The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Tuesday, June 18, 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

Wood-based Biomass Blossoming in Asia

Wood-fired biomass has tended to mean feedstock from North America and generation in Europe, yet recent developments in Asia suggest the picture could soon become more complex.

Piers Evans, Production Editor, Renewable Energy World magazine
February 04, 2013  |  67 Comments

Print

In 2012, as Gangnam Style alerted the world to Korean pop, Seoul also made waves in the biomass sector. With a roaring economy to feed, Southeast Asia's emerging powerhouse opted to insert a sizeable slice of wood into its energy mix.

An overwhelming reliance on imported fossil fuels provides a compelling motive for embracing renewables. Although ranked 109th globally by land mass, South Korea is in the top ten for power consumption, despite lacking its own fuel reserves.

Under a compulsory quota introduced last year, South Korea’s power generators must now deliver 2 percent of their energy from renewables. With each year this renewable portfolio standard (RPS) will now ratchet up, reaching 10 percent in 2022.

Wind, solar and hydropower feature in Seoul’s plans for a securer energy supply but biomass is expected to deliver the lion’s share of new clean capacity – as much as 60 percent, according to some estimates. 

In wood pellets, Korea has implemented a programme that covers the construction of eight new pellet plants. In addition, with only limited opportunities to generate feedstock from its domestic sawmilling industry, the government has set a goal of importing 5 million tonnes of pellets by 2020. By then, 75-80 percent of pellets consumed in the country are expected to be imported.

South Korea’s energy companies have been exploring opportunities to import pellets from Australia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Canada and the US. In July 2012, Korea Electric Power (KEP) set out to become the first to buy wood pellets to meet its renewable energy quota with a tender for 15,000 tonnes.

Meanwhile, driven by a different set of priorities, South Korea’s great regional rival has also expanded its profile for biomass producers. In the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan is eyeing all renewables to dilute its heavy reliance on nuclear power.

In Japan, solar is expected to far outshine other renewable technologies. Yet biomass featured in the feed-in tariffs (FiTs) introduced on 1 July 2012, amid talk from Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Yukio Edano of ‘the first year of renewable energy’. 

For biomass power, the tariffs set a purchase price for 20 years of 40.95 yen ($0.45)/kWh for gasification, 13.65 yen ($0.15)/kWh by recycled wood and 33.6 yen ($0.37)/kWh by un-used wood. 

In November, the tariffs apparently made their mark with the decision by Sumitomo Osaka Cement Co. to cut its dependence on coal by using more biomass such as wood chips at its Tochigi and Kochi plants. Within three years, the company aims to raise the share of wood and industrial waste in its fuel from a third up to 40 percent, with a longer-term goal of 50 percent. 

Where Will Asia Find Its Feedstocks? 

But biomass in Asia shares many of the uncertainties that still unsettle the sector in its European heartland. How much Asia will drive global demand for feedstock is uncertain, even without questioning the consistency of government policy. 

For Hakan Ekstrom of Wood Resources International, legislative shifts in Japan and South Korea do indeed herald a shift in markets. 

‘Korea will need plenty of pellets and most of it will be imported,’ he told REW. ‘Japan also will need more biomass but, at least initially, it will likely be in the form of domestic forest and industry biomass.’ 

So what could an expansion in Asia’s wood-fired generation mean for global trade in wood pellets? In North America, the forestry industry is following developments with apparent confidence in a new market opportunity. Gordon Murray, executive director of the Wood Pellet Association of Canada, sees South Korea as potentially offering a market of 9 million tonnes by 2020. 

While Canada will have to compete with nearer countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia and Indonesia as well as New Zealand and Australia, he points out that Vancouver is only 8000 km from Incheon, less than half the 16,500 km from Vancouver to Rotterdam, currently its largest market. 

In the U.S., meanwhile, a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in May 2012 puts wood pellets as a good fit with President Obama’s goal of doubling exports to $2 trillion by 2015. China, Japan and South Korea all emerge as potential wood pellet market, albeit with some reservations.

‘Of the three markets, China has the potential to become the largest wood pellet market in Asia,’ concludes the report. ‘Its economy is strong, energy demand is growing, and the Chinese government is looking for solutions to substitute renewable energy for coal. Additionally, the Chinese currency has appreciated against the US dollar, making US wood pellets easier to sell in the Chinese market.’

That said, China currently imports ‘a very small quantity of wood pellets from North America’. Wood pellet demand in China comes from the industrial energy market, so market development efforts should target government energy officials and coal-fired power plants.

In South Korea, wood pellet exporters can count on a flourishing economy to drive wood pellet demand for co-firing with coal, finds the report. But imports are still low and Seoul also appears to be pursuing a wood pellet strategy of joint development with other Asian countries.

‘Overall, wood pellet demand will increase in South Korea, but it is difficult to predict what portion will be imported from North America,’ conclude the USDA’s researchers. 

As in China, Japan’s demand for wood pellets in largely driven by industrial energy. But Kansai Electric Power Corporation has established an encouraging co-firing model. ‘Because Japanese power utilities are held to Kyoto Protocol emission-reduction standards, there is a strong possibility that other electric utilities will follow Kansai Electric’s lead and use more wood pellets as a substitute for coal,’ finds the report. 

Asia’s Global Role in Biomass

In their recent forecasts for biomass pellets in Asia, Silvio Mergner and Matt Bovelander are now making predictions for short-term demand shifts. 

‘We are suggesting a short term development of biomass demand growth from the current 200 000 tonnes pellet equivalent in Korea to 1.8-2.0 million tonnes pellet equivalent by 2015,’ Bovelander told REW. ‘In Japan the current demand for biomass is 1.5 million tonne pellet equivalent and we see this will move to 3.0-3.5 million by 2015.’

While Taiwan market’s market is showing movement – and countries like China, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia use plenty of biomass – Japan and South Korea look set to dominate the sector in Asia, and are alone in driving international trade, added Bovelander, who heads Poyry's bioenergy consulting business in the Asia-Pacific.

But the impact of this looming surge in biomass demand is unlikely to reverberate around the globe. ‘Markets in Japan and Korea will not really compete with Europe at this stage,’ said Bovelander. 

