skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Logistics, Costs, and GHG Impacts of Utility Scale Cofiring with 20% Biomass

Abstract

This report presents the results of an evaluation of utility-scale biomass cofiring in large pulverized coal power plants. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the cost and greenhouse gas reduction benefits of substituting relatively high volumes of biomass in coal. Two scenarios for cofiring up to 20% biomass with coal (on a lower heating value basis) are presented; (1) woody biomass in central Alabama where Southern Pine is currently produced for the wood products and paper industries, and (2) purpose-grown switchgrass in the Ohio River Valley. These examples are representative of regions where renewable biomass growth rates are high in correspondence with major U.S. heartland power production. While these scenarios may provide a realistic reference for comparing the relative benefits of using a high volume of biomass for power production, this evaluation is not intended to be an analysis of policies concerning renewable portfolio standards or the optimal use of biomass for energy production in the U.S.

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1156999
Report Number(s):
PNNL-23492
DOE Contract Number:
AC05-76RL01830
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
Biopower; biomass; levelized-cost of electricity (LCOE); utility-scale biomass co-firing

Citation Formats

Boardman, Richard D., Cafferty, Kara G., Nichol, Corrie, Searcy, Erin M., Westover, Tyler, Wood, Richard, Bearden, Mark D., Cabe, James E., Drennan, Corinne, Jones, Susanne B., Male, Jonathan L., Muntean, George G., Snowden-Swan, Lesley J., and Widder, Sarah H. Logistics, Costs, and GHG Impacts of Utility Scale Cofiring with 20% Biomass. United States: N. p., 2014. Web. doi:10.2172/1156999.
Boardman, Richard D., Cafferty, Kara G., Nichol, Corrie, Searcy, Erin M., Westover, Tyler, Wood, Richard, Bearden, Mark D., Cabe, James E., Drennan, Corinne, Jones, Susanne B., Male, Jonathan L., Muntean, George G., Snowden-Swan, Lesley J., & Widder, Sarah H. Logistics, Costs, and GHG Impacts of Utility Scale Cofiring with 20% Biomass. United States. doi:10.2172/1156999.
Boardman, Richard D., Cafferty, Kara G., Nichol, Corrie, Searcy, Erin M., Westover, Tyler, Wood, Richard, Bearden, Mark D., Cabe, James E., Drennan, Corinne, Jones, Susanne B., Male, Jonathan L., Muntean, George G., Snowden-Swan, Lesley J., and Widder, Sarah H. Tue . "Logistics, Costs, and GHG Impacts of Utility Scale Cofiring with 20% Biomass". United States. doi:10.2172/1156999. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1156999.
@article{osti_1156999,
title = {Logistics, Costs, and GHG Impacts of Utility Scale Cofiring with 20% Biomass},
author = {Boardman, Richard D. and Cafferty, Kara G. and Nichol, Corrie and Searcy, Erin M. and Westover, Tyler and Wood, Richard and Bearden, Mark D. and Cabe, James E. and Drennan, Corinne and Jones, Susanne B. and Male, Jonathan L. and Muntean, George G. and Snowden-Swan, Lesley J. and Widder, Sarah H.},
abstractNote = {This report presents the results of an evaluation of utility-scale biomass cofiring in large pulverized coal power plants. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the cost and greenhouse gas reduction benefits of substituting relatively high volumes of biomass in coal. Two scenarios for cofiring up to 20% biomass with coal (on a lower heating value basis) are presented; (1) woody biomass in central Alabama where Southern Pine is currently produced for the wood products and paper industries, and (2) purpose-grown switchgrass in the Ohio River Valley. These examples are representative of regions where renewable biomass growth rates are high in correspondence with major U.S. heartland power production. While these scenarios may provide a realistic reference for comparing the relative benefits of using a high volume of biomass for power production, this evaluation is not intended to be an analysis of policies concerning renewable portfolio standards or the optimal use of biomass for energy production in the U.S.},
doi = {10.2172/1156999},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Tue Jul 22 00:00:00 EDT 2014},
month = {Tue Jul 22 00:00:00 EDT 2014}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share: