As part of a settlement of a lawsuit involving construction of the Oak Creek power plant, WE Energies has announced plans to build a 50-megawatt power plant in Rothschild, Wisconsin. The plant would burn wood, waste wood, and sawdust, and it would generate enough power to supply 40,000 homes. In addition to being part of a settlement of the suit involving the Oak Creek power plant, the proposed biomass plant will also help WE Energies comply with Wisconsin’s renewable power mandate.
While the proposed biomass power plant is certainly a step in the right direction when it comes to generating power from renewable sources, we still have a long way to go. The proposed biomass plant will generate 50 megawatts of power, but to put that number into perspective, the coal-fired power plant in Oak Creek generates 1,200 megawatts of power. There’s absolutely no reason why renewable energy sources such as biomass can’t take the place of non-renewable energy sources like natural gas and coal, and hopefully the proposed biomass power plant in Rothschild will serve as an example of how renewable resources can replace the use of fossil fuels in providing for our energy needs.
How safe/healthy is it to burn wood, waste wood, and sawdust? Will all the smoke and toxins go into the air the community has to breathe?
Anon, here’s a link to an article I found outlining the pros and cons of biomass power plants. From reading the article, the amounts of toxins produced really varies depending on the precise fuel and technology used in the plant.
http://www.powerscorecard.org/tech_detail.cfm?resource_id=1
Thanks Zach. That’s a very interesting website.
Actually there’s a very good reason. The energy content. If I’ve done the math correctly:
Gasoline 47 megajoules per kg
Propane 46 megajoules per kg
Coal 24 megajoules per kg
Wood Pellets 17 megajoules per kg (using 7450 BTU/lb)
I used wood pellets because there’s generally better data but I believe they will also put up better numbers than wood/waste wood & sawdust. Fossil fuels simply contain a much higher energy density and that makes for financial efficiencies.
This is all not to say I’m against the plant or biomass in general, I’m in favor of trying everything. Diversity is a good thing! 🙂 Energy production is an engineering problem – and engineering problems are always about tradeoffs. If I had my way, I’d like to see us replace most fossil fuels with nuclear (we should be getting 50-75% from nuclear now instead of <20%). Going forward, a gradual but continual expansion of expand solar, hydro & wind and to a lesser extent biomass where it's essentially free & would otherwise be waste. For economic reasons, I give cheap energy equal importance with clean energy. Technological innovation and time are what can make the two improve together instead of being in conflict. Just like car fuel efficiency – rather than drastic changes, I support steady and continual, but very gradual improvement.