IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v113y2014icp67-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emissions tradeoffs associated with cofiring forest biomass with coal: A case study in Colorado, USA

Author

Listed:
  • Loeffler, Dan
  • Anderson, Nathaniel

Abstract

Cofiring forest biomass residues with coal to generate electricity is often cited for its potential to offset fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the extent to which cofiring achieves these objectives is highly dependent on case specific variables. This paper uses facility and forest specific data to examine emissions from cofiring forest biomass with coal ranging up to 20% substitution by heat value in southwest Colorado, USA. Calculations for net system emissions include five emissions sources: coal mining, power plant processes, forest biomass processes, boiler emissions, and forest biomass disposal. At the maximum displacement of 20% of heat demand using 120,717t of forest biomass per year, total system emissions are projected to decrease by 15% for CO2, 95% for CH4, 18% for NOX, 82% for PM10, and 27% for SOX. PM10 and CH4 emissions benefits are closely tied to reducing open burning for residue disposal. At maximum displacement, 189,240t of CO2 emissions equivalent to the annual CO2 emissions from 36,200 passenger vehicles, 440,000 barrels of oil, or nearly 990 railcars of coal are avoided. When forest biomass is not cofired, emissions equivalent to144,200t of CO2 are emitted from open burning. In addition to exploring the details of this case, we provide a methodology for assessing the emissions tradeoffs related to using forest biomass for cogeneration that incorporates the operational aspects of managing forest treatment residues, which are frequently omitted from similar analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Loeffler, Dan & Anderson, Nathaniel, 2014. "Emissions tradeoffs associated with cofiring forest biomass with coal: A case study in Colorado, USA," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 67-77.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:113:y:2014:i:c:p:67-77
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.07.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261913005771
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.07.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Savolainen, Kati, 2003. "Co-firing of biomass in coal-fired utility boilers," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(3-4), pages 369-381, March.
    2. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Sebastián, F. & Royo, J. & Gómez, M., 2011. "Cofiring versus biomass-fired power plants: GHG (Greenhouse Gases) emissions savings comparison by means of LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 2029-2037.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dai, C. & Cai, X.H. & Cai, Y.P. & Huang, G.H., 2014. "A simulation-based fuzzy possibilistic programming model for coal blending management with consideration of human health risk under uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1-13.
    2. Masum, Md Farhad Hossain & Dwivedi, Puneet & Anderson, William F., 2020. "Estimating unit production cost, carbon intensity, and carbon abatement cost of electricity generation from bioenergy feedstocks in Georgia, United States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    3. Young, Jesse D. & Anderson, Nathaniel M. & Naughton, Helen T. & Mullan, Katrina, 2018. "Economic and policy factors driving adoption of institutional woody biomass heating systems in the U.S," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 456-470.
    4. Thomas L. Tidwell, 2016. "Nexus between food, energy, water, and forest ecosystems in the USA," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(1), pages 214-224, March.
    5. Wanhe Hu & Jingxin Wang & Jianli Hu & Jamie Schuler & Shawn Grushecky & Changle Jiang & William Smith & Nan Nan & Edward M. Sabolsky, 2024. "Combustion Behaviors, Kinetics, and Thermodynamics of Naturally Decomposed and Torrefied Northern Red Oak ( Quercus rubra ) Forest Logging Residue," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Bui, Mai & Fajardy, Mathilde & Mac Dowell, Niall, 2017. "Bio-Energy with CCS (BECCS) performance evaluation: Efficiency enhancement and emissions reduction," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 289-302.
    7. Liu, Yingzu & He, Yong & Wang, Zhihua & Xia, Jun & Wan, Kaidi & Whiddon, Ronald & Cen, Kefa, 2018. "Characteristics of alkali species release from a burning coal/biomass blend," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 523-531.
    8. Chen, Xiaoguang, 2016. "Economic potential of biomass supply from crop residues in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 141-149.
    9. Wander, Paulo R. & Bianchi, Flávio M. & Caetano, Nattan R. & Klunk, Marcos A. & Indrusiak, Maria Luiza S., 2020. "Cofiring low-rank coal and biomass in a bubbling fluidized bed with varying excess air ratio and fluidization velocity," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    10. Masami Ashizawa & Maromu Otaka & Hiromi Yamamoto & Atsushi Akisawa, 2022. "CO 2 Emissions and Economy of Co-Firing Carbonized Wood Pellets at Coal-Fired Power Plants: The Case of Overseas Production of Pellets and Use in Japan," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-10, February.
    11. Yoonah Jeong & Jae-Sung Kim & Ye-Eun Lee & Dong-Chul Shin & Kwang-Ho Ahn & Jinhong Jung & Kyeong-Ho Kim & Min-Jong Ku & Seung-Mo Kim & Chung-Hwan Jeon & I-Tae Kim, 2023. "Investigation and Optimization of Co-Combustion Efficiency of Food Waste Biochar and Coal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-12, October.
    12. Fan, He & Zhang, Yu-fei & Su, Zhi-gang & Wang, Ben, 2017. "A dynamic mathematical model of an ultra-supercritical coal fired once-through boiler-turbine unit," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 654-666.
    13. Verma, Munna & Loha, Chanchal & Sinha, Amar Nath & Chatterjee, Pradip Kumar, 2017. "Drying of biomass for utilising in co-firing with coal and its impact on environment – A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 732-741.
    14. Zhou, Huairong & Qian, Yu & Yang, Siyu, 2015. "Energetic/economic penalty of CO2 emissions and application to coal-to-olefins projects in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 344-353.
    15. Raghava Rao Kommalapati & Iqbal Hossan & Venkata Sai Vamsi Botlaguduru & Hongbo Du & Ziaul Huque, 2018. "Life Cycle Environmental Impact of Biomass Co-Firing with Coal at a Power Plant in the Greater Houston Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shafie, S.M. & Mahlia, T.M.I. & Masjuki, H.H., 2013. "Life cycle assessment of rice straw co-firing with coal power generation in Malaysia," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 284-294.
    2. Canabarro, N.I. & Silva-Ortiz, P. & Nogueira, L.A.H. & Cantarella, H. & Maciel-Filho, R. & Souza, G.M., 2023. "Sustainability assessment of ethanol and biodiesel production in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    3. Baka, Jennifer & Roland-Holst, David, 2009. "Food or fuel? What European farmers can contribute to Europe's transport energy requirements and the Doha Round," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2505-2513, July.
    4. Nguyen, Thu Lan T. & Hermansen, John E. & Mogensen, Lisbeth, 2010. "Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2561-2571, May.
    5. Sarah Jansen & William Foster & Gustavo Anríquez & Jorge Ortega, 2021. "Understanding Farm-Level Incentives within the Bioeconomy Framework: Prices, Product Quality, Losses, and Bio-Based Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Argueyrolles, Robin & Delzeit, Ruth, 2022. "The interconnections between Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reforms and biofuels," Conference papers 333492, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    7. Aruga, Kentaka, 2011. "非遺伝子組換え大豆とエネルギーの価格関係について [Relationships among the Non-Genetically Modified Soybean and Energy Prices]," MPRA Paper 38186, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 Aug 2011.
    8. Ribeiro, Lauro André & Silva, Patrícia Pereira da, 2013. "Surveying techno-economic indicators of microalgae biofuel technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 89-96.
    9. Gal Hochman & Chrysostomos Tabakis, 2020. "Biofuels and Their Potential in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-17, September.
    10. Mohlin, Kristina & Camuzeaux, Jonathan R. & Muller, Adrian & Schneider, Marius & Wagner, Gernot, 2018. "Factoring in the forgotten role of renewables in CO2 emission trends using decomposition analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 290-296.
    11. Khoo, Hsien H., 2015. "Review of bio-conversion pathways of lignocellulose-to-ethanol: Sustainability assessment based on land footprint projections," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 100-119.
    12. Hyukjin Oh & Kalyan Annamalai & Paul G. Goughner & Ben Thien & John M. Sweeten, 2021. "Reburning of Animal Waste Based Biomass with Coal for NO x Reduction, Part I: Feedlot Biomass (FB) and Coal:FB Blends," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-26, December.
    13. Shirizadeh, Behrang & Quirion, Philippe, 2022. "The importance of renewable gas in achieving carbon-neutrality: Insights from an energy system optimization model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    14. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    15. Stefan Mann, 2016. "Governing complementary responsibility goods through hybrid systems in a globalizing world," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 9(1), pages 14-21.
    16. Winden, Matthew & Cruze, Nathan & Haab, Tim & Bakshi, Bhavik, 2015. "Monetized value of the environmental, health and resource externalities of soy biodiesel," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 18-24.
    17. Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel & Nathan C. Parker, 2013. "Unintended Consequences of Transportation Carbon Policies: Land-Use, Emissions, and Innovation," NBER Working Papers 19636, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Reijnders, L., 2009. "Are forestation, bio-char and landfilled biomass adequate offsets for the climate effects of burning fossil fuels?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 2839-2841, August.
    19. Yuqing An & Jin Yeu Tsou & Kapo Wong & Yuanzhi Zhang & Dawei Liu & Yu Li, 2018. "Detecting Land Use Changes in a Rapidly Developing City during 1990–2017 Using Satellite Imagery: A Case Study in Hangzhou Urban Area, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, September.
    20. Abdul-Manan, Amir F.N., 2017. "Lifecycle GHG emissions of palm biodiesel: Unintended market effects negate direct benefits of the Malaysian Economic Transformation Plan (ETP)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 56-65.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:113:y:2014:i:c:p:67-77. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.