Biomass co-firing certification

[Fred Beck <fbeck@repp.org>]

Bioenergy list members,

REPP is working with local advocacy groups to promote renewable
energy policy development in three Southeast states--Florida, Georgia,
and North Carolina. In several legislative and advocacy discussions,
the question has been raised whether or not co-firing of biomass in
coal-fired power plants is or should be certified as renewable energy
under green power standards, tradable renewable credit markets, and
state renewable energy policies.

Under current Center for Resource Solutions (CRS) Green-e national
standards, landfill methane is the only renewable resource that can
be co-fired and still count toward the renewable percentage of a
Green-e product. While we are aware the eligibility of biomass co-firing
with coal is under discussion at CRS, at present it is not supported
under Green-e.

The Biomass Discussion Groups are an unofficial but very broad cross
section of the biomass industry. The expertise of this group could add
to the debate over co-firing certification. Are you interested? The broad
question is whether biomass co-firing, in particular with coal, should
be certified as a green product. It is our hope that a discussion among
bioenergy list participants will lead to a better understanding of not
only the technical issues surrounding biomass co-firing, but to specific
policy recommendations that could be useful as states debate
renewable energy certification.

Below are what we believe to be the major reasons for and against
biomass co-firing with coal:

   Pro:
     Co-firing in coal plants will spur the development of a biomass supply
     infrastructure, which would then support transition from co-firing to
     advanced biomass conversion technologies as they become available.

     Biomass co-firing with coal will produce immediate reductions in
     emissions of criteria pollutants and CO2.

     Biomass co-firing will offset baseload coal while PV and wind are more
     likely to offset natural gas peaking plants. Therefore, biomass will 
reduce
     more emissions per MWh than PV or wind.

   Con:
     Biomass co-firing may extend the operational lives of coal-fired power
     plants that might otherwise be shorter-lived under current environmental
     regulations.

     Should biomass co-firing qualify for federal or state subsidies, 
significant
     funds could go to co-firing, reducing funds available for development of
     other renewable technologies.

     Funds going to co-firing do not support new renewable energy conversion
     technology development.

We look forward to following your discussions about these and other
issues related to biomass co-firing. References to REPP's work in the
Southeastern U.S. and the Center for Resource Solutions Green-e
program are provided below. Thank you in advance for your
participation.

Sincerely,

Fred Beck, Research Manager
Renewable Energy Policy Project
fbeck@repp.org


References:
------------------
Renewable Energy Policy Project
Powering the South Website
http://www.poweringthesouth.org/

Center for Resource Solutions
Green-e Renewable Electricity Certification Program Website
http://www.green-e.org/


-
Bioenergy List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/200207/

Bioenergy List Moderator:
Tom Miles,  tmiles@trmiles.com
List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Bioenergy List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Bioenergy Events and Information:
http://www.bioenergy2002.org
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon