Tag Archives: bioenergy
Bioenergy A Burning Question For Tasmania’s Forests
24 July 2013 Bioenergy a burning question for Tasmania’s forests AUTHORS Stewart Williams Russell Warman DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Stewart Williams teaches and researches at the University of Tasmania. He receives funding from AHURI and NCCARF. Russell Warman has previously worked as a policy analyst with ENGOs involved in Tasmania’s forest negotiations. Provides funding as a Member of The Conversation. utas.edu.au Harnessing the energy in wood may help wean Australia off fossil fuels. Flickr/chriscardinal With Australia trying to meet renewable energy targets and reduce emissions wherever possible, we should be considering bioenergy. Bioenergy can be made by burning biomass in a variety of forms, including agricultural by-products such as rice husks, poppy seeds, sugarcane waste and manure. It can also be made from forestry by-products such as sawmill and wood wastes. Tasmania is a prime candidate for such developments. Visiting international researcher Professor Andreas Rothe of the University of Applied Sciences, Weihenstephan , has recently released findings of a six-month study he conducted for Forestry Tasmania. He suggests that energy produced from wood “could lift Tasmania’s bioenergy contribution beyond 30%”. There seem to good reasons for Australia to transition towards greater use of bioenergy. It is a renewable and relatively secure energy source that can reduce CO 2 emissions by replacing fossil fuels. It seems a relatively straightforward proposal, especially given Prof Rothe’s experience in Europe. People of forested parts of Europe – such as Prof Rothe’s home state of Bavaria in Germany, and Scandinavia – have longstanding cultural practises and economies based on forest resources, with considerable uptake of bioenergy produced from wood. But people in Australia have a different relationship with forests. Unlike much of Europe, Australia has forests with little or no history of industrial resource extraction. Australian people have different values and perceptions about how those resources should be used. These differences are reflected in bitter conflicts over native forests in most of the states, not least in Tasmania. Recent efforts to forge peace in the Tasmanian forests signal progress. Professor Rothe takes some of these issues into consideration, and excludes the use of old-growth forest from his research. Tasmania’s bioenergy aspirations aren’t new. In 2002 Forestry Tasmania planned for a 30 megawatt bioenergy plant at a site south of Hobart, meant to burn wood residue and provide electricity to run the site and a surplus to the grid. It now includes a modern regrowth sawmill, log yard and rotary peel veneer mill. But the power plant has never been built. The proposal was submitted to the State’s planning authority but it failed to attract investment. This financial hesitation reflects uncertainties around the benefits of bioenergy. Can bioenergy substitute fossil fuels? Should we put new pressure on resources such as forests, clean air and water, which are already critically scarce (and key to other services including biodiversity conservation and food production)? Early on environmentalists and some industry sectors supported bioenergy in North America and Europe – backed by significant subsidies. But recently this support has started to unravel as mainstream economists question the logic of the subsidies, investors move away , courts intervene , and environmental organisations question the cost of the growth in biomass demand. Even before these doubts were raised in the Northern Hemisphere, there was a wariness in Australia about claims to make use of “waste” or “residue” wood in biomass. The experience of the rise of the wood-chip industry, initially slated as an industry sideline for waste logs, into a driver of native forest logging, is still fresh in the memories of many Australians. Tasmania is a prime candidate for any developments in bioenergy. Local and rural communities across the state are undergoing major changes. Bioenergy could be part of innovations as the forestry industry is restructured. But a lot more work will be required if the use of bioenergy from wood is to have any chance of going ahead with widespread community support, especially if native forests are involved. This issue, towards which the Tasmanian Forest Agreement is perhaps making some fragile first steps, concerns the need to forge a broader social consensus on how native forests are used and valued. It might be some time before Australia is ready for bioenergy. By then, ironically enough, Europe and North America might be winding back from their initial enthusiasm. Continue reading
Bioenergy With CCS Can ‘Reverse’ Global Warming
