The STRAIGHT Poop

If you have ever seen a stack (i.e. chimney) for a boiler – say at a power plant or at an industrial facility – you may have seen a plume like this:

Many people assume that this is smoke but it actually is a steam plume. How do you know? Look at the photo: there is a separation between the top of the stack and the bottom of the plume, giving the appearance of a “floating” plume. If this were smoke, it would be thickest immediately exiting the stack.

This steam plume is formed when water vapor in the flue gas (i.e. the gas exiting the stack from the boiler and air emissions control system) condenses as it comes in contact with cooler ambient air.  At Fibrowatt plants, conditions tend to favor the formation of a steam plume because of the high water vapor content in the flue gas.  Unfortunately, a high moisture content in the fuel can also result in a loss of energy efficiency in the boiler, as heat from combustion of the fuel is wasted evaporating the water in the fuel.  As this water vapor exits the stack – it condenses in the ambient air – releasing energy used to evaporate the water – energy that is therefore not recovered to generate electricity.  In the new Fibrowatt emissions control system (pdf), condensation will take place within the heat recovery portion of the process prior to release of the flue gas from the stack, resulting in a substantial increase in plant energy efficiency. Read more »

Recently, Fibrowatt announced the development of a new technology (pdf) that significantly improves the performance of biomass renewable energy plants. One of the important characteristics of this new system is the extent that air emissions can be reduced in conjunction with substantial improvements in energy efficiency. Basically – these new plants will produce more electricity from every ton of fuel and do this with substantially lower flue gas emissions. While improved efficiency and lower emissions are certainly important, the novel aspect of this system is an ability to source all of the plants process water requirements from water vapor released in the combustion process. By “harvesting” the water released from fuel combustion, these new biomass plants can be water self-sufficient – placing no burden on local water resources – resources that are critically important to many agricultural communities where these plants are found. Read more »

As was indicated in a blog post yesterday, Fibrowatt undertook siting evaluations in Georgia so that it would be able to move forward in a timely fashion with power purchase agreement discussions. During this site evaluation process, as often happens with projects of this size and visibility, the public began to ask questions and form opinions on how such a facility would fit in their community.

To help explain the benefits of a Fibrowatt facility and to provide answers to questions that have been raised by local residents, Fibrowatt scheduled a public meeting for today in Hart County, Georgia. This is similar to the Open House approach Fibrowatt has used in the past with projects it has developed elsewhere. While the Hart County meeting was subsequently called off when development efforts were suspended in Georgia, it is still helpful to look a little closer at the questions and answers that are important to a potential host community.

As can be seen on this website and the Fibrowatt website, Fibrowatt tries to answer the questions of concern to a host community. Though it is hoped that these answers are helpful, sometimes it is also important for people to get a third party answer to these questions. It is on this basis that we would like to share a communication between a resident in Hart County, Georgia and a resident of Benson, Minnesota that has gone through the whole development process. As you will see, the experience with a Fibrowatt plant is far different than the suspicions people seem to initially have about such a facility. Read more »

Fibrowatt is an independent power producer (IPP) and therefore is largely reliant on securing a long-term power purchase agreement (PPA) with utilities before major development activities can take place. Unlike these regulated utilities, which can incrementally seek ratepayer relief for increased costs, an IPP must rely on the financial strength and contractual protection of a PPA. A PPA is basically a central component for a financially viable project like Fibrowatt’s.

As was indicated in a Georgia post on July 19th, one of the key factors for the development of a Fibrowatt project in Georgia is a PPA. Based on initial review and continued discussions with the utilities, it was felt that there was enough utility interest in Georgia to increase project development activities. To meet a schedule that could provide the best negotiated power purchase price for the utilities, Fibrowatt completed initial siting evaluation in northeast Georgia so that a site could be selected with little delay if the PPA negotiations were to progress further.

While significant progress was made in these PPA talks, Fibrowatt was recently notified that there is not quite enough interest at this time to proceed with further PPA negotiations.

While Fibrowatt continues to believe that Georgia would benefit greatly from the development of a Fibrowatt project, with no PPA likely in the short-term, Fibrowatt has decided to suspend efforts to develop a plant in Georgia.

Fibrowatt notified the interested host counties that it had discontinued site selection activities in Georgia and that we hope that they are successful with other economic development projects that they are pursuing.

One of the arguments that is heard over and over from opponents of Fibrowatt’s biomass power plants is that these plants are “dirtier than coal.” I’m intrigued as to why they make such a comparison, or for that matter, why people seem to buy this argument, as it’s hard to understand how you can compare a biomass power plant like Fibrowatt’s with emissions from large-scale coal plant. Coal plants are 10 – 15 times larger than a Fibrowatt plant.

While it doesn’t make much sense to make this comparison, this is not to say that the tag line “dirtier than coal” is soon to go away. These people know that a coal plant is not a “favored” source of energy in the court of public opinion, conjuring up plenty of negative emotions, so it’s an easy point to rally around – even if inaccurate. Read more »