Overview and Some Issues Related to Co-Firing

Biomass and Coal

Jianjun Dai,* Shahab Sokhansanj, John R. Grace, Xiaotao Bi, C. Jim Lim
and Staffan Melin
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of British Columbia, 2360 East Mall, Vancouver,
BC, Canada V6T 1Z3

Low heating values, variable chemical compositions, peculiar physical properties, high investment cost and insecurity of biomass feedstocks
supply limit the applications of biomass for energy and other processes. Co-firing biomass and coal has potential for the development of
biomass-to-energy capacity with significant economic, environmental, and social benefits. However, co-firing is not straightforward, and some
questions need to be addressed due to the differences in chemical compositions and physical properties of biomass and coal. This paper highlights
key issues related to co-firing, including reactor types, feeding, hydrodynamics, ash sintering, fouling, and corrosion, based on previous studies,
as well as calculations and analysis. Direct co-firing is the most common option for biomass and coal co-firing currently, mostly due to relatively
low investment needed to turn existing coal power plants into co-firing plants. For direct co-firing, the physical characteristics and chemical
compositions of the fuel entering the combustors or gasifiers are critical to an optimum operation. Any biomass mixed with coal needs to have
acceptable physical properties. More research is needed on co-firing biomass and coal, including work on: preparation, handling, storage, and
feeding of biomass feedstocks (e.g. drying, torrefaction, pelletization); co-firing mechanisms; hydrodynamic analysis of co-firing combustors
and gasifiers; boiler/gasifier capacity, slagging, fouling, corrosion, efficiency, reliability, fuel flexibility; lower emissions and gas cleaning; catalyst
poisoning; investment and operating costs.

Les applications de la biomasse pour les procédés énergétiques et d’autres procédés sont limités par les faibles pouvoirs calorifiques, des composi-
tions chimiques variables, des propriétés physiques particulières, des coûts d’investissement élevés et l’insécurité quant à l’approvisionnement en
biomasse comme matière première. La co-alimentation biomasse-charbon est potentiellement intéressante pour la transformation de la biomasse
en énergie, avec des avantages économiques, environnementaux et sociaux significatifs. Toutefois, la co-alimentation n’est pas simple et certaines
questions se posent du fait des différences dans les compositions chimiques et les propriétés physiques de la biomasse et du charbon. On souligne
dans cet article les principaux aspects entrant dans la co-alimentation, notamment le type de réacteurs, l’alimentation, l’hydrodynamique, le
frittage des cendres, l’encrassement et la corrosion, d’après des études antérieures ainsi que des calculs et analyses. La co-alimentation directe est
l’option la plus commune pour la co-alimentation biomasse-charbon, principalement en raison de l’investissement relativement faible requis pour
transformer les centrales électriques alimentées au charbon actuelles en centrales hybrides. Pour la co-alimentation directe, les caractéristiques
physiques et les compositions chimiques du fioul entrant dans les chambres de combustion et les gazéifieurs sont critiques pour un fonctionnement
optimal. Toute biomasse mélangée à du charbon doit posséder des propriétés physiques acceptables. De nouvelles recherches sont nécessaires sur
la co-alimentation biomasse-charbon, notamment sur: la préparation, la manutention, le stockage et l’alimentation des charges de biomasse (p.
ex., la torréfaction, la pelletization); les mécanismes de co-alimentation; l’analyse hydrodynamique des chambres de combustion et des gazéifieurs;
la capacité des chaudières/gazéifieurs, l’entartrage, l’encrassement, la corrosion, l’efficacité, la fiabilité, la flexibilité du fioul; les émissions faibles
et le lavage du gaz; l’empoisonnement du catalyseur; et enfin, les coûts d’investissement et de fonctionnement.

Keywords: co-firing, co-feeding, biomass, coal, fluidized bed

INTRODUCTION every aspect of the development of biomass-to-energy capacity,

especially in the presence of economic incentives to replace coal.

P
artial substitution of coal by biomass feedstocks or other
materials (e.g. waste) in coal-fired power plants requires co-
firing (Fernando, 2005). Co-firing also occurs when biomass ∗ Author to whom correspondence may be addressed.
feedstocks (or other materials) are partially replaced by coal E-mail address: djianjun@chml.ubc.ca
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 86:367–386, 2008
(Leckner, 2006). In most instances, co-firing of biomass in exist-
ing coal-fired boilers provides an attractive approach to nearly © 2008 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
DOI 10.1002/cjce.20052

| VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 | | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 367 |
 There are many successful co-firing systems with different
Table 1. Properties of different biomass fuels compared with coala
reactors (fixed bed, fluidized bed and entrained flow). Several
Fuel LHV Volatile Ash Ultimate analysis different types of biomass can be co-fired with coal, including
(daf) matter content % w/w (daf) wood, residues from forestry and related industries, agricul-
MJ/kg % w/w % w/w tural residues, and biomass in refined form, such as pellets.
(daf) (dry) C H O N S Energy crops are also potential candidates for co-firing (IEA, 2005;
Straw 18.2 81.3 6.6 49 6 44 0.8 0.2 Maciejewska et al., 2006). Clean wood waste, especially when
Wood 18.7 83 1.8 50.5 6.1 43 0.3 0.1 pelletized, is an excellent fuel with low ash and alkali concentra-
Bark 16.2 76 7 50.5 5.8 43.2 0.4 0.1 tions, and several commercial-scale co-firing demonstration tests
have been completed without deposition problems with up to
Rape oil 35.8 100 0 77 12 10.9 0.1 0
10% biomass on an energy basis (Tillman, 2000; Savolainen,
Peat 19 74.2 2.7 52.6 5.8 40.6 0.9 0.1 2003; Baxter, 2005). Danish tests with up to 20% on an energy
Bituminous 31.8 34.7 8.3 82.4 5.1 10.3 1.4 0.8 basis indicate that straw can be co-fired with coal without severe
coal deposition or corrosion problems (Frandsez, 2005). There is also
a
Chmielniak and Sciazko (2003). one large coal-burning CHP plant in Sweden which successfully
converted to 100% wood pellets (Melin, 2007).
In recent years, some groups (Sjostrom et al., 1994; Kurkela
Low heating values (LHV), varying chemical compositions et al., 1994; Madsen and Christensen, 1994; Reinoso et al., 1994;
(Table 1), peculiar physical properties (e.g. wide range of par- Brage et al., 1995; Chen et al., 1995; de Jong et al., 1998; Collot
ticle size, high moisture content (MC), irregular shapes, low et al., 1999; Sjostrum et al., 1999; Brown et al., 2000; Pan et al.,
bulk densities), as well as high investment costs and insecu- 2000; Xie et al., 2001; Chmielniak and Sciazko, 2003; McLen-
rity of feedstock supply, are major concerns when stand-alone don et al., 2004) have reported co-gasification of biomass and
biomass plants are built. Large biomass units (>300 MWe) may coal. Co-gasification brings environmental benefits (e.g. reduced
be economically impractical based on present economic crite- CO2 emissions, decreased sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions),
ria (Fernando, 2005). Coal can mitigate the effects of variations while also reducing problems that occur in biomass operations
in biomass feedstock quality and buffer the system when there associated with the production of tar. Air-steam gasification facil-
is insufficient biomass feedstock (Rickets, 2002; Viewls, 2005), itates high conversion of solid feedstocks such as biomass and
whereas biomass brings environmental and social benefits to coal coal into gas (Hanaoka et al., 2005). However, there have been
plants. When co-firing occurs in large units with high thermal few reports on co-gasification of woody biomass and coal with air
efficiency, specific operation costs are likely to be lower than in and steam from the viewpoint of the supply of syngas for synthe-
small-scale systems (Rickets, 2002; Viewls, 2005), and the costs of sis of liquid fuels (de Jong and Hein, 1999; Pinto et al., 2003).
adapting existing coal power plants should be lower than building There have also been few reports on co-gasification where the
new dedicated biomass systems (Fernando, 2005). Recent reviews relative proportions of biomass and coal have varied over wide
of co-firing identified over 100 successful field demonstrations in ranges (Kumabe et al., 2007). Research is needed on pre-treating
16 countries, utilizing many types of biomass in combination with biomass to facilitate co-feeding and dosing to the gasifier. The
various types of coals and boilers (Baxter, 2005) (Table 2). There ash, slagging, fouling and corrosion behaviour of typical biomass
have also been extensive studies concerning the co-firing of coal minerals have to be assessed (Boerrigter et al., 2006).
and biomass for energy generation (Leckner and Karlsson, 1993; This paper highlights the technical difficulties related to
Armesto et al., 1997, 2003; Desroches-Ducarne et al., 1998; Hein co-firing of biomass and coal based on previous experience. Cal-
and Bemtgen, 1998; Dayton et al., 1999; Amand et al., 2001; Sami culation and analysis are also provided to deepen understanding
et al., 2001; Laursen and Grace, 2002; Ross et al., 2002; Skodras of co-firing issues and problems, especially for direct co-firing.
et al., 2002; Gayan et al., 2004; Hupa, 2005; Huang et al., 2006;
Zulfiqar et al., 2006; Nevalainen et al., 2007).
Three basic types of technological configurations can be COAL AND/OR BIOMASS
identified for biomass co-firing in power plants (Zuwala and COMBUSTION/GASIFICATION
Sciazko, 2005): direct co-firing (Figures 1 to 4), parallel co-firing
and indirect co-firing (Figure 5). Currently the most common TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT
option is direct co-firing, where biomass and coal are utilized
together in the same boiler, mainly due to relatively low capital
Coal/Biomass Combustion
cost required to convert an existing coal-fired power plant into a Information on biomass co-combustion with coal can be found in
co-firing operation. For direct co-firing of biomass, two methods several articles that have summarized the state-of-the-art in this
have been developed: (a) blending the biomass and coal in the field (Sami et al., 2002; Demirbas, 2005). In general, three types
fuel handling system, with the blended fuel then being fed; and of combustion systems can be identified (Table 3):
(b) separate fuel handling and separate burners for the biomass,
thereby avoiding impact on the conventional coal delivery (1) Packed bed combustion systems use grate-fired furnaces and
system (Brem, 2005). Parallel co-firing units (where biomass and underfeed stokers. Different types of grate furnaces (up to
coal are fed into separate boilers, jointly producing steam for 20 MWth ) are available: fixed, moving, travelling, rotating,
power generation) are also popular, especially in the pulp and and vibrating (van Loo and Koppejan, 2004). Underfeed stok-
paper industry. The indirect option is expensive and involves ers are used in small- and medium-scale systems up to a
a separate biomass gasifier. Hence this option is rarely adopted nominal boiler capacity of 6 MWth (van Loo and Koppejan,
(Maciejewska et al., 2006). However, some researchers regard 2004). Packed bed boilers are generally not good candidates
indirect co-firing as the most effective method of introducing for direct co-firing compared to fluidized beds, although they
large quantities of biomass with coal (BDC, 2007). can be a component of more advanced modes, for example for

| 368 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 |
 Table 2. Examples of co-firing projects
System description
Grate-fired boiler
(electricity or steam
generation)
Spreader stoker-fired
boiler (140–300 kW
(fuel)) and a pulverized
coal boiler (38 kW
(fuel))
Multi-circulating
fluidized bed
combustor (MCFBC)
(power generation, 20
MWe)
Pressurized FBC (1.6
MWth )
Fluidized bed
combustor
CFBC combustion
systems (250 MWe
CFBC at Gardanne)
CFB boiler (295 MWth )
(Rauhalahti Municipal
CHP Plant, Finland)
BFB boiler (42 MWe)
(Steam plant #2,
Tacoma, Washington)
CFB boiler (132 MWth )
| VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 | |
Fuel type and heating value
HHV (kJ/kg)
Coal/wood chips blends.
Wood: birch, aspen, spruce.
HHVcoal = 22 605;
HHVwood = 17 742
Coal and refuse-derived fuel
(softwood waste)
Coal/straw/wood chips
blends; heating values not
available
Blend of straw with coal
Coal and wood, straw, and
municipal sewage sludge
Federal coal, straw, and
sewage sludge
Milled peat, wood fuels
(sawdust, bark, cutter chips,
forest chips) (20%, heat
basis) and coal. MC (wt%,
wb): 45% (peat); 45–50%
(wood fuels); LHV (daf,
MJ/kg): 10 (peat); 7–9
(wood fuels)
Wood waste (35%), coal
(50%) and RDF (15%, heat
basis)
Coal (59%, energy basis),
recycled pulping chemicals
(35%), bark and wood
waste (5%), and oil (1%)
Blend parameters and Technical difficulties Reference
feeding methods
10–20% (energy basis) Difficult blend mixing; Sampson
wood; blend feeding, Stoker capacity problems et al. (1991)
spreader stokers with
travelling grates; fly ash
re-injection system;
35–41% moisture for
blend fuel
Blend feeding and separate Brouwer
feeding; for the pulverized et al. (1995)
coal facility, blend feeding,
and separate feeding with
biomass as a reburn fuel
after the recirculation zone
18–49% biomass (mass Coal and wood injected at Hansen et al.
basis); blend feeding and bottom, straw injected (1995)
separate feeding with secondary air; no
steady output of gaseous
alkali metals
Blend feeding Co-firing reduced the CO, Andries et al.
NOx , and SO2 (1997)
concentrations in the
freeboard
Blend feeding; emissions of Wood is the most Van Doorn
SO2 , CO, and NOx favourable co-firing fuel in et al. (1996)
decreased with increasing terms of ease of
wood/coal ratio combustion and reduced
emissions of NOx and SO2 .
For co-firing straw, HCl
concentration increased
with larger straw/coal
ratios; co-firing sewage
sludge with coal caused
agglomeration
Jacquet et al.
(1994),
Rajaram
(1999),
McIlveen-
Wright et al.
(2007)
Blend feeding and separate Melting of ash did not Rauhalahti
feeding occur. However, deposits (2005)
formed on superheaters
when the combustion of
fresh forest chips started
Blend feeding; the fuel mix Bed temperatures are Tacoma
is fed to the FBCs overbed, maintained at ∼840◦ C to (2005)
while limestone is added minimize ash
directly to the beds for agglomeration and
SO2 absorption maximize sulphur capture
Direct co-firing, not Spring
available for blend or (2005)
separate feeding
(Continued)
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 369 |
 Table 2. Examples of co-firing projects
System description
CFBC boiler (35 MWe)
(Slough Heat and
Power Ltd.)
CFBC boiler (55 MWth )
CFBC (88 MWth )
(Elsam, Denmark)
CFBC boiler (110
MWth ) (Austria Energy
and LLB Lurgi, Lenzing,
Austria)
Front wall-fired,
pulverized coal boilers
(182 MWe)
Wall - fired pulverized
coal boiler (32 MWe)
(Seward Station)
Wall-fired boiler
Burners (50 MW (fuel))
Wall-fired boiler
Burners (500 kW (fuel))
| 370 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Fuel type and heating value
HHV (kJ/kg)
Coal (60%, heat basis) and a
densified RDF material
(40%). HHV (daf, MJ/kg): 18
(RDF)
Wood chips, bark, sawdust
and rejects from cardboard
production. MC(wt%, wb):
10% (coal) and 46%
(biofuels). LHV (daf, MJ/kg):
24.5 (coal) and 8.2 (biofuels)
Coal and straw (50% energy
basis)
Coal, RDF, wood waste,
sewage sludge, and a range
of specific industrial wastes
Bituminous coal and
sawdust (5% mass basis);
about 95% of the screened
material was <1/8 and
67% was <1/16 in size
Coal and sawdust (<12%
heat basis)
Coal/switchgrass blends.
HHVcoal = 25 500;
HHVswitchgrassl = 15 997
Coal/straw/cereal blends.
Heating values not available
| |
Blend parameters and
feeding methods
Direct co-firing, not
available for blend or
separate feeding
Direct co-firing, not
available for blend or
separate feeding
Separate feeding. The
shredded straw was fed
pneumatically through air
locks to the boiler injection
loop seals
Blend and separate
feeding; fuels of lower bulk
density that are RDF, wood
waste, and specific
industrial wastes are
injected pneumatically into
the combustion chamber.
Coal and sewage sludge
were fed into the return
leg from the seal pot
Direct co-firing, blend
feeding
Separate injection
15% co-firing (mass basis);
blend feeding; 12 wt%
(wb) moisture in biomass
0–100% biomass firing
(heat basis); fuel with
higher nitrogen content
should be injected in fuel
rich zone to reduce NOx ;
Optimum co-firing ratio
60%; blend and separate
feeding
Technical difficulties Reference
Slough
(2005)
Stora (2005)
Several short-duration Grena (2005)
failures occurred due to
excessive cutter wear and
compacted bales with wet
intrusions. Dry
comminuted and/or
pelletized biomass fuels
were used with separate
storage and supply systems
Lenzing
(2005)
Mixing and handling Colbert
problems; moisture (2005)
content variation (the
blends were mixed by the
natural path through the
transfer points and the
bunker and pulverizers)
Boiler efficiency loss was Seward
∼0.5%; slight impact on (2005)
unburnt carbon; CO
emissions always were <20
ppmv, indicating no
problem with combustion
completeness. Favourable
impact on SO2 , NO, and
CO2 emissions
No slagging, normal unit Aerts et al.
operation, NOx decreased (1997)
by 20%; some traces of
partially burned
switchgrass in ash
Three different burner Siegel et al.
configurations studied (1996)
(burner efficiency and
optimization)
(Continued)
VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 |
 Table 2. Examples of co-firing projects
System description
Wall-fired dual fuel
burner (500 kW (fuel))
Tangentially fired and
wall-fired PC boilers
(Kingston and Colbert
power plants)
Laboratory-scale
pulverized fuel
combustion testing
facility
Cyclone coal boiler
(175 MWe)
(manufactured by
Babcock & Wilcox)
Cyclone coal boiler
(165 MWe) (Gannon
Generating Station)
Cyclone-fired
Combustor (440 MWe
Power generation)
Down-fired concentric
swirl burner (35.4 kW
(fuel))
Supercritical PF
coal-fired power station
(600 MWe Amer 9
power station)
| VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 | |
Fuel type and heating value
HHV (kJ/kg)
Coal/sawdust blends.
HHVcoal = 32 260;
HHVsawdust = 18 140
5% wood derived biofuel
(heat basis) was co-fired
Pulverized coal, rice husk,
and bamboo;
Coal size: 75–106;
Biomass: 100–300 ␮m,
MC: 8–16 wt% (wb);
HHVcoal = 27 463.
HHVrice husk = 16 054.
HHVbamboo = 17 296
Coal and crossties (<25
wt%). Crossties size: <1 mm
Bituminous coal and paper
pellets (5 wt%)
Coal/b-dRDF blends.
HHVcoal = 14 388;
HHVRDFl = 12 955
Coal/manure blends
HHVcoal = 26 535;
HHVmanure = 8650
Coal and straw (20% on
energy basis); coal and
sewage sludge (20% on
energy basis)
Blend parameters and
feeding methods
Coal and sawdust fed
separately. Coal: 74% <90
␮m, sawdust: 75% <1.4
mm
Blend feeding
Fuel mixture supplied by a
variable speed screw
conveyor from storage bin;
pulverized coal and
biomass were transported
by primary air. Biomass
blending ratio 0%, 20%,
30%, 40%, 50%, and
100% on mass basis
Blend feeding, wood
blended with coal by a
coal yard scraper and
dozer to measure and mix
the materials in the coal
yard prior to pushing the
blend to the reclaim
hoppers. Blend was then
loaded on conveyor belt
prior to crusher house
Blend of coal and paper
pellets was bunkered on a
24-h basis during the 21 d.
No control over the blend
once it was introduced to
the bunker
12% co-firing (mass basis),
blend feeding; 19 wt%
(wb) moisture in biomass
100 g/min blend feed rate;
20% manure (mass basis)
Separate burners
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Technical difficulties Reference
81–90% burnout; NOx Abbas et al.
reduced, optimum (1994)
co-firing ratio: 30% (mass
basis) for maximum
burnout and minimum
NOx ; fuel injection mode
depends on reactivity and
N2 in biomass
Due to pulverizer Sami et al.
performance and fuel (2001)
particle size, 5% (heat
basis) co-firing was found
to be the limiting case
VM and MC very Chao et al.
important in affecting (2008)
combustion time, particle,
and PAH emissions. Particle
size did not significantly
affect combustion
performance
Blending wood with coal Thomas
with further reduction of (2005)
wood particle size worked
well; SO2 emissions
decreased by 7%;
particulate emissions
decreased by 12%; NOx
emissions increased 8%.
No significant handling
problems during testing
Biggest problem in Gannon
co-firing was pluggage in (2005)
the conveyor feeder; there
was no impact on
unburned carbon in the
flyash; problem
experienced for low and
high feed rates was
variability in the steaming
rate of the boiler due to
the variations in heat input
from the varying blend
going to the boiler
NOx reduction of 2–3%, Ohlsson
SO2 reduction 17%, (1994)
particulate concentration
(heat basis) increased by
about 50%
Crushing manure to same Frazzitta
size as coal difficult; SOx et al. (1999)
and NOx decreased with
blend combustion, easy
ignition with blend
Flue gas desulphurization Breihofer
(FGD) et al. (1991),
Gramelt
(1994),
McIlveen-
Wright et al.
(2007)
| 371 |

