Tools

LEADER 03429nam a2200493 i 4500

001 ocn829394219;

003 OCoLC;

005 20141209135127.0;

006 m o d f ;

007 cr bn|||||||||;

008 130308s2014 ag a ob f000 0 eng c;

016 7 a| 0163031432| Uk;

035 a| (Sirsi) o829394219;

042 a| pcc;

043 a| n-us---;

049 a| ERE#;

074 a| 0083-B-06 (online);

086 0 a| A 13.88:PNW-GTR-867;

100 1 a| Nicholls, David L.,e| author.=| ^A695555;

245 10 a| Cofiring biomass and coal for fossil fuel reduction and other benefits :b| status of North American facilities in 2010 /c| David Nicholls and John Zerbe.;

264 1 a| Portland, Oregon :b| United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,c| 2014.;

300 a| 1 online resource (22 pages) :b| illustrations.;

336 a| text2| rdacontent;

337 a| computer2| rdamedia;

338 a| online resource2| rdacarrier;

490 1 a| General technical report PNW ;v| GTR-867;

520 3 a| Cofiring of biomass and coal at electrical generation facilities is gaining in importance as a means of reducing fossil fuel consumption, and more than 40 facilities in the United States have conducted test burns. Given the large size of many coal plants, cofiring at even low rates has the potential to utilize relatively large volumes of biomass. This could have important forest management implications if harvest residues or salvage timber are supplied to coal plants. Other feedstocks suitable for cofiring include wood products manufacturing residues, woody municipal wastes, agricultural residues, short-rotation intensive culture forests, or hazard fuel removals. Cofiring at low rates can often be done with minimal changes to plant handling and processing equipment, requiring little capital investment. Cofiring at higher rates can involve repowering entire burners to burn biomass in place of coal, or in some cases, repowering entire powerplants. Our research evaluates the current status of biomass cofiring in North America, identifying current trends and success stories, types of biomass used, coal plant sizes, and primary cofiring regions. We also identify potential barriers to cofiring. Results are presented for more than a dozen plants that are currently cofiring or have recently announced plans to cofire.;

500 a| "August, 2012.";

504 a| Includes bibliographical references (pages 17-22).;

500 a| Title from title screen (viewed on Dec. 9, 2014).;

650 0 a| Coal-fired power plantsz| United States.=| ^A417725;

650 0 a| Wood waste as fuelz| United States.=| ^A855776;

650 0 a| Biomass energyz| United States.=| ^A1000769;

700 1 a| Zerbe, John I.,e| author.=| ^A1020056;

710 2 a| Pacific Northwest Research Station (Portland, Or.)e| issuing body.=| ^A367712;

830 0 a| General technical report PNWv| 867.=| ^A420450;

856 40 u| https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo53837;

949 a| Click on web addressw| ASISh| JOYNER94;

998 a| 3706633;

998 a| u3706633;

596 a| 1;

999 a| CLICK ON WEB ADDRESSw| ASISc| 1i| 3706633-1001l| JNETm| JOYNERr| Ys| Yt| JNE1DOu| 1/15/2015x| EDOCUMENTz| JERESOURCE;

Cofiring biomass and coal for fossil fuel reduction and other benefits : status of North American facilities in 2010 / David Nicholls and John Zerbe.

Author/creator	Nicholls, David L. author.
Other author	Zerbe, John I., author.
Other author	Pacific Northwest Research Station (Portland, Or.) issuing body.
Format	Electronic
Publication	Portland, Oregon : United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 2014.
Description	1 online resource (22 pages) : illustrations.
Supplemental Content	https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo53837
Subjects	Coal-fired power plants--United States. Wood waste as fuel--United States. Biomass energy--United States.

Series	General technical report PNW ; GTR-867 General technical report PNW 867. ^A420450
Summary	Cofiring of biomass and coal at electrical generation facilities is gaining in importance as a means of reducing fossil fuel consumption, and more than 40 facilities in the United States have conducted test burns. Given the large size of many coal plants, cofiring at even low rates has the potential to utilize relatively large volumes of biomass. This could have important forest management implications if harvest residues or salvage timber are supplied to coal plants. Other feedstocks suitable for cofiring include wood products manufacturing residues, woody municipal wastes, agricultural residues, short-rotation intensive culture forests, or hazard fuel removals. Cofiring at low rates can often be done with minimal changes to plant handling and processing equipment, requiring little capital investment. Cofiring at higher rates can involve repowering entire burners to burn biomass in place of coal, or in some cases, repowering entire powerplants. Our research evaluates the current status of biomass cofiring in North America, identifying current trends and success stories, types of biomass used, coal plant sizes, and primary cofiring regions. We also identify potential barriers to cofiring. Results are presented for more than a dozen plants that are currently cofiring or have recently announced plans to cofire.
General note	"August, 2012."
General note	Title from title screen (viewed on Dec. 9, 2014).
Bibliography note	Includes bibliographical references (pages 17-22).
Issued in other form	Print version: Nicholls, David L. Cofiring biomass and coal for fossil fuel reduction and other benefits
GPO item number	0083-B-06 (online)
Govt. docs number	A 13.88:PNW-GTR-867

Availability

Library	Location	Call Number	Status	Item Actions
	Electronic Resources	Access Content Online	✔ Available

Cofiring biomass and coal for fossil fuel reduction and other benefits : status of North American facilities in 2010 / David Nicholls and John Zerbe.

Click here for more information about this title

Availability