Our Magazines Article Archives
 

Replacing Coal with Biomass

By Jennifer Runyon, Managing Editor
December 22, 2009   |   33 Comments
When thinking about retrofitting coal boilers or building biomass power plants from scratch, utilities should consider all of their options.

Do you like this magazine?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"Many utilities are probably quietly exploring this option getting ready for what may be coming out of Washington. If it's cost effective to do, I suspect many of them are going to do it."

-- Charlie Niebling, General Manager, New England Wood Pellets
33 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 33
December 22, 2009
I live in the Southeast which has some of the best biomass resources in the country. This would seem to be, if done responsibly, an excellent choice for this area. I would be curious to know what kind of projects there are like this in the Southeast.
Comment
2 of 33
December 23, 2009
--------"It can? Biomass, if replacing coal, is heating up boilers and those take time to bring up to temp. Coal is certainly not a dispatchable power format."----------

Methane can run diesel engines directly without having to heat boilers. Diesel power generation can start within a few seconds.

Diesel generators running methane produce very low emissions, how much emissions would biomass produce when used in plants designed to burn coal? We already have considerable experience using natural gas for generating electricity, about 1/4 of our current power comes from natural gas.

Perhaps it would be better to convert the biomass to methane rather than burn the biomass.
Comment
3 of 33
December 23, 2009
--- "... capturing 70, 80, 90 percent [of the embodied energy in wood] — then wood does become a pretty interesting source of renewable energy ..." ---
AND
--- "What they might do is think about developing an industrial park around the plant," said Richter ---

Why only "energy in wood"? Does the same CHP philosophy hold for coal-fired power stations too? Coal-based power generation can typically be much bigger then biomass-electricity stations. This approach suggests "Energy Efficiency" rather than just "Renewable Energy".
Comment
4 of 33
December 23, 2009
The amount of energy this will provide is a trivial percent of the production from coal fueled power plants. Then there is the energy used to haul all of this low density fuel.
No image available
Comment
5 of 33
Anonymous
December 23, 2009
A biomass fired plant without combinded electricity and heat technology has an efficiency rate of 25%!!!!
If these plants start to burn high quality wood pellets which can be used in high effeciency boilers with a effeciency rate of 80-90% it seems strange to me. There are such fully automatic working pellet boilers available for housholds in New England. For an example see www.okofen-usa.com

I relly hope that these plants will use waste wood which can't be used in small appliances- otherwise it makes no sense to me.
Comment
6 of 33
December 23, 2009
My fear is the large utilities will run to biomass once carbon has a price, with or without CHP.
My hope is they go with at least with CHP, or better with gasification , or BEST pyrolysis which has an energy cycle 1/3 carbon negative if the Char by product is sequestered in top soils, which builds the soil food web and grows significantly more biomass.
The most virtuous of energy cycles.

Senator Baucus is co-sponsoring a bill along with Senator Tester (D-MT) called WE CHAR. Water Efficiency via Carbon Harvesting and Restoration Act! It focuses on promoting biochar technology to address invasive species and forest biomass. It includes grants and loans for biochar market research and development, biochar characterization and environmental analyses. It directs USDI and USDA to provide loan guarantees for biochar technologies and on-the-ground production with an emphasis on biomass from public lands. And the USGS is to do biomas availability assessments.
WashingtonWatch.com - S. 1713, The Water Efficiency via Carbon Harvesting and Restoration (WECHAR) Act of 2009

Individual and groups can show support for WECHAR by signing online at:
http://www.biocharmatters.org/

Unlike CCS which only reduces emissions, biochar systems draw down CO2 every energy cycle, closing a circle back to support the soil food web. The photosynthetic "capture" collectors are up and running, the "storage" sink is in operation just under our feet. Pyrolysis conversion plants are the only infrastructure we need to build out.

This is a Nano technology for the soil, a fractal vision of Life's relation to surface area that represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.

Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.
Cheers,
Erich
Comment
7 of 33
December 23, 2009
Burning biomass creates a virtuous circuit. No Carbon Capture needed. A key though is a move away from 'mega, centralised systems'.
CHP raises efficiency. Big business and parts of Governments don't want this because the money-people see the heat as being 'Given Away'.
Local power and local heat means local 'power' in the hands of communities. Do it NOW
Comment
8 of 33
December 23, 2009
A few notes:
Erich, thank you for writing about CHAR

From blogs.chron.com/sciguy concerning a "carbon-constrained economy "
one of the commenters wrote:

In 1925, Herbert Hoover was Sec. of Commerce.
Tires were made of natural rubber back then. When the price of rubber became high and unstable, Hoover and some of the leaders of the tire industry, as a patriotic kind of thing, decided to make tires out of recycled materials.
They put up a huge advertising campaign. Buying recycled tires was patriotic.

