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. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Chen, Xiaoguang, 2016. "Economic potential of biomass supply from crop residues in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 141-149.
    15. 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.

    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. Suopajärvi, Hannu & Umeki, Kentaro & Mousa, Elsayed & Hedayati, Ali & Romar, Henrik & Kemppainen, Antti & Wang, Chuan & Phounglamcheik, Aekjuthon & Tuomikoski, Sari & Norberg, Nicklas & Andefors, Alf , 2018. "Use of biomass in integrated steelmaking – Status quo, future needs and comparison to other low-CO2 steel production technologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 384-407.
    2. Tonini, Davide & Vadenbo, Carl & Astrup, Thomas Fruergaard, 2017. "Priority of domestic biomass resources for energy: Importance of national environmental targets in a climate perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 295-309.
    3. Lotze-Campen, Hermann & von Witzke, Harald & Noleppa, Steffen & Schwarz, Gerald, 2015. "Science for food, climate protection and welfare: An economic analysis of plant breeding research in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 79-84.
    4. Iriarte, Alfredo & Rieradevall, Joan & Gabarrell, Xavier, 2012. "Transition towards a more environmentally sustainable biodiesel in South America: The case of Chile," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 263-273.
    5. 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.
    6. Kriegler, Elmar, 2011. "Comment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 594-596, July.
    7. Proost, Stef & Van Dender, Kurt, 2012. "Energy and environment challenges in the transport sector," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 77-87.
    8. repec:fpr:ifprib:2012ghienglish is not listed on IDEAS
    9. 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).
    10. Baral, Nabin & Rabotyagov, Sergey, 2017. "How much are wood-based cellulosic biofuels worth in the Pacific Northwest? Ex-ante and ex-post analysis of local people's willingness to pay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-106.
    11. 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.
    12. Maung, Thein A. & McCarl, Bruce A., 2013. "Economic factors influencing potential use of cellulosic crop residues for electricity generation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 81-91.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Shortall, O.K., 2013. "“Marginal land” for energy crops: Exploring definitions and embedded assumptions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 19-27.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Oskar Englund & Ioannis Dimitriou & Virginia H. Dale & Keith L. Kline & Blas Mola‐Yudego & Fionnuala Murphy & Burton English & John McGrath & Gerald Busch & Maria Cristina Negri & Mark Brown & Kevin G, 2020. "Multifunctional perennial production systems for bioenergy: performance and progress," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(5), September.
    19. Forslund, Agneta & Gohin, Alexandre & Le Mouël, Chantal & Levert, Fabrice, 2014. "Biodiesel vs. ethanol, UE vs. US biofuels: So different in terms of LUC impact?," Working Papers 207810, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    20. 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.
    21. Gal Hochman & Chrysostomos Tabakis, 2020. "Biofuels and Their Potential in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-17, September.

    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.