Figure 1. Simplified process layout of direct co-firing unit (Zuwala and
Sciazko, 2005).
Figure 2. Possible bottlenecks in direct co-firing: BM, biomass; SCR,
selective catalytic reduction; ESP, electrostatic precipitator; FGD, flue gas
desulphurization (Kiel, 2005).
parallel or in-direct co-firing (Maciejewska et al., 2006). Some
studies of packed bed direct co-firing of biomass and coal have
also been conducted (Sampson et al., 1991; Brouwer et al.,
1995).
(2) Fluidized bed combustion (FBC) (Figure 6) has been reported
to be most efficient and suitable for converting agricul-
tural and wood residues into energy, as well as for co-firing
(Elanchezian and Antonio, 1993; van den Broek et al., 1996;
Philippek and Werther, 1997; Bhattacharya, 1998; Werther
et al., 2000; Tsai et al., 2002; Backreedy et al., 2005). There
are two major types of FBC systems: bubbling fluidized beds
(BFB) and circulating fluidized beds (CFB). Hupa (2005)
reviewed interactions of various fuels in various FBCs and
found that factors such as flue gas emissions, fouling, and
bed-sintering seldom depend in a simple linear manner on
the composition of the fuel mixture; instead, non-linear rela-
tionships tend to be the norm (Wan et al., 2007). Hot, inert,
and granular material (usually silica sand and limestone
or dolomite) provide thermal inertia and can stabilize the
combustion process (also capturing sulphur), constituting
90–98% of the total in-bed mixture by mass, the balance being
fuel particles (van Loo and Koppejan, 2004).
Given their good mixing, fluidized beds can accept vari-
ous fuels (e.g. wood and straw), but require close control of
fuel particle size (BFB < 80 mm, CFB < 40 mm) (van Loo and
| 372 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
Koppejan, 2004). Particle segregation in bubbling fluidized
beds is primarily caused by differences in particle density
of the two species, so this can be a problem when coal and
biomass are present. The combustion temperature has to be
kept below about 900◦ C to prevent ash sintering, which could
cause de-fluidization (van Loo and Koppejan, 2004). Hence,
fluidized bed combustion is better suited for woody biomass
(ash melting point >1000◦ C) than for herbaceous biomaterial
(e.g. straw, ash melting point <700◦ C) (Maciejewska et al.,
2006). The potential significant drawback, especially in CFB,
is incomplete combustion of fuels in the bed. This occurs
because the unburned carbon, often appearing as soot, is
very light and may not be captured by cyclones (Maciejew-
ska et al., 2006). Among the three basic types of combustion
systems, fluidized bed combustion seems to have the highest
fuel flexibility with respect to MC, heating value and ash con-
tent, enabling the use of fuel mixes and increasing the range of
fuels which can be fed or co-fed in existing power plants (van
den Broek et al., 1996; Bhattacharya, 1998; Werther et al.,
2000).
(3) Pulverized fuel or dust combustion systems (Figure 7) are fed
pneumatically. Fuels include coal, sawdust, and fine shavings
(van Loo and Koppejan, 2004). Fuel quality in dust combus-
tion needs to be maintained, with a maximum fuel particle
size of 10–20 mm and MC of no more than 20 wt% (wb) (van
Loo and Koppejan, 2004).
Coal/Biomass Gasification
Gasification is an important process related to indirect co-firing
(Maciejewska et al., 2006). Gasifiers are used in various appli-
cations (Hotchkiss et al., 2002). There are two major types of
gasification: direct and indirect gasification.
Fixed bed, fluidized bed and entrained flow gasifiers consti-
tute the three basic types of gasifiers. Fixed bed gasifiers can
be subdivided into updraft and downdraft gasifiers. Both require
mechanically stable fuel particles of limited size (e.g. ≤10–30
mm) to facilitate passage of gas through the bed. Therefore the
biomass can be preferred as pellets or briquettes. The scaling-up
of fixed bed gasifiers, tar generation and NOx emissions are major
concerns affecting the relative merits of different configurations
(Maciejewska et al., 2006).
Two types of fluidized bed gasifiers can again be identified (Fig-
ure 6): BFB and CFB. Both have favourable fuel flexibility, being
able to treat fuels of different origins (Belgiorno et al., 2003). Ash
sintering and bed agglomeration are of concern when biomass is
the fuel (Heinrich and Weirich, 2002). The efficient performance
of fluidized bed gasifiers requires relatively small fuel particles
to ensure good contact with bed material, as in fluidized bed
combustion.
Entrained flow gasifiers (EFG) convert mixtures of fuel and oxy-
gen into a syngas at high temperatures (significantly >1200◦ C,
even as high as 2000◦ C) in very short periods of time (a few sec-
onds) and at high pressures (∼50 bar). The typical oxidizing agent
is oxygen, in order to reduce the nitrogen content in the gas and
resulting NOx emissions. The production of pure oxygen and the
high pressure result in high costs (Heinrich and Weirich, 2002).
In order to achieve reliable feeding and high conversion of the
feedstock, particles should be smaller than 1 mm, or liquid (e.g.
pyrolysis oil) feedstock can be used (Maciejewska et al., 2006).
Producing sufficiently fine powders from biomass for entrained
flow gasifiers is also expensive. Slurry feeding can reduce the
overall cost of solid fuel feeding at high-pressures, but it cannot
VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 |
Figure 3. Organization of fuel supply during co-firing in PC and FBC boilers (Leckner, 2006).

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of CIEMAT’s 300 kW CFB reactor (Gayan et al., 2004).

| VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 | | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 373 |

Figure 5. Biomass-coal co-gasification in Ruien 5 (Kurkela, 2002).
be applied to biomass because of the low energy density and the
high moisture capacity of biomass (Maciejewska et al., 2006).
There are several commercial pneumatic feeding designs avail-
able for coal (GE/ChevTex, Conoco E-gas, Shell), but these do
not work with more than 10–15% biomass on an energy basis in
a coal blend (Maciejewska et al., 2006). Entrained-flow gasifica-
tion is a mature/commercial technology for petroleum residues
and coal. However, experience is (very) limited with biomass.
Not every biomass type is appropriate in any case due to difficul-
Table 3. Comparison of different combustion technologiesa
Reactor Advantages
type
Packed bed Low investment costs for plants <20 MWth and low operating
combustion costs (van Loo and Koppejan, 2004); can use almost any type of
(grate wood (Veijonen et al., 2003); appropriate for biomass fuels with
furnaces) high moisture content (10–60 wt% wb) (Tuurna, 2003; van Loo
and Koppejan, 2004). Suitable for fuels with high ash content
and varying particle sizes (with a limitation regarding the
amount of fine particles) (van Loo and Koppejan, 2004)
Fluidized Large fuel flexibility in calorific value, moisture content, and ash
bed content, enabling fuel diversification and increasing the scope of
combustion fuels in existing power plants; combustion temperature in bed is
low, resulting in low NOx emissions (EC, 2000; van Loo and
Koppejan, 2004); provides an option to directly inject limestone
to remove sulphur cost-effectively (instead of FGD equipment),
maximized combustion efficiency even with low-grade fuels;
environmental performance of FBC installations is good, with
low emissions of CO (<50 mg/Nm3 ), NOx (<70 mg/MJ, after
the boiler, eventually reduced to less than 10 mg/MJ when using
SCR) and high boiler efficiencies (about 90%) (EC, 2000);
Fluidized bed technology can be converted from coal to
biomass/coal co-combustion with relatively little investment
(Veijonen et al., 2003)
Pulverized Increased efficiency due to low excess oxygen, high NOx
fuel or dust reduction possible when appropriate burners used (van Loo and
combustion Koppejan, 2004)
a
Maciejewska et al. (2006).
| 374 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
ties with ash melting (Maciejewska et al., 2006). Emery Energy
hinted at using an entrained flow concept for biomass, but details
are not publicly available (Maciejewska et al., 2006). Supercritical
water gasification operates at temperatures of 500–700◦ C and pres-
sures of 200–400 bar. The process is suitable for wet feedstocks,
but, as it is a relatively new concept, experience is restricted to
laboratory and pilot scale experiments (Tuurna, 2003). Commer-
cialization of supercritical water gasification also faces challenges
in both economic and technical aspects, depending on specific
conditions.
MECHANISM AND PHENOMENA RELATED
TO CO-FIRING
Combustion of biomass differs from coal combustion due to differ-
ences in chemical compositions and physical properties (Figures 8
and 9). Chao et al. (2008) conducted thermogravimetric analysis
(TGA) and differential thermal analysis (DTA) of coal, rice husk,
and bamboo at a heating rate of 5◦ C/min in air. High volatile
matter (VM) contents and low activation energies of rice husk
and bamboo made the pyrolysis and subsequent volatile oxidation
start earlier than for coal. The higher VM content of biomass led to
two distinct stages of weight losses, with gas phase oxidation at
the beginning and char oxidation in the second stage, whereas
the latter dominated the entire process for coal. The TG/DTA
results indicated that a substantial fraction of the energy from
the biomass combustion came from VM reaction, whereas almost
all of the energy for coal came from char oxidation (Table 4).
The time scales of the VM gas-phase reactions are much less than
that of the char oxidation reaction of the residual carbon in the
solid phase. The latter depends on the diffusion of oxygen to the
Disadvantages
Mixtures of wood fuels can be used, but mixtures of fuels with
different combustion behaviour and ash melting points (e.g.
blends of wood with straw or grass) are not possible (van Loo
and Koppejan, 2004); increase of temperature may cause ash
melting and corrosion (Tuurna, 2003)
Despite the flexibility with regard to fuel specifications, it is not
always possible to use the existing feeding system for biomass
by premixing the fuels (the cheapest option). In cases where the
feeding characteristics of the co-fired fuels vary too much from
the primary fuel, a separate feeder needs to be installed;
slagging and fouling on boiler walls and tubes when burning
fuels with high alkali content; Bed agglomeration when burning
fuels of high alkaline and/or aluminum content; Cl-corrosion on
heat transfer surfaces (e.g. superheater tubes) (EC, 2000); high
investment costs, interesting only for plants >20 MWth for BFB
and >39 MWth for CFB, low flexibility in particle size, high dust
load in the flue gas, loss of bed material with the ash (van Loo
and Koppejan, 2004); incomplete combustion of fuels and high
unburned carbon content in the ash, especially in CFB
(Maciejewska et al., 2006)
Particle size of biomass is limited to <10–20 mm (van Loo and
Koppejan, 2004). Low moisture content required (typically <15
wt%, wb) for pneumatic feeding and decreased efficiency for
high-moisture fuels
VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 |
Figure 6. Fluidized bed combustion systems: (a) BFB and CFB furnaces (van Loo and Koppejan, 2004); (b) BFB and CFB gasifiers (Belgiorno et al., 2003).
surface of the carbon residues, followed by surface chemistry.
This difference in time scale is crucial in explaining combustion
performance and pollutant emissions (Chao et al., 2008) (Fig-
ure 9). Hence, the mechanisms of biomass and coal combustion
differ somewhat, although biomass follows the same sequence of
pyrolysis, devolatilization and combustion as for combustion of
low-rank coal (Sami et al., 2001). Biomass can burn more inten-
sively and may give rise to higher local peak temperatures due
to its higher reactivity than coal. The combustion rate of biomass
char is slightly higher because of a more disordered carbon struc-
ture (Backreedy et al., 2005), while biomass char burning rates are
comparable to burning rates of high-VM bituminous coal chars
(Sami et al., 2001). In fact, the reactions of the major components
of wood, hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin, are interconnected
at high temperatures, with the wood reacting at one composite
rate. Wood containing a high proportion of lignin, for example in
knots, reacts more slowly (Backreedy et al., 2005). Lignin does
not burn completely, especially if >0.5 mm in diameter.
Biomass particles are large and physically complex, influencing
heat and mass transfer. Particle shape and size affect char burnout
because biomass does not melt, and irregular shapes are main-
tained during combustion. Larger particles of a given mass burn
| VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 | |
faster when they are non-spherical. Kinetics of the major steps in
biomass combustion are not fully understood (Backreedy et al.,
2005). Pyrolysis, ignition, and combustion of coal and biomass
particles (Sami et al., 2001; Backreedy et al., 2005) are compared
in Table 4.
Combustion modelling for coal/biomass blends is complex due
to gas and two particulate phases, as well as chemical reactions.
Two chemically different fuels are involved, with biomass much
more reactive and having higher VM and MC than coal. Most
reactor models contain sub-models for fluid-mechanics, particle
dispersion, fuel devolatilization, gaseous combustion, heteroge-
neous char reaction and pollutant formation. Combustion models
based on coal need to be modified to account for the effects of
biomass co-firing on the overall combustion behaviour (Gayan
et al., 2004). The suitability of the sub-models for biomass com-
bustion is a key factor in selecting an appropriate code, including
CFD models (Backreedy et al., 2005). Similarity between the coal
and biomass sub-models can be assumed, despite differences in
mechanisms and kinetics (Backreedy et al., 2005). Sami et al.
(2001) revised the modelling of co-firing based on models for pul-
verized or swirls burners. Saastamoinen et al. (2005) presented
a burning regimes model covering the combustion of coal, wood
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 375 |
Figure 7. Pulverized fuel and dust combustion systems: (a) pulverized fuel technology and muffle dust furnace in combination with a water-steam tube
boiler (van Loo and Koppejan, 2004); (b) example of entrained flow gasifier (Heinrich and Weirich, 2002).

chips and their mixtures. The model assumes that a burning fuel
particle initially loses mass due to drying and devolatilization,
causing its average density to decrease, while its diameter remains
approximately constant. In practice, wood particles may shrink
in size, whereas some coals swell (Nevalainen et al., 2007). CFB
models for burning coal (Adanez et al., 1995) and biomass (de
Diego et al., 2002; Adanez et al., 2003) and blended biomass and
coal (Gayan et al., 2004) have been developed in the past decade
with a focus on predicting combustion efficiency, fouling, and
emission of pollutants for different fuels and their mixtures in
commercial-scale fluidized bed combustors.
When a small amount of biomass is added to a coal flame, the
reaction environment is primarily determined by the combustion
of the coal rather than by the biomass kinetics. Biomass additions
have led to a slight delay in the ignition of the blended fuels,
although biomass has a lower ignition temperature (Demirbas,
2004; Goh, 2005; Lu et al., 2007). This is attributed to the larger
particle sizes and higher MC of the biomass. Premixing biomass
and coal can enhance the combustion of the two fuels, whereas
poorly mixed biomass and coal tend to burn independently at dif-
ferent rates (Lu et al., 2007). Test results have suggested that, due
to the varying physical and chemical properties of the biomass
fuels, their additions have a significant impact on the character-
istics of the flame, particularly the flame front and brightness.
However, flame stability has been found to be little affected by
the amount of biomass added in all cases studied, provided that
the addition is less than 20% by mass (Lu et al., 2007).
McIlveen-Wright et al. (2007) analyzed 25 biomass processes
in CFBC systems based on actual power plants. It was shown that
CFBC power plants of different sizes could operate effectively and
efficiently with a range of biomass types and loadings in co-firing
applications, with lower net CO2 emissions (compared to cases

| 376 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 |
Figure 8. Comparison of coal and biomass elemental composition
(van Loo, 2002).

where coal is the sole fuel), and improved compliance with NOx
and SOx emission limits.

Figure 9. Schematic of co-firing phenomena (Biagini and Tognotti,

HYDRODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CFBC
CFB hydrodynamic characteristics have been analyzed and mod-
elled (e.g. Johnsson et al., 1992; Johnsson and Leckner, 1995;
Pallares and Johnsson, 2000; Gayan et al., 2004). The riser was
divided into three zones: a bottom zone, characterized by a dense
bed, similar to a bubbling bed; a splash zone with predominantly
homogeneous particle clustering flow; and a transport zone with
a core-annulus structure. In the splash and transport zones, the
vertical distribution of solids was characterized by an exponential
decay model, with the solid concentration assumed to be the sum
of contributions from a cluster phase and a dispersed phase. The
hydrodynamic model can predict mean voidage, annulus and core
voidages, core radius, upward solids flow in the core, downward
solids flow in the annulus and external circulation solid flux, all
as functions of height (Gayan et al., 2004). For more information
about fluidized bed hydrodynamics and reactor modelling, see
Grace et al. (2003).
Hydrodynamic analysis is also important for both blended feed-
ing and separate feeding in order to estimate the hydrodynamic
2002).
regimes for different particles and to optimize their physical prop-
erties (e.g. size, MC, density) for blended fuels. Mixtures of
biomass and coal can be well fluidized only when the biomass
constitutes less than 50% by volume. Minimum fluidization veloc-
ity of particle blends can be calculated by the Ergun equation with
reasonable accuracy (Bi, 2005). A sample calculation is given in
Table 5 for different fuels, including coal and various biomass
feedstocks. It is commonly assumed that the density and shape of
biomass particles do not change and that no fragmentation occurs
(Nevalainen et al., 2007). Non-spherical shapes may affect the
drag coefficients and require the use of shape factors (Clift et al.,
1978; Backreedy et al., 2005). Biomass particles differ in density,
size and shape from coal particles, and this can cause different
trajectories and reaction locations in the furnace.
Ganser (1993) introduced two shape factors K1 and K2 applica-
ble in the Stokes and Newton’s regimes for the estimation of the

Table 4. Comparison of coal and biomass combustiona

Items Biomass Coal

Particle size Relatively large and wide range Relatively small and narrow range
Particle size distribution Wide Narrow
Particle shape Irregular Relatively regular
Moisture content High Low
Reactivity Higher Lower
Volatile matter content Higher Lower
Devolatilization Lower temperature Higher temperature
Pyrolysisb Earlier Later
Specific heating value of volatiles (MJ/kg) Lower Higher
Fractional heat contribution by volatiles ∼50–70% (Chao et al., 2008) ∼30%
Char More oxygen Less oxygen
Combustion rate of char Slightly higher Slightly lower
Ash More alkaline, chlorine Less alkaline
a
Sami et al. (2002) and Demirbas (2005).
b
Temperature at which pyrolysis occurs depends on fuel type and heating rate.

| VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 | | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 377 |
 Table 5. Sample calculations for coal and some biomass feedstocks
Fuel types American Federal Coala Wood pelletsa,b Ground wood pellets-1a,b Wheat strawa,c Switchgrassa
Proximate analysis
Water (wt%, ar) 6.3 5.43 5.43 10.6 7.17
Ash (wt%, ar) 6.22 2.55 2.55 4.07 4.62
Volatiles (wt%, ar) 87.48 79.16 (daf) 79.16 (daf) 85.33 88.21
Fixed carbon (wt% ar) 47.91(daf) 47.91(daf)
Ultimate analysis (wt%, daf)
Carbon 84 51 51 48.84 43.58
Hydrogen 5.7 6 6 7.08 5.83
Oxygen 6.06 42.9 42.9 42.36 50.19
Nitrogen 1.5 0.05 0.05 1.28 0.4
Sulphur 2.6 0.05 0.05 0.16 0
Chlorine 0.14 0 0 0.28 0
HHV (MJ/kg daf) 35.64 18.71 18.71 19.9 21.61
LHV (MJ/kg daf) 18.2
Physical properties
Average size (mm)d 0.5 9.8 4 0.91 0.91
Shapee Spheroid Cylinder (6.5 × 15) Cuboid (3.2 × 3.2 × 3.2) Disk (1 × 0.5) Disk (1 × 0.5)
Sphericity 1 0.82 0.81 0.83 0.83
Particle density (kg/m3 ) 1500 1200 1200 500 500
Bulk density (kg/m3 ) 810 630 485 160 160
Voidage 0.46 0.48 0.60 0.68 0.68
Calculationsf
(1) Sole coal or biomass
Power (HHV, MW) 60 60 60 60 60
Fuel flow rate (kg/s, daf) 1.68 3.21 3.21 3.02 2.78
Fuel flow rate (kg/s, wb) 1.92 3.48 3.48 3.53 3.15
Oxygen molar flow rate (mol/s) 130 150 150 135 111
Air mass flow rate (kg/s) 17.8 20.59 20.59 18.54 15.23
Air volumetric flow rate (m3 /s) 43.88 50.75 50.75 45.69 37.54
Bed radius (or side dimension) (m) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Superficial gas velocity in reactor (m/s) 17.24 19.94 19.94 19.59 16.09
Min. fluidization velocity-1, Umf -1 (m/s)g 0.12 3.4 2.76 0.37 0.37
Min. fluidization velocity-2, Umf -2 (m/s)h 0.09 2.98 2.32 0.27 0.27
Drag coefficient, Cd i 2.93 1.13 1.08 3.62 3.62
Terminal velocity, Ut , (m/s)j 2.80 17.86 11.71 1.96 1.96
(2) 50 wt% biomass in coal/biomass blend
Average blend bulk density (kg/m3 )k 709 607 267 267
Average blend particle density (kg/m3 )l 1333 1333 750 750
Average voidage of blend fuelm 0.47 0.54 0.64 0.64
Average sphericityn 0.9 0.89 0.87 0.87
Average particle size (mm)o 5.67 2.44 0.81 0.81
Average minimum fluidization velocity (m/s)p 2.41 1.52 0.29 0.29
a
Huang et al. (2006).
b
Lu et al. (2007).
c
McIlveen-Wright et al. (2007).
d
Equivalent volume diameter.
e
Assumed particle shape.
f
Based on 830◦ C, 1

atm and 10% excess air, bed materials (e.g. silica sand and dolomite) are not considered.
g
Based on Remf = C12 + C2 Ar − C1 with consideration of sphericity and voidage of particles.
h
Based on modified Ergun equation.
i
Based on modified
drag coefficient for irregular single particle without wall effects.
j
Based on ut = 4gdv ( p − f )/(3 f CD ) for single particle without wall effects.
b,ave = (mcoal + mbiomass )/(mcoal / b,coal + mbiomass / b,biomass ).
k

p,ave = (mcoal + mbiomass )/(mcoal / p,coal + mbiomass / p,biomass ).

l
m
␧ave = (1 − b,ave / p,ave ).
n
Calculated and averaged according to particle volume fraction of each type of particle in the blend.
o
Calculated and averaged according to particle volume fraction of each type of particle in the blend.
p
Based on modified Ergun equation.

| 378 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 |
Figure 10. Schematic of co-firing aspects (Biagini and Tognotti, 2002).

drag coefficient, Cd : Figure 11. Synergetic co-firing effects (Leckner, 2006).

Cd 24 0.4305 where p is the particle density, and f is the fluid density.

= + The Ergun equation (Ergun, 1952):
K2 Re K1 K2 [1 + 0.1118(Re K1 K2 )0.6567 ] 1 + 3305/Re K1 K2
(1) P ␮f Umf (1− ␧mf )2 f Umf (1− ␧mf )
2
=A +B =( p − f) )(1− ␧mf )g
Hb 2 dv ␧mf
2 3
dv ␧3mf
where Re is the particle Reynolds number based on the volume
 −1 (3)
equivalent diameter, dv ; K1 = (dn /3dv ) + (2/3) −0.5 ; K2 =
)0.5743
101.8148(−log ; dn is the projected-area-equivalent diameter;
can be used to estimate the minimum fluidization velocity (Nemec
and is the sphericity.
and Levec, 2005; Keyser et al., 2006). Here P is the pressure drop,
The terminal velocity, ut , can then be estimated from:
A is the Blake–Kozeny–Carman constant, B is the Burke–Plummer
 constant, Hb is the bed height, Umf is the minimum fluidization
4gdv ( p − f) velocity, ␮f is the dynamic viscosity of fluid, and ␧mf is the void
ut = (2)
3 f Cd fraction at minimum fluidization. For spherical particles, A = 150

Table 6. Physical and chemical characteristics of biomass feedstocks and their effects on co-firinga

Properties Effects

Physical properties Moisture content

Storage durability
Dry-matter losses
Low LHV
Self ignition
Bulk density Fuel logistics (storage, transport, handling) costs; storage and feeding problems (e.g. bridging and
stoppage)
Ash content Dust, particulate emissions, ash utilization problems, disposal costs
Particle size, size determines fuel feeding system, Determines combustion technology, drying properties, dust
distribution, and shape formation, operational safety during fuel conveying
Chemical composition Carbon (C) HHV (position)
Hydrogen (H) HHV (positive)
Oxygen (O) HHV (negative)
Chlorine (Cl) Corrosion
Nitrogen (N) NOx , N2 O, HCN emissions
Sulphur (S) SOx emission, corrosion
Fluorine (F) HF emissions, corrosions
Potassium (K) Corrosion (heat exchangers, superheaters), lowering of ash melting temperatures, aerosol
formation, ash utilization
Sodium (Na) Corrosion (heat exchangers, superheaters), lowering ash melting temperature, aerosol formation
Magnesium (Mg) Increase of ash melting temperature, ash utilization
Calcium (Ca) Increase of ash melting temperature, ash utilization
Phosphorus (P) Increase of ash melting point, ash utilization
Heavy metals Emissions of pollutants, ash utilization and disposal issues, aerosol formation
a
EBA (2000), van Loo and Koppejan (2004) and Maciejewska et al. (2006).

| VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 | | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 379 |
and B = 1.75. For cylindrical particles (including disks), Nemec
and Levec (2005) recommend:
150 1.75
A= , B=
3/2 4/3
Since cylinders are reasonably similar in shape to cuboids, these
relations are also give reasonable predictions for cuboidal parti-
cles (e.g. ground wood pellets in Table 5). Calculated minimum
fluidization velocities calculations for different types of particles,
including 50:50 blends of biomass and coal, are shown in Table 5.
Biomass particles are not easy to fluidize due to their large size and
irregular shapes. Wood pellets can be better suited to fluidization
after grinding.
TECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS RELATED TO
CO-FIRING COAL AND BIOMASS
Constraints related to co-firing can include fuel preparation, han-
dling, storage, milling and feeding problems (e.g. high MC,
low bulk density, hydrophilic, non-friable character, biodegrad-
ability), different combustion behaviour, possible decreases in
overall efficiency (e.g. relatively low calorific value, high MC),
deposit formation (slagging and fouling), agglomeration, cor-
rosion and/or erosion (e.g. low ash melting point, chemical
composition with potentially high alkaline metals and chlorine
content) and ash utilization (e.g. high alkaline metals and chlo-
rine content). Most of these issues are related to fuel properties
(Figures 8 to 11, and Tables 1 and 6). With proper combi-
nations of these elements, a number of power plants practice
co-firing without major problems (Figure 11) (Tillman, 2000; Aho
and Ferrer, 2005; Aho et al., 2005; Baxter, 2005; Ferrer et al.,
2005).
Ash, Slagging, Fouling, and Corrosion Problems
In indirect co-firing, as well as parallel co-firing, the ash pro-
duced in the process is kept separate. In direct co-firing, coal and
biomass ash are mixed together. Mixed ash is not easy to utilize
in the same applications as coal ash (e.g. in the construction
industry). The degree of difficulty depends on the quality and
percentage of biomass in the fuel blend, type of combustion
and/or gasification, co-firing configuration, and coal properties.
Therefore, when analyzing the environmental impacts of co-
firing, the options for ash utilization must be assessed, especially
for high biomass/coal ratios.
The major mechanisms and rates of ash deposition are related
to the inorganic material (e.g. chlorine, sulphur, aluminium,
and alkaline) in the fuel and to the combustion conditions
(EUBION, 2003). Deposits may be caused by light sintering, or
complete fusion due to the lower ash melting-point of biomass
ash. The degree of fouling and slagging varies throughout the
boiler, depending on local gas and tube temperatures, tube ori-
entation, gas velocity and fuel composition (EC, 2000; Jensen
et al., 2001; EUBION, 2003; Benetto et al., 2004). Deposits tend
to cause deterioration in the heat transfer to tubes, reducing
combustion efficiency (EUBION, 2003). Although slagging and
fouling may occur quickly, corrosion may progress slowly over
a long period, with or without associated slagging or fouling
(EUBION, 2003). Chlorine-rich deposits (NaCl and KCl) induce
hot corrosion of heat transfer surfaces, but high-risk chlorine
compounds can react with sulphur and aluminum silicate com-
pounds, releasing HCl, which is less harmful (EUBION, 2003).
CORIDS (2005) reported that suitable materials and additives can
| 380 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
reduce corrosion in boilers burning biomass, even at tempera-
tures as high as 550◦ C. Ammonium sulphate may be injected into
the flue gas after combustion to convert gaseous potassium chlo-
ride into potassium sulphate (a much less corrosive compound),
resulting in reductions in corrosion and deposition rates by 50%.
The corrosion issues in co-firing or biomass systems can also be
addressed by pretreatment of biomass by leaching with water,
thereby reducing the content of alkalis, sulphur, and chlorine in
the feedstock (Jenkins et al., 1996; Jensen et al., 2001; Davids-
son et al., 2002). More information on biomass pre-treatment
through washing (both biomass washing and char washing) and
its benefits for co-firing systems was provided by Maciejewska
et al. (2006). Biomass-related deposit formation and corrosion
are linked (EUBION, 2003); erosion and corrosion also interact
(Stack and Jana, 2004). Therefore it is difficult to address these
issues separately.
Baxter (1993) concluded that the ash deposition rate in
biomass combustion peaks at early times and then decreases
monotonically. The tenacity and strength of biomass combus-
tion deposits tend to be higher than for deposits from coal
combustion, with smooth deposit surfaces and low poros-
ity. This means that the deposits from biomass combustion
tend to be difficult to remove, requiring additional cleaning
effort.
Pollutant Emissions
Blending coal and biomass can lead to reductions in pollutant
emissions (Leckner and Karlsson, 1993; Nordin, 1995; Armesto
et al., 1997, 2003; Gulyurtu et al., 1997; Desroches-Ducarne et al.,
1998; Hein and Bemtgen, 1998; Dayton et al., 1999; Werther
et al., 2000; Amand et al., 2001; Laursen and Grace, 2002; Ross
et al., 2002), with the levels of pollutants decreasing as the pro-
portion of biomass increases. Dayton et al. (1999) investigated the
interactions between co-fed biomass and coal during combustion.
The results revealed the synergetic effects of co-firing for HCl, KCl,
and NaCl. The amounts of NOx and SO2 detected suggested that
any decrease resulted from dilution of N and S in the fuel blend,
although alkaline ash from biomass may capture some SO2 gen-
erated during combustion. The fuel nitrogen content of biomass
is mainly converted to ammonia during combustion, contributing
to reduced NOx for co-firing (Gayan et al., 2004). Hydrocarbons
from biomass can also react with NOx , producing molecular N2 .
Hence, biomass has the potential to be an effective additional
fuel when coal is the primary fuel. In addition, NH3 found in
the biomass (e.g. animal wastes) or formed during combustion of
biomass may contribute to the catalytic reduction of NOx (Sami
et al., 2001).
Circulating fluidized bed (CFB) technology has been used to
burn coal and biomass because of its ability to handle low-quality,
high-sulphur fuels. Leckner and Karlsson (1993) measured exper-
imental emissions of NO, N2 O, SO2 , and CO from combustion of
mixtures of bituminous coal and wood in a CFB. They concluded
that emissions from the combustion of mixtures are related to
the mass fractions of the fuels and to their properties. Nordin
(1995) optimized sulphur retention during co-combustion of coal
and biomass fuels in a fluidized bed using statistical experi-
mental designs for operating variables. When Van Doorn et al.
(1996) and Sami et al. (2001) fired blended coal, wood, straw,
and municipal sewage sludge into a fluidized bed combustor, they
found wood to be the most favourable co-firing fuel in terms of
ease of combustion and reduced emissions of NOx and SO2 . No
particle agglomeration was observed. Emissions of SO2 , CO and
VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 |
NOx decreased with increasing wood-to-coal ratio. Similar effects
were observed when co-firing straw, but the HCl concentration
increased with larger straw-to-coal ratios due to its relatively high
chlorine content. Huang et al. (2006) reported that co-firing wood
chips resulted in lower NOx emissions, whereas co-firing straw or
sewage sludge slightly increased NOx in pressurized fluidized bed
combustors (PFBC). NOx may decrease or increase when co-firing
coal and straw (or other biomass feedstocks) depending on the
blending ratio, fuel properties, and combustion conditions.
Hein and Bemtgen (1998) studied the co-combustion of dif-
ferent biomass materials with coal in a range of pilot plants
and large-scale power stations. They found that CFBs could be
designed to handle the size of wood chips and that biomass addi-
tion suppressed SO2 emissions significantly for all FB facilities.
Higher excess air for co-combustion of biomass and coal rela-
tive to pure coal combustion in a CFB was recommended by
Werther et al. (2000) and Amand et al. (2001). Armesto et al.
(2003) combusted a blend of coal and olive-oil-industry residue
in a bubbling fluidized bed pilot plant to study the effect of oper-
ating conditions on the emissions and combustion efficiencies.
They found that the share of residue in the mixture (10–25% on
a mass basis) did not affect the combustion efficiency, although
there was a significant influence on SO2 emissions due to the cal-
cium and potassium content of the biomass. Generally the flue
gas passes to an electrostatic precipitator or bag filter to have
particulate matter removed. Sulphur can be removed using flue
gas desulphurization, whereas oxides of nitrogen can be con-
trolled by modifications to the burners. Clean-up systems for
NOx such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective
non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) can also be adopted. Each of
these technologies can be used in co-firing systems with little or
no modification.
Large portions of Cl-rich biomass (meat and bone meal (MBM)
and refuse-derived fuel (RDF)) have been co-fired with selected
coals without operational problems (Aho et al., 2008). As men-
tioned above, the sulphur and aluminosilicates present in coal can
capture alkalis from alkali chlorides and release HCl, preventing
Cl from condensing on superheaters as alkali chlorides. HCl does
not bring chlorine to the deposits. The key reactions are sulpha-
tion and alkali aluminum silicate formation (Aho et al., 2008).
Increased kaolinite (Al2 Si2 O5 (OH)4 ) and decreased alkali contents
in the coals improved alkali capture, allowing larger contents of
Cl-rich biomass in co-firing without Cl deposition (Ferrer et al.,
