Public Attitudes To Biomass Cofiring
Public attitudes to biomasscofiringRohan FernandoCCC/214ISBN 978-92-9029-534-1January 2013copyright IEA Clean Coal CentreAbstractThere is substantial interest in producing energy from renewable sources given the continuingconcerns regarding climate change. One attractive renewable source for power generation is the use ofbiomass. Cofiring biomass is one of the simplest ways of reducing GHG emissions from coal-firedpower plant. When doing so, in addition to addressing technical factors, it is important to considerpublic attitudes, as these shape government policies. Surveys of public attitudes to energy usuallyinclude renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydro. Bioenergy is sometimes included butcofiring seldom so. When assessing public attitudes, it is instructive to consider what information isfreely available to the public. Hence information provided by major national or internationalorganisations, either in favour or against cofiring, are described.It is apparent that the public in most countries have little knowledge of bioenergy as a renewableenergy source and most opinion polls do not even address the issue of the public’s attitudes towards it.The few polls that have been conducted indicate that solar, wind and hydro are much more popularthan bioenergy. Bioenergy is more popular in countries such as in Northern Europe which haveextensive experience in using wood products as an energy source. Opposition to cofiring biomass incoal-fired plant is mainly on the grounds of biomass availability and sustainability. The powerindustry publications concentrate on the technical issues for the plant when cofiring biomass ratherthan availability and sustainability concerns.
Acronyms and abbreviationsCCSCHPEUGHGRO2carbon capture and storagecombined heat and powerEuropean Uniongreenhouse gasesrenewable obligationIEA CLEAN COAL CENTRE
ContentsAcronyms and abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Global attitudes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63European attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74UK attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155US attitudes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226Organisations sceptical of biomass cofiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256.1 Greenpeace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256.2 Friends of the Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276.3 World Wildlife Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286.4 Institute for European Environmental Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296.5 Biofuelwatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306.6 Environmental Defense Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316.7 Clean Air Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336.8 Sierra Club . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337Independent assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357.2 Committee on Climate Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357.3 World Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368Organisations supportive of the coal industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389Organisations supportive of biomass cofiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4010 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4211 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Public attitudes to biomass cofiring3
4IEA CLEAN COAL CENTRE
1IntroductionGiven the continuing concerns regarding climate change, there is substantial interest in producingenergy from renewable sources. One attractive renewable source for power generation is the use ofbiomass. Bioenergy is generally regarded as being carbon neutral as the same amount of CO2 as isreleased during combustion, is absorbed during feedstock growth. Cofiring biomass is one of thesimplest ways of reducing net CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plant and there have been severalhundred such demonstrations worldwide over the past 20 years. In addition to addressing the technicalissues of cofiring biomass at a coal-fired power plant, it is also important to consider the publicattitudes to cofiring. These attitudes are a major factor in shaping government policy. The reaction ofthe local public to a proposed cofiring project, whether supportive or opposed, will affect thefeasibility of a project. The local reaction may well be different from the attitudes of the generalpublic. The attitudes of technical experts and the environmental lobby are also crucial in determiningwhether cofiring is seen as an acceptable technology to reduce carbon emissions. Many of theconcerns regarding cofiring centre on sustainability issues. For example, for many years the public hasbeen told that chopping down trees is bad for the environment, hence it may be difficult to convincethem that wood can be used in a sustainable way for power production. There are particular concernsthat cultivation of biomass will impair food