The result was a tire that was less dependable and wore our quicker.

Tire manufacturers' profits often went down. The consumer got a poor quality tire, and the commodity speculators made money.

There are a lot of similarities with that program and what is happening today in energy.
-------------------

Texas A&M built a gas powered plant in the early '90's that generated power and heat for the campus.
-------------------
Texas has a lot of brush. The brush is native to Texas, but before the introduction of European man, horses, and cattle, it was often confined to creeks or was retarded by fire. South Texas is especially brushy.

Texas Tech built a small brush harvester on a MF tractor in the 1970's.
I have yet to see R&D for commercial harvesting and processing of the heavier biomass sources.
--------------------
As the forests grade west into Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas they produce trees that are often inadequate for lumber production, but the rainfall and soils are still good for biomass production.
--------------------
Merry Christmas, y'all
Comment
9 of 33
December 23, 2009
Why should only utility monopolies be able to do biomass in the US??? How about some feed-in tariffs for independents, America??? America is a monopolistic disgrace - virtually every industry! Our company is sooooo out of here!
Comment
10 of 33
December 23, 2009
Biomass and Torrefaction facilities are the first step towards wide scale biomass production and local job creation to replace importing coal. Torrefaction is the process of heating biomass to 270 degrees to give it the energy density of coal. Combined Heat and Power Plants (CHP) allows Biomass facilities to reutilize heat that would otherwise be lost, resulting in energy efficiencies of 90% versus 30% for coal produced heat that is lost in cooling and transmission.

Biomass Jobs for energy production can also benefit from distributed production; as smaller scale combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants can be located closer to where crops, wood waste and other sources are being generated, and where the energy output is used. Reducing the distance that Biomass is transported to 45 miles or less results in over 50% reduced cost for source material.

Here's an excellent compilation of PowerPoint presentations for Biomass production and Torrefaction:

http://www.virginiabiomass.org/1stMeet-0209.html

http://www.virginiabiomass.org/ppts/Dickinson-Torrefaction.ppt

http://www.virginiabiomass.org/ppts/Carden-PelletProduction.ppt
Comment
11 of 33
December 23, 2009
Here is a more comprehensive article for the Torrefaction of Coal to give it the energy density and moisture resistance of coal:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/05/clean-coal-here-now
Comment
12 of 33
December 23, 2009
Maine has 400,000 acres of Peat, a renewable bio-mass crop; yet energy proponents ignore it's potential. The IRISH, etc. don't and the PEAT just keeps growing under sustainable management of the resource.

Did you just ignore it because you don't know about the resource or are you focused on trees?

My REFORESTATION INITIATIVE was briefly halted when we discussed leaf burning last week; but the solution was to centralize the burning to produce CHAR to return to the soil or instruct land owners on this type of soil revitalization. Problem solved!
Comment
13 of 33
December 23, 2009
Aren't we confusing things here by claiming a higher energy recovery for biomass ( if we generate power AND heat) versus coal generating Power (only)? Nothing prevents the coal-fired plant from providing heat along with power. It is being done in a variety of locales. I believe the city of Indianaplolis has such an arrangement. The problem for most of us is that we don't want smokestacks in our city skylines.
I also recall that my alma mater had a "Machinery Hall" where we did our (engineering) labs. It was also the source for heat and power for the entire campus. Heat lines ran underneath the sidewalks to dorms and other classrooms, so the ice and snow did not build up.
Please be clear - total energy utilization ( or CHP as you call it) is not new and not exclusive to biomass fuels.
strummer
Comment
14 of 33
December 24, 2009
strummer wrote; "Nothing prevents the coal-fired plant from providing heat along with power" but there is something preventing almost all coal-fired plants from providing heat along with power and it is called "distance". We should know that coal fired power plants are mostly too far away from any heat requirement such as a heating district to allow the waste heat from a coal-fired power plant to be beneficially used.
Comment
15 of 33
December 24, 2009
This is an excellent and helpful article; a real service to the public discourse. There is so much misinformation about biomass energy, and too much fearmongering: Biomass is no silver bullet, but it's certainly not a "crime against humanity" nor a "green nightmare," nor is it "crazy logic."

http://bit.ly/JeffGibbs_anti-biomass
http://bit.ly/AlterNet_anti-biomass

It is true that CHP is an ideal technology, and it can be cost-competitive today. It's also true that CHP is not limited to biomass applications. Examples abound of natural gas, coal, and other fossil fuel-fired CHP installations. Only biomass CHP can be carbon neutral.