11 July 2013 By Edd Gent Global warming could be reversed by using bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, according to Swedish researchers Researchers have claimed bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) could allow the world to reverse global warming. The team, from Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, say the technology can reverse the global warming trend and push temperatures back below the global target of 2°C above pre-industrial levels, even if current policies fail and the world initially overshoots this target. In a paper published in journal Environmental Research Letters today, the researchers show that if BECCS is implemented on a large-scale along with other renewable energy sources, temperature increases can be as low as 1.5°C by 2150. Co-author of the study, Professor Christian Azar, said: “What we demonstrate in our paper is that even if we fail to keep temperature increases below 2°C, then we can reverse the warming trend and push temperatures back below the 2°C target by 2150. “To do so requires both large-scale use of BECCS and reducing other emissions to near-zero levels using other renewables, mainly solar energy, or nuclear power.” BECCS is a greenhouse gas mitigation technology based on bioenergy that produces fuel for power plants or transportation while simultaneously removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Trees and crops give off carbon dioxide when they are burnt as fuel, but also act as a carbon sink as they grow beforehand, absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. These two processes cancel each other out, resulting in net zero emissions of carbon dioxide. When combined with carbon capture and storage – techniques that aim to pull carbon dioxide out of the flue gases from power plants and redirect it into geological storage locations – the overall carbon dioxide emissions are negative. If applied on a global scale, this could help to reverse global warming. In their study, the researchers developed an integrated global energy system and climate model that enabled them to assess the most cost-effective way forward for a given energy demand scenario and temperature target. They found that stringent temperature targets can be met at significantly lower costs if BECCS is implemented 30 to 50 years from now, although this may cause a temporary overshoot of the 2°C target. “The most policy relevant implication of our study is that even if current political gridlock causes global warming in excess of 2°C, we can reverse the temperature trend and reach targets later. This means that 2°C targets or even more ambitious targets can remain on the table in international climate negotiations,” Azar said. But, the authors caution against interpreting their study as an argument for delaying emission reductions in the near-term. Azar said: “BECCS can only reverse global warming if we have net negative emissions from the entire global energy system. This means that all other CO2 emissions need to be reduced to nearly zero. “Also, temperatures can only be reduced by about 0.6°C per century, which is too slow to act as an ’emergency brake’ if climate damages turn out to be too high. The more we reduce emissions now, the more ambitious targets we can achieve in the long term, even with BECCS. ” Continue reading
BYO Biomass – Bioenergy Production In The Agribusiness Sector
Corrs Chambers Westgarth Jeremy King and Lucas Bediaga Australia May 28 2013 World demand for energy could triple this century and the pressure on governments to find new energy sources is intense. While biomass accounts for just one percent of Australia’s electricity generation now, it may become a more valuable source of renewable energy in the future. If that happens, Australia’s agribusiness sector, with its vast biomass resources derived from agricultural by-products, could benefit from a new suite of opportunities. Several companies in Australia have already proven that converting agricultural waste to energy can be used to offset soaring fossil fuel costs. And while bioenergy projects have particular hurdles, there is potential for other agribusiness operators to find similar savings in operational costs. How can biomass be used in the agribusiness sector? Biomass is any organic matter, including wood, agricultural residues and organic waste, that can produce bioenergy – a carbon neutral and renewable energy form. Biomass can be converted into a variety of bioenergies including electricity, heat and fuel. Australian agribusiness offers a rich source of biomass production. Biomass materials include agricultural by-products such as stalks, husks, nut shells, logging and mill residues, marc (the residue of grapes that have been pressed for winemaking) and bagasse (the residue of sugar cane left after the extraction of juice). [1] This can ascribe a value to materials which may otherwise go to waste. If the biomass [2] is used to produce electricity, a farmer may be eligible to participate in the Renewable Energy Target scheme. Under the scheme, a farmer creates a Large-scale Generation Certificate (LGC) for each MWh produced at the power station. These LGCs can then be sold to entities which have an obligation to surrender them under the Renewable Energy Target scheme. A farmer may also obtain funding under trade programs such as the Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program. [3] Grants range from $25,000 to $10 million