opinion
Progress on
biomass: Finally seeing the results of waste-to-energy
By
Allen Best
Posted:
02/01/2014 05:00:00 PM MST
Posted:
DenverPost.com
In Gypsum, located 140
miles west of Denver, a biomass mill began operations in December, burning wood
to create 10 megawatts of round-the-clock electricity. A wall board plant is at
left, the biomass plant is to the right. Bill Heicher
photo. (The Denver Post | Bill Heicher)
For most of the last decade,
Coloradans have been talking about how to make good use of their mountain
forests, dying and gray. Something is finally happening.
In Gypsum, 140 miles west of Denver, a biomass mill
began operations in December, burning wood to create 10 megawatts of
round-the-clock electricity.
In Colorado Springs, the city utility began mixing
biomass with coal in January to produce 4.5 megawatts of power.
In Pagosa Springs, a
5-megawatt biomass plant may be launched next year, producing one-sixth of the baseload demand in Archuleta County.
And at Xcel Energy's headquarters in Denver,
environmental officials are sorting through proposals for a 2-megawatt biomass
demonstration plant. The utility wants to understand the technology, the
problems and promises.
This isn't much electricity compared to the 1,426
megawatts generated by the Comanche coal-fired complex at Pueblo and the 1,139
megawatts at Craig. But biomass plants can and should be part of the electrical
mix. In providing a market for woody material, they can make forests less
vulnerable to fires like the ones that have killed nine people and destroyed
1,164 homes along the Front Range over the last two years.
Biomass also displaces burning of fossil fuels,
reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. That's worth something,
maybe a lot to Glenwood Springs-based Holy Cross Energy, which is paying extra
for the electricity produced at Gypsum to help reduce its carbon footprint. It
expects to be at 23 percent renewables later this year.
Colorado environmental groups, however, are skeptical
that biomass plants will actually lower carbon dioxide emissions. "We're
saying we want to see the analysis of greenhouse gas impacts," says Gwen
Farnsworth of Western Resource Advocates.
Biomass clearly can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
displacing fossil fuels, says Keith Paustian, a
professor of soil ecology at Colorado State University. "There are
questions as to what degree you do that, and obviously, you want as low a
carbon footprint as possible," he says.
Paustian hopes a more detailed accounting of carbon impacts
will be a byproduct of the $10 million research project he is leading. The
project, the Bioenergy Alliance Network of the
Rockies, seeks to examine the potential for conversion of the 22 million acres
of beetle-impacted wood in the Rocky Mountains into bioenergy.
An even broader fear among some environmental groups
is that public lands will be managed to feed the hunger of biomass plants,
instead of the bieomass plants being a useful tool
for curbing fire risk. "We don't want the tail wagging the dog," says
Sloan Shoemaker, director of the Carbondale-based Wilderness Workshop.
If Eagle Valley Clean Energy, developer of the plant
at Gypsum, sticks to its projections, that won't be a problem. It insists that
at least 30 percent of wood will come from landfills, another 20 percent or
more from private lands, and a minimum of 40 percent from state or federal
lands.
The plant is designed to operate for 30 to 40 years,
long after forests now gray have become green once again.
Stewardship contracts are one mechanism for delivering
wood from federal lands to biomass plants. Authorized by Congress in 1998 as an
alternative to timber sales, they allow for a more nuanced management of
national forests than timber sales allowed.
For example, a stewardship contract across the White
River National Forest calls for the agency to pay a contractor, Western Range
Resources, $1,500 per acre for 1,000 acres per year for wood removal. Much of
that wood will end up at the biomass plant in Gypsum.
Through this program, the Forest Service hopes to also
get aspen forests on the periphery of the Flat Tops cut, to allow for more
wildlife habitat but also to reduce wildfire threat in Summit County, near
Breckenridge and also near Green Mountain Reservoir.
"There's a lot of doghair
in Summit County," says Jan Cutler, silviculturist
on the White River National Forest, referring to dense forests of small trees.
"And a lot of standing and falling dead trees are rotted out at this
point. They have no merchantable value as far as saw timbers."
The partnership between Denver Water and the Forest
Service is another model for reducing fire risk while producing wood for
biomass plants. In that partnership, each agency chipped in $16.5 million to
address dead and falling trees on 6,000 acres upstream of Dillon Reservoir, one
of metro Denver's primary water sources.
Cutler says fuels removal for biomass and other
purposes altogether will probably occur on just 10 percent of the 2.2 million
acres of the White River National Forest, which extends from Breckenridge to
Meeker and Carbondale.
