Cec 500 2012 060

PublicInterestEnergyResearch(PIER)Program FINALPROJECTREPORT
UCDAVISTECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTFORADVANCED BIOMASSPOWERGENERATION
Preparedfor: CaliforniaEnergyCommission Preparedby: UniversityofCalifornia,Davis
MA Y 2012 C EC 500 2012 060
Prepared by: Primary Author: Robert B. Williams Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering 1 Shields Avenue University of California Davis, CA 95616 Contract Number: 500-00-034
Prepared for: California Energy Commission Hassan Mohammed

Contract Manager
Linda Spiegel
Office Manager Energy Generation Research Office
Laurie ten Hope

Deputy Director RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Robert P. Oglesby Executive Director
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report.
iii
Acknowledgements
Theauthorwouldliketothankthefollowingforthehelpprovidedwithcomments, suggestions,andcriticalreview: SMUD BruceVincent RuthMacDougall MarcoLemes ArmandoRamirez CaliforniaEnergyCommission HassanMohammed ValTiangco ZhiqinZhang PrabSethi MichaelSokol UniversityofCalifornia ProfessorBryanJenkins Financialsupport,whichisgreatlyappreciated,wasprovidedbytheCaliforniaEnergy CommissionthroughthePIERRenewablesProgram.Significantcostsharewas providedthroughacontractwiththeCaliforniaIntegratedWasteManagementBoard whichinvolvedanevaluationofconversiontechnologiessuitableforMSW.
Pleasecitethisreportasfollows: Williams,RobertB.2005.UCDavisTechnologyAssessmentforAdvancedBiomassPower Generation.CaliforniaEnergyCommission,PIERProgram.CEC5002012060.

i
ii
Preface
TheCaliforniaEnergyCommissionsPublicInterestEnergyResearch(PIER)Program supportspublicinterestenergyresearchanddevelopmentthatwillhelpimprovethe qualityoflifeinCaliforniabybringingenvironmentallysafe,affordable,andreliable energyservicesandproductstothemarketplace. ThePIERProgramconductspublicinterestresearch,development,anddemonstration (RD&D)projectstobenefitCalifornia. ThePIERProgramstrivestoconductthemostpromisingpublicinterestenergyresearch bypartneringwithRD&Dentities,includingindividuals,businesses,utilities,and publicorprivateresearchinstitutions. PIERfundingeffortsarefocusedonthefollowingRD&Dprogramareas: BuildingsEndUseEnergyEfficiency EnergyInnovationsSmallGrants EnergyRelatedEnvironmentalResearch EnergySystemsIntegration EnvironmentallyPreferredAdvancedGeneration Industrial/Agricultural/WaterEndUseEnergyEfficiency RenewableEnergyTechnologies Transportation
UCDavisTechnologyAssessmentforAdvancedBiomassPowerGenerationisthefinalreport fortheSMUDReGenproject(ContractNumber50000034),conductedbyUCDavis. TheinformationfromthisreportcontributestoPIERsRenewableEnergyTechnologies program. FormoreinformationaboutthePIERProgram,pleasevisittheEnergyCommissions websiteatwww.energy.ca.gov/research/ orcontacttheEnergyCommissionat 9166544878.
iii
iv
Table of Contents
Preface...........................................................................................................................................iii Abstract........................................................................................................................................xv ExecutiveSummary.....................................................................................................................1 1.0BiomassPowerSystems......................................................................................................11 1.1BiomassPowerinCalifornia................................................................................................11 1.2BiomassResourceassessmentfortheSacramentoRegion........................................14 1.3ConversionofBiomass....................................................................................................39 1.4AdvancedBiomassPowerSystems...............................................................................41 1.4.1BiomassCofiringwithFossilFuels........................................................................46 1.4.2BiomassIntegratedGasTurbineCombinedCycleEfforts.................................48 1.4.3SmallScaleandModularBiomass.........................................................................55 1.4.4RiceStrawCombustionSystems............................................................................73 1.4.5SystemsforConversionofMSW............................................................................87 1.5SummaryofBiomassConversion ................................................................................139 2.0EnvironmentalImpacts....................................................................................................147 2.1Introduction....................................................................................................................147 2.1.1Organization............................................................................................................148 2.1.2Recommendations..................................................................................................152 2.2EnvironmentalPerformanceofSelectedTechnologies............................................155 2.2.1GasificationEnvironmentalIssues.......................................................................155 2.2.2IGCC.........................................................................................................................157 2.2.3StrawFacility...........................................................................................................160 2.2.4MSW/greenWasteADSystemsandDairyManureDigesterSystems...........166 2.2.5DairyEmissions......................................................................................................175 2.2.6GasEngines.............................................................................................................179 2.3AirPermittingProcess ...................................................................................................197 2.3.1AirDistrictAttainmentStatusandEmissionLimits.........................................198 2.4NitrogenOxidesBackgroundandControl................................................................207 2.4.1NOxfromCombustionSources............................................................................207 2.4.2ControllingNOx.....................................................................................................210 2.4.3SulfurandCatalysts...............................................................................................223 2.5LeanEngineswithHighCOintheFuel.....................................................................225 2.5.1NitrogenRemovalfromProducerGas................................................................225 2.6ImprovementsforBiomassBoilers..............................................................................227 2.7OutofStateTransportofSacramentoMSWandPotentialforEmissionsReduction .................................................................................................................................................229 2.8Recommendations..........................................................................................................232 3.0EngineeringandEconomicAnalysis..............................................................................237 3.1.EconomicAnalysisIntroduction .................................................................................237 3.2.1ThermochemicalBiomassPowerSystems ...............................................................238 Gasifiers .............................................................................................................................238
v
Combustion......................................................................................................................243 3.2.2BiochemicalConversiontoPower............................................................................244 AnaerobicdigestionandMSWADsystems................................................................244 3.3.EconomicAnalyses.......................................................................................................248 3.3.1.TaxtreatmentintheModel..................................................................................249 3.3.2GeneralProcedure..................................................................................................250 3.3.3BaseCaseResults....................................................................................................250 3.4.CFBGasifierCarbonaSkive,DenmarkCHP........................................................254 3.6.CarbonaIndiaBIGCC................................................................................................271 3.7.StrawCombustionFacility ...........................................................................................282 3.8.MSWADSystems.........................................................................................................289 3.8.1ReviewofCostandPerformanceDataforGreenWasteandMSWDigestion..289 3.8.2EconomicAnalysisofGenericMSWADSystem...................................................293 3.8.3AnaerobicPhasedSolids(APS)Digester.................................................................308 3.9.DairyManurePowerSystems.....................................................................................319 3.9.1DeterminingCosts......................................................................................................319 4.0ConclusionsandRecommendations ................................................................................330 Bibliography..............................................................................................................................333 Glossary.....................................................................................................................................344 AppendixA:SupplementalFiguresfromChapter3 AppendixB:BaseCashFlows
vi
List of Figures
FigureES1.COEestimatesforbiomasspowerconversiontechnologies...........................5 Figure11.Mapofcountiesincludedinbiomassresourceassessment. .............................16 Figure12.SacramentoCountydisposedsolidwastebyorigin..........................................17 Figure13.SacramentoCountysolidwastedisposalbydestination ..................................18 Figure14.SacramentoCountywastestreamcomponentdisposalamountsandgross potentialpowergeneration..............................................................................................22 Figure15.AcresundercultivationintheSacramentoregionbycropcategory..............24 Figure16.AnnualfieldcropresiduesintheSacramentoregion(drytons).....................27 Figure17.Technicalgenerationcapacityfromfieldcropsintheregion..........................27 Figure18.AnnualorchardandvineyardpruningsintheSacramentoregion(drytons). ..............................................................................................................................................29 Figure19.Technicalgenerationcapacityfromorchardtreeandvinepruningsinthe region...................................................................................................................................29 Figure110.Schematicofdigestersubsystems......................................................................33 Figure111.Efficiencyversusnetelectricalpoweroutputforseveralprimemovers.....45 Figure112.IndirectCofiringwithsteamsideintegration.................................................46 Figure113.Directcofiringwithupstreamthermalgasification. ........................................47 Figure114.Directcofirewithbiogas......................................................................................47 Figure115.SchematicoftheFERCOgasifier........................................................................49 Figure116.SchematicoftheVrnamo,SwedenBIGCCfacility........................................51 Figure118.SchematicofCPCsmallmodularsysteminPhaseIstage.............................57 Figure119.SimplifiedschematicoftheCarbonaSkiveproject. .........................................60 Figure120.SchematicofgasifierCHPprojectatNorthCanaan,CT.................................61 Figure121.SchematicofproposedOmnifuelCHPfacility................................................64 Figure122.SchematicofAnkurdowndraftgasifierwithdualfuelpowergeneration configuration......................................................................................................................65 Figure123.SchematicofaXylowattSAbiomassgasifierCHPfacility............................67 Figure124.SchematicoftheFastInternalCirculatingFluidizedBed(FICFB)gasifier, Gssing,Austria................................................................................................................69 Figure125.SchematicoftheGssinggasifierandgascleanup........................................70 Figure126.SchematicofnovelgasifierCHPfacilityunderconstructionatKokemki, Finland. ................................................................................................................................72 Figure127.SchematicoffacilityatRudkbing,Denmark..................................................78 Figure128.MasnedBoiler.....................................................................................................79 Figure129.SchematicofAabenraaPowerStation...............................................................80 Figure130.SchematicofMaabjergfacility............................................................................82 Figure131.Avedorefacilityschematic..................................................................................83 Figure132.Bridgecraneunloadingtrailers..........................................................................85 Figure133.Cranemovingbalestostorage. ...........................................................................85 Figure134.Balecranewithmoisturesensing.......................................................................86 Figure135.Conveyancetoboilerhouse................................................................................86
vii
Figure136.Twinecutterremover..........................................................................................86 Figure137.Twinverticalscrewdebaler...............................................................................86 Figure138.DrawingofLahtigasifierandcofueledboiler..............................................100 Figure139.SchematicofVarkaus,Finlandwastepackaginggasifierandaluminum recoveryfacility................................................................................................................101 Figure140.AnaerobicdigestionpathwaysofpresortedMSW........................................109 Figure141.SchematicofatypicalsinglestageLSdigester..............................................111 Figure142.Highsolidssinglestagedigesterdesigns ........................................................113 Figure143.Simpleschematicoftwostageanaerobicdigestionsystem.........................114 Figure144.GrowthofsolidwasteanaerobicdigestercapacityinEurope.....................118 Figure145.InstalledADcapacitybystageinEurope.......................................................119 Figure146.SimpleschematicofBiopercolatprocess.........................................................121 Figure147.SchematicofsinglestagelowsolidsADsystem...........................................123 Figure148.LindeKCAtwostagewetdigestionsystem. ..................................................124 Figure149.LindeKCAdrydigestionplugflowsystem. ..................................................124 Figure150.SchematicandmassbalanceoftheDrancoprocess......................................129 Figure151.DrawingoftheDrancoreactor.........................................................................130 Figure152.SchematicoftheArrowBioprocess. .................................................................133 Figure153.SchematicofaUASBbioreactor.......................................................................134 Figure154.SchematicofAPSdigestersystemshowingfourhydrolysisvessels..........138 Figure155.SimulatedbiogasproductionrateforlabscaleAPSdigestersystem.........139 Figure21.SchematicofAnkurdowndraftgasifierwithdualfuelpowergeneration configuration....................................................................................................................155 Figure22.SchematicofaXylowattSAbiomassgasifierCHPfacility............................156 Figure23.SchematicoftheVrnamo,SwedenBIGCCfacility........................................158 Figure24.NOxemissionsshowingfueldependence,VrnamoIGCC...........................159 Figure25.UntreatedNOxemissionsvs.fuelnitrogencontentfortheVrnamoIGCC facility................................................................................................................................160 Figure26.SchematicofEly,UKPowerStation..................................................................161 Figure27.Permittedandactualemissionsforseveralsolidfuelbiomassplants ..........164 Figure28.PCDD/Fcontentofrawhouseholdwastesandseveralcomposttypes........174 Figure29.NOxemissionsvs.efficiencyfor50ppmvexhaustconcentrationwithquoted uncontrolledemissionsforseveralenginesfueledbynaturalgas...........................184 Figure210.Gasolineengineemissionsvs.Lambda...........................................................185 Figure211.Brakefuelefficiencyandpowervs.,FordVSG411fueledbynaturalgas andproducergas.............................................................................................................190 Figure212.Generalemissionperformancevs.Lambda,producergasfuel. ..................191 Figure213.NOxandCOemissionsfromFordVSG411fueledbynaturalgasand syntheticproducergas....................................................................................................192 Figure214.EffectofammoniainfuelgasonuncontrolledNOxemissionfrom reciprocatingengines......................................................................................................193 Figure215.UntreatedemissionsfromJenbacherenginesfueledwithproducergas...194
viii
Figure216.NOxemissionratevs.efficiencyforgivenexhaustconcentration (concentrationsareat15%O2).......................................................................................206 Figure217.MaximumNOxconcentrationvs.efficiencyfor1.9lbs/MWhemissionrate ............................................................................................................................................206 Figure218.NOxvs.FuelNitrogencontent.........................................................................209 Figure219.NOxemissionfactorsforseveralCaliforniasolidbiomassfacilities..........210 Figure220.Stagedaircombustioninatravelinggratestokerboiler..............................212 Note;.2=secondary ................................................................................................................212 Figure221.Stagedfuelorreburninginatravelinggratestokerboiler........................213 Figure222.SchematicshowingtailendSCRarrangement............................................216 Figure223.SchematicofBOCgasesLoTOxsystemforNOxreduction.........................217 Figure224.Gasolineengineemissionsvs.Lambda...........................................................219 Figure225.NOxoffsettransactiontonsversuspricepertonforCaliforniain2003. ....231 Figure3.21.SchematicofSkiveCHPfacility. ......................................................................238 Figure3.22.SchematicofNovelgasifierCHPfacilityunderconstructionatKokemki, Finland. ..............................................................................................................................241 Figure3.23.ProcessdiagramoftheCarbonaIndiaIGCCproject ....................................242 Figure3.24.SchematicofEly,UK,PowerStation..............................................................244 Figure3.25.SchematicofaTypicalSingleStageDigester................................................245 Figure3.26.ConceptualdrawingofAPSdigesteratCSUChannelIslands..................246 Figure3.27.SchematicofAPSdigestersystemshowingfourhydrolysisvessels.........247 Figure3.28.Schematicofdigestersubsystems(typicaloflowsolidsdairyeffluents). 248 Figure3.31.COEestimatesforbiomasspowerconversiontechnologies.......................252 Figure3.32.Installedcostsofpowergenerationtechnologies.........................................253 Figure3.41.Constant$COEsensitivityanalysis(CarbonaSkive)...............................260 Figure3.42.Current$COEsensitivityanalysis(CarbonaSkive).................................260 Figure3.43.COEversusfuelcost(CarbonaSkive).........................................................261 Figure3.44.COEversusnonfuelO&Mcosts(CarbonaSkive)....................................262 Figure3.5.0FixedBedGasifierCarbonaKokemki,FinlandCHPPlant....................262 Figure3.51.Constant$COEsensitivityanalysis(Kokemki). .........................................269 Figure3.52.Current$COEsensitivityanalysis(Kokemki)............................................269 Figure3.53.COEversusfuelcost(Kokemki)....................................................................270 Figure3.54.COEversusnonfuelO&Mcosts(Kokemki)...............................................270 Figure3.61.SchematicofCarbonaIndiaBIGCCfacility. ..................................................271 Figure3.62.Constant$COEsensitivityanalysis(CarbonaIndiaIGCC).....................279 Figure3.63.Current$COEsensitivityanalysis(CarbonaIndiaIGCC).......................280 Figure3.64.COEversusfuelcost(CarbonaIndiaIGCC).................................................280 Figure3.65.COEversusO&Mcost(CarbonaIndiaIGCC).............................................281 Figure3.71.Constant$COEsensitivityforaricestrawpowerplant.............................287 Figure3.72.Current$COEsensitivity(ricestrawpowerplant).....................................287 Figure3.73.COEversusFuelCost(ricestrawplant)........................................................288 Figure3.74.COEversusnonfuelO&MCost(ricestrawplant)......................................288 Figure3.81.Capitalcostsvs.capacityforgreenwasteandMSWADsystems.............291
ix
Figure3.82.Digesterplantlaborcostsfromseveralsources............................................292 Figure3.83.Requiredtipfeevs.electricitysalespricefordifferentcapitalcostsofMSW ADsystems.......................................................................................................................299 Figure3.84.Constant$COEsensitivityanalysis(MSWADscenario1)........................301 Figure3.85.Current$COEsensitivityanalysis(MSWADscenario1)..........................301 Figure3.86.COEversusTippingFee(MSWADscenario1)............................................302 Figure3.87.Current$COEversuscapitalcost(MSWADscenario1)...........................302 Figure3.88.COEversuscompostsalesprice(MSWADscenario1)...............................303 Figure3.89.COEandenergycapacityvs.biogasproduction(MSWADscenario1)...303 Figure3.810.COEversuselectricparasiticload(MSWADscenario1). .........................304 Figure3.811.Constant$requiredtippingfeesensitivityanalysis(MSWADscenario2). ............................................................................................................................................305 Figure3.812.Current$requiredtippingfeesensitivityanalysis(MSWADscenario2). ............................................................................................................................................306 Figure3.813.Requiredtippingfeevs.electricityprice(MSWADscenario2). ..............306 Figure3.814.Requiredtippingfeevs.capitalcost(MSWADscenario2)......................307 Figure3.815.Requiredtippingfeevs.compostsalesprice(MSWADscenario2).......307 Figure3.816.Requiredtippingfee&electricalcapacityvs.biogasproduction(MSWAD scenario2).........................................................................................................................308 Figure3.817.Constant$COEsensitivityanalysis(APS,scenario1). ..............................312 Figure3.818.Current$COEsensitivityanalysis(APS,scenario1). ................................313 Figure3.819.COEversustippingfee(MSWAD,scenario1)...........................................314 Figure3.820.Current$COEversuscapitalcost(MSWAD,scenario1)........................314 Figure3.821.Constant$COEsensitivityanalysis(APS,scenario2). ..............................316 Figure3.822.Current$COEsensitivityanalysis(APS,scenario2). ................................317 Figure3.823.COEversustippingfee(MSWAD,scenario2)...........................................318 Figure3.824.Current$COEversuscapitalcost(MSWAD,scenario2)........................318 Figure3.91.EstimatedinstalledcostsversuscapacityforCaliforniaandMidWestdairy digsters..............................................................................................................................322 Figure3.92.Dairydigestercostsversusnumberofanimals. ............................................323 Figure3.93.Estimatedtotalcapacityversusnumberofanimalsfordairydigesters....323 Figure3.94.Estimatedcapacityperanimalversusnumberofanimalsfordairy digesters............................................................................................................................325 Figure3.95.COEvs.capitalcostforseveralloanperiodsoreconomiclifetimesfordairy digesterpowersystems. ..................................................................................................328
List of Tables
TableES1.Airemissionsfrombiomassfueledpowersystems. ...........................................4 Table11DispositionofsolidfuelbiomasspowerfacilitiesinCalifornia.........................13 Table12.CurrentCaliforniaLFGTEactivitybytechnologytype......................................14 Table13.Listofcountiesusedforresourceassessmentforsomebiomasstypes. ...........15 Table14.SolidwastefacilitiesinSacramentoCounty. ........................................................18 Table15.MSWdisposedinSacramentoCounty;amount,characterization,energyand grosspotentialelectricalgenerationcapacity................................................................21 Table16.CultivatedAcresbycropcategoryintheSacramentoregion. ...........................24 Table17.Annualfieldcropresidues(tonsdryweightperyear)inSacramentoregion andgenerationpotential...................................................................................................26 Table18.Annualorchardandvineyardprunings(tonsdryweightperyear)inthe Sacramentoregionandelectricalgenerationpotential................................................28 Table19.Dairycows,annualmanureandgrosspowerproduction(bydigestion)forthe Sacramentoregion.............................................................................................................31 Table110.Dairydigesterforpowersystems,underconstructionorproposedin California. ............................................................................................................................32 Table111.Regionalwastewatertreatmentbiosolids(notcurrentlylandfilled)and electricalgeneratingpotential..........................................................................................35 Table112.Forestandmilloperationsgrosspotentialresidues(tonsdryweightperyear) intheSacramentoregionandgenerationpotential......................................................37 Table113.ForestbiomassinfourmountaincountiescompletingtheCentralSierras. 38 Table114.Summaryofregionalgenerationpotentialfrombiomass................................39 Table115.DOESmallModularBiomassPhaseIAwards..................................................57 Table117.Approximateproducergasqualityrequirements.............................................65 Table118.Productgastarandparticulatematterconcentration,XylowattBullefacility. ..............................................................................................................................................67 Table119.SelectedsmallscalegasifiersoperatinginEurope............................................68 Table120.ContaminantsinGssingproducergasbeforeandaftercleaning.................69 Table121.NominalenergybalanceforKokemkiCHPplant...........................................71 Table122.Palmdalefuelcellrawandtreatedfuelgasquality..........................................73 Table123.AiremissionsfromthePalmdaleWWTPfuelcell............................................73 Table124.LargestrawfiredpowerfacilitiesdevelopedinDenmark...............................77 Table125.CompaniesusingthermochemicalconversionmethodstoprocessMSW. ....90 Table126.CompaniesusingbiochemicalconversionmethodstoprocessMSW............91 Table127.ProcessenergyandnetelectricalenergyproductionpertonofMSW(wet basis)fromaplasmaarcgasificationfacility.................................................................93 Table128.EbaraTwinRecgasificationfacilities...................................................................95 Table129.EbaraUEPpressurizedgasificationforchemicalrecyclingfacilities.............95 Table130.CompositionofrefusedderivedfuelatLahti..................................................100 Table131.AnnualfeedstockconsumptionbytypeatLahtigasifier...............................100 Table132.Performancedataofsomecommercialandpilotanaerobicdigestion facilities. .............................................................................................................................116
xi
Table133.Valorgaprocessinstallations..............................................................................120 Table134.ListofWaasaprocessADsites...........................................................................123 Table135.OrganicWasteSystemsDrancoReferences....................................................128 Table136.FeedstockandgasproductionforthreeDrancofacilities..............................128 Table137.BTAprocessreferences........................................................................................131 .......................135 Table138.MassbalanceandpowerproductionforArrowBioprocess.a Table139.BasicBioconverterprojectinputandoutputcapacities..................................137 Table20.Airemissionsfrombiomassfueledpowersystems..........................................149 Table21.Organiccompoundsinrawandtreatedproducergasscrubberwater..........157 Table22.FuelnitrogenandemissionsfortheVrnamoBIGCCfacility .........................160 Table23.Actualandpermittedairemissionsforstrawfacility,Ely,UK.......................162 Table24.AirpermitlimitsforseveralCaliforniasolidfuelbiomasspowerplantsand oneUKfacility..................................................................................................................163 Table25.Nitrogencontentofseveralbiomasstypes.........................................................165 Table26.Emissionsfordifferentbiochemicaltreatmentmethods..................................169 Table27.CH4EmissionsfromUSlandfills(.......................................................................170 Table28.CompostanalysisfromtwoDrancofacilitiesinBelgium................................172 Table29.HeavymetalcontentincompostfromsolidwastesinGermany ....................173 Table210.SummaryofrecommendedandSJVAPCDdeterminationforVOCemission factorsfromdairyoperationsintheSJVAPCD...........................................................178 Table211.Classificationschemesforreciprocatingengines............................................180 Table212.Emissionsachievedinpracticefromreciprocatingenginesfueledbybiogas inCalifornia......................................................................................................................181 Table213.CARBrecommendedBACTemissionsforreciprocatingengines................181 Table214.CARBrecommendedBACTemissionsforgasturbines<3MWe................181 Table215.DGemissionstandardsbeginningJanuary,2007............................................182 Table216.TypicalNOxemissionsforreciprocatingenginesusingfossilfuels. ............183 Table217.EmissionsfromWaukeshaenginesfueledbybiogasatIEUA......................186 Table218.ColoradoPorkgasengineemissionsat45kWe. ..............................................186 Table219.SourcetestresultsforDPPPengineattheCottonwoodDairy......................187 Table220...................................................................................................................................188 Compositionofproducergasfromairblownbiomassgasifiers.......................................188 Table221.Gasqualityrequirementsforengines. ...............................................................189 Table222.Emissionsfromproducerfuelgasenginesfromtwodemonstration programs...........................................................................................................................195 Table223.Emissionsfroma30kW(gross)microturbineatCalabasasLandfill...........196 Table224.Palmdalefuelcellrawandtreatedfuelgasquality........................................197 Table225.AiremissionsfromthePalmdaleWWTPfuelcell..........................................197 Table226.CriteriapollutantattainmentstatusforairdistrictsintheSacramentoregion. ............................................................................................................................................200 (CAdesignations).....................................................................................................................200 Table227.Emissionlevels(tons/year)requiredfordesignationasamajorsourceand offsettriggerlimits. ..........................................................................................................200 Table228.BACTtriggerthresholdsforairdistrictsintheSacramentoregion..............201 Table229.EmissionOffsetTriggerAmountsfordistrictsintheSacramentoregion...202
xii
Table230.CARBrecommendedBACTemissionsforreciprocatingengines................203 Table231.CARBrecommendedBACTemissionsforgasturbines<3MWe.................203 Table232.Emissionlimits(ppmvat15%O2unlessotherwisenoted)forreciprocating enginesinairdistrictswithintheSacramentoregion.............................................205 Table233.NOxreductionpotential(%)bycombustionmanagementtechniques (adaptedfrom)................................................................................................................221 Table234.NOxreductionpotential(%)usingsecondarycontrols(adaptedfrom).....222 Table235.Gascleanuprecommendations/capabilities,NovelCHPfacilities...............226 Table236.NOxreductionachievedinpilotscaleadvancedreburningexperiments...228 Table237.SelectedNOxoffsettransactiondetailsfor2003inCalifornia.......................230 Table238.SummaryofemissionandcostsassociatedwithtransportingSacramento MSWtoReno....................................................................................................................232 Table3.21.Design/OperatingdataforCarbonaSkive.....................................................239 Table3.22.NominalenergybalanceforKokemkiCHPplant........................................241 Table3.31.ResultsofBaseCaseAnalyses...........................................................................251 Table3.41.Economicmodelbasecaseparameters,CarbonaSkive................................255 Table3.42.SimpleYear0costsandrevenuesfortheCarbonaSkiveproject.............256 Table3.43.SelectedresultsofeconomicmodelforCarbonaSkiveproject....................259 Table3.51.Economicmodelbasecaseparameters,Kokemki,FinlandCHPPlant.....263 Table3.52.SimpleYear0costsandrevenuesfortheKokemkiCHPproject.............264 Table3.53.SelectedresultsofeconomicanalysisforKokemkiCHPproject...............267 Table3.61.EconomicBaseCaseparametersforaBIGCCprojectinCalifornia. ............273 Table3.62.SimpleYear0costsandrevenuesfortheCarbonaIGCCsystem..............274 Table3.63.CostandperformanceparametersusedbyEIA.............................................275 Table3.64.SelectedresultsofeconomicanalysisforCarbonaIndia/CaliforniaBIGCC project................................................................................................................................277 Table3.71.EconomicBaseCaseparametersforaricestrawpowerplant.....................283 Table3.72.SimpleYear0costsandrevenuesforthericestrawpowerplant. .............284 Table3.73.Selectedresultsofeconomicanalysisforthestrawpowerplant.................286 Table3.81.ReportedandprojectedaveragemethaneproductionforMSWADsystems at34%biogastoelectricityconversionefficiency.......................................................289 Table3.82.CostDatausedtodeterminebasecasemodelinputs....................................290 Table3.83.GenericMSWADsystemeconomicassumptionsandScenarios1&2results. ............................................................................................................................................295 Table3.84.Comparisonofperformanceandeconomicparametersusedinthree economicanalysesofMSWADsystems......................................................................298 Table3.85.APSdigesterscenario1basecase.....................................................................311 Table3.86.APSdigesterscenario2basecase.....................................................................315 Table3.91.CaliforniaDairyPowerProgramestimatedcostsandcapacities. ................320 Table3.92.UpdatedcostandperformanceinformationfromfourDPPPdairies.........321 Table3.93.EstimatedcostsandcapacitiesfordairydigestersystemsintheUSMidWest ............................................................................................................................................321 Table3.94.EconomicparametersforCaliforniaDPPPforhighest,lowest,andmid pricedproject....................................................................................................................327 Table3.96.Retailpowerrates................................................................................................329
xiii
xiv
Abstract
Thisreportexaminesadvancedbiomassconversionprocesses,technologies,economic performance,andenvironmentalconsiderationsassociatedwiththeuseand managementofbiomasswithintheSacramentoMunicipalUtilityDistrict(SMUD) region. Advancedbiomasspowersystemsincludethermalgasificationsystemsfromsmall combinedheatandpowersystemstomediumandlargescaleintegratedgasifier combinedcyclesystems,thermochemicalandbiochemicalsystemssuitablefor municipalsolidwasteandotherbiomass,andcombustionboilersdesignedforstraw fuels.Alsoconsideredadvancedisthevarietyofmethodsforbiomasscofiringwith fossilfuels(solidfuelcofiring,solidbiomasswithnaturalgassuperheat,gasified biomassandnaturalgas,etc.). ThoughthereissomedevelopmentofadvancedsystemsinCaliforniaandtheMidwest andNortheast,mostadvancedbiomasspowersystemsdevelopmentisoccurringin EuropeandJapan.Thesystemsselectedforanalysisincludethreetypesandscalesof thermalgasifiers,astrawfueledcombustionboiler,greenwasteandmunicipalsolid wasteanaerobicdigesters,anddairymanuredigestersystems. SomeofthesuccessfullydemonstratedoroperatingsystemsinEuropecouldcompetein Californiawhileotherswillneedsomelevelofsupporttoachievecommercialstatus. OneofthehurdlesfacingtransferofthetechnologytoCaliforniaisthehighrisk perceivedbyfinanciersduetoalackofdemonstratedfacilitiespermittedandoperating inthestate.RecommendationstoaddressthetransferofthesetechnologiestoCalifornia areprovided.
Keywords:Biomass,combinedheatandpower,municipalsolidwaste,strawfuels, anaerobicdigesters,dairymanuredigestersystems
xv
xvi
Executive Summary
SMUDReGenProgramAnAssessmentofAdvancedBiomassPowerGeneration Technologies. TheSacramentoMunicipalUtilityDistrict(SMUD),situatedinthecenterofCaliforniaand spanningurban,agricultural,andwildlandareas,hasaccesstoadiversesupplyofbiomass resourcesandiswellpoisedtopursueavarietyoftechnologiestogenerateadditional amountsofrenewablebiomassenergyforitscustomers.Thisreportexaminesconversion processes,technologies,economicperformance,andenvironmentalconsiderations associatedwiththeuseandmanagementofbiomasswithintheSMUDregion.Includedin Section1isabriefbackgroundofbiomassconversion,biopowergenerationintheUnited StatesandCalifornia,andanestimateofbiomassresourcesintheSacramentoregion. BiopowercapacityintheUnitedStatesiscurrentlyabout11gigawatts(GW),ofwhich about55percentisfueledbyforestproductsandagriculturalresidues,theremaining basedonmunicipalsolidwaste,includinglandfillgas.Californiasinstalledcapacityis about1gigawattofelectricity,whichincludes640megawatts(MW)fromcombustionof forestandagriculturalresidues,210MWfromlandfillgasconversionfacilities,and65MW frommunicipalsolidwastemassburnfacilities.GrossbiomassresourcesintheSacramento region(includingthecentralSierraNevadaregion)represent8.8terawatthoursof electricity(from1GW),thoughonlyabouthalfthatisestimatedtobetechnicallyavailable. Advancedbiomasspowersystemsinclude:
Avarietyofmethodsforbiomasscofiringwithfossilfuels,suchassolidfuel cofiring,solidbiomasswithnaturalgassuperheat,gasifiedbiomassandnatural gas. Thermalgasificationsystemsfromsmallcombinedheatandpowersystems usingreciprocatingenginestomediumandlargescaleintegratedgasifier combinedcyclesystems. Thermochemicalandbiochemicalsystemssuitableformunicipalsolidwasteand otherbiomass. Combustionboilersdesignedforstrawfuels.
ThoughthereissomedevelopmentofadvancedsystemsinCaliforniaandtheNortheast, mostoftheadvanceddevelopmentalworkonbiomasspowersystemsisoccurringin EuropeandJapan.Advancedsystemsincludesolidfueldirectcombustionunitscapableof burningfuelsthatcannotbeconsumedintheexistingfacilitiesinCalifornia,smallto mediumscaleautomatedgasifiercombinedheatandpowersystems,commercially operatingfarmscaleandindustrialscaleanaerobicdigestersystems,andmore.Section1 devotessignificantattentiontonewandexistingbiomasspowersystemsoverseasthat mightserveasmodelsforfutureCaliforniaandSMUDdevelopment.
Section2containsdataonenvironmentalimpactsofbiomasspowersystemsand suggestionsortechniquesforimprovementtomeetincreasinglystringentCalifornia regulationsandobjectives.Environmentalimpactsofconcernincludeconcentrationsof heavymetalsinsolidresidues,quality,andamountofliquiddischarges,andairemissions. BecausemuchofCaliforniaisnotmeetingfederalandstateattainmentstandardsfor ambientozone,airemissions(especiallynitrousoxides),areamongthemostimportant environmentalimpacts.TheSacramentoregionisnotinattainmentforozoneand,except forAmadorCounty,notinattainmentforparticulatematter.TableES1comparesair emissionsfromoperatinganddevelopmentalbiopowerfacilitiesintheUnitedStatesand Europe. Section3containsanengineeringandeconomicanalysisofselectedtechnologiespresented inSection1.Aneconomicmodelwasusedtoestimaterevenuerequirementsintheformof levelizedcostofenergyorlevelizedrequiredtippingfee,thelatterappliedwhenusing municipalsolidwasteinacasestudyofanaerobicdigestion. TheselectedtechnologiesanalyzedinSection3are: Gasification
CirculatingFluidizedBed,5.4MWcombinedheatandpowerfacilitybasedona unitunderdevelopmentinSkive,Denmark. Fixedbed,1.8MWcombinedheatandpowerfacilityindevelopmentin Kokemki,Finland. BIGCCpressurizedCirculatingFluidizedBed12.5MW.
Strawcombustionsystem
Strawfueledvibratinggrateboiler,steamcyclepowerplant,38MW,basedon thepowerplantinEly,England.
Municipalsolidwaste/greenwasteanaerobicdigestionsystems
Anaerobicdigestionofgreenwasteandtheorganicfractionofmunicipalsolid wastebasedonagenericsystemusing100,000wettons/yearandgenerating1.2 MWofelectricpower. Anaerobicphasedsolidsgreen/foodwastedigestersystemusing76,000wet tons/yearandgenerating1.2MWofelectricpower.
Dairymanuredigestersystems

