Biomass Workshop

T. A. Volk SUNY-ESF, Syracuse, NY SURE Workshop, January 27, 2005 Overview • Objectives • Biomass Background and Drivers • Biomass Feedstocks: Production and Potential • Federal and State Policies • Biomass Terminology • Small Scale Biomass Systems • Large Scale Power Systems • Creating a Successful Wood Energy Project Objectives

• Understand the drivers for biomass development and related state and federal policies • Understand terminology related to biomass in order to assess the value of different biomass sources and make basic calculations for biomass systems • Understand the potential of and important factors related to small and large scale biomass projects for heating and power production so that participants can explore these options for projects they are involved in Background and Drivers What is Biomass?

• Recent organic material derived from plants or animals that is available on a renewable or recurring basis • A complex renewable resource made up of different feedstocks, conversion pathways, end products and energy forms • Can be used at a variety of different scales.

(Sims 2002) Biomass Use for Energy in the U.S.

(Bain and Overend, 2002) Biomass Flows in the U.S. Economy

Materials Fiber pulp paper Process Residues lumber black liquor plywood cotton sawdust Consumers MSW clean fraction bark yard trimmings constr. & demolition Crops, Animals Food wood non-recyclable stalks & Process organics harvest residues Residues Energy forest slash Services dung heat CHP Biomass forest harvest for energy electricity short rotation woody crops herbaceous energy crops charcoal ethanol Source: Overend, NREL hydrogen Range of Sizes Range of Sizes for Biomass Applications

(Sims 2002) Drivers for Biomass

• National security – Rising oil prices – Increasing dependency on imported oil (59% of our supply was imported in 2004) • Environmental impacts of fossil fuels

– Increasing levels of CO2 – Air pollution that contributes to acid precipitation, mercury, particulates, ozone etc. Drivers for Biomass

• Rural Development Opportunities – Agriculture and forestry are in decline in many areas of the country – Developing new markets and new crops for the bioenergy and bioproducts industry will help revitalize these industries – Limited transportation distances results in local fuel production, processing and conversion Benefits from Biomass

• Green hardwood chips and other fuels used in heating systems in Vermont in 2003 • High end of range is retail price, low end is for wholesale price • Gross is fuel cost before combustion, net is fuel cost for useable heat output (Maker 2004) Benefits from Biomass

• It is a renewable, sustainable resource • Fuel is available in large quantities across the northeast and elsewhere • Use of local, natural resources creates independence and reinforces local networking • Biomass fuel dollars and the value added from their conversion stays in the local economy Benefits from Biomass

• Large or innovative projects pave the way for other projects or industries • Biomass fuel prices have historically been fairly stable • Biomass price increases will be more gradual than competing fuels Benefits from Biomass

• Biomass pricing is not subject to monopolistic control • Future energy and carbon taxes should not impact biomass fuels • Low grade markets can improve opportunities for sustainable forest management Common Concerns

• Higher capital and M&O costs • Biomass fuel requires more attention during operation • Attention to fuel quality is required • May have to build and maintain a local fuel supply network • Burning biomass is not as clean as natural gas • Biomass systems may require more maintenance than conventional fuel systems Biomass Feedstocks: Production and Potential Photosynthesis

• Photo – to do with light • Synthesis – the linking of several parts • The process by which plants take in

CO2 and water from their environment and, using energy from sunlight convert them into sugars, starches, cellulose, lignin etc.

sunlight

CO2 + 2H2O ([CH2O] + H2O) + O2 Photosynthesis – How much

• Only about 0.02% of the suns energy that reaches the earth is fixed by terrestrial biomass • More is fixed by plankton, aquatic plants etc. • The amount of solar energy captured in biomass is seven to eight time greater than the total amount of energy used in the world Bioenergy Production Potential in 2050 Bioenergy Production Potential in 2050

(Faaj 2005) National Biomass Supply

• Assessment of whether land resources in the US could sustainably produce over 1 billion tons of biomass • Enough biomass to replace about 30% of the country’s petroleum consumption National Biomass Supply

