BIOMASS HUB

Coal, enemy #1 in NIMBY circles, and Biomass, enemy #2, are struggling to find balance in local power communities.  Coal, most argue, is too dirty to remain a long-term option.  Biomass, while cleaner, is expensive to aggregate, less energy dense and may not offer the environmental benefits over coal that proponents claim (see Is Burning Biomass Just ‘Lipstick on a Pig?‘).

‘The sun is on every day and doesn’t pollute,’ critics of coal and biomass argue.

True.  But this misses a key point.  Solar and wind are tremendous clean energy options, but are too intermittent to supply the bulk of power to the grid.  Coal and biomass both offer stable “baseload” that keeps the lights on regardless of whether the sun is shining or rain is falling, day or night.  For now, they are absolutely necessary, but striking a balance between the environmental benefits of biomass and economic benefits of coal has proven difficult for local communities.

Coal is cheap and abundant. Ton-for-ton, biomass produces only about half the Btu’s as coal, meaning twice as much material is needed. The low cost of coal, about $35 per ton, also indirectly dictates what the value of biomass is.  In some cases, it may cost more for utilities to procure biomass from retailers  than it would be to get biomass out of the woods, chipped and trucked to the power plant.

As states around the country struggle to meet RPS standards, sourcing biomass is increasingly posing a difficult challenge.  Some utilities and plant operators have opted to convert older coal burning plants to biomass-only facilities.  This is a key long-term strategy for mitigating GHG emissions, but may not be viable for many communities short-term.  A better option in the near-term may be to ramp up co-firing projects to capture both the environmental benefits of biomass over coal, while mitigating expenses by utilizing coal resources.

Image: Flick/Vattenfall