What if coal plants were converted to biomass plants? [06]

Converting coal power stations to run on biomass—via co‑firing, full conversion, and, in selected cases, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)—can deliver dispatchable, lower‑carbon electricity while leveraging existing assets and workforce. Globally, modern bioenergy is expected to more than double by 2050 in net‑zero pathways, with solid bioenergy serving hard‑to‑electrify sectors and providing firm power; BECCS plays a critical role by delivering durable carbon removals. [iea.org], [ieabioenergy.com]

But conversion is not a silver bullet. The business case depends on sustainable feedstock supply, emissions accounting under RED III and similar frameworks, pellet price volatility, and retrofit costs—especially at utility scale. India’s policy ecosystem is evolving rapidly: a mandatory 5–7% biomass co‑firing obligation in coal plants, the SAMARTH mission for agri‑residue, and MNRE’s revised Biomass Programme to catalyze pellet capacity and cogeneration—collectively widening the window for coal‑to‑biomass transitions with tangible air‑quality benefits from reduced stubble burning. [pib.gov.in], [samarth.po...min.gov.in], [mnre.gov.in], [government...atimes.com]

Our thesis: A strategic conversion program—co‑firing now, targeted full conversions where fuel chains are bankable, and BECCS for a subset of large baseload units—can materially cut power‑sector emissions and deliver firm capacity. The system value is highest when biomass is residue‑based, sustainability‑certified, and integrated with carbon capture at suitable hubs; otherwise, costs and sustainability risks rise. [ieabioener...review.org], [link.springer.com]

Context: the power system’s needs and bioenergy’s role today

Global electricity demand is rising faster than total energy demand (cooling, industry, EVs, data centers). Variable renewables dominate additions, but grids still need firm, flexible capacity. Modern bioenergy, if sustainably sourced and well‑governed, is expected to increase from ~67 EJ to ~99 EJ by 2050, with solid bioenergy meeting dispatch needs and BECCS providing removals. [datacenter...namics.com], [iea.org]

India’s coal fleet—over 213 GW—anchors resource adequacy; emissions from coal‑based plants exceeded 1,188 MtCO₂ in FY 2023–24, highlighting urgency to decarbonize without compromising reliability. [cseindia.org]

Conversion pathways and what they mean in practice

1) Biomass co‑firing (5–20%)

How it works: Biomass pellets (preferably agri‑residue) are blended with coal in existing pulverized‑fuel or fluidized‑bed boilers. Co‑firing up to 20% (thermal) has been demonstrated at utility scale; 5–10% blends are generally achievable with minor modifications if supply chains are robust. [docs.nrel.gov], [cbip.org]
Benefits: Near‑term emissions cuts (CO₂, SOx), residue utilization replacing open‑field burning; leverages legacy assets and O&M teams. [docs.nrel.gov]
Challenges: Fuel handling (higher moisture/alkali/silica), slagging, corrosion, SCR performance, ash quality, and long‑term contracts for consistent pellet specifications; torrefied pellets ease milling and flame stability but at higher fuel cost. [link.springer.com]

India in action:

Policy: India mandates 5% co‑firing in FY 2024–25, rising to 7% in FY 2025–26, with price benchmarking and supply facilitation via SAMARTH. [pib.gov.in], [samarth.po...min.gov.in]
Practice: NTPC has sustained 7–10% non‑torrefied pellet co‑firing at multiple stations and achieved a 20% torrefied biomass demonstration at Tanda (Mar 30, 2024), showing feasibility for higher blends with minimal system redesign. [ntpc.co.in]

2) Full conversion of coal units to biomass

Case lens: The UK’s Drax—Western Europe’s largest coal plant—transitioned units to biomass, delivering ~2.6 GW of dispatchable renewable capacity and ~11% of UK’s renewable power; the site is now a BECCS pioneer candidate. [powermag.com], [initiative...eforum.org]
Retrofits: Steam turbines and generators are retained; the big changes are in fuel receiving, drying, milling, burner systems, and silo/dome storage engineered for biomass safety (self‑heating/dust). [powermag.com]
Limits: The economics hinge on fuel costs, sustainability certifications, and policy support—EU’s RED III tightens eligibility and subsidies for electricity‑only biomass, pushing projects to CHP or CCS‑equipped configurations. [bruening-group.com]