• Over 1.3 billion tons from forest and agricultural land that is currently not being utilized – 368 million from forests – 998 from agricultural land Agricultural Resources • 55 million acres of cropland, idle cropland and pasture would be used for perennial bioenergy crops • Yields of corn, and small grains to increase by 50% • 75% of crops residues recovered • No-till on all cropland • Manure amounts in excess of what is needed for soil improvement Forest Resources

• Forest biomass excludes – forestland not accessible by roads – environmentally sensitive areas – wood harvested for conventional forest products Crop Residues Forest Residues Primary Mill Residues Secondary Mill Residues Available Biomass New York State Land CoverCover

--

MilesMiles Legend 015 306090120 306090120 NYS Land Cover Water Forest 19,557,155 ac. Pasture/Hay 6,033,572 ac. Map Created for the Willow Biomass Project Row Crops 1,694,229 ac. Map Created for the Willow Biomass Project Date:Date: JuneJune 14,14, 20052005

Reducing the Price of Forest Chips Short-Rotation Woody Crops

• Short-rotation woody crops are unique: – produce environmental and rural development benefits in addition to bioenergy and/or bioproducts » Riparian buffer strips » Windbreaks and living snow fences » Nutrient and waste management systems » Brownfield restoration » Phytoremediation Willow Biomass Production Cycle

Three years old after Site Preparation coppice

Harvest Planting

One year old after coppice

Coppice First year growth Early spring after coppicing Regional Background

• Northeast and mid- Atlantic region was the heart of the U.S. willow basket industry through Hubbard, W. 1904. the early 1900s Regional Background

• Research on SRWC begins in early 1980s • Ranged from wide spaced poplars with 10-12 year rotations to wood grass trials on one year rotations

SUNY-ESF research station in Tully, • Focus shifts to willow NY. Site of original willow biomass in the mid 1980s trials in the US. Willow Research and Demonstration Sites

Legend ê Active biomass ê Previous biomass ê Phytoremediation ê Willow snowfences ê Riparian buffers Why Willow?

• Very high biomass production potential • Produces uniform feedstock for bioproducts • Easily established with unrooted cuttings • Resprouts vigorously after each harvest Three-year old willow in Tully, NY Why Willow?

• Limited insect and pest problems • Wide range of genetic variability • Very short breeding cycle for genetic improvement Willow seedlings from breeding efforts at SUNY- ESF What Willow?

• Focus is on the development of shrub type willows, not the more conspicuous tree willows • Varieties selected do not root sucker or spread easily Weeping willow (Salix babylonica) Site Preparation Planting Stock

Harvesting one year old whips for planting stock 25 cm long dormant cuttings Planting Stock Production

• Fertilized and irrigated dedicated nursery beds with densities of about 36,000/ha • Whip production from cutting orchards appears to lower planting stock costs by 10 - 15% • Costs range from $0.07 Harvested willow whips in – 0.15/cutting temporary storage at the Saratoga Tree Nursery Site Preparation

Planting willow biomass crops into a mowed cover crop of winter rye.

Cut and Chip Harvesting Systems

• Harvesting occurs during the dormant season to ensure vigorous regrowth • Modified agricultural equipment is used to cut and chip willow biomass in a single pass

New Holland forage harvester being tested in three year old willow in Tully, NY

! ! ! ! ! ! ! New York State ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! #! ! Wood Using Mills ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 302 Mills (1998 Survey Data) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " ! ! Mill Type ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sawmill 296 ! # ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " ! ! ! Pulp Mill 3 ! ! ! ! ! "! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! # Veneer 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! # ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Miles ! - 030609012015 !

!

Map Created for the Willow Biomass Project Date: June 14, 2005

Volume of Mill Residues Total Residue Fiber Misc. Fuel Byproducts Unused Mill Residues (Tons) Product Byproducts Byproducts Mill Residues - Bark 252,212.41 13,951.68 67,537.45 163,323.26 7,400.02

Mill Residues - Coarse Wood 599,253.07 201,007.03 324,384.77 60,173.54 13,687.73

Mill Residues - Fine Wood 423,681.33 2,384.53 75,305.98 338,828.28 7,162.54 Total Mill Residues 1,275,146.81 217,343.24 467,228.2 562,325.08 28,250.29 Wood Residues

• Supplies vary over time depending on wood manufacturing industries • Quality control is important • Requires time and site specific assessments – 1998 NREL report estimates that 3.7 million tons are produced annually in NY (Rooney 1998) – USDA Forest Service (2002) indicates 1.3 million tons produced annually • Unused portion varies from 5- 35% Technical Potential of Biomass Resource Potential Land Base for Willow (50 mile radius of Greenidge power plant)

Land Category Land Available (acres) Suitable Idle land 146,000 10% of suitable 212,000 agricultural land Total potential land 358,000 Potential annual 1,432,000 harvest (dry tons) Average yield of 4.0 odt/ac/yr Potential Woody Feedstocks (50 mile radius of Greenidge power plant)

Resource Amount (dry tons yr-1) Potential willow production 1,432,000 Unused annual forest growth 1,900,000 (on about 1.8 million acres) Wood processing residues 130,000 Potential annual supply 3,462,000

• Lyonsdale (19MW) currently uses about 165,000 dry tons of wood per year. Socio-economic Potential • Amount of technically available resource will vary due to: – Market prices for other energy sources (coal, oil, natural gas) – Prices for biomass for other uses (i.e. pulp logs, saw logs, mulch) – Competition from other biomass users – Incentives and policies that support renewable energy – Pubic opinions about biomass resources and their use • Understand the socio-economic potential of the biomass resource • May need to secure biomass supply with long term contracts, but caution needed Prices Change Supplies 5050 MileMile RadiusRadius Overlap Overlap For For Selected NewNew York York State State Locations Locations (Syracuse-Dresden:(Syracuse-Dresden: 40.62%) 40.62%)

Lyons Falls Lyons(! Falls (!

Fulton (! Fulton (! Legend Syracuse ! (Syracuse Syracuse Buffer (! Legend LegendDresden Buffer Dresden Syracuse Buffer (! Percent Overlap Dunkirk Dresden SyracuseDresden Buffer Buffer (! (! Dunkirk 40.62 (! De lhi (! De lhi (!

Miles 025507510012.5 Miles -- 025507510012.5

Map Created for the Willow Biomass Project Date: May 17, 2005 Map Created for the Willow Biomass Project Date: May 17, 2005 Selected City Locations and Their Feedstock Areas Og de nsbu rg !.

Go uverne ur !. Tu pp er La ke !.

Lyon s Falls !.

Fulton !. Rome !. Syra cuse !.

Schenectady !. Dresde n !. Dunkirk !. Oneonta !. Ellicottville !. Steu be n Co. !. !. Delhi

Miles - 012.5 25 50 75 100 125 Federal and State Policies Federal Biomass Tax Credit • Renewable energy production tax credit (REPC) • Initially in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 • Renewed several times, most recently in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 • 1.9 cents kWh-1 in 2005 for closed loop biomass, wind, solar, poultry manure, and geothermal for 10 years • 0.9 cents kWh-1 for open loop biomass, small irrigation hydroelectric, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, and hydropower • Refined coal gets $4.375 per ton for 10 years • Indian coal receives $1.50 per ton until 2009 and then $2.00 per ton through 2013 Conservation Reserve Program

• Approved harvesting of energy crops once every three years under the managed haying and grazing provision at the federal level • Policy is in place for willow in NY under conservation practices CP4B and CP4D Conservation Reserve Program

• Landowners eligible for 950% reimbursement for eligible establishment costs 9Annual rental payments based on soil type 9Rental payment reduced by 25% in harvest year • Restricted to general CRP sign up periods Willow Biomass Delivered Price

Scenario Current Yield Increased Yield ($ ($ green ton-1) green ton-1) Base case 27.96 24.32 ($3.00 MMBtu-1) ($2.60 MMBtu-1)

• Average delivered coal cost is $1.50 – 2.00 MMbtu-1 • Average price for wood chips is $20 – 25 green ton-1 (Tharakan et al. 2005) Willow Biomass Delivered Price

Scenario Current Yield Increased Yield ($ ($ green ton-1) green ton-1) Base case 27.96 24.32 ($3.00 MMBtu-1) ($2.60 MMBtu-1) Base case + 17.71 15.80 CRP ($1.90 MMBtu-1) ($1.70 MMBtu-1)

• Average delivered coal cost is $1.50 – 2.00 MMbtu-1 • Average price for wood chips is $20 – 25 green ton-1 (Tharakan et al. 2005) Willow Biomass Delivered Price

Scenario Current Yield Increased Yield ($ ($ green ton-1) green ton-1) Base case 27.96 24.32 ($3.00 MMBtu-1) ($2.60 MMBtu-1) Base case + 17.71 15.80 CRP ($1.90 MMBtu-1) ($1.70 MMBtu-1) Base case + 16.78 15.10 Tax Credit ($1.80 MMBtu-1) ($1.62 MMBtu-1) • Average delivered coal cost is $1.50 – 2.00 MMbtu-1 • Average price for wood chips is $20 – 25 green ton-1 (Tharakan et al. 2005) NYS Renewable Portfolio Standard

• Target: 25% renewable power by 2013 – Currently at 19% • Sources for renewable power include: – Wind – Hydro – Biomass – Solar – Tidal ocean NYS Renewable Portfolio Standard • Biomass feedstocks – Sustainable yield wood (energy crops) – Agricultural residues – Mill residues, pallets, clean wood waste – Harvested wood – Forest and wood processing residues • Biomass conversion technologies – Biomass direct combustion – Biomass combined heat and power generation – Biomass co-fired with existing fossil-fuel – Conversion to liquid fuels if the fuels are used for the generation of electricity Biomass in the NY RPS • Sources of eligible biomass defined • Wood harvested from forests will require: – a facility specific forest management plan – site specific harvesting plan or FSC, SFI or Tree Farm certification NYS Renewable Portfolio Standard

• – Landfill gas – Sewage gas – Manure digestion – Anaerobic digestion of other agricultural or food processing wastes – Syngas from gasification Projected Renewable Sources

12000 Total Wind Total Biomass 10000 Total Hydro All Sources 8000

6000

4000 MW Generated

2000

0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Year Biomass Terms and Units Biomass Terms • Weight – in lbs and tons – or kg and tonnes • Fuels are often compared on a dry weight basis (0% moisture content) – odt – oven dry tons – bone dry weight is same as oven dry • Green weight is less rigorously defined term but is used to express the weight of freshly harvested biomass Biomass Terms

• Energy units – Btu, MMBtu –MJ, GJ • Volume terms –ft3, yd3 –M3 – Cord – wood stacked 4ft x 4ft x 8 ft or 128 ft3 of space Energy or Heating Values

• HHV (higher heating value) - is the gross amount of heat energy released when biomass is combusted at standard atmospheric conditions and 60% relative humidity – Also called the Gross Heating Value (GHV) or the Calorific Value (CV) Energy or Heating Values

• LHV (Lower heating value) – the net amount of heat released when biomass is combusted at standard atmospheric conditions and 60% relative humidity – Also called Net Heating Value (NHV) or Lower Calorific Value (LCV) • The difference between HHV and LHV is the latent heat of vaporization, which depends on the moisture content of the fuel and it hydrogen content Moisture Content

• Need to understand the moisture content (%M.C. of the fuel) • For wood ranges widely from <10% for wood residues up to 65% • Other biomass sources can have m.c. of up to 90% (e.g. biosolids) • The m.c. of wood is influenced by climate, species, harvesting method, time of harvest, length and method of storage Moisture Content

m.c. wet basis = Total wet weight of wood – oven-dry weight X 100 Total weight weight of wood

Total wet weight of wood – oven-dry weight m.c. dry basis = Oven-dry weight X 100 Moisture Content

