Sludge Watch ==> Governments should warm up to biomass

[Maureen Reilly]

GREEN ENERGY
Toronto Star

Governments should warm up to biomass

Mar 15, 2008 04:30 AM
Cameron Smith

Sometimes, when a solution is staring them in the face, people don't see it.

They're too busy trying to make old ways fit new needs. Such is the case 
with biomass – renewable organic material that can be used as fuel, such as 
wood, straw, husks and spoiled seeds from grains, switchgrass and municipal 
waste.

Biomass has been acknowledged as useful. But neither the provincial nor the 
federal government has seen it as a major tool for limiting global warming. 
If they had, there would be incentives in place for using it in controlled, 
high-efficiency heating.

Now, with the publication of a report from REAP-Canada (Resource Efficient 
Agricultural Production) of Montreal, and BIOCAP Canada Foundation at 
Queen's University, such a lack of awareness is no longer excusable.

The report calculates that when pellets of switchgrass, straw or wood are 
burned, the impact of their life cycle emissions will be immensely lower 
than that of natural gas – by 86, 84 and 77 per cent respectively – and even 
lower for heating oil and coal by 91, 90 and 86 per cent respectively.

Life cycle emissions are the sum of all emissions related to exploration, 
harvesting, production, delivery and burning.

"When governments say they can't afford to reduce CO2 emissions," says Roger 
Samson, with a bemused grin that eases the sting of what he's saying , "they 
haven't really done their homework." Samson is executive director of REAP.

The report recommends that an incentive for heating with biomass be 
established at $4 per gigajoule of heat.

A gigajoule is a unit of energy. This compares to the $15.28 per gigajoule 
for generating electricity that Queen's Park and Ottawa offer as an 
incentive for using biomass, wind, or small hydro to generate fewer than 10 
megawatts.

Even though the incentive suggested for biomass heating appears to be 
dramatically lower than the incentive for electricity, it's not. When both 
are related to reducing CO2 emissions, they are roughly comparable.

This becomes clear when you look at how much it would cost in incentives to 
eliminate a tonne of CO2 emissions.

For instance, says the report, an electricity generator burning straw 
pellets would get an incentive of $58.22 for every tonne of CO2 it lowered 
emissions below what was produced by an electrical generator fuelled by oil.

By comparison, using straw pellets to heat homes and commercial buildings 
would produce lower emissions than heating with oil, and the cost of the 
incentive would be $50.82 – $7.40 less – for every tonne of CO2 the 
emissions were lowered. If switchgrass pellets were used, the cost would be 
$50.17.

When the comparison is with natural gas, it's much more dramatic.

If straw pellets were the renewable fuel used, the incentive would amount to 
$148.57 to lower emissions in generating electricity by a tonne of CO2; it 
would be $82.68 to lower emissions by a tonne of CO2 in residential and 
commercial heating, $80.97 if switchgrass pellets were used.

One of the startling conclusions in the report is that when life cycles are 
analyzed, heating oil is as bad as coal for producing greenhouse gases.

And liquified natural gas, if it were shipped into Canada from abroad, would 
be responsible for 28 per cent more greenhouse gases than domestically 
produced natural gas.

The report, called Analyzing Ontario Biofuel Options, can be found at 
www.reap-canada.com.

The conclusion is plain: Ontario has established that incentives are 
necessary to produce renewable electricity; now it's time for incentives to 
produce renewable heating – especially since commercial and residential 
heating create 10.5 per cent of Canada's greenhouse gases.



Cameron Smith can be reached at camsmith at kingston.net

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/346291

GREEN ENERGY
Toronto Star

Governments should warm up to biomass

Mar 15, 2008 04:30 AM
Cameron Smith

Sometimes, when a solution is staring them in the face, people don't see it.

They're too busy trying to make old ways fit new needs. Such is the case 
with biomass – renewable organic material that can be used as fuel, such as 
wood, straw, husks and spoiled seeds from grains, switchgrass and municipal 
waste.

Biomass has been acknowledged as useful. But neither the provincial nor the 
federal government has seen it as a major tool for limiting global warming. 
If they had, there would be incentives in place for using it in controlled, 
high-efficiency heating.

Now, with the publication of a report from REAP-Canada (Resource Efficient 
Agricultural Production) of Montreal, and BIOCAP Canada Foundation at 
Queen's University, such a lack of awareness is no longer excusable.

The report calculates that when pellets of switchgrass, straw or wood are 
burned, the impact of their life cycle emissions will be immensely lower 
than that of natural gas – by 86, 84 and 77 per cent respectively – and even 
lower for heating oil and coal by 91, 90 and 86 per cent respectively.

Life cycle emissions are the sum of all emissions related to exploration, 
harvesting, production, delivery and burning.

"When governments say they can't afford to reduce CO2 emissions," says Roger 
Samson, with a bemused grin that eases the sting of what he's saying , "they 
haven't really done their homework." Samson is executive director of REAP.

The report recommends that an incentive for heating with biomass be 
established at $4 per gigajoule of heat.

A gigajoule is a unit of energy. This compares to the $15.28 per gigajoule 
for generating electricity that Queen's Park and Ottawa offer as an 
incentive for using biomass, wind, or small hydro to generate fewer than 10 
megawatts.

Even though the incentive suggested for biomass heating appears to be 
dramatically lower than the incentive for electricity, it's not. When both 
are related to reducing CO2 emissions, they are roughly comparable.

This becomes clear when you look at how much it would cost in incentives to 
eliminate a tonne of CO2 emissions.

For instance, says the report, an electricity generator burning straw 
pellets would get an incentive of $58.22 for every tonne of CO2 it lowered 
emissions below what was produced by an electrical generator fuelled by oil.

By comparison, using straw pellets to heat homes and commercial buildings 
would produce lower emissions than heating with oil, and the cost of the 
incentive would be $50.82 – $7.40 less – for every tonne of CO2 the 
emissions were lowered. If switchgrass pellets were used, the cost would be 
$50.17.

When the comparison is with natural gas, it's much more dramatic.

If straw pellets were the renewable fuel used, the incentive would amount to 
$148.57 to lower emissions in generating electricity by a tonne of CO2; it 
would be $82.68 to lower emissions by a tonne of CO2 in residential and 
commercial heating, $80.97 if switchgrass pellets were used.

One of the startling conclusions in the report is that when life cycles are 
analyzed, heating oil is as bad as coal for producing greenhouse gases.

And liquified natural gas, if it were shipped into Canada from abroad, would 
be responsible for 28 per cent more greenhouse gases than domestically 
produced natural gas.

The report, called Analyzing Ontario Biofuel Options, can be found at 
www.reap-canada.com.

The conclusion is plain: Ontario has established that incentives are 
necessary to produce renewable electricity; now it's time for incentives to 
produce renewable heating – especially since commercial and residential 
heating create 10.5 per cent of Canada's greenhouse gases.



Cameron Smith can be reached at camsmith at kingston.net

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/346291