and are offered on a co-investment basis. Another program is the Emerging Renewables Program [4] which has provided financial support to conduct studies into biomass feasibility. [5] Other funding and grants may also be available from State governments. [6] There are several Australian examples where individual companies have successfully implemented a biomass solution to increasing energy costs. Australian Tartaric Products (ATP) is constructing a 0.6MWe biomass boiler. It will use 90,000 tonnes of grape marc and other onsite waste streams as the feedstock. ATP decided to install the biomass boiler due to large and increasing power bills and increased competition from China. It is estimated ATP’s annual energy costs will drop by $1.52m. ATP also received funding from Regional Development Victoria ($1.8m), Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program ($1.71m) and Australian Industry Group ($40,000). [7] Morton Seed and Grain (MSG) is constructing two biomass boilers. The boilers will use oat husks to generate both steam and electricity to run oatmill operations. The project is estimated to save MSG $900,000 per year in energy costs. MSG received funding from Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program ($917,500). [8] Sucrogen currently has seven cogeneration plants which have a total capacity of 198MW . The largest two plants are located in the Burdekin region and provide 68MW and 49MW of electricity. The plants use bagasse as feedstock. Excess electricity of around 123MW is exported back to the grid, which can meet the annual power needs of almost 30,000 homes. [9] Reid Bros Sawmill (RBS) constructed a 1MWt bioenergy plant at their sawmill. The plant burns 70-80 tonnes of wood milling waste each week. This has saved RBS $300,000 per year compared to the LPG they previously used. They have also now installed an organic rankin cycle system to convert waste heat into electricity. [10] If bioenergy production is not viable for an individual farm, plantation or vineyard, it may be that an agricultural cooperative could invest in the technology for the benefit of members’ surrounding landholdings. Those members of the cooperative could receive the additional benefit of being able to sell their biomass to the power plant as feedstock. What’s hampering bioenergy expansion? Bioenergy in Australia is facing several challenges that are additional to the usual issues associated with greenfield power projects. High capital and maintenance costs. A basic bioenergy plant which produces 8MWt and 0.6MWe can cost $7.5m. There are also material costs involved in operating and maintaining a bioenergy plant. If a bioenergy plant is going to be co-located on a farm, plantation or vineyard, it is unlikely to have a huge installed capacity yet there will need to be substantial savings on energy costs and waste disposal costs in order to offset the capital and maintenance costs. Production of feedstock may be seasonal. Biomass from agricultural by-products will logically be collected during the harvesting period, and is impacted by issues of agricultural yield. Therefore, biomass from agricultural by-products will not be a year-round source of feedstock. This may require farms, plantations or vineyards to have dual sources of energy in place; one from biomass production and the other through more traditional means. The seasonality of feedstock production could be mitigated by storing excess feedstock for use throughout non-harvesting periods. [11] Transportation costs. Biomass is typically dispersed over various locations and there is a need to transport the biomass to the power station efficiently. This can be expensive – especially for larger power plants. However, high transportation costs can be mitigated by optimising the logistics surrounding crop harvest and also waste management practices. Further, to date, it hasn’t been possible to produce utility scale electricity from biomass. The required spot price for a 500kWe biomass plant to be commercially viable is around $310/MWh. [12] This is compared to the wholesale electrical cost which, for the purposes of discussion, is around $60/MWh. Expanding a biomass plant to utility scale (20MWe) would only bring down the required spot price to about $160/MWh. [13] However, there are examples in Queensland where large cogeneration plants running on residue biomass produce enough electricity to power 30,000 homes for a year. [14] What is clear is that biomass can be used to generate energy in the right circumstances: where the regulatory environment is stable and supportive of the technology; where feedstock is cheaply and readily available; where transmission distances are relatively low; and where the cost of alternative sources of power are high. While there is a great deal of negativity around Australia’s green energy sector, and the difficulties facing Australia’s agricultural sector (in terms of raising finance, international competitiveness and productivity), bioenergy offers new opportunities that could produce positive outcomes for energy security without compromising on food security. Continue reading
