After Gutenberg

Subtitle: Think of it as a Global Surgeon General’s Warning

The generation of electricity from the combustion of biomass is other than “fuel-less” power. While emissions are produced, the argument is that zero net emissions occur. The basis for the argument is an assumption that any CO₂ emitted is re-captured by plants to complete the cycle.

Heating with biomass results in a carbon neutral cycle. Biomass as a fuel adds no net carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere because the CO2 released during the combustion process is absorbed by plants as they grow,

Syngas promoters use the life cycle assumption to promote gasification of biomass, knowing full well that only a small portion of U.S. total energy consumption could be met with biomass and counting upon “practicalities” to feed pulverized coal to the gasifiers.

While the production of Syngas by the gasification of carbon-bearing feedstock does well in an economic analysis, it does less well environmentally, i.e., in terms of aggregate increases in greenhouse gases or toxins. The amount and type of toxins depends upon the source of feedstock.

As previously noted all eyes are on Ottawa’s Trail Road Landfill to see whether its plasma gasification technology could be cost effective, while keeping below strict environmental and emissions standards.

Coal-fired electric power plants comprise the single biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world. The U.S. is greatest producer of CO2 emissions per capita in the world and the second most inefficient generation per capita. In the US we use 22.5 Quads (quadrillion BTUs) of energy from coal annually.

Meanwhile, the Southeast region of the United States lacks solar or wind resources on par with other parts of the nation, noted Graham Jesmer, Staff Writer for Renewable Energy Access. In an interview with a state facilitator for 25x’25, an organization that works on the state level to promote renewable energy legislation, he learned that some believe biomass could be a key to meeting the repeatedly proposed, always defeated, RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard).

What is needed, said the spokesperson, is a more economical way to select feedstocks and transport the fuels.

There will certainly need to be a large mix. No one technology is going to be able to solve the problem. Given the resources, I don’t think an RPS is unachievable. But there will have to incentives for companies to look at alternatives.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG; and, such anthropogenic emissions unequivocally contribute to climate change. The rise of CO2 corresponds to the rise in global temperature and loss of arctic ice mass. Annual carbon emissions grew by about 80% between 1970 and 2004. Coal-fired electric power plants comprise the single biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world. By and large, such admonishments are being ignored by U.S. policy-makers.

What is needed, in this blog’s opinion, is some cracker accountability. David Wheeler notes, “When full social and environmental costs are included… coal is more expensive than currently-available zero-emission technologies such as solar and wind.” If the utility companies were encouraged to take a true accounting of coal’s cost, they would be beating down the doors to switch to renewable energy sources. In other words, a carbon tax would be “the stick” for their aversion to massive increases in emissions. Such a transformation also would “jump start” commercialization of clean technologies. Such a transformation would challenge the dominance of fossil energy systems on a sufficiently large enough scale.

Wheeler recommends the following, simple three step assessment:

1. Adopt an explicit carbon accounting charge that can be defended as consistent with atmospheric safe limits for carbon loading. In view of the current scientific consensus, it will be very surprising if this is below $50/ton for carbon dioxide.
2. Add this charge to cost estimates for all proposed fossil-fuel energy projects (oil and gas as well as coal), with and without carbon capture and storage. Costs should also be adjusted for local pollution factors, fuel supply risks and risk insurance.
3. Compare the results with generating costs for locally-feasible zero-emissions options, with an appropriate learning-curve adjustment.