A Commitment to Renewable Biomass Energy & Global Warming by using Nature's own Power Plants!
In unique public and
industry research and commercial demonstration partnerships, the Common Purpose Institute is working to grow, harvest, and use fast growing crops (called energy crop or closed loop biomass) and also biomass waste streams (e.g., clean yardwaste, crop residues, etc.) as renewable
energy biofuel or feedstocks for:
Power Generation (electricity, steam, CHP).
Biogas for Manufacturing use (heat for product drying).
Ethanol production (e.g., sweet sorghum, sugarcane).
Biodiesel production (e.g., soybeans).
Oil (pyrolytic liquids from bioenergy waste streams).
Biorefineries (steam, power, value added bio-products).
Research & Demonstration Collaboration: The Working Group includes the
University of Florida, Florida Energy Office, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers, Electric Utilities, Manufacturing Companies, Ethanol Biofuel Producers, hydrogen technolgies, and others.
Goals & Objectives: Through collaboration in the fields of agriculture and biomass technologies, the Working Group's focus is in three areas:
Displace Coal Use: In generating electricity in the U.S.,     ~90% of all CO2 emissions come from burning coal.
Displace Oil Use: ~70% of all oil consumption in the U.S.     is within the transportation sector. Also in Florida, ~31%     of electricity generation comes from oil.
Increase Competitiveness: As plants close and jobs are     shipped overseas, U.S. Manufacturing has lost its     competitive advantage in the global economy.
By implementing innovative renewable and sustainable bioenergy technologies, not only can environmental (CO2) and energy independence (foreign oil imports) goals be realized -- but U.S. Manufacturing can regain competitiveness by lowering energy costs from fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal).
Biomass Energy & Global Warming: By remembering the basic science of photosynthesis, a
key aspect of our biomass research effort can be easily understood.
Since plants and trees absorb and store
atmospheric carbon as they grow, growing and
using biomass energy crops reduces the level of CO2 emissions into the
atmosphere -- which may be creating Global Warming Climate Change.
The science behind this Strategy to reduce greenhouse gas levels
is accomplished in two ways: First, biomass energy from crops is "carbon
cycle neutral" just like other forms of renewable energy such as
wind or solar power. Second, growing energy crops creates a
"carbon sink" through terrestrial carbon sequestration
by increasing soil organic matter/carbon through
crop root systems and soil chemistry management practices such as:
Recycling the waste stream bagasse/presscake from     ethanol feedstock (e.g., sorghum, sugarcane).
Recycling the char from pyrolysis technologies (e.g.,     biomass gasification).
Using pro-active carbon management farming practices     (e.g., no till, legume rotation crops, etc.).
Because of this creation of a "carbon sink" (a
component which solar and wind energy do not have), we believe
that bioenergy from closed loop energy crops represents the most effective choice in
"alternative energy" options to address Global Warming.
Carbon Reductions of Renewable Energy Options
(Carbon ton/MWh)
For a full discussion why renewable energy base load options such as geothermal or biomass may be more effective than solar or most wind peaking energy options in addressing CO2 emissions, go to our Quick Facts Webpage.
Also, it's important to note that our biomass research and commercial demonstration is using environmentally damaged lands, such as closed mining sites. According to NASA Scientists, one-fifth of the carbon dioxide released annually from fossil-fuel emissions could be "sequestered" by planting energy crops on marginal lands of this type. Hopefully, our work can help create a "Global Model", where thousands of acres now largely considered wastelands can have productive agriculture and environmental use.
For marginal lands such as mining (phosphate, coal, etc.), pre-mined lands were most likely in native forest for hundreds/thousands of years. As such, these sites' soils were probably at carbon saturation. After mining however, empirical research is clear that post-mined lands have little soil carbon.
Thus, any incremental build-up of carbon from post-mined sites (starting from a low percentage close to zero) to a new carbon saturation level (present before mining) would be creating a permanent carbon sink. This concept of "incremental build-up" of carbon levels on mined lands is illustrated in the yellow bar of the graph below.
Carbon Saturation Levels of Pre and Post Mined Soils
Biomass Energy & Pollution: Because energy crop fuel contains almost no sulfur and has
significantly less nitrogen than fossil fuels -- reductions in
pollutants causing acid rain (SO2) and smog (NOx) may be
realized -- improving our air quality. An additional
environmental benefit is in water quality, as energy crop fuel
contains less mercury than coal. Also, energy crop farms using environmentally pro-active designs will create water quality filtration zones, uptaking and sequestering pollutants such as phosphorus and particulates from soils that leach into water bodies.
Biomass Energy & Agriculture: What if the next big oil or natural gas field wasn't in places like the Middle East or Venezuela -- but fields of energy crops (trees, sorghum, switchgrass) grown in Florida and the Southeastern U.S.?
In ongoing research and commercial demonstration (best management agricultural and environmental practices) efforts, "energy crop farms" of non-invasive eucalyptus trees
and various row crops (e.g., soybeans, sweet sorghum, sweet potatoes, energycane) has been established on closed
phosphate mining marginal lands (non-irrigated) in central Florida.
The Project reflects decades of tree research conducted by the
University of Florida and Shell Energy to produce
"Super
Trees" which may grow 20 feet a year (yielding 32 green tons
and 16 dry tons per acre per year).
Also, significant collaboration is occurring with sorghum seed companies in the development and/or commercialization of varieties (F4 hybrids, cultivars) producing high yields (~30 green tons per harvest) and high Brix (sugar content) that can be grown year-round in Florida's warm climate providing crop feedstocks (not competing with food markets) for ethanol and other biofuel production.
Another important
aspect of "Energy Crops" is that they can also represent a
sustainable renewable energy resource -- since our trees, certain row crops like sugarcane and possibly sorghum, will re-grow
after each harvest (coppice, ratoon) -- allowing multiple harvests without having to re-plant (called short rotation crops).
A key aspect of our agriculture research and demonstration efforts is the development of Strategies to vertically integrate Farming into Bioenergy projects -- allowing Farmers to participate in a profitable "process end" (e.g., biofuel ethanol production) of agriculture rather than just selling a commodity based raw product (e.g., corn, soybeans, etc.). All of these Strategies have a common nexus to create "value added" products and services to become a low cost Producer.
If our team of scientists, engineers, farmers, and environmentalists
are successful, energy crops could provide:
A clean alternative energy biofuel for power plants.
Feedstocks for ethanol (cellulose or sugar/starch platforms) and biodiesel.
New cash crops to farmers & rural economic development.
Greater Energy Independence (foreign oil & natural gas).
Productive use of environmentally damaged lands.
Biomass Energy Engineering for Electricity Generation: The power plant engineering behind our efforts is also
innovative, using an approach called biomass co-firing. With co-firing,
an existing power generation facility is modified to allow use
of energy crop fuel -- changing the fuel mix from a current 100%
dependence on fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, natural gas) to
approximately 5% biomass fuel and 95% fossil fuels.
While displacing relatively small percentages of fossil fuel
use with biomass energy crops may
not sound like much, it is very significant when recognizing the
tremendous size of electricity generation facilities. For
example, co-firing energy crops at just one medium size power
plant would be the equivalent of installing over
41,000
large solar panels -- or in reducing CO2 emission levels,
by removing approximately 17,000 cars off the road.
Co-utilizing "Energy Crop Fuel" especially with coal is both
effective and economically promising because it doesn’t require
major changes in existing technology at power plants.
Instead of building new power generating facilities, which would
ultimately result in higher costs to the consumer,
we are working with scientists and engineers
to change the fuel blend. It’s a novel approach to creating
Renewable Energy,
and if it works, there’s potential for immediate commercial use
by electric utilities offering
their customers a low cost option to purchase "Green
Energy".
In biomass co-firing, there are three primary approaches to biomass fuel delivery into the existing power plant: Solid Fuel Blending; Solid Fuel Direct Injection; and External Gasification.
Examples include: (1) Blending coal and biomass fuel together for a cyclone coal unit; (2) Directly injecting only biomass fuel through dedicated fuel ports into a pulverized coal unit; (3) Creating biogas in an external gasifier and then piping the hot gas into an existing coal, oil, or natural gas boiler.
An intriguing aspect of this third option is the potential to use the biogas high in the boiler's re-burn zone -- possibly avoiding the need to install costly pollution control equipment (e.g., Selective Catalytic Reduction or SCR) at a coal unit. Engineering research suggests that the "hot tar" fraction in the "hot raw" biogas is particularly reactive and may reduce NOx emissions between 50% and 70%.
Working with Electric Utilities, U.S. Department of Energy Labs (NETL, NREL, ORNL), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and Others -- we have performed biomass co-firing engineering research (called "test burns") on all major combustion technologies of cyclone, pulverized coal, and combined cycle gasification (IGCC) units.
Biomass Energy Engineering for Industrial Applications: Within the Industrial/Manufacturing sector, biomass gasification is used for electricity, steam, co-generation, and heat for product drying. Also, with developing advancements in engineering technology, biomass gasification can be used for ethanol production (cellulose based ethanol).
Biomass gasification designs can generally be classified into two broad categories producing a low (~200 Btu/scf) to medium (~400 Btu/scf) Btu gas -- (compared to ~1,000 Btu/scf for natural gas):
Fixed Bed (e.g., HMI Wellman Galusha, Nexterra updraft     design).
Fluidized or Bubbling Bed (e.g., Taylor Biomass Energy).
In common industrial applications (e.g., process heat for product drying), the hot raw gas from the biomass gasifier is sent either to a heat exchanger or an electrostatic precipitator. If process steam is required, a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) or package boiler would be used.
Biomass Energy Economic Incentives:
A significant economic incentive to use biomass fuel feedstock for electricity generation is the Federal "Production Tax Credit -- PTC" (Section 45) which provides a tax credit valued at ~2¢ per kWh for electricity generation. However, since the PTC is a direct dollar-for-dollar reduction in taxes (versus a deduction to taxable income) the 2¢ must be adjusted to reflect its true production cost value (dividing 2¢ by 1 minus the tax rate). Thus, the true economic value of the PTC is ~3¢ per kWh.
