Estimating unit production cost, carbon intensity, and carbon abatement cost of electricity generation from bioenergy feedstocks in Georgia, United States

Md Farhad Hossain Masum, Puneet Dwivedi and William F. Anderson

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2020, vol. 117, issue C

Abstract: In Georgia, the coal-based electricity generation emitted about 26% of the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2016. Considering the availability of biomass resources in the state and advent of emerging technologies like torrefaction, biomass-based feedstocks could be directly used in existing coal-based power plants. We performed economic and environmental analyses of electricity derived from nine feedstocks (loblolly pine, corn stover, cotton stalks, bermudagrass, switchgrass, napier grass, giant reed, energycane, and miscanthus) over 25 years relative to coal-based electricity in Georgia. We assumed processing biomass via torrefaction before using the same to substitute coal at the power plant. Pine chips were the least expensive ($113 MWh−1) and the least GHG intensive (134 kg CO2e MWh−1) option for generating electricity, with the lowest abatement cost ($17 t CO2e−1). Based on sensitivity analysis, the abatement cost could be as low as $8 t CO2e−1 for a 900 MW power plant, the most common capacity of coal-based electricity generating units in Georgia. Between the two agricultural residues, cotton stalk ($26 t CO2e−1) had a lower abatement cost than corn stover ($34 t CO2e−1). Among perennial grasses, switchgrass and giant reed had the lowest carbon abatement cost (about $25 t CO2e−1) because of their low unit production cost of electricity. Other perennial grasses had comparable abatement costs, ranging between $28 and $30 t CO2e−1, except napier grass and energycane, which had the highest abatement cost (about $38 t CO2e−1). A carbon tax of $40 t CO2e−1 could make bioenergy feedstocks found in Georgia competitive against coal for reducing carbon emissions from the electricity sector.

Keywords: Biopower; Renewable energy; Economic analysis; Life cycle assessment; Sustainable energy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (11)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032119307221
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:rensus:v:117:y:2020:i:c:s1364032119307221

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/bibliographic
http://www.elsevier. ... 600126/bibliographic

DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109514

Access Statistics for this article

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews is currently edited by L. Kazmerski

More articles in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().