Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T07:23:38.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Model for the Economic Evaluation of Plantation Biomass Production for Co-firing with Coal in Electricity Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Sara Nienow ,
Kevin T. McNamara ,
Andrew R. Gillespie  and
Paul V. Preckel
Sara Nienow
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University
Kevin T. McNamara
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University
Andrew R. Gillespie
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University
Paul V. Preckel
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University
Get access

Abstract

Public and private electric utilities are considering co-firing biomass with coal as a strategy to reduce the levels of CO2, SO2 and NOx in stack emissions, as well as a response to state legislative mandates requiring the use of renewable fuels. This analysis examines the conditions under which biomass co-firing is economically feasible for utilities and woody biomass producers and describes additional environmental and community benefits associated with biomass use. This paper presents a case study of woody biomass production and co-firing at the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) Michigan City Unit No. 12 power plant. A Salix (willow) production budget was created to assess the feasibility of plantation tree production to supply biomass to the utility for fuel blending. A GAMS model was developed to examine the optimal co-firing blend of coal and biomass while minimizing variable cost, including the cost of ash disposal and material procurement costs. The model is constrained by the levels of pollution produced. This model is used to examine situations where coal is the primary fuel and waste wood, willow trees, or both are available for fuel blending. Capital costs for co-firing were estimated outside of the model and are incorporated into the total cost of co-firing. The results indicate that under certain circumstances it is cost-effective for the power plant to co-fire biomass. Sensitivity analysis is used to test biomass price sensitivity and explores the effects of potential public policies on co-firing.