3) BECCS: adding carbon capture to biomass units

System value: BECCS can deliver durable negative emissions (e.g., Drax’s plan: up to 8 MtCO₂/year), improving net‑zero economics. Whole‑economy savings are cited when replacing more expensive removals, though cost certainty is evolving. [drax.com], [ccsassociation.org]
Costs and realism: Current expert elicitation indicates BECCS removal costs lower than DACCS but not trivial; scalability depends on sustainable feedstock and CO₂ transport & storage ecosystems. [frontiersin.org], [iea.org]
Policy debates: While BECCS features in IPCC/IEA pathways, land‑use and sustainability constraints remain active areas of scrutiny. [ipcc.ch]

Fuel supply, sustainability, and carbon accounting—what you must get right

Modern bioenergy is not “automatically” carbon neutral. Lifecycle results depend on feedstock type, land‑use change, transport, combustion efficiency, and counterfactuals (what would have happened to residues otherwise). Governance systems (RED III, SBP) tighten criteria: no support for electricity‑only plants in many cases, restrictions on feedstocks (industrial roundwood, primary forests), and mandatory GHG accounting and audits above lower capacity thresholds. [bruening-group.com], [sbp-cert.org], [forestlitigation.org]
Best practice: Prioritize agri/forestry residues, industrial side‑streams, and waste streams; build traceability/certification; align with RED III’s cascading principle and “no‑go zones”. [ieabioener...review.org], [hfw.com]
India’s feedstock reality: Multiple studies and official charts point to large agri‑residue potential (paddy straw, bagasse, corn stover)—with hundreds of million tonnes remaining untapped through 2030—if supply chains and pelletization scale. [iea.org]

Economics: what drives the conversion ROI

Capex and retrofit scope: Co‑firing generally requires modest retrofit (fuel yards, conveyors, minor boiler/mill tweaks); full conversion demands major fuel handling/storage upgrades (e.g., domes) and sometimes new burners and mills. Drax’s conversion illustrates reuse of steam islands with heavy investment in fuel logistics. [powermag.com]
Fuel price & market dynamics: Global pellet demand ~44–49 Mt (2023–24), with Europe contracting and Asia rising; prices fell from 2022 peaks but remain policy‑sensitive and volatile. Supply is concentrated in North America and SE Asia (Vietnam), and EU RED III/EUDR compliance will shape imports and costs. [bulkterminals.org], [apps.fas.usda.gov], [biomasspolicy.com]
Policy support: In the UK/EU, subsidies/CFDs have underpinned projects; analyses warn BECCS support could be costly for bill payers if fuel costs rise. India’s pass‑through mechanisms for pellet costs and CFA subsidies for pellet plants improve bankability, lowering transaction friction and expanding vendor pools. [ember-energy.org], [bing.com], [government...atimes.com]

Grid value: firm, flexible, dispatchable

Biomass generation is dispatchable, complements VRE integration, and provides firm capacity without relying on weather. In net‑zero grids, firm power is still required even with advanced storage; BECCS adds negative emissions to the stack, potentially displacing costlier removals. [etn.global], [iea.org]

India policy & project lens (2024–2025): from pilots to scale

Mandates & Mission: MoP revised biomass co‑firing policy (2021, 2023 addendum, 2024 clarification); mandatory 5–7% co‑firing; SAMARTH to fix supply chain bottlenecks; MoEF&CC “Environment (Utilisation of Crop Residue by TPPs) Rules, 2023” to curb stubble burning. [pib.gov.in], [samarth.po...min.gov.in]
Factory‑gate support: MNRE Biomass Programme (Phase‑I, 2021–26) offers CFA to pellet/briquette plants and non‑bagasse cogeneration; 2025 revisions simplify compliance and link subsidies to measured performance (80% CUF rules with pro‑rata CFA). [mnre.gov.in], [pib.gov.in]
Utility demonstrations: NTPC’s torrefied pellet co‑firing at 20% shows path to higher blends; prospective use of torrefied MSW/sludge adds circularity benefits. [ntpc.co.in]
Evidence base: Centre for Science and Environment finds ~230 Mt surplus biomass annually and 30–40 Mt paddy stubble burned in NW India—underscoring the dual climate/air‑quality dividend from scaling residue‑to‑power with co‑firing. [cseindia.org]

