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: 5.33). 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
  • Source
    • "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.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2015 · Journal of Sustainable Forestry
  • 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.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2015 · Environmental Impact Assessment Review
    • "The remainder of systems (n = 11) are unspecified concerning the combustion facility's firing capacity. All systems above 200 MW are systems where CC applications of wood were assessed by us, whereas the DC of wood takes place below 25 MW (with some exceptions for two hypothetical DC scenarios) (Zhang et al. 2010). For all power-generating CC systems (n = 32), the wood is combusted alongside an FF (hard coal: n = 18; lignite: n = 6; natural gas: n = 2; fuel oil: n = 2; peat: n = 1; and NS: n = 3). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Environmental impacts of the provision of wood energy have been analyzed through life cycle assessment (LCA) techniques for many years. Systems for the generation of heat, power, and combined heat and power (CHP) differ, and methodological choices for LCA can vary greatly, leading to inconsistent findings. We analyzed factors that promote these findings by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing LCA studies for wood energy services. The systematic review investigated crucial methodological and systemic factors, such as system boundaries, allocation, transportation, and technologies, for transformation and conversion of North American and European LCA studies. Meta-Analysis was performed on published results in the impact category global warming (GW). A total of 30 studies with 97 systems were incorporated. The studies exhibit great differences in their systemic and methodological choices, as well as their functional units, technologies, and resulting outcomes. A total of 44 systems for the generation of power, with a median impact on GW of 0.169 kilograms (kg) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq) per kilowatt-hour (kWhel), were identified. Results for the biomass fraction only show a median impact on GW of 0.098 kg CO2-eq * kWhel−1. A total of 31 systems producing heat exhibited a median impact on GW of 0.040 kg CO2-eq * kWhth−1. With a median impact on GW of 0.066 kg CO2-eq * kWhel+th−1, CHP systems show the greatest variability among all analyzed wood energy services. To facilitate comparisons, we propose a methodological approach for the description of system boundaries, the basis for calculations, and reporting of findings.
    No preview · Article · Aug 2015 · Journal of Industrial Ecology
Show more