production and increase food prices in developing nationsand lead to the destruction of tropical rain forests. Attitudes to bioenergy vary from country tocountry. Some have more experience in managing forests and utilising wood for fuel than others. Inaddition to ensuring that the biomass is cultivated in a regenerative manner and does not affect foodproduction or tropical forests, it is also necessary to consider the fossil energy involved in theagricultural production such as the use of fertiliser, the CO2 emissions relating to the storage andtransport of the feedstock and emissions relating to the construction and operation of the plant.Biomass cofiring also entails technical issues for the power plant itself. Several Clean Coal Centrepublications have described these. Cofiring of biomass and waste was discussed by Davidson (1999).Reports entitled The experience of indirect cofiring of biomass and coal, Fuels for biomass cofiring,Cofiring coal with waste fuels and Co-gasification and indirect cofiring of coal and biomass havebeen produced by Fernando (2002, 2005, 2007, 2009). This report describes current public attitudes tobiomass cofiring and follows two earlier reports on public attitudes to coal-fired power plant(Fernando, 2006 and 2010). Generally only surveys undertaken by major organisations, sampling atleast 1000 respondents with margins of error of a few per cent, are included in this report. Hence themethodology of the surveys is not assessed. The above reports on public attitudes to coal plant foundthat, after about 2006, surveys of attitudes to different energy sources did not usually even includecoal, presumably as it was assumed that the public would be overwhelmingly opposed to it. Surveysof attitudes to renewable energy sources usually include wind and solar power. Bioenergy issometimes included but cofiring is hardly ever considered. Cofiring is a niche technology which hasnot entered the consciousness of the public or pollsters sufficiently. Hence this report will mainlyfocus on attitudes to bioenergy and cofiring and only include polls which specifically includebioenergy, as opposed to renewables in general. When considering public attitudes, it is instructive toconsider what information is freely available to the public on relevant topics which could influencetheir views. This is mainly information accessible on the web. It is impractical to try to assess all theinformation presented to the public on television, radio and newspapers but it is possible to describewhat information is provided by major national and international organisations which are either infavour or against the cofiring of biomass in coal-fired plant. As this is what is available to the public, itis not the purpose of this report to adjudicate whether arguments in favour or against are valid. Themajority of reported cofiring projects are in northern Europe and the USA and it is also mainly inthese regions that the few surveys including bioenergy have been undertaken.Public attitudes to biomass cofiring5
2Global attitudesGlobal attitudes to climate change and how to address the challenge have been reviewed by Fernando(2010) but hardly any of these polls included bioenergy. One study which did question the public fromseveral countries worldwide on bioenergy was conducted by Reiner and others (2006). Respondentsfrom the USA, Sweden, the UK and Japan were questioned on several aspects of climate change butmainly on their knowledge and attitudes to CCS. However, one question included attitudes tobioenergy. The surveys were conducted in 2003-04 and involved about 1000 respondents in eachcountry. The survey informed the respondents of several technologies which have been proposed toaddress global warming and asked the respondents which they would use. The replies are shown inFigure 1. Solar energy, energy-efficient appliances and energy efficient cars all received 80–90%favourable ratings with virtually no one expressing negative views. Wind energy, carbon sequestration(planting trees) and the use of biomass/bioenergy were all viewed favourably by clear majorities withonly relatively few stating negative opinions. In the case of bioenergy, about two-thirds thought that itshould definitely or probably be used, about a quarter were uncertain and the remaining 10–15% wereopposed. The least opposition was in the UK. Nuclear energy and CCS were viewed withconsiderably more ambivalence with comparable levels of support and opposition.UKUSAsolar energy72energy efficientappliances72energy efficientcars2538nuclearenergycarbon captureand storage1950bio energy/biomass1510 1energy efficientcars12 5 2wind energy223018911 1energy efficientappliances2062carbonsequestationsolar energy1770wind energy8 21827321921carbonsequestation41bio energy/biomass511382856482310196 3308 22138132211247 11100%JapanSwedensolar energy54energy efficientappliances4042carbonsequestation3856bio energy/biomasscarbon captureand storage4950wind energynuclearenergy3640energy efficientcars2565201442212557solar energy10 1energy efficientappliances8 2energy efficientcars8wind energy9 2carbonsequestation11 1bio energy/biomass1234348 2607266729253430carbon captureand storage268definitely useprobably use10 312453nuclearenergy151767151571 11223512297 23237100%6512428100%Figure 11828341517 2128392115 312626carbon captureand storage92554nuclearenergy19165424187 218179100%not sureprobably not usedefinitely not useAttitudes to mitigation technologies to reduce global warming (Reiner and others,2006)IEA CLEAN COAL CENTRE