North American and Canadian producers may eye Asia with interest but they already have long term contracts in place with Europe. Uncommitted supply is limited. Secondly, Japan and Korea lack the infrastructure for large-scale 'panamax' type pellet transport, for which North American suppliers are geared. Thirdly, prices in Korea are too low, while in Japan they are 'ok' but not hugely exciting.

‘Finally, Korean and Japanese buyers of pellets will source from Asia first,’ he adds. ‘It is likely that only in the next few years will they need to look seriously further abroad for their supply – to Australia, New Zealand and North West Canada.’

This article is abridged. For the full version, look out for the January-February edition of Renewable Energy World magazine – or why not subscribe. 

Lead image: Biomass pellets via Shutterstock

67 Comments

Register To Comment
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
April 23, 2013
Terry says: "It is ridiculous to claim you pad around naked in a primeval forest untouched by evolution of humans."

Terry the Great, glad I made you laugh. You certainly write things that make others laugh.
;]
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
April 23, 2013
DrAlexC,

It is hilarious that you would teach that which you have proven you know nothing about.

It is ridiculous to claim you pad around naked in a primeval forest untouched by evolution of humans.

All life modifies its environment. Without the anaerobic archaeobacteria that converted the methane-laden atmosphere of the early planet to an oxygen-rich atmosphere and then died as a result of their handiwork, we couldn't have the life we see around us if we bother to step outside.

Some uneducated and uneducatable persons would retrieve that methane from storage in vast quantities and re-introduce some of it unburned through escape to our atmosphere. They even call it "clean energy," while damning efforts to recycle carbon cleanly for the health of the planet.

I do bow to your entertainment of claiming dreadful insult while hurling invective. Not everyone is so capable of such a feat.

Best, Terry
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
April 21, 2013
Terry, you desperation to cover your ignorance with schoolyard insult is fun!

When you take the time to understand how forests and other natural plant systems work, and what happens when unnatural intrusions via machines & human exploitation occur, write back.

Ecology seems as yet unknown to you.
;]
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
April 21, 2013
DrAlexC,

Creative writing is your scam.

I just report facts and logical conclusions from facts.

"Biomass saves nothing"

Thank you for the confirmation.

The most fanatic cult naturalists not only admit that leaving debris to decay on the forest floor causes fires but praise the fire as needed. They pretend, like yourself, to be environmentalists and ignore what the additions of carbon and methane, among other things, do to our grim prospects for survival.

"Just imagine how all our world's forests struggled to survive for millions of years with no humans"

Is geology then junk science you think? Did the Great Dying not happen when life on the planet was in danger of total extinction?

At least you admit the earth is more than 6,000 years old. That's a start on your education.

Best, Terry
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
April 21, 2013
Terry, did you miss the "irony" chapter in creative writing class?
;]
Yes, there is "clean coal". There's even a beautiful picture of one example, stretching miles across one section of our western landscape. The key is to leave that escarpment in place.

Biomass saves nothing but the egos of the few who misunderstand reality and science. Just imagine how all our world's forests struggled to survive for millions of years with no humans to come in with fossil-fuelled machinery to cut roads, chop trees, grind up detritus before it could return nutrients to soils, etc.

What amazing things those forests and natural lands that somehow managed without fools yakking about "biomass" and creating new sources of pollution and environmental damage!?
;]
There are scams of all sizes and biomass burning is up with the biggest.
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
April 21, 2013
DrAlexC,

There is no such thing as clean coal. It is an oxymoron.

"Like coal, biomass burning wastes valuable lands & forests"

Monstrous nonsense.

Fossil fuels return sequestered carbon to the surface. They threaten the very existence of humans and other life on the surface.

Biomass collection can save forests and land and water and atmosphere that you would see destroyed by removing kindling for forest fires, by ameliorating causes of disease and other destruction.

A forest is a terrible thing to waste just as it with minds.

You would do both and call it a good deed.

Best, Terry
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
April 21, 2013
Biomass is about as realistic as "clean coal". Like coal, biomass burning wastes valuable lands & forests, but soils & nutrients & water as well.

Biomass advocates may as well advocate any fossil fuel. Both are unsustainable.

It's always amazing to see folks claiming an environmental mantle without understanding the basics of the carbon cycle and our present carbon debt of 500 billion tons.
whirlston andre
whirlston andre
February 28, 2013
woodpellet machine Your article is meaningful and it helps me a lot.It is a chance for me to give my voice here and I like this very much.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
February 18, 2013
Industrial Hemp Farming Legislation Reintroduced In Congress

Thursday, 14 February 2013

Industrial Hemp Farming Legislation Reintroduced In CongressWashington, DC: United States Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and 28 co-sponsors, including House Agriculture Committee ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), have reintroduced legislation in Congress that requires the federal government to respect state laws allowing for the cultivation of industrial hemp. Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa that contains only trace (less than one percent) amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive compound in cannabis.

House Bill 525, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013, amends the federal Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana. The measure grants state legislatures the authority to license and regulate the commercial production of hemp as an industrial and agricultural commodity.

Eight states - Colorado, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, Wshington and West Virginia - have enacted statutory changes defining iandustrial hemp as a distinct agricultural product and allowing for its regulated commercial production. Passage of HR 525 would remove existing federal barriers and would permit these states and others the authority to do so without running afoul of federal anti-drug laws.
nomic opportunity for Kentucky farmers," Rep. Massie stated in a press release. "Industrial hemp will give small farmers another opportunity to succeed."
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 17, 2013
OneGreen -- it's been suggested that gun control can best be achieved by legalizing marijuana (hemp). Not only would we get taxes and undercut the cartel crime, folks would all mellow out and even if they had the typical redneck assortment of weapons, they'd never think too use them, maybe even forget where & what they are.
;]
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 17, 2013
You sure you haven't been inhaling, Terry?...

"Even Honey Boo-Boo probably knows that adding fuel to a fire makes it hotter but Dr. A and President Obama, for two, can't figure that out with their fracking obscenity"

You do know that you can Google all sorts of stuff, like "thermodynamics" or "heat engines"... right?

As for "fracking", maybe you were indeed passed out when I've repeated my opposition to it?

Maybe you should indeed call Honey Boo Boo to get up with facts?
Never thought I'd ever, ever have to say that. ;]
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 17, 2013
onegreenday,

It's way OT but my interest has long been on medical uses of marijuana.

I can rightly be accused of not knowing what I am talking about since I have never smoked it but there is no shortage whatever of expert advice from those who have.

Bizarre is that a synthetic marijuana drug is approved and quite legal but potheads generally despise it because - get this - marinol gets them too high.

Trying to make sense of drug laws is as difficult as trying to make sense of Dr. A's thermodynamics. Even Honey Boo-Boo probably knows that adding fuel to a fire makes it hotter but Dr. A and President Obama, for two, can't figure that out with their fracking obscenity.

Best, Terry
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
February 17, 2013
QUOTE: I know of no reason to believe that THE WEED instead of weeds that need no cultivation or fertilizer or watering would be a superior fuel after disintegration except for more uniform characterization.
------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0xHCkOnn-A

Uploaded on Aug 15, 2010

Produced by the US Government in 1942...Interesting to learn that Dupont Chemical funded the anti- hemp / marijuana effort. This is because they had patents on new synthetic fibers and Hemp had a new machine that would put them out of business if hemp were to be used for clothes. Dupont also sold - and still does many of the chemicals to wood pulp producers... so we continue to cut down forests... when Hemp could save millions of trees, be used as an alternative bio fuel and the US could easily grow enough hemp to eliminate the need for oil... so Big oil does not want hemp legal either. Neither do the drug companies... they can't patent it. They would rather keep selling you their drugs. By keeping it illegal the lawyers, courts etc... also make a buck. You can only get high from the female flower - nobody has ever died from smoking a joint. Of course the alcohol and tobacco companies would prefer to keep their monopoly as well. So we have all the BIG Corporate players... against legalizing it. Yet if it were legalized - we would solve many issues and have a multi billion dollar hemp economy as it can be used for 1000's of products. A few other good films to watch are run from the cure & hemp conspiracy - Google it!
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 17, 2013
Hi Kim,

Hemp as food for humans was news to me.

"What do you think of when I say "hemp"? I think of marijuna and hippy homeless young women selling homemade hemp bracelets on the streets. However, hemp is appearing everywhere now in the form of hemp milk, hemp seed, hemp protein powder, etc."

http://www.thenourishinggourmet.com/2009/03/hemp-seed-nutritional-value-and-thoughts.html

Not around this backwoodsy part of New York unless it's in the health food store where the proprietor told me a customer with pancreatic cancer was drinking the DMSO I bought for my wife's old whiplash injury.

I would guess drinking DMSO would hasten one to the grave but if one has pancreatic cancer is that so harmful? :-( In any case all it did for my wife was give her a rash and I never went back. Nothing they have would surprise me.

I wonder now if the marijuana seed sold as canary food (it has to be boiled to sterilize it) could really be hemp.

I know of no reason to believe that THE WEED instead of weeds that need no cultivation or fertilizer or watering would be a superior fuel after disintegration except for more uniform characterization.

Whatever, thanks for the lesson. I wonder if the good stuff could help Dr. A with his thermodynamics. Probably no hope to be had.

Best, Terry
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
February 17, 2013
There's a recent bill filed in the US Congress to allow
HEMP to be grown on farms (again, see 'Hemp for Victory' video)
and HEMP produces food, oil, fiber and fuel. HEMP takes little fertilizer , builds the soil and no pesticides. It's perfect for our needs.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 17, 2013
So Terry, again you still haven't read what "thermodynamics" means? You just like planting stuff to burn for whatever you like, eh?

Well, fortunately, scientists & engineers are around to explain to other adults why your ideas make no sense and are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

What was that 1 degree you said you got, Terry the "dancing rabbit"?
;]
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 17, 2013
"There's the reality that heating using waste may be fine, but trying to generate power via biomass is not a good choice."

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense - NOT.

I wonder if dunces like this are perhaps against straw houses too. Even our big woof would not be able to get through them.

http://www.dancingrabbit.org/about-dancing-rabbit-ecovillage/eco-living/building/natural-building/straw-bale-house-construction/

Good idea? Beats me.

Best, Terry
Andrew hayward
Andrew hayward
February 17, 2013
Thanks Dr Alex and Terry for your reply.

I concur with the benefits of returning straws to the soil however in some areas where the yeilds are high, too much straw is produced so there is an opportunity to recover some product after grain harvest. A majority of this is used for bedding or feed however when there is damage by weather the quality reduces.

My thoughts for Korea was in regards to importing the fuel and that Australia may be a good source of agricultural waste (in the form or straws and other bi-products).
A lot of the rice straw produced in Korea and Japan is used in beed cattle or dairy cattle feed.

My question is really on the efficiency of burning such products compared to the cost.

Andrew
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 17, 2013
Hi Andrew Hayward,

Certainly crop residue can be pelletized, or perhaps better torrified into briquettes which is coming into play, for fuel but one must realize that nutrients are being removed and some must be replaced.

Some studies have suggested the appropriate amounts that may be removed to maintain fertility in standard agricultural practices but one ought to realize that the crop residue is hardly the most efficient fertilizer.

More sophisticated methods, from no till agriculture to low aerobic processing of waste, may be superior. Crop rotation with legumes that fix nitrogen in the soil is well known but all legumes are not created equal. Alfalfa is particularly good at fixing nitrogen but is preferred only by hay burners and health food nuts for consumption.

But, hey, aren't you talking about Korea and therefore rice? I know nothing at all about rice except that it looks awfully messy to cultivate. I have no knowledge of how dry land farming of rice works.

Best, Terry
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 16, 2013
Andrew, the Japanese have long pelletized certain woody plants and used that for home heating, but I can;'t recall the reference. There's the reality that heating using waste may be fine, but trying to generate power via biomass is not a good choice. Better to return it to croplands as mulch or compost.
Andrew hayward
Andrew hayward
February 16, 2013
I am interested to know if crop residue such as cereal straw (pelletised) is an efficient biofuel that the Koreans would be interested in. Given the amount of cereal crops grown around the world there is a supply that is currently being underutilised.

Can anyone comment on this?
Andrew
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 12, 2013
Terry, you do need to read what's said here.

This is very odd: "But my house and furniture and yours won't?" -- deprive/damage soils, not if they're never burned. In Calif. a house torn down is ~98% recycled -- all materials, with organics (wood...) going to farmland compost.

