Life Cycle Emissions and Cost of Producing Electricity from Coal, Natural Gas, and Wood Pellets in Ontario, Canada

Department of Civil Engineering and School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto, 35 St. George Street Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4, Canada.
Environmental Science and Technology (Impact Factor: 5.33). 12/2009; 44(1):538-44. DOI: 10.1021/es902555a
Source: PubMed


The use of coal is responsible for (1)/(5) of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Substitution of coal with biomass fuels is one of a limited set of near-term options to significantly reduce these emissions. We investigate, on a life cycle basis, 100% wood pellet firing and cofiring with coal in two coal generating stations (GS) in Ontario, Canada. GHG and criteria air pollutant emissions are compared with current coal and hypothetical natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) facilities. 100% pellet utilization provides the greatest GHG benefit on a kilowatt-hour basis, reducing emissions by 91% and 78% relative to coal and NGCC systems, respectively. Compared to coal, using 100% pellets reduces NO(x) emissions by 40-47% and SO(x) emissions by 76-81%. At $160/metric ton of pellets and $7/GJ natural gas, either cofiring or NGCC provides the most cost-effective GHG mitigation ($70 and $47/metric ton of CO2 equivalent, respectively). The differences in coal price, electricity generation cost, and emissions at the two GS are responsible for the different options being preferred. A sensitivity analysis on fuel costs reveals considerable overlap in results for all options. A lower pellet price ($100/metric ton) results in a mitigation cost of $34/metric ton of CO2 equivalent for 10% cofiring at one of the GS. The study results suggest that biomass utilization in coal GS should be considered for its potential to cost-effectively mitigate GHGs from coal-based electricity in the near term.

Download full-text


Available from: Heather L. Maclean, Mar 19, 2014
619 Reads
    • "Previous studies have demonstrated that the use of forest biomass instead of fossil fuels can contribute to a long-term solution for the fixation of CO 2 . For example, Zhang et al. (2009) compared the amount of emissions produced by the burning of coal, natural gas, and wood pellets for electricity production and the results showed that 100% wood pellet firing provided the greatest GHG benefit on a kilowatt-hour basis. Nienow, McNamara, and Gillespie (2000) assessed wood biomass for cofiring with coal in northern Indiana and the results indicated that cofiring wood biomass at the power plant is a viable method to reduce the amount of air pollution. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study investigates the combined impact of carbon and bioenergy markets on upland oak dominated mixed hardwood forests in the Central Hardwood Forest Region (CHFR) of United States. A modification of the Hartman model was used for the economic analysis of carbon sequestration and using wood-based biomass for bioenergy. A life-cycle assessment was used to determine the amount of carbon sequestered due to stand growth and emitted during harvesting and decay of wood products. Two scenarios were taken, one where additionality of carbon is considered and the other where it is not. Sensitivity analysis was done with the range of carbon and bioenergy prices. The results show that net carbon payments have more impact on LEV when additionality is not considered; in contrast, bioenergy payments have more impact on LEV when additionality is considered. Carbon and bioenergy prices also influenced the amount of stand level supply of forest products and carbon in both scenarios. In general, sawtimber, wood bioenergy, and carbon supply increased with an increase in carbon prices, whereas, pulpwood supply decreased. With few exceptions at higher carbon prices, bioenergy supply decreased with the increase in wood bioenergy prices, showing a backward bending supply curve in both scenarios.
    Journal of Sustainable Forestry 11/2015; 34(3):214-232. DOI:10.1080/10549811.2014.980894
  • Source
    • "In addition, as complex building projects with various functions have increased, a program-level management system should be developed. Under such circumstances, several previous studies were conducted on the environmental impact assessment and life cycle assessment in the civil and construction industry, all the take together, which can be divided into three categories (Cabeza et al., 2014; Ortiz et al., 2009): (i) LCA tools and databases related to the civil and construction industry (Fiksel and Wapman, 1994; Norris, 2001; Paggio et al., 1999; Shokravi et al., 2014); (ii) LCA applications for civil and construction products' selection (Keoleian and Volk, 2005; Lloyd and Lave, 2003; Zhang et al., 2009) and (iii) LCA applications for civil and construction systems and "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Climate change has become one of the most significant environmental issues, of which about 40% come from the building sector. In particular, complex building projects with various functions have increased, which should be managed from a program-level perspective. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a program-level management system for the life-cycle environmental and economic assessment of complex building projects. The developed system consists of three parts: (i) input part: database server and input data; (ii) analysis part: life cycle assessment and life cycle cost; and (iii) result part: microscopic analysis and macroscopic analysis. To analyze the applicability of the developed system, this study selected ‘U’ University, a complex building project consisting of research facility and residential facility. Through value engineering with experts, a total of 137 design alternatives were established. Based on these alternatives, the macroscopic analysis results were as follows: (i) at the program-level, the life-cycle environmental and economic cost in ‘U’ University were reduced by 6.22% and 2.11%, respectively; (ii) at the project-level, the life-cycle environmental and economic cost in research facility were reduced 6.01% and 1.87%, respectively; and those in residential facility, 12.01% and 3.83%, respective; and (iii) for the mechanical work at the work-type-level, the initial cost was increased 2.9%; but the operation and maintenance phase was reduced by 20.0%. As a result, the developed system can allow the facility managers to establish the operation and maintenance strategies for the environmental and economic aspects from a program-level perspective.
    Environmental Impact Assessment Review 09/2015; 54. DOI:10.1016/j.eiar.2015.04.005 · 2.60 Impact Factor
    • "A number of authors [20e23] have emphasized the importance of addressing this timing issue, with Levasseur et al. [22] calling for the use of " dynamic LCA " to characterize both the timing and climatic forcing of GHG emissions . Relative to another LCA methodological issue, bioenergy LCA comparisons commonly (e.g., [5] [6]) assume that a bioenergy facility would consume the average electricity mix in its operations, while the electricity added to the grid would displace the marginal source, such as coal or natural gas. The implications of these emissions timing and mixed-method problems on comparative LCA results for bioenergy systems remain inadequately examined. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In part I of our two-part study, we compare the timing-adjusted greenhouse gas (GHG) balance and life cycle impacts of potentially using harvest residue (unmerchantable small-diameter roundwood) in an existing large (211 MWe) wood pellet-fired (formerly coal-fired) power plant in Ontario, Canada, versus a hypothetical small (250 kWe) wood chip gasification plant that recovers heat in addition to producing electricity. Although the large, retrofitted power plant has a higher electrical efficiency, the small plant has lower environmental impacts (TRACI 2.1), mainly due to the benefits of drying the biomass inputs with recovered heat, having a shorter fuel shipping distance, and reduced biomass processing. The small plant emits 38 g of fossil fuel-derived CO2 eq./kWh, versus 134 g/kWh from its large-scale counterpart. Although these GHG emissions are insignificant relative to the forest carbon emissions from gasification and combustion (1.3-1.4 kg CO2/kWh), the harvest residue would have decomposed over time had it been left on the forest floor. After 100 years, forest carbon storage decreases by 3.8-4.1 kg from the sustained production of 1 kWh of electricity per year. The decline in carbon storage delays net GHG mitigation by 4 (small-scale system) to 7 years (large-scale system) when displacing electricity from coal.
    Energy 07/2015; DOI:10.1016/ · 4.84 Impact Factor
Show more