3European attitudesThe attitudes of Europeans to climate change and mitigation technologies have been reviewed byFernando (2006) with data mainly from Eurobarometer reports. The attitudes of citizens of all thecountries in the EU on a variety of subjects are regularly published in these reports. The surveys wererequested by the European Commission and the European Parliament and co-ordinated by theDirectorate-General for Communication of the European Commission. A Eurobarometer survey waspublished entitled Energy Technologies: Knowledge, Perception, Measures (2007) which addressedgeneral perceptions of energy issues including knowledge and attitudes. The survey was conducted inthe 25 member states and took place between May and June 2006 when 24,815 people werequestioned. Given the need to change the pattern of energy consumption to reduce greenhouse gasemissions, the respondents were asked whether they were in favour or opposed to the use of differentsources of energy in their countries. The results which are shown in Figure 2 show that therespondents were highly positive about the use of renewable energy: solar energy (80%), wind (71%)and hydroelectric energy (65%) with only a handful opposing. There was also positive support forocean energy (60%) and energy from biomass (55%). The support for bioenergy, however, wassignificantly less than for solar, wind or hydro. Considering fossil fuels, there was a reasonable degreeof support for natural gas (42%) but only a about a quarter supported oil (27%) or coal (26%). Nuclearenergy had the lowest level of support (20%). The respondents were not asked about cofiring biomassin coal-fired plant. But extrapolating between the levels of support for coal and biomass wouldsuggest that only a minority would be expected to be in favour of cofiring.The detailed results for attitudes for energy from biomass for the EU 25 countries are shown inFigure 3. This shows that there was a substantial variation in degree of support. In Germany andAustria there was a substantial majority infavour and only a handful opposed whereas insolar80142 4Malta over twice as many were opposed aswind71213 5favoured biomass as an energy source. Thecountries in northern and central Europe werehydroelectric65233 9the most favourable and the Mediterraneancountriesmost opposed. The UK and Irelandocean60242 14(tidal/wave/were in the sceptical fold. The reason for thismarine current)biomass5527810variationmight have been that northern and(wood/plants/biogas)central Europe contain extensive forests andgas42477 4the population there were used to timber beingmanaged for commercial use especially as a2752174oilfuel. The survey also examined views onenergy sources for the future. The respondentscoal2649205were asked what sources they thought were thenuclear2036386three most important energy sources for theircountry at present and in 30 years’ time. The100%average replies are shown in Figure 4. It isapparent that Europeans see renewable energyin favouras the solution to their future energy needs.balanced viewsThe chief energy sources for the future wereexpected to be solar, wind and nuclear. Onopposedaverage,although biomass was expected todon’t knowincrease substantially from current usage,fewer than a fifth thought that biomass wouldFigure 2 EU attitudes to energy sourcesbe among the three most important sources for(Eurobarometer, 2007)the future. The results for individual countriesare given in Table 1. Respondents fromPublic attitudes to biomass cofiring7
European uxembourg73167 4Slovak Republic71212 6Denmark702541Czech 7Poland5825Lithuania5724Greece563 41129solarwind333 d/plants/biogas)1122oceananother source9coal8(energy not inuse today)don’t know3811013512100%11now1446in favouropposeddon’t knowEU attitudes to biomass energy(Eurobarometer, 2007)EU attitudes to future energysources (Eurobarometer, 2007)1027balanced views818in the future17100%Figure 3193oil(tidal/wave/marine current)7721171013939275 5EU25Italy36gasFigure 421347720407nuclear5 25 349612Scandinavian countries were the mostenthusiastic that biomass would be a mainenergy source with nearly half of thosesampled thinking so. This is only to beexpected given that biomass has been usedextensively in these countries as an energysource over many years. The Mediterraneancountries (Malta, Cyprus, Portugal, Spain andGreece) were the least enthusiastic(Eurobarometer, 2007).In a later survey in November 2009, the viewsof about a thousand respondents in each EUcountry on climate change were obtained.They were questioned on their attitudes tobiofuels. These are liquid fuels derived frombiomass which can replace petrol and diesel.Issues relating to biofuels are not identical tothose affecting bioenergy but nevertheless theresults give some indication on the public’sattitudes to the use of biomass. The results,which are shown in Figure 5, showed thatthere was substantial support with theIEA CLEAN COAL CENTRE