This is also unbalanced: "Utilizing wooden and other trash and spoilage and sewage for fuel and fertilizer will only deprive the atmosphere of more methane" -- of course human waste should be used, not burned. Methane produced by any processing mmust indeed be burned, but the other hydrocarbon content should never be. This is exactly why digesters with mathane separation for burning or local power generation are used.

The apparent dedication of some to burning plant products for power is almost too odd for words.
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 12, 2013
onegreenday,

"Terry, wood flour will only deplete the soil of nutrients"

But my house and furniture and yours won't???

Utilizing wooden and other trash and spoilage and sewage for fuel and fertilizer will only deprive the atmosphere of more methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2; rivers, lakes and oceans of more nutrients to make them a smelly mess devoid of much fish and and other sea animals. Is that what you want? Really? Are you certain?

You prefer to have forest fires and diseased forests than gather the kindling and keep forests healthy and productive?

I frankly don't understand such thinking but fossil fuel folks have to love it.

Best, Terry
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
February 12, 2013
Terry, wood flour will only deplete the soil of nutrients, unless char is returned to the soil or other materials used to rebuild the soil nutrient profile.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 12, 2013
I forgot, Terry, soylent green can also be converted to jet fuel -- get to work!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 12, 2013
OMG, we have Terry wasting more energy making fuel from "biomass".

Now that's a "hoot" Terry. But do go visit a grain elevator one day.
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 12, 2013
I wonder if our purported Ph.D. has warned all the cooks in America of the explosive potential of the flour they use in cooking?

What a hoot!
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 12, 2013
onegreenday,

What flour and what jet fuel? You do know that jets have burned refined liquid biomass for fuel, don't you?

There were proof of principle experiments run at Syracuse University utilizing the particular wood flour shown used in a model of an internal combustion engine. My son, an EE, and I discussed the use of such biomass with the inventor and retain strong doubts an ICE would be practical. OTOH an external combustion engine is not only practical but quite ancient in practice.

In the discussion, the inventor suggested a larger fuel tank would be required for the same range between fill-ups - maybe up to twice the size.

Torrified biomass briquettes today are said to be quite adequate for replacing coal in power plants but are quite new. Today's biomass power plants only use wood chips to the best of my knowledge while pellets are used in some coal-burning plants as a supplement.

Best, Terry
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 12, 2013
Oneg: "I would not want to clear land for PV farms"-- nor do I.

There's no need to. Remember, there's over 2% of Earth's land covered with human structure. That's far more than needed to generate all the peak daytime power load, even with current, 20%-efficient PV.

This is why Calif. has its "million solar homes" initiative and why many municipalities are encouraging local solar deployment, whether on commercial or municipal structures. This includes community college parking lots.

Even NYC was LIDAR surveyed a year oor so ago and found to have enough rooftop space to meet ~1/2 its peak summer day load from rooftop PV...
www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/science/earth/16solar.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

There is no need for windmills. There's need for EVs, efficient storage and base-load, like hydro & nuclear.

And Terry, flour is explosive -- ever seen what happens in grain elevators? It's also far less power dense than liquid hydrocarbons, as made from carbon-neutral sources, like advanced nukes. And it's very CO2 intensive, from seed to field to mill to whatever.

How easily you seem to forget that Ma Nature didn't invent photosynthesis ~2B years ago to give humans things to burn for power, and inefficiently so, Terry.

What was that one degree in again? Nordic studies?
;]
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
February 12, 2013
and what's the volume BTU equivalent of flour to jet fuel?
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 12, 2013
Onegreenday,

"I doubt you'll fly a jet w flour"

Doubt it all you want. An aeroplane in the now long ago past was flown with a coal-burning engine. I bet it beat flying with the Wright brothers like a couple I knew had done at a county fair. Watched the moon landing with them on a couch in my father's living room a bit later than that. :-) Their house is now a museum in Lakeview, OR.

Wood flour is the way finely powdered wood is characterized to distinguish it from such residue as sawdust.

I witnessed this demonstrations of wood flour fueling a giant blowtorch in a farm building beside one of the New York fingerlakes years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfat4nQPv8g

and see:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/08/24/895772/-Cooking-With-Out-Gas

The Norsemen believed humans (or was it gods and goddesses?) were created from the corpse of an ice giant and a cow.

Lot easier to believe a cow converted into flour (there are no ice giants) would fuel a plane than produce a human.

Best, Terry
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
February 12, 2013
I doubt you'll fly a jet w flour but if a cow had wings....
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 12, 2013
onegreenday,

"we still need liquid/gas fuels for certain situations like aircraft, ocean liner."

Not so, friend.

DARPA's much-maligned EATR (Energetic Autonomous Tactical Robot) that would travel on desiccated vegetation got an engine but no brain yet.

Drop in fuels (fuels that require little or no modification of fossil-fueled engines) from bio materials are all the rage these days but Summerhill Biomass is developing solid "flour" biomass as a substitute for natural gas and external combustion engines are centuries old and greatly improved.

Iceland's long-running attempt to replace diesel and gas with hydrogen generated with geothermal power was a miserable bust but perhaps the quietus occasioned by the enormous financial meltdown was the clincher rather than technology.

Airlines have flown with some partial biofuel already.

Best, Terry
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
February 12, 2013
and the food, fiber, fuel (heat/electricity/syngas/gasoline), medicine (hemp) versus ONLY electricity from PV. any conversions of electricity to fuels (hydrogen0 have their loss also.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
February 12, 2013
Dr. C, PV has it's place like marginal land, rooftops and buildings but I would not want to clear land for PV farms (see above) we want to increase farm & forest for our future benefits and jobs. I'm not fond of 'burning' either and electric vehicles are fine for many situations but we still need liquid/gas fuels for certain situations like aircraft, ocean liner.
One important factor for PV farms is the LOSS of carbon sequestering in the biomass that would have been growing where the PV farm is now located. I wonder if you factored in the CO2 biomass sequestering in with PV farms. thanks
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 11, 2013
Wonder what you're talking about, Terry. Do you even know?

What was that one degree in?
;]
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 10, 2013
>The Amazon has been hit by its second 'once in a century' drought in five years, scientists say.

A study found that last year's drought was even more severe and more widespread than the disastrous water shortages that gripped the world's largest rainforest in 2005.