2005). Ca/S ratios >3 can provide effective SO2 capture. High
S/Cl ratios (>4) can facilitate sulphation (Salmenoja et al., 1996;
Fernandez, 1998). High Al/Cl ratios can lead to effective alkali
aluminum silicate formation if a significant portion of the alu-
minum is present as active kaolinite (Fernandez and Curt, 2004;
Aho and Ferrer, 2005; Ferrer and Aho, 2005). (Na + K)/Cl > 1
indicates an excess of alkalis for formation of alkali chlorides
(Aho et al., 2008). Chlorine concentration in some fuels, such as
straw, can be reduced by fuel pre-treatment with water. This can
also have a beneficial effect on ash fusion temperatures (Jenkins
et al., 1998).
Dioxins that might be expected appear to be destroyed within
the furnace when temperatures are >1000◦ C, but may be
formed in the cooling region downstream by de novo syn-
thesis. The fate of certain trace elements in biomass and
wastes has not been fully established. Most heavy metals
appear to be trapped within the ash. Although further tests are
needed in this area, co-firing appears to be advantageous in
many respects.
| VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 | |
Handling and Feeding of Biomass
Different chemical compositions and peculiar physical properties
(e.g. low bulk density and high MC) can significantly influence
the design and operation of handling and feeding systems. A
separate feeding system is frequently provided for the biomass
component of the fuel. Drying, size reduction, storage, transporta-
tion, feeding, and handling of biomass fuels present problems in
achieving stable conditions. Large particle size, high MC, irregular
shapes and low bulk density tend to promote feed rate irregular-
ities. Co-feeding of blended fuels, for example coal and biomass,
presents more problems than separate feeding.
Although direct co-firing affects combustion behaviour and ash
handling, if the proportion of biomass in the coal is small (e.g.
<10% on an energy basis), the effect of biomass addition has
been found to be insignificant (Table 2) for packed bed, fluidized
bed, and entrained flow reactors, with significant economic and
environmental benefits (Sami et al., 2001). Feeding of blend fuels
is not straightforward. For example, pre-mixing of some biomass
feedstocks (e.g. straw) and coal was not feasible due to segre-
gation of the two materials. In addition, slightly higher MC of
the biomass can cause feeding of blend fuels to be unstable or
to fluctuate (Dai, 2007). Separate feeding mitigates the feeding
and ash problems for co-firing of biomass and coal at the expense
of higher investment costs. In many co-firing plants, biofuels are
pre-mixed with coal (or other materials) before feeding into the
boiler (Granada et al., 2006). If the limestone is fed with the coal
for capture of sulphur, the limestone may also be pre-mixed with
the coal and biomass.
Various measures can be applied to avoid or reduce prob-
lems in biomass or blend feeding. Densified biomass (pellets
and briquettes) is one option. Pellets are appropriate for coal-
fired plants (Bergman et al., 2005; Maciejewska et al., 2006)
because modification of biomass properties addresses the source
of the problems, rather than their consequences. The high costs
of pelletization can be justified by better operability of the
fuel (handling, transportation, storage, and feeding), resulting
in improved boiler and combustion performance. The impor-
tance of pre-treatment is likely to increase with the tendency
to utilize low-quality biomass. Another interesting option, espe-
cially for herbaceous biomass (currently rarely considered for
co-firing) might be a pre-treatment process combining torrefac-
tion and pelletization to allow co-utilization of high ratios of
low-quality biomass with coal in existing coal systems without
major modifications. This pre-treatment option has not yet been
commercialized, so that environmental impacts, large-scale per-
formance and economics are currently unknown (Maciejewska
et al., 2006).
Bulk material handling and feeding are widely described in the
literature. Various options such as hoppers or lock hoppers, screw
feeders (Dai, 2007), conveyor belts (Abbas et al., 1994), and pneu-
matic feeding systems (Tmej and Haselbacher, 2000; Sami et al.,
2001; Dai, 2007), have proved to be suitable for different kinds
of biomass. The feeding system should be designed to handle the
specific fuel flow properties. The most common feeding system
for pellet stoves is a screw auger driven by a slow-moving high-
torque motor fed from a hopper (Granada et al., 2006). Screw
feeders may cause fuel flow fluctuations and segregation of pellet
and forest residues when fed by the same screw. Because of seg-
regation during storage and different feeding behaviour of pellet
and forest residue, different chambers are needed in a hopper to
obtain steady flow and to control mixing (Granada et al., 2006).
Pelletized biomass (dried during processing to a low MC) can be
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 381 |
successfully processed by coal mills, but this route is expensive dv volume-equivalent diameter (m)
(Segrest et al., 1997). More research is required for blend feeding. Hb bed height (m)
 −1
K1 = (dn /3dv ) + (2/3) −0.5
0.5743
CONCLUDING REMARKS K2 = 101.8148(−log )
Re particle Reynolds number
(1) Both biomass and coal can benefit from co-firing. Co-firing
Umf minimum fluidization velocity (m/s)
in coal plants can strongly increase biomass use and reduce
ut terminal settling velocity (m/s)
the emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants at low
capital and operational cost (compared to dedicated biomass
plants). Greek Symbols
(2) Direct co-firing is the most popular current option for biomass P pressure drop (Pa)
and coal co-firing, with modest investment cost to turn exist- ␧mf void fraction at minimum fluidization
ing coal power plants into co-firing plants. Direct co-firing ␮f dynamic viscosity of fluid (Pa s)
of biomass and coal takes advantage of the high efficiencies density (kg/m3 )
obtainable in large coal-fired power plants and improves com- f fluid density (kg/m3 )
bustion due to the higher volatile content of the biomass. The p particle density (kg/m3 )
cost of parallel co-firing is significantly higher than the direct sphericity
option, but may assist in optimizing the combustion process
and in utilizing difficult fuels with high alkali and chlorine
contents. Indirect co-firing can keep the biomass ashes sepa- Abbreviations
rate from the coal ashes, while allowing very high co-firing ar as received
ratios. However, indirect co-firing requires relatively high unit b-dRDF binder-enhanced densified refuse-derived fuel
investment costs. BFBC bubbling fluidized bed combustion
(3) Although more research is needed, there is already a wealth CFBC circulating fluidized bed combustion
of practical experience for different conditions. For direct co- daf dry ash-free
firing, the physical characteristics and chemical composition db dry basis
of the fuel entering the combustors or gasifiers are critical to DTA differential thermal analysis
their operation. Any biomass mixed with coal needs to have EFG entrained flow gasification
acceptable physical properties. For low co-firing ratios (<10% FBC fluidized bed combustion
thermal), there appears to be no irresolvable issues. Higher HC hydrocarbons
capital costs of advanced co-firing configurations may be jus- HHV higher heating value
tifiable due to better operability and flexibility of the system. LHV lower heating value
For higher co-firing ratios, additional research is needed. The MBM meat and bone meal
trend in co-firing is to increase the ratio of biomass/coal, and MC moisture content
to utilize a wider range of biomass fuels. PFBC pressurized fluidized bed combustion
(4) Combining torrefaction and pelletization, with leaching SCR selective catalytic reduction
biomass, and combining biomass pyrolysis with char washing SNCR selective non-catalytic reduction
are interesting options for pre-treatment processes, especially TGA thermogravimetric analysis
for herbaceous biomass (which currently is not often consid- VM volatile matter
ered for co-firing). wb wet basis
(5) Chemical composition and particle physical properties affect wt weight
reactor performance (e.g. fouling, agglomeration, and quality
of fluidization). Trouble-free feeding is crucial for the success
of co-firing. Subscripts
(6) More research is needed on co-firing biomass and coal includ- ave average
ing work on: preparation, handling, storage, and feeding of b bulk density
biomass feedstocks (e.g. drying, torrefaction, pelletization); mf minimum fluidization velocity
co-firing mechanisms; hydrodynamic analysis of co-firing p particle
combustors and gasifiers; boiler/gasifier capacity, slagging, v volume
fouling, corrosion, efficiency, reliability, fuel flexibility; lower
emissions and gas cleaning; catalyst poisoning; investment
and operating costs. REFERENCES
(7) In all the co-utilization technologies considered, there are Abbas, T., P. Costen, N. H. Kandamby, F. C. Lockwood and J. J.
technical problems and limitations that have not yet been Ou, “The Influence of Burner Injection Mode on Pulverized
fully resolved. However, none of the perceived technical Coal and Biosolid Co-Fired Flames,” Combust. Flame 99,
issues appears to be unsolvable. 617–625 (1994).
Adanez, J., L. F. de Diego, P. Gayan, L. Armesto and A.
Cabanillas, “A Model for Prediction of Carbon Combustion
NOMENCLATURE Efficiency in Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustors,” Fuel 74,
A Blake–Kozeny–Carman constant 1049–1056 (1995).
B Burke–Plummer constant Adanez, J., P. Gayan, L. F. de Diego, F. Garcia-Labiano and A.
Cd drag coefficient Abad, “Combustion of Wood Chips in CFBC: Modeling and
dn projected area diameter (m) Validation,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 42, 987–999 (2003).