European attitudesTable 1 Attitudes to energy sources (Eurobarometer, herDKBelgium41635401923596010111Cz. 923294821945462089percentage of those agreeing with the use of biofuels approaching 80%. The support was greatest inDenmark, Cyprus and The Netherlands and least in Luxembourg and Romania (Eurobarometer,2009). A further survey was also conducted on attitudes to biofuels and when EU respondents wereasked whether the use of biofuels should be encouraged, on average 72% approved and 20%disapproved. The results for individual countries are shown in Figure 6. The greatest support was fromSlovakia, Latvia and Denmark. The least support came from Malta and from some countries outsidethe EU, namely Turkey and Switzerland. As there were some concerns that the production of biofuelswas destroying tropical rainforests, the same question was asked with the additional proviso that thebiofuel was obtained sustainably. The results are shown in Figure 7. The level of support in the EU asa whole has increased to 83% with only 10% opposing. There was nearly universal support inDenmark (96%) and Finland (95%). In all countries in the EU, support was greater than 70%. Theclear exception was a country outside the EU, Turkey, where only 38% supported the use ofsustainable biomass. It is evident that the issue of the sustainability of the fuel makes a materialPublic attitudes to biomass cofiring9
European attitudesDenmark89Cyprus881 11Netherlands87109 2Slovak Finland86113Cyprus8013Czech Republic78193Finland77212Slovak gium83Bulgaria83Czech 110EU UK741610Sweden74Ireland73Netherlands73EU 322Norway64324Switzerland5344100%should be encouragedtotally agree tend to agreeshould not be encouragedtend
3 European attitudes Public attitudes to biomass cofiring 7 The attitudes of Europeans to climate change and mitigation technologies have been reviewed by Fernando (2006) with data mainly from Eurobarometer reports. The attitudes of citizens of all the countries in the EU on a variety of subjects are regularly published in these reports. The .
Cofiring Biomass and Coal for Fossil Fuel Reduction and Other Benefits Worldwide, nearly 200 coal facilities have conducted test burns with biomass (IEA 2010). In the United States, more than 40 coal plants have conducted test burns. Numerous fuel types have been evaluated including wood ch
potential production inputs to analyses comparing the viability of biomass crops under various economic scenarios. The modeling and parameterization framework can be expanded to include other biomass crops. Keywords: biomass crop, biomass production potential, biomass resource map, biomass resources, biomass sorghum, energy-
Biomass Biogas Biomass Biogas Biomass Technology Upgrades Maximum Potential Current. Emissions, metric tonnes (10. 3 . Mg for CO2eq) Feedstocks Collection and Transport Conversion Savings-80 -40 0 40 80 120 160. NOX PM CO2eq NOX PM CO2eq NOX PM CO2eq NOX PM CO2eq NOX PM CO2eq NOX PM CO2eq. Biogas Biomass Biogas Biomass Biogas Biomass Technology .
Limitations on Forest Biomass . Potential Biomass Production Perennial Energy Crops Forest Biomass - Hardwoods Forest Biomass - Softwoods Corn Stover 9.5 million dry tons 14.6 million dry tons 46% 3% 36% 15% 12% 32% 54% 2% Potential biomass production (million odt/yr) in NY from different sources in two scenarios
2 Biomass Resources 19 3 Uses of Biomass 28 . 3.1 Biopower 28 . 3.1.1 Feedstock 28 3.1.2 Electricity Conversion Technologies 30 3.1.3 Emissions Impacts 42 3.1.4 Biopower Conclusions 48 . 3.2 Biomass Derived Transportation Fuels 49 . 3.2.1 Ethanol 53 3.2.2 Compressed Natural Gas 59 . 4 Biomass Scenarios 63 . 4.1 Description of Biomass Scenarios 63
harvest of biomass energy because the forest industry currently operates at very low levels. NWT Biomass Potential Biomass and Climate Change Biomass is essentially solar energy stored in the mass of trees and plants. When a tree is harvested and burned as biomass energy, it is considered carbon neutral as long as another tree grows in its place.
Biomass boilers are typically 20 - 50 MW range. The energy in biomass is converted to electricity with a efficiency of about 35% - a typical value of a modern coal-fired power plant. Biomass gasifiers:Operate by heating biomass in an environment where the solid biomass breaks down to form a flammable low calorific gas. The biogas is then
Access to Accounting Software – SAMS – Assessment book . 2 . Notes for students . This sample assessment is designed to demonstrate as many of the possible question types you may find in a live assessment. It is not designed to be used on its own to determine whether you are ready for a live assessment. In a live assessment, you will be required to upload documents as part of your evidence .