For example, if the production cost of using closed loop biomass fuels was 3¢ per kWh (e.g., crop cost, O&M, capital financing costs, etc.), the net production costs would be zero.
Another economic benefit of biomass energy is the emerging U.S. market for selling carbon credits (e.g., Chicago Board of Exchange -- CBOE). As of July 2008, CO2 credits on the CBOE were trading at ~$3.95 per metric ton of CO2.
Biomass energy projects create carbon credits in two ways:
Fossil fuel displacement in power generation.
Carbon sequestration by growing energy crops.
The Biorefinery Concept: In addition to the above electric utility power plant project work, we are working with Industrial Companies to integrate a variety of biomass raw feedstocks (e.g., cellulose, sugar/starch crops or waste streams) and conversion processes (e.g., biotechnology) into a single facility called a biorefinery at an existing "host" industrial plant:
Steam and Power Co-generation (using syngas).
Fuel Products (e.g., ethanol, pyrolysis bio-oil)
Value Added Products (e.g., chemicals, materials).
Our approach in creating a biorefinery is fundamentally the same as the approach used with electric utility power plant co-firing -- where an existing industrial "host" facility is modified for biomass applications utilizing as much of the existing engineering infrastructure as possible (e.g., avoiding high capital costs of a new stand alone bioenergy or biorefinery facility).
From an industrial company's perspective, the large economic incentive with this approach is the displacement of high cost natural gas (and in Florida, also oil) with lower cost biogas in the generation of steam/power (i.e., cogeneration) and/or process heat (i.e., product drying) for the industrial company's "core market" products.
Volatility of Natural Gas Prices 2005 to 2008
($/MMBtu)
(Note: Above prices reflect only the wellhead price of natural gas and do not include any transportation & distribution costs of ~$1.00 per MMBtu.)
Current Short Range Estimates of Fuel Prices
(December 2008)
Fuel Resource:
|
$'s per MMBtu |
Reference Notes:
|
Oil (1) |
$7.43 |
~$43 per Barrel |
Natural Gas (1) |
$5.68 |
Henry Hub |
Eastern Coal |
$3.59 |
$90/ton (12,500 Btu)(2) |
Biomass |
$2.38
| ~$20 per Green Ton (3) |
(1) U.S. Department of Energy's EIA Weekly Update. For natural gas, ~$1.00/MMBtu should be added to the Henry Hub price for transportation & distribution costs. (2) U.S. Department of Energy's Average Weekly Coal Commodity Spot Prices. Add ~$30/ton (~$1.20/MMBtu) to spot commodity price for transportation costs.
(3) Hog fuel woodchips in Florida with ~48% moisture and 4,160 btu's per pound. On a dry basis, this equates to a price of ~$38 per ton with ~8,000 btu's per pound. |
Example of Biomass Energy in Florida: While there are compelling economic, environmental, and national security (foreign oil dependency) arguments why biomass energy resources need to be developed in the U.S., there is perhaps no greater example of this than in Florida.
While oil used for electricity generation is only ~6% nation-wide, oil is 31% of the electric utility fuel mix in Florida.
 
An illustration of low hanging fruit for reducing foreign oil dependency would be the installation of a new external biomass gasifier to an existing electric utility oil fired boiler (e.g., a fuel switching co-firing strategy discussed previously).
Through our biomass gasification project development efforts in Florida, the below chart is a good approximation of the production cost of implementing this fuel switching approach.
However, it should be noted that the "net" production cost of biomass gasification would be even lower when factoring in economic incentives such as the production tax credit (I.R.C. Section 45) and carbon credits.
Biomass Gasification Production Costs:
|
$'s per MMBtu |
Biomass Fuel Cost |
$2.58 |
Labor Personnel Cost |
$1.25 |
Capital Costs |
$1.18 |
Operation & Maintenance Costs |
$0.96 |
Utility Costs |
$0.48 |
Administrative Costs |
$0.23 |
Total Production Costs |
$6.68 |
The below chart illustrate the economic benefit that electricity consumers could realize if utility companies started implementing a biomass energy co-firing approach (fuel switching) at various price levels of oil per barrel. For example,
Cost Savings of Biomass Gasification Versus Oil Use($/MMBtu)
Biomass Energy & Native Habitats: Also included in this Research Effort are special project
advisors from leading environmentalists, such as the
Sierra Club, Audubon Society, and the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation
Commission -- ensuring that natural wildlife habitats are
preserved and enhanced.
A key aspect of this environmental habitat work effort is using energy crops as "Bridge Crops" to reclaim/restore severely damaged closed phosphate mining sites.
As a non profit 501-c-3 environmental corporation, The Common Purpose Institute makes all the information available on the treepower.org website free to the general public. However, all information is copyright protected and any use of this information for commercial/profit purposes (e.g., such as engineering consulting companies) must be approved by the Common Purpose Institute.
|