PreliminarydatafromtheCaliforniaDairyPowerProductionProgram. Plugflow,coveredlagoon,andmixedtanksystemswithcapacitiesrangingfrom 30kWto1MW.
Theresultsforthebasecaseestimatedcostofenergyandtherangeofpotentialvaluesfrom sensitivityanalysesareshowninFigureES1.Basecaselevelizedcostofelectricityranges fromalowof$0.037perkilowatthourforfullyamortizedexistingsolidfueleddirect combustionunits,tomorethan$0.13/kWhfordairyanaerobicdigestionsystemswith shorttermfinancing.Thecostofelectricityfrommunicipalsolidwastedigestiondepends heavilyontippingfeesavailableandassumptionsregardinglaborandotheroperatingand maintenancecosts.LargerscaledemonstrationinCaliforniaofadvancedtechnologieswill beneededtorefinecostestimates. Theprojectincludeddevelopingadatabaseofbiomasstechnologydevelopers, consultants,researchorganizations,resourcemanagers,andotherstakeholders.The databasecontains120technologysuppliersand265industryandotherstakeholder contactsandispublishedandavailableasaseparatedocument. Thisreportexaminesadvancedbiomassconversionprocesses,technologies,economic performance,andenvironmentalconsiderationsassociatedwiththeuseand managementofbiomasswithintheSMUDregion.
Table ES-1. Air emissions from biomass fueled power systems Prime Mover California solid fuel biomass boilers BIGCC, various fuels (Vrnamo, Sweden) Control Technology SNCR, flue gas recirc., & PM control Gas turbine -Untreated Lean burn Reciprocating Engines Rich-burn SI engine w/ fueled by gasified biomass 3-way catalytic converter (single test, CPC) Large, lean burn Reciprocating Engines fueled by biogas (LFG, WWTP, manure digesters) Rich Burn, 3-way catalyst (dairy, 300 kW) Rich Burn -no controls (swine manure -100 kW capacity operating @ 45 kW) CARB BACT Recommendation uncontrolled CARB BACT Recommendation uncontrolled Units lb/MWh lb/MWh or (ppm dry gas) NOx 0.64 0.95 2.2 - 9.8 CO 0.1 - 1.5 (50-450) (100 1,000) 0.03 6.4-10.6 5.84 UHC/THC 0.01 - 0.09 (<1) (<10) 0.03 ROGs .36-1.7 0.08 PM SO2 Source 1,2 3 4,5 6 7 8 0.09 - 0.55 0.02 - 0.26 (<1) 0.2-2.0
(ppm, 15% O2) (30 - 300) lb/MWh lb/MWh lb/MWh 0.65 .65-1.9 0.95
lb/MWh
12
58
112
23
lb/MWh lb/MWh lb/MWh lb/MWh
1.9 0.2-0.24 1.25 0.0017
1.9 0.6-0.72 0.025
2.4 ppm, (3% O2) 0.017
7.8 -
est. 1.03 nd
10 11 10 11
Gas Turbine 30 kW (LFG) Gas Turbine (<3 MW) fueled by biogas Fuel Cell, LFG fuel
- = not reported or specified nd = not detected Sources; See Table in Section 2
0.25
0.20
COE (constant $/kWh)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
er (p af ai tG d of as f) ifi er (C H P) N ew B IG S C to C ke C r FB Fa M G ci an as lit y ifi ur er e di (C ge S H tra P st ) .-1 w 0 S to yr U ke lo pd rB an ra ft oi le G ras ifi C er A (n o C H M P or ) ris (2 00 A PS 0) D G i g en es er te C ic FB r M G SW as ifi M A er an D (n ur o e C di H ge P) st .-5 yr lo an pd r
Figure ES-1. Cost Of Electricity estimates for biomass power conversion technologies.
Source: UC Davis Research Team
Advancedbiomasspowersystemsincludethermalgasificationsystemsfromsmallcombined heatandpowersystemstomediumandlargescaleintegratedgasifiercombinedcycle systems,thermochemicalandbiochemicalsystemssuitableformunicipalsolidwasteandother biomass,andcombustionboilersdesignedforstrawfuels.Alsoconsideredadvancedisthe varietyofmethodsforbiomasscofiringwithfossilfuels(solidfuelcofiring,solidbiomasswith naturalgassuperheat,gasifiedbiomassandnaturalgas,etc.). ThoughthereissomedevelopmentofadvancedsystemsinCaliforniaandtheMidwestand Northeast,mostadvancedbiomasspowersystemsdevelopmentisoccurringinEuropeand Japan.Section1devotessignificantattentiontonewandexistingbiomasspowersystems overseasthatmightserveasmodelsforfutureCaliforniaandSMUDdevelopment. Section2containsdataonenvironmentalimpactsofbiomasspowersystemsandsuggestions ortechniquesforimprovementtomeetincreasinglystringentCaliforniaregulationsand objectives. EngineeringandeconomicanalysesforselectedsystemsareexaminedinSection3.The systemsselectedforanalysisincludethreetypesandscalesofthermalgasifiers,astrawfueled
5
to k
combustionboiler,greenwasteandsolidwasteanaerobicdigesters,anddairymanuredigester systems.Arevenuerequirementsmodelwasusedtoestimatethelevelizedcostofenergyor levelizedrequiredtippingfee,thelatterappliedwhenusingmunicipalsolidwasteinacase studyofanaerobicdigestion. SomeofthesuccessfullydemonstratedoroperatingsystemsinEuropecouldcompetein Californiawhileotherswillneedsomelevelofsupporttoachievecommercialstatus.Oneof thehurdlesfacingtransferofthetechnologytoCaliforniaisthehighriskperceivedby financiersduetoalackofdemonstratedfacilitiespermittedandoperatinginthestate. RecommendationstoaddressthetransferofthesetechnologiestoCaliforniaareprovided. ProjectApproach Theprojectactivitiesincludedanextensivereviewoftheliterature,discussionswith technologydevelopers,stateandlocalregulators,consultantsandacademics,attendanceof regionalconferencesandoneinternationalconference,andnumerousfacilityinspections withintheUnitedStatesandEurope. Significantportionsoftheinformationweredevelopedfromrelatedworkfundedbythe CaliforniaIntegratedWasteManagementBoard. Economicmodelingtodeterminelevelizedcostofenergy(and/orrequiredtippingfee)was conductedforselectedtechnologies. ProjectOutcomes Theprimaryprojectoutcomeisthisfinalreport.Includedinthereportis: Abiomassresourceinventoryusingcountylevelresourceinformationdevelopedby theCaliforniaBiomassCollaborative. AnextensivereviewofbiomasspowersystemsincludingstatusinCaliforniaandthe UnitedStatesandcurrentdevelopmentoverseas,especiallyEurope. AdiscussionofenvironmentalimpactswithparticularemphasisonNOxproduction, methodsofcontrol,andcurrentemissionslevelsforvarioustechnologies. Anestimatedcostofenergyorrequiredtippingfeesfromeconomicanalysisand modeling. AsetofrecommendationstohelpSMUD(orthestate)developadvancedbiomass powersystems.
Adatabaseofsuppliers,consultants,andresearchinstitutionsinthebiopowerfieldwasalso developedwhichwassubmittedseparatelyfromthefinalreport.
ConclusionsandRecommendations EnvironmentalandenergypoliciesinEuropeandJapanhavecreatedavibrantbiomasspower industryandresearchanddevelopmentsector.Thesepoliciescreatehighfeedintariffsfor renewableenergywhilesimultaneouslyimposinghighlandfillcoststhatenablesolidwaste conversiontechnologydevelopmentanddeployment.InCalifornia,nonewsolidfuel combustionfacilitieshavebeencommissionedsince1992andseveralfacilitieshaveshutdown orconvertedtonaturalgasfuelasaresultofpooreconomicconditionsincludingcoincident lossofassociatedindustriessuchassawmillssupplyingfueltocogenerationfacilities.Recent biomasspowerrelatedactivityinCaliforniahaslargelybeendrivenbyenvironmental concernsovermanurefromconfinedanimaloperationssuchasdairiesandopportunitiesfor greateruseoflandfillgasandsewagedigestergas.Californiasrenewableportfoliostandard nowprovidesoneoftheprimarymechanismsforlongtermcontractingforrenewableenergy, buthighergenerationcostsassociatedwithmanybiomasstechnologiesincompetitionwith lowercostwindandgeothermalresourceshavesofarrestrictedbiomassentryintothis market.Increasinginterestinrenewabletransportationfuelsiscreatingmarketopportunities forbiomass,butpowergenerationwillremainakeyindustryforfurtherbiomass development,includinganintegralpartofbiorefineries. SomeofthesuccessfullydemonstratedoroperatingsystemsinEuropecouldcompetein Californiawhileotherswillneedsomelevelofsupportbeforeachievingcommercialstatus. OneofthehurdlesfacingtransferofthetechnologytotheUnitedStatesisthehighrisk perceivedbyfinanciersduetothelackofdemonstratedfacilitiesoperatinginCaliforniaand satisfyingpermitrequirements.Toaddresstheseissuesoftechnologytransfer,SMUDmay wishtoconsidervariousdevelopmentalternatives,includingthefollowing:
Formapublicprivatepartnershiptodemonstrateadvancedthermochemical conversion(i.e.,biomassintegratedgasifiercombinedcycle)andothertechnologiesin Californiausingpilotorcommercialscaledesigns. Increasethebiomasspowerfacilitieswithintheutilitydistrict.SMUDisalready involvedinthedevelopmentofbiomasspowerprojectsthatenhancelocalwaste management(i.e.,greenandfoodwasteandmanure).Thelargeresourceintheregion composedofforestandagriculturalthinningsandresiduesrepresentanopportunity forSMUDtosignificantlyincreaseitsbiomasspowerportfolio.Specificproject recommendationsare: o Transferexistingbiomasscombinedheatandpowertechnology(500kWto2MW) toasuitableheatclientintheSacramentoregion(heatclientsincludeabsorption coolingapplications). Exploitthefuelpotentialintheregionsricestrawandothercropresidueswith transferofexistingtechnology.
Increaseresearchanddevelopmentfundingandactivitytoobtainmoredetailedand morereliableoperating,economic,andenvironmentaldatafornewanaerobicdigestion andotherfacilitiesandparticipateinormotivaterelatedstateeffortstoenhancethe overallqualityofinformationavailableonbiomasssystems. Workwiththestateandfederalgovernmentstoincreaseresearchanddemonstration activityonconceptstoimprovetechnologyandreduceemissionsfrombiomass conversion,including: o Investigateadvancedreburningusingbiomassfuelstoreducenitrogenoxide(NOx) emissionsforretrofitornewfacilitydesign. EvaluateSelectiveCatalyticReductionandregenerativeSelectiveCatalytic ReductionNOxcontroltechniques. InvestigateozoneinjectiontoassessfeasibilityasaNOxcontroltechniqueforsolid fueledandotherbiomasssystems.
Improveemissionsperformanceofreciprocatingengines,including: o o Improvefuelgascleaning. Extracthydrogensulfideandsiloxanefrombiogastoenablegreateruseofcatalytic aftertreatmentofcombustiongasesandothercontrolmeasures. Reducenitrogencompounds(ammonia,hydrogencyanide)inproducergasfrom thermalgasificationsystems.
Continuedevelopmentofhydrogenenrichedfuelgasforimprovedleanburnengine performance. Improveefficiencyofmicroturbines. Reducecostsofstationaryfuelcellpowersystems.
Ongoingandnewdemonstrationorfirstcommercialbiomassgasificationwithcombined heatandpowerfacilitiesoverseaspresentatimelyopportunityforobservingandmonitoring thesefacilities.Furtherdevelopmentofexistingassociationwiththeprojectdevelopersin ordertofacilitateexchangeofinformationisrecommended.Inaddressingthegreateruseof biomasswithinitsterritoryandsurroundingregionforrenewablegenerationandimproved environmentalquality,SMUDwillserveasamodelfordevelopmentintherestofthestate. SMUDactionscanhelpshiftstatewastemanagementpoliciestomoreappropriateresource managementstrategies.
CommercializationPotentialandBenefitstoCalifornia TherehasnotbeenanysubstantialincreaseinbiopowergeneratingcapacityinCaliforniasince theearly1990s.Inorderforbiomasspowertomakeasignificantcontributiontothesupplyof renewableelectricityinCalifornia,theagingfleetofbiomassfacilitieswillneedtobere poweredandlargeamountsofnewcapacitymustbedeveloped.Ifthisistooccur,new strategiesforutilizationofbiomassresourcewillberequiredincludingincreasingtherangeof feedstocksused,newerandupdatedconversiontechnologies,andamoreconsistentpolicy approach. Becauseofextensiveresearchanddevelopmentoverseas,advancedbiomasspowersystems thatarebuiltinCaliforniawilllikelybeimportedtechnologiesanddesigns. Withthehighernaturalgaspricesrecentlyexperienced,automatedbiomasscombinedheat andpowersystemsarecommerciallyviableifasuitableclientfortheheatisavailable.Without heatcoproduct,theeconomicsofadvanced(aswellasthestandardstokerorcirculating fluidizedbedboilers)biopowersystemsaremarginalatcurrentelectricitymarketprices. DependingonwhichsetofRenewablePortfolioStandardgoalsarepursued(20percent renewablesby2017,or33percentby2020),newrenewablegenerationcapacitywillbe requiredattherateof3,200to5,000MWeachyear.Currentbiopowercapacityis approximately1,000MW,andbiomasscontributesabout2percenttothestatestotalpoweror 25percentofrenewablepowerconsumedinthestate.Ifbiomasspowerweretocontinueto provideaquarterofnonhydrorenewablegenerationundertheRenewablePortfolioStandard, thennewbiopowercapacitywouldneedtobeaddedattherateof800tomorethan1,200MW eachyear. Thedescriptions,problemidentification,andanalysisinthereport,aswellasthecontact database,canbeusedtohelpdefineastrategyforbuildingincreasedbiopowercapacityin California.IncreasingbiopowerproductionbenefitsCaliforniabyincreasingtherenewable contentintheelectricityportfolio,generatingeconomicactivityinthefuelsupplyandlogistics sector,providinganumberofstablejobsatthegeneratingfacility,andutilizingsomeofthe vastbiomassresourceinthestatethatotherwisewouldbeconsumedinprescribedburnsor wildfires,disposedinlandfillsorleftinfieldorforestforeventualdecay. Theinformationandanalysisinthisreportaddressesadvancedbiopowertechnologiesand includesrecommendationsformovingforward.Thisreportcanserveasatechnology referenceandinformationsourceforthoseinvolvedinmappingastatebiomasspower strategythatcontributestotheRenewablePortfolioStandard.Usedinthisway,thereport (andproject)willsavetheEnergyCommission,andpossiblyotherstateagencies,timeand money.
10
1.0 Introduction
AccordingtotheEnergyInformationAgency(EIA2003),electricitygeneratedfrom biomasssourceswas11%ofallrenewableelectricityintheUnitedStatesin2001and 59%ofnonhydrorenewableelectricity.UnitedStatesinstalledbiomasspowercapacity issubstantial,currentlyatabout11gigawatts(GW).About6.2GWisfueledbyforest productsandagriculturalresiduesandabout3.5GWismunicipalsolidwaste(MSW) basedincludinglandfillgas(EIA2003). ThebiopowerindustrygrewquitesubstantiallyafterenactmentofthePublicUtilities RegulatoryPolicyAct(PURPA)in1978.PURPArequiredutilitiestooffertopurchase electricityfromsmall(lessthan80MW)independentgenerators.TheFederalEnergy RegulatoryCommission(FERC)establishedrulesdefiningqualifyingrequirements. Manycontractswereinitiallywrittenforapriceofenergyequaltotheutilitiesshort runavoidedcostbasedonnaturalgasalthoughinCaliforniaStandardOffer4was developedwitha10yearfirmpricingstructurebasedontheforecastedpriceof electricityandadditionalpaymentsfordispatchablecapacity.Between1980and1995, gridconnectedbiopowercapacitytripled(from3.5to10.5GW)(EIA1997)becauseof PURPA,favorablefederaltaxpoliciesforinvestmentsinrenewableenergy,andstate incentives(Morris2000).StandardOffer4wassuspendedbytheCaliforniaPublic UtilitiesCommissionin1986duetoexcessproposedcapacityadditionsandthecollapse inworldoilprices.Inthemid1990s,thelackofnewcapacitywithStandardOffer4 contractsresultedindecliningbiomassenergycapacitygrowthduetounfavorable pricingasutilityshortrunavoidedcostdroppedbelowbiomasspowergenerationcosts. AnygrowthwaslargelyassociatedwiththoseprojectsalreadyhavingStandardOffer4 contractsandlandfillanddigestergasprojectsthathadotherincentives,including tippingfeesforresources. TheinstalledbiomasscapacityintheUnitedStatesprimarilyconsistsofdirect combustionsteamRankinesystemswithanaveragesizeof20MW(thelargestisnear75 MW)(Bainetal.2003).Typicalefficienciesarearound20%,duemostlytothesmall plantsizebutalsotofuelquality(moisture).
1.1 Biomass Power in California