The extended dry season is thought to have wiped out swathes of the Amazon, killing millions of trees, amphibians, fish, birds and mammals."

http://tinyurl.com/apgdhrf

Not to worry say certain folk. All will shortly return just as Sarah Palin's funny-looking horses, dinosaurs, will come running out of caves where they have been hiding.

"THE HOCKEY SCHTICK

Alarmist claim Amazon will dry up bites the dust"

http://tinyurl.com/65azvba

Pour the coals and pump the gas to her, boys. Nothing at all to worry about. Just like melting ice in Greenland

"
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK

Friday, February 8, 2013

New paper finds Greenland surface melt was due to natural variability"

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/

it's nothing to be concerned about. It's all just natural rhythm, like the only approved birth control.

[The academic papers tell a quite different story but pay no heed. The Koch brothers and Exxon and Rush Limbaugh will interpret for you.]

Best, Terry
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 10, 2013
Interesting ramble, Terry, You might not know that in the Amazon, studies have documented that formerly cleared forests, allowed to return to nature, show ~90% of former species richness after only a decade.

This means that leaving things alone, while stopping combustion for power/agriculture, is the best path for our descendents' future.

And, population limitation, of course, is the mega-ton gorilla few dare to speak of.
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 10, 2013
Thank you, onegreenday.

"Priority #1 is to manage the forest & farmland for soil fertility & health. They are the means to our survival & our responsibility as humans."

Mostly agree but life is never simple.

Vast stretches of ancient forests are dying from the effects of global warming. Truly primitive rainforests are quite rare and quite different from the second growth jungles resulting from the tropical slash and burn agriculture that is only better than the clearing of forests for grazing and farming.

Fascinating is an observation in National Geographic that the ancient sequoias of California are vigorously growing at their tops. That likely too is the result of the dumping of so much carbon in the atmosphere by careless humans. The natural forces of decay and living things send great quantities of the much more potent GHG, methane, into the atmosphere. The warming atmosphere then releases even more stored methane demonstrated by the boiling lakes of the arctic.

Indeed mother nature can do great things given eons of time but we don't have eons of time unless we are thinking of clearing humans off the planet to let Mother Nature work on trying again to evolve an intelligent species.

Best, Terry
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
February 10, 2013
Priority #1 is to manage the forest & farmland for soil fertility & health. They are the means to our survival & our responsibility as humans.
We can't allow Mother Nature to handle forest floor debris, since we can see the devastation of forest fires & their impact on the environment.
Forests can be managed with minimal soils impact w the right machinery, planning & technique. It's done in Europe already. We can manage soil fertility (Europe does) and their are methods to for this.
Returning biochar (terra preta) to the soil (in situ) while we process forest debris easily increases fertility & plant growth.

JOBS! The forest & farm are where our jobs will be and we have no choice but to 'make work' there. A PV farm may harvest energy better than a tree but it produces no jobs after initial production accept for minor maintenance.

A PV farm may produce low growing woody crops in the understory of the panels but that is minimal biomass production compared to a full canopy of biomass crops.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 9, 2013
So Terry, what is your 1 degree in? Inquiring minds want to know what degree would leave a grad saying things like:

"I will never be caught claiming burning fossil fuels is better for the environment than burning waste."

Since no one here has said that, it's fair to ask what your reading issues are.

For me, the burning of anything is to be avoided, based on science & engineering. But, we must burn flammable GHGs that are worse than CO2, and that occur naturally or from our activities.

Thus dump gas needs burning, hopefully in some power-generation system, while intentional creation of biomass for burning is naively wrong.
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 9, 2013
That "scientists being better than scientists" should have been "scientists being better than engineers," of course. Engineers are extremely useful and necessary people but they are not scientists nor are they mathematicians, who are not scientists either.

I write lots of stupid things carelessly but hopefully I will never be caught claiming burning fossil fuels is better for the environment than burning waste. It would only be a most negligent error. Fossil fuels threaten all life on the planet as far as scientists know now.

Best, Terry
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 9, 2013
Rage away, DrAlexC, as you wish. Make claims I said things like scientists being better somehow than scientists or mathematicians as you wish.

Claim fossil fuels are better than green energy all you want. The overwhelming evidence and opinion of scientists says you are full of it.

"You might look up what Bertrand Russell had to say about math as a science. Ahh, but you're smarter than Russell, eh Terry?"

Nobody is smarter than Bertrand Russell but if he made that specious claim even Bertrand Russell showed he could say foolish things.

Nobody raged against math more than Albert Einstein. Some of us think Einstein was a rather smart fellow and made some huge contributions to science. A math professor Einstein detested as a student became a collaborator when Einstein was developing his theories of relativity.

The tools of math are invaluable to scientists and engineers and others but are not science. Einstein made clear that as a physicist he wanted to know how things worked, to find the underlying reality of the universe, not to prove esoteric points of logic.

" If I would be a young man again and had to decide how to make my living, I would not try to become a scientist or scholar or teacher. I would rather choose to be a plumber or a peddler in the hope to find that modest degree of independence still available under present circumstances." - Albert Einstein

http://easyasabt.com/albert-einstein-quote-i-would-rather-choose-to-be-a-plumber/

I, for one, am quite happy Einstein chose to be a physicist rather than a plumber. The Plumbers Union was delighted by Einstein's statements about plumbers and made him an honorary plumber. No one made Einstein an honorary mathematician and he detested claims he was one.

Continue on with your calumnies as you wish. I will no longer indulge you.

Hopefully human life will survive the fossil fuels you think better than renewable energy.

Best, Terry
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 9, 2013
Really Terry? You say I've been "Maligning science and scientists doesn't serve you well"?

You claim you're a "scientist", thus better than engineers? Show my words that "maligned science".

Well, guess what, I have more experience and degrees in science than you -- wanna bet, Terry The Sure?

You repeatedly reveal you're not very broadly studied in science, Terry...
"There are more efficacious ways to extract methane from biomass "

That one statement shows you're ignorant of the basic physics and thermodynamics needed to make wise choices for the environmental future.

See if you can estimate how much solar energy is netted by intentionally converting biologic materials to burnable methane. See if you can estimate the amount of unnatural CO2 produced in the same misuse of biomass you seem to unwisely support. Then see if you can rationalize burning methane made for no other purpose than to burn for power in any heat engine of any sort, to generate power of any sort.

