About us
-
The BioPact unites EU citizens and African citizens who work towards a common bioenergy future, in which the EU couples part of its green energy policies to its humanitarian and development policies in Africa. We also monitor biofuels and bioenergy news coming from the developing world in general.
Read the Pact
Discuss
Categories (used this week only - for more, please use the Technorati search engine below)
Resources
- Bioenergy
- Bioenergy basics
- IEA Bioenergy
- EU Renewable Energy Portal
- FAO Bioenergy
- FAO Forest Energy Program
- Bioenergy Network of Excellence
- Bioenergy Future Group
- Bioenergy International
- Bioenergy Mailing List
- EUEI: European Energy Initiative for Poverty Eradication & Sustainable Development
- LAMNET: International cooperation on Bioenergy in the developing world
- Global Village Energy Partnership
- SparkNet: nergy for low-income households in Southern and East Africa
- World Energy Council: energy for sustainable development
- International Network for Sustainable Energy (in the South)
- The Energy & Resources Institute
- The Energy for Development Summit
- Renewable Energy for Development (SEI)
- CARENSA: Cane Resources Network for Southern Africa (supported by the EU)
- WIP: Partner in Renewable Energies (commercial but supports lots of projects in developing world)
- ETA: Partner in Renewable Energies (commercial but supports lots of projects in developing world)
- EUBIA: European Biomass Industry Association
- ENDA: Energie, Environnement et Développement
- Société Civile (République Démocratique du Congo)
- Wegweiser Bürgergesellschaft
- Ubuntu: World Forum of Civil Society Networks
- Choike: a portal on Southern civil societies
- Civil Society Building
- CSO at the UNDP
- Attac
- World Social Forum
- European Social Forum
- ADEME: France's energy & environment agency
- The EU's "Green Paper" energy website
- EuropaBio
- Bio-Economy: The EU Bio-based Economy web
- Alternatives Economiques
- Coopération Internationale pour le Développement et la Solidarité
- Agir Ici
- Centre de Recherche et d'Information pour le Développement
- Raisons d'Agir
- WorldChanging
- BioConversion Blog
- AllAfrica/slash/Sustainable
- AllAfrica/slash/Energy (Anglophone)
- AllAfrica/slash/Énergie (Franco- & lusophone)
Energy & development
Civil Society in Africa
Altermondialism
EU & African institutions
Social & green think tanks
Bio-blogs
Energy News from Africa
Previous Posts
- How about involving 30,000 poor families in biofuel production?
- Biofuels super power Congo implements transparancy in natural resources management
- Developing world to cut one billion tons of CO2 emissions by 2012 - U.N.
- Biofuels: to certificate or not to certificate, that is the question.
- The Global Benefits of Biofuels - a quick overview
- Producing ethanol from agricultural waste a step closer
- All vehicles to use ethanol in Japan by 2030: report
- Quicknotes on biofuels, from the lusophone world
- Biorefineries: Denmark global pioneer
- France's highly efficient trains to test 100% pure plant oil
Archives
-
2003-06-08
2003-11-16
2003-12-28
2004-02-15
2004-03-21
2004-04-04
2004-04-11
2004-04-18
2004-04-25
2004-05-30
2004-09-12
2004-10-17
2004-10-24
2005-01-30
2005-02-27
2005-04-10
2005-05-01
2005-05-29
2005-07-10
2005-08-07
2005-09-18
2005-10-02
2005-12-04
2006-01-01
2006-02-12
2006-02-19
2006-03-19
2006-04-02
2006-04-09
2006-04-23
2006-04-30
2006-05-07
2006-05-14
2006-05-21
2006-05-28
2006-06-04
2006-06-11
Monday, May 08, 2006
In face of energy crisis, biomass comes out as clear winner
The problems of coal are well documented and extend beyond the significant carbon dioxide emitted from coal-fired power plants. Even clean coal facilities produce an immense amount of sludge and release sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, mercury and ozone into the atmosphere. A 1996 study undertaken by the Harvard School of Public Health concluded that coal-fired power plants are directly responsible for killing 30,000 Americans every year. The Clean Air Task Force notes that most of this pollution is concentrated close to where coal is combusted. In other words, the more coal burnt near Tech, the more its residents are incrementally poisoned.