Risks & watch‑outs

Sustainability & land‑use: Avoid primary forests/peatlands; enforce cascading; prove additionality for removals under BECCS. RED III raises the bar and tightening is ongoing. [bruening-group.com], [forestlitigation.org]
Fuel price volatility & import exposure: Pellet markets are policy‑driven; Asia’s demand is rising while EU compliance tightens—build diversified, domestic residue supply. [bulkterminals.org], [apps.fas.usda.gov]
Technical performance: Address boiler fouling/corrosion, ash quality, and SCR impacts; torrefaction improves grindability and GCV but increases fuel cost unless the market matures. [link.springer.com]
Lifecycle emissions accounting: Point‑of‑combustion CO₂ is not the whole story; use robust LCA frameworks and counterfactuals; ensure transparency (biogenic vs fossil carbon). [ieabioenergy.com], [epa.gov]
Public finance & affordability: BECCS incentives can be expensive; quantify system value (firm power + removals) versus alternatives; use competitive procurement and cap‑and‑floor designs. [ember-energy.org]

A pragmatic conversion roadmap (India and global utilities)

Phase 0 | 6–12 months: Portfolio diagnostic

Screen coal units for co‑firing potential (fuel yards, mills, emissions controls).
Map domestic residue basins within 300–500 km; pre‑qualify pellet vendors; anchor long‑term offtake with price benchmarking (SAMARTH tools). [samarth.po...min.gov.in]

Phase 1 | 12–24 months: Scale co‑firing to 7–10% (non‑torrefied)

Retrofit fuel conveying/mixing, tune mills/burners; enforce IS standards for pellets; implement IoT/monitoring (MNRE’s revised guidelines).
Structure pass‑through tariff elements and RPO/RGO alignment with regulators. [government...atimes.com]

Phase 2 | 24–36 months: Pilot torrefied co‑firing (15–20%)

Engage torrefaction vendors; qualify HGI/GCV; co‑fire at ≥15% with performance monitoring; extend to MSW/sludge torrefaction pilots (air‑quality & urban waste benefits). [ntpc.co.in]

Phase 3 | 36–60 months: Targeted full conversions

Identify baseload units near residue hubs and ports (if imports are needed) for full biomass conversion; design silo/dome storage and fire safety systems; align with RED III sustainability if exporting power/RECs to EU markets. [powermag.com], [bruening-group.com]

Phase 4 | 48–84 months: BECCS at hubs (select sites)

Where CO₂ transport/storage is feasible (e.g., coastal clusters), advance FEED studies for post‑combustion capture; plan for pipeline/offshore storage; pursue negative emissions contracts with industry and government. [ccsassociation.org]

CEO/CFO checklist

Fuel strategy: Lock multi‑year residue aggregation within a radius; co‑develop pellet plants under MNRE CFA; diversify with seasonal blends (paddy straw, cane trash, woody residues). [mnre.gov.in]
Sustainability & compliance: Implement RED III‑aligned sourcing; SBP/ISCC certifications; transparent GHG accounting. [sbp-cert.org], [iscc-system.org]
Retrofit economics: Prioritize co‑firing retrofits with high IRR; assess torrefaction when mill limits bind; full conversions only where fuel logistics are bankable. [link.springer.com]
BECCS business model: Combine capacity payments (firm power) with removal credits; benchmark against DACCS and afforestation; stage investments to de‑risk learning curves. [frontiersin.org], [link.springer.com]
Stakeholder value: Quantify local air‑quality gains from stubble utilization; jobs in pellet manufacturing; community contracts for residue collection. [cseindia.org]

KPIs to track

Co‑firing rate (% thermal) and net CO₂ avoided (tCO₂/MWh) vs coal baseline (plant‑specific LCA). [epa.gov]
Residue utilization (Mt/year) and open burning reduction (satellite/aerosol proxies in NCR). [cseindia.org]
Sustainability compliance (RED III audits passed; feedstock certification coverage). [forestlitigation.org]
Pellet cost & availability (₹/GJ; storage days; vendor diversity). [apps.fas.usda.gov]
BECCS capture rate (%) and removals contracted (tCO₂/year; price), vs DACCS benchmarks. [iea.org], [frontiersin.org]

Conclusion

Coal‑to‑biomass conversion is a credible, near‑term decarbonization lever that preserves firm capacity while accelerating the transition—especially when anchored in residue‑based feedstocks, robust sustainability governance, and, where feasible, BECCS for durable removals. India’s evolving policies (SAMARTH, co‑firing mandate, MNRE CFA) position its fleet to scale co‑firing now, pilot torrefied blends quickly, and convert select units—delivering climate, air‑quality, and rural income gains. The global lesson: do conversions where fuel chains are bankable and verifiably sustainable, and deploy BECCS selectively to maximize system value in the march to net zero. [samarth.po...min.gov.in], [pib.gov.in], [mnre.gov.in], [iea.org]

Search This Blog

RENEWCONNECT - All about renewables & power sector