Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

World's Largest Pellet Factory Planned in U.S.

January 21, 2010 | 7 Comments

Do you like this news?

Bookmark

Feed

Essen, Germany [RenewableEnergyWorld.com] RWE Innogy is to build a factory to produce biomass pellets in the southern part of the U.S. state of Georgia. The plant will have an annual production capacity of 750,000 tonnes, making it the biggest and most modern of its type in the world, the company says.

"Through this new plant, RWE will be able to secure a supply of biomass at stable and competitive prices. Due to the large surplus available, wood is much cheaper in the US than in Europe with its restricted wood land availability. Furthermore, Georgia is a region where forest management is being carried out in a sustainable manner – this fully meets our strict criteria for the production of biomass."

-- Dr. Hans Bünting, Member of the Board of Directors of RWE Innogy

Carried out in collaboration with BMC Management AB, which specialises in the development of biomass manufacturing solutions and is based in Sweden, the total investment in the project is some €120 million.

Pellets manufactured in the facility will initially be burnt in the existing power plants of Amer in the Netherlands, where currently already up to 30% of the hard coal has been replaced by solid biomass, mainly wood pellets. There are plans to expand the proportion of co-firing to up to 50%. The two power plant units belong to Essent, which RWE took on as a result of the partnership both companies entered in September 2009.

In the coming years, use of the pellets is to be extended to other pure biomass power plants and also to conventional power plant sites in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and the UK.

Around 1.5 million metric tonnes of fresh wood are needed each year to produce 750,000 tonnes of pellets, the company says, and unlike Europe, the US has a huge growth surplus of wood that is not used. This is particularly true in the Georgia region, from which numerous paper and pulp companies have withdrawn over the past decade, thus further reducing the demand for wood.

The pellets are to be shipped to Europe from the port of Savannah and a long-term transport contract has been concluded with shipping company Norden A/S of, Denmark.

Dr. Leonhard Birnbaum, board member of RWE AG said: “Through this investment, RWE has taken a strategically important step towards safeguarding the supply basis for the constantly growing biomass market in Europe. This is because we will be unable to achieve the targets for reducing CO2 emissions in Germany and Europe without biomass. But the European wood market will not be able to satisfy the demand in this fast growing sector on its own."

Dr. Hans Bünting, Member of the Board of Directors of RWE Innogy stated: “Through this new plant, RWE will be able to secure a supply of biomass at stable and competitive prices. Due to the large surplus available, wood is much cheaper in the US than in Europe with its restricted wood land availability. Furthermore, Georgia is a region where forest management is being carried out in a sustainable manner – this fully meets our strict criteria for the production of biomass.”

With 26,000 subscribers and a global readership in over 170 countries around the world, Renewable Energy World Magazine is targeted at those who make growth happen in renewable industries. Covering policy, technology, finance, markets and more, Renewable Energy World magazine covers all technologies and all markets. Published six times per year, a special Directory of Suppliers Issue is published in July/August which is distributed year round at key renewable energy events worldwide.

Bioenergy

7 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 7

christopher-lee-166032

January 22, 2010

Sea transport is certainly relatively inexpensive, but the product isn't very dense. It would make more sense in the long term to look for more local supply solutions. For example, Europe could introduce new mixed farming practices, and also look East.

Comment
2 of 7

Anonymous

January 22, 2010

Here in Southern California we are stuck with firestorms most years, in the fall. Since the built-up biomass on the hills and mountains is going to be burnt anyway, perhaps someday some of it could be harvested instead of just going up in smoke?

Comment
3 of 7

tomgarven

January 26, 2010

Anonymous:

Good idea. Sounds like California also needs a pellet factory and about 20,000 workers. I would buy the pellets.

Comment
4 of 7

Derek-Boyle

January 26, 2010

We need more of these facilities in the USA to replace Coal mining. Torrefactioned Biomass has the energy density and water resistance of Coal without all the globally and locally damaging effects. Torrefaction is the heating of Biomass to 270 degrees; allow it to have the same energy density and moisture resistance as Coal. There are many sustainable plants, trees, and legumes that can be grown to supply the Biomass including Poplar, Willow, Cottonwood, Miscanthus, Switchgrass, Bamboo, Jatropha and Legumes such as Leucaena and Moringa that can be grown on dry arid land. As for California; how much saving can be achieved from clearing and using their wood residue resources, as compared to the losses from fires and the crime that comes with cannabis drug manufacturing by Mexican cartels in the middle of these resources? That's a sidebar issue, but the bottom line is we have tremendous resources, even in our deserts, to grow Biomass, heat it to give it the quality of coal, and supply our own energy needs as well as export supply to Europe. For more info, here's a recent article worth reading:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/01/importing-solar-power-with-biomass?cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-January6-2010

Comment
5 of 7

george-fleming-8895

January 26, 2010

Here is an article that everyone should read. I list the main points. I was surprised by it, because I believed that there were no disadvantages to biomass energy. Until I read the article, I would have agreed with most of the statements posted above:

Why Biomass Wood Energy is Not the Answer - Up in Smoke
By GEORGE WUERTHNER

http://www.counterpunch.org/wuerthner01122010.html

"…there has been very little serious scrutiny of biomass real costs and environmental impacts. Whether commercial biomass is a viable alternative to traditional fossil fuels can be questioned. Before I get into this discussion, I want to state right up front, that coal and other fossil fuels that now provide much of our electrical energy need to be reduced and effectively replaced. But biomass energy is not the way to accomplish this end goal.

Biomass Burning is Pollution - First and foremost, biomass burning isn't green. Burning wood produces huge amounts of pollution. [Ask anyone who has lived downwind of a wood burner, as this poster has.]

Biomass Generates More Carbon Than Coal

Biomass is Not Carbon Neutral

Biomass Energy is Inefficient

Biomass Sanitizes and Mines Our Forests

Biomass Energy Uses Large Amounts of Water

Biomass Energy Saps Funds From Truly Green Energy Sources Like Solar

Public Forests Will Be Logged For Biomass Energy

Job Losses

Bottom Line - Large scale wood biomass energy is neither green, nor truly economical. It is also not ecologically sustainable and jeopardizes our forest ecosystems. It is a distraction that funnels funds and attention away from other more truly worthwhile energy options, in particular, the need for a massive energy conservation program, and changes in our lifestyles that will in the end provide truly green alternatives to coal and other fossil fuels."

George Wuerthner is a wildlife biologist and a former Montana hunting guide. His latest book is Plundering Appalachia.

Comment
6 of 7

marco-ramos-53550

January 31, 2010

Hello everyone,

It's January 31, around 1PM in California and I think the Counterpunch.org web site down -- any rate, I can't check the previous postion for substantiation (January 26, author George Fleming). However, I want to say this:

In the posting all the claims are very general, seemingly unscientific, and certainly unsubstantiated. Some of the claims appear to be purposely deceptive, but I'll reserve judgment until I can see what the web site offers.

My point is this: debates of science and engineering issues must include sound science and engineering facts, substantiation and footnotes. Otherwise we have a philosophical or political debate. Surely both philosophy and politics are important, but neither will change the combustion products or heats of reaction of coal or woody biomass with O2, and neither can change the cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of a photovoltaic cell.

I think a good approach to convincing someone that "Biomass Generates More Carbon Than Coal" is to explain how this may be possible and to even include the chemical combustion reactions. It's the burden of the author to prove or explain assertions.

Respectfully,
Marco Ramos

Comment
7 of 7

george-fleming-8895

February 3, 2010

Marco, see Wuerthner's explanation of one of his points below. You will understand why I posted only an outline of the article. It would not suit this forum to reprint it entirely, even if that were possible. You should be able to read it at CounterPunch.

I have performed combustion calculations professionally for several years and have verified Wuerthner's claim. Even in the best possible case, which would never occur in practice, in which both the coal and the wood are dry and free of ash and of the highest grade for combustion in a steam generator, the CO2 emission rate of wood would be at least as high as it is for coal, assuming that they are fired in a typical Rankine cycle power plant.

If the average moisture content of those fuels is considered, along with the effect of this moisture on the efficiency of the steam generator, then wood would generate at least 30% more CO2 than coal in the production of a given amount of electrical energy. It could be as high as 50% more, depending on the fuels chosen for the analysis.

These calculations are long and tedious. It is not possible to include them here. If you are qualified, you can perform them. If you are not qualified, it would do little good to present them to you. It takes years to acquire this expertise.

Quoting Wuerthner's statement in full:

"BIOMASS GENERATES MORE CARBON THAN COAL

"Besides ignoring the human health aspects of large scale biomass burning, assertions that biomass energy is "green" is a misnomer. Wood burning generates 50% more carbon dioxide than coal. This is largely a factor of the lower heat content in wood which means to generate the same amount of megawatts requires burning far more wood than coal to achieve the same amount of electricity. Biomass burning releases about 3,300 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt, while coal releases 2,100 pounds."

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!