A Systems Approach to Energy Resiliency in Pacific Northwest Communities

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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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).


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


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).


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.


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.


Yergin, Daniel. The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World. New York: Penguin Press, 2011.

Zeller-Powell, Christine Elizabeth. "Defining Biomass as a Source of Renewable." Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 2011: 370-434.

A Systems Approach to Energy Resiliency in Pacific Northwest Communities

Documents

Transcript of A Systems Approach to Energy Resiliency in Pacific Northwest Communities