By the way, this is a gem:

"Engineers are very valuable people but are no more scientists than mathematicians are."

You might look up what Bertrand Russell had to say about math as a science. Ahh, but you're smarter than Russell, eh Terry?
;]
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 8, 2013
Dr. AlexC,

Maligning science and scientists doesn't serve you well.

"as an engineer myself"

Figures.

"You apparently don't know I'm an advocate of using digesters, dump gas, compost, etc?"

That also figures.

Engineers are very valuable people but are no more scientists than mathematicians are.

Anaerobic digesters are an ancient technology that originated in Southeast Asia with longitudinal boxes buried in the ground to convert biomass to fertilizer. The methane was a curiosity at the time about equivalent to boys from Georgia (it always seemed to be GI's from Georgia) burning farts.

There are more efficacious ways to extract methane from biomass than digesters despite their usefulness. Emissions from aging landfills are a mark of the failure to care for the environment adequately and are quite dirty. Burning some of the gas for power is better than nothing but hardly qualifies as the ultimate in care for the environment.

When you wish to discuss the facts of life instead of promoting your own pomposity while demonstrating your abysmal ignorance, you will find a ready audience.

Best, Terry
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 8, 2013
Terry, just because you're ignorant of what someone else knows or does doesn't really say you should decrease your own standing by slurring at them.

"Biomass grows itself, can be harvested from dumps,"

You apparently don't know I'm an advocate of using digesters, dump gas, compost, etc? Surprise, I'm also on the Steering Comm. for the Palo Alto energy group that's succeeded in getting city action on ceasing their gas-fired burning of sewage and moving to digestion & gas recovery for modest power generation.

But, Terry, as an engineer myself, I'd be irresponsible to advocate growing anything simply for combustion power, because I know it to be wrong, scientifically & environmentally.

You apparently don't think responsibility to our environment demands careful attention to science & fact -- for you bias is enough?
;]
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 8, 2013
DrAlexC,

"The environmental damage from biomass growth, harvesting & burning is well beyond the damage caused even by gas fracking & burning."

Bull.

You and the Koch Brothers may believe that but it is pure bunk.

Biomass grows itself, can be harvested from dumps, etc.

I lied about nothing. I did not get a degree in geophysics. There was no such degree offered. I posted...

Aww forgetaboutit. I won't trade insults with you nor misquote you. I will be happy to let that horrendous quoted claim above stand. It says all that needs saying.

I hope the planet survives you and your kind.

Best, Terry
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 8, 2013
Terry, if you have a degree it Geophysics, it ain't showing well,,,

"A coal or natural gas plant can be converted to burn biomass and help save the planet."

No one is suggesting burning fossil fuels. No one who understands combustion of fuel would suggest burning wood/biomass could be made as efficient as burning coal/gas, not just because of the chemistry of the fuel, but because of the character of the fuel.

If you want to show us that you really studied things you didn't know when in college, go to the Stanford link I gave and read the piece about how coal plants might use a little, just a little, biomass. And read the presentation from Brazil about their biomass issues.

But this is just plain manipulative, or ignorant...

"The worst engines burning biomass are better than the most efficient engines burning fossil fuels."

The environmental damage from biomass growth, harvesting & burning is well beyond the damage caused even by gas fracking & burning. Then there's the ash, right, Terry?

The combustion industry, by the way, has already won. The Carbon Cycle has been overwhelmed by a factor >20 for some decades (read the DePaolo Planetary Science Group's papers at UC Berkeley).

Our solution to both the waste of petrochemicals and combustion emissions was known decades ago as well, but you know how our government works.

Fortunately, now we have good solar PV available for local installation, with no land consumption, as represented by the Calif. "million solar homes" initiative, and various municipal utility actions rolling out non-combustion local generation. And we have EVs and efficient storage coming on. And, we have advanced nuclear moving ahead. JFK planned for that in 1962, Nixon messed it up, and so rather than having eliminated combustion power by 2000, we have oddball concepts like burning plants.
;]
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 8, 2013
Dr. Alex C,

"Terry, you should study some physics, especially thermodynamics and the various heat-engine cycles."

This is getting rather tiring. The first employment I was offered when I graduated from college was as a geophysicist. Your ignorance is not enhanced by such statements.

"A high-grade coal/gas plant burns not too hot..."

A coal or natural gas plant burns fossil fuels.

Burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment.

A coal or natural gas plant can be converted to burn biomass and help save the planet.

Bernie Sanders' green oasis of Burlington, VT, converted a natural gas plant to burn wood waste long ago. [Bernie was the mayor of Burlington way back when.]

Today conversions are much simpler and power plants more efficient and cleaner.

Some badly misguided souls think natural gas is good for the environment. It is not. No fossil fuel is. Some studies have indicated natural gas may be worse than coal because of the leakage of methane, far worse than CO2.

The worst engines burning biomass are better than the most efficient engines burning fossil fuels. That includes electric cars powered by electricity generated by fossil fuels.

Do try to be clean and green and save the forests and all the critters that depend on them, including humans.

Best, Terry
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 8, 2013
Terry, you should study some physics, especially thermodynamics and the various heat-engine cycles.

Whenever heat is used to generate directed power (mechanical motion, etc.) most of the energy represented by whatever you heated up is lost. Your car, or any heat engine wastes ~50 - 70% of the combustion energy in the fuel+air you put in. So, your car or motorcycle engine takes in a $1 worth of fuel and gives you maybe 30 cents worth of motion. Your nearby power plant may be much better, but no better than the ideal physical system, which at best has efficiency of (1 - Tcold / Thot).

Make Tcold really low, say almost 0 in space, and you can approach 100% conversion, but Tcold here ain't 0, it's more like 300. Make Thot really high, without melting the engine/burner parts, and maybe you can get up to 1000 degrees Kelvin. Hey 1 - 300/1000) ain't bad -- 70%. That's the most advanced, high temp combustion-driven, multi-stage, preheated, supercritical gas-turbine system ever deigned!