• For a sample with a wet weight of 1200 g and an oven dry weight of 650 g the m.c. wet basis is 45.8% and 84.6% on a dry basis • M.C. is usually reported on a wet weight basis, but be sure you know what values are being used Moisture and Energy Content

Moisture content (wet weight basis) (Sims 2002) Moisture and Energy Content Biomass Characteristics

• Proximate analysis – A breakdown of the fuel’s components of fixed carbon, volatile matter, moisture and ash – Provides an indication of the combustion characteristics of the fuel – Relatively small variations between different sources of woody biomass Biomass Characteristics

• Ultimate analysis – Provides the chemical composition of the biomass in elemental terms – Used to determine combustion characteristics, flue losses and likely emissions

Bulk Density

• Important to understand for transportation and storage requirements • Varies by – form of biomass or piece size (i.e. solid wood, stacked roundwood, billets, or wood chips) – piece shape – moisture content – species Bulk Density

• Lower end is for softwoods, higher end of range is generally hardwoods

Biomass Deliveries Energy Density

• Knowing the LHV and the bulk density of your biomass fuel allows you to determine its energy density • Useful to know when planning a bioenergy project since it will effect the size of the plant, storage area needed, transportation systems etc. • Biomass energy density is lower than oil or coal and is a limitation that increases their delivered energy costs Fuelwood Fuelwood Fuelwood Coal Property (20% m.c.) (50% m.c.) (60% m.c.) (60%m.c.) Lower heating 16 10 8 25 value (MJ/kg) Bulk density 170 270 335 600 (kg/m3) Energy density 2720 2700 2680 15,000 (MJ/m3) Densification

• Various techniques are used and being developed to increase the energy density of different sources of biomass Approaches to Densification Small Scale Biomass Systems Biomass Energy System Components – Fuel Storage

• Design for immediate and long term needs • Usually below ground – Easy unloading – Below forest level – Less obtrusive • Accommodate a variety of delivery vehicles • Size to accommodate 30- 50% more than one full load for small systems • Larger systems based on Berlin, VT and Newport, VT (Maker 2004) available storage space Delivery Options

• Walking floor trucks are common • Design system with some flexibility for different vehicles and types of fuels Delivery Options Delivery options….

Delivery Trials and Tribulations Biomass Energy System Components – Fuel Storage

• Storage size needed • Need to know – system’s energy output – amount of load – fuel’s heating value – Bulk density Wood storage facility (GSES 2005) – Heating efficiency Storage Space

Boiler output x hours of load LHV x bulk density x system efficiency Fuel Handling Systems

• Automated system of augers or scrapers and conveyor belts • Metering bin to control flow of material into the boiler • Essential that pieces work effectively together Combustion System

• Variety of types and sizes • Design system type for anticipated fuels, required capacity, emissions requirements etc. • Ash removal can be automated or done manually Small-scale Bioenergy Systems

(Sims 2002) Small-scale Bioenergy Systems

(Sims 2002) Small-scale Bioenergy Systems

(Sims 2002) Wood Heating System Cost-Effectiveness

• Biomass systems are most cost effective when: – Cost of alternative fuels is high – Facility energy demands are relatively large – When they are an alternative to another new system rather than a replacement for an existing system – When hot water or steam heating systems are already in place Cost Effectiveness

Life cycle costing study using assumptions from Appendix D in Maker (2004). Cost Effectiveness Cost Effectiveness Cost Effectiveness – Case Study

• Life cycle costing approach – Accounts for changes in fuel costs over time – Includes the cost of financing, repair, replacement of the biomass and other systems – Includes all benefits and costs for each year over the life of the project Cost Effectiveness – Case Study

• Conversion from oil to new wood-chip heating system • 220,000 ft2 high school • Capital costs (boiler system, building, hot water, engineering) - $590,000 • 30% VT state aid to schools for capital costs • Interest rate – 4.6% • Term – 20 years Cost Effectiveness – Case Study • Discount rate of 5.6% • 85% of heat for school from wood, rest from oil backup system • Oil price - $1.00/gallon, 3% inflation • Wood-chip - $28/ton, 2% inflation (Maker 2004) Cost Effectiveness – Case Study

