Coal plants are being converted to biomass as fast as … “fast-growing, bio-engineered cottonwood trees” (see “Another coal plant to be replaced by a ‘plant’ plant!” and “Southern Company embraces the only practical and affordable way to ‘capture’ emissions at a coal plant today “” run it on biomass“). Another one bites the dust:
PSCW Approves Application for Largest Biomass Plant in Midwest
The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) has unanimously approved Xcel Energy’ss application to install biomass gasification technology at its Bay Front Power Plant in Ashland, Wis. When completed, the project will convert the plant’s remaining coal-fired unit to biomass gasification technology, allowing it to use 100 percent biomass in all three boilers and making it the largest biomass plant in the Midwest. Currently, two of the three operating units at Bay Front use biomass as their primary fuel to generate electricity.
The project, estimated at $58.1 million, will require additional biomass receiving and handling facilities at the plant, an external gasifier, minor modifications to the plant`s remaining coal-fired boiler and an enhanced air quality control system. The total generation output of the plant is not expected to change significantly as a result of the project.
“We appreciate the PSCW`s fair and thorough review of the application and believe that their decision recognizes the benefits of this project to provide environmentally-responsible, cost-effective energy to our customers and communities,” said Mike Swenson, president and CEO, Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin, an Xcel Energy. “The Bay Front project demonstrates our continuing commitment to the environment and a clean energy future. We`re helping our customers and communities practice sustainability while increasing local economic development.”
Through its purchases of wood residues and related services, the Bay Front Power Plant has a $20 million annual economic impact on a six-county region around Ashland. That economic impact will increase as the plant purchases more wood residues from area contractors.
The Bay Front Power Plant was originally constructed and began operation in 1916. In 1960, it operated five boilers and six turbines. Since then, two of the boilers, and three of the turbines, have been retired. The three remaining boilers feed into a combined steam header system that can support three turbine-generator sets.
In 2008, Xcel Energy installed NOx (nitrogen oxides) emission control equipment on the two boilers that primarily burn wood, allowing both to continue to operate into the foreseeable future. When evaluating various alternatives for the remaining boiler, which primarily burns coal, it was determined that expanding Bay Front as a biomass resource was preferred over incurring significant increases in coal costs, and also environmental compliance costs relating to the Clean Air Interstate Rule and regulations on mercury emissions.
In addition to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by switching from coal to biomass in the remaining unit, the project will drastically reduce other air emissions, including nitrogen oxides by more than 60 percent and sulfur dioxides and particulate matter by more than 80 percent.
The primary source of biomass at Bay Front is expected to be the lower quality, unused materials that are currently left in area forests following traditional harvests, such as treetops, logging slash, damaged trees, underutilized species, and the cull and mortality classed trees. Initial investigations conducted by Xcel Energy show more than ample supplies of this lower quality biomass within
the area.
See also “An intro to biomass cofiring.”
MDU, others will not build SD Big Stone 2 coal plant
MDU Resources Group Inc said late Monday it would not build the planned 500-to-600-megawatt Big Stone II coal-fired power project near Milbank, South Dakota.
MDU said in a release the project required additional participants to move forward but none have committed.
In September, Otter Tail Corp, Big Stone II’s lead developer, withdrew from the project due to the economic downturn and the high level of uncertainty associated with proposed federal climate legislation.
The federal government was working on legislation to limit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions — likely by putting a price on emitting those emissions — in an effort to stop global warming from potentially damaging the planet.
The burning of coal to generate power produces about twice as much CO2 as natural gas.
The Big Stone II project was estimated to cost about $1.6 billion, not including needed transmission upgrades, according to a spokesman at MDU.
He noted some transmission was already in place as there was an existing 470 MW coal-fired Unit 1 at Big Stone, which entered service in 1975 and burns coal railed in from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.
Big Stone is located in Grant County in South Dakota about 200 miles west of Minneapolis, near the South Dakota-Minnesota border.
Unit 2 was to enter service in the 2015-2016 timeframe, the spokesman noted.
Montana-Dakota Utilities Co, a subsidiary or MDU, said it was “disappointing that Big Stone II will not be built,” but noted the utility had adequate electric supplies for the near term.
“We have a purchased power agreement through 2015 that was to bridge us to Big Stone II going online; we still have that agreement in place,” Dave Goodin, president and CEO of Montana-Dakota, said in the release.
