14.01.2015 Views

Biomass Feasibility Project Final Report - Xcel Energy

Biomass Feasibility Project Final Report - Xcel Energy

Biomass Feasibility Project Final Report - Xcel Energy

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Most promising categories. The bar graph below narrows our focus to the categories we have<br />

identified as economically feasible for bio-power applications. The gap between technical and<br />

economic limitations varies by feedstock type. Technical limitations account for most of the<br />

difference between the total energy and bio-power potential energy of hays, straws and stalks.<br />

For woody biomass, most of the difference between total energy content and bio-power<br />

potential is due to economic limitations. For manures each limitation plays a roughly equal role.<br />

500,000<br />

450,000<br />

Total<br />

Total<br />

400,000<br />

Technical<br />

350,000<br />

300,000<br />

Billion Btu<br />

250,000<br />

200,000<br />

Technical<br />

Economic<br />

150,000<br />

100,000<br />

50,000<br />

Economic<br />

Total<br />

Technical<br />

Economic<br />

0<br />

Agricultural Residues Wood Manures<br />

Figure III-13: Theoretical, Technical, and Economic Potential of<br />

Crop Residues, Wood, and Manures<br />

Comparing Costs of <strong>Biomass</strong> and Fossil Fuels<br />

Hays, straws, and stalks and woody residues are the most abundant sources for biomass power<br />

feedstocks, but currently tend to be more expensive than coal. Figure III-14 illustrates the cost<br />

components of baled switchgrass, logging residues, and hybrid poplars in comparison to<br />

delivered coal. It is important to note that, as with other products, the per unit price of coal may<br />

decrease with higher volumes. Large scale coal-fired power plants (hundreds of MWs) operated<br />

under long-term utility contracts may pay around $1.08/MMBtu while smaller facilities (hundreds<br />

of kWs to tens of MWs) will pay higher amounts around $2.60/MMBtu (Lindquist, 2007). When<br />

comparing fuels for smaller plants, a higher cost of coal estimate would be more appropriate.<br />

This of course does not include any added environmental taxes that may be implemented at a<br />

later date (something to consider with such long-term operation schedules). Much discussion<br />

surrounds the idea of establishing carbon taxes to combat global warming. If such taxes were<br />

instituted, the price of coal could increase dramatically.<br />

Page 38<br />

Identifying Effective <strong>Biomass</strong> Strategies:<br />

Quantifying Minnesota’s Resources and Evaluating Future Opportunities

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!