Tag Archives: javascript
Panel Discusses Wood Biomass Sustainability, Coming Regulations
By Tim Portz | October 30, 2013 Nigel Burdett, head of environment at Drax Power, addresses the audience at the U.S. Industrial Pellet Association’s 3rd Annual Exporting Pellets conference. Tim Portz. . . Nigel Burdett, head of environment at Drax Power, kicked off a panel discussion at the U.S. Industrial Pellet Association’s 3rd annual Exporting Pellets Conference, by commenting on the role of sustainability in the transition from coal to wood pellets. “We need to be sustainable in order to capture the subsidy and make the business work,” he said. The panel focused on the sustainable attributes of renewable power produced via wood pellet combustion. The subsidies Burdett spoke of are Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) issued by the U.K. Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. These ROCs are financial instruments that power generators can sell on the open market, boosting the economics of generating renewable energy. In September, the U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change confirmed that biomass would play a significant role in the march toward the de-carbonization of the U.K. energy sector, but that biomass burned by its power generators must come from sustainable sources if those generators expect to receive ROCs. While final rulemaking has yet to be established by the DECC, power generators in the U.K., pellet suppliers in the North America and elsewhere, and the loggers and landowners that supply biomass to pellet facilities are all preparing for the coming legislation. They are also offering their perspective to policymakers on what they feel are realistic, yet adequately stringent, requirements. At the same time, a larger, more expansive effort is underway to frame up for the general public the vital role that biomass-derived power can, and should, play in driving geologic carbon out of the world’s energy mix. Geologic carbon, the carbon found in fossil fuels and sequestered there for millions of years, is released into the atmosphere when it is combusted for energy. Bob Malmsheimer, professor at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, urged attendees to recognize the inherent differences between geologic carbon and biogenic carbon saying, “When we make products and energy from biogenic carbon instead of geologic carbon, we’ve done something positive for climate change.” Recognizing that the public is continually presented with different studies and models, he continued by stating, “While the timing aspect is debated, the long term benefit is not debatable.” Echoing Malmsheimer’s comments, and diving deeper into an explanation of the science as well as many of the reasons for widespread confusion about the issue, was Martin Junginger, assistant professor at the Copernicus Institute for Sustainability Development at the University of Utrecht. Junginger pointed out that many of the studies that industry critics use to question the sustainability of woody biomass are flawed because they investigate the carbon cycle at a stand level, as opposed to looking at the carbon cycle in the context of a broader forest ecosystem. “Scientists have realized that looking at the landscape of level is the most appropriate,” said Junginger. He explained that if 1 acre of land is converted into biomass feedstocks and burned, there is carbon released into the atmosphere certainly, but that the overall forest system was taking up more carbon as a whole than was being released during the combustion of a percentage of that biomass during energy generation. The panel concluded the discussion by driving home the point that the worst-case scenario for global forests were declining markets for forest products, including woody biomass for pellet production. Repeating an argument that is continually being made by the largest forest owner associations in North America, including the National Alliance of Forest Owners and the Forest Landowners Association, the panel argued that strong markets for all grades and types of forests was the best way to stave off the largest threat to forests, emerging higher economic values for forested acres, including redevelopment. Recognizing that proving the sustainable nature of their supply chains will be a vital aspect of Drax’s business, Burdett underscored the importance of preparing for the coming feedstock tracking requirements saying, “We are going to see a great deal of data being required of suppliers,” and stressing that non-compliance ultimately would cost Drax the most. “We have canceled contracts because adequate data was not available,” he added. Continue reading
An Engineer’s Perspective on Biogenic CO2
By Anna Simet | November 01, 2013 The study that took the media by storm. BIOMASS WORSE THAN COAL BIOMASS DIRTIER THAN FOSSIL FUELS We all remember the ridiculous headlines surfacing during the month of June 2010. Even though the notorious Manomet Study’s release was over three years ago, it still gets plenty of attention, and it’s still intensely debated and referenced to. That’s expected, as the debate on carbon is seemingly more active than ever. It’s always interesting to hear new or different perspectives on Manomet and biogenic emissions, though the main or underlying points are usually the same. This week, I was contacted by Kirk Cobb, an engineer from Superior Process Technologies, and he wanted to share some of his thoughts. Here are some of the comments he made—some you may have heard, some perhaps not. A forest (or any biomass for that matter) is not a batch system, it is a continuous system. Maybe this is a uniquely chemical engineering perspective. When a person is trained in the art and science of chemical engineering, one of the fundamental approaches to understanding systems is the difference between batch systems and continuous systems. It does not matter whether a system is an industrial system, or a natural, biological system. In a batch system, we can observe how the chemical composition, or mass balance, of the system can change over time. But in a continuous system, as older materials decay, new materials