The best and cheapest near-term strategy for reducing coal plant CO2 emissions without forcing utilities to simply walk away from their entire capital investment is to replace that coal with biomass (see here).
Today, Energy Daily ($ub. req’d) reports on the huge—but little covered—news from one of the nation’s biggest carbon polluters:
The Georgia Public Service Commission gave the
green light Tuesday to a Georgia Power request to convert the utility’s
155 megawatt coal-fired Plant Mitchell near Albany, Ga., to burn woody
biomass, a move that will result in the first biomass plant in the vast
generation fleet of Georgia Power parent Southern Co.
This will become “the largest biomass facility in the United States,” according to Southern Company COO Tom Fanning. And this is not the only biomass effort Southern Company is pursuing:
Alabama Power, another Southern affiliate, is studying
co-firing woody biomass and switchgrass at its coal-fired Gadsden plant
near Birmingham and co-firing woody biomass at its coal-fired Barry
plant near Bucks, Ala. Southern affiliate Gulf Power is evaluating
co-firing biomass at its coal-fired Plant Scholz near Marianna, Fla.
The huge advantage of biomass conversion or co-firing is that you don’t have to build an entire planet from scratch, thus lowering the capital costs. Plus you already have the power plant sited and you have transmission sited and you have train lines and water supply. Plus this is new baseload renewable power—arguably the most valuable commodity in the entire power sector these days.
And since biomass captures carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere during the process of growing, it is the only form of carbon capture that is likely to lead to deliver significant kilowatt-hours for the next one to two decades (see here).
So, again, this is, in the near term, the most practical and affordable strategy for utilities with coal plants that want to reduce CO2 emissions without simply writing off the entire value of their plant. Hence, this is a crucial strategy for coal-intensive utilities in the Southeast and Midwest that have long opposed renewable energy standards and climate action:
Southern for years has spearheaded utility industry
opposition to a national renewable electricity standard (RES) that
would require power companies to obtain a percentage of their
electricity from wind, solar power or other green resources, saying the
mandate would discriminate against utilities in the Southeast, which
lacks the abundant wind and solar resources found in the Midwest and
Southwest, respectively.
If this is to be a scalable medium-term solution, then the country will need to make an all out effort to develop cellulosic biomass for use in power plants. Even today, the resource is significant in the key regions:
However, the Southeast has enormous quantities of woody
biomass, a renewable fuel that utilities can use to meet the RES.
Southern’s Web site states that 8 million acres of forest and
timberlands lie within a 100-mile radius of Plant Mitchell, providing
12 million tons of surplus supply wood fuel annually. The converted
Mitchell plant, which will have a capacity of 96 MW, is expected to
consume about 1 million tons per year.
The conversion of the
Mitchell plant to biomass may signal recognition by Southern Co.
that-with stronger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and
President Obama a strong backer of a federal RES-developing its
extensive biomass resource may be both politically and economically
prudent. The converted Mitchell plant is expected to begin operation in
June 2012.
Interestingly, the new biomass power plant will generate more electricity than the current coal-fired unit. Here are some interesting details from a 2008 story in Biomass magazine:
According to Lynn Wallace, a company spokeswoman for
Georgia Power, the nameplate capacity for the converted wood
biomass-powered unit would be 59 megawatts lower due to the different
physical characteristics of wood in comparison to coal. Wood contains
more moisture and produces only 4,000 British thermal units (Btu) to
5,000 Btu per pound compared to coal at 12,000 Btu per pound, she said.
As
a wood biomass-powered unit, the facility would actually produce more
electricity than it does as a coal-fired unit, Wallace said. The unit
currently operates at low capacity and is not considered one of the
company’s base-load power units; however, the biomass-powered unit
would operate continuously and be part of the company’s base load.
Surplus
wood fuel for Plant Mitchell would come from suppliers operating within
an approximately 100-mile radius of the plant. Wallace said the wood
primarily would be waste wood, such as tree limbs, tree tops, needles,
and leaves, which is normally left behind by timber harvesting
companies. “We wouldn’t be competing with their wood supply,” she said.
Wallace
said consumers are asking to have more energy produced from feedstocks
and from processes that produce lower emissions. She said the wood
biomass-powered unit will produce less sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxide emissions and will engender a net reduction in carbon emissions.
Wood
biomass is also less expensive than coal, Wallace added. The new
feedstock requirement for the unit is expected to create between 50 and
75 new jobs related to waste wood recovery. She said waste wood that is
left on the forest floor also emits methane gas and can easily fuel
forest fires if it’s not cleared away.
The key, of course, to make sure this is all done in the sustainable fashion. That will be the job of regulators and the Obama administration.
When I was at the Department of Energy, we were pursuing research into developing better fast-growing hybrid poplars, which are “the fastest growing hardwood trees available to homeowners and landowners in America and they are growing successfully from the Northern Gulf Coast to New England, throughout the Midwest and into the Northwest.” They are a high-energy crop that “grow well on marginal land, so they don’t take up valuable food-producing soil” (see here).
The fundamental reason biomass conversion and co-firing are a core climate solution is that anyone who can deliver considerable amounts of low carbon power for under $0.15 a kilowatt hour—and especially if that is baseload power—will be a major player in the transition to a low carbon economy. And if you can do that in regions of the country that don’t have a vast solar resource suitable for concentrated solar thermal or wind—and especially if it is closer to $0.10 a kilowatt hour—then you will be doubly valuable.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things
Comments
View as Flat