One diagnosis of the state of the U.S. biomass power industry would be: schizophrenic disorder marked by disorganized thinking and lack of motivation. Another might call the patient deeply affected by external issues such as social reform, environmental protection, and regulations on electricity generation.
Whatever your preference, our biomass industry report begins in California, where biomass power generation rocketed to prominence in the 1980s, reached a peak of 7,362 GWh in 1992, and then fell and flatlined at around 6,000 GWh annually for the next decade. The final chapter of the story differs considerably from region to region.
Before resuming the tale in California, let's be clear about our definitions. The biomass plants discussed in this article generate electricity by burning wood wastes (see "What is biomass?") from various sources in a boiler. The steam generated drives a conventional steam turbine and generator (see "Biomass technology is familiar").
To narrow our focus, we'll consider only that segment of the biomass industry that generates electricity and sells it to municipal or investor-owned utilities (IOUs), which then put the power on a grid. The pulp and paper industry also has plenty of biomass-fueled plants, but the electricity they generate is almost entirely consumed "inside the fence" by factories, as opposed to sold wholesale.
Sliding into the Pacific?
There are about 80 biomass power plants of significant size in the U.S., and they have a combined capacity of about 1,700 MW. Most run in baseload mode. As of March of this year, California was home to 28 of these plants, with a cumulative rating of around 550 MW. The remainder are scattered across 15 other states. Maine, Michigan, and Florida together have about 30% of the industry's total installed capacity.
1. Two-decade track record. The 49.5-MW Wheelabrator Shasta Energy Co. power plant has been in commercial service for almost 20 years. It burns about 750,000 tons/year of mill waste and forest residues from Shasta County and surrounding areas. The plant uses three Zurn traveling-grate stoker boilers, three Elliott condensing turbines, and one small GE back-pressure turbine. Its entire output is bought by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Courtesy: Wheelabrator Technologies Inc.
That's the good news. The bad news is that California seems to be lagging other states in building new biomass plants and keeping existing ones in business. Some industry pundits even think that biomass in the Golden State is in danger of falling off the generation radar screen over the next decade. The last two biomass plants commissioned in California were a 4-MW facility (in 2001) and a 3-MW unit (in 1999). About 90% of the biomass plants in California were built in the 1980s. This situation is completely unexpected for a state that considers itself a pioneer in carbon controls, the use of renewable fuels, and penalizing coal-fired generation.
How did California go from being the front-runner to an almost has-been in the biomass power race? Are there lessons learned for developers and regulators? The answer begins with a short history lesson.
Email
Comments
Print
Reuse