Type
Agricultural and Resource Dimensions of Global Environmental Change
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , April 1999 , pp. 106 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Associated Press. 1998. “Clinton's Climate Plan Feels the Heat.” http://www.msnbc.com/news/172601.html (June 12).Google Scholar
Bailey, J. 1993. “Fading Garbage Crisis Leaves Incinerators Competing for Trash.” The Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A2 (August 11).Google Scholar
Ballard, B. 1997. “Site Preparation and Planting of Willow Biomass Crops.” Willow Biomass News l(2)(July).Google Scholar
Barbucci, P., and Trebbi, G. 1994. “Biomass Based Systems for the Generation or Cogeneration of Electricity.” International Journal of Solar Energy 15: 171–8.Google Scholar
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1996. Biomass Co-firing Evaluation for Northern Indiana Public Service Company.Google Scholar
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1997. Biomass Co-firing at NIPSCO Michigan City Station.Google Scholar
Borjesson, P.I.I. 1996. “Energy Analysis of Biomass Production and Transportation.” Biomass and Bioenergy 11(4): 305–18.Google Scholar
Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., and Meeraus, A. 1988. GAMS: A User's Guide. The Scientific Press. Redwood City, CA.Google Scholar
Burtraw, D., Krupnick, A.J., and Palmer, K.L. 1996. “Air Quality and Electricity: What Competition May Mean.” Resources (spring).Google Scholar
Carney, D. 1995. “The Real Cost of Ethanol.” Mother Jones. http://bsd.mojones.com/mother_jones/ja95/ethanol.html (January).Google Scholar
Christopherson, N., Stokes, B., Wiselogel, A., Woodfin, S., and Zerbe, J. 1989. “Harvesting and Handling Fuelwood.” In Trees for Fuelwood: a Step Toward Energy Diversity, ed. Fazio, James R., ed. The Arbor Day Institute, pp. 34–44.Google Scholar
Coy, P. 1997. “Commentary: Clean Air in an Era of Cheap Oil.” Business Week. http://www.businessweek.com/l997/44/b3551008 (November 3).Google Scholar
Craig, K.R., Bain, R.L., and Overend, R.P. 1995. “Biomass Power Systems—Where Are We, Where Are We Going, and How Do We Get There? The Role of Gasification.” Presented at EPRI Conference on New Power Generation Technology, San Francisco, California (October).Google Scholar
Department of Energy. 1996. “Biomass Power Program.” Produced by National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy DOE/GO-10096-345 (December).Google Scholar
Department of Energy. 1997. “Biomass Energy Highlights.” Renewable Energy Annual. Energy Information Administration, Vol. 1 (October).Google Scholar
Doster, D.H. 1900. “Indiana Custom Rates for Power Operated Farm Machines.” Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. West Lafayette, IN 47907.Google Scholar
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1995a. “Making Biopower Work for Utilities: A Rationale for Near-Term Investment in Integrated Biomass Power Systems” Project #3407 (December).Google Scholar
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1995b. “Economic Development Through Biomass Systems Integration.” Project #3407-20 (June).Google Scholar
Energy Information Administration. 1998. “Higher Energy Prices, Cuts in Fuel Use May Be Needed to Comply with the Kyoto Protocol.” EIA report. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 20585 http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press109.html.Google Scholar
Energy Educators of Ontario. 1993. Energy from Waste. Energy Fact Sheet.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. “Allowance Allocations.” Acid Rain Program. http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/trading/html.Google Scholar
Gustavsson, L., Borjesson, P., Johansson, B., and Svenningsson, P. 1995. “Reducing CO2 Emissions by Substituting Biomass for Fossil Fuels.” Energy 20(11): 1097–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haase, S.G., Quinn, M.W., and Whittier, J.P. 1995. “Urban Wood Waste Resource Assessment, The State of Indiana.” NEOS Corporation. Lakewood, CO 80228 USA.Google Scholar
Hohenstein, W.G., and Wright, L.L. 1994. “Biomass Energy Production in the United States: An Overview.” Biomass and Bioenergy 6(3): 161–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, E.E., and Wiltsee, G.A. Jr. 1997. “Comparative Evaluation of Fuel Costs from Energy Crops.” Private Consultants.Google Scholar
Information Unit on Climate Change. 1991. “The Economics of Carbon Taxes” The United Nations. http://www.unep.ch/iucc/fs230.html.Google Scholar
Jirjis, R. 1995. “Storage and Drying of Wood Fuel.” Biomass and Bioenergy 9(1-5): 181–90.Google Scholar
Kanetkar, R.S. 1997. “Optimizing Fuel Mix for Co-firing: A Case Study of NIPSCO Power Plant.” Unpublished paper. Purdue University. West Lafayette, IN. 47906.Google Scholar
Manufacturers’ News, Inc. 1994. “1994 Indiana Manufacturers Directory.” Evanston, Ill. 60201.Google Scholar
Meridian Corporation. 1900. Short-Rotation Intensive Culture of Woody Crops for Energy. Prepared for the Great Lakes Regional Biomass Energy Program, Council of Great Lakes Governors.Google Scholar
Michigan City Chamber of Commerce. 1997. “Community Information.” http://www.michigancitychamber.com.Google Scholar
Moore, T. 1996. “Harvesting the Benefits of Biomass.” EPRI Journal, pp. 16–25 (May/June).Google Scholar
Mutanen, K. 1993. “Opportunities for Bioenergy in Power Generation.” Energy Engineering 90(5).Google Scholar
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 1900. “NREL's Alternative Fuels User Facility.” Developing Cleaner Fuels for Vehicles. http://www.nrel.gov/lab/pao/afuf.html.Google Scholar
Neuhauser, E.F., White, E.H., Peterson, J.M., Abrahamson, L.P., Robison, D.J., and Benjamin, W.H. 1997. “Northeast Energy Perspective: Willow Biomass-Bioenergy Industry Development.” Proceedings of the First Conference of the Short-Rotation Woody Crops Operations Working Group. Paducah, Kentucky (September).Google Scholar
Parry, I.W.H. 1997. “Reducing Carbon Emissions: Interactions with the Tax System Raise the Cost.” Resources (summer).Google Scholar
Ranney, J.W., and Mann, L.K. 1994. “Environmental Considerations in Energy Crop Production.” Biomass and Bioenergy 6(3): 211–28.Google Scholar
Robison, D.J., Abrahamson, L.P., White, E.H., and Volk, T.A. 1996. “Biomass for Bioenergy: A New Agri-Forest Crop Slated For Commercialization.” New York Forest Owner. pp. 6–7 (Nov/Dec).Google Scholar
Sandoval, D. 1997. “A Budding Plan: New York Researchers Hope to Get Cleaners Fuel From Home-Grown Shrubs.” SourceBook. The Reddy Corporation International, pp. 16–18 (March).Google Scholar
Spinelli, R., and Kofman, P. 1997. “A Review of Short-Rotation Forestry Harvesting in Europe.” In Proceeding of the First Conference of the Short-Rotation Woody Crops. U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Auburn University, Al.Google Scholar
Stjemquist, I. 1994. “An Integrated Environmental Analysis of Short Rotation Forests as a Biomass Resource.” Biomass and Bioenergy 6(½): 3–10.Google Scholar
Strauss, C.H., Grado, S.C., Blankenhorn, P.R., and Bowersox, T.W. 1988. “Economic Evaluations of Multiple Rotation SRIC Biomass Plantations.” Solar Energy 41(2): 207–14.Google Scholar
Strauss, C.H., and Wright, L.L. 1990. “Woody Biomass Production Costs in the United States: An Economics Summary of Commercial Populus Plantation Systems.” Solar Energy 45(2): 105–10.Google Scholar
Turnbull, J. 1994. “Developing an Integrated Approach to Biomass Energy Systems in the United States.” Biomass and Bioenergy 6(1&2): 151–8.Google Scholar
University of Illinois. 1997. “Farm Income and Production Cost Summary from Illinois Farm Business Records.” Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics in Cooperation with the Cooperative Extension Service and Illinois Farm Business Farm Management Association. College of Agricultural, Consumer, and Environmental Sciences. University of Illinois. Urbana-Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1994. “1992 Census of Agriculture” Part 14: Indiana State and County Data. Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
Volk, T. 1997a. “Why Willow.” Willow Biomass News 1(1).Google Scholar
Volk, T. 1997b. “Environmental Benefits Associated with Willow Biomass Crops.” Willow Biomass News 1(2)(July).Google Scholar
Wisconsin Energy Bureau. 1994. The Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Use in Wisconsin. Division of Energy and Intergovernmental Relations (April).Google Scholar
Wood Supply Research Group (WSRG). 1997. Short-Rotation Forestry Handbook. University of Aberdeen, Department of Forestry, Aberdeen, Scotland.Google Scholar
World Coal. 1996. “Co-firing: Friend or Foe?” (December).Google Scholar
Wright, L.L. 1994. “Production Technology Status of Woody and Herbaceous Crops.” Biomass and Bioenergy 6(3): 191–209.Google Scholar
Wright, L.L. 1995. “Demonstration and Commercial Production of Biomass for Energy.” Proceedings, Second Biomass Conference of the Americas: Energy, Environment, Agriculture, and Industry, pp. 1–10, Portland, Oregon (August).Google Scholar
Zerbe, J.I. 1988a. “Sources of Uses of Wood for Energy.” In: Proceedings from International Symposium: Energy Options for the Year 2000: Contemporary Concepts in Technology and Policy 1.243-1.254.Google Scholar
Zerbe, J.I. 1988b. “Biofuels: Production and Potential.” Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy (winter).Google Scholar