The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Thursday, May 23, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Seeing the Forest and the Trees: Utilities and Regulators Consider Biomass Power Plants

While some U.S. utilities are developing biomass power plants with gusto, others await more certainty from regulators.

Ivan Castano, Contributor
August 19, 2011  |  6 Comments

As U.S. electric utilities continue to wrestle with how to cost effectively cut CO2 emissions and meet their renewable electricity goals, biomass could be starting to gain popularity as a clean energy technology that can help power suppliers do just that.

The EPA recently ruled that all biomass power projects will be exempt of emission caps for the next three years while the agency tries to figure out whether the technology is as clean as many report.  This means an opportunity for utilities to burn more biomass to power the nation and switch off some of the dirtier coal-fired plants they have been using for years. 

Bob Cleaves, president of U.S. Biomass Power Association, expects increasing numbers of utilities will begin investing in biomass facilities to take advantage of the EPAs exemptions.  "Biomass is very carbon friendly and it´s clear the government is going to make it harder and harder to use coal for energy generation as it works to lower greenhouse gas emissions," Cleaves notes. He also expects fewer coal plants will be built as biomass become more economically feasible for utilities. "No-one is building new coal plants," Cleaves said. 

Not only are plans to build new coal plants being shelved but the plants themselves are ramping down. Cleaves explains, “[Coal plants] are being curtailed because of carbon emission concerns.” He said “many view them as costly facilities to operate as the government steps up emission penalties in the future." 

One factor that could undermine biomass´s development is natural gas, the supply of which is quickly expanding. Natural gas could compete with biomass as the next clean-energy alternative, Cleaves pointed out. He added that biomass is not that easy to procure, making its production expensive, while natural gas is more abundant and could remain a cheaper alternative well into the future.  

Regardless of the cost, some utilities are already getting ahead of the game and fleshing out their biomass resources. One such firm is Dominion Virginia Power, which has asked the state of Virginia for permission to convert three aging and small coal-fired plants into biomass facilities.  

The coal plants are in Altavista, Hopewell and Southampton County and each currently have capacities of 63 MW but operate only during peak demand. When transformed into biomass plants, capacities will decrease to 50 MW each but will be running all the time, Dominion said in a statement. It added the plants´ capacity will soar about 92% over their 30-year lifespan, making them significantly cheaper than running coal in the long run. According to Dominion, the biomass plants will obtain most of their fuel from waste wood left from timbering operations and will comply with Virginia laws that regulate biomass for electricity generation.

The fuel switch would reduce nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury and particulate emissions, and all of the power plants would meet stringent new emissions standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The total economic benefit of the project will be more than $350 million, including $30 million in local taxes, $180 million for the creation of more than 300 jobs in the state´s forestry and trucking industries and about $120 million paid to the 90 employees who will work at the overhauled stations, Dominion said.

It added the project would help the utility meet Virginian´s voluntary Renewable Portfolio Standard, which calls for 15% of its generation to stem from renewable resources by 2025. The company said it successfully met the 2010 milestone of 4%.

56 Billion Kilowatt-hours of Biomass Generation 

But despite Dominion´s enthusiasm for biomass, some experts say other electricity suppliers may not be so keen to grow their biomass supply chain until the EPA clarifies how exactly it plans to regulate the sector. "We don´t see a sudden rush from utilities to expand their biomass generation sources,” says Chris Namovicz, a biomass consultant at the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

"Rather, I think the move will be gradual as it takes time to bring biomass plants online and utilities will have to establish a reliable biomass supply system.”  So far, biomass accounts for a tiny fraction of electricity generation in the US. According to Namovicz, biomass generation from all operating sources reached 56 billion kWh last year compared to 4,120 billion kWh from all electricity power sources including electric utilities, independent producers, and industrial facilities that co-generate electricity. 

How fast biomass power plants will actually grow is anyone´s guess, at least until the EPA finishes reviewing the sector´s emission levels (and can issue an appropriate cap framework) which will not happen for another three years, he said. "It´s premature for companies to make investments as it´s hard to know to what degree biomass will really be exempt from emission limits until the EPA does enough research to understand the technology," Namovicz says.

"Companies are not going to want to make big capital investments until there is more regulatory certainty," Namovicz adds.  

Controversy over Carbon Neutrality 

It´s not just the EPA that is having a hard time calculating the market´s potential as a clean power-producing technology.  Several U.S. states are also up in arms about how much they want to support the technology. Biomass plants are already in operation in California, Michigan and Maine, thanks to tax credits issued by states that are keen to diversify their power portfolios and build their green credentials.

But in Massachusetts, a major debate is brewing over the exact environmental benefits of biomass. The controversy is so bitter that the state has launched new rules to limit the type of projects that quality for renewable energy incentives. It has also made the emission allowances for biomass installations more stringent, according to Mike Camera, chairman of the Coalition for Biomass Energy for MASS, which is lobbying the state to change the legislation.

The controversy stems from a recent study claiming biomass is not carbon neutral. 

Since then, anti-biomass group, the Biomass Accountability Project, has been pressing the Massachusetts to introduce a moratorium on state air permits for new biomass projects, threatening the viability of three new facilities currently under construction in in Springfield, Russell and Greenfield. 

But Camera said biomass is carbon neutral and that the state is undermining its renewable goals and hindering the creation of thousands of new jobs.

"It's totally unfair," Camera says. "Biomass is a clean technology and we have 2.5 million tons of it available in the state that could be used as a clean fuel. Instead, the state exporting this amount, creating a bigger carbon footprint in the process."

Under the current rules, the Springfield, Russell and Greenfield facilities will be much more expensive to build with their completion facing delays, Camera adds.

He hopes Massachusetts Environment Secretary will heed the coalition’s pleas and enact new regulations to allow biomass installations to flourish in the northeast state. 

But the Biomass Accountability Project will likely continue its fight to see the technology scrapped. 

In a statement, the organization claimed wood-burning plants create air pollution and are harmful to health.

“At a time when our governments are in financial meltdown and health costs are skyrocketing, taxpayer money (is) in these dirty incinerators that will poison communities for decades,” said Meg Sheehan, the attorney behind the group. “The federal government is giving billions of our money to corporations that wrongly call biomass ‘green energy.’”

If other states follow Massachusetts, the biomass sector´s domestic growth could be seriously jeopardized. 

But for now, it´s a wait-and-see game for the technology´s advocates, including Camera, who says the state is currently reviewing both parties´ claims before enacting any new legislation.

"We have no idea what the government will do but we are going to continue fighting to see biomass receives the credit it deserves," Camera said.

6 Comments

Register To Comment
Steve Poppitz
Steve Poppitz
August 25, 2011
Here in Boulder,Colo. we had 6 coal fired boilers generating electricity. 5 have been converted to nat.gas. The last one will hopefully be converted soon, perhaps to a biomass burner. Because of a nasty little beetle we have recently become the Saudi Arabia of dead trees and have fuel. I liked this idea:

The total economic benefit of the project will be more than $350 million, including $30 million in local taxes, $180 million for the creation of more than 300 jobs in the state´s forestry and trucking industries and about $120 million paid to the 90 employees

Local, renewable, eliminating coal, making jobs...I like it.
Steve Poppitz
Steve Poppitz
August 25, 2011
Here in Boulder,Colo. we had 6 coal fired boilers generating electricity. 5 have been converted to nat.gas. The last one will hopefully be converted soon, perhaps to a biomass burner. Because of a nasty little beetle we have recently become the Saudi Arabia of dead trees and have fuel. I liked this idea from the article :

The total economic benefit of the project will be more than $350 million, including $30 million in local taxes, $180 million for the creation of more than 300 jobs in the state´s forestry and trucking industries and about $120 million paid to the 90 employees

Local, renewable, eliminating coal, making jobs...I like it. And by the way, I know it pollutes, but less than coal and this would be an easy transition away from coal and onto a future zero-carbon solution as we build more wind and solar etc.
ANONYMOUS
August 23, 2011
While I'm glad that there is a peceived need for more scrutiny regarding biomass generation plants (especially as regards to where the feedstock is coming from - we don't need our forests being denuded as a "green alternative"), at the same time I wonder if some of those opposing it are going too far -- certainly biomass, if responsibly and moderately harvesting will provide a nice supplental power supply.

But what is really surprising to me is that no one seems to be investiging or comparing the use of different feedstocks. Many timber and pulp plantations have to regularly "burn off" their land as a "fuel reduction" method in the SouthEast. It might make more sense if some of that undercover could be "mowed" regularly, and the resultant vegetation burned as a rewnewable biomass. If the biomass plant was modest, no trees would need to be felled for energy.

Of course, there would be some loss of decomposing organic matter -- and thus there might be a need for property owners to limit how often they harvested in this manner to avoid soil-health issues!
Jane Twitmyer
Jane Twitmyer
August 23, 2011
Why are we talking about chopping down the forests of the East Coast to replace coal plants? Dominion especially has proven to be the least forward looking utility regarding efficiency and renewables.
From DOE Offshore wind report 9/2/10 ...

"The energy-generating potential of offshore wind is immense due to the lengthy U.S. coastline and the quality of the resource found there (offshore winds blow stronger and more uniformly than on land, resulting in greater potential generation). Offshore wind resource data for the Great Lakes, U.S. coastal waters, and Outer Continental Shelf up to 50 nautical miles from shore indicate that for annual average wind speeds above 8.0 m/s, the total gross resource of the United States is 2,957 GW or approximately three times the generating capacity of the current U.S. electric grid."
Felix Moser
Felix Moser
August 23, 2011
I agree with you about the price of green wood, no clean technology is viable if it is not economically feasible.

"What needs to be accelerated is an effective way to scrub the flue gas from coal plants".

On this matter I would like to ask: "which gases you are refering to?". If it is CO2, I strongly disagree. Carbon Capture and Disposal (the honest way to call CCS, as we do not plan to store it but rather to dispose it), is not a solution. You might have in the US 10 to 15 years of appropriate geological sites for CO2 disposal, than they will be full and have to be monitored for 1000 to 100.000 of years at costs that nobody can calculate an NO INSURANCE COMPANY will insure. That is not an option in my view. And Obama did well to stop the FutureGen project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FutureGen.
Money should rather be spent on the development of storage technologies for electricity and thermal energy and smart grids.
Roy Long
Roy Long
August 19, 2011
There seems to be a National fantasy that we can switch from coal to biomass and get rid of all those ugly coal emissions. Not so. There's not enough trees in the land and growing dedicated fuel crops just doesn't pencil out. The best that has been presented to me is $70 a green ton. I pay on the average of $23 a green ton delivered for waste wood with about 7600 BTU/Lb dry. And even at that I'm on knife edge margins. What needs to be accelerated is an effective way to scrub the flue gas from coal plants

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
ivan castano

ivan castano

Ivan Castano is a freelance journalist based in Miami. His work has appeared in Thomson Reuters’ International Finance Review (IFR), Dow Jones’ Financial News, Euromoney, Trade & Forfaiting Review and a range of trade publications covering...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • US, Australian Companies Taking Giant Steps for Global EGS Geothermal
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Wind Power — Even without the Wind
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 32
    The Finnish Hydrogen Roadmap: Hydrogen to Join Electricity in Ending Traffic Pollution
  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Green Power Conferences
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Natural Power
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • Rotork plc
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen 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 Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information