuel everywhere...

--snip--

The start-up costs, covered by the city and through Swedish government grants, have been considerable: the centralized biomass heating system cost $144 million, including constructing a new incineration plant, laying networks of pipes, replacing furnaces and installing generators.

But officials say the payback has already been significant: Kristianstad now spends about $3.2 million each year to heat its municipal buildings rather than the $7 million it would spend if it still relied on oil and electricity. It fuels its municipal cars, buses and trucks with biogas fuel, avoiding the need to purchase nearly half a million gallons of diesel or gas each year...

[montag813]

40 years to pay for itself? that doesn’t seem very impressive. Am I wrong?

[neverdem]

Petroleum is produced naturally and abundantly by the Earth’s crust. It does not come from rotting dinosaurs or rotting vegetation. That assumption conveys the implication that it is a limited resource and therefore keeps the price high.

I'm familiar with it. The first link says you can get hydrocarbons from calcium carbonate, water and iron. Theoretically, it sounds possible. I was a chemist. The second link is mine.

New Discovery Means The World May Never Run Out of Fuel!

Deep-ocean vents are a source of oil and gas (evidence of abiogenic hydrocarbons)

[squarebarb]

I have long thought this to be true but then somebody pointed out to me ‘then what about coal, with all those fossils in it?’
And not being a scientist I had no answer.

[neverdem]

Not even close if you account for time cost of money. The 144 million for the plant was paid in current dollars to generate a stream of benefits of 3.8 million a year. The present value of 3.8 million a year in 20 years ain’t much.

Did they switch from the silver krona to the Euro?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

This is one of those programs that actually works. The reason is that they are taking something that they already have (garbage) and tweaking how they deal with it.

This probably will not work everywhere but it can work in some areas. And lowering our use of fossil fuel and reducing the amount of methane produced by the landfill is a good thing if it can be done without reducing the standard of living.

[neverdem]

Law-Abiding, Honor Roll High School Student Faces Expulsion Support from NRA members needed!

Demography vs. Geography: Understanding the Political Future

Asclepius Shrugged (Physicians' variation of Atlas Shrugged!)

Anthropology a Science? Statement Deepens a Rift

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[Moltke]

I seem to recall Kristianstad was something of a hippie city. On FR a few years back, I think.

You probably mean Christiania, a borough of the Danish capitol Copenhagen. And it still is not was. (---> Wikipedia)

[!1776!]

Not even close if you account for time cost of money. The 144 million for the plant was paid in current dollars to generate a stream of benefits of 3.8 million a year. The present value of 3.8 million a year in 20 years ain’t much.

Wouldn't the same appy to the capital?

[ModelBreaker]

“Wouldn’t the same appy to the capital?”

Nope. The plant is paid for today. The present value of 144 million today is $144 million. The present value of $144 million spread out over 38 years is much less than $144 million. Why? Because if you put the $144 million in 30 year treasuries, it would be worth a lot more than $144 million in 30 years.

So the 38 year payoff is in pretend dollars. But the government is involved. Those are the kind of dollars they deal in.

[Leo Carpathian]

Nuclear! Should be used for electricity generation mainly. Great for recharging all those electroratmobiles with unused kilowatts during the nights.

[ModelBreaker]

“Did they switch from the silver krona to the Euro? “

I was in Sweden about a year ago. It was Kroner then.

[!1776!]

40 years to pay for itself? that doesn’t seem very impressive. Am I wrong?

I doubt the payback is 40 years. While the article is unclear, it notes that the city is pay 3.2M versus 7M, the difference of which appears to have been used to calculate the 37.9 year number in post 1.

That would be only the city's savings.

The article also notes that the city and surrounding county (population ~80k) are involved. That indicates other revenue sources are likely involved and that the cost effectiveness and payback period is not limited to the financial aspects the city has noted.

I'm not sure how this system works specifically, but it appears to be a district energy system. Such systems can be highly efficient. Generate high pressure / temperature steam, use some of it's energy to generate electricity and distribute the lower energy steam for district heating purposes. Chillers can use that steam during times when cooling is needed through steam driven chillers.

Actually, this kind of set up is not new and is used by multiple cities, frequently on large campuses, and in various industrial settings. Buzz words include cogeneration, etc.

Problem is - in the US - if you want to burn, use, incinerate, anything that might be considered trash you'll have massive regulatory requirements that will push that $144M much higher...

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I have no problem with Nuclear power. In fact I think it is a fine idea. But it does not produce a burnable gas which is what most people prefer to heat with.

Food waste can be turned into a burnable gas and I would prefer to see it used that way rather then dumped. The food waste from a city can be used or it can become what any over saturation is, pollution.

[sionnsar]

That’s it.

[alpo]

Elisabeth must have been smoking something - or she never was in the area as there are lots of wind turbines in that part of Sweden. Huge wind farm in the strait between Denmark and Sweden just south of Krist.

[AGreatPer]

"The term “Fossil Fuel” is a lie that is now built into the our language."

I fought that concept in college and Dr Sternglass gave me an F.
Still POed after 40 years.

[!1776!]

Nope. The plant is paid for today.

I must admit that I am not familiar with the financing structure for this project. However, I would think it unlikely that a city (and county) of ~80k people had $144M laying around and paid up front. More likely a significant portion of the project was financed (loans, bonds, etc.).

If I am wrong - please point me to info. Not saying it is impossible that they paid cash up front, just that in my experience it is unlikely for such a project.

The present value of 144 million today is $144 million. The present value of $144 million spread out over 38 years is much less than $144 million. Why? Because if you put the $144 million in 30 year treasuries, it would be worth a lot more than $144 million in 30 years.

Agreed - if the full $144M was paid today. If financed, as I think is likely, the time value of money (and associated interest) needs tobe included in the math.

So the 38 year payoff is in pretend dollars.

First, the 38 year payoff appears only to be based on the city's specific energy cost savings. Based on the article, it appears that there are other energy customers so I don't accept that the debt service or payback is limited to the city's fuel savings. Again - as noted - this appears to include more than just the city energy savings.

That would change the math noted in post 1 in a big way.

But the government is involved. Those are the kind of dollars they deal in.

I have no problem identifying and pointing out debacles that government entities are involved in. Find them - make them public and humiliate them. Fine by me.

What I haven't seen is anything that indicates such a debacle here.

Is it bad for an entity to use their own resources to serve their own energy needs? Seems lik that is what some of these opinions imply.

We could do the same here, we sit on vast reserves of coal, we can even turn that coal into liquid fuel. Sure we could melt/burn trash and be even less dependent on outside energy sources. But we don't. We don't for many reasons, and at the top of that list is that we in the US make using, making, converting, energy such a regulated activitiy that it is just cheaper to buy oil from the ME.

Whack away as much as you want at this for whatever reason. I could care less. Just remember, if the EPA wasn't in the way - we could doing the same - using our resources to make our own energy.

I am trying to be nice - but your math is simplistic, your outrage misplaced, and you are missing point.

Take care.

[hinckley buzzard]

It looks like they are doing it without cannibalizing the nation's grain crops too. Good for them.

[hinckley buzzard]

Well, coal is coal, oil is oil. Just two different things, is all. Coal seams are typically close to other sedimentary strata and appear to have been laid down in coastal swamplands, which were then covered by layers of sediment as sea levels rose and fell. Peat bogs are often attributed as the precursor to coal beds, which makes sense of you look at lignite (brown coal).

Nothing to do with oil at all.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Larger cities should have a greater economy of scale. But how long does that infrastructure last, and what does the maintenance cost? It sounds a lot cheaper than solar or wind, IMHO."

I frankly don't understand why cities like NY, Chicago, etc, don't do this. Gasification just makes sense. They have a large enough stream of garbage to make it practical. If they need more energy, do a combined garbage/coal system. It seems to me that the savings on waste disposal would pay for it....much less the energy generated.

A quick search finds that a 500MW coal gasification plant runs $700MM, and another finds that NYC paid $300MM in 2005 for waste disposal.