Now, you sound like you’ve done your homework on this subject. Competitive cost and no subsidy from government are key issues. I view the real point of the article posted as all the current alternative energy sources are really “miscellaneous” in that, yes they all compliment oil, gas, etc, but they cannot replace those sources. Therefore, and as you state, real replacement alternatives must be pursued.
I disagree on the subsidy issue. In the case of biomass heat, we NEED to have the forests thinned and fuels reduced. Western forests are horribly overstocked and in unhealthy condition - susceptible to catastrophic wildfire that kills people, destroys homes, water quality and natural resources.
Currently, the American tax payer is paying for fuel reduction on public lands through the federal budget. Funding cannot keep up with the pace and scale that this needs to be done. Consequently, we are seeing larger and more demaging fires that are costing the American taxpayers $millions to fight.
Subsidizing the start up of new businesses that utilize biomass makes sense in establishing a market framework to offset the costs of fuel reduction. The purchase of this forest material and its utilization in biomass energy, heat and value-added products helps reduce taxpayer subsidy for fuel reduction.
Right now, medium sized cogen (Heat and power) facilities are being sized at the 15 MgW scale or below to fit supply. Where grid infrastructure in rural areas is below capacity for transmission, then biomass heat is emphasized. Pellet mills work best when located in tandem with existing sawmill operations. In N. CA, much of that infrastructure is gone. In S. CA it is gone. Once a pellet mill is established, then municipalities, schools and eventually residences can convert over to clean, efficient biomass heat, such as the furnace systems developed in Austria or the boiler systems coming in place at schools and hospitals in Oregon.
Risks and costs must balance out before an investor will invest. Right now, supply is one of the biggest risks, because environmentalists can shut down timber sale for years on some obscure technical point. Financing is also hard to come by. Also, the utilities pay nothing for biomass energy. The elctrical rates are subsidized for solar and wind.
Incentives do work. Wind, IMHO, is a waste of money, but conversion to solar has been accelerated due to incentives. As a result, so have technological improvements and reductions in costs.
Getting rural communities converted over to district, municipal and residential biomass would stimulate these economies, create energy independence, reduce massive carbon emissions due to wildfire, help save communities and forests from burning. Subsidies, as have been given in Oregon, can prime the pump to make this happen. California is lagging waaaay behind the East Coast and Oregon in the development of this technology. If Conservatives stand firm on no subsidies, we will continue to be in last place in a renewable sector that really make sense to the taxpayer’s overall bottom line.