InCalifornia,totaloperatinggridconnectedelectricalcapacityfrombiomassresources isapproximately900MW.Thisincludessome640MWfromsolidfuelcombustionin steamRankinefacilities(Morris2002),210MWfromlandfillgasconversionfacilities (Simonsetal.2002),and39MWfromdigestergasproducedfromanaerobicdigestionof sludgeatwastewatertreatmentplants(including24MWfromtwoLosAngeles treatmentplants)(Zhang2003). ThedevelopmentofthesolidfuelcombustionbiomasspowerindustryinCalifornia followedatrendsimilartothatoftherestofthenation.Priorto1978,biomassusefor energy(otherthanhomeheating)inthestateexistedprimarilyatwoodprocessing facilitieswhichutilizedwoodresiduestofuelsteamboilersforprocessheatandinsome
11
casescombinedwithpowergenerationwheneconomicallyadvantageous.Between1980 and1984,13biopowerfacilitiesbeganoperation,and23morecameonlineintheperiod 1985through1989.Theyear1990sawthestartupof11facilities.Bytheendof1990,the operatingbiopowercapacityinthestatefromnonMSWbiomasssourceswasatitspeak ofapproximately770MW(Morris2000).Thefacilityaveragecapacitywasabout18MW withtwoat50MW. Themid1990ssawadeclineinoperatingcapacityofabout25%partlyduetoshutting downofsomeolderlesseconomicalplants,fuelsupplyandpricingissuesbecauseofthe declineinwoodproductactivityinthestate,aswellaspoliciesenactedbytheCalifornia PublicUtilitiesCommissioninlightofthecomingelectricityderegulationwhichcreated incentivesforelectricutilitiestobuyoutthepowerpurchaseagreementsofbiomass facilitiesthatwerebeingpaidbasedontheutilitysshortrunavoidedcostorwould soonbecomesubjecttoshortrunavoidedcostfollowingcompletionofthehigherpriced 10yearfirmcontractperiod(year11pricecliff).Somefacilitiesthatwerenearingthe endofthetheirStandardOffer4 1 contractsoptedtosellthecontractsandshutdown becausetheshortrunavoidedcosttheninplacewasmuchlowerthanthefixedprice portionofthecontract. ThesubstantialincreaseinwholesaleelectricitypricesthatoccurredwiththeCalifornia electricitycrisisof2000to2001spurredatleast10shutteredfacilitiestoinvestigate restarting(Morris2000).Fivefacilitiesrestartedin2001and2002,andtheotherfive abandonedtheeffort.Thereareapproximately28solidfueledbiomassfacilities currentlyoperatinginthestatecomprisingatotalof570MWcapacity,notincluding threeMSWcombustionfacilitiesthattogethergenerateanother70MW.Another31 facilitieswithcombinedcapacityof343MWareidle,dismantled,orhavebeen convertedtonaturalgasfuel(SeeTable11). AnothersignificantcomponentofexistingbiomasspowerinCaliforniaistheconversion oforganicmattertomethane(CH 4)throughanaerobicmicrobialactionwithsubsequent conversionofthemethanetoelectricity.Manywastewatertreatmentplants(WWTP) utilizeanaerobicdigestionaspartofthestabilizationprocess.Theorganicfractionofin placeMSWinlandfillsdegradesanaerobicallyaswell.
1.TheInterimStandardOfferNo.4wasfavorablecontractsmadeavailabletoindependent biomasspowerdevelopersbyPG&EandSCE.Availableforsigningin1984and1985witha5 yearwindowtobringprojectsonline,theSO4guaranteedfirmenergypricesfor10yearsbased ontherelativelyhighshortrunavoidedcostratesineffectatthattime($.05to$.06perkWh)and escalatingtomorethan$.12/kWh.Attheendofthe10yearfixedrateportion,generatorswould receivethecurrentmarketshortrunavoidedcost,whichhadsignificantlydeclinedbythelate 1990s. 12
Table 1-1 Disposition of solid fuel biomass power facilities in California.
Fuel Solid Biomass MSW Solid Biomass Solid Biomass
Disposition Currently Operating Currently Operating Operating Total Idle Dismantled
Number of Net Capacity Facilities (MW) 28 3 31 15 11 5 31 570 70 640 159 73 112 343
Solid Biomass Converted to Natural Gas Not Operating or Converted Total

Source: UC Davis Research Team ; Source: Robert Williams
Therearesome278activelandfillsacceptingMSWinCalifornia(hazardouswasteand usedtiresaredisposedinfacilitiesseparatefromMSWsites).Therearemorethan2,750 landfillsthatareclosed,inactive,orabandonedinthestate(SWIS2003).Currentlythere are51landfillsinthestaterecoveringlandfillgasforuseasenergy(LFGTE)witha combinedgeneratingcapacityof210MW.Theirdistributionoverseveraltechnologiesis showninTable12.Anadditional70landfillsarerecoveringandflaringgas.Thereare reportedly26otherlandfillsitesplanningtoinstallLFGTEsystems(Simonsetal.2002). SomeWWTPsutilizebiogasfromtheanaerobicdigestionofsewagesludgeforpower generation.Sewageistreatedgenerallyusingcombinationsofaerobicandanaerobic processes.SeveraltreatmentplantsinCaliforniaproducesufficientmethanetojustify convertingtoheatand/orpower,whileothersmayflarethemethane.TheSacramento RegionalWasteWaterTreatmentfacilitygeneratesapproximately2.8MWfrom treatmentofanaveragewastewaterflowof180milliongallonsperday(gpd).Thereare 10WWTPsinCaliforniawithgridconnectedpowergeneration(combinedgross capacityof38MW)(Zhang2003).ThetwolargestareinLosAngelesCounty(24MW from770milliongpdwastewater,combined.) TherearethreeoperatingdairydigestersproducingelectricityinCaliforniawith combinedcapacityofapproximately500kilowatts(kW).Thereisoneswinefacilityin thestatewithanoperatingdigester.
13
Table 1-2. Current California LFGTE activity by technology type.* Technology Reciprocating Engine Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Steam Turbine Gas Turbine Direct Use (thermal) Upgrade for Pipeline Use No. of Landfills 32 2 3 5 7 2 Total Electrical Capacity (MW) 112 57 31 10 -
* Adapted from Simons et al. 2002. Landfill Gas-To-Energy Potential In California, California Energy Commission Staff Report 500-02-041V1.
1.2 Biomass Resource assessment for the Sacramento Region

AbiomassresourceassessmentfortheSacramentoregionwasconducted.Thebiomass typesandsourcesconsideredare:

ThebiogenicfractionofMSW. Residuesfromagriculture. Fieldandseedcrops. Orchardandvinecrops. Vegetablecrops. Animalmanure. Biosolidsfromwastewatertreatment. Forestoperationsresiduesandpotentialthinnings.
ForMSW,onlyamountsdisposedinortransshippedfromSacramentoCountywere considered.Theareacoveredinassessingtheagriculturalcropresidues,dairymanure, andwastewatertreatmentfacilitiesincludes16countiesintheregiondefinedas SacramentoandtheadjacentcountiesaswellasthoseoutlyingintheSacramentoValley northtoTehamaandtheSanJoaquinValleysouthtoStanislaus.NevadaandCalaveras countieswereincludedintheoutlyingcountiesregion(seeTable13andFigure11). Forestbiomassresourceaccountingincludesfouradditionalcountiesinordertoaccount forallforestbiomassintheCentralSierraNevadaRange(Table13).Thedatacomes fromarecentlycompletedbiomassresourceinventoryofCalifornia(vonBernathetal. 2004). 2
2.ForestbiomassinformationprovidedtotheCBCinventorybyM.RosenbergandJ.Sperofrom theCaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection. 14
Table 1-3. List of counties used for resource assessment for some biomass types. Sub Regions Sacramento and Adjacent Counties Counties Sacramento Placer Sutter Yolo Butte Calaveras Colusa Glenn Plumas Sierra Solano San Joaquin Amador El Dorado Nevada Stanislaus Tehama Yuba Tuolumne Alpine
Outlying Counties Remaining Central Sierra Nevada Counties (for regional forest biomass assessment)
Thetotalamountbyweightofeachtypeofbiomassgeneratedordisposed(inthecase ofMSW)wasestimated.Totalprimaryenergywasdeterminedbymultiplyingenergy contentofeachtypeofmaterialbythetotalmass.Potentialgrossgenerationcapacity wasthendeterminedbymultiplyingtheprimaryenergyvaluebyanappropriate conversiontoelectricalpowerfactor(efficiency).Factorsfortechnicalavailability(i.e., theamountofresourceestimatedtobepracticallyandeconomicallyobtainable)are estimatesusedintheCaliforniaBiomassResourcesInventory.Thetechnicalavailability factorsrangefrom0.34forchaparralto0.70fororchardpruningsandremovals.These factorsareuncertainanditisrecommendedthatsomeeffortbespenttoreducethe uncertainty.
15
(White = Sacramento and adjacent counties; Dark grey = Outlying counties. Contra Costa County was not considered because of minimal non-MSW biomass resource).
Figure 1-1. Map of counties included in biomass resource assessment.

Source: UC Davis Research Team
MunicipalSolidWaste AllsolidwastejurisdictionsinSacramentoCountytogetherdisposed1.5milliontonsof municipalsolidwasteduring2003.Figure12showsthedistributionofdisposedsolid wastebyjurisdictionoforigin.Sacramento,CitrusHeights,andtheunincorporated areasofthecountyaccountfor86%ofdisposedwaste.ThemunicipalitiesofElkGrove, Folsom,RanchoCordova,Galt,andIsletoncontributetheremaining14%.
16
800 51% 700 600 35% Thousand Tons 500 400 300 200 100 0 Sac. Co./ Citrus Hts. Sacramento Elk Grove Folsom Rancho Cordova Galt Isleton
7%
4%
1%
1%
Figure 1-2. 2003 Sacramento County disposed solid waste by origin

Photo Credit: CIWMB Disposal reporting system, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/lgcentral/drs/Reports/default.asp
SacramentoCountyjurisdictionsolidwasteisdisposedinavarietyoflocations.For 2003,52%wasdisposedatoneoftwocountylandfills,28%atalandfillnearManteca (SanJoaquinCounty),13%wasshippedtoNevada 3 withtheremaindergoingtoother landfillsintheregion(SeeFigure13).
3.Thedraftversionofthisreport(2003)useddisposaldatafrom2001,duringwhichSacramento Countywastejurisdictionsdisposed1.3milliontons,including20%exporttoNevada. 17
700 41% 600 500 Thousand Tons 28% 400 300 13% 200 100 0 Sacramento County Landfill -Kiefer (Sacramento) Forward, Inc. (Manteca) Export Out of State L-D Landfill Co. (Sacramento) Portrero Hills (Solano) Other 11% 6% ~1%
Figure 1-3. 2003 Sacramento County solid waste disposal by destination

Source: CIWMB Disposal reporting system.
TheKieferlandfilldisposedabout630,000tonsofSacramentoCountyMSW(total disposalatKieferwas640,000tons).TheLDLandfillreceivedsome186,000tonsof solidwaste,ofwhich165,000tonscamefromCountyjurisdictions.The195,000tonsof wasteoriginatingintheCountythatistransshippedtoNevadafordisposalpasses throughoneormoreofthesolidwastetransferstationsintheCounty.SeeTable14for alistofsolidwastefacilitiesinSacramentoCounty. TheamountofmaterialcurrentlysenttolandfillinSacramentoCounty(andinallof California)representsasubstantialresource.Table15containsananalysisofthetotal energyandtheelectricitygenerationpotentialrepresentedbythe2003disposalofMSW atthetwoSacramentoCountylandfills.ComponentfractionsoftheMSWstreamare takenfromtheCaliforniaIntegratedWasteManagementBoard(CIWMB)waste characterizationstudyof1999. 4 Thedistributionofcomponentsindisposedsolidwaste haslikelychangedsomewhatbutmorerecentcharacterizationdataarenotyetavailable (anewfourseasonwastecharacterizationstudyiscurrentlybeingconducted).Foreach componentofthewastestream,thetablelistsamountlandfilled,typicalmoistureand ashcontents,andhigherheatingvalues(HHV)inbothasreceivedandmoisturefree basis.Ofthe820,000tonslandfilled,some560,000tonsareofbiologicalorigin,90,000 tonsareplasticsandtextiles(assumedtobeallsynthetictextiles),andtheremaining 170,000tonsaremineralandotherinorganicmaterial(glass,metal,nonwood construction/demolitionwaste).
4.http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WasteChar/Study1999/OverTabl.htm 18
Table 1-4. Solid waste facilities in Sacramento County. 5
Facility Name Kiefer Landfill L and D Landfill Co.
Address 12701 Kiefer Blvd 8635 Fruitridge Road
Activity Solid Waste Landfill Solid Waste Landfill Large Volume Transfer/Processing Station Large Volume Transfer Station Large Volume Transfer Station Inert Waste Disposal site
Status Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active
Permitted Throughput (t d-1) 10815 2540 2000 1800 348 100 250
Elder Creek Recovery and 8642 Elder Creek Rd. Transfer Stn. North Area Transfer Stn. South Area Transfer Stn. Florin Perkins LF Inc.,(Inerts) Florin Perkins LF Inc., MRF&Trans. Stn. Sacramento Compost Facility 4201 Florin Perkins Rd. 20 28th Street 4450 Roseville Road 8550 Fruitridge Road
Large Volume Transfer/Processing Station Green Waste Composting Large Volume Transfer/Processing Facility Large Volume Transfer/Processing Facility, Composting,MRF Large Volume Transfer/Processing Facility, Composting,MRF Green Waste Composting Large Volume Transfer/Processing Facility
Sacramento Recycling and 8191 Fruitridge Road Transfer Folsom MRF & Composting N. of New Prison Complex off Natoma
2000
Active
300
Galt Transfer Stn./MRF
104 Industrial Rd.
Planned
300
Pilot Green Project
9700 Goethe Rd. Raley Blvd& Vinci Ave.
Planned
BLT Transfer Stn.
Planned
CIWMB SWIS database, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/Search.asp
Potentialprimaryenergyestimatesweremadebysimplymultiplyingtheappropriate materialenergycontentonaperweightbasis(HHV)bytheamountofthatmaterial available.Thisisdoneforeachcomponentinthewastestream.
5.CIWMBSWISdatabase,http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/Search.asp 19
Forestimatingtheamountofelectricalgenerationcapacitythatcouldbedeveloped fromthecurrentwastestream,itwasassumedthatthestreamwouldbeseparated basedonmoisturecontent.Thehighmoisturecomponentsareperhapsmost appropriatelyconvertedthroughbiochemicalsystems(anaerobicdigestion(AD),for example).ThoughADissuitableforhighmoisturefeedstocks,amajordisadvantageof ADisthatconversionisincomplete;some50%oftheorganicmaterialisnotconverted. Ligninandotherrefractoryorganicsarenotconvertedandremainasresiduefor compostingorlandfill.Theaerobicprocessingofdigestersludgethroughcomposting canfurtherreducevolume,butanaerobicconditionsmaintainedinmostlandfillsmay notreducevolumeexceptoververylongperiodsoftime.Ifonlytheproducedbiogasis convertedtoelectricity(noenergyproductionfromthedigestate),thisprocesshasan overallenergyconversionefficiency(electricalenergyout/wastestreamenergyin,based ondryHHV)ofabout10%. Thelowermoisturecomponentsareassumedtobeconvertedbythermalmeans (gasification,pyrolysis,orcombustion).Theenergyand/orheatintheproductgasescan beusedinaboilertorunasteamcycleorthegases(fromagasifierorpyrolyzer)can runagasengineorturbineforelectricityproduction.Thesemethodshaveoverall electricalgenerationefficienciesofabout25%.Biomassintegratedgasificationcombined cycles(BIGCC)haveprojectedelectricalconversionefficienciesof35%orabove,butare notyetcommercial.Naturalgasfiredcombinedcycleshaveelectricalefficienciesabove 55%bycomparison,bututilizenonrenewablefuel.Theapplicationofcombinedcycles tobiogasproducedbyanaerobicdigestionisapossibilitybutdigesterstendtobesmall forthescalestypicallyemployed,anddigestionofMSWorMSWorganicsisstill developmentalforthemostpartinNorthAmerica.Biogascofiredwithnaturalgasin largecombinedcyclepowerplantsisawaytoimprovethenetefficiencyofbiogasto electricityproductioniftheopportunityexists.Fuelcellsofferanotherhighefficiency andcleanoptionforbiogasandfuelgasesproducedbythermochemicalmeans,but thesesystemsarealsodevelopmentalandfuelpurificationisanissue. Table15includesthegrosselectricalgenerationestimatesfromSacramentoMSW.The valuesweredeterminedfromthepotentialprimaryenergybyapplyingtheappropriate thermochemicalorbiochemicalconversionefficiencyandassuminganavailabilityof 100%(meaningtheconversionfacilitiesoperate100%ofthetimeatratedcapacity). Table15indicatesthat43MWcouldbesupportedbyconversionofthebiogenic fractionofthecurrentlydisposedwastestreaminSacramentoCounty.Figure14shows themassandpotentialenergyofthedisposedsolidwastestreambycomponent. Thoughcaptureandconversionof100%ofthebiogenicfractionoftheMSWisunlikely, itmaybefeasibletocaptureandconvert50to75%ofthebiomassportionofsolidwaste withproperlyspecifiedsystems.IfthebiomassfractionofSacramentowastecurrently beingshippedoutofstatewereaccessibleaswell,thenthetechnicalelectrical generatingcapacityfromthebiomassfractionofSacramentoCountyMSWisestimated tobe53MW.
20
Table 1-5. MSW disposed in Sacramento County; Amount, characterization, energy, and gross potential electrical generation capacity.
Component
Paper/Cardboard Food
Leaves and Grass Landfilled
a
(1000t y )
-1
% of Total
b b Ash Ash HHV -1 (% wb) (1000t y ) (MJ/kg, ar)
HHV contribution to composite stream (MJ kg-1 as received)
Moisture (%wb)
Landfilled Primary Energy by d Electricity Potential HHV -1 Component (1000t y (MJ/kg, dry) (PJ)c 6 (MWe) (GWh y-1) (MMBtu)x10 dry)
249.3 130.0 65.3 57.6 40.6 19.8
30.2 15.7 7.9 7.0 4.9 2.4
5.3 5.0 4.0 10.0 5.0 3.6
13.2 6.5 2.6 5.8 2.0 0.7
16 4.2 6 8.5 17 11.4
4.83 0.66 0.47 0.59 0.84 0.27
10 70 60 4 12 40
224.4 39.0 26.1 55.3 35.7 11.9
17.8 14.0 15.0 8.9 19.3 19.0
3.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2
3.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.2
29 3 1 4 5 2
251 29 10 31 43 14
Other Organics C&D Lumber Prunings, trimmings, branches and stumps Biomass Components of MSW Total All non-Film Plastic Film Plastic Textiles Non-Biomass Carbon Compounds Total Other C&D Metal Other Mixed and Mineralized Glass Mineral Total
562.6
41.5 32.1 17.4
68.1
5.0 3.9 2.1 2.0 3.0 7.0
30.8
0.83 0.96 1.22 22 45 17.4
7.7
1.10 1.75 0.37 0.2 0.2 10
392.4
41.4 32.0 15.7 22.0 45.1 19.3
5.7
0.8 1.3 0.3
5.4
0.8 1.2 0.3
43.2
7 10 2
379
57 91 19
91.0
54.3 50.4 44.1 23.6
11.0
6.6 6.1 5.3 2.9 100 100 100 100
3.01
54.3 50.4 44.1 23.6 -
3.22
-
89
54.3 50.4 44.1 23.6 -
2.4
-
2.3
-
19
-
168
-
0 0 172.4 20.9 172.4 172.4 Totals 826 100 206 10.89 653.9 8.2 7.7 62 546 a) Total disposed at Kiefer and L&D Landfills from a query of the CIWMB Disposal Reporting System (July 1, 2003). California waste stream composite data (http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WasteChar/Study1999/OverTabl.htm), Accessed Sept. 1, 2003. b) Adapted from Tchobanalglous, G., Theisen, H. and Vigil, S.(1993), Integrated Solid Waste Management, Chapter 4, McGraw-Hill, New York & Themelis, N. J., Kim, Y. H., and Brady, M. H. (2002). Energy recovery from New York City municipal solid wastes. Waste Management & Research, 20(3), 223-233. c) PJ = 10^15 J (petajoule). d) Electricity calculations assume thermal conversion means for low moisture stream (paper/cardboard, other organics, construction and demolition lumber, all plastics and textiles) and biological means (anaerobic digestion) for the high moisture components (food and green waste). Energy efficiency of conversion of matter to electricity by thermal means is assumed to be 20%. Biomethane potentials of 0.29 and 0.14 g CH4/g VS for food and leaves/grass mixture respectively are assumed for biogas production which is converted at 30% thermal efficiency in reciprocating engines. Capacity factor of 1 is used.
21