“We will now look at other supply options that are reliable and cost-beneficial for our customers. We have plans to expand our wind production by 30 megawatts in 2010 and will review other generation options,” Goodin said.
The spokesman noted the area had a lot of wind potential but needed more base load power. Base load generation runs around the clock and usually includes coal, nuclear and combined cycle natural gas.
The other Big Stone II participants were Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Heartland Consumers Power District and Missouri River Energy Services.
Governor Rendell Says PA’s Solar Capacity Doubles Under Sunshine Solar Rebate Program
Governor Edward G. Rendell said today that the new PA Sunshine Solar Program is performing better than expected and has helped to double the state’s solar generating capacity in less than 6 months.
According to the Department of Environmental Protection, the program has reached its first incentive milestone for small business rebates — the deployment of 5 megawatts of solar power, or enough to supply electricity to about 575 average homes in the state.
The Governor said achieving the goal is good news for those small businesses interested in lowering their electricity costs through clean, renewable energy, and also for Pennsylvania’s environment and economy.
“When we enacted the PA Sunshine program, we said it was going to help reduce electricity bills for consumers, make solar energy more affordable, create economic opportunities, and help produce more renewable energy that will help improve our environment,” said Governor Rendell. “Reaching this milestone, not to mention the overwhelming response we’ve had to the program, is proof that it’s performing as intended.
“PA Sunshine is putting people to work across the state doing everything from manufacturing solar technologies to installing and maintaining them, while helping people and businesses become less dependent on the electrical grid and other fossil fuels, which saves them money. And because of the program, we’re also emerging as a national leader in developing and deploying solar technology. With the projects this program is making possible and others in the works, it is likely that we will be among the top five states for total solar capacity within the next year,” he added.
Since the program opened on May 18, the commonwealth has committed $12.5 million in 625 projects by residential and small business consumers. The projects represent at least $50 million in private investment, according to DEP.
More than 300 installers have been certified to install solar systems under the program and DEP continues to receive and accept applications.
The solar electricity capacity created by the small business program, 5 megawatts, is enough to offset 5,580 tons of carbon dioxide, 16,000 pounds of nitrogen oxide, and 77,500 pounds of sulfur oxide.
A running tally of completed projects is kept on the rebate program’s Web site so perspective applicants and solar developers are able to track the program’s progress.
“Among the small business community in particular, we are seeing a very high response rate to the program, so much so that in less than six months, we’ve more than doubled the solar capacity in Pennsylvania,” said DEP Secretary John Hanger. “As the market continues to develop, the intense competition among solar installers and greater efficiencies on the part of manufacturers will help bring down prices for solar. As such, the need for the incentive will continue to decline.”
The $100 million PA Sunshine Solar program reimburses homeowners and small business owners up to 35 percent of the purchase and installation costs of solar energy technology. In combination with federal tax credits, consumers could reduce system costs by 45 percent. It is part of the $650 million Alternative Energy Investment Fund Governor Rendell signed into law in July 2008.
Africans protest low emissions targets at UN talks
African countries suspended meetings at U.N. climate talks Tuesday to protest what they call the low targets that industrial countries have set for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
About 50 African countries forced the cancellation of several technical meetings, saying they were only ready to discuss the pledges submitted by the wealthy countries.
Talks were under way to try to resume the closed-door meetings Tuesday, the second day of a five-day meeting to prepare a draft treaty to be adopted at a major U.N. conference next month in Copenhagen.
Delegates said unless the African boycott was settled, it could set back the timetable for concluding a Copenhagen agreement.
The African countries say they are the most vulnerable to climate change yet the least responsible for the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere that is causing global warming. A landmark 2007 U.N. report based on the work of about 2,000 scientists predicted Africa will suffer the most from drought and damage to agriculture, as well as from rising sea levels threatening coastal areas and the spread of tropical pests and diseases.
Scientists say industrial countries should reduce emissions by 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, but the targets announced so far by those countries amount to far less than the minimum.
Maldives says carbon neutral goal ahead of schedule
The Maldives could achieve its aim of becoming carbon neutral well before its 2020 target, the Indian Ocean island nation’s president said Monday.
To meet the goal of making the archipelago totally free of carbon emissions, the Maldives government has been encouraging investments in power generation through wind, solar and other renewable energy sources to replace diesel.
Monday, the government inaugurated a $200 million wind farm project it said would generate 40 percent of the Maldives total energy demand of 542,000 MWh within the next 20 months.