Fire risk is not totally eliminated. The right
combination of climatic conditions in the higher, subalpine forests will
someday yield a fire comparable to the one that burned 1.2 million acres in and
near Yellowstone National Park in 1988, says Tony Cheng, director of the
Colorado Forest Restoration Institute.
But land managers do hope to provide firefighters safe
zones from which to fight major fires. Taking the slash piles after thinning
operations or removing the debris to produce slash creates an added benefit,
says Cheng.
At Pagosa Springs, fire was
frequent prior to about 1900. Growing seasons there are longer, the climate
more moist, and soils rich, all of this conspiring to produce bounteous forests
of ponderosa pine and now, because of fire suppression, white fir. Houses now
sprinkle the private lands along and sometimes on in-holdings within the
national forest, a combustible mix.
In creating the stewardship contract on the San Juan
National Forest, foresters identified forest types within a 50-mile radius of Pagosa they wanted treated, then stripped out wilderness
and roadless areas. That left 140,000 acres for the
stewardship contract.
The buyer, local entrepreneur J.R. Ford, can harvest
wood from 1,500 acres per year. He is required to pay the U.S. government for
trees greater than 10 inches in diameter. He will mill these logs at a sawmill
beginning in April, shipping the blocks of wood to a sawmill elsewhere for
refined sawing. For trees of less than 10 inches in diameter, the government
will pay Ford. He can leave no slash piles of trimmings behind.
In addition, Ford will draw upon another 300 to 400
acres of private land. This will provide 50,000 tons of wood chips for the
biomass plant he hopes will go online next year.
Steve Hartvigsen,
supervisory forester for the Pagosa Ranger District,
says the stewardship contract will yield no permanent roads. "That may
mean temporary timbering roads, but they must be rehabbed," he says of the
rehabilitation process.
The San Juan Citizens Alliance, a grassroots
environmental group, has endorsed Ford's biomass plans. "That scaling is
what made us comfortable. It wasn't a 20-megawatt deal," says Jimbo Buickerood, the group's
public lands coordinator. That smaller plant results in shorter distances for
trucks to haul wood. Experts say biomass must commonly draw wood from within 50
miles, to contain deal-killing truck-hauling costs.
Whether Ford goes ahead with the biomass plant depends
partly upon how much Durango-based La Plata Electric will pay for the
electricity. Ford says he needs 15 to 20 percent more than what the La Plata
and other electrical cooperatives pay wholesale provider Tri-State Generation
and Transmission.
"The coops are paying between 7 and 7.5 cents per
kilowatt and are selling it for 11 or 12 cents, depending upon the area,"
Ford says.
In Europe, biomass production is far more common than
in the United States. There's a good reason: Europe has fewer fossil fuels at
its disposal. All electricity is more expensive, generally 14 to 18 cents per
kilowatt.
All biomass plants in Colorado contemplate subsidies.
The Gypsum biomass plant got a $250,000 biomass utilization grant from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Plus, it enjoys $40 million in loan guarantees from
the Rural Utilities Service, the same agency that financed many of the co-ops
coal-fired power plants.
Xcel also expects electricity from biomass will cost
more, and is seeking approval from the state's Public Utilities Commission to
pass along higher costs to customers. The utility is seeking plants that use
gasifier technology, as is planned at Pagosa Springs,
instead of the boiler technology now in place at Gypsum. It has fewer emissions
and uses no water. That, says Kathryn Valdez, manager of environmental policy
for Xcel, is an important consideration if plants are to be located in places
that will minimize haul distances.
Xcel specifies just a 2-megawatt plant for its 10-year
demonstration plant.
Phil Kastelic, of Colorado
Forest and Energy, a company proposing to build a demonstration plant in Gilpin
County, says that size matters. "There just aren't that many places where
you can put five-megawatt of generation and have local feedstock to support
it."
In other words, biomass plants aren't the answer to
everything that ails us. They won't immediately turn our forests green, nor
will they alone replace the fossil-fuel plants that are fouling the atmosphere
with greenhouse gases.
But biomass has another attribute. Think of it as the
energy equivalent of community agriculture. The 20th century was all about
bigger and more centralized production of everything. This creates huge supply
lines, mile-long coal trains going to plants, and high-voltage power lines
leaving them.
It's easy to think of water originating in the tap,
electricity in the outlet, without broader consequences. Smaller sources of
power generation, close to their locations of use, keep us in touch with the
spider's web of our relationship to the energy we use.