While there may be adequate wood currently available in many states at the current time, the central issue is that biomass combustion using wood is not carbon neutral, especially in a time frame that will make a difference to slow or improve climate change.
Burning wood is dirtier than burning coal -- per megawatt hour it releases more CO2, more particulate, and more NOx.
Moreover, every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere has the same effect as every other molecule, regardless of the source. Therefore, just because wood is a renewable source does not mean it is clean. The current science is overwhelming that in the first two decades newly planted trees do not sequester CO2 at a rate which "makes up for" the burning of mature trees/tree products. This has been clarified by the EPA on page 18899 of the Federal Register where the statement is made that "... half of all carbon currently emitted [and emitted in the future] will take hundreds to thousands of years to reabsorb."
Put another way while the CO2 reduction target for 2020 in the ACES bill is 17 percent, if biomass CO2 emissions continue not to be counted as is currently the case and is continued under the proposed legislation, the resultant CO2 emissions will change the cap reduction to less than 11 percent according to EIA data.
Incentivizing dirtier energy with billions of taxpayer dollars does not make sense.
At this point we would be better off burning coal and using the money under ARRA and in the 2005 and 2007 Energy bills, as well as the new proposed legislation, to further research into more durable wind turbines, more efficient/cheaper solar panels, and implementation of the smart grid.
Dr. Bill Sammons
Co-firing systems range in size from 1 MW to 30 MW of bio-power capacity. When low-cost biomass fuels are used, co-firing systems can result in payback periods as low as 2 years.
A typical coal-fueled power plant produces power for about $0.023/kilowatt-hour (kWh). Co-firing inexpensive biomass fuels can reduce this cost to $0.021/kWh, while the cost of generation would be increased if biomass fuels were obtained at prices at or above the power plant's coal prices. In today's direct-fired biomass power plants, generation costs are about $0.09/kWh. In the future, advanced technologies such as gasification-based systems could generate power for as little as $0.05/kWh. For comparison, a new combined-cycle power plant using natural gas can generate electricity for about $0.04-$0.05/kWh at fall 2000 gas prices.
Conversion of older coal plants to fire biomass offers viable and cost-effective alternatives to retrofitting FGD and SCR systems. For example, Ohio Edison Company, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., has agreed in a consent decree to repower the R.E. Burger Units 4 and 5 near Shadyside, Ohio with biomass fuel. The modified consent decree will substantially reduce emissions of SO2 and NOx from Burger's current levels and also reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from current levels by more than 1.3 million tons a year. Burger will be the largest coal-fired electric utility plant in the country to repower with renewable biomass fuels and the first such plant at which greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced under a Clean Air Act consent decree.
Dr. Richard W. Goodwin, PE
Environmental Engineering
Consultant
I agree with biomass being carbon neutral as opposed to coal, but why put the carbon back into the atmosphere? The use of hydro, solar and wind produce electricity without releasing carbon dioxide. We can argue the point that the fore mentioned renewables are carbon neutral as well. I like the potential of all renewable energy sources, but I would rather not do "in with the good, out with the bad"!
Kurt Branthover
Principal Engineer
PB Asia Ltd.
Promoting using biomass in a condensing power system at something less than 30 percent energy conversion such as this project is not the best use of this renewable, but not unlimited, resource. Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia realizes this, generating and using most of their biomass energy in pulp and paper mills and district heating systems, often connected together.
Society would be much better served by reserving wood-based biomass for 75 percent cogeneration or small heating systems in homes, schools or commercial business using high efficiency wood stoves or even higher efficiency pellet stoves.
Chuck Hartley, PE, CEM
Copyright © 1996-2006 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.