RE: Biomass co-firing certification

["Pletka, Ryan J." <PletkaRJ@bv.com>]

Fred, 

Great topic and good responses from the list.  

There are many arguments that others in the list have made very well that I
don't need to repeat.  We deal daily with all renewable energy technologies,
here are some thoughts from that experience:

1.  Political Reasons.  Renewable energy resources are not evenly
distributed across the US.  States like Florida and others in the Southeast
have very limited practical options.  Credit trading may help alleviate this
constraint.  However, although a credit trading system may allow Georgia to
buy wind "green tags" from Kansas, it is not going to be politically popular
to send millions of dollars out of state each year for negligible local
environmental benefits.   Politically, if you want to pass an RPS in these
states (or on the federal level) biomass has to be an option.  Biomass
cofiring costs 0-3 c/kWh vs. a standalone biomass plant at 7+ c/kWh.  What
would you vote for?

2. Free enterprise.  If you want to exclude biomass from federal and state
subsidy programs because it is too cost-effective, you might want throw wind
in there too.  We've heard of proposed PPAs for new wind projects below 2
cents/kWh.  This includes the 1.8 c/kWh tax credit.  The proposed federal
RPS will also allow upgrading of existing hydro plants.  Hoover dam was
recently boosted by 500 MW for less than $100/kW.  What can compete with
that?  Stand-alone biomass rarely makes the first cut when we talk about
meeting RPS obligations.  

3. New plants and oil/gas plants.  If I just built a 200 MW CFB that can
easily cofire coal and biomass, shouldn't I get some credit for burning the
higher cost biomass?  No life-extension issues here.   What if I want to
cofire in one of my old oil or gas thermal plants?  Yes, I might even be
thinking about retiring these plants -- they have high heat rates and high
fuel costs. 

4. Other environmental benefits.  Biomass can help address forest fires,
open field burning, contaminated soils (with phytoremediation), groundwater
contamination from manures, etc.  These complement the other commonly listed
benefits of biomass.  In Kansas, new wind projects are being opposed because
the Prairie Chicken avoids tall structures.  Yet open field burning is
common in the same area!  Why not allow these problems to be
cost-effectively addressed with cofiring?

5. Gasification and Cofiring.  I've heard numerous objections from utilities
about the side effects of "normal" biomass cofiring.  The benefits of
gasification before cofiring are real.  We recently finished a study with
EPI and NPPD for the DOE that demonstrates these.  See the press release at
http://www2.bv.com/news/pressrel/2002/study_feasible_biomass.htm.  Let me
know if you want a copy of the study.  

6. Broad definition.  Finally, whatever the definition of "biomass cofiring"
is, I think it needs to be broad.  What about co-firing biodiesel in
existing gas turbine plants?  How about injecting/mixing digester biogas
into the natural gas distribution system and burning it at a power plant 10
miles down the road?  How about gasification of biomass & "cofiring" with
coal/oil/gas at 50%, 75%, 100% rates?  

Regards,
Ryan

--
Ryan Pletka
Renewable Energy Project Manager
Black & Veatch Energy Services Group
11401 Lamar /  Overland Park, KS 66211 USA
913-458-8222



-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Beck [mailto:fbeck@repp.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 11:53 AM
To: bioenergy@crest.org
Subject: Biomass co-firing certification




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

-
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