Annual Disposal (left axis) 280 Annual Disposal (Thousand wet tons/ y) 240 200 160 120 80 40 0
Pa pe r/C ar db oa rd O rg an ic s Lu m be r St um ps Pl as tic G ra ss Fo od
Gross Potential Generation (right axis) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Potential Electrical Generation (MWe)
an d
Figure 1-4. 2003 Sacramento County waste stream component disposal amounts and gross potential power generation
Photo credit: UC Davis Research Team; Photo credit: Robert Williams
AgriculturalCultivationinRegion TheSacramentoregionhasalargeanddiverseagriculturalsector.Forthisanalysis,the SacramentoregionistakentobeSacramentoCountyandtheadjacentcounties 6 aswell asthoseintheoutlyingregionextendingnorthtoTehamaCountyintheSacramento Valley,southtoStanislausintheNorthernSanJoaquinValleyandnortheastand southeastfoothillandseveralmountaincounties 7 Thisisalargeregiongeographically butwasselectedassuchtoillustratethedepthandbreadthofagriculturalresources (andresidues)inthearea.Itisrecognizedthattransportationoflowdensityresidue materials(whichappliestomanyagriculturalresidues)constitutesasignificantportion offuelprocurementcosts.Thiseffecttypicallymanifestsitselfbydefiningalimitingfuel procurementradiusfromtheconversionfacilityforeachtypeoffuel.However,itisalso
6.Sacramentoandadjacentcounties:Sacramento,Placer,Sutter,Yolo,Solano,SanJoaquin Amador,andElDorado. 7.Outlyingregioncounties:Butte,Calaveras,Colusa,Glenn,Nevada,Stanislaus,Tehama,and Yuba. 22
Br an ch es
Al ln on -F ilm
Le av es
O th er
C &D
&
recognizedthatSMUDcouldhaveinterestinabiomasspowerfacilityoutsideofits immediateserviceareaasisthecasewithSMUDownedwindgenerationandhydro powerfacilities. Table16showsyear2001dataforcultivatedacresintheSacramentoregionbycounty andmajorcroptype(FieldandSeed,OrchardandVineyard,andVegetablecrops). Vegetablecropsareincludedinthetableforcompletenessbutarenotconsideredhereas afeedstockforbiomasspowerbecauseresiduesareeithertoolow,difficulttocollector highinmoisture.Figure15showsthedistributiongraphically.The2.5million cultivatedacresintheregionrepresentsfully30%ofallcroplandcurrentlybeingfarmed inCalifornia. 8 Thefollowingareinventorydataandenergypotentialofresiduesfrom field&seedcrops,andorchardandvineyard.Residuesfromvegetablecropsarenot likelytobeusedforconversiontoenergyandarenotincludedinthisinventory. CropResiduesinFieldandSeedCrops Table17givestheestimatedresidualbiomassleftinthefieldafterharvestofthefoodor principalcommoditycomponentofthefieldorseedcrop.Thegrossandtechnical potentialelectricalgenerationfromeachresiduetypeisalsoshown.Figure16shows theresidueinformationgraphicallyandFigure17displaystechnicalgeneration potentialforeachresiduetype.Onehalfoftheestimatedfieldcropresiduesisricestraw fromtheSacramentoandNorthernSanJoaquinValleys.Severerestrictionsonopen fieldburningofricestrawareinforce.Manyalternativemanagementmethodsandoff fieldusesfortheresidualstrawhavebeenattempted.
8.Totalcultivatedlandintheregionis2.5millionacres.Therearesome8.6millionacresunder cultivationinCalifornia. 23
Table 1-6. Cultivated acres by crop category in the Sacramento region

County Sacramento Placer Sutter Yolo Solano San Joaquin Amador El Dorado Sacramento/adjacent Total Butte Calaveras Colusa Glenn Nevada Stanislaus Tehama Yuba Outlying Region Total Total Sacramento Region Orchard Vineyard Crops 32,940 1,350 55,437 26,985 15,189 195,570 4,077 2,996 334,544 73,927 1,510 30,410 52,115 348 147,310 36,715 26,821 369,156 703,700 Field and Seed Crops 88,351 15,458 151,251 229,822 125,103 298,523 2,221 350 911,079 110,667 440 189,053 169,911 208,919 18,871 42,484 740,345 1,651,424 Vegetable Crops 5,255 13,863 43,738 14,155 71,680 148,691 20,250 31,570 51,820 200,511
Sacramento and Adjacent

1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Field and Seed Crops
Outlying Region
Thousand Acres
Orchard Vineyard Crops
Vegetable Crops
Figure 1-5. Acres under cultivation in the Sacramento region by crop category
24
Beyondlimitedfloodingofricestrawinfieldsforbirdrefugesandhuntingclubs,the principalcommercialusesforricestrawareinanimalfeedinganderosioncontrol,but thesedonotsupportsubstantialquantities.Alargeresidualremainsthatpotentiallycan beharvestedforenergy. Cornstoverandwheatstrawtogetheraccountfor36%ofthefieldcropresidue.Corn stoveristypicallychoppedand/orreincorporatedintothesoil.Wheatstrawis incorporated,baledforfeedandbedding,orfieldburned.Grossgenerationpotential fromfieldandseedcropsintheSacramentoregionis250MW;technicalgenerationis estimatedatabouthalfor125MW. CropResiduesinOrchardsandVineyards Table18givesrecentdataforresiduesfromorchardandvineyardoperationsinthe region(includesestimatedelectricalgenerationpotential).Figure18isagraphical representationofresidueamounts.Figure19showstechnicalgenerationcapacityfor eachresiduetype.Almond,walnut,plums/prunes,andpeachorchardprunings togetheraccountfor63%oftheestimated670,000drytonsgeneratedannuallyinthis category.Someofthismaterialfindsitswayintoexistingbiomassfiredfacilities;other materialisshreddedandleftintheorchardorpushedtotheedgeoftheorchardand pileburned.Itisestimatedthatapproximately50MWcouldbesupportedassuming 70%oftheresidueisrecoveredforthispurpose. Recentlegislation(SB705,Florez)essentiallyeliminatesanyburningofagricultural residuesintheSanJoaquinValleyUnifiedAirPollutionControlDistrictstartingin2005 andproceedinginphasesthrough2010.ProposedlegislationbyFlorez(SB403California CleanAirBondAct)wouldputbeforethevotersa$4.5billionbondthat,ifpassed,would createacleanairfund.Thisfundwouldprovidegrants,loansandothersupport mechanismsforassisting(amongothers)projectsdirectedatreducingagriculturalair andwaterimpacts.Orchardandvinecropresiduesanddairymanurearespecific biomasstypesmentionedintheproposedlegislation.
25
Table 1-7. Annual field crop residues (tons dry weight per year) in Sacramento region and generation potential*
County Sacramento Placer Sutter Yolo Solano San Joaquin Amador El Dorado Sacramento & adjacent Total Rice 29,988 44,719 272,952 89,817 20,643 458,120 Corn 99,238 23,380 72,171 53,916 227,852 1,589 478,146 18,055 87,230 3,942 109,227 587,373 17.7 60 30 Wheat 26,374 19,158 72,331 65,021 78,158 261,042 5,783 37,344 25,985 5,288 4,957 79,357 340,399 17.5 34 17
Field & Grass Seed
40 3,302 33,580 5,274 3,173 45,369 10,431 86 110 6,210 5,124 2,032 1,575 25,568 70,937 18.0 7 4
Safflower 4,172 12,635 20,159 4,388 6,197 47,551 656 7,838 678 142 9,314 56,865 19.2 6 3
Cotton 4,200 4,200 14,885 2,748 17,633 21,833 18.3 2.3 1.1
Sorghum 1,607 570 11,632 13,809 757 757 14,566 15.4 1.3 0.6
Barley 585 5,519 6,104 304 883 1,187 7,291 17.3 0.7 0.4
Oats 702 649 1,125 2,476 2,476 17.0 0.2 0.1
Total (BDT/yr) 162,706 44,719 332,646 292,259 146,875 336,023 1,589 1,316,816 294,801 86 446,413 404,745 18,395 14,066 113,618 1,292,124 2,608,940 253 127
Butte 277,931 Calaveras Colusa 367,877 Glenn 281,137 Nevada Stanislaus 7,100 Tehama 2,993 Yuba 112,043 Outlying Region Total 1,049,081 Total Sacramento Region (BDT) 1,507,201 HHV (MJ/kg, dry basis) Gross Generation Potential (MWe) Technical* Generation Potential (MWe) 16.3 141 71
* Generation is based on thermal conversion of identified resource with net efficiency of 20% and facility availability of 100%. Technical generation assumes 50% of the gross residue material is available.
26
Sacramento and Adjacent Counties

1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000
Oulying Region
BDT
800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 -
Sa ffl
Figure 1-6. Annual field crop residues in the Sacramento region (dry tons)
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Rice Corn Wheat Field & Grass Seed Safflower Cotton
Figure 1-7. Technical generation capacity from field crops in the region
Technical Capacity (MWe)
Fi el d/ G ra
27
So rg hu m
W he at
ss
Ba rle y
er
Se ed
ot to n
R ic e
or
ow
Table 1-8. Annual orchard and vineyard prunings (tons dry weight per year) in the Sacramento region and electrical generation potential* Total Plums & Almonds Grapes Walnuts Prunes Peaches Apples Apricots Pears Olives (BDT/yr) County Sacramento 35,076 186 506 8,802 44,570 Placer 54 553 151 154 93 53 1,058 Sutter 4,307 10,317 23,471 12,598 324 537 51,554 Yolo 5,717 13,923 5,257 2,234 27,131 Solano 1,499 5,536 3,500 2,115 401 676 1,354 15,081 San Joaquin 36,420 115,197 27,399 3,900 7,811 3,321 863 - 194,911 Amador 4,950 288 5,238 El Dorado 1,691 143 55 148 1,127 589 3,753 47,943 176,427 47,643 28,026 17,201 9,861 3,997 12,198 - 343,296 Sacramento/adjacent Total
Butte Calaveras Colusa Glenn Nevada Stanislaus Tehama Yuba Outlying Region Total Total Sacramento Region (BDT) HHV (MJ/kg, dry basis) Gross Generation Potential (MWe) Technical* Generation Potential (MWe) 32,744 19,763 23,568 79,496 6,129 711 162,411 210,354 19.5 24 17 639 1,834 473 18,760 321 22,027 198,454 19 22 15 12,627 462 2,945 5,489 16,571 8,993 6,008 53,095 100,738 19 11 8 11,653 3,526 9,068 10,141 10,482 44,870 72,896 19 8 6 3,087 10,736 7,234 21,057 38,258 19 4 2.9 302 189 2,430 2,921 12,782 19 1.4 1.0 8,872 8,872 12,869 19 1.4 1.0 12,198 19 1.3 0.9 1,314 202 4,837 5,609 11,962 11,962 19 1.3 0.9 61,727 1,492 26,234 44,796 473 136,865 30,872 24,756 327,215 670,511 74 52
* Generation is based on thermal conversion of identified resource with net efficiency of 20% and facility availability of 100%. Technical generations assumes 70% of the gross residue material is available
28
Sacramento and Adjacent Counties

250,000
Outlying Region
200,000
150,000
BDT
100,000 50,000
Almonds Grapes
Walnuts Plums & Peaches Prunes
Apples
Apricots
Pears
Olives
Figure 1-8. Annual orchard and vineyard prunings in the Sacramento region (dry tons)
20
Generation Potential (MW)
15
10
Almonds Grapes Walnuts Plums & Peaches Prunes Apples Apricots Pears Olives
Figure 1-9. Technical generation capacity from orchard tree and vine prunings in the region
29
AnimalResidues(manure) Thetotalagriculturalanimalpopulationinthestateiscloseto280million,ofwhich230 millionarebroilerchickens.Thetotalstatecattleinventoryisestimatedtobe5.2million head. 9 Ofthesecattle,1.6millionarelactatingdairycows,760,000arebeefcattle,and2.8 millionareinacategorythatincludesheifers,bulls,steers,vealcalves,andcow replacements(otherbeefanddairycalvesandnonlactatingdairycowsandheifers).At thisstageoftheassessment,onlydairycowmanureisincludedasaresourceforthese reasons:
Dairycowsaretypicallyconfinedandmanureisremovedfromthepensoften usingwaterflushorscrapedmanurehandlingsystemsthatallowmanuretobe concentratedforutilization. Drylotfeedcattlepensarescrapedonanintermittentbasisandmanurehas thereforeundergonesignificantbiodegradationbythetimeitiscollected. Drylotfeedcattlemanureistypicallyscrapedintopilesduringwhichitismixed withsoilandthisleadstodownstreamhandlingproblemsindigestersandother conversiondevices.
Rangelandcattlemanureistoodispersedforpracticalcollection. Table19includestheSacramentoregioninventoryofdairycowsandestimatedmanure productionwithgrossandtechnicalpotentialelectricitygenerationfromthisresource. Grossandtechnicalgenerationpotentialsfortheregionareestimatedat44MWand22 MW,respectively(forSacramentoCounty,grossandtechnicalgenerationareabout2 and1MW,respectively).Thegenerationpotentialsweredeterminedbasedontypical digestiblesolidsinpracticalsystems(SeeassumptionsaccompanyingTable19).Sizeof dairypowersystemsisdependentuponthemanurecollectionefficiencyandprocessas wellasthenumberofanimalsatthefacility.Averylargedairywith6,000to8,000cows mightbeexpectedtogenerate1MWgrossifmanurecollectionisveryefficient.The CaliforniaEnergyCommissionreportsoneoperatinganaerobicdigestionsystemata dairyintheSacramentoregion(Zhang2003).ThisistheLangerwerfDairyinButte County(Durham),whichhasbeengeneratingpowerfromdigestermethanesince1982. Thereareapproximately400lactatingcowsandthefacilityisgeneratingabout40kW (withsomeexportedtothegrid).
9.CaliforniaAgriculturalStatisticsService,2002. 30
Table 1-9. Dairy cows, annual manure, and gross power production (by digestion) for the Sacramento region
County Sacramento Placer Sutter Yolo Solano San Joaquin Amador El Dorado Sacramento/ adjacent Total Butte Calaveras Colusa Glenn Nevada Stanislaus Tehama Yuba Outlying Region Total Total Sacramento Region Number of lactating cows 16,700 2,000 3,900 103,000 125,600 900 17000 164000 5300 3200 190,400 316,000 Volatile solids consumed by digestiona (BDT) 13,714 1,642 3,203 84,585 103,145 739 13,961 134,680 4,352 2,628 156,360 259,505 Biogas Gross Potentialc Technical Potentiald Produced Electrical Capacity Electrical Capacity (MWe) (MWe) (million ft3) 329 2.3 1.2 39 0.3 0.1 77 0.5 0.3 2,030 14.3 7.1 2,475 18 335 3,232 104 63 3,753 6,228 17 0.1 9 0.1 1.2 11.4 0.4 0.2 13 22
Manure (BDT) 36,573 4,380 8,541 225,570 275,064 1,971 37,230 359,160 11,607 7,008 416,976 692,040
2.4 22.7 0.7 0.4 26 44
a.) Assumes volatile solids (VS) are 83% of total solids and 45% of VS are typically consumed in practical systems. Assumes manure is collected daily with flush systems. 3 b.) Assumes biogas production is 12 ft /lb VS destroyed and biogas is 60% CH4, 40% CO2. c.) Assumes 35% conversion efficiency of biogas to electricity in gas engines. d.) For technical availability, it is assumed that 50% of gross biomass is recoverable for energy.
Recentlegislation(SenateBill5X)appropriatedmoniesforassistingdairiesinCalifornia intheinstallationofsystemstocreatepowerfromdairywastes.Thisledtothe establishmentoftheDairyPowerProductionProgram(DPPP)bytheEnergy Commission,thepurposeofwhichistoencouragethedevelopmentofbiologically basedanaerobicdigestionandgasification(biogas)electricitygenerationprojectsin theState.Objectivesincludedevelopingcommerciallyprovenbiogaselectricitysystems tohelpCaliforniadairiesoffsetthepurchaseofelectricity,andprovidingenvironmental benefitsthroughreductionofairandgroundwaterpollutantsassociatedwithstorage andtreatmentoflivestockwastes.Approximately$10millionwasappropriated includingprogramadministrationcosts. WesternUnitedResourceDevelopment,Inc.(WURD)wasselectedbytheEnergy Commissiontomanagetheprogram.Theprogramcanprovidetwotypesofassistance forqualifyingdairybiogasprojects:(1)buydowngrantsthatcoverapercentageofthe capitalcostsoftheproposedbiogassystem,or(2)incentivepaymentsforgenerated electricity.Ingeneral,buydowngrantscoveramaximumof50%ofthecapitalcostsof thebiogassystembasedonestimatedpowerproduction,nottoexceed$2,000per
31
installedkW,whicheverisless.Electricitygenerationincentivepaymentsarebasedon 5.7centsperkWhofelectricitygeneratedbythedairybiogassystempaidoutovera maximumoffiveyears.Thetotalcumulativepaymentsundertheincentivepayment routeareintended(afterfiveyears)toequaltheamountoffundingthatwouldbe providedforanequivalentlysizeddigestertoelectricitysystemunderthebuydown approach.Table110listsdairypowerprojectsproposedorunderconstructioninthe statethatarereceivingassistancefromincentivesenabledbySB5X.

Table 1-10. Dairy digester for power systems, under construction or proposed in California 10
Type of No. of Milking Estimated Digester Cows Capacity (kW) Atwater Merced Cov'd Lagoon 4,686 300 Button Willow Kern Cov'd Lagoon 3,600 280 El Mirage San Bernardino Plug Flow 1,900 160 Lodi San Joaquin Cov'd Lagoon 1,600 160 Visalia Tulare Plug Flow 1,500 260 Tulare Tulare Cov'd Lagoon 1,258 150 Strathmore Tulare Cov'd Lagoon 1,050 120 Lakeside San Diego Plug Flow 600 130 Marshall Merced Cov'd Lagoon 237 75 San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Cov'd Lagoon 175 30 TOTALS 16,606 1665 Location County
Source: Report on progress of Dairy Power Production System (wurdco.com).
Threetypesofanaerobicdigestersarecommerciallyavailableforthedigestionofdairy manure:completemix,plugflow,andambienttemperaturecoveredlagoon.Thechoice ofdigesterisdependentonthetypeofmanurecollectionsystemusedonthedairy. Dairieswithflushmanurecollectionsystems(2to3%totalsolids)wouldtypicallyuse anambienttemperaturecoveredlagoondigesterwhereasadairywithamechanical scrapesystemofcollection(10to13%totalsolids)wouldbeacandidateforaplugflow digester.Completemixanaerobicdigestersoperateonmanurethathas3to10%total solidsandcanbeusedwithbothflushedandscrapedmanure.Bothcompletemixand plugflowdigestersareheatedusingheatcapturedfromaboileroranenginegenerat or. Thesteadygasoutputthatresultsfromtheheatingofthedigesterallowsforeaseof cogeneration.AnUpflowAnaerobicSludgeBlanket(UASB)digesterhasalsobeen successfullydemonstratedbytheUniversityofFloridatodigesttheliquidportionofthe wastegeneratedataflushdairy.UASBsandotherattachedgrowthanaerobicdiges ters are,however,mostsuccessfulatdigestingsolublewasteandtendtoplugupwhen operatedonmanurewithahighsolidscontentandarethereforenotcommercialfor manuredigestionatthistime.Theattachedgrowthdesignsdohavetheadvantage of increasingmeancellresidencetimecomparedtocompletemixsystems. Manuredigestionsystemstypicallyhavefivesubsystems:amixtank,adigester,an effluenttank,asolidsseparator,andapowerplantorothergasenergyconversion
10.ReportonprogressofDairyPowerProductionSystem(wurdco.com). 32
system(seeFigure110).Manureistypicallyremovedfromthebarnsusingaflush systemorbymechanicalscraping.Themanureisdirectedtoamixingtankwhereitis mixedpriortointroductionintothedigester.Theminimumretentiontimewithinthe digesteristypically20daysalthoughdigesterscanoperateforshorterperiodsoftime, especiallyattachedgrowthtypes.Fromthedigester,thedigestateissenttoaneffluent tankforstorageuntilitispumpedtoascreenseparatororascrewpress.Thesolidsare collectedandusedforbeddingorcompostedandsoldasasoilamendment.Theliquid issenttolongertermstorage,usuallyalagoon,untilitisneededforirrigationorsoldas liquidfertilizer.Gasfromthedigesterissenttoaboilerforgenerationofheatoran enginegeneratorsetorotherpowerplant(e.g.microturbine)typetogenerateelectricity. Inordertomaintainhighlevelsofgasproduction,themanureatthedairiesmustbe collectedregularlyandforbestresultsshouldnotbegreaterthanthreedaysold.
Figure 1-10. Schematic of digester subsystems (typical of low solids dairy effluents). (Mattocks 2003)
Source: Mattocks 2003
Anaerobicdigestionofdairymanureiscommerciallyviableandhasbeendemonstrated atnumerousdairiesacrossthecountry(seeKramer2002forexample).Europehas developedandisoperatingmanyanaerobicdigestionsystemsofvaryingdesignsor configurations.Theadvantagesofthisapproachare:

Electricitygenerationthatoffsetstheuseofpoweronthefarms. Odorcontrol. Reductionintheemissionofgreenhousegasessuchasmethane.

33
Pathogenreduction. Mineralizationofthenitratesinthemanureallowingforeasieruptakeofthe nutrientsbyplants. Eliminationofthepollutionofgroundwater.
Onestrategytobetterutilizeadigestionsystemistocodigestanimalmanureswith otherorganicwastessuchassourceseparatedfoodandrestaurantwastes.Theincrease inmethaneproductionduetomore(andhigherstrength)feedstockwouldbean economictradeoffagainstthehighercostsofcollectingandtransportingtheco feedstocks.Anotherstrategythatmaybeviableformultipledairieslocatedneareach otheristosetupacentralizeddigestionfacilitywiththewastestransportedfromthe satellitegenerationlocations(e.g.,theMEADprojectinTillamookCounty,Oregon). BiosolidsWaterTreatmentPlants WWTPsrepresentabiomassresourcewhichcanbeexploitedforenergyandpower. Sewageistreatedgenerallyusingcombinationsofaerobicandanaerobicprocesses. Manytreatmentplantsutilizinganaerobicprocessingcreatesufficientmethanetojustify convertingittoheatand/orpower,whileothersmayflarethemethane.Afterthe aerobic/anaerobicprimarytreatmentofthewastewater,thereisasolid(biologically stabilized)residuecommonlyreferredtoasbiosolids.Biosolidscontainthenon biodegradablecomponentsofthebiomassinthewastewateraswellasthemineral matter(ash).Table111displaysthebiosolidsinventoryfortheregionincludinggross andtechnicalelectricalproductionestimatesfromthebiosolids. TheSacramentoRegionalWWTPgeneratesapproximately2.8MWfromthemethane generatedbythetreatmentofthewastewater.Theaveragewastewaterflowisestimated tobe180to190milliongpd(Fondahl2000).Thereare10WWTPsinCaliforniawithgrid connectedpowergeneration(combinedgrosscapacityof38MW)(Zhang2003).Thetwo largestareinLosAngelesCounty(24MWfrom770milliongpdwastewater,combined). Thesolidresidue(biosolid)oftheprocesscontainsalltheinertportionoftheuntreated sewageaswellasasignificantamountoforganicmaterialthatisnotbiodegradableplus effluentcellmass.Thenonbiodegradableorganicmaterialcontainsenergythatcanbe convertedwiththermochemicalsystems.Dependingondegreeofstabilization,some biosolidmaterialislandappliedasfertilizer.About40%oftheWWTPbiosolidsinthe statearelandapplied.About3%isburnedinfurnaces(usuallycofiredwithnaturalgas orlandfillordigestergas),someofwhichrecoverheatforusebytheWWTP.The remainderiseitherdisposedinlandfillsmaintainedbythetreatmentfacilityorin city/countylandfills. Convertedbythermalmethods,thegrossandtechnicalgenerationfromtheregions biosolidsisabout7and6MW,respectively.
34
Table 1-11. Regional wastewater treatment biosolids (not currently landfilled) and electrical generating potential*
Electrical Potential Gross Technical (MWe) (MWe) 4.20 3.36 0.15 0.12 0.20 0.16 0.47 0.38 0.76 0.61 0.19 0.15 6 5 0.00 0.04 0.03 1.15 0.05 0.07 1 7 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.92 0.04 0.05 1 6
Sacramento Placer* Sutter Yolo Solano San Joaquin Amador* El Dorado Sacramento & adjacent Total Butte* Calaveras + Colusa Glenn Nevada Stanislaus Tehama Yuba Outlying Region Total Total Sacramento Region
Biosolids (bdt y ) 47,423 1,732 2,215 5,323 8,594 2,112 67,398 9 402 392 13,037 552 757 15,149 82,547
-1
*Data taken from Fondahl (2000) and escalated using 2003 county populations. -1 Electrical generating potential based on thermal conversion at 20% efficiency and HHV of 15.4. MJ kg , dry basis and plant capacity factor of 1. Technical availability factor was assumed to be 0.8.
Data taken from Fondahl (2000) and escalated using 2003 county populations
ForestBiomass Biomassfromtheforestincludesmillresidues,mostofwhicharealreadyusedforsteam orpowergeneration,forestslashfromtimberoperations,andforestthinningscoming fromtimberstandandotherforestimprovementoperations.Thelatterresourceislikely toincreasesubstantiallyfollowingpresidentialsigningoftheHealthyForests RestorationActonDecember3,2003. RecentdatadevelopedbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection (Rosenberg,et.al.2004)wereusedforestimatingforestoperationsresidues.Logging slashandpotentialthinningsarelumpedtogether.Chaparralislistedseparately. Chaparralrepresentsasignificantamountofresourceandisincludedbecauseitisafuel thatlikelywillbemanagedinforestfuelreductionprograms,atleastinsomeareas. Chaparralisnotcurrentlyharvestedorutilizedinappreciablequantities,nordoesit havemanypotentialusesotherthanasafuelforheatandpowergeneration.Mill residuesareestimatedfromcurrentstatewideloggingactivityanddistributedto countiesusingdatainayear2000report(Springsteen2000).
35
Completedocumentationisnotyetavailablebutthetechnicalavailabilityoftheforest inventoryassumesnodisturbanceofriparian(streamandlake)zonesandother sensitivehabitats,andthematerialinareaswithslopegreaterthan30%wouldnotbe accessed.Thetechnicalaccessibleforestbiomassis59%ofgrossthinningsandslash biomassand34%ofthegrosschaparralbiomass.Allpublicandprivatelandsare includedintheCaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtectioninventory. ThegeographicareausedintheforestbiomassanalysisincludesthesameSacramento regioncountiesusedaboveaswellasfouradditionalmountaincounties(Plumas,Sierra, Tuolumne,andAlpine). Table112showsgrossforestresource(dryweightperyear)andpotentialgeneration (usinggrosspotentialbiomassand20%thermalconversiontoelectricityefficiency).The amountofforestbiomassinthe16countySacramentoregion(Table112)is approximately25%morethanthatoftheagriculturalresiduesfortheregion,andthe generationestimatereflectsthis(grossandtechnicalgenerationfortheregionsforest biomassisestimatedat451and213MW,respectively).Table113displaystheforest biomassandgenerationpotentialforthefouradditionalcountiescompletingtheCentral SierraNevadaRangeforestbiomassresource.
36
Table 1-12. Forest and mill operations gross potential residues (tons dry weight per year) in the Sacramento region and generation potential (Rosenberg et al. 2004).
County Sacramento Placer Sutter Yolo Solano San Joaquin Amador El Dorado Sacramento/ adjacent Total Butte Calaveras Colusa Glenn Nevada Stanislaus Tehama Yuba Outlying Region Total Total Sacramento Region (BDT) HHV (MJ/kg, dry basis) Gross Generation Potential (MWe) Technical Generation Potential (MWe)
Thinnings & Slash 4,304 3,180 27,961 391 1,360 4,601 151,304 323,932 517,033 287,100 610,412 249,812 137,030 41,835 62,938 45,011 35,759 1,469,897 1,986,930 21 240 142
Chaparral 17,317 8,016 95,574 180,702 2,374 17,409 213,244 38,248 572,884 16,870 41,198 105,162 67,386 44,974 275,959 277,175 572,458 1,401,182 1,974,066 19 211 72
Mill Residue 104,625 104,625 47,250 63,000 96,300 46,350 252,900 357,525 20 na*
Total Forestry 21,621 11,196 123,535 181,093 3,734 22,010 364,548 466,805 1,194,542 351,220 651,610 354,974 149,809 338,897 418,486 654,567 2,919,563 4,114,105
451 213
Gross BDT (BDT = bone-dry ton equivalent, a unit of measurement used for biomass fuels. A BDT refers to an amount of material that contains a ton of moisture-free biomass fiber. Generally, one BDT is equivalent to 1.5 2.2 actual or green tons of biomass.) Amounts include public and private lands but exclude biomass from riparian zones, sensitive habitat, and terrain with slope greater than 30%. Technical generation potential assumes the forest thinnings and chaparral are (will be) available in the amounts of 59% and 34% of gross tonnages respectively, thermal conversion efficiency to electricity is 20% and plant availability is 100%. * Assumes mill residues are already utilized for heat and power at the sawmill.
Adapted from Rosenberg et al. 2004
37
Table 1-13. Forest biomass in four mountain counties completing the Central Sierras Thinnings & Mill Total County Slash Chaparral Residue Forestry Plumas 2103 561 144000 146664 Sierra 61121 122412 183533 Tuolumne 24472 513385 83475 621332 Alpine 696348 137578 833926 Other Sierra Nevada 784,044 773,936 227,475 1,785,455 Counties Total (BDT)
HHV (MJ/kg, dry basis) Gross Generation Potential (MWe) Technical Generation Potential (MWe) 21 95 56 19 83 28 20 na* 178 84
Adapted from Rosenberg et al. 2004
Gross BDT amounts include public and private lands but exclude biomass from riparian zones, sensitive habitat, and terrain with slope greater than 30%. Technical generation potential assumes the forest thinnings and chaparral are (will be) available in the amounts of 59% and 34% of gross tonnages respectively, thermal conversion efficiency to electricity is 20% and plant availability is 100%. * Assumes mill residues are already utilized for heat and power at the sawmill
SummaryofBiomassResourcesintheSacramentoRegion Table114summarizesthegrossandtechnical 11 generationpotentialoftheregions biomassinventory.Totalgrossandtechnicalgenerationfromtheresourceisestimated tobe872and442MW,respectively.IfthecompleteCentralSierraNevadaRangeis includedintheforestbiomasscategory,anadditional178MW(gross)and84MW (technical)biomassresourceisidentified.MSWgoingtolandfilldisposalisan opportunityforbiomasstoelectricityconversionbecauseitisgenerallyavailableat centrallocations(landfills,transferstations,materialrecyclingfacilities)andusuallyis availableatnocostornegativecost(withatippingfee).Someofthisisalready generatingpowerforSMUDbywayoflandfillgastoenergysystems.Thereare disadvantagesduetotheheterogeneousnatureofthematerialbothinparticlesizeand moisturecontentofthevariouscomponents.Orchardandcropresiduesareavailablein substantialamountsforconversiontoenergyandsomeofthismaterialisalsoalready beingutilized.Someoftheexistingbiomassfacilitiesintheregionuseorchardresidues andnutshellsandotheragriculturalresiduesbutnewburningrestrictionsarebeing implementedintheSanJoaquinValleyreducingdisposaloptionsforfarmers.Rice strawisavailableinlargeamountsandcurrentlyhaslimitedcommercialusesandcould benefitfromexpandedpowergenerationcapabilityusingimprovedtechnology.Forest residuesareexpectedtoofferasubstantialamountofresourcewithnewfederal
11.Grossgenerationpotentialisthecapacitythatcouldbesupportedifallthebiomassfromeach categorywasconvertedtoelectricitybasedonenergycontentsandcurrenttechnology conversionefficiencies.Technicalgenerationassumesresourceavailabilityfactorsarelessthan one. 38
legislationenablingmoreforestthinningoperationsandheightenedawarenessand urgencyduetotherecentfiresinSouthernCalifornia.
Table 1-14. Summary of regional generation potential from biomass Biomass Source MSW Field Crop Residues Orchard and Vineyard Residues Dairy manure Waste Water Treatment Plant Biosolids Forest Residues Total Other Sierra Nevada Counties Forest Residues Gross Technical Generation Generation Potential (MW) Potential (MW) 22 43 253 74 44 7 451 872 178 127 52 22 6 213 442 84
1.3 Conversion of Biomass