The project is expected to reduce carbon emissions by a fifth.
“Our target is to become carbon neutral in 10 years, but with the manner things are proceeding now, my feeling is that we will be able to achieve these goals much, much earlier,” Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed said after the ceremony.
The island nation off the tip of India, best-known for luxury tropical hideaways and unspoiled beaches, is among the most threatened by rising seas. The U.N. has predicted that a rise in sea levels of up to 58 cm could submerge many of its 1,192 islands by 2100.
On October 17, Nasheed and his cabinet held the world’s first underwater cabinet meeting, in a symbolic cry for help.
China urged to adopt tougher C02 target
Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt called on China to set a tougher target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions after 2020 as its part of a U.N. climate change agreement to be negotiated in Copenhagen.
China, which recently overtook the United States as the world’s biggest carbon dioxide emitter, has said it will cut its C02 emissions per dollar of economic output by a “notable margin” by 2020 compared with 2005.
But it has resisted calls for quantifiable cuts which the European Union, among others, hopes will be the basis for a United Nations climate treaty to be agreed in the Danish capital in December.
“My message to China is this: raise your ambitions so that emissions peak by 2020 at the latest and then fall,” said Reinfeldt, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency.
“We know that China has all the requirements for success and I hope that concrete commitments will be announced at the conference in Copenhagen,” he said in an article published in the Dagens Nyheter newspaper on Tuesday.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
I heard on the radio that the proposed Big Stone II coal plant is dead.
This plant was to be put on the Minnesota/South Dakota border (On the South Dakota side, SD having lower taxes, go figure) but there were alot of protests and a big part the proposed plants consumption from Minnesota dropped out. Then they had trouble getting other utilities to sign on to make up for that.
[JR: Thanks. Yes, I just added this. Big news!]
I hope that WAG, #10, Energy and Golbal Warming News, Nov 2, will forgive me but he made a good point that I feel needs more attention:
The most interesting thing about the Desertec story is that it actually proves all deniers wrong: if the market is never wrong, then what does it mean when Munich Re, the world’s largest risk manager, concludes that the risk of global warming is great enough to warrant $400 billion of investment in climate mitigation? If you don’t believe scientists, then ask the Market – the answer is the same.
http://akwag.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 11/ dont-believe-in-global-warming-ask.html
Thank you WAG
This is funny and not. Jon Stewart on MSM.
Jon Stewart, Pwned! (by Jon Stewart)BPSDB
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/
I was rereading Brad Johnson’s article about the Jon Stewart non-interview with Levitt of Superfreakonomics infamy when I realized that one of the links he provides is the Stewart interview on Crossfire…
“The primary source of biomass at Bay Front is expected to be the lower quality, unused materials that are currently left in area forests following traditional harvests, such as treetops, logging slash, damaged trees, underutilized species, and the cull and mortality classed trees.”
How does removing and burning this biomass not directly harm the health of the forest soil, slow the speed of regrowth and lead to a weaker forest in the future? Couldn’t it then actually hurt the potential of the forest as a carbon sink? I’m all for getting rid of coal plants, but isn’t the benefit of this kind of biomass (if there is a net benefit) more complicated than it first appears? I’m no forestry expert, but it seems like common sense that removing this material would harm the soil.
Three Thoughts
A person doesn’t have time to keep up with the details of all bills, multiple industries (oil, coal, etc.) and so forth. So, I’ll make three quick and simplistic comments that (I know) are obvious to some degree but that nevertheless are some key points that we should remember and consider.
* As far as I can tell (still) — and I was a chemical engineer — the whole clean coal notion is a complex costly contrivance that is so complicated that it just doesn’t make sense, all things considered. I’d be very surprised if any politician pushing it at the policy level can begin to explain it with any understanding and appreciation for the science of the matter, the challenges, the volumes, the risks, and so forth.
* So, as far as I can tell, we just need to get ourselves OFF of coal, and we need to transition to the better alternatives AND develop the technologies and commercial-scale equipment to help other countries do so. Period.
* AND, in doing that, we need to develop and offer “ways forward” for all the employees of the coal industry. They are humans. We aren’t going to solve this problem, in a viable and humane way, or in a way that’s also good for the economy, unless we provide and offer them good jobs in the new clean-energy areas and building the clean-energy infrastructure. We can’t close some things down BEFORE we open other things up. We need to start breaking ground, and building equipment, pronto, and transition employment from the old to the new, pronto, and provide help to people!!, and move forward.
