Advanced BioFuels USA

(Earthjustice)  A new report by Earthjustice and Sierra Club highlights the gas industry’s deceptive efforts to keep our homes and buildings tethered to gas combustion. Buildings account for nearly 40% of climate pollution in the United States, with much of that driven by the burning of dirty fossil gas for heating and hot water.

There is growing consensus that electrifying buildings and using electric appliances like heat pumps and induction stoves is the clearest path to tackling their pollution. And while today we may think it’s natural to burn gas to heat our homes or cook, doing so creates dangerous levels of indoor air pollution.

Children are particularly at risk, as recent studies show that children growing up in homes with gas stoves have a 42% increased risk of developing asthma symptoms. Switching to zero-emission appliances would protect our health by eliminating the indoor gas combustion linked to heart problems and respiratory diseases like childhood asthma.

Because buildings last for many decades, avoiding gas infrastructure and appliances in new construction is crucial to avoid locking in reliance on fossil fuels. As such, many policymakers across the U.S. and globally see electrification as the future of buildings. By early 2020, more than 30 cities and counties in the U.S. passed policies requiring or supporting all-electric new construction.

But gas utilities rely on maintaining and expanding fuel delivery infrastructure to buildings to generate revenue, and view electrification as an existential crisis.

The industry’s response has been to pitch fossil gas alternatives (“FGAs”) — often marketed as “renewable” natural gas — as an alternative to building electrification. They argue that existing gas infrastructure can continue to operate by replacing today’s fuel with a range of biologically and synthetically derived non-fossil gaseous fuels.

This report examines the potential for FGAs to decarbonize buildings and refutes the claim that FGAs are a viable alternative to building electrification.

The key conclusions are:

• The potential supply of FGAs is a small fraction of gas demand. The gas industry’s own research found that after two decades of ramping up supply and production, FGAs could only replace 13% of the existing demand for fossil gas.
• Replacing fossil gas with FGAs is extremely costly. High production costs mean FGAs range from 4 to 17 times more expensive than fossil gas.
• FGAs have a mixed environmental record. Facilities where FGAs are produced can exacerbate air and water pollution impacts in nearby communities, and intentionally produced methane can increase greenhouse gas emissions.
• FGAs perpetuate the health impacts of combustion. Burning FGAs in homes, offices, and commercial spaces has the same issues inherent to any combustion-based fuels.

The report finds that due to the limits of biogas and synthetic gas, it should be used to decarbonize sectors where there are few or no lower-cost mitigation solutions. Buildings do not meet these criteria. Nevertheless, gas system incumbents are embarking on a coordinated strategy advocating for the use of FGAs in homes and buildings. READ MORE

RNG Coalition welcomes national debate on the viability of RNG  (Biomass Magazine)

Excerpt from Biomass Magazine: The report ignores the many environmental benefits of RNG production and use, and the rapid growth of RNG production capacity. Data released by the RNG Coalition earlier this year shows 110 RNG production facilities were in operation in the U.S. as of the end of 2019, with 40 more under construction and 58 in the development phase. The fuel can directly replace natural gas in power, thermal and vehicle fuel applications and can be made by upgrading captured landfill gas or biogas produced through the anaerobic digestion of food waste, waste water or agricultural waste.

 “Electrification is not a bad thing,” said Johannes Escudero, CEO of the RNG Coalition. “Like RNG, it is one piece of the puzzle. Our world needs a diverse portfolio of solutions to address our environmental challenges, not a single-stock gamble that places all of our chips on one technology. An all-or-nothing approach runs counter to having a resilient energy system and economy.

“Life on our planet is sustained and energized by organic materials,” he continued. “RNG is waste-derived, clean energy that is both a complementary and necessary part of a global climate change solution,” said Escudero. “RNG is produced from methane that would otherwise escape fugitively into the atmosphere as a short-lived climate pollutant and greenhouse gas. Our industry sustainably abates and recycles captured methane for productive, every-day applications.

“Although these groups may have meant to discourage RNG adoption in buildings with this report, we are confident that the facts, good science and common sense will prevail,” Escudero continued.

Additional information on the benefits and use of RNG is available on the RNG Coalition website. READ MORE