Biomass power cost and optimum plant size in western Canada

TLDR: In this paper, the power cost and optimum plant size for power plants using three biomass fuels in western Canada were determined, and the three fuels are biomass from agricultural residues (grain straw), whole boreal forest, and forest harvest residues from existing lumber and pulp operations (limbs and tops).

Abstract: The power cost and optimum plant size for power plants using three biomass fuels in western Canada were determined. The three fuels are biomass from agricultural residues (grain straw), whole boreal forest, and forest harvest residues from existing lumber and pulp operations (limbs and tops). Forest harvest residues have the smallest economic size, 137 MW, and the highest power cost, $63.00 MWh −1 (Year 2000 US$). The optimum size for agricultural residues is 450 MW (the largest single biomass unit judged feasible in this study), and the power cost is $50.30 MWh −1 . If a larger biomass boiler could be built, the optimum project size for straw would be 628 MW . Whole forest harvesting has an optimum size of 900 MW (two maximum sized units), and a power cost of $47.16 MWh −1 without nutrient replacement. However, power cost versus size from whole forest is essentially flat from 450 MW ($47.76 MWh −1 ) to 3150 MW ($48.86 MWh −1 ) , so the optimum size is better thought of as a wide range. None of these projects are economic today, but could become so with a greenhouse gas credit. All biomass cases show some flatness in the profile of power cost vs. plant capacity. This occurs because the reduction in capital cost per unit capacity with increasing capacity is offset by increasing biomass transportation cost as the area from which biomass is drawn increases. This in turn means that smaller than optimum plants can be built with only a minor cost penalty. Both the yield of biomass per unit area and the location of the biomass have an impact on power cost and optimum size. Agricultural and forest harvest residues are transported over existing road networks, whereas the whole forest harvest requires new roads and has a location remote from existing transmission lines. Nutrient replacement in the whole forest case would make power from the forest comparable in cost to power from straw.