(Maker 2004) Large Biomass Power Systems Large Biomass Power Plants

• Stoker and fluidized bed boilers - 10 to 60 MW • Source of most existing biomass power generation • Efficiency = 20% to 24% Pollutant Permit Limit Particulate 0.02 lb/MMBtu BACT • New plants with BACT & NOX 0.075 lb/MMBtu LAER LAER controls have very SO2 0.08 lb/MMBtu BACT low emissions CO 0.09 lb/MMBtu BACT VOC 0.009 lb/MMBtu BACT Large Biomass Power Plants

• Use 98,000 to 846,000 green tons per year • Heat rates vary widely from 11,700 – 20,000 Btu/kWh • Average heat rate is 45 MW biomass power plant in North 14,000 Btu/kWh Carolina • Co-firing facilities can have heat rates for the biomass portion in the 10,000 – 11,000 range Biomass Cofiring

• Substituting biomass for coal in existing power plants • Directly displaces coal with immediate benefits • High efficiency biomass conversion 33% to 35%

• Reduces SOx, NOx, CO2, mercury and other pollutants Biomass Power Plants

• Fuels include mill residues and urban wood wastes at a delivered cost of $0 – 1.40/MMBtu in 2000 (Wiltsee 2000) • Agricultural residues such as orchard trimmings in some locations (e.g. California) are supplied at a delivered cost of about $1.00/MMBtu • Many facilities can use both biomass and different types of fossil fuel Biomass Power Plants • Forest residues in 2000 were in the range of $2.40 – 3.50/MMBtu • Higher costs due to harvesting in more remote and difficult terrain and transportation costs • Federal policy such as the healthy forest initiative to reduce fuel loads in forests will cover some of those costs and make this fuel cost competitive • In 2005 Santee Cooper decided to retrofit a power plant for co-firing and will get about 75,000 tons of wood annually at $12-14 per ton from the Francis Marion National Forest Biomass Gasification

• Low to medium-Btu biogas:

–NOx control (reburn) – Advanced power cycles » Combined cycles » Fuel cells – BioRefining • Full-scale test in Vermont • Efficiency = 35 to 45% • Developing technology System Concept in Life Cycle Assessment

waste materials Waste emissions emissions disposal Extraction process net emissions energy energy non- renewable energy raw materials emissions energy energy emissions

Intermediate Intermediate Process Process feedstock Process feedstock of final product Interest

Intermediate energy non- feedstock energy emissions renewable emissions energy materials raw materials Extraction Process process emissions

Life cycle system boundary Systems Examined

Biomass IGCC Indirectly-heated gasification Dedicated hybrid poplar feedstock Zero carbon sequestration in base case

Average coal Pulverized coal / steam cycle Illinois #6 coal - moderate sulfur, bituminous Surface mining

Biomass / coal 15% cofiring by heat input cofiring Biomass residue (urban, mostly) into PC boiler 0.9 percentage point efficiency derating Credit taken for avoided operations including decomposition (i.e., no biomass growth)

Direct-fired biomass Biomass residue Avoided emissions credit as with cofiring

Natural gas Combined cycle Upstream natural gas losses = 1.4% of gross Life Cycle Energy Balance 30

25 net energy ratio external energy ratio 20

15

10

5

0

Dedicated Average Coal/biomass Direct-fired NGCC biomass PC coal cofiring biomass IGCC residue Energy Balance Oddities

Key question: why are the energy results so poor for the fossil systems?

Answer: Upstream Energy Consumption is High

% of non-feedstock energy related to: Non-feedstock energy Flue-gas Transportation Natural gas (kJ/kWh) cleanup production or coal mining Biomass IGCC 231 0% 16% N/A Direct biomass 125 0% 49% N/A Coal 702 35% 32% 25% Natural gas 1,718 0.5% N/A 98.3% Carbon Cycle (GHG Emissions)

Example flows: • Biomass - photosynthesis, carbon sequestration in soil • Biomass residue - avoided decomposition emissions • Coal - coal mine methane, coal mine waste • Natural gas- fugitive emissions, leaks • General - incomplete combustion, upstream fossil fuel consumption

Key question: On a life cycle basis, what are the net greenhouse gas emissions of these systems? (M. Mann – NREL) (M. Mann – NREL) (M. Mann – NREL) (M. Mann – NREL) (M. Mann – NREL) Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1200

1000

800

600

400

2 200 Direct-fired biomass 0 residue Dedicated Average Coal/biomass NGCC GWP (g COGWP -equivalent / kWh) -200 biomass PC coal Cofiring IGCC -400

-600 Other Air Emissions

15

5 CH4

Particulates SOx NOx CO NMHCs -5

-15

Average PC coal 15% Coal / biomass cofiring Direct biomass residue Dedicated biomass IGCC NGCC -41 g/kWh (M. Mann – NREL) Biomass IGCC also emits isoprene at 21 g/kWh Resource Consumption

500

450

400 Average PC coal 15% cofiring 350 Direct-fired residue biomass 300 Dedicated biomass IGCC

h NGCC

kW 250 g/

200

150

100

50

- (M. Mann – NREL) Coal Limestone Oil Natural Gas Summary

Greenhouse Gases: • Biomass IGCC nearly zero net GHGs assuming no change in soil carbon

• Average coal system: ~1,000 g CO2-equiv/kWh • NGCC system: ~500 g CO2-equiv/kWh • Today’s biomass systems remove GHGs from atmosphere

Energy: • Coal and natural gas: negative system energy balance • Even neglecting the energy content of coal and natural gas, biomass systems are more energy efficient • NGCC: natural gas extraction and losses account for 21% of total energy

(M. Mann – NREL) Summary

Air emissions:

• Biomass: few particulates, SO2, NOx, and methane • Coal: upstream CO and NMHC emissions lower • NGCC: system methane emissions high

Resource consumption: Biomass systems << fossil systems

Cofiring: • 15% cofiring reduces GWP of coal system by 18% • Reduction in emissions, resource consumption, and energy use

(M. Mann – NREL) Biomass and Other Power Generation Systems

(Heller et al. 2004) Lessons Learned - Fuels

• Obtaining low cost fuels is key • Requires continual attention of employees • Lower cost fuels can result in trade offs in fuel quality and system handling and operations • Changes in the dynamics of the surrounding forest industry, which can be due to world markets, can disrupt fuel supplies • Having a diverse fuel supply is beneficial Lessons Learned

• Fuel yard and feeding systems for facilities require attention to run smoothly and effectively • Common problems include odors, heating of piles, excessive equipment wear, fuel bridging creating blockages and bottlenecks, separation of contaminants • Variations in the type and conditions of fuels requires a flexible fuel system Lessons Learned

• Location of plants of this size is an important factor – Fuel supply – Public relations and interactions • Reliable equipment and systems are important – Quality operations and maintenance staff McNeil Plant, Burlington, VT

• Located in Burlington, VT • Started in 1984

• 50 Mwe capacity • Largest wood fired facility in the world when it was built • Heat rate 13,900 Btu/kWh • Up to 460,000 tons of fuel McNeil Plant, Burlington, VT

• Jointly owned jointly by – Burlington Electric Dept., – Central Vermont Public Service Authority, – Vermont Public Power Supply Authority – Green Mountain Power • Fuels have changed over time – Primary fuels are forest residues, mill residues and urban wood waste ($1.30 – 1.70/MMBtu) – Retrofit for natural gas in 1989 McNeil Plant

• Fuel supply – Started with long term contracts, but fuels accumulated due to lower than anticipated dispatch – Odor, heat build up and excessive wear to handling equipment • Location in city of Burlington – Access to urban wood waste – Public relation problems – Required to deliver 75% of by rail – Resulted in 17% premium on delivered cost

McNeil Plant – Exploring Options

• Good maintenance record – availability > 90% • Dispatch averages 35-50% • Batelle pilot gasifier was built and tested on site • Feasibility studies conducted on district heating systems or an EcoPark to make use of the waste heat • State and national energy policies have played a role in the plants operation Creating a Successful Wood Energy Project Steps for a Successful Wood Energy Project

• Seek professional advice – Make use of people with experience and expertise in planning and technical aspects – Collect objective, unbiased information – It is easier to do it right the first time then to fix all the errors after the project is completed Steps for a Successful Wood Energy Project

• Comprehensive and transparent economic analysis – Using a model that allows you to explore different options (e.g. amount of automation, back up options, fuel types etc) • Proper site selection – Current and potential future energy demand – Work to gain public acceptance for the project – Benefits to the region should be tangible – Vehicle traffic will have minimal impact – Sufficient space for fuel storage Steps for a Successful Wood Energy Project

• Fuel availability – Remember that technically available does not mean socio-economically available – Ensure that the most volatile supplies – wood manufacturing residues will be available for the long term or other sources of biomass can be substituted Steps for a Successful Wood Energy Project

• Involve the public and and local authorities • Over 30% of the biomass projects in the late 1990s and early in 2000 failed due to opposition at the local level • Public acceptance or rejection is often based on public trust or mistrust • Project fail when “NIMBY” meets “There is no alternative” Involve the Public and Local Authorities

• Realize that biomass, biomass technologies and advantages of biomass are poorly understood and laden with misconceptions (i.e. biomass = waste incinerators) • Conflicts escalate when: – Project is involuntarily imposed – Technology is not familiar or misunderstood – Public perceives or has no OCRRA waste to energy facility decision making power – Project is wholly for corporate gain rather an public benefit Involve the Public and Local Authorities

• Potential solutions – Develop and implement a proactive public relations program – Listen, acknowledge and respect the views of community members – Build trust through rational, constructive dialogue – Be willing to go beyond the required public consultation – Be flexible and accommodating as much as possible Some education efforts will be required Steps for a Successful Wood Energy Project • Select an efficient and reliable conversion system – Balance degree of automation and innovation with owners desire for ease of maintenance and operation and economic parameters – Visit other projects in the region if possible to understand system – Size system to current and future demand » Oversized gives inefficient operations » Under sized results in heavy use of back up system Steps for a Successful Wood Energy Project

• Capable and reliable support for system operations – Day to day operations and maintenance need to be done properly – The system operator should have input in planning and be invested in the system – Fuel supplies need to be monitored for quality and quantity – Reliable support for substantial maintenance or repair issues – Either tasks assigned to employees or have energy company assume full responsibility Steps for a Successful Wood Energy Project • Celebrate project success with the local community • Conduct open house events to achieve high acceptance and build support for Mount Wachusett Community College, Gardner, MA (Maker 2004) future projects Useful References • Bain, R.L. and R.P. Overend. 2002. Biomass for Heat and Power. Forest Products Journal, 52(2):12-19. • Heller, M.C., G.A. Keoleian, M.K. Mann, and T.A. Volk. 2004. Life cycle energy and environmental benefits of generating electricity from willow biomass. Renewable Energy 29(7): 1023- 1042. • Maker, T.M. 2004. Wood-Chip Heating Systems: A Guide for Institutional and Commercial Biomass Installers. Biomass Energy Resource Center, VT. • Mann MK and Spath PL 1999. Life Cycle Comparison of Electricity from Biomass and Coal. p. 559-569. In Industry and Innovation in the 21st Century: Proc. of the 1999 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Industry. Washington, DC. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, NICH Report No. 27315. Useful References

• Miles, T.R. Et al. 1995. Alkali Deposits. Summary Report. NREL, Golden, CO. NREL/TP-433-8142. • Sims, R.E.H. 2002. The Brilliance of Bioenergy. James and James, London, UK. • Wiltsee, G. 2000. Lessons Learned from Existing Biomass Power Plants. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. NREL/SR-570-26946. Questions and Discussion