Post on 16-Jan-2023
Energy Resiliency 1
Paper #2- A Systems Approach to Energy Resiliency in Pacific
Northwest Communities
Energy Resiliency 2
David Brown
IPM 506 Energy Systems
Professor Andy Markos
Professor Andy Swayne
December 9th, 2013
Energy Resiliency in Pacific Northwest Communities
In this paper, I will describe various processes and
technologies capable of energy production on agricultural sites
and in remote or rural communities using currently available
renewable fuel sources. These processes and technologies will
provide resiliency in the form of diversity of energy and in the
ability for the site or community to “island” in the event of
grid disruption, as well as for the in situ production of fuels
for domestic or local use, and demonstrate a systems approach for
energy production. Sustainability will be shown through the use
of renewable energy sources and multiple-use feed stocks, as well
as reclamation of resources and reduced production of greenhouse
gases (GHG). Also to be discussed will be a hypothetical network
of such communities throughout a regional smart-grid and their
sale of “excess” electricity.
The first proposed energy source to be discussed is that of
harvesting methane (CH4) from anaerobic co-digestion. Methane
has 21 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 (NYC DEP,
2008, p. 69), is produced by both natural and man-made processes
(Rosenzweig, 2011, p. 55) and can, if properly harvested from
those sources, be used to power both electrical plants and
Energy Resiliency 3
automobiles (Pahl, 2012, p. 43). For small and rural
communities, said harvesting may be accomplished in conjunction
with their solid waste collection of organic matter and the
waste-water treatment systems collection of bio-waste (BW).
Although many cities do already process BW in large, municipal-
level (King County, 2013) anaerobic co-digesters to produce CH4
(Northwest EcoBuilding Guild) for generating electricity (Pahl,
2012, p. 164), I would posit that, instead, smaller treatment
plants at the community level, may be developed. These community
facilities would digest all wastewater BW; organic solid waste
from discarded food; yard waste; pet waste (COLA, 2009), as has
been done in San Francisco (BioCycle, 2006, p. 19); dairy farm
(Pahl, 2012, p. 161) manure; food-processing waste (Ibid, pp. 43,
165); industrial hemp (Emma Kreuger 2011, 3459); and, lastly, the
potentially huge resource from discarded domestic and industrial
biomass (PNNL 2008, 65-67). The harvested CH4, cleansed of
impurities, could be re-distributed to homes for warming and
cooking or, alternately, could fuel a co-generation system or an
electrical generation facility, either of which would feed a
distributed generation system. Further, the CH4 treatment
facility could fuel private vehicles (Pahl 2012, 166), municipal
fleet vehicles (Ibid, p. 43), or in agricultural applications,
equipment such as tractors (Mackenzie 2013). While the organic
feedstock is necessary for the co-digestion process, another
primary reason to divert such material from traditional landfills
is because landfill-gas harvesting is inherently inefficient and
Energy Resiliency 4
wasteful (Richard Heinberg, 2010, p. 375), and the resultant gas
is contaminated with dioxins and heavy metals. In addition to
CH4, anaerobic co-digestion also produces a nutrient-rich sludge
that may be used (Rowse, 2011, p. 12) as a soil amendment and
fertilizer. For application to crops intended for human
consumption, however, treatment of the sludge to remove harmful
pathogens is necessary. Numerous methods exist for this,
including using heat (Lübken, 2007, p. 96); chemicals, such as
ammonia (Nordin, 2009, p. 1580) or chlorine (Francy, 2012, p.
4176); radiation, such as microwaves (Hong, 2006, p. 76) or
ultra-violet (Francy, 2012, p. 4176); or some combination,
thereof. Interestingly, when BW feedstock is microwave-treated
prior to co-digestion, and when processed according to certain
protocols (Hong, 2006, p. 82), CH4 levels actually increase. A
primary benefit of utilizing the phosphorous and nitrogen
recovered from wastewater treatment is mitigation of the need for
fertilizer from industrial-produced (Richard Heinberg, 2010, p.
399) chemical sources (Rowse, 2011, p. 13), a benefit not only
for agricultural sites but that would also reduce operating costs
for small communities. Examples of facilities that produce
fertilizer from their co-digester facilities include the City of
Snoqualmie (Snoqualmie, 2013); King County (King County, 2013);
and, Farm Power facilities (Pahl 2012, 161) in Rexville and
Lynden, WA, and in Tillamook, OR. The non-potable water
reclaimed from the co-digestion process may also be utilized for
irrigation purposes or industrial processes.
Energy Resiliency 5
The next energy system proposed is the use of biomass for
the generation of electricity or to power co-generation plants
(Ibid, p. 14). And, while the issue of biomass’ energy density,
relative to that of conventional fuels, is still relevant (Yergin
2011, 660-61), as well as that of net carbon footprint (Ibid, p.
655), I believe local production of fuel crops to be a mitigating
factor for both. Similarly, the issue of food vs. fuel is
resolved by the use of fuel crops in rotational planting (Boyd
2012) (PNNL 2008, 38, 58), or by the exploitation of
underutilized land (Pahl 2012, 14), such as in roads’ right of
way (US DOT 2013, 3.4) or around government facilities.
Agricultural sites may leverage cash-crop detritus, such as straw
(PNNL 2008, 39-41). Small communities may cultivate groves of
fast-growing tree species (Xia Ye 2011, 416, 423), with dual use
as decorative landscaping or windbreaks; purpose marginal land to
growth of industrial hemp (Jessen 2012); as well as divert
domestic and industrial biomass (PNNL 2008, 65-67) from the
municipal landfills. And, forest communities would have ready
access to timber-industry residue (PNNL 2008, 54-55), mill
residue (Ibid, pp. 55-56) and biomass from timber thinning
activities (Ibid, pp. 56-57). The process by which the biomass
is converted to energy (Zeller-Powell 2011, 373) may be as simple
as the incineration of the bulk material, thus powering
conventional electrical plants; in the production of bio-fuels,
to be covered later in this paper; or, through gasification.
Conventional biomass incineration electrical generation plants,
Energy Resiliency 6
like any infrastructure installation, require considerable
capital investment, while gasification may be accomplished on a
smaller, less expensive scale. In particular, the line of
gasification electrical generators available through All Power
Labs is notable for agricultural and small community applications
for their modularity (All Power Labs 2013) and relatively low
cost, even to the extent that they provide free plans for those
capable of fabricating the gasification units. The gasification
of the various potential feedstocks can also have the following
byproducts: water, gas-to-liquid biofuels, and a bio-char soil
amendment that further serves as reduction of agricultural
operating costs.
Next, biofuels are a natural extension of the discussion of
biomass, the two most common of which are biodiesel and ethanol.
Both have multiple potential feedstocks and processes by which
they may be produced. As with biomass, the issues of energy
density, net carbon footprint, and food vs. fuel may be resolved
by local production and refining, use of fuel crops in rotational
planting, and the leveraging of underutilized land.
With regard to biodiesel, it is most commonly produced (E.
Sadeghinezhad 2013, 32) from animal fat or vegetable oil, with
the addition of methanol or ethanol and a catalyzing agent in the
form of sodium hydroxide. Potential feedstocks already in
cultivation in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) are soy and canola
(PNNL 2008, 45) and barley (Ibid, p. 29), and literature suggests
(Ibid, p. 45) that rapeseed and mustard may also be developed as
Energy Resiliency 7
fuel crops. Similarly, herbaceous crops (Ibid, p. 49) may also
be cultivated as dedicated biodiesel feedstock and eventually
even algae and seaweeds (Huesemann 2010). The recent
legalization of recreational marijuana in Washington State may
also have ramifications for energy production, with production of
Cannabis sativa, or hemp, now being contested (Daigneau 2013) at
only the federal level. Literature suggests that, in addition to
low cost and environmental impact (Si-Yu Li 2010, 8457), the
chemical properties of refined biodiesel from hemp oil have great
promise. Biodiesel production has great potential for small
communities, but is eminently suitable for agricultural sites’
(S. K. Acharya 2010, 81) powering of equipment such as tractors,
generators, pumps, etc.
Ethanol, too, can be produced from feedstocks already cultivated
in the PNW, namely wheat and barley (PNNL 2008, 29). Cellulosic
ethanol, although beset with economic and technological hurdles
for mass production (Yergin 2011, 660), may soon realize greater
availability due to advances (Daniel J. Hayes 2009, 502-505) in
processing. Cellulosic ethanol feedstocks currently in
cultivation in the PNW are straw residue from cereal and grass
crops (PNNL 2008, 38) and forest crop residue (Ibid, p. 39). As
with biodiesel, new herbaceous crops (PNNL 2008, 49) and hemp
(Emma Kreuger 2011, 3458) may eventually be cultivated as ethanol
feedstock. Ethanol, from whichever source or process, may be
used variously as fuel for vehicles or electrical production;
however, for the purpose of this paper, I would submit that for
Energy Resiliency 8
the purpose of this paper the produced ethanol be utilized in
support of advancing greater use of biodiesel. Literature
suggests that, using proper blend ratios and injections (S.
Fernando 2004, 1696), ethanol-biodiesel or ethanol-biodiesel-
diesel fuels are derived that are simpler and less toxic to
produce (Novinson 2004), and exhibit improved viscosity,
flashpoint and thermal stability (S. Fernando 2004, 1703),
similar to that of conventional diesel fuel.
Despite the PNW climate and geography, solar energy holds
great promise and, in my opinion, photovoltaic (PV) systems
should be ubiquitous, mounted on every viable private and public
surface. Unfortunately, only 22-27% of residential rooftops are
suitable for installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems (NW
Community Energy n.d.). And, the high initial cost of solar
systems (Asmus 2008, 62) is the single-most reason preventing
home-owners and small-businesspersons from installing PV arrays.
Community solar arrays enable those household and business
locations that are unsuitable, or are not optimal, for on-site
generation of PV power and provide distributed generation
(Morrigan 2011), with its greater inherent resiliency and
efficiency. Further, community solar can be built with economy
of scale (Asmus 2008, 62) in mind, allowing consumers to purchase
solar power without the initial outlay. Regionally, there are
numerous examples of successful community solar projects. A
Chelan Public Utility District partnership with Alcoa (ReFocus
2003, 10) provides installation of solar systems on public
Energy Resiliency 9
schools and non-profits, with half the resultant revenue from the
sale of generated power being returned to the host organization
and the other half contributed to a public works fund overseen by
Alcoa. Citizens on Bainbridge Island (NW Seed n.d., 24-25)
formed a non-profit to raise funds for the installation of a PV
system on a local school, and that investors may purchase shares
of. Bainbridge Island also has several other community solar
projects planned (Goldenshteyn 2011). In Winthrop, public and
private partnerships have resulted in the completion of two
community solar projects and the same project team members
(TwispWorks 2012) again collaborated to complete another
community solar project in Twisp. Orcas Power and Light
developed a multi-island grid (Asmus 2008, 65) by linking the
four solar systems installed on three islands. The Ellensburg
power utility uses net-metering to return investments in the
existing community solar project(s) and then “aggregates
contributor support” (Ibid, 65-66) to fund the installation of
the next solar system. The Edmonds Community Solar Cooperative
initiated the move to install PV panels on the roof of a local
non-profit and created a program called “SunSlices,” through
which state residents (Herman and Voli 2012) may purchase shares
of the project. And, in Ashland, OR, several institutions formed
a partnership (Asmus 2008, 65) to install the initial four
systems and this program was later expanded (Curti and Goetz
2008, 5) by selling ownership of panels, or portions of panels,
to investors. Community solar, therefore, is eminently suited to
Energy Resiliency 10
small communities, though likely less so for mountain-area
communities where terrain and forest cover might obscure direct
exposure to full sunlight. Agricultural sites, however, by
definition needing exposure for photosynthesis, should have no
barriers to installation of PV systems beyond cost, installation
and space.
Wind power, like solar, should also be utilized wherever
viable, which primarily equates to Eastern Washington, some
mountain areas and passes, and coastal areas (Sinclair 2005,
Figure 1). But, unlike solar, most homes and businesses are
unlikely to have the space available for the installation of
turbines (NWWS 2013, Wind FAQ's), although smaller models and
vertical models are available. Therefore, again like solar, a
community project is more likely feasible. A barrier particular
to wind turbine installation, commercial or otherwise, is that of
NIMBYism. NIMBYism essentially boils down to five issues
(Petrova 2013, Table 1) or objections to a wind-turbine or wind-
farm: visual and landscape concerns; socioeconomic concerns;
environmental concerns; and, procedural factors. Those concerns
must be overcome and, to do so, arguments for the mitigation of
continued environmental degradation and on the relatively low
cost of wind energy (Tugrul U. Daim 2012, 35) would be bolstered
by the exhibition of successful community wind projects in
Washington (Pahl 2012, 114-118), such as those by the Cascade
Community Wind Company (CCWC 2013). Additional successful models
demonstrated in Denmark, Sweden, Germany and the UK (Bolinger
Energy Resiliency 11
2004, 1) should be cited, as well as those in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and in
several tribal nations (Ibid, pp. 1, 16, 17). Of particular
interest is the concept of hybridization (Ludwig 2013) between
solar and wind technologies, wherein the solar system generates
the greater amount of electricity during summer months, while the
wind system does so in the winter months, for an estimated
doubling of generation.
Although solar and wind, and perhaps the biofuels, may seem
difficult to implement in small communities in forested
mountains, those communities may have an advantage in their
ability to exploit hydroelectric power. Most potential, major
hydro-power project sites are already developed (Yergin 2011,
163), but anywhere there is year-round running water there is the
possibility of small- or micro-hydroelectric generation
(Alternative Energy 2006), which those communities may exploit
for local distribution. Additionally, mini- or micro-
hydroelectric generation may take place in water reservoir down-
feeds and waste-water sewage lines. Generally speaking, though
some communities must by necessity use pumps to generate the flow
of water and wastewater, particularly wastewater, common sense
dictates the most logical configuration for such systems is to
place treatment facilities downhill of the origin points for the
sluicing action of flushing toilets to be effective. The hills
and mountainous terrain of the PNW are, therefore, of particular
benefit to a method of generating electricity from turbines sited
Energy Resiliency 12
within (Pentland, 2012) reservoir feeds and down-sloped sewage
lines, feeding the local power grid. Such devices have been
successfully installed (Lucid Energy) in Riverside, CA, and in
Portland, OR, and more are planned for San Antonio, TX, and
Haifa, Israel. Cities utilizing these devices are, in effect,
installing miniature hydroelectric plants in their sewer lines,
and the technology is equally applicable to gravity-fed water-
supply lines.
The last energy source to be discussed is that of
efficiency- the “fifth fuel” (Montgomery 2010, 615). Energy
efficiency, like solar, should be ubiquitous and should be
striven for whenever possible. Municipal vehicles may be
purchased on the basis of their mileage rating, or gas vehicles
eschewed for diesel (Yergin 2011, 76), natural gas (Montgomery
2010, 707) or electric (Ibid, pp. 688-89). Purchases of
equipment or machinery should be weighted toward those certified
as energy efficient, such as under the EnergyStar program
(Richard Heinberg 2010, 325). Buildings should be properly
insulated whenever possible (Ibid, p. 328) or, during renovation
or new construction, adherence paid to efficiency standards such
as those established by the LEED program (Montgomery 2010, 633).
Similar efforts, too, may be mandated by policies at the supply
side (Nicole Hopper 2009, 14) or, better, incentivized among
home-owners and businesses through implementation of energy-
saving initiatives (Richard Heinberg 2010, 329) such as tax-
credits, rebates, low-interest loans, etc. An excellent example
Energy Resiliency 13
of a community (small or not) using efficiency in design is that
of the Kitsap County Administration Building (WBDG 2013), which
incorporates operable windows, natural venting, dimming
fluorescent lights, glazing (light-reflecting) walls, skylights,
and occupancy- and light-sensor controls for lighting, as well as
other structural and design measures for maximum energy
efficiency. However, policies, initiatives and technology are
nothing without individual and organizational willingness to
engage in efficient practices; a willingness that needs to border
on a moral imperative throughout the culture. Such an imperative
is best exemplified by the Japanese concept of mottinai, the
approximate translation (Montgomery 2010, 635) of which is “too
precious to waste.” Unless common citizens, the private sector,
and all levels of government acknowledge that energy is too
precious to waste, and act upon that truism, then no
incentivizing programs will be effective in the mitigation of
lost energy and the translation of that loss to resource- and
capital-loss. Small communities and agricultural operations are,
due to their budgetary constraints and bottom-line, particularly
susceptible to that line of reasoning.
To summarize, I have discussed the benefits of anaerobic co-
digestion systems, including by-products and the means by which
our subjects (small communities and agricultural sites) might
implement the collection of appropriate feedstocks and their
processing for methane harvesting and the uses thereof. This was
followed by biomass; the various feedstocks for biomass
Energy Resiliency 14
generation and co-generation plants and their availability in the
PNW; potential, undeveloped feedstocks; arguments against biomass
were discussed and counter-arguments proposed; and a particular
brand of modular, inexpensive biomass gasifiers was offered as an
example relevant to the needs of our subjects. Biofuels were
similarly discussed, along with their feedstocks and the
arguments against their utilization, as well as a process by
which ethanol may be combined with biodiesel to offset some of
the energy-intensity deficiency of biodiesel. Next, the
viability of both wind- and solar-energy were explored, with an
argument for community programs to implement both, accompanied by
successful examples of the same and a description of hybridized
systems. Small- and mini-hydroelectric generation systems were
described and the case was made for the leveraging of year-round
running water by mountain communities; also offered was a
technological innovation by which communities may generate
electricity by means emplacing micro-generation units within
reservoir down-feeds and wastewater lines. And, finally,
efficiency as an energy source was discussed, with a local
example of an energy efficient building design, and the need for
a cultural shift toward conservation. All of the ideas discussed
are scalable up or down to fit any size community, be it on the
eastern plains, in the foothills or mountains, on the coasts or
on islands. Every process or technology promotes resiliency
through local production, and additionally is sustainable through
Energy Resiliency 15
use of local resources and employs the principles of conservation
or efficiency.
In conclusion, I would posit that no one energy source,
process or technological innovation can or will offset the
effects of potential energy shortages, whether due to
catastrophic events or the eventual onset of climate change
related environmental issues. Nor will any one item alleviate
the economic and budgetary constraints of small communities or
agricultural sites. However, by concerted effort and the
adoption of a systems approach to energy production, as well as
the implementation of a distributed-generation system, remote
communities and sites may mitigate the effects of the loss of
centrally-generated power and fuel sources. In doing so, those
sites may reduce their normal operating costs and, even, generate
additional revenues through grid-tied systems. And, in the event
of said hypothetical outages, they may “island” to continue the
provision of energy to their constituents and for their own
business continuity, perhaps even contributing to the grid for
provision to affected neighboring municipalities. The
development of a regional or national “smart-grid,” of course, is
crucial to that concept- for while any community or site may
become self-sufficient, true regional or national resiliency
requires a synergism of communities and utilities, each
possessing the ability to contribute to grid to some degree,
while maintaining the capacity for self-reliance. Of greater
import than the technological innovations, though, is innovation
Energy Resiliency 16
of thought and flexibility of approach. Options such as the
installation of hybridized systems must be leveraged. Whether or
not biodiesel feedstocks may be pressed for oil, then re-utilized
as ethanol or co-digester feedstocks must be explored, or whether
co-digester sludge is best used as soil amendments, or dried and
incinerated in generation plants must be researched. The
arguments against domestic, renewable energy are multifold- but,
they can be resolved. The investments of capital, time and
effort are considerable- but, they can be budgeted for and
planned for. The cultivation time of fast-growth fuel trees is
several years to a few decades- so instead of debating the full
viability of biomass, we should be planting the trees and, in the
meantime, researching the various processes and technologies.
Similarly, the growth time for bio-fuel crops is several months-
so shall we also begin the cultivation of such on marginal lands.
The worst case scenario is that we have more trees and landscaped
herbs. And, while we await the first growths of our fuel-crops,
we can formulate our capital infrastructure plans to best
leverage the ends of existing infrastructure life-cycles to
better meet our future needs.
Energy Resiliency 17
ReferencesAll Power Labs. All Power Labs. 2013. http://www.gekgasifier.com/ (accessed 10 22, 2013).
Alternative Energy. Micro Hydro Power – Pros and Cons. 10 26, 2006. http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/micro-hydro-power-pros-and-cons/ (accessed 12 3, 2013).
Energy Resiliency 18
Asmus, Peter. "Exploring New Models of Solar Energy Development." The Electricity Journal, 2008: 61-70.
BioCycle. "Dog feces and biodegradable bags to become fuel for methane digesters in innovative pilot." BioCycle, 2006: 19.
Bolinger, Mark A. COMMUNITY-OWNED WIND POWER DEVELOPMENT: THE CHALLENGE OF APPLYING THE EUROPEAN MODEL IN THE UNITED STATES, AND HOW STATES ARE ADDRESSING THAT CHALLENGE. Chicago: GLOBAL WINDPOWER 2004, 2004.