A high-grade coal/gas plant burns not too hot, to last a while, but with fancy, combined-cycle turbines, can generate electricity at <60% overall thermal efficiency. and, it can't take wood effectively, because it burns pulverized coal or gas almost explosively. (see the Stanford talk on coal & biomass)

A wood-chip burner struggles to get better than a gasoline/diesel engine's <40% efficiency.

If you have use for ~50% of your biomass-combustion heat for industrial processing, heating, etc., great. But if you're just trying generate electricity from burning dead plants, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
;]
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 8, 2013
Don, re Forest Service: "They claim NOT clearing out the slashings and deadwood only provides reactive fuel for forest fires. Clearing out the forest trash and putting it to good use (power production) IS A GOOD THING."

The problem is that the Forest Service & other agencies are not concerned with the overall environment, but with forest use by profit-making organizations. Thus, they want to preserve the ability to grow valuable trees rather than to preserve the natural system of forests.

We must wonder how Ma Nature handled forests before we arrived on the scene, eh? So, the existence of natural fires, clearing out detritus & disease, is not what "managed forests" are, or have been, for decades. The problems aren't what forests naturally have done for millions of years by themselves, but what our naive/profit-seeking fire control has done to maximize timber yield.

In any case, sending vehicles into forests to collect detritus/ slashings not only adds fossil-fuel emissions, the roads & operations increase erosion &, over the long term, nutrient loss from forest soils.

And, after trucking the 'biomass' out to a combustion site, the pelleting/chipping/burning creates more difficult emissions to deal with & lower efficiency generation, because the combustion generators cannot run at the same high temperatures as do gas/coal plants. So not only are sulfate and other emissions higher for biomass than gas or oil burning, but more must be burned to get each kWHr output.

Then, there's the ash -- return it to the forest floor to reduce nutrient loss? Burn more vehicle fuel doing that? Store the ash, subject to stream pollution, etc., as for coal-plant ash?

Not only do the thermodynamics make no sense, the added emissions and soil detriments make no sense.

Biomass for power generation has never made sense, energetically, when it wastes ~99% of solar input. Now that standard local solar PV is ~$1/Watt & uses no land, why burn biomass?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 8, 2013
Thanks for the link, Hiroshi.

These talks, from an international symposium last year, have some relevant info (as may others from prior years)...
http://gcep.stanford.edu/events/symposium2012/index.html
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 8, 2013
DrAlexC,

"No one's talking about wasting waste heat."

Absolutely false. Waste heat engines have been around even long before the now commonplace Organic rankine cycle engine completed its decades-long birthing process. Like yourself, critics love yet to dwell on the purported violation of thermodynamics with each new advance.

"The point is that generating power, and waste heat, inefficiently and environmentally foolishly, are to be avoided."

This is compounded silliness.

Power and waste heat are generated continually in massive amounts by the planet you live on and extraterrestrial forces like that big yellow blob in the sky. Every living thing generates waste heat and biomass.

Only a Viking would dare defy PETA to burn dead bunny rabbits for heat but some crematoriums are even utilizing the heat from converting dead humans to ash for power.

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/crematorium-generate-clean-energy.html

The crematoriums could do that far more efficiently but even I would find that repulsive. The Treehugger calls it people power - with a whole new meaning. Mark Twain's report of mummies "bought by the ton or the graveyard" to fuel locomotives of the Trans-Egypt Railroad [Innocents Abroad] is yet disputed by denialists.

Best, Terry
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 7, 2013
What could this possibly mean, Terry? -- "denying not only science but the facts of life and dirtying up the planet some more, I wish to politely decline the invitation."

No one's talking about wasting waste heat. The point is that generating power, and waste heat, inefficiently and environmentally foolishly, are to be avoided.
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 7, 2013
Dear Dr. AlexC,

"If you want to be an environmentalist in the true sense..."

If being an environmentalist "in the true sense," whatever that means, is denying not only science but the facts of life and dirtying up the planet some more, I wish to politely decline the invitation.

Some even deny the benefit of waste heat to electricity projects - which incidentally includes solar despite its obvious weakness.

Best, Terry
Hiroshi Morihara
Hiroshi Morihara
February 7, 2013
To add more knowledge to the current discussion, I recommend reading Dr. Gregory Morris' paper titled 'Bioenergy and Greenhouse Gasses,' Pacific Institute, Berkeley, California, May 2008, Pacinst.org/reports/
His Execitive Summary starts as follows:
The greenhouse-gas implication of enrgy production from biomass are more complex and subtle than the greemhouse-gas implications of energy prodcution from other energy resources. Energy prodcuiton from fossil fuels removes carbon from geological storage and adds it to the atmosphere.... While biofuels are carbon-based fuels, the carbon in biofuels is already part of the active global cabon cycle in which carbon exchanges repidly between the atmosphere and the biosphere. Bioerngy production does not add new carbon to the active cabon cycle, but it can affect global greenhosue-gas levels in some important ways.

Hiroshi
Don Koza
Don Koza
February 7, 2013
Alex, please check the US Forestry Service website. Even they are in favor of clearing out the tree slashings from either logging or just from the forest aging. They claim NOT clearing out the slashings and deadwood only provides reactive fuel for forest fires. Clearing out the forest trash and putting it to good use (power production) IS A GOOD THING. I think we can all agree that providing incentives for clear-cutting precious rainforest is a bad thing. I believe Europe and the US had required certification that wood pellets and other forest products do not come from endangered areas. This was in place for the last biomass project I worked on in the UK, however I am fuzzy on the details. You can look all this up for yourself on the internet.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 7, 2013
Well, well, Terry-The-Grand of Pomposity...

"Please try to learn to be kind to your planet. We only have one - for now."

In one paragraph, despite your self aggrandizing, you demonstrate little science or environmental knowledge...

"Burning waste can even save forests and prevent massive pollution of the environment with very potent greenhouse gases and toxic substances."

Perhaps bio-chemistry, thermodynamics, etc. are foreign to your expertise?

Burning doesn't save anything, if that burning is used to generate power at some plant. The net of using biological materials for power generation is 1% of solar input, or less. The net of 'harvesting' plant material continually for power is to disrupt the natural cycles of soils, nutrients and fungal & bacterial support systems for the very forests you think burning can "save".

If you want to be an environmentalist in the true sense, study science & reality. If you're selling something for $, well that's a different story, eh Terry?
;]
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 7, 2013
Hi DrAlexC,

"we have a 'renewables' website writing about burning what remains of SE Asian forests?"

Nobody I know of is doing such a thing beyond yourself.

Burning waste can even save forests and prevent massive pollution of the environment with very potent greenhouse gases and toxic substances.

Please try to learn to be kind to your planet. We only have one - for now.

Best, Terry
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 7, 2013
Silly me, I thought 'renewable' energy was supposed to be carefully vetted for environmental impact and sustainability.

So now we have a 'renewables' website writing about burning what remains of SE Asian forests?

"Southeast Asia's emerging powerhouse opted to insert a sizeable slice of wood into its energy mix."

How absurd. But then again, greed is one of the common human traits most religions warn us to fight. Some succeed.
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 6, 2013
Hiroshi,

A group of Kinetic Disintegration Systems (KDS's) is utilized in Okinawa, a model for reducing waste to fuel or fertilizer. The drying and disinfecting is a function of the heat generated by the powerful controlled centrifugal force generated by the system in degrading material to a fine powder. Some of the powder may be used in generating the electricity needed to operate the system. Wood to soggy waste, even a flour for human consumption and scrap particle board for re-use, have been treated.

Even some wood can be poisonous, e.g., poison sumac, but with powder any precautions needed in handling are quite different and more easily accommodated than handling the original material for transportation. The single major requirement is keeping the powder dry.

Best, Terry
Hiroshi Morihara
Hiroshi Morihara
February 6, 2013
Hi, Terry,
Alfalfa may work, although I don't know much about alfalfa. Many weeds such as switchgrass, giant reed and mischantus have high concentration of Si, K and Ca which may cause sever problems of slagging boiler surfaces and heat exchanges during combustion. These perenial crops have very low bulk densities compared to woody slash so you will need to build a torrefaction plant close to the product supply to minimize the transporation cost, and also a much bigger dryer may be needed whch adds to the plant cost.

Hiroshi
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 6, 2013
Hi Hiroshi Morihara,

Agreed on all counts but wood is not the only biomass.

An alfalfa growers coop in Minnesota may have finally given up the fight to use the woody parts of a giant alfalfa for fuel in addition to the feed pellets they produce after stripping the edible parts.

They had earlier abandoned plans to build a 135MW power plant but still wanted to sell the pellets.

My understanding is that finely disintegrated, dried and compacted biomass like the alfalfa could be processed into torrified briquettes and compete well with torrified wood briquettes but I know of no one doing it.

I met the head of the Minnesota venture some years ago and he was then disgusted with the many years of bureaucratic wrangling with regulators. In recent months he finally quit. There is a replacement of sorts but it isn't apparent that the replacement is interested in the fight for biomass fuel.

Very sad I think.

Processing biomass waste into fuel not only replaces coal or any other fossil fuel quite adequately but alleviates strain on the environment.

Best, Terry
Hiroshi Morihara
Hiroshi Morihara
February 6, 2013
Environmentally friendly source of feedstock for biomass pellets may be forest slash from forest thinning to improve forest health and minimize catastrophic forest fires. Torrefied pellets are much better than raw pellets because they can be made water resistant and they have 20+% more enregy density than raw pellets. Torrefied pellets can be manufactured without emitting hardly any toxins, they can be shipped much cheaper than raw pellets, and they can be stored outdoors. But the most important featrue of torrefied pellets is that they can easily be pulverized and be fed to coal-fired power boilers without making any modification to the power plants.
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 6, 2013
Hi Don,

According to some academic studies, crop waste may be utilized for fuel, or incidentally fertilizer, if done most judiciously.

"A combustion process, such as fluidized bubbling bed combustion that utilizes limestone produces an alkaline ash that is much more stabile and resistant to leaching out toxic substances, might be worth consideration."

Ummm, if you say so.

Doesn't sound good on its face but what do I know?

A company promoting and installing low-aerobic systems (as opposed to anaerobic digesters) in confined livestock operations primarily to retrieve nutrients that foul Chesapeake Bay and can be returned to the soil still finds it has to extract significant amounts of toxic substances. An advantage claimed is a much higher retrieval of methane than anaerobic digestion.

For reference only:

http://www.biontech.com/technology/

Best, Terry
Don Koza
Don Koza
February 6, 2013
Terry, all good points. The best model for burning biomass is to do it locally/regionally to control air emissions and return the clean ash to the ground (farmland or forest). Other clean waste can be combined with agricultural and forest to reduce that waste and supplement the returned ash. There are two major problem I see with using local crop waste and forest clippings: 1) removing crop wastes and not returning nutrients will deplete the soil, and 2) returning the ash to the soil must not include toxics from incinerating other wastes with crop wastes (i.e., hurricane wastes that may include hazardous paints and other items, and sewage sludge that may include toxic materials). Managing the toxics can be a huge issue in ash utilization. Managing stormwater runoff from ash disposal areas can also be important as any acid-forming constituents will more readily leach toxics out of the ash and into the runoff water. A combustion process, such as fluidized bubbling bed combustion that utilizes limestone produces an alkaline ash that is much more stabile and resistant to leaching out toxic substances, might be worth consideration.
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 5, 2013
Wood and industrial waste are not the only sources of biomass energy though wood dominates discussion.

Somewhere I probably still have a stored image of a plant in South Korea designed to produce disintegrated, disinfected and dried fuel and fertilizer from municipal sewage that I understand has been abandoned for no known reason.

Okinawa is a model for the use of such sources since it is expensive to ship waste back to the main islands in Japan and Okinawa is not overly anxious to poison its fishing grounds by dumping the waste at sea.

Wood is far from the only biomass available for use and some that could utilized are far more damaging to the environment if left untapped.

Best, Terry

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Piers Evans

Piers Evans

Piers Evans is Production Editor of Renewable Energy World.
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13 Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13
  • Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems
  • Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables” Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables”
  • Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy
  • Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options

Most Commented

  • 8
    Country-Based Action to Achieve Universal Access to Energy
  • 4
    How to Talk Renewables so Farmers and Landowners Listen
  • 3
    From the Sea to the Pump: Is Kelp a Viable Biofuel?
  • 2
    Sir Richard Branson unleashes Plan B for the planet

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
  • Rotork plc
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • RenewableEnergyWorld.com
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro 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