are added—or as mass enters the system, it also leaves the system at the same rate, and the system reaches a steady-state equilibrium balance. This points to the fundamental error in thinking of the authors of the Manomet Study. They were looking at a small batch system of trees on a parcel of land, but they failed to realize that that small batch of trees was part of a much larger, continuous system. The study failed to properly evaluate the net carbon balance; they had mistakenly applied a batch carbon study, not realizing that the batch carbon data they presented in their study, was actually part of a much larger, continuous carbon system mass balance. This concept of a steady-state equilibrium mass balance applies to sustainable forestry, for example. Whether the trees in a mature forest die naturally and decay, or are harvested and burned for fuel, the same equilibrium balance can be reached. Assume that 4 percent of a commercial forest is cut down each year for fuel, on a 25 year cycle of harvesting and replanting. During a typical year, that 4 percent of the forest is harvested, the other 96 percent of the forest continues to grow. If this sustainable forestry model is continuously observed for 25 years, after that time, the forest looks exactly the same as it did 25 years earlier. The total forest has the same sequestered biomass, the same biogenic carbon, that it had 25 years ago. In fact, during any given year during this cycle, the total forest has the same biogenic carbon at all times. The amount of carbon contained in the trees is the same at all times. In a sustainable forest, the amount of trees, or the amount of carbon, being harvested on any given day is the same as the amount of carbon the rest of the forest has sucked out of the atmosphere on that particular day, or week, or month, or year, or any time unit that you wish to consider. Now, suppose this forest is 40 miles in radius, 80 miles in diameter, and a power plant is located in the center of this forest. The trees are being harvested, chipped, stored, naturally dried, or even dried with the flue gas from the power plant, then used as fuel to generate electricity. In place of the harvested trees, new seedlings are continuously replanted. This forest will generate enough biomass from photosynthesis, from solar energy, to sustainably produce electricity at the power plant, forever. As long as you don’t harvest the trees faster than they regrow, you are essentially producing electricity from solar energy. There is no net carbon emission from this model. But, assume 100 miles away, there is another power plant, burning coal to generate electricity. Over the same unit of time, every ton of coal burned is taking sequestered carbon out of the ground and burning it, and generating CO2 for a one way trip to the atmosphere, to add to the GHG inventory. These two power plants could be identical in terms of their electrical power production. But the wood-based plant contributes no net CO2 to the atmosphere. The coal plant contributes all of its CO2 to the atmosphere. For comparison, consider a 1,000-MW power plant, using coal as its fuel. A typical coal-fired power plant will consume 1 unit train of coal per day. That is 10,000 tons of coal; 100 coal cars with 100 tons of coal in each car. About every 15 minutes, another 100 ton coal car is consumed by the plant. When you burn coal, each pound of coal will generate 2.6 pounds of CO2. In one day, one unit train entering this plant will generate 2.6 “trains” of CO2, or 10,000 tons/day of coal will generate 26,000 tons of CO2. (This is all assuming a typical bituminous coal, 12,000 BTU/pound; power generation at 10,000 BTU’s/kwhr of electricity generated, etc. Now, consider trying to sequester 26,000 tons/day of CO2 from this power plant. I defy the coal industry to prove this can be done on any thermodynamic basis that makes any sense. As a journalist, I often get lost in math, but those are the kinds of comparisons that I find really interesting. Because really, it is all about carbon math. Hopefully—but I won’t hold my breath—a new study on biogenic emissions will come out (hint: EPA?) in the near future, and it’ll get the same amount of attention that Manomet did and still does. That’s wishful thinking, though, because the headline won’t be nearly as sensational to the general media. Continue reading
Is Farmland Caught In A Price Bubble That’s About To Burst?
Angela Bowman, Staff Writer | October 23, 2013 In 2013, the cost of an average acre of Iowa farm real estate jumped by 20 percent in value to $8,400. It’s a story that is seen across America’s fertile heartland with farmland worth about 13 percent more than in 2012. But is farmland caught in a price bubble that soon could burst? John Taylor, national farm and ranch executive for U.S. Trust, a private bank that is part of Bank of America Corp, believes it’s too early to justify fears of a bubble, according to a report by MarketWatch by The Wall Street Journal. “In general, if you ask, is farmland in a bubble, I’ll say, no,” he said. “But if you ask, are some people paying bubble prices, I’ll say, yes.” Farmland has be climbing for the last decade thanks to a surge in farm income and commodity prices, but as these prices settle back down and interest levels start to move higher, some see the next few years as an important test. “This is the moment of truth, I think,” said Brent Gloy, agricultural economics professor at Purdue University. He added that if prices continue to surge in the face of intensifying headwinds, it would then be a troubling sign that a bubble was building in farmland. Read more here. Earlier this summer, Esther George, President of the Kansas City Federal Reserve, argued against the threat of a farmland bubble. Instead, she is confidence in the lessons both farmers and bankers learned – and remember – from being “over-leveraged” in the 1970s. “The run-up in the land values is likely to still create issues for those that are exposed in some way,” she said. “Will we see it as broadly as we did in the ’70s? Not the same scenario. But we will still see some fallout if there is a strong correction.” Continue reading
