Article

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: 5.48). 12/2009; 44(1):538-44. DOI: 10.1021/es902555a
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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

Full-text

Available from: Heather L. Maclean, Mar 19, 2014
2 Followers
 · 
796 Views
  • 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
  • Source
    • "Life cycle GHG emissions from electricity generation using wood pellets and reference fossil fuels (coal, natural gas) domestically, exclusive of forest carbon impacts, are presented in Fig. 3. These results are similar to prior studies (Zhang et al., 2010; McKechnie et al., 2011), with a small improvement in GHG emissions reductions due to lower upstream emissions from wood pellet manufacture in the present study. Relative to the coal reference pathway, domestic use of wood pellets reduces GHG emissions by 92%. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While bioenergy plays a key role in strategies for increasing renewable energy deployment, studies assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from forest bioenergy systems have identified a potential trade-off of the system with forest carbon stocks. Of particular importance to national GHG inventories is how trade-offs between forest carbon stocks and bioenergy production are accounted for within the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector under current and future international climate change mitigation agreements. Through a case study of electricity produced using wood pellets from harvested forest stands in Ontario, Canada, this study assesses the implications of forest carbon accounting approaches on net emissions attributable to pellets produced for domestic use or export. Particular emphasis is placed on the forest management reference level (FMRL) method, as it will be employed by most Annex I nations in the next Kyoto Protocol Commitment Period. While bioenergy production is found to reduce forest carbon sequestration, under the FMRL approach this trade-off may not be accounted for and thus not incur an accountable AFOLU-related emission, provided that total forest harvest remains at or below that defined under the FMRL baseline. In contrast, accounting for forest carbon trade-offs associated with harvest for bioenergy results in an increase in net GHG emissions (AFOLU and life cycle emissions) lasting 37 or 90 years (if displacing coal or natural gas combined cycle generation, respectively). AFOLU emissions calculated using the Gross-Net approach are dominated by legacy effects of past management and natural disturbance, indicating near-term net forest carbon increase but longer-term reduction in forest carbon stocks. Export of wood pellets to EU markets does not greatly affect the total life cycle GHG emissions of wood pellets. However, pellet exporting countries risk creating a considerable GHG emissions burden, as they are responsible for AFOLU and bioenergy production emissions but do not receive credit for pellets displacing fossil fuel-related GHG emissions. Countries producing bioenergy from forest biomass, whether for domestic use or for export, should carefully consider potential implications of alternate forest carbon accounting methods to ensure that potential bioenergy pathways can contribute to GHG emissions reduction targets.
    Environmental Science & Policy 12/2014; 44:164–173. DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.07.006 · 3.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Most life-cycle assessments of biofuels have focused on agricultural feedstocks (e.g., Davis et al. 2009); whereas life-cycle assessments of electricity generation have included woody biomass, agricultural residues, and energy crops (Froese et al. 2009; Evans et al. 2010; Sebastian et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2010b; McKechnie et al. 2011). Zhang et al. (2010b) found that 100% utilization of wood pellets in power generation in Ontario had a very significant mitigation impact, reducing GHG emissions by 91% and 78% relative to baseline coal and natural gas combined cycle systems. However , this analysis used an assumption of C neutrality, and results that incorporate forest C dynamics over time are likely to be different, as discussed earlier in the paper. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Quantitative assessment of Canada's boreal forest mitigation potential is not yet possible, though the range of mitigation activities is known, requirements for sound analyses of options are increasingly understood, and there is emerging recognition that biogeophysical effects need greater attention. Use of a systems perspective highlights trade-offs between activities aimed at increasing carbon storage in the ecosystem, increasing carbon storage in harvested wood products (HWPs), or increasing the substitution benefits of using wood in place of fossil fuels or more emissions-intensive products. A systems perspective also suggests that erroneous conclusions about mitigation potential could result if analyses assume thatHWPcarbon is emitted at harvest, or bioenergy is carbon neutral. The greatest short-run boreal mitigation benefit generally would be achieved by avoiding greenhouse gas emissions; but over the longer run, there could be significant potential in activities that increase carbon removals. Mitigation activities could maximize landscape carbon uptake or maximize landscape carbon density, but not both simultaneously. The difference between the two is the rate at which HWPs are produced to meet society's demands, and mitigation activities could seek to delay or reduce HWP emissions and increase substitution benefits. Use of forest biomass for bioenergy could also contribute though the point in time at which this produces a net mitigation benefit relative to a fossil fuel alternative will be situation-specific. Key knowledge gaps exist in understanding boreal mitigation strategies that are robust to climate change and how mitigation could be integrated with adaptation to climate change
    Environmental Reviews 12/2013; 21(4):293-321. DOI:10.1139/er-2013-0039 · 2.36 Impact Factor