But it's not accurate to say "Nothing prevents the coal-fired plant from providing heat along with power." In addition to distance (see above) there is the problem of capital costs and financing. Existing coal plants are unlikely to be cost-effectively converted to efficient use of the thermal energy. Who on Earth would want to pour good CHP money into an old, inefficient, dangerous, polluting 1960s or '70s era coal-plant? The smart money is being invested in CHP today in industrial retrofits.

Also, when new biopower plants are developed with a steam host (i.e., contractual consumer of steam and waste heat) next door, then the economics enable profitable returns on the higher capital costs of CHP.

A point that should not be lost in these lofty discussions is that biomass is a DISTRIBUTED resource, and not every biomass-rich region needs a CHP plant. But many rural areas could use new biopower-baseload capacity to help get dirty, dangerous coal plants off the grid.

Rebuilding our economy and repairing the climate will take everything we can muster: Massive energy efficiency and conservation, wind, solar, small hydro, and lots of biopower. Both efficient and inefficient biopower will have a role to play, and we should not limit ourselves unnecessarily (as long as the supply is sustainable and emissions are regulated).
No image available
Comment
16 of 33
Anonymous
December 26, 2009
The article really should mention that the use of wood and other biomass is far from new and that it already accounts for more than 1% of US electricity generation. The additions cited here are miniscule compared to the existing production from this resource and growth potential is going to be limited by competition for the available biomass. It is hard to see wood based electricity generation ever getting more than a few percent of the market.
Steven
Comment
17 of 33
December 30, 2009
Anyone ever heard of charcoal? It has similar properties to coal, and does not contain sulphur or heavy metal cotaminants.

We've used charcoal for thousands of years.
No image available
Comment
18 of 33
Anonymous
December 30, 2009
this is great news indeed. HOWEVER, one question comes to mind - where are they getting all this wood from??????? all the great long answers i received boil down to one result - TREES ARE BEING CUT TO SUPPLY THIS DEMAND!!!!! there is a reason why the Europeans are buying wood pellets from USA and paying 135 EU per ton?!
Now, if only waste wood or waste crops would be used than we have a real viable solution. Moreover, if manure briquettes would be used than you literally solve two major problems our environment faces: (1) a clean and safe way to remove manure solids; and (2) A long term constant supply of a carbon neutral fuel source.
Comment
19 of 33
January 1, 2010
First Energy should go the next step. A hybrid Biomass/Solar with Direct Steam Generation technology can displace biomass fuel during the day and reduce the overall carbon footprint. A hybrid will also solve solar's problem of 24/7 operation and costly thermal storage.
Comment
20 of 33
January 6, 2010
So the Russell plant will operate at 25% efficiency. Can't we do better than this?

I have a Google alert set up for biomass and the number of new plants being proposed around the country is truly astounding-- no way there's enough wood to fuel that demand.

One of my concerns is that these plants will turn to burning construction and demolition wood, which is cheaper and (for the moment) plentiful. Such a plant is being proposed for my home city, Springfield, MA. Even with the "best technology", even when within every DEP guideline, this plant will emit pollutants we just don't want to breathe.

But even if we're talking about "clean" wood, the fine particulate matter and other pollutants add to our communities health burden. Just because-- and arguably-- they are better than coal does not make them good. We can do better.
Comment
21 of 33
January 7, 2010
When the Burger conversion was proposed I was eager to see if we could put some sustainable jobs into coal country here in Ohio. But in the first couple of months since the regulators opened the permit process there are ten biomass generating proposals totalling 2167 MW. Based on the fuel needs of the Shiller, NH 50 MW plant, these projects could be expected to require about 220% of the forest growth in Ohio, or about 440% of the forest productivity which isn't already being used for commercial purposes. I have no idea how much of the rest is used but not accounted for, but the point is that there is a complete lack of sense of scale in these proposals.

Burger is particularly problematic in that it is proposed to require a $100 million investment in plant modifications. This isn't quite the same as guaranteeing the plant owners license to deforest, but as other commentors have noted, it will crowd out opportunities for smaller, more efficient and smarter proposals. Most of the other proposals do not require plant modifications, at least in the current proposal phase. Retaining flexibiltiy is probably a smart thing. At this scale we are likely to see hard competition between fuel production and agriculture, following in the wake of the ethanol mess.