| 382 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 |
Aerts, D. J., K. M. Bryden, J. M. Hoerning and K. W. Ragland,
“Co-Firing Switchgrass in a 50 MW Pulverized Coal Boiler,”
Proceedings of 59th Annual American Power Conference,
Chicago, IL, 59, 1997, pp. 1180–1185.
Aho, M. and E. Ferrer, “Importance of Coal Ash Composition in
Protecting the Boiler against Chlorine Deposition During
Combustion of Chlorine Rich Biomass,” Fuel 84, 201–212
(2005).
Aho, M. A., A. Gil, R. Taipale, P. Vainikka and H. Vesala, “A
Pilot-Scale Fireside Deposit Study of Co-Firing Cynara with
Two Coals in a Fluidized Bed,” Fuel 87, 58–69
(2008).
Aho, M., P. Vainikka, R. Taipale, H. Vesala and K. Veijonen, “A
Solution to Alkali Chlorine Deposition using a Protecting Fuel
and Simultaneous Measurement with Impactor, FTIR and
Deposit Probes,” Proceedings of 14th European Biomass
Conference, 2005, pp. 1323–1327.
Amand, L., H. Miettinen-Westberg, M. Karlsson, B. Leckner, K.
Luecke, S. Budinger, E. U. Hartge and J. Werther,
“Co-Combustion of Dried Sewage Sludge and Coal/Wood in
CFB: A Search for Factors Influencing Emissions,”
Proceedings of 16th International Conference on FBC, New
York: ASME, 2001.
Andries, J., M. Verloop and K. Hein, “Co-Combustion of Coal
and Biomass in a Pressurized Bubbling Fluidized Bed,”
Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Fluidized
Bed Combustion, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1, 1997,
pp. 313–320.
Armesto, L., A. Cabanillas, A. Bahillo, J. J. Segovia, R. Escalada,
J. M. Martinez and J. E. Carrasco, “Coal and Biomass
Co-Combustion on Fluidized Bed: Comparison of Circulating
and Bubbling Fluidized Bed Technologies,” Proceedings of
14th International Conference on FBC, New York, ASME,
1997, pp. 301–311.
Armesto, L., A. Bahillo, A. Cabanillas, K. Veijonen, J. Otero, A.
Plumed and L. Salvador, “Co-Combustion of Coal and Olive
Oil Industry Residues in Fluidized Bed,” Fuel 82, 993–1000
(2003).
Backreedy, R. I., L. M. Fletcher, J. M. Jones, L. Ma, M.
Pourkashanian and A. Williams, “Co-Firing Pulverized Coal
and Biomass: A Modeling Approach,” Proceedings of
Combustion Institute, 30, 2005, pp. 2955–2964.
Baxter, L., “Ash Deposition during Biosolid and Coal
Combustion: A Mechanistic Approach,” Biomass Bioenergy 4,
85–102 (1993).
Baxter, L., “Biomass-Coal Co-Combustion: Opportunity for
Affordable Renewable Energy,” Fuel 84, 1295–1302
(2005).
BDC (Biomass Development Company), “Reducing the Use of
Coal,” http://www.sovereign-publications.com/biomassdev.
htm, 2007.
Belgiorno, V., G. Feo de, R. C. Della and R. M. A. Napoli,
“Energy from Gasification of Solid Wastes,” Waste Manage.
23, 1–15 (2003).
Benetto, E., P. Rousseaux and J. Blondin, “Life Cycle Assessment
of Coal By-Products based Electric Power Production
Scenarios,” Fuel 83, 957–970 (2004).
Bergman, P. C. A., A. R. Boersma, R. W. R. Zwart and J. H. A.
Kiel, “Torrefaction for Biomass Co-Firing in Existing
Coal-Fired Power Stations,” BIOCOAL, ECN, ECN-C-05-013,
2005.
Bhattacharya, S. C., “State of the Art of Biomass Combustion,”
Energy Sources 20, 113–135 (1998).
| VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 | |
Bi, J., “Co-Gasification of Biomass and Coal in a Fluidized bed,”
2nd Biomass-Asia Workshop Bangkok, December 13–15,
2005.
Biagini, E. and L. Tognotti, “Fundamental Aspects of
Biomass/Coal Co-Firing,” CCS 23rd Meeting, Italy, 2002,
http://iea.ccs.fossil.energy.gov/docs/Events/tognotti.pdf.
Boerrigter, H., H. van der Drift and J. Kiel, “Biomass and Coal
Co-Gasification for Biosyngas Production,” Accelerating the
Biomass-to-Liquids (BTL) Implementation, 2006.
Brage, C., Q. Z. Yu and K. Sjostrom, “Characterization of Tars
from Coal-Biomass Gasification,” Proceedings of Third
International Symposium on Coal Combustion Science and
Technology, Beijing, 1995, pp. 45–52.
Breihofer, D., A. Mielenz and O. Rentz, “Emission Control of
SO2 , NOx and VOC at Stationary Sources in the Federal
Republic of Germany,” Karlsruhe, 1991.
Brem, G., “Biomass Co-Firing: Technology, Barriers and
Experiences in EU,” G GCEP Advanced Coal Workshop, 2005.
Brouwer, J., W. D. Owens, S. Harding, M. P. Heap and D. W.
Pershing, “Co-Firing Waste Biofuels and Coal for Emissions
Reduction,” Proceedings of 2nd Biomass Conference of the
Americas, Portland, August, 1995, pp. 390–399.
Brown, C. R., Q. Liu and G. Gorton, “Catalytic Effects Observed
during the Co-Gasification of Coal and Switchgrass,” Biomass
Bioenergy 18, 499–506 (2000).
Chao, C. Y. H., P. C. W. Kwong, J. H. Wang, C. W. Cheung and
G. Kendall, “Co-Firing Coal with Rice Husk and Bamboo and
the Impact on Particulate Matters and Associated Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbon Emissions,” Bioresour. Technol. 99,
83–93 (2008).
Chen, G., K. Sjostrom, E. Bjornborm, C. Brage, C. Rosen and Q.
Z. Yu, “Coal/Wood Co-Gasification in a Pressurized Fluidized
Bed,” Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium on Coal
Combustion Science and Technology, Beijing, China,
September 1995, pp. 383–390.
Chmielniak, T. and M. Sciazko, “Co-Gasification of Biomass and
Coal for Methanol Synthesis,” Appl. Energy 74, 393–403
(2003).
Clift, R., J. R. Grace and M. E. Weber, “Bubbles, Drops and
Particles,” Academic Press, New York (1978).
Colbert Fossil Plant #1, http://www.ieabcc.nl/database/cofiring.
html, Tuscumbia, AL, U.S.A., 2005.
Collot, A., Y. Zhuo, D. Dugwell and R. Kandiyoti, “Co-Pyrolysis
and Co-Gasification of Coal and Biomass in Bench-Scale
Fixed-Bed and Fluidized Bed Reactors,” Fuel 78, 667–679
(1999).
CORDIS, “Solving Corrosion Issues in Combustion of Biomass,”
http://icadc.cordis.lu/fepcgi/srchidadb?CALLER=OFFR TM
EN& ACTION=D& RCN=2243, 2005.
Dai, J., “Biomass Granular Feeding for Gasification and
Combustion,” Ph.D. Thesis, The University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC, 2007.
Davidsson, K. O., J. G. Koresgren, J. B. C. Pettersson and U.
Jaglid, “The Effects of Fuel Washing Techniques on Alkali
Release from Biomass,” Fuel 81, 137–142 (2002).
Dayton, D. C., D. Belle-Oudry and A. Nordin, “Effect of Coal
Minerals on Chlorine and Alkali Metals Released during
Biomass/Coal Co-Firing,” Energy and Fuel 13, 1203–1211
(1999).
de Diego, L. F., F. Garcia-Labiano, A. Abad, P. Gayan and J.
Adanez, “Modeling of the Devolatilization on Nonspherical
Wet Pine Wood Particles in Fluidized Beds,” Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 41, 3642–3650 (2002).
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 383 |
de Jong, W. and K. R. G. Hein, “Coal/Biomass Co-Gasification in
a Pressured Fluidized Bed Reactor,” Renew Energy 16,
1110–1113 (1999).
de Jong, W., J. Andries and K. R. G. Hein, “Coal-Biomass
Gasification in a Pressurized Fluidized Bed Gasifier,” ASME
International GT and Aerospace Congress, Stockholm, SE,
June, 2–5, 1998, pp. 1–7.
Demirbas, A., “Combustion Characteristics of Different Biomass
Fuels,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 30, 219–230 (2004).
Demirbas, A., “Potential Applications of Renewable Energy
Sources, Biomass Combustion Problems in Boiler Systems
and Combustion Related Environmental Issues,” Prog. Energy
Combust. Sci. 31, 171–192 (2005).
Desroches-Ducarne, E., E. Marty, G. Martin and L. Delfosse,
“Co-Combustion of Coal and Municipal Solid Waste in a
Circulating Fluidized Bed,” Fuel 77, 1311–1315 (1998).
EBA (European Biomass Association), “Wood Pellets in Europe.
State of the Art, Technologies, Activities, Markets,” Thermie B
DIS/2043/98-AT, Industrial Network on Wood Pellets
http://www.energyagency.at/(en)/publ/pdf/pellets net en.
pdf, 2000.
EC (European Commission), “Addressing the Constraints for
Successful Replication of Demonstration Technologies for
Co-Combustion of Biomass/Waste,” booklet DIS 1743/98-NL,
2000.
Elanchezian, C. and F. Antonio, “Successful Firing of Paper Mill
Sludges in Ahlstrom Pyroflow CFB Boilers,” Proceedings of
the 12th International Conference of Fluidized Bed
Combustion, New York, ASME, 1, 1993, pp. 231–238.
Ergun, S., “Fluid Flow through Packed Columns,” Chem. Eng.
Prog. 48, 89–94 (1952).
EUBION (European Bioenergy Networks), ALTENER, “Biomass
Co-Firing—An Efficient Way to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions,” http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/res/sectors/
doc/bioenergy/cofiring eu bionet.pdf, 2003.
Fernandez, J. C., in “Energy Plant Species,” N. El Bassam, Ed.,
James & James (1998).
Fernandez, J. and M. D. Curt, “Low-Cost Biodiesel from Cynara
Oil,” Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Biomass
for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection, 2004,
pp. 109–112.
Fernando, R., “Fuels for Biomass Cofiring,” IEA Clean Coal
Centre, 2005.
Ferrer, E., M. Aho, J. Silvennoinen and R. V. Nurminen,
“Fluidized Bed Combustion of Refuse-Derived Fuel in
Presence of Protective Coal Ash,” Fuel Process. Technol. 87,
33–44 (2005).
Frandsez, F. J., “Utilizing Biomass and Waste for Power
Production—A Decade of Contributing to the Understanding,
Interpretation and Analysis of Deposits and Corrosion
Products,” Fuel 84, 1277–1294 (2005).
Frazzitta, S., K. Annamalai and J. Sweeten, “Performance of a
Burner with Coal and Coal: Manure Blends,” J. Propulsion
Power 15, 181–186 (1999).
Gannon, F. J., Generating Station #3, http://www.ieabcc.nl/
database/cofiring.html, Florida, U.S.A., 2005.
Ganser, G. H., “A Rational Approach to Drag Prediction of
Spherical and Non-Spherical Particles,” Powder Technol. 77,
143–152 (1993).
Gayan, P., J. Adanez, L. F. de Diego, F. Garca-Labiano, A.
Cabanillas, A. Bahillo, M. Aho and K. Veijonen, “Circulating
Fluidized Bed Co-Combustion of Coal and Biomass,” Fuel 83,
277–286 (2004).
| 384 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
Goh, B., “Biomass Combustion with Coal,” Institute of Physics,
Combustion Group Young Researchers Meeting,
Loughborough, September 21, 2005.
Grace J. R., H. T. Bi and M. Golriz, “Circulating Fluidized Beds,”
Chapter 19, in “Handbook of Fluidization and Fluid-Particle
Systems,” W. C. Yang, Ed., Marcel Dekker, New York
(2003).
Gramelt, S., “FGD System for 600 MWe Coal Fired Power
Plant-Process Description, PFD, Mass and Energy Balances,
Equipment Specifications,” Deutsche Babcock Anlagen
GMBH, Private Communication, 1994.
Granada, E., G. Lareo, J. L. Miguez, J. Moran, J. Porteiro and L.
Ortiz, “Feasibility Study of Forest Residue Use as Fuel
through Co-Firing with Pellet,” Biomass Bioenergy 30,
238–246 (2006).
Grena Kraftvarmeværk, http://www.ieabcc.nl/database/cofiring.
html, Denmark, 2005.
Gulyurtu, I., E. Frade, H. Lopes, F. Figueiredo and I. Cabrita,
“Combustion of Various Types of Residues in a Circulating
Fluidized Bed Combustor,” Proceedings of 14th International
Conference on FBC, New York, ASME, 1997,
pp. 423–431.
Hanaoka, T., S. Inoue, S. Uno, T. Ogi and T. Minowa, “Effect of
Woody Biomass Components on Air-Steam Gasification,”
Biomass Bioenergy 28, 69–76 (2005).
Hansen, L. A., H. P. Michelson and K. Dam-Johansen, “Alkali
Metals in a Coal and Biosolid Fired CFBC—Measurements
and Thermodynamic Modelling,” Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion,
Orlando, FL, 1995, pp. 39–48.
Hein, K. R. G. and J. M. Bemtgen, “EU Clean Coal Technology
Co-Combustion of Coal and Biomass,” Fuel Process. Technol.
54, 159–169 (1998).
Heinrich, H. and F. Weirich, “Pressurized Entrained Flow
Gasifiers for Biomass,” Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, IT3’02
Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2002.
Hotchkiss, R., W. Livingston and M. Hall, “Waste/Biomass
Co-Gasification with Coal,” Report No. COAL R216 DTI/Pub
URN 02/867, 2002.
Huang, Y., D. McIlveen-Wright, S. Rezvania, Y. D. Wang, N.
Hewitt and B. C. Williams, “Biomass Co-Firing in a
Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion (PFBC) Combined
Cycle Power Plant: A Techno-Environmental Assessment
Based on Computational Simulations,” Fuel Process. Technol.
87, 927–934 (2006).
Hupa, M., “Interaction of Fuels in Co-Firing in FBC,” Fuel 84,
312–319 (2005).
IEA, Co-Firing Database, http://www.ieabcc.nl/database/
cofiring.html, 2005.
Jacquet, L., J. Jaud, G. Ratti and J. P. Klinger, “Scaling Up of CFB
Boilers the 250 MWe GARDANNE CFB project,” Proc. Am.
Power Conf. 56, 930–936 (1994).
Jenkins, B. M., R. R. Bakker and J. B. Wei, “On the Properties of
Washed Straw,” Biomass Bioenergy 10, 177–200 (1996).
Jenkins, B. M., L. L. Baxter, T. R. Miles Jr. and T. R. Miles,
“Combustion Properties of Biomass,” Fuel Process. Technol.
54, 17–46 (1998).
Jensen, P. A., B. Sander and K. Dam-Johansen, “Pretreatment of
Straw for Power Production by Pyrolysis and Char Wash,”
Biomass Bioenergy 20, 431–446 (2001).
Johnsson, F. and B. Leckner, “Vertical Distribution of Solids in a
CFB Furnace,” Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on FBC, New York: ASME, 1995, p. 671.
VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 |
Johnsson F., A. Svensson, and B. Leckner, “Fluidization Regimes
in Circulating Fluidized Bed Boiler,” in “Fluidization VII,” O.
Potter and D. Nicklin, Eds., Engineering Foundation
Conference, New York (1992), p. 471.
Keyser, M. J., M. Conradie, M. Coertzen and J. C. Van Dyk,
“Effect of Coal Particle Size Distribution on Packed Bed
Pressure Drop and Gas Flow Distribution,” Fuel 85,
1439–1445 (2006).
Kiel, J., “Co-Utilization of Coal, Biomass and Other Fuels,”
Presented at JRC-Integration & Enlargement Workshop on the
Perspectives for Cleaner Fossil Fuel Energy Conversion
Technologies in an Enlarging EU, Petten, the Netherlands,
ECN, 2005.
Kumabe, K., T. Hanaoka, S. Fujimoto, T. Minowa and K.
Sakanishi, “Co-Gasification of Woody Biomass and Coal with
Air and Steam,” Fuel 86, 684–689 (2007).
Kurkela, E., “Gasification-Based Co-Firing of Biomass and
Recovered Fuels in Coal-Fired Boilers,” Presentation to
Amsterdam Biomass Conference, June 2002.
Kurkela, E., J. Laatikainen and P. Stahlburg, “Co-Gasification of
Biomass and Coal,” APAS Clean Coal Technology Programme,
1992–1994, 3, C9, (1994).
Laursen, K. and J. R. Grace, “Some Implications of
Co-Combustion of Biomass and Coal in a Fluidized Bed
Boiler,” Fuel Process. Technol. 76, 77–89 (2002).
Leckner, B., “Possibilities and Limitations of Co-Firing of
Biomass,” 1st Project Conference AGS, Stockholm, October
2006.
Leckner, B. and M. Karlsson, “Emissions from Circulating
Fluidized Bed Combustion of Mixtures of Wood and Coal,”
Proceedings of 12th International Conference on FBC, New
York, ASME, 1993, pp. 109–115.
Lenzing, http://www.ieabcc.nl/database/cofiring.html, Austria,
2005.
Lu, G., Y. Yan, S. Cornwell, M. Whitehouse and G. Riley, “Impact
of Co-Firing Coal and Biomass on Flame Characteristics and
Stability,” Fuel 87, 1133–1140
(2008).
Maciejewska, A., H. Veringa, J. Sanders and S. D. Peteves,
“Co-Firing of Biomass with Coal: Constraints and Role of
Biomass Pre-Treatment,” http://ie.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
publications/scientific publications/2006/EUR22461EN.pdf,
EUR 22461 EN (2006).
Madsen, M. and E. Christensen, “Combined Gasification of Coal
and Straw Coal,” APAS Clean Coal Technology Programme,
1992–1994, 3, C2, (1994).
McIlveen-Wright, D. R., Y. Huang, S. Rezvani and Y. Wang, “A
Technical and Environmental Analysis of Co-Combustion of
Coal and Biomass in Fluidized Bed Technologies,” Fuel 86,
2032–2042 (2007).
McLendon, T. R., A. P. Lui, R. L. Pineault, S. K. Beer and S. W.
Richardson, “High-Pressure Co-Gasification of Coal and
Biomass in a Fluidized Bed,” Biomass Bioenergy 26, 377–388
(2004).
Melin, S., Personal Communication about Co-Firing, (2007).
Nemec, D. and J. Levec, “Flow through Packed Bed Reactors. 1.
Single-Phase Flow,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 60, 6947–6957
(2005).
Nevalainen, H., M. Jegoroff, J. Saastamoinen, A. Tourunen, T.
Jantti, A. Kettunen, F. Johnsson and F. Niklasson, “Firing of
Coal and Biomass and Their Mixtures in 50 kW and 12 MW
Circulating Fluidized Beds-Phenomenon Study and
Comparison of Scales,” Fuel 86, 2043–2051 (2007).
| VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 | |
Nordin, A., “Optimization of Sulfur Retention in Ash When
Co-Combusting High Sulfur Fuels and Biomass Fuels in a
Small Pilot Scale Fluidized Bed,” Fuel 74, 615–622 (1995).
Ohlsson, O., “Results of Combustion and Emissions Testing
When Co-Firing Blends of Binder-Enhanced Densified
Refuse-Derived Fuel (b-dRDF) Pellets and Coal in a 440 MWe
Cyclone Fired Combustor,” Vol. 1, Test Methodology and
Results. Report No. DE94000283. Argonne National
Laboratory, IL, 1994, p. 60.
Pallares, I. D. and F. Johnsson, “Project Report JOR3CT980306,”
Department of Energy Conversion, Chalmers University of
Technology, Sweden, 2000.
Pan, Y. G., E. Velo, X. Roca, J. J. Manya and L. Puigjaner,
“Fluidized-Bed Co-Gasification of Residual Biomass/Poor Coal
Blends for Fuel Gas Production,” Fuel 79, 1317–1326 (2000).
Philippek, C. and J. Werther, “Co-Combustion of Wet Sewage
Sludge in a Coal-Fired Circulating Fluidized-Bed Combustor,”
J. Inst. Energy 70, 141–150 (1997).
Pinto, F., C. Franco, R. N. Andre, C. Tavares, M. Dias and I.
Gulyurtlu, “Effect of Experimental Conditions on
Co-Gasification of Coal, Biomass and Plastics Wastes with
Air/Steam Mixtures in a Fluidized Bed System,” Fuel 82,
1967–1976 (2003).
Rajaram, S., “Next Generation CFBC,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 54,
5565–5571 (1999).
Rauhalahti Municipal CHP Plant, http://www.ieabcc.nl/
database/cofiring.html, Finland, 2005.
Reinoso, C., A. Cuevas, K. Janssen, M. Morris, K. Lassing, T.
Nilsson, H. P. Grimm, L. Puigjaner, G. P. Ying, E. Velo, M.
Zaplana, J. T. McMullan, B. C. Williams, E. P. Sloan and D.
McIlveen-Wright, “Fluidized Bed Combustion and
Gasification of Low-Grade Coals and Biomass in Different
Mixtures in Pilot Plants Aiming to High Efficiency and Low
Emission Processes,” APAS Clean Coal Technology
Programme, 1992–1994, 3, C5 (1994).
Rickets, B., “Technology Status Review of Waste/Biomass
Co-Gasification with Coal,” IChem Fifth European
Gasification Conference, Netherlands, 2002.
Ross, A. B., J. M. Jones, S. Chaiklangmuang, M. Pourkashanina,
A. Williams, K. Kubica, J. T. Andersson, M. Kerst, P.
Danihelka and K. D. Bartle, “Measurement and Prediction of
the Emission of Pollutant from the Combustion of Coal and
Biomass in a Fixed Bed Furnace,” Fuel 81, 571–582 (2002).
Saastamoinen, J., H. Hasa, J. Pitsinki, A. Tourunen and J.
Hamalainen, “A Simplified Method to Predict Heat Release
Profiles in a Circulating Fluidized Bed Reactor,” Circulating
Fluidized Bed Technology VIII, Beijing, 2005, pp. 313–320.
Salmenoja, K., M. Makela, M. Hupa and R. Backman,
“Superheater Corrosion in Environments Containing
Potassium and Chlorine,” J. Inst. Energy 69, 155–162
(1996).
Sami, M., K. Annamalai and M. Wooldridge, “Co-Firing of Coal
and Biomass Fuel Blends,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 27,
171–214 (2002).
Sampson, G. R., A. P. Richmond, G. A. Brewster and A. F.
Gasbarro, “Co-Firing of Wood Chips with Coal in Interior
Alaska,” For. Prod. J. 41, 53–56 (1991).
Savolainen, K., “Co-Firing of Biomass in Coal-Fired Utility
Boilers,” Appl. Energy 74, 369–381 (2003).
Segrest, S. A., D. L. Rockwood, J. A. Stricker and A. E. S. Green,
“Biomass Co-Firing with Coal at Lakeland Utilities,” Final
Report to The United States Department of Energy,
1997–1998.
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 385 |
Seward Generating Station #12, http://www.ieabcc.nl/database/ Veijonen, K., P. Vainikka, T. Järvinen and E. Alakangas,
cofiring.html, Pennsylvania, 2005. “Biomass Co-Firing—An Efficient Way to Reduce Greenhouse
Siegel, V., B. Schweitzer, H. Spliethoff and K. R. G. Hein, Gas Emissions,” http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/sectors/doc/
“Preparation and Co-Combustion of Cereals with Hard Coal in bioenergy/ cofiring eu bionet.pdf, 2003.
a 500 kW Pulverized-Fuel Test Unit,” Biomass for Energy and Viewls, “Biofuel and Bio-Energy Implementation Scenarios,
the Environment, Proceedings of the 9th European Bioenergy Modeling Studies,” Final Report of VIEWLS WP5, 2005.
Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2, 1996, pp. 1027–1032. Wan, H. P., Y. H. Chang, W. C. Chien, H. T. Lee and C. C. Huang,
Sjostrom, K., E. Bjornbom, G. Chen, C. Brage, C. Rosen and Q. “Emissions during Co-Firing of RDF-5 with Bituminous Coal,
Yu, “Synergetic Effects in Co-Gasification of Coal and Paper Sludge and Waste Tires in a Commercial Circulating
Biomass,” APAS Clean Coal Technol 1992–1994, 3, C3 (1994). Fluidized Bed Co-Generation Boiler,” Fuel 87, 761–767
Sjostrum, K., G. Chen, Q. Yu, C. Brage and C. Rosen, “Promoted (2008).
Reactivity of Char in Co-Gasification of Biomass and Coal: Werther, J., E. U. Hartge, K. Luecke, M. Fehr, L. E. Amand and B.
Synergies in the Thermo-Chemical Process,” Fuel 78, Leckner, “New Air-Staging Techniques for Co-Combustion in
1189–1194 (1999). Fluidized Bed Combustors,” VGB-Conference Research for
Skodras, G., P. Grammelis, P. Samaras, P. Vourliotis, E. Kakaras Power Plant Technology, 2000, pp. 1–2.
and G. P. Sakellaropoulos, “Emissions Monitoring during Xie, Z., J. Feng, W. Zhao, K. C. Xie, K. C. Pratt and C. Z. Li,
Coal Waste Wood Co-Combustion in an Industrial Steam “Formation of NOx and SOx Precursors during the Pyrolysis of
Boiler,” Fuel 81, 547–554 (2002). Coal and Biomass. Part IV. Pyrolysis of a Set of Australian and
Slough Trading Estate, http://www.ieabcc.nl/database/cofiring. Chinese Coals,” Fuel 80, 2131–2138 (2001).
html, UK, 2005. Zulfiqar, M., B. Moghtaderi and T. F. Wall, “Flow Properties of
Spring Grove Paper Mill (York), http://www.ieabcc.nl/database/ Biomass and Coal Blends,” Fuel Process. Technol. 87,
cofiring.html, PA, U.S.A., 2005. 281–288 (2006).
Stack M. M. and B. D. Jana, “Modeling Particulate Zuwala, J. and M. Sciazko, “Co-Firing Based Energy
Erosion—Corrosion in Aqueous Slurries: Some Views on the Systems-Modeling and Case Studies,” Paper presented at the
Construction of Erosion—Corrosion Maps for a Range of Pure 14th European Biomass Conference & Exhibition Biomass for
Metals,” Wear 256, 986–1004 (2004). Energy, Industry and Climate Protection, Paris, 2005.
Stora Enso Fors Ltd. (Fors), http://www.ieabcc.nl/database/
cofiring.html, Sweden, 2005.
Tacoma Steam plant #2, Tacoma http://www.ieabcc.nl/database/ Manuscript received December 24, 2007; revised manuscript
cofiring.html, Finland, Washington, U.S.A., 2005. received February 15, 2008; accepted for publication February 21,
Thomas Hill Energy Center #2, http://www.ieabcc.nl/database/ 2008.
cofiring.html, Missouri, MO, U.S.A., 2005.
Tillman, D. A., “Biomass Cofiring: The Technology, the
Experience, the Combustion Consequences,” Biomass
Bioenergy 19, 365–384 (2000).
Tmej, C. and H. Haselbacher, “Development of Wood Powder
Feeding into Gas Turbine Combustion Chambers,” First World
Conference on Biomass for Energy and Industry, Sevilla,
2000.
Tsai, M. Y., K. T. Wu, C. C. Huang and H. T. Lee, “Co-Firing of
Paper Mill Sludge and Coal in an Industrial Circulating
Fluidized Bed Boiler,” Waste Manage. 22, 439–442 (2002).
Tuurna, S., VTT Processes, State of the Art Report-Lifetime
Analysis of Boiler Tubes, Research report No. TUO74-021828,
(2003).
van den Broek, R., A. Faaij and A. van Wijk, “Biomass
Combustion for Power Generation,” Biomass Bioenergy 11,
271–281 (1996).
Van Doorn, J., P. Bruyn and P. Vermeij, “Combined Combustion
of Biomass, Municiple Sewage Sludge and Coal in an
Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Installation,” Biomass for Energy
and the Environment, Proceedings of the 9th European
Bioenergy Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2, 1996,
pp. 1007–1012.
van Loo, S., “Biomass Co-Firing with Coal: An Overview of
Possibilities and Constraints,” Accelerating the Deployment of
Renewable Energy in the Baltic’s Riga, Latvia, 2002,
www.ieabioenergy-task32.com.
van Loo S. and J. Koppejan, Eds., “Handbook of Biomass
Combustion and Co-Firing,” Prepared by Task 32 of the
Implementing Agreement on Bioenergy under the Auspices of
the International Energy Agency, Twente University Press,
Enschede, Netherlands (2004).

| 386 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 86, JUNE 2008 |