Moreover, the mountaintop and strip-mining of coal presents numerous hazards for miners and have been proven to contaminate freshwater ecosystems and ruin habitats. And coal is becoming an increasingly expensive fuel. During most of the 1990s, Tech paid around $19 per ton. Last year that cost was $37.50, and it is expected to approach $65 for the 2005-2006 academic year.
Natural gas and oil present arguably cleaner alternatives, but are subject to frequent price spikes and interruptions. The Energy Information Administration documented price swings of over $50 per GJ for natural gas during March of 2005. Gray Davis, the former governor of California, recently commented that natural gas prices played a significant role in the 2001-2002 California Electricity Crisis. In addition, increasing natural gas demand requires the construction of new pipelines and expensive regasification facilities, and only deepens American dependence on foreign countries that supply natural gas such as Algeria, Brunei, Indonesia, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar and Trinidad and Tobago. Oil perpetuates the same type of dependence (with a different list of countries), and is becoming much more expensive as prices pass $50 per barrel.
Among these choices, the construction of a biomass facility is clearly the best option. Such a facility could use the abundant sources of woodchips, forest products, poultry waste, trash and agricultural residues available in the community. Moreover, such a facility could produce the needed 30 MW of electricity while recycling steam waste to produce heat and air conditioning. While a biomass facility would likely cost around $50 million to build and $3 million annually to operate, it would generate $2-4 million per year in steam and chilled water and produce electricity valued at about $4 million. Put simply: the facility would pay for itself in under nine years.
The comparative benefits from a biomass facility are numerous. First, unlike coal, which is imported from outside of the state, a Tech biomass facility would create jobs in Blacksburg. While the operational costs of a biomass facility are comparable to a coal plant, a biomass facility would require dozens of local workers for fuel processing and transportation – jobs that would not be created any other way. Some estimates suggest that such a facility could create over 100 local jobs in Blacksburg alone.
Unlike the combustion of coal, biomass produced electricity does not add to the inventory of global carbon dioxide because it does not release fossilized carbon into the atmosphere. Thus, even though combustion of biomass does release some carbon dioxide, it does not add to global warming. A 2003 Department of Energy report concluded that “biomass can significantly reduce emissions compared to a coal-only option.” Such a facility could also reduce electricity costs by charging tipping fees to pick up waste instead of having to pay for fuel. Since most farmers pay $35 per ton to remove their waste, tipping fees could constitute a significant financial benefit. Such a facility would also enable engineers to get hands-on experience working with waste-to-energy technology, programs that have greatly benefited Princeton University and the University of Florida.
It is important to note that biomass is not a panacea to the nation’s energy problems. Many regions are better suited for wind turbines, photovoltaic systems and small hydro facilities. Biomass combustion does release significant amounts of air pollution, and the effects of power plant construction and use of wastes and residues could harm various ecosystems. Yet a properly designed biomass plant with proper environmental assessment and scrubber and filter technology could overcome these problems.
Relying on coal, natural gas and oil power plants does nothing to increase local employment. Moreover, it impoverishes the environment and it subjects Tech to a costly dependence on out-of-state fuel. In contrast, a local biomass facility would cut electricity costs, reduce emissions and create jobs here in Blacksburg. From any angle, biomass is the clear winner. Before you go home for the summer, write to Tech administrators and tell them to choose biomass.
Benjamin K. Sovacool
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Science & Technology Studies
Collegiate Times.
Full article
ethanol :: biodiesel :: biofuels :: bioenergy :: biomass :: renewables :: energy :: sustainability :: Africa ::
posted by Laurens Rademakers at 9:43 PM 0 comments