Economics of co-firing coal and biomass: An application to Western Canada

Abstract

Co-firing biomass and coal in retrofitted power plants is an efficient means to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the energy sector. Under IPCC reporting rules, the impacts of energy produced from biomass would not be reported in the energy sector, thereby effectively lowering the emissions intensity of a power plant. In this study, a carbon tax is compared to a feed-in tariff for incentivizing conversion of coal plants to co-fire with biomass. In the application, a model of the Alberta electrical grid with an intertie to British Columbia is linked to a fibre transportation model for these provinces. Results indicate that there is an upper threshold on a carbon tax after which retrofitting of coal plants is less efficient than increasing natural gas generating capacity. This is not the case with a feed-in tariff as it specifically targets biomass energy. Although the optimal generating mix achieved with a carbon tax leads to lower aggregate emissions than the mix achieved using a feed-in tariff, it will result in higher average generating costs. Results indicate that it is optimal for Alberta to retrofit approximately 500 MW of current coal capacity (8.6%) to co-fire with biomass, although Alberta wood pellet production acts as a constraint on further conversions.

Characterization of fine and carbonaceous particles emissions from pelletized biomass-coal blends combustion: Implications on residential crop residue utilization in China

“…Although the health benefits in China could be different, it still demonstrates the potential of pelletized blends on the reduction of carbonaceous particles. Besides, the approach can decrease emissions of other gases and particles like CO 2 , SO 2 , NO x , EC etc, and avoid the methane leakage problem which is commonly accompanied with biogas technology (Sami et al, 2001;Johnston and van Kooten, 2015). If the energy density of biomass pellets is equivalent to medium coal as Zeng et al (2007) reported, utilization of pelletized blends as energy may not only provide a basis for airborne pollutants control, but also meets the demands for energy in rural China.…”

“…Co-firing is another efficient means recommended in energy sector, due to its high potential for commercialization and the emission reduction of CO, CO 2 , SO 2 and NO x in most co-firing of biomass and coal tests (Sami et al, 2001;Johnston and van Kooten, 2015). In this study, bulk corn stover, pelletized corn stover (pellet Fig.…”

Solar Thermoelectric System with Biomass Back-up

“…In Europe and the United States of America biomass is largely used either on a domestic scale or on an industrial scale such as large thermoelectric power stations [11].…”

“…One can convert a coal plant to function with biomass, thereby reducing carbon dioxide emissions, or to create an original biomass power plant [11], [12].…”

Financial cost-benefit analysis of investment possibilities in district heating system on wood residues

“…Akhtari et al (Akhtari, Sowlati, & Day, 2014), Schmidt et al (Schmidt, Leduc, Dotzauer, Kindermann, & Schmid, 2010), Steubing et al (Steubing, Zah, & Ludwig, 2012), Chau et al (Chau, Sowlati, Sokhansanj, Preto, Melin, & Bi, 2009), Johnston and Kooten (Johnston & Kooten, 2015). Groscurth et al (Groscurth, Almeida, De, Bauen, Costa, & Ericson, 2000) provided a comprehensive analysis of the economic and environmental performance of the energy use of biomass for selected existing facilities.…”