In a new study,
researchers at the University of Iowa report that burning oat hulls had
considerable
benefits to the environment as well as to human health. The study examined
the practices at
the UI Power Plant, where technicians have burned a mix of oat hulls
and coal for more
than a decade. File photo by Clarity Guerra.
(September 26, 2015) Biomass
burning sometimes gets a bad rap. That’s because many associate the burning of
living and dead vegetation with human-caused fires and clearing of land that
release unhealthy particles and gases that spur global warming.
But what if you burned biomass in a controlled environment,
such as in a power plant, that at least partially replaces using a fossil fuel?
Would there be demonstrable environmental and health benefits?
In a new study, researchers at the University of Iowa report
that burning oat hulls had considerable benefits to the environment as well as
to human health. The study examined the practices at the UI Power Plant, where
technicians have burned a mix of oat hulls and coal for more than a decade. The
researchers found a 50-50 oat hulls-coal mix, when compared to burning only
coal, reduced fossil carbon-dioxide emissions by 40 percent and significantly
reduced the release of particulate matter, hazardous substances, and heavy
metals.
“Our general conclusion is that when optimized, co firing
(burning biomass with coal) presents a good option for energy production,
without incurring the negative environmental effects that comes with burning
fossil fuels alone, like fossil carbon dioxide emissions and harmful
particulate matter,” says Betsy Stone, assistant professor of chemistry at the
UI and corresponding author on the study, published in the journal Fuel.
It may seem logical that controlled burning any type of
biomass—from grasses to wood chips—would be good for the environment. After
all, shouldn’t any of these sources be more preferable than coal, known for its
deleterious environmental and public-health effects? Not necessarily, as
biomass burning requires specialized equipment, may not burn as efficiently as
fossil fuels, and supplies may be limited, among other factors. In other words,
the benefits may not outweigh the costs.