Why Biomass Energy is Important (Part 1) -- CO2 Emissions from Coal Use in Generating Electricity

Coal Use

My Grandfather used to tell me -- "Don't strain at gnats when elephants are running through your garden". The simple message is to focus on the big things first in dealing with a problem.

We spend a lot of time talking about coal use in the U.S. to generate electricity, and we don't do this with any intent to bash the coal industry or electric utilities. We present coal data to explain to Policymakers and Environmentalists where the problem is (the "Elephant") in greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation.

The below graph from U.S. Department of Energy 2007 data shows that coal fired resources represent ~51% of all electricity generation -- and that ~82% of all CO2 emissions from electricity generation come from these coal fired units.



Understanding this above point is key in understanding why biomass energy technologies are so important.

First, through biomass co-firing at an existing coal power plant the existing fuel mix is changed from 100% coal to approximately 90% coal and 10% biomass -- directly reducing coal consumption and its resulting CO2 emissions.

Second, biomass electricity generation units (as well as geothermal) are typically base load facilities which will directly displace base load coal fired generation. Conversely, wind and solar power are typically peaking or intermediate generation resources and will displace natural gas units (not coal base load units).

Sources:
Electricity generation by fuel sources in the U.S.
CO2 Emissions from electricity generation by fuel source in the U.S.
Biomass Energy Quick Facts

No commentsRead more

Sustainability -- Integrating Biomass Energy, Agriculture, and Land Use

Sustainability

In trying to answer the question "What does the Common Purpose Institute do?", sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

We are advancing sustainable biomass energy development, with a key focus not just on biomass technology (bio-gasification, ethanol production, etc.) and agricultural best practices (e.g., high crop yields) but land use integration as well -- with a critical emphasis on carbon management (sequestration, soil building, environmental benefits).

(click the below image to increase the scale)

No commentsRead more

Green Energy -- Do Electric Utilities get a Grade of F in Trust?

Green Marketing

The N.Y. Times has an article today on "Green Energy" efforts of Electric Utilities -- specifically the very low participation rates on voluntary programs offered by electric utilities.

The article cites that an extremely high percentage of proceeds coming from electricity customers is going to administrative and marketing/advertising expenses rather than capital investments of new renewable energy resources.

An example was cited of the Florida Power & Light program where ~75% of customer payments for green energy was going to administrative and marketing/advertisement efforts.

Blog Readers can also go to a previous blog we posted on green energy marketing.

No commentsRead more

Environmental Groups Get F in Energy 101

Energy Policy

Let's face it -- Most Environmental Groups only begrudgingly accept biomass energy as truly green. In their view, energy options such as wind or solar are much "Greener". After all, although bio-energy can claim the "Carbon Neutral Argument", it still emits air pollutants such as greenhouse gas emissions, where solar and wind do not.

The fatal flaw in these Environmental Group's perspective is their failure to understand basic Energy 101 involving electricity generation -- and how an integrated electricity grid works.

In these Environmental Group's perception of the World, green technology generating options are viewed on a stand-alone Micro Basis. For example, solar and wind options emit no greenhouse gas emissions, where biomass energy does.

In reality, electricity generation options work on a Macro Basis of the integrated resource grid that includes all forms of energy -- both renewable and fossil fuel generation options.

In determining the value of renewable energy sources, a key question must always be: What does a specific technology option displace on the integrated grid?

To answer this question, one must understand "basic terms" of (1) base load, (2) intermediate load, and (3) peaking load generating options.

Because of availability (number of hours and when the sun shines or the wind blows), solar and wind options are typically considered either intermediate or peaking technologies on an integrated resource grid. As such, wind and solar options will displace primarily natural gas generating units (where natural gas is by far the cleanest of fossil fuels compared to coal and oil).

Conversely, biomass energy and geothermal options are typically considered base load, and would primarily displace in much of the U.S., coal fired generation.

Why is understanding things like base load versus intermediate or peaking load important? Well, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, base load coal fired electricity generation produces approximately 90% of all CO2 emissions from electricity generation.

Two good Web resources to understand these concepts can be found at:

(1) The Common Purpose Institute's webpage on Biomass Energy Quick Facts and

(2) Renewable Energy World's discussion of the Integrated Resource Grid

No commentsRead more

Congress Gets F in Energy 101 (Part 2)

Energy Policy

Renewable Energy World has a current article on the value of the "heat" component CHP (combined heat and power) from biomass energy.

The article has the following graph, illustrating the greenhouse gas benefits of the "heat" CHP component, like with using biogas for industrial product drying. Note the highest level of greenhouse gas benefits is the 3rd bar -- the scenario with the highest "heat use" component.



But, lets look at how Congress views the "heat" component of CHP in providing economic incentives under the Section 45 Tax Credit to promote biomass energy:

(1) If a biomass gasification project used 100% of the biogas for the production of electricity ONLY, the project qualifies for a 30% investment tax credit towards the capital costs.

(2) If the same above project was for CHP, the tax credit is reduced to 10%.

(3) If the project uses 100% of the biogas for an industrial processes "heat" requirement, the project's tax credit would be ZERO!

No commentsRead more

CO2 Capture at Coal Power Plants

Carbon Sequestration

The New York Times has an interesting story on CO2 capture at coal power plants.

To view the story Click Here

A couple of points of the N.Y. Times story:

For now, no one is sure what it will cost to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from coal plants because the first such project in the nation, at American Electric Power�s coal-fired plant in New Haven, W.Va., got under way only last month. At the moment, the process consumes 30 percent of the coal plant�s energy, but engineers are working to cut that in half.

Even so, experts expect the price to run to $60 a ton or more. But pure streams could be captured for the cost of drilling a natural gas well and compressing the gas into liquid form � perhaps $10 to $15 a ton, Dr. Friedmann of the Livermore laboratory said.

No commentsRead more