Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Michigan Utility and MTU Join Forces To Study Biomass-powered Electricity

By Jennifer Donovan, Michigan Technological University
October 23, 2008   |   6 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"Michigan has been blessed with an abundant forest resource. If managed wisely, this resource can help the state's power companies reduce CO2 and other air emissions today while other promising technologies are developed for future, additional emission reductions."

-- Brian Warner, Director of Environmental Services, Wolverine Power Cooperative
6 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 6
October 24, 2008
What a waste of biomass!!!

It would be better to use the biomass directly in residential and industrial heating, where efficiencies of more than 90% can be achieved.

A regular coal fired power plant has an efficiency of around 36–40% (see Wikipedia), so most of the energy is waster!

Hence, biomass would be much better used for heating purposes than for co-firing traditional coal-fired power plants.
Comment
2 of 6
October 24, 2008
Mr. Mohr,

I hear this position from many biomass suppliers regarding using biomass for heat rather than for electricity. Please understand that this statement is true for ALL fuels...coal has a higher heating than electric efficiency as well, so should we all be burning coal in our home heating systems? Natural gas is the same, etc., though to different efficiencies per fuel due to heat content, mositure, combustion technology, etc.

Biomass via fuel pellets is good for residential and commercial due to the fact that pellets are densified on a btu/lb basis which allows for smaller storage and ease of handling, when compared to wood chips and other residues. Pricing is competitive with natural gas, fuel oil, and propane. For the residential and commercial user, it comes down to ease (we are a very lazy species) and lowest cost (we have been and will continue to take home less per pay period as governments grow).

I applaud the use of biomass for power generation because it offsets traditional fossil fuels, takes care of managing the forests, can replace portions of old and less efficient / environmentally sound fossil fuel generators, and creates jobs LOCALLY to the community and not a community that is 100's of miles away and most of the time out of State.

Cheers to Wolverine and MTU...
Comment
3 of 6
October 24, 2008
There are lots of benefits of using biomass for fuel, but don't forget that wood emits about the same amount of GHG's per MJ as coal. People tend to say you can ignore the CO2 from wood because it's been absorbed from the atmosphere, but that's already happened whether the wood is burnt or not. What happens to the forestry residues at the moment? If they're left on the forest floor, over time a portion will be absorbed into the soil and the rest will rot, over 10's of years. So burning it instead accelerates the release of CO2. There's probably still less released from burning wood than from burning coal AND having the wood rot, but maybe not as much as foresters like to think.
Comment
4 of 6
October 25, 2008
Woody biomass is a good choice. The left over banches and stumpage is just left there to rot,wich collects termites and becomes a fire hazard plus when it is decomposing it is also creating CO2. If we can learn to control the amount that is left over it may play in a better enviroment. Also take some of the burnden off of using so much coal if mixxed with coal may even create a cleaner burning power plant. Alot needs to be studied. I say lets try it. As for carbon sequestration I believe all power plants should be connected to Algae production and the remander entrapted under ground.
Comment
5 of 6
October 25, 2008
Biomass should never be burnt.

Closed-Loop Pyrolysis allows a 1/3 of each ton to return to the soil as biochar,
with many fertility benefits.
And 2/3 of each ton to be combusted as bio-gas & bio-oil.

Quiet a virtuous energy cycle

See: http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node
Comment
6 of 6
November 3, 2008
Pyrolysis is still an incinerator technology, just in disguise. Bio-char is a waste by-product PR'd as a "beneficial" soil additive.

Also, it isn't like burning biomass is some new idea to help us reduce GHG emissions. It's where we started out and looking back to England circa the Industrial Revolution - trees became scare until coal entered the picture, which would ultimately power that revolution.

I can't help but feel we'd be going backwards by promoting biomass on anything other than small scale, home heating, and communities with excess residues. We now have technologies to move us past inefficient combustion technologies, so why don't we?
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

KACO new energy, Inc. Alpha Technologies Nextek Power Systems, Inc. Apricus, Inc. SMA America, LLC Dow Solar KYOCERA Solar, Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters