By guest author Geert Warringa, <\/em><\/strong>CE Delft<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Co-firing is the combustion of two different types of material at the same time for energy production. In the Netherlands, co-firing coal with biomass is one of the options for meeting their 14% renewables target. However, there are alternatives on the table which actually score better in terms of energy transition, subsidy costs, employment and added value to the economy.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The Netherlands has committed to sourcing 14% of the country\u2019s energy from renewables by 2020. In addition to using solar, wind, geothermal and hydro power, it has also been agreed, as part of the national \u201cDutch Energy Agreement\u201d between the government and different stakeholders, that co-firing of biomass in coal-fired power plants may contribute a maximum of 25 PJ to the 14% target.<\/p>\n A study<\/a> by CE Delft, commissioned by the Netherlands Society for Nature and Environment (Natuur & Milieu<\/a>) and energy company Eneco<\/a>, which\u00a0estimates the subsidy costs and other impacts of\u00a0two alternative scenarios to\u00a0co-firing\u00a0to meet the renewables target,\u00a0show that these are viable options\u00a0on the table.<\/p>\n The first is a package made up of four renewable energy options, where half the 25 PJ would come from greening the electricity market and the other half by greening the heat market. This would include adding a new 700 MW wind farm, 0.6 Gigawatt peak capacity (GWp) of solar energy, 7.5 PJ of industrial bio-steam and 5 PJ of biomass for district heating. The second option would be to convert the Amer 8 power plant in Noord-Brabant from a 100% coal to 100% biomass burning plant, which has been done to other coal plants throughout Europe.<\/p>\n Overall, they found that the scenario relying on other renewables, such as wind, solar, bio-steam and biomass for district heating, scored best on most economic indicators. Although wind and solar energy are flexible sources and require more balancing power, turning to these renewables instead of co-firing would bring more value to the Dutch economy. It would save about 80 million euros per year in public subsidies and reduce the costs of electricity. The job market would be expected to grow three times more than with the other options. The number of one-off full-time jobs would be 10,000 with the renewables option versus 3000 for co-firing and 2000 that would be generated with a conversion to 100% biomass.<\/p>\n An additional benefit is that solar and wind energy would have a positive impact on the country\u2019s energy transition. After 15 years when the subsidies have ended, these technologies will still produce renewable energy, while electricity production based on biomass would come to a stop without further investment. This impact is particularly important given the reduction target becoming more stringent in the future and the increasing costs for meeting those targets.<\/p>\n The full report \u201cAlternatives for co-firing biomass in coal plant. \u2018Quick Scan\u2019 analysis of subsidy costs and other impacts of alternative policies under the Dutch Energy Agreement\u201d can be downloaded at <\/em>www.cedelft.eu<\/em><\/a> \u00a0For more information, please contact Geert Warringa (<\/em>warringa@ce.nl<\/em><\/a> \/+31 15 2150150)<\/em><\/p>\n Note: The views and opinions expressed in this guest blog post are those of the author and not necessarily supported by BirdLife Europe\/EEB\/T&E.<\/em><\/p>\n Photo:\u00a0Windpower (c) Smilemark, Flickr Creative Commons<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Co-firing with biomass compared to other renewables By guest author Geert Warringa, CE Delft Co-firing is the combustion of two different types of material at the same time for energy production. In the Netherlands, co-firing coal with biomass is one of the options for meeting their 14% renewables target. However,<\/p>\n