We need to replace coal, close coal, and (from the beginning) embrace people who have provided us with coal for so many years!
Really, I’m starting to get impatient. If the new administration doesn’t pick up some speed and boldness, they’ll start to lose me — and I spent months trying to help get them elected.
Cheers,
Jeff
http://www.startribune.com/business/68709042.html?elr=KArks:DCiU1OiP:DiiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr
“…by switching from coal to biomass in the remaining unit, the project will drastically reduce other air emissions, including nitrogen oxides by more than 60 percent and sulfur dioxides and particulate matter by more than 80 percent.”
Says who??
[JR: Says actual observations.]
Has anyone read this report about ethanol and does this apply to plant plants at all?
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/ClimateHealth4.pdf
Fredo, by that logic, all harvest of wood from forests harms the soil. In the very long run, there are forest management issues no matter what type of harvest you do, but burning coal is worse than burning biomass, so it’s a big step ahead. But you are right, that ultimately, we need to keep all use of the land in closed cycles. In the short run, using biomass is a step in the right direction.
In 45mins enough solar energy falls on the planet, equivalent to the entire worlds consumption for a year.
Now lets see, should we invest our research and focus on using non-sustainable (expensive, dirty, dangerous) nuclear to meet our future energy requirements or should we use this to find a sustainable solution using solar energy?
Al Gore Explains How Call For Climate Change Action Is Similar To Civil Rights Movement (Video)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/02/al-gore-explains-how-call_n_343170.html
Does anyone know if the alternative fuels tax credit in the 2005 highway bill, which has been used to create windfall profits for the paper industry in Maine, and was due to expire at the end of this year, has been extended, included in the pending climate legislation, or elsewhere? Such would add an ironic wrinkle to the otherwise good news of hybrid bio-mass/coal plants. Though as Jeff points out in comment #5, no coal is the goal, and arguments, implied in this story, about low-grade bio-mass creating the need for coal, may be specious. At one of the plants in Maine they started burning a mixed fuel to get the credit.
re: Carbon Capture and Storage.
Stephen Chu had an editorial in Science, 25 September 2009, p. 1599. A few quotes:
“public support of CCS R&D is essential, and for this reason, $3.4 billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is being invested by the US DOE in CCS R&D”
“There are many hurdles to making CCS a reality, but none appear insurmountable. The DOE goal is to support R&D, as well as pilot CCS projects so that widespread deployment of CCS can begin in 8 to 10 years. This is an aggressive goal, but the climate problem compels us to act with fierce urgency”.
People should dump on Chu directly. Take his arguments on. Tell him the whole notion is too complex for him to understand. Tell him the technology couldn’t possibly be implemented at full scale in time to make a bit of difference to the problems we face. Why does Chu get a free pass? What about the guy who appointed him?
Or is it the case that people want everyone to pay attention to scientists like Chu when they call for prompt action to address climate change, but when it comes to what those scientists, like Chu, recommend in the way of specific action, people believe it is reasonable to suddenly pretend he doesn’t exist? We’re supposed to pretend Chu suddenly doesn’t know what he is talking about? What is going on? If Chu is too stupid to get it that CCS is nowhere near reality, is going to be too expensive to be usefully employed, will have to be conducted on such a large scale the task is physically impossible, or whatever other gibberish people spout out that they actually believe that people like Chu must be unaware of, why not ask the obvious question, what the hell is this moron doing running the DOE, or perhaps we should turn to the other obvious question, why do so called “progressives” calling for action on climate dump on CCS?
PS. Chu’s words on nuclear power, quote from his Senate confirmation hearing:
Dr. Chu: “… But it – you know, but there is certainly a changing mood in the country because nuclear is carbon free…
Sen Corker: Right.
Dr. Chu: … that we should look at it with new eyes.
I asked my grade five that question and he got it right!
Global warming could create 150 million ‘climate refugees’ by 2050
The Guadrian, November 3 – Environmental Justice Foundation report says 10% of the global population is at risk of forced displacement due to climate change.
Oil and gas firms accused of failing to address physical climate risks
BusinessGreen, November 3 – Oil and gas companies are not only major contributors to climate change, they are also uniquely at risk from the impacts of global warming. But despite the dual legislative and operational risks they face, many are burying their heads in the sand and failing to properly assess climate change risks. That is the stark conclusion of a major report from environmental consultancy Acclimatise, which assessed oil and gas companies’ responses to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).
We only have months, not years, to save civilisation from climate change.
Lester Brown in The Guardian, November 3 – International agreements take too long, we need a swift mobilisation not seen since the second world war.
1,147 fish species threatened with extinction: IUCN
AFP, November 3 – Overall, this year’s survey found that over a third, or 17,291 species out of 47,677 assessed are now threatened with extinction.
CO2 from forest destruction overestimated – study
The Guardian, November 3 – The carbon dioxide emissions caused by the destruction of tropical forests have been significantly overestimated, according to a new study. The work could undermine attempts to pay poor countries to protect forests as a cost-effective way to tackle global warming. The loss of forests in countries such as Brazil and Indonesia is widely assumed to account for about 20% of all carbon dioxide produced by human activity (…) But researchers led by Guido van der Werf, an earth scientist at VU University in Amsterdam, say that figure is an overestimate and that the true figure is closer to 12%.
Climate change threatens lives of millions of children, says charity
The Guardian, November 2 – A quarter of a million children could die next year due to the effects of climate change, Save the Children warned today. The charity said the figure could rise to more than 400,000 per year by 2030.
Higher temperatures will harm many crops, report says
Miami Herald, November 2 – Global warming would be bad news for all those amber waves of grain, and for the corn and soybeans that are plentiful throughout the Midwest.
fredo, #4 and Jay Turner, #8:
The crucial issue of whether replacing coal with biomass will result in a net decrease in the flux of CO2 into the atmosphere is,
1. Whether the the bio-resource (e.g., forest) is managed so that after harvesting the biomass (e.g.,wood), the net amount of carbon stored in NEW growth, ON THE SAME LAND, is equal to, or GREATER than that of the harvest, and
2. that the energy resources (e.g., fossil fuel) used to harvest and transport the biomass is equal to or LESS than that for the coal it replaces.
Unfortunately, these DETAILS are almost never discussed. So many biomass proposals (like corn ethanol) get hyped, out of all proportions – but are basically losers, as mitigation strategies.
I’ve discussed this problem in:
“Replacing coal with wood: sustainable, eco-neutral, conservation harvest of natural tree-fall in old-growth forests”, a FREE download at:
http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9625-z
Hi all-
Carbon storage is actually quite practical, and has been done at small to medium scales by the oil industry for several decades, for secondary oil recovery, without much fuss or controversy.
Some projects include the Sleipner and Australian Otway Basin project, Germany’s
CO2SINK project, the Algerian In Salah gas field storage project, and Canada’s Weyburn-Midale CO2 storage and enhanced oil recovery project.
Regarding Secretary Chu, his position on CO2 storage is actually both reasonable and scientific, as you would expect coming from a well motivated Nobel prize winner in physics.
I invite you all to check out the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage
Really, without BECCS, reversing the damage done by the industrial revolution will continue to be extremely difficult and expensive. Only with BECCS can actual CO2 reductions in the atmosphere become practical.
Searchinger, et.al. published “Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error” in Science, 23OCT2009, concerning biofuels.
“the potential of bioenergy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions inherently depends on the source of the biomass and its net landuse effects.”
They write that “the accounting now used for assessing compliance with carbon limits in the Kyoto Protocol and in climate legislation contains a far reaching but fixable flaw that iwll severely undermine greenhouse gas reduction goals.”
“This accounting erroneously treats all bioenergy as carbon neutral regardless of the source of the biomass, which may cause large differences in net emissions.”.
They note that one recent study found that under some scenarios there would be incentives strong enough to make it financially the best thing to do to level the entire world’s forests in favor of biofuel crops.
Searchinger, et.al. published “Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error” in Science, 23OCT2009, concerning biofuels.
“the potential of bioenergy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions inherently depends on the source of the biomass and its net land-use effects.”
They write that “the accounting now used for assessing compliance with carbon limits in the Kyoto Protocol and in climate legislation contains a far reaching but fixable flaw that will severely undermine greenhouse gas reduction goals.”
Not that people wouldn’t notice before this happened and do something about it, but that is the point the authors are bringing up, its time to notice and do something about it.
“This accounting erroneously treats all bioenergy as carbon neutral regardless of the source of the biomass, which may cause large differences in net emissions.”.
They note that one recent study found that under some scenarios there would be incentives strong enough to make it financially the best thing to do to level the entire world’s forests in favor of biofuel crops.