SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 40
Downloaden Sie, um offline zu lesen
DOE/EE-0288




Leading by example,
saving energy and                      Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers
taxpayer dollars
in federal facilities
                                       Using this time-tested fuel-switching technique in existing federal boilers
                                       helps to reduce operating costs, increase the use of renewable energy,
                                       and enhance our energy security

                                       Executive Summary
                                       To help the nation use more domestic fuels and renewable energy technologies—and increase
                                       our energy security—the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) in the U.S. Department
                                       of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, assists government agencies in
                                                         developing biomass energy projects. As part of that assistance, FEMP has
                                                         prepared this Federal Technology Alert on biomass cofiring technologies. This
                                                         publication was prepared to help federal energy and facility managers make
                                                         informed decisions about using biomass cofiring in existing coal-fired boilers
                                                         at their facilities.
                                                          The term “biomass” refers to materials derived from plant matter such as
                                                          trees, grasses, and agricultural crops. These materials, grown using energy
                                                          from sunlight, can be renewable energy sources for fueling many of today’s
                                                          energy needs. The most common types of biomass that are available at
                                                          potentially attractive prices for energy use at federal facilities are waste
                                                          wood and wastepaper.
The boiler plant at the
Department of Energy’s                 One of the most attractive and easily implemented biomass energy technologies is cofiring
Savannah River Site co-
fires coal and biomass.
                                       with coal in existing coal-fired boilers. In biomass cofiring, biomass can substitute for up
                                       to 20% of the coal used in the boiler. The biomass and coal are combusted simultaneously.
                                       When it is used as a supplemental fuel in an existing coal boiler, biomass can provide the
                                       following benefits: lower fuel costs, avoidance of landfills and their associated costs, and
                                       reductions in sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, and greenhouse-gas emissions. Other benefits,
                                       such as decreases in flue gas opacity, have also been documented.
                                       Biomass cofiring is one of many energy- and cost-saving technologies to emerge as feasible for
                                       federal facilities in the past 20 years. Cofiring is a proven technology; it is also proving to be
                                       life-cycle cost-effective in terms of installation cost and net present value at several federal sites.

                                       Energy-Saving Mechanism
                                       Biomass cofiring projects do not reduce a boiler’s total energy input requirement. In fact, in
                                       a properly implemented cofiring application, the efficiency of the boiler will be the same as
                                       it was in the coal-only operation. However, cofiring projects do replace a portion of the non-
                                       renewable fuel—coal—with a renewable fuel—biomass.

                                       Cost-Saving Mechanisms
                                       Overall production cost savings can be achieved by replacing coal with inexpensive biomass
                                       fuel sources—e.g., clean wood waste and waste paper. Typically, biomass fuel supplies should
                                       cost at least 20% less, on a thermal basis, than coal supplies before a cofiring project can be
                                       economically attractive.



       U.S. Department of Energy
       Energy Efficiency                                                                            Internet: www.eere.energy.gov/femp/
       and Renewable Energy                                                    No portion of this publication may be altered in any form without
       Bringing you a prosperous future where energy                           prior written consent from the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
       is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable                            Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the authoring national laboratory.
Federal Technology Alert




Payback periods are typically             To make economical use of captive       investment of $850,000 was
between one and eight years,              wood waste materials—primarily          required, resulting in a simple
and annual cost savings could             bark and wood chips that are            payback period for the project
range from $60,000 to $110,000            unsuitable for making paper—the         of less than four years. The net
for an average-size federal boiler.       U.S. pulp and paper industry has        present value of the project,
These savings depend on the               cofired wood with coal for              evaluated over a 10-year analysis
availability of low-cost biomass          decades. Cofiring is a standard         period, is about $1.1 million.
feedstocks. However, at larger-           mode of operation in that indus-
                                                                                  Test burns at SRS have shown that
than-average facilities, and at           try, where biomass fuels provide
                                                                                  the present stoker boiler fuel han-
facilities that can avoid disposal        more than 50% of the total fuel
                                                                                  dling equipment required no
costs by using self-generated             input. Spurred by a need to reduce
                                                                                  modification to fire the biomass/
biomass fuel sources, annual              fuel and operating costs, and
                                                                                  coal mixture successfully. No fuel-
cost savings could be signifi-            potential future needs to reduce
                                                                                  feeding problems were experi-
cantly higher.                            greenhouse gas emissions, an
                                                                                  enced, and no increases in main-
                                          increasing number of industrial-
                                                                                  tenance are expected to be needed
Application                               and utility-scale boilers outside
                                                                                  at the steam plant. Steam plant
Biomass cofiring can be applied           the pulp and paper industry are
                                                                                  personnel have been supportive
only at facilities with existing          being evaluated for use in cofiring
                                                                                  of the project. Emissions measure-
coal-fired boilers. The best oppor-       applications.
                                                                                  ments made during initial testing
tunities for economically attrac-                                                 showed level or reduced emissions
tive cofiring are at coal-fired facili-   Case Study Summary                      for all eight measured pollutants,
ties where all or most of the fol-        The U.S. Department of Energy’s         and sulfur emissions are expected
lowing conditions apply: (1) coal         (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS)         to be reduced by 20%. Opacity
prices are high; (2) annual coal          in Aiken, South Carolina, has           levels also decreased significantly.
usage is significant; (3) local or        installed equipment to produce          The project will result in a reduc-
facility-generated supplies of bio-       “alternate fuel,” or AF, cubes from     tion of about 2,240 tons per year
mass are abundant; (4) local land-        shredded office paper and finely        in coal usage at the facility.
fill tipping fees are high, which         chipped wood waste. After a series
means it is costly to dispose of          of successful test burns have been      Implementation Barriers
biomass; and (5) plant staff and          completed to demonstrate accept-
management are highly motivated                                                   For utility-scale power generation
                                          able combustion, emissions, and
to implement the project success-                                                 projects, acquiring steady, year-
                                          performance of the boiler and fuel
fully. As a rule, boilers producing                                               round supplies of large quantities
                                          processing and handling systems,
less than 35,000 pounds per hour                                                  of low-cost biomass can be diffi-
                                          cofiring was expected to begin in
(lb/hr) of steam are too small to                                                 cult. But where supplies are avail-
                                          2003 on a regular basis. The bio-
be used in an economically attrac-                                                able, there are several advantages
                                          mass cubes offset about 20% of
tive cofiring project.                                                            to using biomass for cofiring opera-
                                          the coal used in the facility’s two
                                                                                  tions at federal facilities. For exam-
                                          traveling-grate stoker boilers. The
                                                                                  ple, federal coal-fired boilers are
Field Experiences                         project should result in annual coal
                                                                                  typically much smaller than
Cofiring biomass and coal is a time-      cost savings of about $112,000.
                                                                                  utility-scale boilers, and they
tested fuel-switching strategy that       Cost savings associated with avoid-     are most often used for space
is particularly well suited to a          ing incineration or landfill disposal   heating and process heat appli-
stoker boiler, the type most often        of office waste paper and scrap         cations. Thus, they do not have
found at coal-fired federal facili-       wood from on-site construction          utility-scale fuel requirements.
ties. However, cofiring has been          activities will total about $172,000
successfully demonstrated and                                                     In addition, federal boilers needed
                                          per year. Net annual savings from
practiced in all types of coal                                                    for space heating typically operate
                                          the project, after subtracting the
boilers, including pulverized-                                                    primarily during winter months.
                                          $30,000 per year needed to oper-
coal boilers, cyclones, stokers,                                                  During summer months, waste
                                          ate the AF cubing facility, will be
and fluidized beds.                                                               wood is often sent to the mulch
                                          about $254,000. An initial capital
Federal Technology Alert




market, which makes the wood                 • Economics is the driving factor.              energy efficiency and renewable
unavailable for use as fuel. Thus,             Project economics largely deter-              energy projects. Projects can be
federal coal-fired boilers could               mine whether a cofiring proj-                 funded through Energy Savings
become an attractive winter mar-               ect will be implemented.                      Performance Contracts (ESPCs),
ket for local wood processors. This            Selecting sites where waste                   Utility Energy Services Contracts,
has been one of the driving fac-               wood supplies have already                    or appropriations. Among these
tors behind a cofiring demonstra-              been identified will reduce                   resources is a Technology-Specific
tion at the Iron City Brewery                  overall costs. Larger facilities              “Super ESPC” for Biomass and
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.                   with high capacity factors—                   Alternative Methane Fuels (BAMF),
                                               those that operate at high loads              which facilitates the use of bio-
These are some of the major policy             year-round—can utilize more                   mass and alternative methane
and economic issues and barriers               biomass and will realize                      fuels to reduce federal energy con-
associated with implementing                   greater annual cost savings,                  sumption, energy costs, or both.
biomass cofiring projects at                   assuming that wood supplies
federal sites:                                 are obtained at a discount in                 Through the BAMF Super ESPC,
                                               comparison to coal. This will                 FEMP enables federal facilities
• Permit modifications may be
                                               also reduce payback periods.                  to obtain the energy- and cost-
  required. Permit requirements
                                                                                             savings benefits of biomass and
  vary from site to site, but
                                             Conclusion                                      alternative methane fuels at no
  modifications to existing
                                                                                             up-front cost to the facility. More
  emissions permits, even for                DOE FEMP, with the support of
                                                                                             information about FEMP and
  limited-term demonstration                 staff at the DOE National Labor-
                                             atories and Regional Offices, offers            BAMF Super ESPC contacts and
  projects, may be required for
                                             many services and resources to                  contract awardees is provided in
  cofiring projects.
                                             help federal agencies implement                 this Federal Technology Alert.




                                                            Disclaimer
  This report was sponsored by the United States Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Federal Energy
  Management Program. Neither the United States Government nor any agency or contractor thereof, nor any of their employees,
  makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or useful-
  ness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned
  rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or other-
  wise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or
  any agency or contractor thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of
  the United States Government or any agency or contractor thereof.
Federal Technology Alert
Federal Technology Alert




Contents
   Abstract .....................................................................................................2
   About the Technology ..............................................................................3
      Application Domain
      Cost-Saving Mechanisms
      Other Benefits
      Installation Requirements
   Federal-Sector Potential ............................................................................9
      Estimated Savings and Market Potential
      Laboratory Perspective
   Application .............................................................................................11
      Application Prerequisites
      Cost-Effectiveness Factors
      Where to Apply
      What to Avoid
      Equipment Integration
      Maintenance
      Equipment Warranties
      Codes and Standards
      Costs
      Utility Incentives
      Project Financing and Technical Assistance
   Technology Performance........................................................................17
      Field Experience
   Fuel Supply and Cost Savings Calculations ...........................................17
   Case Study — Savannah River Cofiring Project ....................................18
      Facility Description
      Existing Technology Description
      New Technology Description
      Energy Savings
      Life-Cycle Cost
      Performance Test Results
   The Technology in Perspective ..............................................................20
   Manufacturers.........................................................................................21
      Biomass Pelletizing Equipment
      Boiler Equipment/Cofiring Systems
      Biomass and Alternative Methane Fuels (BAMF) Super ESPC
      Competitively Awarded Contractors
   For Further Information .........................................................................21
   Bibliography ...........................................................................................21
   Appendix A: Assumptions and Explanations for Screening Analysis .......23
   Appendix B: Blank Worksheets for Preliminary Evaluation of a
   Cofiring Project ......................................................................................24
   Appendix C: Completed Worksheets for Cofiring Operation at
   Savannah River Site ................................................................................28
   Appendix D: Federal Life-Cycle Costing Procedures and BLCC
   Software Information .............................................................................31
   Appendix E: Savannah River Site Biomass Cofiring Case Study:
   NIST BLCC Comparative Economic Analysis ........................................33


                                                                                               FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 1
Federal Technology Alert




Abstract                                nity for federal energy managers        This Federal Technology Alert was
                                        to use a greenhouse-gas-neutral         produced as part of the New Tech-
Biomass energy technologies con-
                                        renewable fuel while reducing           nology Demonstration activities
vert renewable biomass fuels to
                                        energy and waste disposal costs         in the Department of Energy’s
heat or electricity. Next to hydro-
                                        and enhancing national energy           Federal Energy Management Pro-
power, more electricity is gener-
                                        security. Specific requirements         gram, which is part of the DOE
ated from biomass than from any
                                        will depend on the site. But in         Office of Energy Efficiency and
other renewable energy resource
                                        general, cofiring biomass in an         Renewable Energy, to provide
in the United States. Biomass
                                        existing coal-fired boiler involves     facility and energy managers
cofiring is attracting interest
                                        modifying or adding to the fuel         with the information they need
because it is the most economical
                                        handling, storage, and feed sys-        to decide whether to pursue bio-
near-term option for introducing
                                        tems. Fuel sources and the type         mass cofiring at their facilities.
new biomass resources into today’s
                                        of boiler at the site will dictate
energy mix.                                                                     This publication describes biomass
                                        fuel processing requirements.
                                                                                cofiring, cost-saving mechanisms,
                                        Biomass cofiring can be economi-        and factors that influence its per-
                                        cal at federal facilities where most    formance. Worksheets allow the
                                        or all of these criteria are met:       reader to perform preliminary cal-
                                        current use of a coal-fired boiler,     culations to determine whether
                                        access to a steady supply of com-       a facility is suitable for biomass
                                        petitively priced biomass, high         cofiring, and how much it would
                                        coal prices, and favorable regu-        save annually. The worksheets
                                        latory and market conditions for        also allow required biomass sup-
                                        renewable energy use and waste          plies to be estimated, so managers
                                        reduction. Boilers at several fed-      can work with biomass fuel bro-
                                        eral facilities were originally         kers and evaluate their equipment
                                        designed for cofiring biomass           needs. Also included is a case
                                        with coal. Others were modified         study describing the design, oper-
                                        after installation to allow cofiring.   ation, and performance of a bio-
                                        Some demonstrations—e.g., at the        mass cofiring project at the DOE
Figure 1. The NIOSH boiler plant was
modified to cofire biomass with coal.   National Institute of Occupational      Savannah River Site in Aiken,
                                        Safety and Health (NIOSH) Bruce-        South Carolina. A list of contacts
                                        ton Boiler plant in Pittsburgh,         and a bibliography are also
Cofiring is the simultaneous com-
                                        Pennsylvania (Figure 1)—show            included.
bustion of different fuels in the
                                        that, under certain circumstances,
same boiler. Cofiring inexpensive
                                        only a few boiler plant modifica-
biomass with fossil fuels in exist-
                                        tions are needed for cofiring.
ing boilers provides an opportu-




2 — FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Federal Technology Alert




About the Technology                  involves substituting biomass for          cles, because biomass is a more
                                      a portion of the fossil fuel used          volatile fuel. Biomass that does
Biomass is organic material from
                                      in a boiler.                               not meet these specifications is
living things, including plant
                                                                                 likely to cause flow problems in
matter such as trees, grasses,        Cofiring inexpensive biomass with
                                                                                 the fuel-handling equipment or
and agricultural crops. These         fossil fuels in existing federal boilers
                                                                                 incomplete burnout in the boiler.
materials, grown using energy         provides an opportunity for federal
                                                                                 General biomass sizing require-
from sunlight, can be good            energy managers to reduce their
                                                                                 ments for each boiler type men-
sources of renewable energy           energy and waste disposal costs
                                                                                 tioned here are shown in Table 1.
and fuels for federal facilities.     while making use of a renewable
                                      fuel that is considered greenhouse-
Wood is the most commonly used                                                   Table 1. Biomass sizing requirements.
                                      gas-neutral. Cofiring biomass
biomass fuel for heat and power.
                                      counts toward a federal agency’s           Existing Type        Size Required
The most economical sources of                                                   of Boiler               (inches)
                                      goals for increasing the use of
wood fuels are wood residues from
                                      renewable energy or “green power”          Pulverized coal            ≤1/4
manufacturers and mill residues,
                                      (environmentally benign electric
such as sawdust and shavings;                                                    Stoker                      ≤3
                                      power), and it results in a net cost
discarded wood products, such                                                    Cyclone                    ≤1/2
                                      savings to the agency. Cofiring
as crates and pallets; woody yard                                                Fluidized bed               ≤3
                                      biomass also increases our use of
trimmings; right-of-way trim-
                                      domestic fuels, thus enhancing
mings diverted from landfills;                                                   More detailed information follows
                                      the nation’s energy security.
and clean, nonhazardous wood                                                     about the cofiring options for
debris resulting from construction    This publication focuses on the            stoker and pulverized-coal federal
and demolition work. Using these      most promising, near-term,                 boilers.
materials as sources of energy        proven option for cofiring—using
recovers their energy value and       solid biomass to replace a portion         Stoker boilers. Most coal-fired boilers
avoids the need to dispose of         of the coal combusted in existing          at federal facilities are stokers,
them in landfills, as well as         coal-fired boilers. This type of           similar to the one shown in the
other disposal methods.               cofiring has been successfully             schematic in Figure 2. Because
                                      demonstrated in nearly all coal-           these boilers are designed to fire
Biomass energy technologies con-                                                 fairly large fuel particles on travel-
                                      fired boiler types and configura-
vert renewable biomass fuels to                                                  ing or vibrating grates, they are
                                      tions, including stokers, fluidized
heat or electricity using equip-                                                 the most suitable federal boiler
                                      beds, pulverized coal boilers, and
ment similar to that used for                                                    type for cofiring at significant
                                      cyclones. The most likely opportu-
fossil fuels such as natural gas,                                                biomass input levels. In these
                                      nities at federal facilities will be
oil, or coal. This includes fuel-                                                boilers, fuel is either fed onto
                                      found at those that have stokers
handling equipment, boilers,                                                     the grate from below, as in under-
                                      and pulverized coal boilers. This
steam turbines, and engine gener-                                                feed stokers, or it is spread evenly
                                      is because the optimum operating
ator sets. Biomass can be used in                                                across the grate from fuel spread-
                                      range of cyclone boilers is much
solid form, or it can be converted                                               ers above the grate, as in spreader
                                      larger than that required at a fed-
into liquid or gaseous fuels. Next                                               stokers. In the more common
                                      eral facility, and few fluidized bed
to hydropower, more electricity                                                  spreader-fired traveling grate stoker
                                      boilers have been installed at fed-
is generated from biomass than                                                   boiler, solid fuel is mechanically
                                      eral facilities for standard, non-
from any other renewable energy                                                  or pneumatically spread from the
                                      research uses.
resource in the United States.                                                   front of the boiler onto the rear
                                      One of the most important keys             of the traveling grate. Smaller par-
Cofiring is a fuel-diversification                                               ticles burn in suspension above
                                      to a successful cofiring operation
strategy that has been practiced                                                 the grate, while the larger particles
                                      is to appropriately and consistently
for decades in the wood products                                                 burn on the grate as it moves the
                                      size the biomass according to the
industries and more recently in                                                  fuel from the back to the front of
                                      requirements of the type of boiler
utility-scale boilers. Several fed-                                              the boiler. The ash is discharged
                                      used. Biomass particles can usually
eral facilities have also cofired                                                from the grate into a hopper at
                                      be slightly larger than coal parti-
biomass and coal. Cofiring                                                       the front of the boiler.


                                                                             FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 3
Federal Technology Alert




                                                                                                                                    03381101
The retrofit requirements for cofir-
ing in a stoker boiler will vary,
depending on site-specific issues.
If properly sized biomass fuel can
be delivered to the facility pre-
mixed with coal supplies, on-site                                                                            Gas burners
capital expenses could be negligi-
ble. Some facilities have multiple                                                             Hopper
coal hoppers that discharge onto                                         Receiving
a common conveyor to feed fuel                                              bin
                                                                                                               Traveling
into the boiler. Using one of the                                                                                grate
                                                                                                                           Overfire
existing coal hoppers and the                                                                                   Boiler         air
associated conveying equipment                                                                                             injection
for biomass could minimize new
                                         Figure 2. Schematic of a typical traveling-grate spreader-stoker.
capital expenses for a cofiring
project. Both methods have been
                                           Front end loader
successfully employed at federal           to blend wood                  Metal
stoker boilers for implementing            and coal supplies             detector Magnetic
                                           (coal and wood
a biomass cofiring project. If             blend is passed                        separator   Dump conveyor
                                           through existing                                        #1       Walking floor trailer
neither of these low-cost options                                         Dump                                or dump truck
                                           coal pulverizers)
is feasible, new handling and                                  Wood    conveyor #2
                                                                pile             Scale
storage equipment will need
                                                                                                                            03381102
to be added. The cost of these
additions is discussed later.            Figure 3. Schematic of a blended-feed cofiring arrangement for a pulverized
                                         coal boiler.
Pulverized coal boilers. There are two
primary methods for cofiring bio-        heat input basis. If the biomass is             the NIOSH Bruceton boiler plant
mass in a pulverized coal boiler.        obtained at a significant discount              in Pennsylvania and DOE’s Savan-
The first method, illustrated in         to current coal supplies, the addi-             nah River Site in South Carolina—
Figure 3, involves blending the          tional expense may be warranted                 have been considering implement-
biomass with the coal before the         to offset coal purchases to a                   ing commercial cofiring applica-
fuel mix enters the existing pul-        greater degree.                                 tions. Other federal sites with
verizers. This is the least expensive                                                    cofiring experience include KI
method, but it is limited in the         Application Domain                              Sawyer Air Force Base in Michi-
amount of biomass that can be                                                            gan, Fort Stewart in Georgia, Puget
                                         The best opportunities for cofiring
fired. With this blended feed                                                            Sound Naval Shipyard in Washing-
                                         biomass with fossil fuels at federal
method, only about 3% or less                                                            ton, Wright- Patterson Air Force
                                         facilities are at sites with regularly
of the boiler’s heat input can be                                                        Base in Ohio, Brunswick Naval
                                         operating coal-fired boilers. Biomass
obtained from biomass at full                                                            Air Station in Maine, and the
                                         cofiring has been successfully
boiler loads because of limitations                                                      Red River Army Depot in Texas.
                                         demonstrated in nearly all coal-
in the capacity of the pulverizer.
                                         fired boiler types and configura-               More than 100 U.S. companies or
The second method, illustrated in        tions, including stokers, fluidized             organizations have experience in
Figure 4 on page 5, requires             beds, pulverized coal boilers, and              cofiring biomass with fossil fuels,
installing a separate processing,        cyclones. The least expensive                   and many cofiring boilers are in
handling, and storage system             opportunities are most likely to                operation today. Most are found
for biomass, and injecting the           be for stoker boilers, but cofiring             in industrial applications, in
biomass into the boiler through          in pulverized coal boilers may                  which the owner generates a
dedicated biomass ports. Although        also be economically attractive.                significant amount of biomass
this method is more expensive, it        At least 10 facilities in the federal           residue material (such as sawdust,
allows greater amounts of biomass        sector have had experience with                 scrap wood, bark, waste paper, or
to be used—up to 15% more on a                                                           cardboard or agricultural residues
                                         biomass cofiring. Two facilities—


4 — FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Federal Technology Alert




                          Metal
                         detector
                                      Magnetic
                                      separator
                                             Conveyor #1                                    Wood
         Disc screener                                                                       pile
                         Grinder Scale                                     Front end                               Walking floor trailer      03381103
                                                                             loader                                  or dump truck
      Rotary
      airlock
      feeder
                         Separator




  Air Intake                                                   Exhaust
                                             Bin                                                   Dedicated biomass
                                             vent                                                       injection                    Existing coal
                                                                                                                                     Injection ports
                                 Wood silo                                                                             Boiler




                                                           Scale    Pressure
                                                                     blower

Figure 4. Schematic of a separate-feed cofiring arrangement for a pulverized coal boiler.

like orchard trimmings and coffee                           project, and the next 10 states were         Within each group in Table 2,
grounds) during manufacturing.                              classified as having good potential.         states are shown in alphabetical
Using these residues as fuel allows                         See Table 2 and Figures 5 and 6.             order, because slight variations
organizations to avoid landfill                                                                          in rankings result from selecting
and other disposal costs and off-                           Table 2. States with most attractive         weighting-factor values. The anal-
sets some purchases of fossil fuel.                         conditions for biomass cofiring.             ysis was intended simply to indi-
Most ongoing cofiring operations                                                                         cate which states have the most
                                                            Cofiring                                     helpful conditions for econom-
are in stoker boilers in one of four
                                                            Potential          State
industries: wood products, agricul-                                                                      ically successful cofiring projects.
ture, textiles, and chemicals.                              High               Connecticut               It found that the Northeast, South-
                                                            Potential          Delaware                  east, Great Lakes states, and
A screening analysis was done to                                               Florida                   Washington State are the most
determine which states have the                                                Maryland                  attractive locations for cofiring
most favorable conditions for a                                                Massachusetts             projects.
financially successful cofiring proj-                                          New Hampshire
                                                                               New Jersey                Utility-scale cofiring projects are
ect. The primary factors consid-
                                                                               New York                  shown on the map in Figure 5.
ered were average delivered state                                              Pennsylvania
coal prices, estimated low-cost                                                                          These sites are in or near states
                                                                               Washington
biomass residue supply density                                                                           identified by the screening model
                                                            Good               Alabama                   as having good or high potential
(heat content in Btu of estimated                           Potential          Georgia
available low-cost biomass resi-                                                                         for cofiring. This increases confi-
                                                                               Indiana
dues per year per square mile of                                                                         dence that the states selected by
                                                                               Michigan
state land area), and average state                                            Minnesota                 the screening process were reason-
landfill tipping fees. See Appendix                                            North Carolina            able choices. Figure 6 shows the
A for a more detailed discussion.                                              Ohio                      locations of existing federal coal-
                                                                               South Carolina            fired boilers. There is good corre-
The top 10 states in the analysis                                              Tennessee                 spondence between the locations
were classified as having high                                                 Virginia                  of these facilities and the states
potential for a biomass cofiring                                                                         identified as promising for cofiring.


                                                                                                     FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 5
Federal Technology Alert




                                                                                                                  pay off the initial investment—
                                                                                                                  by switching part of the fuel sup-
                                                                                                                  ply to biomass. Federal facilities
                                                                                                                  that operate coal-fired boilers but
                                                                                                                  are not in states on the list in
                                                                                                                  Table 2 could still be good candi-
                                                                                                                  dates for cofiring if specific condi-
                                                                                                                  tions at their sites are favorable.
                                                                                                                  “Wild card” factors, such as the
                                                                                                                  impact of a motivated project
                                                                                                                  manager or biomass resource
                                                                                                                  supplier, the local availability
                                                                                                                  of biomass, and the fact that a
                                                                                                                  large federal facility or campus
                                                                                                                  could act as its own source of
                                                                                                                  biomass fuel, capitalizing on
                                                                                                      03381104
                                                                                                                  fuel cost reductions while avoid-
                    High potential for a                    Good potential for a
                    biomass cofiring project                biomass cofiring project                              ing landfill fees. These factors
                    Locations of existing utility           Locations of existing operational                     could easily tip the scales in
                    power plants cofiring biomass           coal plants within the Federal System                 favor of a particular site. The
Figure 5. States with most favorable conditions for biomass cofiring, based on                                    coal-fired boilers in Alaska
high coal prices, availability of biomass residues, and high landfill tipping fees.                               could be examples of good
                                                                                                                  candidates not located in
                                                                                                                  highly rated states because of
             WA                                                                                                   a long heating season, large
             (57)                                                                                   NH
                                     MT                                                         VT (49) ME        size, and very high coal prices.
                                                     ND                                       (50)       (46)
         OR                         (19)            (26)     MN
        (34)                                                 (56)                                           MA    The map in Figure 6 indicates
                       ID                          SD                   WI                       NY        (48)
                      (26)            WY                                        MI              (71)              average landfill tipping fees for
                                                  (29)                 (33) (32)                            RI
                                      (23)                      IA                                                each state. It also shows cities
              NV                                    NE                                     PA(51) NJ (41)
             (15)                                  (24)        (31)                                        CT     in which fairly recent local bio-
                              UT                                               IN OH                  (74)(61)
                                            CO                             IL (26) (29) WA
                             (29)                                                                                 mass resource supply and cost
       CA                                  (16)       KS           MO (25)              (39) VA      MD DE
      (29)                                           (25)         (27)         KY(27)       (38)     (43) (47)    studies have been performed,
                       AZ                                                                 NC(30)                  as reported in Urban Wood Waste
                                       NM                OK                   TN(28)
                      (20)                                         AR
                                       (16)             (21)                                                      Resource Assessment (Wiltsee 1998).
                                                                  (18)
                                                                         MS AL         GA       SC
                                                                                                                  Additional information on poten-
                                                    TX                   (19) (25) (25)        (29)
         AK                                        (23)             LA                                            tial biomass resource supplies near
                                                                   (22)                                           federal facilities can be obtained
        (42)                                                                          FL
                                                                                     (41)                         from the DOE program manager
                                     HI
                                    (50)                                                                          for the Technology-Specific Super
                                                                                                      03381105    ESPC for Biomass and Alternative
                             High potential for a             Good potential for a                                Methane Fuels, or BAMF; contact
                             biomass cofiring project         biomass cofiring project
                                                                                                                  information can be found later in
                      (##) State average tipping              Locations of recent local
                           fee ($/ton)*                       biomass supply studies                              this publication. To encourage
                       *Source: Chartwell Information Publishers, Inc., 1997.                                     new projects under the BAMF
                                                                                                                  Super ESPC, the National Energy
Figure 6. Average tipping fee and locations of local biomass supply studies
                                                                                                                  Technology Laboratory (NETL)
(Chartwell 1997, Wiltsee 1998).
                                                                                                                  has compiled a database that
Coal-fired federal boilers in the                           biomass if annual coal use is high                    identifies federal facilities within
20 states indicated in the study                            enough to obtain significant                          50 miles of 10 or more potential
would be promising for cofiring                             annual cost savings—enough to                         sources of wood waste.


6 — FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Federal Technology Alert




Cost-Saving Mechanisms                 mated the quantities and costs of         dry biomass would have a heating
Cofiring operations are not imple-     unused and discarded wood resi-           value of about 7,000 Btu/lb, com-
mented to save energy—they are         dues in the United States, large          pared with an average of 11,500
implemented to reduce energy           quantities of biomass are available       Btu/lb for the coal used at DoD
costs as well as the cost of other     at delivered costs well below the         facilities. Each ton of biomass
facility operations. In a typical      $2.10 per million Btu average             will thus offset 7,000/11,500 =
cofiring operation, the boiler         price of coal at the DoD facilities.      0.61 ton of coal. If the biomass
requires about the same heat           Coal prices at other federal facili-      is used to replace coal at $49/ton,
input as it does when operating        ties are likely to be similar.            each ton of biomass is worth
in a fossil-fuel-only mode. When                                                 $49/ton x 0.61 = $30 in fuel cost
                                       For example, if 15% of the coal
cofiring, the boiler operates to                                                 savings. The typical cost of pro-
                                       used at a boiler were replaced by
meet the same steam loads for                                                    cessing biomass waste material
                                       biomass delivered to the plant for
heating or power-generation                                                      into a form suitable for use in a
                                       $1.25 per million Btu, annual fuel
operations as it would in fossil-                                                boiler is $10 per ton, so the net
                                       cost savings for the average DoD
fuel-only mode; usually, no                                                      costs savings per ton of biomass
                                       boiler described above would be
changes in boiler efficiency                                                     residues could be about $56:
                                       more than $120,000. Neither the
result from cofiring unless a                                                    $66/ton for the fuel and landfill
                                       cofiring rate of 15% of the boiler's
very wet biomass is used. With                                                   cost savings minus $10/ton for
                                       total heat input, nor the delivered
no change in boiler loads, and                                                   the biomass processing cost. This
                                       price of $1.25 per million Btu, is
no change in efficiency, boiler                                                  assumes that the biomass is avail-
                                       unrealistic, especially for stoker
energy usage will be the same.                                                   able at no additional transporta-
                                       boilers. Higher cofiring rates and
The primary savings from cofiring                                                tion costs, as is the case at the
                                       lower biomass prices are common
are cost reductions resulting from                                               Savannah River Site.
                                       in current cofiring projects. Note
(1) replacing a fraction of high-      that the cost of most biomass             If the average DoD facility using a
cost fossil fuel purchases with        residues will range from $2 to            coal-fired boiler could obtain bio-
lower cost biomass fuel, and (2)       $3 per million Btu, so successful         mass fuel by diverting its own
avoiding landfill tipping fees or      cofiring project operators must           residues from landfill disposal,
other costs that would otherwise       try to obtain the biomass fuel            the net annual cost savings would
be required to dispose of the          at a low price.                           be about $560,000 per year. This
biomass.                                                                         would require about 10,000 tons
                                       The average landfill tipping fee in
According to data obtained from                                                  of biomass residues per year, a
                                       the United States is about $36 per
the Defense Energy Support                                                       quantity higher than most federal
                                       ton of material dumped. Average
Center (DESC), the average                                                       facilities generate internally. The
                                       tipping fees for each state are
delivered cost of coal for 18 coal-                                              savings generated by a real cofir-
                                       shown in Figure 6. If significant
fired boilers operated by the                                                    ing project would be expected to
                                       quantities of clean biomass
Department of Defense (DoD)                                                      fall somewhere between the
                                       residues—such as paper, card-
was about $49 per ton in 1999,                                                   two examples given here—
                                       board, or wood—are generated
or about $2.10 per million Btu.                                                  between $120,000 and $560,000
                                       at a federal site, and if some of
(The average coal heating value                                                  per year. They would probably
                                       that material can be diverted from
for those boilers is about 11,500                                                depend on using some biomass
                                       landfill disposal and used as fuel
Btu/lb) Coal costs for those facili-                                             materials generated on site and
                                       in a boiler, the savings generated
ties ranged from $1.60 to $3 per                                                 some supplied by a third party.
                                       would be equivalent to about
million Btu, depending on the          $66 per ton of biomass: $36/ton
location, coal type, and annual                                                  Other Benefits
                                       by avoiding the tipping fee, and
quantity consumed. The average         $30/ton by replacing the coal             When used as a supplemental fuel
annual coal cost for these boilers     with biomass. Since biomass has           in an existing coal boiler, biomass
was about $2 million and ranged        a lower heating value than coal,          can provide the following bene-
from $28,000 to $8.9 million per       it takes more than one ton of bio-        fits, with modest capital outlays
year. According to three independ-     mass to offset the heat provided          for plant modifications:
ently conducted studies that esti-     by one ton of coal. A ton of fairly


                                                                              FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 7
Federal Technology Alert




• Reduced fuel costs. Savings in      • Renewable energy when needed.        modifications to existing opera-
  overall production costs can          Unlike other renewable energy        tional procedures, such as increas-
  be achieved if inexpensive            technologies like those based        ing over-fire air, may also be nec-
  biomass fuel sources are avail-       on solar and wind resources,         essary. Increased fuel feeder rates
  able (e.g., clean wood waste).        biomass-based systems are            are also needed to compensate for
  Biomass fuel supplies at prices       available whenever they are          the lower density and heating
  20% or more below current             needed. This helps to accelerate     value of biomass. This does not
  coal prices will usually pro-         the capital investment payoff        usually present a problem at fed-
  vide the cost savings needed.         rate by producing more heat          eral facilities, where boilers typi-
• Reduced sulfur oxide and nitrogen     or power per unit of installed       cally operate below their rated
  oxide emissions. Because of dif-      capacity.                            output. When full rated output
  ferences in the chemical                                                   is needed, the boiler can be oper-
                                      • Market-ready renewable energy
  composition of biomass and                                                 ated in a coal-only mode to avoid
                                        option. Cofiring offers a fast-
  coal, emissions of acid rain                                               derating.
                                        track, low-cost opportunity
  precursor gases—sulfur oxides         to add renewable energy              Expected fuel sources and boiler
  (SOx) and nitrogen oxides             capacity economically at             type dictate fuel processing
  (NOx)—can be reduced by
                                        federal facilities.                  requirements. For suspension
  replacing coal with biomass.
                                                                             firing in pulverized coal boilers,
  Because most biomass has            • Fuel diversification. The ability
                                                                             biomass should be reduced to a
  nearly zero sulfur content,           to operate using an additional
                                                                             particle size of 0.25 in. or smaller,
  SOx emissions reductions              fuel source provides a hedge
                                                                             with moisture levels less than
  occur on a one-to-one basis           against price increases and
                                                                             25% when firing in the range
  with the amount of coal               supply shortages for existing
                                                                             of 5% to 15% biomass on a heat
  (heat input) offset by the            fuels such as stoker coals. In
                                                                             input basis. Equipment such as
  biomass. Reducing the coal            a cofiring operation, biomass
  supply to the boiler by 10%                                                hoggers, hammer mills, spike rolls,
                                        can be viewed as an opportu-
  will reduce SOx emissions                                                  and disc screens may be required
                                        nity fuel, used only when the
  by 10%. Mechanisms that                                                    to properly size the feedstock.
                                        price is favorable. Note that
  lead to NOx savings are                                                    Local wood processors are likely
                                        administrative costs could
  more complicated, and                                                      to own equipment that can ade-
                                        increase because of the need
  relative savings are typically                                             quately perform this sizing in
                                        to purchase multiple fuel
  less dramatic than the SOx                                                 return for a processing fee. Other
                                        supplies; this should be
  reductions are, on a percent-                                              boiler types (cyclones, stokers,
                                        considered when evaluating
  age basis.                                                                 and fluidized beds) are better suited
                                        this benefit.
                                                                             to handle larger fuel particles.
• Landfill cost reductions. Using     • Locally based fuel supply. The
  waste wood as a fuel diverts                                               Two common forms of processed
                                        most cost-effective biomass
  the material from landfills                                                biomass are shown in Figure 7,
                                        fuels are usually supplied
  and avoids landfill disposal                                               along with a typical stoker coal,
                                        from surrounding areas, so
  costs.                                                                     shown in the center of the photo.
                                        economic and environmental
                                                                             Recent research and demonstra-
• Reduced greenhouse-gas emissions.     benefits will accrue to local
                                                                             tion on several industrial stoker
  Sustainably grown biomass is          communities.
                                                                             boilers in the Pittsburgh area has
  considered a greenhouse-gas-
                                                                             shown that wood chips (on the
  neutral fuel, since it results in   Installation Requirements
                                                                             right) are preferable to mulch-like
  no net carbon dioxide (CO2)
                                      Specific requirements depend on        material (on the left) for cofiring
  in the atmosphere. Using bio-
                                      the site that uses biomass in cofir-   with coal in stoker boilers that
  mass to replace 10% of the coal
                                      ing. In general, however, cofiring     have not been designed or
  in an existing boiler will reduce
                                      biomass in an existing coal boiler     previously reconfigured for
  the net greenhouse-gas emis-
                                      requires modifications or addi-        multifuel firing. The chips are
  sions by approximately 10% if
                                      tions to fuel-handling, processing,    similar to stoker coal in terms
  the biomass resource is grown
                                      storage, and feed systems. Slight      of size and flow characteristics;
  sustainably.


8— FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Federal Technology Alert




therefore, they cause minimal             The potential savings resulting            occur. In terms of CO2 reductions,
problems with existing coal-              from using the technology at               this would be equivalent to remov-
handling systems. Using a mulch-          typical federal facilities with            ing about 1,000 average-sized
like material, or a biomass supply        existing coal-fired boilers were           automobiles from U.S. highways.
with a high fraction of fine parti-       estimated as part of the technol-
                                                                                     Additional indirect benefits could
cles (sawdust size or smaller) can        ogy-screening process of FEMP’s
                                                                                     also occur. If the biomass fuel
cause periodic blockage of fuel           New Technology Demonstration
                                                                                     would otherwise be sent to a land-
flow openings in various areas            activities. Payback periods are            fill to decay over a period of time,
of the conveying, storage, and            usually between one and eight              methane (CH4) would be released
feed systems. These blockages             years, and annual fuel cost sav-           to the atmosphere as a by-product
can cause significant maintenance         ings range from $60,000 to                 of the decomposition process,
increases and operational prob-           $110,000 for a typical federal             assuming no landfill-gas-capturing
lems, so fuel should be processed         boiler. Savings depend on the              system is installed. Since CH4 is
to avoid those difficulties. With         availability of low-cost biomass           21 times more powerful than CO2
properly sized and processed              feedstocks. The savings would              in terms of its ability to trap heat
biomass fuel, cofiring operations         be greater if the federal site can         in the atmosphere and increase
have been implemented success-            avoid landfill costs by using its          the greenhouse effect, cofiring
fully without extensive modifica-         own clean biomass waste mate-              at one typical coal-fired federal
tions to equipment or operating           rials as part of the biomass fuel          facility could avoid decomposition
procedures at the boiler plant.           supply.                                    processes that would be equiva-
                                                                                     lent to reducing an additional
                                          Estimated Savings and Market
Federal-Sector                            Potential
                                                                                     29,000 tons of CO2 emissions
Potential                                                                            per year.
                                            The National Renewable Energy
A large percentage of federal facili-       Laboratory (NREL) conducted a            Payback periods using cofiring
ties with coal-fired boilers have           study for FEMP of the economic           at suitable federal facilities are
the potential to benefit from this          and environmental impacts of             between one and eight years.
technology. However, as noted,              biomass cofiring in existing fed-        Annual cost savings range from
the potential is highest in areas           eral boilers, as well as associated      about $60,000 to $110,000 for
with high coal prices, easy-to-             savings. Results of the study are        a typical federal boiler, if low-
obtain biomass resources, and               presented in Tables 3 through 6          cost biomass feedstocks are avail-
high landfill tipping fees.                 on pages 10 and 11. As shown in          able. There are more than 1500
                                                            Table 6, cofiring bio-   industrial-scale stoker boilers in
                                                            mass with coal at        operation in the United States.
                                                            one typical coal-        If federal technology transfer
                                                            fired federal facility   efforts result in cofiring projects
                                                            will replace almost      at 50 boilers (this is about 7%
                                                            3,000 tons of coal       of existing U.S. stokers), the
                                                            per year, could          resulting CO2 reductions would
                                                            divert up to about       be about 405,000 tons/yr (the
                                                            5,000 tons of bio-       equivalent of removing about
                                                            mass from landfills,     50,000 average-size cars from U.S.
                                                            and will reduce net      highways), and SO2 reductions
                                                            carbon dioxide           would be about 6,700 tons/yr.
                                                            (CO2) emissions by       If all biomass materials used in
                                                            more than 8,000          these boilers were diverted from
                                                            tons per year and        landfills with no gas capture, the
Figure 7. Comparison of two biomass residues with coal. sulfur dioxide (SO2)         greenhouse-gas equivalent of an
Because they are similar in size and flow characteristics, emissions by about        additional 1.45 million tons of
wood chips (right) flow more like coal (center) in stoker 136 tons per year.
                                                                                     CO2 emissions would be avoided.
boilers. Wood chips can thus be used in existing boilers
                                                            Reductions in NOx
with minimal modifications to fuel-handling systems.
                                                            emissions could also                  (Continued on page 11)
Mulch-like processed wood (left) is more problematic.


                                                                                 FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 9
Federal Technology Alert




Table 3. Example economics of biomass cofiring in power generation applications (vs. 100 percent coal).

                                                                  Net
                    Example   Heat                   Total      Annual           Production Production
                     Plant    from  Biomass Unit    Cost for     Cost   Payback   Cost, no  Cost, with
                      Size  Biomass Power   Cost    Cofiring    Savings Period    Cofiring   Cofiring
 Boiler Type         (MW)      (%)    (MW) ($/kW)1 Retrofit ($) ($/yr)2  (years)  (¢/kWh)3   (¢/kWh)3
 Stoker
 (low cost)               15         20          3.0         50        150,000      199,760        0.8           5.25           5.03
 Stoker
 (high cost)              15         20          3.0         350      1,050,000     199,760        5.3           5.25           5.03
 Fluidized bed            15         15          2.3         50        112,500      149,468        0.8           5.41           5.24
 Pulverized coal        100          3           3.0         100       300,000      140,184        2.1           3.26           3.24
 Pulverized coal        100          15         15.0         230      3,450,000     700,922        4.9           3.26           3.15

Notes:
1Unit costs are on a per kW of biomass power basis (not per kW of total power).
2Net annual cost savings = fuel cost savings – increased O&M costs.
3Based on data obtained from EPRI's Technical Assessment Guide, 1993, EIA's Costs of Producing Electricity, 1992, UDI's Electric
 Power Database, EPRI/DOE's Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations, 1997, coal cost of $2.10/MBtu, biomass cost of
$1.25/MBtu, and capacity factor of 70%.

Table 4. Example environmental impacts of cofiring in power generation applications (vs. 100 percent coal).

                    Example                                                   Annual      Annual          Annual
                     Plant    Heat             Reduced       Biomass           CO2          SO2             NOx
                      Size    from             Coal Use         Used         Savings     Savings          Period
 Boiler Type         (MW)   Biomass            (tons/yr)     (tons/yr)1     (tons/yr)2   (tons/yr)       (tons/yr)

 Stoker
 (low cost)               15        20%         10,125        16,453         27,843          466           N/A

 Stoker
 (high cost)              15        20%         10,125        16,453         27,843          466           N/A

 Fluidized bed            15        15%          7,578        12,314         20,839          349           N/A

 Pulverized coal        100         3%           7,429        12,072         20,430          342           N/A

 Pulverized coal        100         15%         37,146        60,362        102,151        1,709           N/A

Notes:
1Depending on the source of biomass, “biomass used” could be avoided landfilled material.
2Carbon savings can easily be calculated from CO savings (i.e., carbon savings = 12/44 x CO savings).
                                                2                                          2

Table 5. Example economic of biomass cofiring in heating applications (vs. 100 percent coal).

   Example         No. of        Heat from        Biomass                         Total Cost   Net Annual            Payback
  Boiler Size      Boilers       Biomass          Capacity         Unit Cost     for Cofiring Cost Savings            Period
 (steam lb/hr)     at Site     (steam lb/hr)    (steam lb/hr)      ($/lb/hr)1     Retrofit ($)   ($/yr)2              (years)
    120,000           2            15%              36,000            2.8          100,075           41,628             2.4

Notes:
1Unit costs are on a per unit of biomass capacity basis (not per unit of total capacity).
2Assumptions: coal cost of $2.10/MBtu and capacity factor of 25% (based on data from coal-fired federal boilers), biomass cost of
$1.25/MBtu.




10— FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Federal Technology Alert




Table 6. Potential environmental impact of cofiring in heating applications (vs. 100 percent coal).

                                                   Annual         Annual        Annual
   No. of          Reduced        Biomass           CO2             SO2          NOx
  Cofiring         Coal Use          Used         Savings        Savings        Period
  Projects1,2      (tons/yr)      (tons/yr)3     (tons/yr)4      (tons/yr)     (tons/yr)
       1              2,947         5,057          8,103           136            N/A
       2              5,893         10,114         16,206          271            N/A
      10             29,466         50,570         81,030         1,355           N/A
      50            147,328        252,851        405,151         6,777           N/A

Notes:
1There are approximately 1500 industrial stoker boilers operating today.
2Assumptions for the average project were: 120,000 lb/hr steam capacity per boiler, 2 boilers at site, 15% heat from biomass, and a
 25% capacity factor.
3Depending on the source of biomass, “biomass used” could be avoided landfilled material.
4Carbon savings can easily be calculated from CO savings (i.e., carbon savings = 12 / 44 x CO savings).
                                                  2                                               2


Laboratory Perspective                         that, in general, NOx emissions               be used more easily as fuel at
Since the 1970s, DOE and NETL                  decrease with cofiring as a result            existing coal-fired facilities. In
have worked with alternative fuels             of the lower nitrogen content of              a separate project with funding
such as solid waste and refuse-                most woody biomass in relation                from NETL, the University of
derived fuel. In 1995, NETL,                   to coal, and the greater volatility           Missouri-Columbia’s Capsule
Sandia National Laboratories, and              of biomass in relation to coal.               Pipeline Research Center exam-
NREL sponsored a workshop that                 The greater volatility of biomass             ined the potential for compacting
led to several projects evaluating             results in a natural staging of the           various forms of biomass into
technical and commercial issues                combustion process that can                   small briquettes or cubes for use
associated with biomass cofiring.              reduce NOx emissions to levels                as supplemental fuels at existing
These projects included research               below those expected on the                   coal-fired boilers. The results indi-
conducted or sponsored by NETL,                basis of fuel nitrogen contents.              cated that biomass fuel cubes
NREL, Sandia, and Oak Ridge                                                                  could be manufactured and deliv-
                                               DOE, NETL, and the Electric Power
National Laboratory (ORNL) on                                                                ered to a power plant for as little
                                               Research Institute (EPRI) also col-
char burnout; ash deposition;                                                                as $0.30 per million Btu, or less
                                               laborated on short-term demon-
NOx behavior; cofiring demon-                                                                than $5 per ton. This price
                                               stration projects. Several of the
stration projects using various                                                              included all capital and operating
                                               demonstrations took place at
boiler types, coal/biomass feed-                                                             costs for the manufacturing facility
                                               federal facilities in the Pittsburgh
stock combinations, and fuel                                                                 plus transportation costs within
                                               area. They found no significant
handling systems; reburning for                                                              a 50-mile radius. The analysis
                                               impact on boiler efficiency at low
enhanced NOx reduction; and the                                                              assumed the facility would
                                               levels of cofiring. Fuel procure-
use of ash. These efforts have led                                                           collect a $15-per-ton tipping
                                               ment, handling, and preparation
to improved and documented                                                                   fee for biomass delivered to the
                                               were found to require special
knowledge about the impacts                                                                  site. See the bibliography for
                                               attention.
of cofiring biomass with coal                                                                more detailed information on
in a wide range of circumstances.              In addition, DOE’s Idaho National             biomass cofiring research activities
                                               Energy and Environmental Labor-               and published results of research
Results from a joint Sandia/NETL/              atory (INEEL) and DOE’s Savan-                led by DOE and its laboratories.
NREL project found that in terms               nah River Site have biomass-
of slagging and fouling, wood was              cubing equipment that can                     Application
more benign than herbaceous                    convert paper and wood waste                  This section addresses technical
crops. It has also been shown                  materials into a form that can                aspects of biomass cofiring in


                                                                                        FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 11
Federal Technology Alert




coal-fired boilers, including the         access to local expertise in          dirt. It may also be possible
range of situations in which cofir-       collecting and processing             to arrange storage through
ing technology can be used best.          waste wood. This expertise            the biomass fuel provider.
First, prerequisites for a successful     can be found primarily
                                                                              • Receptive plant operators at the
biomass cofiring application are          among companies specializ-
                                                                                federal facility. At the very
discussed, as well as the factors         ing in materials recycling,
                                                                                least, increases will be
that influence the cost-effective-        mulch, and wood products.
                                                                                necessary in administrative
ness of projects. Design and inte-
                                        • Boiler plant equipped with a bag-     activities associated with
gration considerations are also
                                          house. Cofiring biomass with          adding a new fuel to a boiler
discussed and include equipment
                                          coal has been shown to                plant’s fuel mix. In addition,
and installation costs, installation
                                          increase particulate emissions        new or additional boiler con-
details, maintenance, and permit-
                                          in some applications in com-          trol and maintenance proce-
ting issues.
                                          parison to coal-only opera-           dures will be required to use
                                          tion. If the existing facility is     biomass effectively. As
Application Prerequisites
                                          already equipped with a bag-          opposed to a capital improve-
The best opportunities for cofiring       house or cyclone separation           ment project, which requires
occur at sites in which many of           devices, this should not be a         one-time installation and
the following criteria apply:             significant problem; in other         minimal attention afterwards
• Existing, operational coal-fired        words, it should not cause            (such as equipment upgrades),
  boiler. It is possible to cofire        noncompliance with particu-           a cofiring operation requires
  biomass with fossil fuels               late emissions standards. The         ongoing changes in fuel pro-
  other than coal; however,               existing baghouse or cyclone          curement, fuel-handling, and
  the similarities in the fuel-           typically provides sufficient         boiler control operations.
  handling systems required               particulate filtration to allow       Receptive boiler plant opera-
  for both coal and biomass               stack gases to remain in com-         tors and management are
  (because they are both solid            pliance with air permits. How-        therefore instrumental in
  fuels) usually make cofiring            ever, some small coal-fired           implementing and sustaining
  less expensive at coal-fired            boilers are not equipped with         a successful cofiring project.
  facilities. An exception could          these devices. Instead, they
                                                                              • Favorable regulatory climate for
  be cofiring applications in             use methods such as natural
                                                                                renewable energy. As of Febru-
  which the biomass fuel is               gas overfiring to reduce par-
                                                                                ary 2003, 28 states had either
  gas piped to the boiler from            ticulate emissions. In such
                                                                                enacted electricity restructur-
  a nearby landfill. Cofiring             cases, a new baghouse may
                                                                                ing legislation or issued orders
  with landfill gas has been              be required to permit cofiring
                                                                                to open their electricity mar-
  done in both coal-fired and             biomass at significant input
                                                                                kets to competition. Most of
  natural-gas-fueled boilers,             levels, and this would increase
                                                                                these states have established
  but is less common than                 project costs significantly.
                                                                                some type of incentive pro-
  solid-fuel cofiring because of        • Storage space available on site.      gram to encourage more
  the need for a large boiler             Unless the biomass is imme-           installations of renewable
  very close to the landfill.             diately fed into a boiler’s           energy technologies. Since
• Local expertise for collecting and      fuel-handling system upon             biomass is a renewable energy
  processing biomass. Most boiler         delivery, a temporary staging         resource, some states may
  operators at federal facilities         area at the boiler plant will         provide favorable conditions
  are not likely to be interested         be needed to store processed          for implementing a cofiring
  in purchasing and operating             biomass supplies. An ideal            project through incentive
  equipment to process biomass            storage facility would have           programs, technical assis-
  into a form that can be used            at least a concrete pad and           tance, or flexible permitting
  as boiler fuel.Thus, it is advan-       a roof to minimize the accu-          procedures.
  tageous for the facility to have        mulation of moisture and



12 — FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)
Femp   biomass co-firing (2007)

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Promoting Renewable Energy Technologies through Public Private Partnership_NR...
Promoting Renewable Energy Technologies through Public Private Partnership_NR...Promoting Renewable Energy Technologies through Public Private Partnership_NR...
Promoting Renewable Energy Technologies through Public Private Partnership_NR...Nawa Raj Dhakal
 
Construction IT Research - Climate Change Agenda
Construction IT Research -   Climate Change AgendaConstruction IT Research -   Climate Change Agenda
Construction IT Research - Climate Change AgendaŽiga Turk
 
Renewable and low carbon energy capacity study for the East of England
Renewable and low carbon energy capacity study for the East of EnglandRenewable and low carbon energy capacity study for the East of England
Renewable and low carbon energy capacity study for the East of Englandcrifcambs
 
Improved Cooking Stoves (ICS) Activities Under AEPC
Improved Cooking Stoves (ICS) Activities Under AEPCImproved Cooking Stoves (ICS) Activities Under AEPC
Improved Cooking Stoves (ICS) Activities Under AEPCNawa Raj Dhakal
 
EAS_2007_annualreport
EAS_2007_annualreportEAS_2007_annualreport
EAS_2007_annualreportfinance40
 
2012 northcentral bio energy conference mu biomass
2012 northcentral bio energy conference   mu biomass2012 northcentral bio energy conference   mu biomass
2012 northcentral bio energy conference mu biomassSharon Lezberg
 
Dr Richard Pike Chemistry, Energy and Climate Change
Dr Richard Pike   Chemistry, Energy and Climate ChangeDr Richard Pike   Chemistry, Energy and Climate Change
Dr Richard Pike Chemistry, Energy and Climate ChangeJon Edwards
 
Local Biogas Grids - improving the economics of biogas plants
Local Biogas Grids - improving the economics of biogas plantsLocal Biogas Grids - improving the economics of biogas plants
Local Biogas Grids - improving the economics of biogas plantsfschillig
 
tcBiomass 2009
tcBiomass 2009tcBiomass 2009
tcBiomass 2009kaveney
 
Improved cook stove - Prof. K.R.Shrestha
Improved cook stove -  Prof. K.R.ShresthaImproved cook stove -  Prof. K.R.Shrestha
Improved cook stove - Prof. K.R.ShresthaDr.Krishna Shrestha
 
Ccr sustainable building technologies draft 7.3.10
Ccr sustainable building technologies draft 7.3.10Ccr sustainable building technologies draft 7.3.10
Ccr sustainable building technologies draft 7.3.10Kim Mitchell
 
Ontario Investment And International Trade Ryan Little, Storm Fisher Presen...
Ontario Investment And International Trade   Ryan Little, Storm Fisher Presen...Ontario Investment And International Trade   Ryan Little, Storm Fisher Presen...
Ontario Investment And International Trade Ryan Little, Storm Fisher Presen...rlittle
 
March10 2009-workshop-slides
March10 2009-workshop-slidesMarch10 2009-workshop-slides
March10 2009-workshop-slidesSWITCHOntario
 
IRJET- Evaluations of Multi Walled Carbon Nanotubes-Paraffin Wax Compositions...
IRJET- Evaluations of Multi Walled Carbon Nanotubes-Paraffin Wax Compositions...IRJET- Evaluations of Multi Walled Carbon Nanotubes-Paraffin Wax Compositions...
IRJET- Evaluations of Multi Walled Carbon Nanotubes-Paraffin Wax Compositions...IRJET Journal
 
Closing the Carbon Cycle for Sustainability - Peter Eisenberger (October 15, ...
Closing the Carbon Cycle for Sustainability - Peter Eisenberger (October 15, ...Closing the Carbon Cycle for Sustainability - Peter Eisenberger (October 15, ...
Closing the Carbon Cycle for Sustainability - Peter Eisenberger (October 15, ...Graciela Chichilnisky
 

Was ist angesagt? (19)

06 bio
06 bio06 bio
06 bio
 
Promoting Renewable Energy Technologies through Public Private Partnership_NR...
Promoting Renewable Energy Technologies through Public Private Partnership_NR...Promoting Renewable Energy Technologies through Public Private Partnership_NR...
Promoting Renewable Energy Technologies through Public Private Partnership_NR...
 
Construction IT Research - Climate Change Agenda
Construction IT Research -   Climate Change AgendaConstruction IT Research -   Climate Change Agenda
Construction IT Research - Climate Change Agenda
 
Renewable and low carbon energy capacity study for the East of England
Renewable and low carbon energy capacity study for the East of EnglandRenewable and low carbon energy capacity study for the East of England
Renewable and low carbon energy capacity study for the East of England
 
Improved Cooking Stoves (ICS) Activities Under AEPC
Improved Cooking Stoves (ICS) Activities Under AEPCImproved Cooking Stoves (ICS) Activities Under AEPC
Improved Cooking Stoves (ICS) Activities Under AEPC
 
Global nuclear future
Global nuclear futureGlobal nuclear future
Global nuclear future
 
EAS_2007_annualreport
EAS_2007_annualreportEAS_2007_annualreport
EAS_2007_annualreport
 
2012 northcentral bio energy conference mu biomass
2012 northcentral bio energy conference   mu biomass2012 northcentral bio energy conference   mu biomass
2012 northcentral bio energy conference mu biomass
 
Dr Richard Pike Chemistry, Energy and Climate Change
Dr Richard Pike   Chemistry, Energy and Climate ChangeDr Richard Pike   Chemistry, Energy and Climate Change
Dr Richard Pike Chemistry, Energy and Climate Change
 
Local Biogas Grids - improving the economics of biogas plants
Local Biogas Grids - improving the economics of biogas plantsLocal Biogas Grids - improving the economics of biogas plants
Local Biogas Grids - improving the economics of biogas plants
 
tcBiomass 2009
tcBiomass 2009tcBiomass 2009
tcBiomass 2009
 
Improved cook stove - Prof. K.R.Shrestha
Improved cook stove -  Prof. K.R.ShresthaImproved cook stove -  Prof. K.R.Shrestha
Improved cook stove - Prof. K.R.Shrestha
 
Ccr sustainable building technologies draft 7.3.10
Ccr sustainable building technologies draft 7.3.10Ccr sustainable building technologies draft 7.3.10
Ccr sustainable building technologies draft 7.3.10
 
Ontario Investment And International Trade Ryan Little, Storm Fisher Presen...
Ontario Investment And International Trade   Ryan Little, Storm Fisher Presen...Ontario Investment And International Trade   Ryan Little, Storm Fisher Presen...
Ontario Investment And International Trade Ryan Little, Storm Fisher Presen...
 
Risoe Energy Report 2
Risoe Energy Report 2Risoe Energy Report 2
Risoe Energy Report 2
 
March10 2009-workshop-slides
March10 2009-workshop-slidesMarch10 2009-workshop-slides
March10 2009-workshop-slides
 
IRJET- Evaluations of Multi Walled Carbon Nanotubes-Paraffin Wax Compositions...
IRJET- Evaluations of Multi Walled Carbon Nanotubes-Paraffin Wax Compositions...IRJET- Evaluations of Multi Walled Carbon Nanotubes-Paraffin Wax Compositions...
IRJET- Evaluations of Multi Walled Carbon Nanotubes-Paraffin Wax Compositions...
 
CHP plant for a leisure centre
CHP plant for a leisure centreCHP plant for a leisure centre
CHP plant for a leisure centre
 
Closing the Carbon Cycle for Sustainability - Peter Eisenberger (October 15, ...
Closing the Carbon Cycle for Sustainability - Peter Eisenberger (October 15, ...Closing the Carbon Cycle for Sustainability - Peter Eisenberger (October 15, ...
Closing the Carbon Cycle for Sustainability - Peter Eisenberger (October 15, ...
 

Ähnlich wie Femp biomass co-firing (2007)

Biomass co firing in coal power plants
Biomass co firing in coal power plantsBiomass co firing in coal power plants
Biomass co firing in coal power plantsJossie Xiong
 
Defining targets for_adsorbent_material_performanc
Defining targets for_adsorbent_material_performancDefining targets for_adsorbent_material_performanc
Defining targets for_adsorbent_material_performanckyrilluskameel
 
Resource efficient bioenergy for BC
Resource efficient bioenergy for BCResource efficient bioenergy for BC
Resource efficient bioenergy for BCThomas Cheney
 
Fischer Tropsch Fuels from Biomass
Fischer Tropsch Fuels from BiomassFischer Tropsch Fuels from Biomass
Fischer Tropsch Fuels from BiomassThomas Cheney
 
IPCC special report on renewable energy sources
IPCC special report on renewable energy sourcesIPCC special report on renewable energy sources
IPCC special report on renewable energy sourceslin-cecphils
 
I Shrunk The Hardware Tce Nov08
I Shrunk The Hardware Tce Nov08I Shrunk The Hardware Tce Nov08
I Shrunk The Hardware Tce Nov08Atkinderek
 
Poyry - Is biocoal a game changer? - Point of View
Poyry - Is biocoal a game changer? - Point of ViewPoyry - Is biocoal a game changer? - Point of View
Poyry - Is biocoal a game changer? - Point of ViewPöyry
 
A Review on Biogas as an Alternative Fuel
A Review on Biogas as an Alternative FuelA Review on Biogas as an Alternative Fuel
A Review on Biogas as an Alternative Fuelijtsrd
 
Small Scale Electricity Generation From Simultaneous Burning Of Straight Vege...
Small Scale Electricity Generation From Simultaneous Burning Of Straight Vege...Small Scale Electricity Generation From Simultaneous Burning Of Straight Vege...
Small Scale Electricity Generation From Simultaneous Burning Of Straight Vege...adoniaanastas
 
Biomass Co-firing: A transition to a low carbon future
Biomass Co-firing: A transition to a low carbon futureBiomass Co-firing: A transition to a low carbon future
Biomass Co-firing: A transition to a low carbon futurevivatechijri
 
Ipcc srren generic_presentation
Ipcc srren generic_presentationIpcc srren generic_presentation
Ipcc srren generic_presentationAnvan Tan
 
Potential of waste derived bio energy for marine system.doc. correction
Potential of waste derived bio energy for marine system.doc. correctionPotential of waste derived bio energy for marine system.doc. correction
Potential of waste derived bio energy for marine system.doc. correctionOladokun Sulaiman Olanrewaju
 
Five steps to a sustainable biobased product economy - Adrian Higson.pdf
Five steps to a sustainable biobased product economy - Adrian Higson.pdfFive steps to a sustainable biobased product economy - Adrian Higson.pdf
Five steps to a sustainable biobased product economy - Adrian Higson.pdfNNFCC
 
Agatha Biomass Power Project Brief
Agatha Biomass Power Project BriefAgatha Biomass Power Project Brief
Agatha Biomass Power Project BriefMamiki Matlawa
 
Hurley Palmer Flatt - Critical Thinking Magazine 2016
Hurley Palmer Flatt - Critical Thinking Magazine 2016 Hurley Palmer Flatt - Critical Thinking Magazine 2016
Hurley Palmer Flatt - Critical Thinking Magazine 2016 Hurley Palmer Flatt
 

Ähnlich wie Femp biomass co-firing (2007) (20)

Biomass co firing in coal power plants
Biomass co firing in coal power plantsBiomass co firing in coal power plants
Biomass co firing in coal power plants
 
Defining targets for_adsorbent_material_performanc
Defining targets for_adsorbent_material_performancDefining targets for_adsorbent_material_performanc
Defining targets for_adsorbent_material_performanc
 
Resource efficient bioenergy for BC
Resource efficient bioenergy for BCResource efficient bioenergy for BC
Resource efficient bioenergy for BC
 
Fischer Tropsch Fuels from Biomass
Fischer Tropsch Fuels from BiomassFischer Tropsch Fuels from Biomass
Fischer Tropsch Fuels from Biomass
 
IPCC special report on renewable energy sources
IPCC special report on renewable energy sourcesIPCC special report on renewable energy sources
IPCC special report on renewable energy sources
 
Wp biomass
Wp biomassWp biomass
Wp biomass
 
Session 17 ic2011 puettmann
Session 17 ic2011 puettmannSession 17 ic2011 puettmann
Session 17 ic2011 puettmann
 
I Shrunk The Hardware Tce Nov08
I Shrunk The Hardware Tce Nov08I Shrunk The Hardware Tce Nov08
I Shrunk The Hardware Tce Nov08
 
Pöyry is biocoal_a_bioenergy_game_changer
Pöyry is biocoal_a_bioenergy_game_changerPöyry is biocoal_a_bioenergy_game_changer
Pöyry is biocoal_a_bioenergy_game_changer
 
Poyry - Is biocoal a game changer? - Point of View
Poyry - Is biocoal a game changer? - Point of ViewPoyry - Is biocoal a game changer? - Point of View
Poyry - Is biocoal a game changer? - Point of View
 
A Review on Biogas as an Alternative Fuel
A Review on Biogas as an Alternative FuelA Review on Biogas as an Alternative Fuel
A Review on Biogas as an Alternative Fuel
 
Small Scale Electricity Generation From Simultaneous Burning Of Straight Vege...
Small Scale Electricity Generation From Simultaneous Burning Of Straight Vege...Small Scale Electricity Generation From Simultaneous Burning Of Straight Vege...
Small Scale Electricity Generation From Simultaneous Burning Of Straight Vege...
 
Biomass Co-firing: A transition to a low carbon future
Biomass Co-firing: A transition to a low carbon futureBiomass Co-firing: A transition to a low carbon future
Biomass Co-firing: A transition to a low carbon future
 
Ipcc srren generic_presentation
Ipcc srren generic_presentationIpcc srren generic_presentation
Ipcc srren generic_presentation
 
renewable energy_Lecture03
renewable energy_Lecture03renewable energy_Lecture03
renewable energy_Lecture03
 
Potential of waste derived bio energy for marine system.doc. correction
Potential of waste derived bio energy for marine system.doc. correctionPotential of waste derived bio energy for marine system.doc. correction
Potential of waste derived bio energy for marine system.doc. correction
 
BIOMASS Based Power ( Electrical & Thermal )
BIOMASS Based Power ( Electrical & Thermal )BIOMASS Based Power ( Electrical & Thermal )
BIOMASS Based Power ( Electrical & Thermal )
 
Five steps to a sustainable biobased product economy - Adrian Higson.pdf
Five steps to a sustainable biobased product economy - Adrian Higson.pdfFive steps to a sustainable biobased product economy - Adrian Higson.pdf
Five steps to a sustainable biobased product economy - Adrian Higson.pdf
 
Agatha Biomass Power Project Brief
Agatha Biomass Power Project BriefAgatha Biomass Power Project Brief
Agatha Biomass Power Project Brief
 
Hurley Palmer Flatt - Critical Thinking Magazine 2016
Hurley Palmer Flatt - Critical Thinking Magazine 2016 Hurley Palmer Flatt - Critical Thinking Magazine 2016
Hurley Palmer Flatt - Critical Thinking Magazine 2016
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond OntologiesLinked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond OntologiesDavid Newbury
 
20230202 - Introduction to tis-py
20230202 - Introduction to tis-py20230202 - Introduction to tis-py
20230202 - Introduction to tis-pyJamie (Taka) Wang
 
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1DianaGray10
 
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...Will Schroeder
 
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 WorkshopNIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 WorkshopBachir Benyammi
 
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdfIaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdfDaniel Santiago Silva Capera
 
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )Brian Pichman
 
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...Aggregage
 
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdfVideogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdfinfogdgmi
 
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™Adtran
 
Empowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership Blueprint
Empowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership BlueprintEmpowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership Blueprint
Empowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership BlueprintMahmoud Rabie
 
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1DianaGray10
 
Building AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptx
Building AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptxBuilding AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptx
Building AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptxUdaiappa Ramachandran
 
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCostKubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCostMatt Ray
 
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...UbiTrack UK
 
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.YounusS2
 
Igniting Next Level Productivity with AI-Infused Data Integration Workflows
Igniting Next Level Productivity with AI-Infused Data Integration WorkflowsIgniting Next Level Productivity with AI-Infused Data Integration Workflows
Igniting Next Level Productivity with AI-Infused Data Integration WorkflowsSafe Software
 
VoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBX
VoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBXVoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBX
VoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBXTarek Kalaji
 
ADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE
ADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDEADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE
ADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDELiveplex
 
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptxIntroduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptxMatsuo Lab
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond OntologiesLinked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
 
20230202 - Introduction to tis-py
20230202 - Introduction to tis-py20230202 - Introduction to tis-py
20230202 - Introduction to tis-py
 
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1
Secure your environment with UiPath and CyberArk technologies - Session 1
 
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...
 
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 WorkshopNIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 Workshop
 
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdfIaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
 
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )
Building Your Own AI Instance (TBLC AI )
 
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...
 
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdfVideogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
 
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
 
Empowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership Blueprint
Empowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership BlueprintEmpowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership Blueprint
Empowering Africa's Next Generation: The AI Leadership Blueprint
 
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
 
Building AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptx
Building AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptxBuilding AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptx
Building AI-Driven Apps Using Semantic Kernel.pptx
 
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCostKubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
 
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
 
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
 
Igniting Next Level Productivity with AI-Infused Data Integration Workflows
Igniting Next Level Productivity with AI-Infused Data Integration WorkflowsIgniting Next Level Productivity with AI-Infused Data Integration Workflows
Igniting Next Level Productivity with AI-Infused Data Integration Workflows
 
VoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBX
VoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBXVoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBX
VoIP Service and Marketing using Odoo and Asterisk PBX
 
ADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE
ADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDEADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE
ADOPTING WEB 3 FOR YOUR BUSINESS: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE
 
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptxIntroduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
Introduction to Matsuo Laboratory (ENG).pptx
 

Femp biomass co-firing (2007)

  • 1. DOE/EE-0288 Leading by example, saving energy and Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers taxpayer dollars in federal facilities Using this time-tested fuel-switching technique in existing federal boilers helps to reduce operating costs, increase the use of renewable energy, and enhance our energy security Executive Summary To help the nation use more domestic fuels and renewable energy technologies—and increase our energy security—the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) in the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, assists government agencies in developing biomass energy projects. As part of that assistance, FEMP has prepared this Federal Technology Alert on biomass cofiring technologies. This publication was prepared to help federal energy and facility managers make informed decisions about using biomass cofiring in existing coal-fired boilers at their facilities. The term “biomass” refers to materials derived from plant matter such as trees, grasses, and agricultural crops. These materials, grown using energy from sunlight, can be renewable energy sources for fueling many of today’s energy needs. The most common types of biomass that are available at potentially attractive prices for energy use at federal facilities are waste wood and wastepaper. The boiler plant at the Department of Energy’s One of the most attractive and easily implemented biomass energy technologies is cofiring Savannah River Site co- fires coal and biomass. with coal in existing coal-fired boilers. In biomass cofiring, biomass can substitute for up to 20% of the coal used in the boiler. The biomass and coal are combusted simultaneously. When it is used as a supplemental fuel in an existing coal boiler, biomass can provide the following benefits: lower fuel costs, avoidance of landfills and their associated costs, and reductions in sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, and greenhouse-gas emissions. Other benefits, such as decreases in flue gas opacity, have also been documented. Biomass cofiring is one of many energy- and cost-saving technologies to emerge as feasible for federal facilities in the past 20 years. Cofiring is a proven technology; it is also proving to be life-cycle cost-effective in terms of installation cost and net present value at several federal sites. Energy-Saving Mechanism Biomass cofiring projects do not reduce a boiler’s total energy input requirement. In fact, in a properly implemented cofiring application, the efficiency of the boiler will be the same as it was in the coal-only operation. However, cofiring projects do replace a portion of the non- renewable fuel—coal—with a renewable fuel—biomass. Cost-Saving Mechanisms Overall production cost savings can be achieved by replacing coal with inexpensive biomass fuel sources—e.g., clean wood waste and waste paper. Typically, biomass fuel supplies should cost at least 20% less, on a thermal basis, than coal supplies before a cofiring project can be economically attractive. U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency Internet: www.eere.energy.gov/femp/ and Renewable Energy No portion of this publication may be altered in any form without Bringing you a prosperous future where energy prior written consent from the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the authoring national laboratory.
  • 2. Federal Technology Alert Payback periods are typically To make economical use of captive investment of $850,000 was between one and eight years, wood waste materials—primarily required, resulting in a simple and annual cost savings could bark and wood chips that are payback period for the project range from $60,000 to $110,000 unsuitable for making paper—the of less than four years. The net for an average-size federal boiler. U.S. pulp and paper industry has present value of the project, These savings depend on the cofired wood with coal for evaluated over a 10-year analysis availability of low-cost biomass decades. Cofiring is a standard period, is about $1.1 million. feedstocks. However, at larger- mode of operation in that indus- Test burns at SRS have shown that than-average facilities, and at try, where biomass fuels provide the present stoker boiler fuel han- facilities that can avoid disposal more than 50% of the total fuel dling equipment required no costs by using self-generated input. Spurred by a need to reduce modification to fire the biomass/ biomass fuel sources, annual fuel and operating costs, and coal mixture successfully. No fuel- cost savings could be signifi- potential future needs to reduce feeding problems were experi- cantly higher. greenhouse gas emissions, an enced, and no increases in main- increasing number of industrial- tenance are expected to be needed Application and utility-scale boilers outside at the steam plant. Steam plant Biomass cofiring can be applied the pulp and paper industry are personnel have been supportive only at facilities with existing being evaluated for use in cofiring of the project. Emissions measure- coal-fired boilers. The best oppor- applications. ments made during initial testing tunities for economically attrac- showed level or reduced emissions tive cofiring are at coal-fired facili- Case Study Summary for all eight measured pollutants, ties where all or most of the fol- The U.S. Department of Energy’s and sulfur emissions are expected lowing conditions apply: (1) coal (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) to be reduced by 20%. Opacity prices are high; (2) annual coal in Aiken, South Carolina, has levels also decreased significantly. usage is significant; (3) local or installed equipment to produce The project will result in a reduc- facility-generated supplies of bio- “alternate fuel,” or AF, cubes from tion of about 2,240 tons per year mass are abundant; (4) local land- shredded office paper and finely in coal usage at the facility. fill tipping fees are high, which chipped wood waste. After a series means it is costly to dispose of of successful test burns have been Implementation Barriers biomass; and (5) plant staff and completed to demonstrate accept- management are highly motivated For utility-scale power generation able combustion, emissions, and to implement the project success- projects, acquiring steady, year- performance of the boiler and fuel fully. As a rule, boilers producing round supplies of large quantities processing and handling systems, less than 35,000 pounds per hour of low-cost biomass can be diffi- cofiring was expected to begin in (lb/hr) of steam are too small to cult. But where supplies are avail- 2003 on a regular basis. The bio- be used in an economically attrac- able, there are several advantages mass cubes offset about 20% of tive cofiring project. to using biomass for cofiring opera- the coal used in the facility’s two tions at federal facilities. For exam- traveling-grate stoker boilers. The ple, federal coal-fired boilers are Field Experiences project should result in annual coal typically much smaller than Cofiring biomass and coal is a time- cost savings of about $112,000. utility-scale boilers, and they tested fuel-switching strategy that Cost savings associated with avoid- are most often used for space is particularly well suited to a ing incineration or landfill disposal heating and process heat appli- stoker boiler, the type most often of office waste paper and scrap cations. Thus, they do not have found at coal-fired federal facili- wood from on-site construction utility-scale fuel requirements. ties. However, cofiring has been activities will total about $172,000 successfully demonstrated and In addition, federal boilers needed per year. Net annual savings from practiced in all types of coal for space heating typically operate the project, after subtracting the boilers, including pulverized- primarily during winter months. $30,000 per year needed to oper- coal boilers, cyclones, stokers, During summer months, waste ate the AF cubing facility, will be and fluidized beds. wood is often sent to the mulch about $254,000. An initial capital
  • 3. Federal Technology Alert market, which makes the wood • Economics is the driving factor. energy efficiency and renewable unavailable for use as fuel. Thus, Project economics largely deter- energy projects. Projects can be federal coal-fired boilers could mine whether a cofiring proj- funded through Energy Savings become an attractive winter mar- ect will be implemented. Performance Contracts (ESPCs), ket for local wood processors. This Selecting sites where waste Utility Energy Services Contracts, has been one of the driving fac- wood supplies have already or appropriations. Among these tors behind a cofiring demonstra- been identified will reduce resources is a Technology-Specific tion at the Iron City Brewery overall costs. Larger facilities “Super ESPC” for Biomass and in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. with high capacity factors— Alternative Methane Fuels (BAMF), those that operate at high loads which facilitates the use of bio- These are some of the major policy year-round—can utilize more mass and alternative methane and economic issues and barriers biomass and will realize fuels to reduce federal energy con- associated with implementing greater annual cost savings, sumption, energy costs, or both. biomass cofiring projects at assuming that wood supplies federal sites: are obtained at a discount in Through the BAMF Super ESPC, comparison to coal. This will FEMP enables federal facilities • Permit modifications may be also reduce payback periods. to obtain the energy- and cost- required. Permit requirements savings benefits of biomass and vary from site to site, but Conclusion alternative methane fuels at no modifications to existing up-front cost to the facility. More emissions permits, even for DOE FEMP, with the support of information about FEMP and limited-term demonstration staff at the DOE National Labor- atories and Regional Offices, offers BAMF Super ESPC contacts and projects, may be required for many services and resources to contract awardees is provided in cofiring projects. help federal agencies implement this Federal Technology Alert. Disclaimer This report was sponsored by the United States Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Federal Energy Management Program. Neither the United States Government nor any agency or contractor thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or useful- ness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or other- wise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency or contractor thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency or contractor thereof.
  • 5. Federal Technology Alert Contents Abstract .....................................................................................................2 About the Technology ..............................................................................3 Application Domain Cost-Saving Mechanisms Other Benefits Installation Requirements Federal-Sector Potential ............................................................................9 Estimated Savings and Market Potential Laboratory Perspective Application .............................................................................................11 Application Prerequisites Cost-Effectiveness Factors Where to Apply What to Avoid Equipment Integration Maintenance Equipment Warranties Codes and Standards Costs Utility Incentives Project Financing and Technical Assistance Technology Performance........................................................................17 Field Experience Fuel Supply and Cost Savings Calculations ...........................................17 Case Study — Savannah River Cofiring Project ....................................18 Facility Description Existing Technology Description New Technology Description Energy Savings Life-Cycle Cost Performance Test Results The Technology in Perspective ..............................................................20 Manufacturers.........................................................................................21 Biomass Pelletizing Equipment Boiler Equipment/Cofiring Systems Biomass and Alternative Methane Fuels (BAMF) Super ESPC Competitively Awarded Contractors For Further Information .........................................................................21 Bibliography ...........................................................................................21 Appendix A: Assumptions and Explanations for Screening Analysis .......23 Appendix B: Blank Worksheets for Preliminary Evaluation of a Cofiring Project ......................................................................................24 Appendix C: Completed Worksheets for Cofiring Operation at Savannah River Site ................................................................................28 Appendix D: Federal Life-Cycle Costing Procedures and BLCC Software Information .............................................................................31 Appendix E: Savannah River Site Biomass Cofiring Case Study: NIST BLCC Comparative Economic Analysis ........................................33 FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 1
  • 6. Federal Technology Alert Abstract nity for federal energy managers This Federal Technology Alert was to use a greenhouse-gas-neutral produced as part of the New Tech- Biomass energy technologies con- renewable fuel while reducing nology Demonstration activities vert renewable biomass fuels to energy and waste disposal costs in the Department of Energy’s heat or electricity. Next to hydro- and enhancing national energy Federal Energy Management Pro- power, more electricity is gener- security. Specific requirements gram, which is part of the DOE ated from biomass than from any will depend on the site. But in Office of Energy Efficiency and other renewable energy resource general, cofiring biomass in an Renewable Energy, to provide in the United States. Biomass existing coal-fired boiler involves facility and energy managers cofiring is attracting interest modifying or adding to the fuel with the information they need because it is the most economical handling, storage, and feed sys- to decide whether to pursue bio- near-term option for introducing tems. Fuel sources and the type mass cofiring at their facilities. new biomass resources into today’s of boiler at the site will dictate energy mix. This publication describes biomass fuel processing requirements. cofiring, cost-saving mechanisms, Biomass cofiring can be economi- and factors that influence its per- cal at federal facilities where most formance. Worksheets allow the or all of these criteria are met: reader to perform preliminary cal- current use of a coal-fired boiler, culations to determine whether access to a steady supply of com- a facility is suitable for biomass petitively priced biomass, high cofiring, and how much it would coal prices, and favorable regu- save annually. The worksheets latory and market conditions for also allow required biomass sup- renewable energy use and waste plies to be estimated, so managers reduction. Boilers at several fed- can work with biomass fuel bro- eral facilities were originally kers and evaluate their equipment designed for cofiring biomass needs. Also included is a case with coal. Others were modified study describing the design, oper- after installation to allow cofiring. ation, and performance of a bio- Some demonstrations—e.g., at the mass cofiring project at the DOE Figure 1. The NIOSH boiler plant was modified to cofire biomass with coal. National Institute of Occupational Savannah River Site in Aiken, Safety and Health (NIOSH) Bruce- South Carolina. A list of contacts ton Boiler plant in Pittsburgh, and a bibliography are also Cofiring is the simultaneous com- Pennsylvania (Figure 1)—show included. bustion of different fuels in the that, under certain circumstances, same boiler. Cofiring inexpensive only a few boiler plant modifica- biomass with fossil fuels in exist- tions are needed for cofiring. ing boilers provides an opportu- 2 — FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
  • 7. Federal Technology Alert About the Technology involves substituting biomass for cles, because biomass is a more a portion of the fossil fuel used volatile fuel. Biomass that does Biomass is organic material from in a boiler. not meet these specifications is living things, including plant likely to cause flow problems in matter such as trees, grasses, Cofiring inexpensive biomass with the fuel-handling equipment or and agricultural crops. These fossil fuels in existing federal boilers incomplete burnout in the boiler. materials, grown using energy provides an opportunity for federal General biomass sizing require- from sunlight, can be good energy managers to reduce their ments for each boiler type men- sources of renewable energy energy and waste disposal costs tioned here are shown in Table 1. and fuels for federal facilities. while making use of a renewable fuel that is considered greenhouse- Wood is the most commonly used Table 1. Biomass sizing requirements. gas-neutral. Cofiring biomass biomass fuel for heat and power. counts toward a federal agency’s Existing Type Size Required The most economical sources of of Boiler (inches) goals for increasing the use of wood fuels are wood residues from renewable energy or “green power” Pulverized coal ≤1/4 manufacturers and mill residues, (environmentally benign electric such as sawdust and shavings; Stoker ≤3 power), and it results in a net cost discarded wood products, such Cyclone ≤1/2 savings to the agency. Cofiring as crates and pallets; woody yard Fluidized bed ≤3 biomass also increases our use of trimmings; right-of-way trim- domestic fuels, thus enhancing mings diverted from landfills; More detailed information follows the nation’s energy security. and clean, nonhazardous wood about the cofiring options for debris resulting from construction This publication focuses on the stoker and pulverized-coal federal and demolition work. Using these most promising, near-term, boilers. materials as sources of energy proven option for cofiring—using recovers their energy value and solid biomass to replace a portion Stoker boilers. Most coal-fired boilers avoids the need to dispose of of the coal combusted in existing at federal facilities are stokers, them in landfills, as well as coal-fired boilers. This type of similar to the one shown in the other disposal methods. cofiring has been successfully schematic in Figure 2. Because demonstrated in nearly all coal- these boilers are designed to fire Biomass energy technologies con- fairly large fuel particles on travel- fired boiler types and configura- vert renewable biomass fuels to ing or vibrating grates, they are tions, including stokers, fluidized heat or electricity using equip- the most suitable federal boiler beds, pulverized coal boilers, and ment similar to that used for type for cofiring at significant cyclones. The most likely opportu- fossil fuels such as natural gas, biomass input levels. In these nities at federal facilities will be oil, or coal. This includes fuel- boilers, fuel is either fed onto found at those that have stokers handling equipment, boilers, the grate from below, as in under- and pulverized coal boilers. This steam turbines, and engine gener- feed stokers, or it is spread evenly is because the optimum operating ator sets. Biomass can be used in across the grate from fuel spread- range of cyclone boilers is much solid form, or it can be converted ers above the grate, as in spreader larger than that required at a fed- into liquid or gaseous fuels. Next stokers. In the more common eral facility, and few fluidized bed to hydropower, more electricity spreader-fired traveling grate stoker boilers have been installed at fed- is generated from biomass than boiler, solid fuel is mechanically eral facilities for standard, non- from any other renewable energy or pneumatically spread from the research uses. resource in the United States. front of the boiler onto the rear One of the most important keys of the traveling grate. Smaller par- Cofiring is a fuel-diversification ticles burn in suspension above to a successful cofiring operation strategy that has been practiced the grate, while the larger particles is to appropriately and consistently for decades in the wood products burn on the grate as it moves the size the biomass according to the industries and more recently in fuel from the back to the front of requirements of the type of boiler utility-scale boilers. Several fed- the boiler. The ash is discharged used. Biomass particles can usually eral facilities have also cofired from the grate into a hopper at be slightly larger than coal parti- biomass and coal. Cofiring the front of the boiler. FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 3
  • 8. Federal Technology Alert 03381101 The retrofit requirements for cofir- ing in a stoker boiler will vary, depending on site-specific issues. If properly sized biomass fuel can be delivered to the facility pre- mixed with coal supplies, on-site Gas burners capital expenses could be negligi- ble. Some facilities have multiple Hopper coal hoppers that discharge onto Receiving a common conveyor to feed fuel bin Traveling into the boiler. Using one of the grate Overfire existing coal hoppers and the Boiler air associated conveying equipment injection for biomass could minimize new Figure 2. Schematic of a typical traveling-grate spreader-stoker. capital expenses for a cofiring project. Both methods have been Front end loader successfully employed at federal to blend wood Metal stoker boilers for implementing and coal supplies detector Magnetic (coal and wood a biomass cofiring project. If blend is passed separator Dump conveyor through existing #1 Walking floor trailer neither of these low-cost options Dump or dump truck coal pulverizers) is feasible, new handling and Wood conveyor #2 pile Scale storage equipment will need 03381102 to be added. The cost of these additions is discussed later. Figure 3. Schematic of a blended-feed cofiring arrangement for a pulverized coal boiler. Pulverized coal boilers. There are two primary methods for cofiring bio- heat input basis. If the biomass is the NIOSH Bruceton boiler plant mass in a pulverized coal boiler. obtained at a significant discount in Pennsylvania and DOE’s Savan- The first method, illustrated in to current coal supplies, the addi- nah River Site in South Carolina— Figure 3, involves blending the tional expense may be warranted have been considering implement- biomass with the coal before the to offset coal purchases to a ing commercial cofiring applica- fuel mix enters the existing pul- greater degree. tions. Other federal sites with verizers. This is the least expensive cofiring experience include KI method, but it is limited in the Application Domain Sawyer Air Force Base in Michi- amount of biomass that can be gan, Fort Stewart in Georgia, Puget The best opportunities for cofiring fired. With this blended feed Sound Naval Shipyard in Washing- biomass with fossil fuels at federal method, only about 3% or less ton, Wright- Patterson Air Force facilities are at sites with regularly of the boiler’s heat input can be Base in Ohio, Brunswick Naval operating coal-fired boilers. Biomass obtained from biomass at full Air Station in Maine, and the cofiring has been successfully boiler loads because of limitations Red River Army Depot in Texas. demonstrated in nearly all coal- in the capacity of the pulverizer. fired boiler types and configura- More than 100 U.S. companies or The second method, illustrated in tions, including stokers, fluidized organizations have experience in Figure 4 on page 5, requires beds, pulverized coal boilers, and cofiring biomass with fossil fuels, installing a separate processing, cyclones. The least expensive and many cofiring boilers are in handling, and storage system opportunities are most likely to operation today. Most are found for biomass, and injecting the be for stoker boilers, but cofiring in industrial applications, in biomass into the boiler through in pulverized coal boilers may which the owner generates a dedicated biomass ports. Although also be economically attractive. significant amount of biomass this method is more expensive, it At least 10 facilities in the federal residue material (such as sawdust, allows greater amounts of biomass sector have had experience with scrap wood, bark, waste paper, or to be used—up to 15% more on a cardboard or agricultural residues biomass cofiring. Two facilities— 4 — FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
  • 9. Federal Technology Alert Metal detector Magnetic separator Conveyor #1 Wood Disc screener pile Grinder Scale Front end Walking floor trailer 03381103 loader or dump truck Rotary airlock feeder Separator Air Intake Exhaust Bin Dedicated biomass vent injection Existing coal Injection ports Wood silo Boiler Scale Pressure blower Figure 4. Schematic of a separate-feed cofiring arrangement for a pulverized coal boiler. like orchard trimmings and coffee project, and the next 10 states were Within each group in Table 2, grounds) during manufacturing. classified as having good potential. states are shown in alphabetical Using these residues as fuel allows See Table 2 and Figures 5 and 6. order, because slight variations organizations to avoid landfill in rankings result from selecting and other disposal costs and off- Table 2. States with most attractive weighting-factor values. The anal- sets some purchases of fossil fuel. conditions for biomass cofiring. ysis was intended simply to indi- Most ongoing cofiring operations cate which states have the most Cofiring helpful conditions for econom- are in stoker boilers in one of four Potential State industries: wood products, agricul- ically successful cofiring projects. ture, textiles, and chemicals. High Connecticut It found that the Northeast, South- Potential Delaware east, Great Lakes states, and A screening analysis was done to Florida Washington State are the most determine which states have the Maryland attractive locations for cofiring most favorable conditions for a Massachusetts projects. financially successful cofiring proj- New Hampshire New Jersey Utility-scale cofiring projects are ect. The primary factors consid- New York shown on the map in Figure 5. ered were average delivered state Pennsylvania coal prices, estimated low-cost These sites are in or near states Washington biomass residue supply density identified by the screening model Good Alabama as having good or high potential (heat content in Btu of estimated Potential Georgia available low-cost biomass resi- for cofiring. This increases confi- Indiana dues per year per square mile of dence that the states selected by Michigan state land area), and average state Minnesota the screening process were reason- landfill tipping fees. See Appendix North Carolina able choices. Figure 6 shows the A for a more detailed discussion. Ohio locations of existing federal coal- South Carolina fired boilers. There is good corre- The top 10 states in the analysis Tennessee spondence between the locations were classified as having high Virginia of these facilities and the states potential for a biomass cofiring identified as promising for cofiring. FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 5
  • 10. Federal Technology Alert pay off the initial investment— by switching part of the fuel sup- ply to biomass. Federal facilities that operate coal-fired boilers but are not in states on the list in Table 2 could still be good candi- dates for cofiring if specific condi- tions at their sites are favorable. “Wild card” factors, such as the impact of a motivated project manager or biomass resource supplier, the local availability of biomass, and the fact that a large federal facility or campus could act as its own source of biomass fuel, capitalizing on 03381104 fuel cost reductions while avoid- High potential for a Good potential for a biomass cofiring project biomass cofiring project ing landfill fees. These factors Locations of existing utility Locations of existing operational could easily tip the scales in power plants cofiring biomass coal plants within the Federal System favor of a particular site. The Figure 5. States with most favorable conditions for biomass cofiring, based on coal-fired boilers in Alaska high coal prices, availability of biomass residues, and high landfill tipping fees. could be examples of good candidates not located in highly rated states because of WA a long heating season, large (57) NH MT VT (49) ME size, and very high coal prices. ND (50) (46) OR (19) (26) MN (34) (56) MA The map in Figure 6 indicates ID SD WI NY (48) (26) WY MI (71) average landfill tipping fees for (29) (33) (32) RI (23) IA each state. It also shows cities NV NE PA(51) NJ (41) (15) (24) (31) CT in which fairly recent local bio- UT IN OH (74)(61) CO IL (26) (29) WA (29) mass resource supply and cost CA (16) KS MO (25) (39) VA MD DE (29) (25) (27) KY(27) (38) (43) (47) studies have been performed, AZ NC(30) as reported in Urban Wood Waste NM OK TN(28) (20) AR (16) (21) Resource Assessment (Wiltsee 1998). (18) MS AL GA SC Additional information on poten- TX (19) (25) (25) (29) AK (23) LA tial biomass resource supplies near (22) federal facilities can be obtained (42) FL (41) from the DOE program manager HI (50) for the Technology-Specific Super 03381105 ESPC for Biomass and Alternative High potential for a Good potential for a Methane Fuels, or BAMF; contact biomass cofiring project biomass cofiring project information can be found later in (##) State average tipping Locations of recent local fee ($/ton)* biomass supply studies this publication. To encourage *Source: Chartwell Information Publishers, Inc., 1997. new projects under the BAMF Super ESPC, the National Energy Figure 6. Average tipping fee and locations of local biomass supply studies Technology Laboratory (NETL) (Chartwell 1997, Wiltsee 1998). has compiled a database that Coal-fired federal boilers in the biomass if annual coal use is high identifies federal facilities within 20 states indicated in the study enough to obtain significant 50 miles of 10 or more potential would be promising for cofiring annual cost savings—enough to sources of wood waste. 6 — FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
  • 11. Federal Technology Alert Cost-Saving Mechanisms mated the quantities and costs of dry biomass would have a heating Cofiring operations are not imple- unused and discarded wood resi- value of about 7,000 Btu/lb, com- mented to save energy—they are dues in the United States, large pared with an average of 11,500 implemented to reduce energy quantities of biomass are available Btu/lb for the coal used at DoD costs as well as the cost of other at delivered costs well below the facilities. Each ton of biomass facility operations. In a typical $2.10 per million Btu average will thus offset 7,000/11,500 = cofiring operation, the boiler price of coal at the DoD facilities. 0.61 ton of coal. If the biomass requires about the same heat Coal prices at other federal facili- is used to replace coal at $49/ton, input as it does when operating ties are likely to be similar. each ton of biomass is worth in a fossil-fuel-only mode. When $49/ton x 0.61 = $30 in fuel cost For example, if 15% of the coal cofiring, the boiler operates to savings. The typical cost of pro- used at a boiler were replaced by meet the same steam loads for cessing biomass waste material biomass delivered to the plant for heating or power-generation into a form suitable for use in a $1.25 per million Btu, annual fuel operations as it would in fossil- boiler is $10 per ton, so the net cost savings for the average DoD fuel-only mode; usually, no costs savings per ton of biomass boiler described above would be changes in boiler efficiency residues could be about $56: more than $120,000. Neither the result from cofiring unless a $66/ton for the fuel and landfill cofiring rate of 15% of the boiler's very wet biomass is used. With cost savings minus $10/ton for total heat input, nor the delivered no change in boiler loads, and the biomass processing cost. This price of $1.25 per million Btu, is no change in efficiency, boiler assumes that the biomass is avail- unrealistic, especially for stoker energy usage will be the same. able at no additional transporta- boilers. Higher cofiring rates and The primary savings from cofiring tion costs, as is the case at the lower biomass prices are common are cost reductions resulting from Savannah River Site. in current cofiring projects. Note (1) replacing a fraction of high- that the cost of most biomass If the average DoD facility using a cost fossil fuel purchases with residues will range from $2 to coal-fired boiler could obtain bio- lower cost biomass fuel, and (2) $3 per million Btu, so successful mass fuel by diverting its own avoiding landfill tipping fees or cofiring project operators must residues from landfill disposal, other costs that would otherwise try to obtain the biomass fuel the net annual cost savings would be required to dispose of the at a low price. be about $560,000 per year. This biomass. would require about 10,000 tons The average landfill tipping fee in According to data obtained from of biomass residues per year, a the United States is about $36 per the Defense Energy Support quantity higher than most federal ton of material dumped. Average Center (DESC), the average facilities generate internally. The tipping fees for each state are delivered cost of coal for 18 coal- savings generated by a real cofir- shown in Figure 6. If significant fired boilers operated by the ing project would be expected to quantities of clean biomass Department of Defense (DoD) fall somewhere between the residues—such as paper, card- was about $49 per ton in 1999, two examples given here— board, or wood—are generated or about $2.10 per million Btu. between $120,000 and $560,000 at a federal site, and if some of (The average coal heating value per year. They would probably that material can be diverted from for those boilers is about 11,500 depend on using some biomass landfill disposal and used as fuel Btu/lb) Coal costs for those facili- materials generated on site and in a boiler, the savings generated ties ranged from $1.60 to $3 per some supplied by a third party. would be equivalent to about million Btu, depending on the $66 per ton of biomass: $36/ton location, coal type, and annual Other Benefits by avoiding the tipping fee, and quantity consumed. The average $30/ton by replacing the coal When used as a supplemental fuel annual coal cost for these boilers with biomass. Since biomass has in an existing coal boiler, biomass was about $2 million and ranged a lower heating value than coal, can provide the following bene- from $28,000 to $8.9 million per it takes more than one ton of bio- fits, with modest capital outlays year. According to three independ- mass to offset the heat provided for plant modifications: ently conducted studies that esti- by one ton of coal. A ton of fairly FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 7
  • 12. Federal Technology Alert • Reduced fuel costs. Savings in • Renewable energy when needed. modifications to existing opera- overall production costs can Unlike other renewable energy tional procedures, such as increas- be achieved if inexpensive technologies like those based ing over-fire air, may also be nec- biomass fuel sources are avail- on solar and wind resources, essary. Increased fuel feeder rates able (e.g., clean wood waste). biomass-based systems are are also needed to compensate for Biomass fuel supplies at prices available whenever they are the lower density and heating 20% or more below current needed. This helps to accelerate value of biomass. This does not coal prices will usually pro- the capital investment payoff usually present a problem at fed- vide the cost savings needed. rate by producing more heat eral facilities, where boilers typi- • Reduced sulfur oxide and nitrogen or power per unit of installed cally operate below their rated oxide emissions. Because of dif- capacity. output. When full rated output ferences in the chemical is needed, the boiler can be oper- • Market-ready renewable energy composition of biomass and ated in a coal-only mode to avoid option. Cofiring offers a fast- coal, emissions of acid rain derating. track, low-cost opportunity precursor gases—sulfur oxides to add renewable energy Expected fuel sources and boiler (SOx) and nitrogen oxides capacity economically at type dictate fuel processing (NOx)—can be reduced by federal facilities. requirements. For suspension replacing coal with biomass. firing in pulverized coal boilers, Because most biomass has • Fuel diversification. The ability biomass should be reduced to a nearly zero sulfur content, to operate using an additional particle size of 0.25 in. or smaller, SOx emissions reductions fuel source provides a hedge with moisture levels less than occur on a one-to-one basis against price increases and 25% when firing in the range with the amount of coal supply shortages for existing of 5% to 15% biomass on a heat (heat input) offset by the fuels such as stoker coals. In input basis. Equipment such as biomass. Reducing the coal a cofiring operation, biomass supply to the boiler by 10% hoggers, hammer mills, spike rolls, can be viewed as an opportu- will reduce SOx emissions and disc screens may be required nity fuel, used only when the by 10%. Mechanisms that to properly size the feedstock. price is favorable. Note that lead to NOx savings are Local wood processors are likely administrative costs could more complicated, and to own equipment that can ade- increase because of the need relative savings are typically quately perform this sizing in to purchase multiple fuel less dramatic than the SOx return for a processing fee. Other supplies; this should be reductions are, on a percent- boiler types (cyclones, stokers, considered when evaluating age basis. and fluidized beds) are better suited this benefit. to handle larger fuel particles. • Landfill cost reductions. Using • Locally based fuel supply. The waste wood as a fuel diverts Two common forms of processed most cost-effective biomass the material from landfills biomass are shown in Figure 7, fuels are usually supplied and avoids landfill disposal along with a typical stoker coal, from surrounding areas, so costs. shown in the center of the photo. economic and environmental Recent research and demonstra- • Reduced greenhouse-gas emissions. benefits will accrue to local tion on several industrial stoker Sustainably grown biomass is communities. boilers in the Pittsburgh area has considered a greenhouse-gas- shown that wood chips (on the neutral fuel, since it results in Installation Requirements right) are preferable to mulch-like no net carbon dioxide (CO2) Specific requirements depend on material (on the left) for cofiring in the atmosphere. Using bio- the site that uses biomass in cofir- with coal in stoker boilers that mass to replace 10% of the coal ing. In general, however, cofiring have not been designed or in an existing boiler will reduce biomass in an existing coal boiler previously reconfigured for the net greenhouse-gas emis- requires modifications or addi- multifuel firing. The chips are sions by approximately 10% if tions to fuel-handling, processing, similar to stoker coal in terms the biomass resource is grown storage, and feed systems. Slight of size and flow characteristics; sustainably. 8— FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
  • 13. Federal Technology Alert therefore, they cause minimal The potential savings resulting occur. In terms of CO2 reductions, problems with existing coal- from using the technology at this would be equivalent to remov- handling systems. Using a mulch- typical federal facilities with ing about 1,000 average-sized like material, or a biomass supply existing coal-fired boilers were automobiles from U.S. highways. with a high fraction of fine parti- estimated as part of the technol- Additional indirect benefits could cles (sawdust size or smaller) can ogy-screening process of FEMP’s also occur. If the biomass fuel cause periodic blockage of fuel New Technology Demonstration would otherwise be sent to a land- flow openings in various areas activities. Payback periods are fill to decay over a period of time, of the conveying, storage, and usually between one and eight methane (CH4) would be released feed systems. These blockages years, and annual fuel cost sav- to the atmosphere as a by-product can cause significant maintenance ings range from $60,000 to of the decomposition process, increases and operational prob- $110,000 for a typical federal assuming no landfill-gas-capturing lems, so fuel should be processed boiler. Savings depend on the system is installed. Since CH4 is to avoid those difficulties. With availability of low-cost biomass 21 times more powerful than CO2 properly sized and processed feedstocks. The savings would in terms of its ability to trap heat biomass fuel, cofiring operations be greater if the federal site can in the atmosphere and increase have been implemented success- avoid landfill costs by using its the greenhouse effect, cofiring fully without extensive modifica- own clean biomass waste mate- at one typical coal-fired federal tions to equipment or operating rials as part of the biomass fuel facility could avoid decomposition procedures at the boiler plant. supply. processes that would be equiva- lent to reducing an additional Estimated Savings and Market Federal-Sector Potential 29,000 tons of CO2 emissions Potential per year. The National Renewable Energy A large percentage of federal facili- Laboratory (NREL) conducted a Payback periods using cofiring ties with coal-fired boilers have study for FEMP of the economic at suitable federal facilities are the potential to benefit from this and environmental impacts of between one and eight years. technology. However, as noted, biomass cofiring in existing fed- Annual cost savings range from the potential is highest in areas eral boilers, as well as associated about $60,000 to $110,000 for with high coal prices, easy-to- savings. Results of the study are a typical federal boiler, if low- obtain biomass resources, and presented in Tables 3 through 6 cost biomass feedstocks are avail- high landfill tipping fees. on pages 10 and 11. As shown in able. There are more than 1500 Table 6, cofiring bio- industrial-scale stoker boilers in mass with coal at operation in the United States. one typical coal- If federal technology transfer fired federal facility efforts result in cofiring projects will replace almost at 50 boilers (this is about 7% 3,000 tons of coal of existing U.S. stokers), the per year, could resulting CO2 reductions would divert up to about be about 405,000 tons/yr (the 5,000 tons of bio- equivalent of removing about mass from landfills, 50,000 average-size cars from U.S. and will reduce net highways), and SO2 reductions carbon dioxide would be about 6,700 tons/yr. (CO2) emissions by If all biomass materials used in more than 8,000 these boilers were diverted from tons per year and landfills with no gas capture, the Figure 7. Comparison of two biomass residues with coal. sulfur dioxide (SO2) greenhouse-gas equivalent of an Because they are similar in size and flow characteristics, emissions by about additional 1.45 million tons of wood chips (right) flow more like coal (center) in stoker 136 tons per year. CO2 emissions would be avoided. boilers. Wood chips can thus be used in existing boilers Reductions in NOx with minimal modifications to fuel-handling systems. emissions could also (Continued on page 11) Mulch-like processed wood (left) is more problematic. FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 9
  • 14. Federal Technology Alert Table 3. Example economics of biomass cofiring in power generation applications (vs. 100 percent coal). Net Example Heat Total Annual Production Production Plant from Biomass Unit Cost for Cost Payback Cost, no Cost, with Size Biomass Power Cost Cofiring Savings Period Cofiring Cofiring Boiler Type (MW) (%) (MW) ($/kW)1 Retrofit ($) ($/yr)2 (years) (¢/kWh)3 (¢/kWh)3 Stoker (low cost) 15 20 3.0 50 150,000 199,760 0.8 5.25 5.03 Stoker (high cost) 15 20 3.0 350 1,050,000 199,760 5.3 5.25 5.03 Fluidized bed 15 15 2.3 50 112,500 149,468 0.8 5.41 5.24 Pulverized coal 100 3 3.0 100 300,000 140,184 2.1 3.26 3.24 Pulverized coal 100 15 15.0 230 3,450,000 700,922 4.9 3.26 3.15 Notes: 1Unit costs are on a per kW of biomass power basis (not per kW of total power). 2Net annual cost savings = fuel cost savings – increased O&M costs. 3Based on data obtained from EPRI's Technical Assessment Guide, 1993, EIA's Costs of Producing Electricity, 1992, UDI's Electric Power Database, EPRI/DOE's Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations, 1997, coal cost of $2.10/MBtu, biomass cost of $1.25/MBtu, and capacity factor of 70%. Table 4. Example environmental impacts of cofiring in power generation applications (vs. 100 percent coal). Example Annual Annual Annual Plant Heat Reduced Biomass CO2 SO2 NOx Size from Coal Use Used Savings Savings Period Boiler Type (MW) Biomass (tons/yr) (tons/yr)1 (tons/yr)2 (tons/yr) (tons/yr) Stoker (low cost) 15 20% 10,125 16,453 27,843 466 N/A Stoker (high cost) 15 20% 10,125 16,453 27,843 466 N/A Fluidized bed 15 15% 7,578 12,314 20,839 349 N/A Pulverized coal 100 3% 7,429 12,072 20,430 342 N/A Pulverized coal 100 15% 37,146 60,362 102,151 1,709 N/A Notes: 1Depending on the source of biomass, “biomass used” could be avoided landfilled material. 2Carbon savings can easily be calculated from CO savings (i.e., carbon savings = 12/44 x CO savings). 2 2 Table 5. Example economic of biomass cofiring in heating applications (vs. 100 percent coal). Example No. of Heat from Biomass Total Cost Net Annual Payback Boiler Size Boilers Biomass Capacity Unit Cost for Cofiring Cost Savings Period (steam lb/hr) at Site (steam lb/hr) (steam lb/hr) ($/lb/hr)1 Retrofit ($) ($/yr)2 (years) 120,000 2 15% 36,000 2.8 100,075 41,628 2.4 Notes: 1Unit costs are on a per unit of biomass capacity basis (not per unit of total capacity). 2Assumptions: coal cost of $2.10/MBtu and capacity factor of 25% (based on data from coal-fired federal boilers), biomass cost of $1.25/MBtu. 10— FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
  • 15. Federal Technology Alert Table 6. Potential environmental impact of cofiring in heating applications (vs. 100 percent coal). Annual Annual Annual No. of Reduced Biomass CO2 SO2 NOx Cofiring Coal Use Used Savings Savings Period Projects1,2 (tons/yr) (tons/yr)3 (tons/yr)4 (tons/yr) (tons/yr) 1 2,947 5,057 8,103 136 N/A 2 5,893 10,114 16,206 271 N/A 10 29,466 50,570 81,030 1,355 N/A 50 147,328 252,851 405,151 6,777 N/A Notes: 1There are approximately 1500 industrial stoker boilers operating today. 2Assumptions for the average project were: 120,000 lb/hr steam capacity per boiler, 2 boilers at site, 15% heat from biomass, and a 25% capacity factor. 3Depending on the source of biomass, “biomass used” could be avoided landfilled material. 4Carbon savings can easily be calculated from CO savings (i.e., carbon savings = 12 / 44 x CO savings). 2 2 Laboratory Perspective that, in general, NOx emissions be used more easily as fuel at Since the 1970s, DOE and NETL decrease with cofiring as a result existing coal-fired facilities. In have worked with alternative fuels of the lower nitrogen content of a separate project with funding such as solid waste and refuse- most woody biomass in relation from NETL, the University of derived fuel. In 1995, NETL, to coal, and the greater volatility Missouri-Columbia’s Capsule Sandia National Laboratories, and of biomass in relation to coal. Pipeline Research Center exam- NREL sponsored a workshop that The greater volatility of biomass ined the potential for compacting led to several projects evaluating results in a natural staging of the various forms of biomass into technical and commercial issues combustion process that can small briquettes or cubes for use associated with biomass cofiring. reduce NOx emissions to levels as supplemental fuels at existing These projects included research below those expected on the coal-fired boilers. The results indi- conducted or sponsored by NETL, basis of fuel nitrogen contents. cated that biomass fuel cubes NREL, Sandia, and Oak Ridge could be manufactured and deliv- DOE, NETL, and the Electric Power National Laboratory (ORNL) on ered to a power plant for as little Research Institute (EPRI) also col- char burnout; ash deposition; as $0.30 per million Btu, or less laborated on short-term demon- NOx behavior; cofiring demon- than $5 per ton. This price stration projects. Several of the stration projects using various included all capital and operating demonstrations took place at boiler types, coal/biomass feed- costs for the manufacturing facility federal facilities in the Pittsburgh stock combinations, and fuel plus transportation costs within area. They found no significant handling systems; reburning for a 50-mile radius. The analysis impact on boiler efficiency at low enhanced NOx reduction; and the assumed the facility would levels of cofiring. Fuel procure- use of ash. These efforts have led collect a $15-per-ton tipping ment, handling, and preparation to improved and documented fee for biomass delivered to the were found to require special knowledge about the impacts site. See the bibliography for attention. of cofiring biomass with coal more detailed information on in a wide range of circumstances. In addition, DOE’s Idaho National biomass cofiring research activities Energy and Environmental Labor- and published results of research Results from a joint Sandia/NETL/ atory (INEEL) and DOE’s Savan- led by DOE and its laboratories. NREL project found that in terms nah River Site have biomass- of slagging and fouling, wood was cubing equipment that can Application more benign than herbaceous convert paper and wood waste This section addresses technical crops. It has also been shown materials into a form that can aspects of biomass cofiring in FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 11
  • 16. Federal Technology Alert coal-fired boilers, including the access to local expertise in dirt. It may also be possible range of situations in which cofir- collecting and processing to arrange storage through ing technology can be used best. waste wood. This expertise the biomass fuel provider. First, prerequisites for a successful can be found primarily • Receptive plant operators at the biomass cofiring application are among companies specializ- federal facility. At the very discussed, as well as the factors ing in materials recycling, least, increases will be that influence the cost-effective- mulch, and wood products. necessary in administrative ness of projects. Design and inte- • Boiler plant equipped with a bag- activities associated with gration considerations are also house. Cofiring biomass with adding a new fuel to a boiler discussed and include equipment coal has been shown to plant’s fuel mix. In addition, and installation costs, installation increase particulate emissions new or additional boiler con- details, maintenance, and permit- in some applications in com- trol and maintenance proce- ting issues. parison to coal-only opera- dures will be required to use tion. If the existing facility is biomass effectively. As Application Prerequisites already equipped with a bag- opposed to a capital improve- The best opportunities for cofiring house or cyclone separation ment project, which requires occur at sites in which many of devices, this should not be a one-time installation and the following criteria apply: significant problem; in other minimal attention afterwards • Existing, operational coal-fired words, it should not cause (such as equipment upgrades), boiler. It is possible to cofire noncompliance with particu- a cofiring operation requires biomass with fossil fuels late emissions standards. The ongoing changes in fuel pro- other than coal; however, existing baghouse or cyclone curement, fuel-handling, and the similarities in the fuel- typically provides sufficient boiler control operations. handling systems required particulate filtration to allow Receptive boiler plant opera- for both coal and biomass stack gases to remain in com- tors and management are (because they are both solid pliance with air permits. How- therefore instrumental in fuels) usually make cofiring ever, some small coal-fired implementing and sustaining less expensive at coal-fired boilers are not equipped with a successful cofiring project. facilities. An exception could these devices. Instead, they • Favorable regulatory climate for be cofiring applications in use methods such as natural renewable energy. As of Febru- which the biomass fuel is gas overfiring to reduce par- ary 2003, 28 states had either gas piped to the boiler from ticulate emissions. In such enacted electricity restructur- a nearby landfill. Cofiring cases, a new baghouse may ing legislation or issued orders with landfill gas has been be required to permit cofiring to open their electricity mar- done in both coal-fired and biomass at significant input kets to competition. Most of natural-gas-fueled boilers, levels, and this would increase these states have established but is less common than project costs significantly. some type of incentive pro- solid-fuel cofiring because of • Storage space available on site. gram to encourage more the need for a large boiler Unless the biomass is imme- installations of renewable very close to the landfill. diately fed into a boiler’s energy technologies. Since • Local expertise for collecting and fuel-handling system upon biomass is a renewable energy processing biomass. Most boiler delivery, a temporary staging resource, some states may operators at federal facilities area at the boiler plant will provide favorable conditions are not likely to be interested be needed to store processed for implementing a cofiring in purchasing and operating biomass supplies. An ideal project through incentive equipment to process biomass storage facility would have programs, technical assis- into a form that can be used at least a concrete pad and tance, or flexible permitting as boiler fuel.Thus, it is advan- a roof to minimize the accu- procedures. tageous for the facility to have mulation of moisture and 12 — FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM