Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rbain1209 PDF
Rbain1209 PDF
Richard Bain
Richard.bain@nrel.gov
December 9, 2009
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
Presentation Outline
O
• Industry Status
• Biomass Properties
• Direct Combustion
• Cofiring
• Gasification
SSolar
l & PV Wind
Wi d
0.24% 6.71%
Municipal
M i i l Biomass
Bi
Waste 10.24%
4.03%
Geothermal
3.86%
Hydropower
74.91%
12/15/2009 3
Biopower
Biopower status
2006 Capacity – 10.4 GWe
5 GW Pulp and Paper
2 GW Dedicated Biomass
3 GW MSW and Landfill Gas
0.5 GW Cofiring
2006 Generation – 54.9 TWh
Cost – 0.08 – 0.10 USD/kWh
Potential
• Cost – 0.04-0.06 USD kWh (integrated gasification combined cycle)
• 2030 – 160 TWh (net electricity exported to grid from integrated 60
billion gal/yr biorefinery industry)
Sources: Aden,et. al, NREL/TP-510-32438, DOE EIA Annual Energy Outlook, Table A16 (year-by-year)
12/15/2009 4
U.S. Biopower Generation, 1981-2006
70 12000
60
10000
MW)
Generation ((TWh/annum)
et Summer Capacity (M
50
8000
40
Generation 6000
C
Capacity
i
30
4000
20
G
Ne
2000
10
0 0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
DOE EIA Annual Energy Outlook, Table A16, Individual Yearly Issues
12/15/2009 5
U.S. Biomass Resource
http://rpm.nrel.gov/biopower/biopower/launch
12/15/2009 7
U.S. Biomass Resource Assessment
• Updated resource assessment - April 2005
• Jointly developed by U.S. DOE and USDA
• Referred to as the “Billion Ton Study”
12/15/2009 8
Bi
Biomass Supply
S l Scenarios
S i
Million Dry Tons/Year
1400
1200
1000
Dedicated Crops
800 CRP
Other Agricultural
Agricultural Residues
600 Urban
Primary Mill Residue
Forest Residue
400
200
0
2007 2010 2020 2020 2025 Potential
Milbrandt Walsh Walsh National Walsh Perlack
<$90/ton… <$90/ton… Academy <$90/ton…
Example
120
Biomass Supply Curves
100 2010 2015 2020 2025
y Ton Delivered
80
2006$/Dry
60
40
20
0 200 400 600 800
Million Dry Tons
Production Potential
Basis:
Gives:
1000$/MW 1000$/MW $/kW-yr $/MWh MMBtu/d ton ton/MWh $/ton $/MWh MMBtu/MWh
Combustion Stoker
Combustion, CS 3 268
3,268 3 390
3,390 88 4
88.4 36
3.6 16 0
16.0 0 781
0.781 75 0
75.0 58 6
58.6 12 50
12.50 1
Combustion, CFB CCFB 3,370 3,495 91.0 4.1 16.0 0.781 75.0 58.6 12.50 1
CHP CHP 3,448 3,576 90.0 3.7 16.0 0.891 75.0 66.8 14.25 1
Gasification, Base GB 3,953 4,163 88.8 6.9 16.0 0.593 75.0 44.5 9.49 2
Gasification, Advanced GA 3,390 3,567 56.1 6.9 16.0 0.500 75.0 37.5 8.00 2
Cofiring, PC CPC 496 496 11.6 1.6 16.0 0.625 75.0 46.9 10.00 1
Cofiring, Cyclone CC 315 315 11.6 1.2 16.0 0.625 75.0 46.9 10.00 1
1. McGowan C., (2007). "Renewable Energy Technical Assessment Guide-TAG-RE:2007," EPRI, Palo Alto, CA
2. DeMeo, D.A. and J. F. Galdo (1997). "Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations," EPRI-TR109496, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA
3. EPRI (1993). "EPRI-Technical Assessment Guide, Electricity supply-1993," EPRI TR-10226-V1R7m EPRI, Palo Alto, CA
C b ti - Electricity
Combustion El t i it
12
Major Considerations
1000 lb) Costs
• Gasification is less
Gasification - Electricity
8 expensive than
combustion, but needs
Gasification - CHP additional development
6 • Cofiring is by far the
least cost option
Electricity (cents/k
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Equivalent Plant Size (MW)
Bain, R. L.; Amos, W. P.; Downing, M.; Perlack, R. L. (2003). Biopower Technical Assessment: State of the
Industry and the Technology. 277 pp.; NREL Report No. TP-510-33123
12/15/2009 13
Biomass Plant Technical Performance
50 MW CHP - Di
Directt C
Comb
b 62 569 (33
(33.45)
45) 41 5
41.5 214 1 44
1.44
12/15/2009 15
12/15/2009 16
Historic Biopower Plants, Circa 2000
Plant Location MWe CF, % KTons/yr*
Willi
Williams L
Lake
k C
Canadad 60 106 768
Shasta California 74 70 694
Colmac California 49.9 96 846
Stratton Maine 49 90 573
Kettle Falls Washington 46 82 542
Snomomish Washington 39 60 410
Ridge Florida 40 57 376
y g
Grayling Michigan
g 36 63 320
Bay Front Wisconsin 30 62 251
McNeil Vermont 50 35 255
Multtrade Virginia 79.5 19 214
Madera California 25 60 308
Tracy California 18.5 80 214
Camas Washington 17 65 194
Tacoma Washington 40 27 221
Greenidge New York 10 8
10.8 80 98
* Wet tons/yr, assuming 4250 Btu/lb
Wiltsee, G. (2000). Lessons Learned from Existing Biomass Power
Plants. 149 pp.; NREL Report No. SR-570-26946.
12/15/2009 17
Life Cycle CO2 and Energy Balance
for a Direct-Fired Biomass System
Current biomass power industry
Avoided Carbon
Emissions Electricity
1.0
1,627 Out
10 3 28.4
Fossil
Energy Landfill and Transportation Construction Power Plant
In uc g
Mulching p
Operation
Coal Technology
Bituminous Coal, 20.2 5.8 2.7 0.62 PM Control only
Stoker Boiler (f) 1 wt% S coal (baghouse)
* Estimated using w ood EPA NEEDS average heat rate = 15,351 Btu/kWh
12/15/2009 21
12/15/2009 22
ock
dst
M Fee
De etal Dump Conveyor #1
tec
to r Ma
Primary Se gnetic
par
Hogger ato Wood
r
Pile Radial
Stacker Truck Tipper
Secondary
Hogger Radial Screw Active
Sca Reclaim Feeder
le System Boundary for
Biomass Feedstock
Disc Feeder
Biomass Existing
Handling System
Feedstock Boiler System
Conveyor
y #2
Rotary
R t Airlock
Ai l k H dli
Handling
Feeder Equipment
Air Intake
Existing
Valve Boiler
arator
Sepa
Valve
Bin Mechanical
Vent Exhauster
Wood Silo
Scale
Pressure Blowers
12/15/2009 23
Net Summer Capacity of Plants Cofiring Biomass and Coal
Coal, 2006
(Megawatts)
State Plant Name Biomass/ Total State Plant Name Biomass/ Total
Coal Plant Coal Plant
Cofiring
g Capacity
p y Cofiring Capacity
Capacity Capacity
AL Mobile Energy Services LLC 91 91 MN Rapids Energy Center 26 28
AL Georgia Pacific Naheola Mill 31 78
MS Weyerhaeuser Columbus MS 123 123
AL International Paper Prattville Mill 49 90
NC Corn Products Winston Salem 8 8
AR Ashdown 47 156
NC Primary Energy Roxboro 68 68
AZ H Wilson Sundt Generating Station 173 558
CT Covanta Mid-Connecticut
Mid Connecticut Energy 90 90 NC Weyerhaeuser Plymouth NC 162 162
DE Edge Moor 252 710 NY AES Greenidge LLC 112 162
FL International Paper Pensacola 83 83 NY AES Hickling LLC 70 70
FL Jefferson Smurfit Fernandina Beach 74 128 NY AES Jennison LLC 60 60
FL Stone Container Panama City Mill 20 34 NY Black River Generation 56 56
GA Georgia Pacific Cedar Springs 101 101 SC International Paper Eastover Facility 48 110
GA International Paper Augusta Mill 85 85 SC Stone Container Florence Mill 79 108
GA SP Newsprint
N i t 45 82 SC C
Cogen S
Southth 99 99
HI Hawaiian Comm & Sugar Puunene Mill 46 62 UT Desert Power LP 43 135
IA AG Processing Inc 8 8 VA Bassett Table 2 2
IA University of Iowa Main Power Plant 21 23 VA Georgia Pacific Big Island 8 8
KY H L Spurlock 329 1,279
VA International Paper Franklin Mill 96 155
LA International Paper Louisiana Mill 59 59
VA Covington Facility 105 105
MD Luke Mill 65 65
WA Steam plant 50 50
ME Rumford Cogeneration 103 103
ME S D Warren Westbrook 62 81 WI Blount Street 100 188
MI Decorative Panels Intl 8 8 WI Manitowoc 10 90
MI Escanaba Paper Company 81 103 WI Fox Valley Energy Center 6 6
MI TES Filer City Station 70 70 WI Mosinee Paper 20 23
MN M L Hibbard 73 123 WI Bay Front 40 68
WI Biron Mill 22 62
WI Whiting Mill 4 4
WI Wisconsin Rapids Pulp Mill 72 72
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table9.html WI Niagara Mill 12 24
3/11/2009
Total 3,569 6,317
12/15/2009 24
Gasification
12/15/2009 25
12/15/2009 26
Small and medium size combined heat and power is a good
opportunity for biomass
5 MWe + District Heat
Skive, Denmark
15-100 kWe
DISTRICT
HEATING
11.5 MWth
WATER
POWER
AIR/STEAM GAS BUFFER 3x2 MWe
TANK
3 GAS ENGINES
BOTTOM ASH GAS COOLERS
GASIFIER BODY
WOOD
PELLETS
3 JENBACHER GAS ENGINES
FLARE
February 2009
Frontline Bioenergy, LLC, Ames, Iowa
Flare
Gasifier Test
Building
Char/Ash
Load-Out
Gas Product
Pipe Line
• Bubbling
B bbli Fluid
Fl id Bed:
B d airi or oxy/steam
/
Boiler
• Pressure Operation: up to 5 bar
• Gas Conditioning: high efficiency filtration;
tar reforming
g development
p Phase-1 (shown): 75 TPD input (12.5
(12 5 MWth)
• Capacity: up to 70 MWth per train Phase-2 (future): 300 TPD input (50 MWth)
Credit:http://www.nexterra.ca/
12/15/2009 30
Questions
31