Boyd, Vicky. Intensive 3-crop rotation may boost biofuel economics - See more at: http://www.thegrower.com/issues/citrus-vegetable/Intensive-3-crop-rotation-may-boost-biofuel-economics-146435325.html#sthash.iTlW0j8d.dpuf. 4 6, 2012. http://www.thegrower.com/issues/citrus-vegetable/Intensive-3-crop-rotation-may-boost-biofuel-economics-146435325.html (accessed 12 3, 2013).
CCWC. Cascade Community Wind Company. 2013. cascadecommunitywind.com (accessed 123, 2013).
COLA. Rules & Responsibilities. 2009. http://www.coladog.org/rules.
Curti, Julie, and Justin Goetz. "Rewards of Ownership." Rural Cooperatives, 2008: 4-7.
Daigneau, Elizabeth. Why Hemp (Not to Be Confused with Pot) is Making a Comeback. 10 2013.http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-why-hemp-is-coming-back.html (accessed 12 3, 2013).
Daniel J. Hayes, Michael H. B. Hayes. "The role that lignocellulosic feedstocks and various biorefining technologies can play in meeting Ireland's biofuel targets." Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, 2009: 500-520.
E. Sadeghinezhad, S.N.Kazi, Foad Sadeghinejadm, A.Badarudin, Mohammad Mehrali,Rad Sadri, Mohammad Reza Safaei. "A comprehensive literature review of bio-fuel performance in internal combustion engine and relevant costs involvement." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013: 29-44.
Emma Kreuger, Bálint Sipos, Guido Zacchi, Sven-Erik Svensson, Lovisa Björnsson. "Bioconversion of industrial hemp to ethanol and methane: The benefits of steam pretreatment and co-production." Bioresource Technology, 2011: 3457-3465.
Farm Power. Farm Power Northwest. http://www.farmpower.com/ (accessed 11 22, 2013).
Francy, et al. "Comparative effectiveness of membrane bioreactors, conventional secondary treatment, and chlorine and UV disinfection to remove
Energy Resiliency 19
microorganisms from municipal wastewaters." Water Research, 2012: 4164-4178.
Goldenshteyn, Maks. State's largest community solar project goes online in March in Poulsbo. 2 7, 2011. http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2011/feb/07/states-largest-community-solar-project-goes-in/ (accessed 11 27, 2012).
Herman, Chris, and Carlo Voli. Power to the People Solar Cooperative. 2012. http://www.solaripedia.com/13/395/5764/edmonds_wa_community_solar_promotion.html (accessed 11 27, 2012).
Hong, et al. "Pretreatment of Sludge with Microwaves for Pathogen Destruction and Improved Anaerobic Digestion Performance." Water Environment Research, 2006: 76-83.
Huesemann, Michael. "Biofuels from microaglae and seaweeds." In Biomass to biofuels- strategies for global industries, 165-184. Odyssey Press, 2010.
Jessen, Holly. Company eyes hemp as feedstock for biofuel, power generation. 12 4, 2012. http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/8418/company-eyes-hemp-as-feedstock-for-biofuel-power-generation (accessed 12 3, 2013).
King County. Wastewater Treatment. 2013. http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wtd/About/System/Facts.aspx.
Lübken, et al. "Development of an empirical mathematical model for describing and optimizing the hygiene potential of a thermophilic anaerobic bioreactor treating faeces." Water Science & Technology, 2007: 95-102.Lucid Energy. Lucid Energy. http://www.lucidenergy.com/company/.
Ludwig, David. Wind-solar hybrid plants up to twice as efficient. 4 22, 2013. http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/wind-solar-hybrid-plants-up-to-twice-as-efficient_100010997/#axzz2nHqhv1NH (accessed 12 3, 2013).
Mackenzie, Gemma. Methane from AD plants could fuel tractors. 10 11, 2013. http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/11/10/2013/141499/methane-from-ad-plants-could-fuel-tractors.htm (accessed 12 3, 2013).
Montgomery, Scott. The Powers That Be: Global Energy for the Twenty-First Century and Beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Morrigan, McKenna. "Can Community Solar Programs Bring Solar Ownership to the Masses?" Americans for Energy Leadership. 1 24, 2011. leadenergy.org/2011/01/can-community-solar-programs-bring-solar-ownership-to-the-masses/ (accessed 10 23,2012).
Energy Resiliency 20
Nicole Hopper, Galen Barbose, Charles Goldman, Jeff Schlegel. "Energy efficiency as a preferred resource: evidence from utility resource plans in the Western US and Canada." Energy Efficiency, 2009: 1-16.
Nordin, et al. "Sanitation of faeces from source-separating dry toilets using urea." Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2009: 1579–1587.
Northwest EcoBuilding Guild. LOTT Methane CoGen System. http://www.ecobuilding.org/code-innovations/case-studies/lott-methane-cogen-system.
Novinson, Tom. The Ethyl Biodiesel Alternative. 3 1, 2004. http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/500/the-ethyl-biodiesel-alternative.
NW Community Energy. Community Solar. http://nwcommunityenergy.org/solar (accessed 10 20, 2012).
NW Seed. "NW Seed Community Solar Guide." NW Seed. http://www.nwseed.org/documents/NW%20Community%20Solar%20Guide.pdf (accessed 11 27, 2012).
NWWS. Northwest Wind and Solar. 2013. http://www.nwwindandsolar.com/ (accessed 10 28, 2013).
NYC DEP. Climate Change Science, Observations, and Projections. New York: NYC Department ofEnvironmental Protection, 2008.
Pahl, Greg. Power from the People. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing,2012.
Pentland, William. Water-to-Wire Turbine Produces Power From Pipes. 4 5, 2012. http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2012/04/05/water-to-wire-turbine-produces-power-from-pipes/.
Petrova, Maria A. "NIMBYism revisited: public acceptance of wind energy in theUnited States." WIREs Climate Change, 2013: 575-601.
PNNL. Biofuels in Oregon and Washington: A Business Case Analysis of Opportunities and Challenges. Case Study, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2008.
ReFocus. "Aluminium maker invests in community solar power." Renewable Energy Focus, 2003: 10.
Richard Heinberg, Daniel Lerch. The Post Carbon Reader. Healdsburg: Watershed Media, 2010.
Energy Resiliency 21
Rosenzweig, et al. Climate Change and Cities. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,2011.
Rowse, Laurel. Design of Small Scale Anaerobic Digesters for Application in Rural Developing Countries. University of South Florida: Graduate School at Scholar Commons, 2011.
S. Fernando, M. Hanna. "Development of a Novel Biofuel Blend Using Ethanol-Biodiesel-Diesel Microemulsions: EB-Diesel." Energy & Fuels, 2004: 1695-1703.
S. K. Acharya, R. K. Swain, M. K. Mohanty. "The Use of Rice Bran Oil as a Fuelfor a Small Horse-power Diesel Engine." Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 2010: 80-88.
Sinclair, K. "Regional Field Verification – Case Study of Small Wind-Turbines in the Pacific Northwest." WindPower 2005. Denver: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2005. 1-20.
Si-Yu Li, James D. Stuart, Yi Li, Richard S. Parnas. "The feasibility of converting Cannabis sativa L. oil into biodiesel." Bioresource Technology, 2010: 8457-8460.
Snoqualmie. "Water Treatment." Snoqualmie Public Works. 2013. http://www.ci.snoqualmie.wa.us/Departments/PublicWorksDepartment/WasteWater.aspx.
Tugrul U. Daim, Muhammad Amer, Rubyna Brenden. "Technology Roadmapping for wind energy: case of the Pacific Northwest." Journal of Cleaner Production, 2012: 27-37.
TwispWorks. TwispWorks Community Solar Installed. 5 5, 2012. http://twispworks.org/twispworks-community-solar-project (accessed 11 27, 2012).
US DOT. Alternative Uses of Highway Right-of-Way 3 Renewable Energy Technologies in the ROW. 10 18, 2013. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/publications/alternative_uses_of_highway_right-of-way/rep03.cfm (accessed 11 17, 2013).
WBDG. Kitsap County Administration Building. 2013. http://wbdg.org/references/cs_kitsap.php (accessed 12 3, 2013).
Xia Ye, Victor Busov , Nan Zhao , Rick Meilan , Lisa M. McDonnell , Heather D.Coleman , Shawn D. Mansfield , Feng Chen , Yi Li & (Max) Zong-Ming Cheng. "Transgenic Populus Trees for Forest Products, Bioenergy, and Functional Genomics." Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 2011: 415-434.