Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.
Please confirm you are human
(Sign Up for free to never see this)
← Back to Search

National-level Infrastructure And Economic Effects Of Switchgrass Cofiring With Coal In Existing Power Plants For Carbon Mitigation.

W. Morrow, W. M. Griffin, H. S. Matthews
Published 2008 · Engineering, Medicine

Save to my Library
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy
We update a previously presented Linear Programming (LP) methodology for estimating state level costs for reducing CO2 emissions from existing coal-fired power plants by cofiring switchgrass, a biomass energy crop, and coal. This paper presents national level results of applying the methodology to the entire portion of the United States in which switchgrass could be grown without irrigation. We present incremental switchgrass and coal cofiring carbon cost of mitigation curves along with a presentation of regionally specific cofiring economics and policy issues. The results show that cofiring 189 million dry short tons of switchgrass with coal in the existing U.S. coal-fired electricity generation fleet can mitigate approximately 256 million short tons of carbon-dioxide (CO2) per year, representing a 9% reduction of 2005 electricity sector CO2 emissions. Total marginal costs, including capital, labor, feedstock, and transportation, range from $20 to $86/ton CO2 mitigated,with average costs ranging from $20 to $45/ton. If some existing power plants upgrade to boilers designed for combusting switchgrass, an additional 54 million tons of switchgrass can be cofired. In this case, total marginal costs range from $26 to $100/ton CO2 mitigated, with average costs ranging from $20 to $60/ton. Costs for states east of the Mississippi River are largely unaffected by boiler replacement; Atlantic seaboard states represent the lowest cofiring cost of carbon mitigation. The central plains states west of the Mississippi River are most affected by the boiler replacement option and, in general, go from one of the lowest cofiring cost of carbon mitigation regions to the highest. We explain the variation in transportation expenses and highlight regional cost of mitigation variations as transportation overwhelms other cofiring costs.
This paper references
Biomass for electricity generation
G. Gallagher (2001)
Techno-economic study of CO2 capture from an existing coal-fired power plant: MEA scrubbing vs. O2/CO2 recycle combustion
D. Singh (2003)
ORRECL-Oak Ridge Energy Crop County Level Database
R. Graham (1996)
Fossil electricity and CO2 sequestration: how natural gas prices, initial conditions and retrofits determine the cost of controlling CO2 emissions
T. L. Johnson (2004)
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies
P. Riemer (1999)
Assessment of potential carbon dioxide reductions due to biomass-coal cofiring in the United States.
A. Robinson (2003)
Biomass and bioenergy applications of the POLYSYS modeling framework 1 1 Paper prepared for presenta
D. Ugarte (2000)
Engineering economic analysis of biomass IGCC with carbon capture and storage
J. S. Rhodes (2005)
Biomass Feedstock Availability in the United States: 1999 State Level Analysis
M. E. Walsh (2000)
CO2 capture and storage: Costs and market potential
H. Herzog (2005)
Potential Soil Carbon Sequestration and CO2 Offset by Dedicated Energy Crops in the USA
F. Sartori (2006)
Carbon-Negative Biofuels from Low-Input High-Diversity Grassland Biomass
D. Tilman (2006)
Comparative life-cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation.
Paulina J Aramillo (2007)
Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems.
P. R. Adler (2007)
Measurement of Net Global Warming Potential in Three Agroecosystems
A. Mosier (2004)
Competitiveness of biomass‐fueled electrical power plants
B. McCarl (2000)
A review of carbon and nitrogen balances in switchgrass grown for energy
D. I. Bransby (1998)
A life cycle assessment of biomass cofiring in a coal-fired power plant
M. Mann (2001)

This paper is referenced by
Climate implications of biomass appropriation: Integrating bioenergy and animal feeding systems
Kyle W Meisterling (2011)
Comparative lifecycle inventory (LCI) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods using different CO2 sources
Daniar Hussain (2013)
The Carbon Footprint of Miami University, Oxford, Ohio
A. Ferraro (2009)
A mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) supply chain optimisation framework for carbon negative electricity generation using biomass to energy with CCS (BECCS) in the UK
O. Akgul (2014)
Evaluating Biomass Energy Policy in the Face of Emissions Reductions Uncertainty and Feedstock Supply Risk
Kimberley A. Mullins (2012)
Availability of Biomass Residues for Co-Firing in Peninsular Malaysia: Implications for Cost and GHG Emissions in the Electricity Sector
W. M. Griffin (2014)
Torrefaction and co-combustion of healthy and beetle kill pine with coal
A. Howell (2018)
GHG Emissions and Costs of Developing Biomass Energy in Malaysia: Implications on Energy Security in the Transportation and Electricity Sector
M. N. A. Hassan (2012)
Efficient Use of Materials and Energy
V. Thomas (2011)
Opportunities and challenges of transitioning to sustainable next-generation transportation biofuels
J. Hill (2009)
Estimating national costs, benefits, and potential for cellulosic ethanol production from forest thinnings.
Matthew Kocoloski (2011)
A short-term based analysis on the critical low carbon technologies for the main energy-intensive industries in China
N. Wang (2018)
Informed public choices for low-carbon electricity portfolios using a computer decision tool.
Lauren A. (Fleishman) Mayer (2014)
Torrefaction of Healthy and Beetle Kill Pine and Co-Combustion With Sub-Bituminous Coal
Alexandra Howell (2017)
Paddy residue based power generation in Malaysia: Environmental assessment using LCA approach
S. M. Shafie (2015)
Regional allocation of biomass to U.S. energy demands under a portfolio of policy scenarios.
Kimberley A. Mullins (2014)
Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar