Biomass Digest» coal

Duke study shows promising future for biomass-coal blending

Jim Lane — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:53:17 +0000

In North Carolina, a new study by Duke University and North Carolina shows that blending 10% biomass with coal currently used for electricity production could cut greenhouse gas emissions and produce electricity equal to more than 5% the Southeast’s generating capacity from nuclear, coal and gas-fired plants. Southern Co. has been looking to convert its Mitchell plant from coal to biomass entirely. Dominion Resources Inc. and others who are planning new coal plants in the region are also looking to blend biomass into the mix. Dominion spokesman Greg Edwards said Aug. 13 that the Virginia City plant being built in Wise County, Va., will eventually burn 10% biomass after eight years of operation. The project is designed to burn a potential 20% biomass.

Biomass better than coal? War over carbon accounting erupts

Jim Lane — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:55:14 +0000

In Washington, the Environment Working Group has released a study that claims the impacts of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA)—which has already passed the House of Representatives—would require the equivalent of cutting between 18 and 30 million acres by 2025, and up to 50 million acres by 2030.

“From Maine to Washington state, from Ohio to Florida,” the EWG report says, “electric utilities have been embracing “biomass power” as a way to reduce dependence on coal and other fossil fuels and to meet ambitious goals for limiting greenhouse gas emissions. And both state energy policies and the pending federal climate and energy legislation are designed to encourage the trend by providing huge incentives.

“The trouble is…the hoped-for reduction in emissions is illusory. In fact, carbon emissions from burning biomass at rates designed to meet renewable power goals will make it impossible to meet federal and state greenhouse gas reduction targets. Making things worse, the only realistic way to satisfy the expected appetite for biomass fuel would require cutting down the equivalent of more than 46,000 square miles of forest by 2025 – an area larger than Pennsylvania.”The Biomass Power Association responds that the study is misleading. BPA says they are not aware of any facilities that use whole trees for energy and that it is not an economically sustainable approach to biomass as the cost of cutting down one tree outweighs the potential energy benefits.

Bob Cleaves, president and CEO of Biomass Power Association (BPA), further challenged the report by saying that the tax credit and the investment tax credit passed by Congress last year are only available for waste wood products and other organic by-products and not merchantable timber.

Support for the BPA comes from the Manomet Center for Conservation Scientists, which took the extraordinary step of issuing a press release urging the media and environmentalists to read its report on Massachusetts’s biomass options before drawing conclusions.

“One commonly used press headline,” said the Manomet plea,”has been ‘wood worse than coal’ for GHG emissions or for ‘the environment.’ This is an inaccurate interpretation of our findings, which paint a much more complex picture. While burning wood does emit more GHGs initially than fossil fuels, these emissions are removed from the atmosphere as harvested forests re-grow. As discussed in more detail below, the timing and magnitude of the recovery is a function of forest productivity, land management choices, and technology and fuel characteristics.

The full Manomet statement is here.

The Manomet Executive Summary is here.

The EWG study is downloadable here

The controversy has to do with carbon accounting and the carbon neutrality of biomass. There is no question among the parties that carbon dioxide is released when biomass is combusted, and that new biomass growth will absorb that carbon – hence, the term carbon-neutral.

The controversy comes over how you account for, and how you weight the importance of, the time lag between combustion and new growth.

View #1. Those who view biomass as an existing carbon storage system will count the emissions first, and the carbon absorption second – leaving a “carbon debt” that can take a considerable amount of time to eliminate — by some accounting, decades.

View #2. Those who view biomass as a user of “forest slash” and other wood wastes consider that they are using waste resources that are not a stable carbon storage system – that wood waste would be left on forest floors or otherwise disposed, and carbon emissions would have occurred naturally in bacterial decomposition. By this accounting, you count the carbon absorption of new growth first, and the emissions second – because it is the second cycle of biomass growth that reflects the actual impact of a biomass industry. By this accounting approach, the carbon debt is far less intense.

The debate over carbon accounting standards is one for science, not petitions and ballot initiatives, where it can only descend into a series of simplistic sound bites that distract from the real challenges of developing a sustainable renewables industry.

The Manomet warning is apt: even the EWG, according to Manomet, is already sensationalizing and misreporting the Center’s findings. What hope is there that a ballot initiative will be about real issues.

Massachusetts study: biomass fired power worse than coal

Meghan Sapp — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:06:09 +0000

In Massachusetts, the results of a study commissioned by the state’s environmental officials shows that biomass-fired electricity is more harmful to the environment than coal-fired. The study found that by 2050, emissions from biomass would increase 3% compared to coal.

The study looked at the ‘carbon debt’ of harvesting trees for biomass power versus the carbon storage from re-growth of the trees. The study also examined the aesthetic of heavy harvesting and the potential negative impacts on tourism.

A series of hearings regarding the study will begin in July.

Portland General Electric considering biomass to replace coal at Oregon power plant

admin — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:31:27 +0000

In Oregon, Portland General Electric Co. has indicated an interest in torrefaction-based biomass as a replacement for coal-fired power at its Boardman power plant, which it may shut down by 2020. Another option: construction of a combined-cycle natural gas plant adjacent to the Boardman plant, at Carty Reservoir.

PGE has proposed a plan to the Oregon Public Utilities Commission to spend $520-$560 million on pollution control technology that would allow the plant to continue operation through 2040.

Wisconsin PSC approves switch of Ashland plant from coal to biomass

admin — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:34:52 +0000

In Wisconsin, the state Public Service Commission OK’d a proposal by Xcel Energy to switch its Ashland plant from coal-fired power to forest-residue gasification by 2012. The conversion project at the Bay Front Power Plant will cost $58.1 million, according to the utility’s plan, and will utilize wood waste from logging operations.

The utility already has two wood gasification boilers in use at Ashland, and the cost of conversion covers the third boiler, and would convert the entire 60 MW facility to renewable power generation, enough to serve 50-60,000 homes. The state PSC also noted that the proposal would allow the plant to switch from out-of-state feedstock to local resources.