I believe the evidence exists to support the notion that biomass to energy projects are best kept under about ten MW. The commentors who talk about CHP being applicable to coal and natural gas are correct in principle, but if we want to solve global warming, we have to stop using fossil fuel. Sequestration is an expensive joke, like nuclear power. I have 355 characters left so you will have to wonder why. But since FERC's wholesale deregulation, CCS won't happen except on a pilot basis.

Efficiency saves enough money to pay for the wind and PV we need. Other renewables aren't necessary, although they can help if they are affordable and truly sustainable. It's time to get serious about figuring this out.
No image available
Comment
22 of 33
Anonymous
January 12, 2010
how is biomass a good solution? isn't burning it just going to contribute to more pollution and greenhouse gases? isn't that the reason they changed the laws on burning garden biomass in the first place? besides, the wood chips and other cellulose sources could be better applied to outdoor composting toilets to help replenish the country's enormous deficiency of organic soil, which is a direct result soil erosion due to clear-cutting. i think we could do better.
Comment
23 of 33
January 12, 2010
Of all options, burning fresh wood for energy is to me going back many centuries. Waste wood abounds from old carpentry products and perhaps waste paper stock. Farm wastes also add to the useful stock. If we are trying to save our forests as part of the 'save-the-earth' campaign; our thinking on new innovations must be consistent with development history.
Comment
24 of 33
January 12, 2010
There are coal fired plants that have or do add wood or other flammables to the mix to generate electricity. This discussion begs answers to a bunch of questions and I only tough a few.

- This process is supposedly carbon neutral. Maybe it should be more accurately described since there is more fuel used in Transport than for coal and similarily more road wear.

- With more logging and brush capture for fuel will there be requirement for revegetation and mitigation of road and other environmental damage.

-There have been other government subsidized programs that were eventually shown as corporate money makers. This smells of the same character and needs some very progmatic overseeing (not much hope).

-I agree this program could be used to advantage in some special cases.
No image available
Comment
25 of 33
Anonymous
January 12, 2010
FACT: The technology and equipment exists and has been manufactured here in the USA by very reputable international companies for hundreds of years. From gasification, combustion, heat recovery, power generation to emission controls. It all exists now to make this technology a MUCH better neighbor than a coal fired plant.

Look. The utilities are not stating all the facts. They want to keep a million dollar plant open.

First, to repower a coal power plant with biomass will derate the plant. You can only shove so much biomass fuel (~half the heating value of coal) thru an existing material handling system. If their net output is currently 312 mW on coal the best they will ever do with biomass is <200 mW.

Second, making electricity with biomass is no more efficient than doing it with the same technologies and coal. Typical modern plants are doing this at 35% efficiency.

Then they plan to put this electricity on a power grid that is ~38% efficient in getting the power to John Q. Public. This means from the trees to your house about a 12% coversion efficiency. That sucks!

Finally, how are the neighbors gonna feel about the transportation impact of the plant having to unload the equivalent of a semi truck every 30 seconds, 24 hours a day, seven days a week?

Someone mentioned methane. Making methane leaves behind a residue, if you will. The material/sludge left behind by digesters means this technology will never be a COMPLETE energy solution. It requires additional technologies, like biomass gasifier/boilers, to complete the removal of energy from the fuel while providing sludge disposal cost avoidance.

Using a cleaner fuel like biomass (without all the sulfur, mercury, etc. that's in coal) is bad?

The solution is smaller, site specific CHP (~70% eff.) systems. They WILL provide the "thermal" component required to increase efficiency, AND eliminate the efficiency loss of power transport by using ALL captured energy on site.
Comment
26 of 33
January 12, 2010
Replacing coal in current generating facilities is no doubt the best use of capital resources. The problem arises when you realize the scale at which these facilities use coal. A typical coal fired plant generating about 600MW will use about 2.5 - 3.0 million tons of coal annually. This is many times higher than a large paper mill. Scale of economically available biomass will limit the ability to "re-power" existing facilities. Torrefaction will help to expand the areas of economical collection and could even produce "bio-coal" generating areas which exported products to generating facilities.
It is going to take a two fold effort in expanding biomass resources through land management changes in forest biomass production and energy crop production along with technology advances like torrefaction to get the best possible biomass utilization.
Comment
27 of 33
January 12, 2010
Great article. 100,000 years ago mankind started with wood as the primary energy source . Here's a proposal to use sewage to grow biomass:

http://www.hicon.us/gpage19.html

Free water and fertilizer!
Comment
28 of 33
January 12, 2010
I have had some time to ponder this article since it came out in December.
I have read where some coal power plants consume over 200 tons per hour.
That is about 3 tons per minute. A farmer delivering a fair load of switchgrass to a biomass plant would not be out the gate before his load was consumed.
We have a problem with biomass. First, we do not have systems big enough to gather and transport biomass that will compete with coal. We have some of the machines but not the systems.
Second, just as it takes us only a few minutes to fill up our gas tanks to drive for several hours, the handling systems will have to operate at
10 to 40 times the rate that the power plants are consuming the biomass.
Third, when we do develop the systems, it will lead to significant change of our forests.

We have a long way to go.
Comment
29 of 33
January 12, 2010
These all seem like overly redundant exercises at best. Tried and found wanting.
Depleting topsoil; Pollutiung the water and air; loading CO2.

We have the only safe nuke plant located 93 to 94 million miles up, and it's output is plenty sufficient and largely unused.
What is the problem with using it????? Not enuff captured profits in it? Not enuf political graft in it?
Jheesh! You guys sound so tiresome and so in love with your ignorance.
Comment
30 of 33
January 12, 2010
Another "what are we going to burn"debate. How about moving existing heat from the earth's crust at 5000 to 10000 feet to a 3 to 10 MW plant that's CHP. The Europeans do district heating all over. It's ridiculous to waste all the heat from all our electric power plants. Thomas Edison did it better. The oil boys drill those depths every day. Drill away from city centers and fault zones in geologically stable areas.
Comment
31 of 33
January 13, 2010
From:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i7vUtLGiDHp6gRom-AZMaRObyzTAD9BK80F00

"..The leftover plant material — also called corn stover — is being bought by some energy companies. They turn it into pellets and sell it to coal-fired power plants...

..Some companies will pay up to $20 a ton for long-term contracts. At an average of 3 tons per acre, a mere 100-acre field could yield a gross profit of $6,000...

..But University of Nebraska-Lincoln farm experts say that residue is even more valuable to the farmer by adding nutrients and lending structure to the soil...

..Experts say the nutrient value of corn residue ranges from $17 a ton to $46 a ton...

..Without that residue, the farmer will have to add more fertilizer, raising input costs..."
Comment
32 of 33
January 13, 2010
From:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/09/AR2010010902023.html?wpisrc%3Dnewsletter&sub=AR

"..It's not right. It's not serving any purpose," said Bob Jordan, president of Jordan Lumber & Supply in North Carolina, even while noting that he might be able to get twice as much money for his mill's sawdust and shavings under the program...

"..The best thing they could do is forget about it. All it's doing is driving the price of wood up..."

..Right now, almost no U.S. land is devoted to raising biomass crops; according to congressional estimates, by 2022 the country will need between 22.2 and 55.5 million acres for this purpose...

..That legislation made no distinction between a waste product with little market value, such as corn husks, and the sawdust that sells for roughly $45 a dry ton...

..The federal government can provide up to $45 a ton in matching payments to businesses that collect, harvest, store and transport biomass waste to an authorized energy facility. That means sawdust or wood shavings may be twice as valuable if a lumber mill sells them to a biomass energy company instead of to a traditional buyer...

..This is bad news for the composite panel industry, which turns these materials into particleboard and medium-density fiberboard,..

..The biomass subsidy program could "wipe us out," said T.J. Rosengarth, the vice president and chief operating officer of Flakeboard..

..The much larger pulp, paper, packaging and wood products industry, which ranks among the top 10 manufacturing employers in 48 states, is just as worried..."
Comment
33 of 33
January 13, 2010
I nit-picked and earlier post on biomass at Renewable Energy here:

http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2010/01/all-aboard-biodiesel-biomass-bandwagon.html

If it takes a decade for the carbon emitted by burned biomass to be removed from the atmosphere by biomass planted to replace it, the earth will see a decade of warming as a result of that burned biomass. Many trees take many decades to mature, meaning the earth would see many decades of warming from the emitted carbon before replacement seedlings reabsorb the carbon.
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
ISSUE COVER IMAGE: About Renewable Energy World North America

With 30,000 subscribers, Renewable Energy World North America serves the renewable energy industry, including power generating utilities, local or central governments, energy advisory or planning agencies, manufacturers of... more »

 

Jennifer Runyon

View Jennifer Runyon's Profile
About: Jennifer Runyon is managing editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com and Renewable Energy World North America magazine, coordinating, writing and/or editing columns, ... more »

Advertise With Us

Solar FlexRack 2GreenEnergy.com Southwest Windpower Michael Best & Friedrich LLP Conergy Inc. DNV Comdel
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