Conversionofbiomasscanproceedalongthreemainpathwaysthermochemical, biochemical,andphysicochemical.Currently,allthreepathwaysareutilizedtovarious extents. Thermochemicalconversionischaracterizedbyhighertemperatureandconversion rates.Itisbestsuitedforlowermoisturefeedstocksandisgenerallylessselectivefor endproductsalthoughadvancesingasificationandpyrolysisprocessesareexpanding therangeofchemicalsandmaterialsthatcanbeproduced. Thermochemicalconversionprocessesinclude: Combustion Oxidationoffuelforproductionofheatatelevatedtemperatureswithoutgenerating commerciallyusefulintermediatefuelgases,liquids,orsolids.Flametemperatures rangetypicallybetween1500and3000Fdependingonfuel,stoichiometry,furnace design,andsystemheatloss.Particletemperaturesinheterogeneouscombustioncan differfromgastemperaturesdependingonradiativeconditions.Combustionofsolids involvesthesimultaneousprocessesofheatandmasstransport,pyrolysis,gasification, ignition,andburning,withfluidflow.Itnormallyemploysexcessoxidizertoensure maximumfuelconversion,butalsocanoccurunderfuelrichconditions.Productsof
39
combustionprocessesincludeheat,oxidizedspecies(e.g.carbondioxide[CO2],water [H2O]),productsofincompletecombustionandotherreactionproducts(mostas pollutants),andash.Otherprocesses,suchassupercriticalwateroxidationand electrochemicaloxidationcanproducesimilarendproductsatlowertemperatures. Gasification Typicallyreferstoconversionviapartialoxidationusingsubstoichiometricairoroxygen orbyindirectheatingtoproducefuelgases(synthesisgas,producergas),principally carbonmonoxide(CO),hydrogen(H2),methane,andlighterhydrocarbonsin associationwithCO2andnitrogen(N2)dependingontheprocessused.Gasification processesalsoproduceliquids(tars,oils,andothercondensates)andsolids(char,ash) fromsolidfeedstocks.Gasificationprocessesaredesignedtogeneratefuelorsynthesis gasesastheprimaryproduct.Fuelgasescanbeusedininternalandexternal combustionengines,fuelcells,andotherprimemovers.Gasificationproductscanbe usedtoproducemethanol,FischerTropsch(FT)liquids,andotherfuelliquidsand chemicals.Gasificationofsolidsandcombustionofgasificationderivedfuelgases generatesthesamecategoriesofproductsasdirectcombustionofsolids,butpollution controlandconversionefficienciesmaybeimproved. Pyrolysis
Aprocesssimilartogasificationexceptgenerallyoptimizedfortheproductionoffuel liquids(pyrolysisoils)thatcanbeusedstraight(i.e.asboilerfuel)orrefinedforhigher qualityusessuchasenginefuels,chemicals,adhesives,andotherproducts.Pyrolysis alsoproducesgasesandsolidsfromsolidfeedstocks.Usually,processesthatthermally degradematerialwithouttheadditionofanyairoroxygenareconsideredpyrolysis. Pyrolysisandcombustionofpyrolysisderivedfuelliquidsandgasesalsoproducethe samecategoriesofendproductsasdirectcombustionofsolids,butlikegasification, pollutioncontrolandconversionefficienciesmaybeimproved.Directpyrolysisliquids maybetoxic,corrosive,oxidativelyunstable,anddifficulttohandle.Generationof refinedfuelliquidshasadvantagesinfuelhandlinganddistributedormobilepower generation. Biochemicalconversionproceedsatlowertemperaturesandlowerreactionratesbut tendstooffergreaterselectivityinproductsthanthermochemicalconversion.Higher moisturefeedstocksaregenerallygoodcandidatesforbiochemicalprocesses. Biochemicalconversionprocessesinclude: Anaerobicdigestion Afermentationtechniquetypicallyemployedinsomewastewatertreatmentfacilities forsludgedegradationandstabilizationbutalsotheprincipalprocessoccurringin landfills.Anaerobicdigestionoperateswithoutfreeoxygenandresultsinafuelgas calledbiogascontainingmostlymethaneandcarbondioxidebutfrequentlycarrying impuritiessuchasmoisture,hydrogensulfide(H 2S),siloxane,andparticulatematter.
40
Anaerobicdigestionrequiresattentiontothenutritionaldemandsofthefacultativeand methanogenicbacteriadegradingthewastesubstrates.Thecarbon/nitrogen(C/N)ratio ofthefeedstockisespeciallyimportant.Biogascanbeusedasfuelforengines,gas turbines,fuelcells,boilers,industrialheaters,otherprocesses,andthemanufacturingof chemicals. Aerobicconversion Includes,forexample,compostingandactivatedsludgewastewatertreatment processes.Aerobicconversionusesairoroxygentosupportthemetabolismofthe aerobicmicroorganismsdegradingthesubstrate.Nutritionalconsiderationsarealso importanttotheproperfunctioningofaerobicprocesses.Aerobicprocessesoperateat muchhigherratesthananaerobicprocesses,butgenerallydonotproduceusefulfuel gases. Fermentation Generallyusedindustriallytoproducefuelliquidssuchasethanolandotherchemicals. Alsooperateswithoutoxygen.Althoughfermentationandanaerobicdigestionare commonlyclassifiedseparately,botharefermentationmethodsdesignedtoproduce differentproducts.Cellulosicfeedstocks,includingthemajorityoftheorganicfractionof MSW,needpretreatment(acid,enzymatic,orhydrothermalhydrolysis)todepolymerize celluloseandhemicellulosetomonomersusedbytheyeastandbacteriaemployedinthe process.Lignininbiomassisrefractorytofermentationandasabyproductistypically consideredforuseasboilerfuelorasafeedstockforthermochemicalconversionto otherfuelsandproducts. Physicochemicalconversion Involvesthephysicalandchemicalsynthesisofproductsfromfeedstocksandis primarilyassociatedwiththetransformationoffreshorusedvegetableoils,animalfats, greases,tallow,andothersuitablefeedstocksintoliquidfuelsorbiodiesel,frequentlyby transesterification(reactionofglyceridewithalcoholinthepresenceofcatalyst).
1.4 Advanced Biomass Power Systems

Systemsthatimproveuponcost,conversionefficiency,installedcapacity,environmental performance,publicacceptance,orthatcanincreasetherangeofavailablefeedstocks andproductscomparedwithexistingcommercialtechnologies,areconsidered advanced. Probablytheleastexpensivemeansforincreasinguseofbiomassinpowergenerationis tocofirewithcoalinexistingboilersbydirectsubstitutionof10to15%ofthetotal energyinputwithasuitablebiomassfuel.Biomasscofiringdirectlysubstitutes renewablecarbonforfossilcarbon.Inaddition,cofiringhaslittleornoimpactonthe overallconversionefficiencyoftheplant.Cofiredbiomassreceivesthebenefitofthe generallyhigheroverallconversiontoelectricityefficienciesinlargecoalpowerplants
41
(typically33to37%).CofiringbiomasscanalsoreduceNOxandsulfurdioxide(SO2) emissionsfromcoalfiredpowerplantsdependingontypeofbiomassfired. Gasification Systemsforgasificationofbiomassofferimprovementsinoneofseveralways.Close coupledgasifierandboilersystemscanincreasetherangeofavailablefuelsincertain cases.Forexample,anexistingcombustionboilermaynotbeabletoeconomically consumesomefuelsbecauseofdisadvantageousashpropertiesexperiencedat combustionboilertemperature(slagginginasystemdesignedfordryashorreleaseof alkalineandchlorinecompoundswhichcondenseandformdepositsonheattransfer surfaces).Installingadifferentconversiontechnologyalongsideexistingfacilitiescould increaseusablefuelsupplywithoutincurringthecostofacompletenewplant.Another reasonforanaddonorclosecoupledsystemmightbeforavoidanceofcontamination ofashproductininstanceswheretheashfromtheoriginalfuelhaseconomicvalue.A thirdpossibilityforsuchsystemsispotentialimprovementofenvironmental performanceincombinationwithincreasingtherangeoffuels.AcurrentPIERfunded projecttoinvestigateclosecoupledgasificationforpurposesofNOxemissions reductionwithbiomassboilershascompleteditsfirstphase 12 .Ifapproved,aPhaseII programwoulddeployafullscaledemonstrationatanexistingbiomassboiler,most likelyintheSacramentoregion. 13 Gasificationofbiomassfollowedbycofiringtheproductgaswithafossilfueleitherin steamcyclepowergenerationorinnaturalgasfiredgasturbines(withorwithout combinedsteambottomingcycle)isacofiringstrategythatcantakeadvantageof existingboilersandgeneratingequipment,reducingthecostofimplementingabiomass componentofapowerportfolio. Gasificationforuseinintegratedgasificationcombinedcyclesystems(IGCC)offersthe potentialtoincreasetheconversiontoelectricityefficiencycomparedtothatofthe existingbiomasscombustionboilers.AdvancedbiomassIGCCsystemswillbenefitfrom substantialinvestmentsmadeincoalgasificationcombinedcyclesystemsintheareasof hotgasparticulatematterremovalandproducergascombustioningasturbines.The UnitedStatesDepartmentofEnergy(DOE),aswellasmanyresearchorganizationsin Europe,hassponsoredmuchdevelopmentwork.Criticalissuesaregascleaningand solidfuelfeedingintopressurizedreactors.Commercialscaledemonstratorsarein varyingstagesofcompletion. Stillearlyindevelopmentalstagesisbiomassgasificationforproductionofrenewable hydrogenforfuelcells.Thesesystemsholdpromiseforhighefficiencyatavarietyof scales.Utilizationofmethanefrombiomassinfuelcellsiscurrentlybeingdemonstrated
12.GEEnergyandEnvironmentalResearchCorporation,Irvine,California.CECContractNo. 50098037. 13.ThefacilitiesbeingconsideredarelocatedinWoodland,Williams,andAnderson,California. 42
atseveralsitesintheUnitedStateswithsupportfromtheU.S.DOEandU.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA). Smallmodularbiomasspowersystemsaregaininginterestbecauseofanincreasing desirefordistributedgenerationandwildfirehazardreductionactivitieswhichare likelytoprovidelargeamountsofwoodybiomassbutatdispersedlocations.Modular systemsincludecombustioninsmallsteamboilersforprocessheatorpowergeneration insteamengines,combustionforheatforStirlingengines,andgasificationforfueling microturbinesorreciprocatingenginesandgeneratorsets. Biogasification,orproductionofmethanefromanaerobicmicrobesthatconsume biomass,istheprocessthattakesplacewithinlandfillscreatingmethanegasandcarbon dioxide.Advancedlandfillsystemscurrentlybeinginvestigatedanddemonstratedat fullscaleconditionsincludethebioreactorprojectattheYoloCountylandfill.This projectisoneofthebiomassrelatedprojectsintheSMUDReGenprogram.Current technologyfortheconversionoflandfillgastomethaneconsistsofreciprocatingengines forscalesuptoseveralMW,usuallywithmultipleenginegeneratorsets.TheNOx emissionscanbehighfromtheseenginesrunningbiogaswhichcanmakeitdifficultto sitenewgenerationofthistypeinmanyairdistrictsinthestate.Hydrogenenriched biogasandotherfuelscanbeusedinleanburnenginestoreduceNOxemissionsand thisisadevelopmentareaforthefuture.ApartoftheYoloCountyinvestigation includesastudyofalandfillbiofilterthatmaybeabletobiologicallyreactmuchofthe NOxfromlandfillgasengines.Presently,thispreliminarydraftreportdoesnotaddress bioreactorlandfills. Aninnovativeanaerobicdigestionsystemsuitableforhighsolidsgreenwaste,manure, food,andfoodprocessingwasteshasbeendevelopedbyProfessorR.Zhangat UniversityofCalifornia,Davis,(UCDavis)andDr.Z.Zhang,currentlyattheCalifornia EnergyCommission.Theinnovationistheuseofseveralbatchloadedhydrolysistanks andasinglecontinuousmethanegenerationreactoroperatedinthethermophilicrange. Thevolatilesolidsdestructionandbiogasproductionisgenerallyincreasedoverthatof standardhighsolidssinglevesseldigesters.ApilotfacilityontheUCDaviscampus, fundedbytheCaliforniaEnergyCommissionandindustrypartners,wastobe operationalearlyin2005.Thepilotfacilitywillhaveafeedstockcapacityofabout3tons perdayproducingabout25kWfromareciprocatingengine.A250tonperday(wet) systemusinggreenandotherorganicwastesinthisprocessisproposedforthe CaliforniaStateUniversityChannelIslandscampusinVenturaCounty.Thissystem offerspotentiallylowcostelectricityifaveragetippingfeesforreceivingthefeedstock arecharged.ThecompanythathaslicensedthetechnologyisOnsitePowerSystemsin Camarillo,California. Overallelectricalefficiency Overallthermodynamicefficiencyofelectricalproduction,definedas
43
Net electrical energy out Higher heating value of fuel in 100%

variesfromabout30to55%formodernlargescalefossilfueledpowerplants.Coalfired steamRankinecyclepowerplantsrangebetween30to45%netelectricalefficiency. Efficiencyimproveswithhighersteamtemperaturesandpressuresandgenerally improveswithlargercapacityfacilities. 14 Naturalgasfiredgasturbinecombinedcycle (GTCC)powerplantscanachieveefficienciesashighas55%. Overallefficiencyofbiomassconversiontoelectricityistypicallylowerthanlarge centralstationfossilpowerplantsduetosmallerfacilitysizeandlowerfuelquality(i.e., comparativelyhighmoistureinsomecases).Efficiencyofconversionforexisting biomassbasedpowersystemsrangesfromlessthan10%toabout25%.Atthelowerend oftherangearecombustionboilersteamenginesystems,smallgasifierenginesystems, andanaerobicdigestionreciprocatingenginesystems.Theupperrangeofefficiencyis achievedbylargercombustionboilersteamturbinesystemswithmorethan40MW capacities. Figure111showsoverallefficiencyversusnetpoweroutputforseveraltechnology classes.Theefficienciesshownaregenerallyindependentoffuel(liquid,solid,gas, fossil,orbiomass).AlsoshownareefficienciesoftheexistingCaliforniasolidfuel combustionbiomasspowerindustry(showninblueandlabeledCaliforniasteamcycle biomass),andseveraloperatingorplannedcommercialdemonstrations(reddots labeledbycompanynameorlocation). TheCaliforniasolidfueledbiomassindustryconsistsoffacilitieswithnetpower capacityaslowas4MWtothreefacilitieswithcapacitiesbetween47and50MW.The netefficienciesrangefromabout15to25%.Facilitiesabove50MWnethavenotbeen installedduetoadditionalregulatoryreviewrequiredatthiscapacityandabove. Thedotssignifyprojectsorsystemsthatarediscussedbrieflyinfollowingsectionsofthe report. 15
14.Thehighestefficiencysteamcyclesoperatewithsupercriticalsteamconditions(i.e.,steam pressureabovethecriticalpointofwater;22.1MPaor3200psi).Thereareseveralhundred supercriticalsteampowerplantsworldwidewithsteampressuresrangingfrom25MPa(3600 psi)to31MPa(4500psi).Maximumsteamtemperaturesrangebetween540Cand620C(1000 Fto1150F). 15.CPCistheabbreviationforCommunityPowerCorporation(seeSmallScaleandModular Biomasssection).XylowattandGssingcanbefoundintheSmallMediumScaleGasificationfor CHP(IndiaandEurope)sectionandCarbonaIGCCisintheCommercializationofBiomassIGCC section. 44
IGFC Integrated Gasifier Fuel Cell Turbine (simple cycle) IGCC Integrated Gasifier Combined Cycle
DF-GT Direct Fired Gas
Figure 1-11. Efficiency versus net electrical power output for several prime movers.
Photo Credit: Adapted from R.P. Overend, 1998.
45
1.4.1 Biomass Cofiring with Fossil Fuels

SolidFuelCofiring In1996,theU.S.DOEandCharitonValleyResourceConservationandDevelopment, Inc.inCenterville,Iowa,beganastudytolookatthefeasibilityofusingbiomassto generateelectricityinSoutheasternIowa.Theprojectincludedstudiesofagronomic, economic,andtechnicalissues,suchasdevelopingafuelsupplyplan,optimizingthe yieldsofenergycropsonIowafarmland,andexaminingtheeffectsofcofiring switchgrassinexistingcoalboilers.Infullscaleexperiments,switchgrasshasbeenco firedinamountsupto25tons/h,contributing5%oftheenergyforthe735MW(gross) nominallycoalfiredOttumwaplant(Amos2002). GasifiedBiomassCofiring Withafuelgasderivedfrombiomass(whetherproducergasfromthermochemical gasificationorbiogasfrombiogasification),thereisthecapabilitytocofirewithnatural gasingasturbinecombinedcycle(GTCC)facilities(assumingqualityofthemixedgas meetstheturbinerequirementsforenergycontent,hydrogengasconcentrationand cleanliness). Thereareatleastthreebasicarrangementsforbiomasscofiringwithanaturalgas(NG) fueledGTCC:(1)biomasscombustionboilerwhichaddssteamtotheGTCC(Figure1 12),(2)Thermalgasificationfollowedbygasconditioningthenmixedwithnaturalgas beforefiringintheturbine(Figure113),and(3)abiogas(productofanaerobic digestion)streamthathasbeenconditionedforcofiringinanaturalgasfueledturbine (Figure114).
Figure 1-12. Indirect Co-firing with steam side integration.

Theindirectcofiringwithsteamsideintegrationispracticalandhaslowerspecific investmentcoststhanstandalonecombustion.Steamadditionfromthebiomassboiler isprobablylimitedtoabout10%.Theenergyefficiencyofthebiomasscomponentis similartothatofconventionalbiomassfueledsteamcycles(Zwart2003).

46
Figure 1-13. Direct cofiring with upstream thermal gasification.

Upstreamthermalgasificationdirectcofiringallowsthethermalefficiencyofthe biomassportionofthefueltoapproachthatofpurenaturalgascombinedcycle(50to 55%)(Zwart2003).Itisestimatedthatinordertoavoidmajorgasturbinemodifications, theHHVofthegasmixturewouldneedtoremainaboveabout39megajoule(MJ)per kilogram(HHVofnaturalgasis50to55MJ/kg)andtheconcentrationofH2needstobe lessthan5%(volume).Theserequirementswilllimitthebiomassfuelcontributiontothe rangeof2to8%(thermalbasis).Fora500MWfacility,the2to8%biomassfuel limitationisequivalentto10to40MWbiopower.
Figure 1-14. Direct cofire with biogas.

Directcofirewithbiogasislimitedtothesamefuelmixturerequirementsmentioned aboveinordertoavoidmajorgasturbinemodifications.However,biogasisgenerally easiertocleanthanproducergas(notarandusuallynoparticulatematter),resultingin

47
lowercapitalcosts.ColocatingabiogassourcewithaGTCCfacilityisasimplewayto boosttheconversionefficiencyofthebiogasfromthe25%to40%levelobtainedin reciprocatingenginesormicroturbines(simplecycle)tothehigherGTCCefficiencyof about50%.Thebiogascanbeupgradedtopipelinequality(i.e.likenaturalgas)by strippingtheCO2andremovingsulfurcompoundsthatmaybepresent.Upgraded biogascouldbecofiredinanyproportionwithnaturalgas. NaturalGasCofiringwithBiomass APIERfundedprojectwasimplementedattwoCaliforniabiomasspowerfacilities whichusednaturalgascofiringtoimprovetheenvironmentalperformance,reduce capacityproblemsassociatedwithlowqualityfuels,andincreaseloadfollowing capabilityforthefacilities.ThelowNOxgasburnerswereretrofittedtotwoexisting boilerfacilitiesinNorthernCaliforniaanddemonstrationswerecompleted.The technologypurportstoreducecarbonmonoxideandopacitylevelswhenlowqualityor highmoisturebiomassfuelisbeingburned.Additionally,thenaturalgasburnersadd abilitytochangethefuelfeedratemorequicklywhichimprovesloadfollowing. 16
1.4.2 Biomass Integrated Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Efforts

TheU.S.DOEbiomasspowerprogramsupporteddevelopmentworkonbiomass integratedcombinedcyclesystemsinthe1990s.Therewereatleastthreeprojects undertakeninthenationthathadvariousdegreesofsuccess.TheEuropeanUnion, throughtheTHERMIEenergyprogram,hasbeensupportingcommercialscaleIGCC demonstrationsystemsfueledbybiomass.Atthistime,theonlylargescale demonstrationthatranforanysignificantlengthoftimewasatVrnamo,Sweden between1996and1999.ThefollowingaredescriptionsofIGCCcommercialscale demonstrationeffortsworldwide.ThefirstthreewereU.S.DOEsupportedprojects. Paia,Hawaii IncooperationwiththeHawaiiCommercialandSugarCompany,thestateofHawaii, GasTechnologyInstitute(GTI,amergeroftheformerGasResearchInstitute(GRI)and theInstituteofGasTechnology[IGT]),WestinghouseElectricandothers,U.S.DOE providedcostsharedfundingtoscaleupaGTIgasifier(developedbyIGT)toa demonstrationscalethatwouldconsume100tonsperdayofbagasse(sugarcane residue).Thedemonstrationwastoincludehotproducergascleanuptechnologythat couldcreateaproducergassuitablycleanforfiringinagasturbine.Thegasifierwas designedtooperatewithairoroxygenuptopressuresof300psi.Theunitoperatedfor shortperiodsatafuelfeedrateofabout50t/day andapressureof150psibutcreatinga producergasthatwasflared.Thereweresignificantproblemsfeedingthebiomassto thepressurizedreactorwhichwerenotsolvedwitharedesignofthefeedsystem.Funds werenotavailabletocontinuetheprojectafterthesecondfeedingsystemproved inadequate.
16.CECProjectFactsheet: http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/renewable/projects/fact_sheets/GTI_FCTSHT.pdf 48
Burlington,Vermont ABattelle(commercializedbyFERCO)gasifiersizedfor200t/daywoodchipswas installednexttotheboilerattheMcNeilGeneratingStationinBurlington,Vermont.The McNeilfacilityisa50MWRankinesteamcyclebiomassfiredplant.Theproject consistedofscalinguptheBattelledualfluidizedbedgasifiertoproducegasforco firingintheMcNeilboilerinitially,followedbystagedimplementationofgascleaning systemsandagasturbinetobeoperatedontheproducergasasanIGCC.Thegasifier usessteamandhotsandtogasifythebiomass.Thecharandsandfromthefirst fluidizedbedisshuttledtoasecondfluidizedbedreactorandthecharcombustedto heatthesandwhichisrecirculatedtothefirstreactor(SeeFigure115).Steamisusedas thefluidizingandgasificationagentinthefirstreactor,avoidingdilutionwithnitrogen inairandproducingahigherqualitygasforuseintheIGCC.Itoperatesatnear atmosphericpressure. TheprojectwassuccessfulincreatingandcofiringproducergasintheMcNeilboiler.A gasturbinehasnotyetbeeninstalled.ItisuncertainifDOEwillsupportdemonstration withthegasturbineastheemphasisonfederalrenewableenergyresearchisnow focusingontransportationfuelsbecauseofenergysecurityissues.FERCOisnotableto financethedemonstrationwithagasturbinebyitself.
Figure 1-15. Schematic of the FERCO gasifier.

Photo Credit: Mark Paisley, FERCO (2004).
GraniteFalls,Minnesota(MnVAP) Agrowerscooperative(MinnesotaValleyAlfalfaProducersorMnVAP),electricutility, university,privatepartners,andstateagenciesformedagrouptositeabiomasspower

49
station.U.S.DOEsponsoredtheprogramaswell.Theconceptwastostriptheleaves fromthegrowerscooperativealfalfaharvest(2,000growers,180,000acres)anduse themforcreatinghighqualityanimalfeed.Thelowproteinstemsweretobeusedfor thebiomassfuel.A75to100MWplantbasedontheGTIpressurizedoxygenenriched airblowngasifier(licensedtoCarbona)supplyinganIGCCsystemwasspecified. Expectedrequiredfeedrateofalfalfastemswas1,100t/day.TheDOEwasprovidingup to$44millionofthe$140to$200millioncostforconstructionoftheplantandassociated facilities. 17 Significantmilestonesaccomplishedby1999included:
Purchaseofexistingalfalfaprocessingplantanddevelopmentofstemandleaf separationtechnology. SigningapowerpurchaseagreementwithNorthernStatesPowerCompanyof Minneapolis,Minnesota,guaranteeingthelongtermsaleofelectricitystarting December31,2001. Formulatedagreementswithfarmerstobuysharesinthecooperativeand makingthemfuturecoownersofthepowerfacility. Obtainingaloanguaranteeand100acresoflanddonatedbythecityofGranite Falls,Minnesota,forthepowerfacility. ReceivingagrantfromtheStateofMinnesotatosupportalfalfaproductionand processingcapabilities.Thestatealsoapprovedregulatorychangesandtax exemptionsworthmorethan$3millionperyeartosupportthealfalfaproducers roleintheproject. Initiatingenvironmentalimpactstudies.
However,in1999,keyfinancingpartnerswithdrewfromtheprojectbecauseof uncertaintieswithfuelsupplyandtheunproventechnology(biomassIGCC)atthis scale. Vrnamo,Sweden TheVrnamoplantwastheworldsfirstbiomassfueledIGCCplantthatoperated successfullyforextendedperiodsoftime.Thisdemonstrationfacilityproducedpower andheat(6MW,9MWt/hour)andwasdevelopedbySydkraftABandFosterWheeler International.Thegasifierwasapressurizedairblowncirculatingfluidbedreactorthat operatedatpressuresof18to22atmospheres.Thefacilityusedfinelyground,dried woodandbarkfeedstock(10to20%moisturecontent)deliveredtothepower generationsitefromanadjacentpreparationfacility.Limitedtestswithpelletizedstraw andrefusederivedfuel(RDF)werealsoperformed(Stevens2001)withsomesuccess.
17.FederalRegisterDocument9924457,filedSept.17,1999.http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA IMPACT/1999/September/Day20/i24457.htm 50
Thegascleaningsystemconsistedofacycloneseparator,followedbyheatexchangeto coolthegastoabout350C(fromabout900C)therebycondensingalkalivaporson particulatematter(Stevens2001).Thepartiallycooledgaswaspassedthroughabarrier filter(ceramicand/orsinteredmetalcandlefilters).Tarandalkalicontentinthe filteredgaswerelessthan5g/m3,and0.1partspermillion(byweight),respectively (StahlandNeergaard1998).Thefilteredgaswasthenfiredinagasturbine(European GasTurbines,Ltd).Thegasturbinegeneratedabout4MW,andthesteambottoming cycleproducedanadditional2MW(Engstrom1998). TheVrnamogasificationsystemhasmoreoperationalexperiencethananyother biomassfiredgasturbinesystem.Figure116showsaschematicoftheVrnamosystem. Thegasifierwascompletedin1993.Intotal,thegasifieroperatedformorethan7,000 hours.Thegasturbinewasmodifiedforusewiththelowenergygasin1995,andtest operationsoftheintegratedbiomassfueledpowergenerationsystembeganthatyear. Bytheendof1999,theintegratedfacilityhadoperatedforatotalofabout3,500hours, withmostofthoseduring1998and1999.Thefacilitywasbuiltasanearcommercial demonstrationandwasnotintendedtoprovidelongtermpowergenerationona commercialbasis.Thedemonstrationofthetechnologywascompletedin1999,andthe facilitywasclosed(Stevens2001).Anonprofitcompanywithtiestoalocaluniversity hasbeenestablishedtoutilizethefacilityforresearchwhichincludesdevelopmentof refusederivedfuelsforuseinanIGCC,productionofhydrogenrichsynthesisgas,and pilotproductionoftransportationfuelsfromsynthesisgas(Stahletal.2004).
Figure 1-16. Schematic of the Vrnamo, Sweden, BIGCC facility

Photo Credit: Adapted from Stahl and Neergaard 1998.
51
Eggborough,England(ARBRE) ThisbiomassfiredIGCCprojectwasselectedforcommercialdemonstrationbythe EuropeanCommissionTHERMIEprograminthemid1990s(Pitcheretal.1998).Itis calledARBREandwassitednearforestoperationresiduesbutalsoincludesa componenttotheprojecttogrowshortrotationcoppicedwillowforthemainfuel source. Thecapacityoftheplantis8MWandusesaTPS(Sweden)atmosphericairblown circulatingfluidizedbedgasifier.Gasconditioningisaccomplishedusingsequential filtrationandscrubbing.Particulatematerialisremovedfromthehotrawgasusinga cyclone,andtarsarethencrackedwhilethegasisstillhot.Thegasisthenpassed throughaheatexchangertorecoverheatthatisusedforgeneratingsteam.Thewarm gasisthenpassedthroughbagfilterstoremoveremainingparticles,andtheproduct thenpassesthroughawetscrubberforfinalconditioning(Stevens2001).Aportionof thegasiscombustedinaboilerandtheremainingproducergasiscompressedand injectedintoaTyphoonindustrialgasturbine.Thegasturbineandthesteamcycleeach produceabout5MWwithprojectedoverallconversionefficiencyof31%(Stevens2001). Constructionoftheprojectbeganin1998andithasbeenoperatedintrialruns.The ownerhassufferedfinancialdifficultiesandthefacilitywasreportedlysoldin bankruptcyproceedings.Thestatusofthefacilityisnotdeterminedatthistime. Otherattempts Therearetwootherprojectsmentionedintheliteratureandonfundingagencywebsites whosestatusisdifficulttodetermine.OneislocatedinCascina,Italy,andownedby BioelettricaSpA.ThisisanotherselectionbytheECTHERMIEdemonstrationprogram. ThedesignincludesaLurgiCFBatmosphericairblowngasifiersizedfor43MWt/hour fuelinput.Theplantshouldgenerate14MW(33%efficiency).Thefuelistobewood chips,andoliveandgrapepomaceresidues.Theproducergaswillbepassedthrough cyclonesforlargeparticulatematterremovalfollowedbycoolingandwetscrubbing. Thegastheniscompressedforinjectionintothegasturbine.Theplantwassupposedto beoperationalin2002buthasbeendelayed.Thereasonsforthedelayhavenotbeen determinedatthistime. TheotherprojectwasslatedforBrazil.CalledtheBrazilianwoodBiomassIntegrated GasificationGasTurbineProject(BIGGT),developmentfundswereprovidedbythe WorldBankandtheUNthroughaprogramcalledGlobalEnvironmentalFacility(GEF). InUnitedStatescurrency,$8millionwasgrantedtodoallpreliminarydevelopment workincludingafuelresourcestudy,environmentalimpacts,plantcomponent specificationandselectionandfinaldesign.TheTPSgasificationprocessandaGeneral Electric(GE)gasturbinewereselected(Babu1999). Thedesigncapacitywas32MW.Fuelwouldincludesomewoodresidueandbagasse butprimarilywouldbefromashortrotationcultivationoperationthatwaspartofthe
52
project.Fromtheplanninganddesignphases,theplantinstallationcostwasestimated at$113million(CarpentieriandSilva1998),includinglandcostsandshortrotationcrop operation.Theprojecthasnotproceededbeyondthedesignstage.Apparentlythehigh costoftheprojectandadownturnintheeconomycontributedtoadecisionnotto continue. Commercialization of Biomass IGCC ThoughthereareseveraloperatingcommercialcoalfueledIGCCfacilities,someof whichcogasifybiomass/MSWcomponents(Williamsetal.2003),therearenostrictly biomassfueledIGCCfacilitiescommerciallyoperating.Thismaybechangingas CarbonaandFERCOEnterprisesreportnewprojectsarebeingdeveloped. CarbonaIGCC CarbonaisaFinnishcompanyactiveinbiomassgasificationandcombustionprojects.It haslicensetomarkettheRENUGASgasifierdevelopedbyGTI(pressurizedair/oxygen gasifier).ThecompanywascalledTampellaPowerandEnviropowerinthepast.It maintainsaresearchandpilotfacilityinFinland.Thecompanyhasdeveloped proprietarygascleaningsystems(basedpartlyonheatedsinteredmetalfiltersand catalyticcracking)foruseinbiomassIGCCapplications(Patel2003). CarbonaissupplyingthegasifierandgascleaningsystemforanIGCCprojectinIndia. Itisproposedtoconsumewoodwasteandcashewandcoconutshells.Fuelfeedrateis plannedfor200t/dayandshouldnet12MW.Theprojectcostis$22million.Project initiationisawaitingfinaldecisionfromfinancingpartners.SeeFigure117foraprocess diagramoftheIndiaproject. FERCOEnterprises 18 AnenergyfirmintheEngland(PeninsulaPower)isplanningtobuilda23MW(net) BIGCCfacilityusingtheFERCOgasifierandaSiemensCyclonegasturbine.Fuelwill comefromaconsortiumofenergycropgrowers(shortrotationwillowcoppiceand miscanthus)andlocalforestryoperationwastes.Theprojectcostisreportedtobe$70 millionofwhich$20millionisarenewableenergygrantawardfromthegovernment. Theprojectisinthepermittingstage.
18.InformationgatheredfrompersonalcommunicationwithMarkPaisley,FERCOEnterprises, in2004.Othersourcesincludehttp://www.peninsulapower.co.uk/and http://www.biggreenenergy.com,bothaccessedin2004. 53
STEAM TO HRSG CYCLONE
PARTICULATE REMOVAL CLEAN PRODUCT GAS WATER FROM HRSG AI GAS TURBINE No. 2 4 MWe
GASIFIER
GA COOLER FLY ASH AI GAS TURBINE No. COMPRESSOR BOOSTE 4 MWe HEAT STEAM BOOSTER COMPRESSOR
BIOMASS WASTE 8 t/h
BED
AIR FROM GAS COOLER STACK TO COOLER
STEAM
STEAM TURBINE ASH AND BED MATERIAL CONDENSER
4 MWe
Figure 1-17. Process diagram of the Carbona India IGCC project.

Photo Credit: Carbona USA.
AprojectinForsytheCounty,Georgia,isunderdevelopmentbyBiomassGas&Electric, LLC.TheprojectwillbelocatedadjacenttoaConstructionandDemolitionDebris landfill.Mostofthefuelwillbecleanwoodwastessuppliedbythelandfilloperator. Supplementalfuelwillbesawmillwastesandherbaceouscropresidues.AFERCO gasifierhasbeenselected.Initially,thegasifierwillprovidefuelforasteamboiler.Later planscallforinstallationofagasturbineforcombinedcycleoperation.Theplantwill consume400tonsperdayoffuelandproduceapproximately20MW.Theprojecthas receivedzoningapprovalsandenvironmentalpermittingisunderway.Power purchasingagreementsarebeingnegotiated. AthirdFERCOgasifierprojectisindevelopment.ThisprojectisinthestateofNew Yorkandwillinitiallyfuelasteamboilerandsteamcyclewithadditionofgasturbines orreciprocatingengineslater.Theprojectisobtainingzoningapprovals.Thefuelsource wasnotreported. BIGCC Conclusion ThereisageneralviewthattheU.S.DOEsponsoredbiomassIGCCprojectsfailed becausenoneoftheprojectseveroperatedinIGCCmode.Thisviewisstrengthenedby therecentemphasisofResearch,Development,Demonstration,andDeployment (RDDD)programsdirectedatbiofuelsandbioproducts(biorefineries)attheU.S.DOE
54
whichnecessarilyreducesresourcesand,therefore,interestinbiomasspower development. ThereasonsthattheBIGCCdemonstrationprojectsintheUnitedStatesnevercameto fruitionareultimatelyfinancial.TheMnVAPprojectneverreachedtheconstruction stagebecausebankfinancingbackedout.ThePaia,Hawaii,projectwasperhaps handicappedfromtheoutsetbyapoorchoiceoffuelandreactorcombination,creating anobstaclethatcouldnotbeovercomebythebudgetedtimeandmoney.The Burlington,Vermont(FERCO)project,bymostreports,successfullydemonstratedthe Battellegasifieratacommercialscale.Lackoffunding,andperhapsinterestinfollow up,hinderedinstallationofgasconditioningsystemsandthegasturbinetocomplete theproject. ThereremainsaneedtodevelopanddemonstratebiomassIGCCintheUnitedStatesin ordertoprovidefinanciersahomegrowncasestudy.Therearefewtonooptions availabletodeveloperswhenfacedwithrepoweringafacilitythathasreacheditsuseful life,orinsitinganewone.Developingimprovedefficiencyofbiomassconversionfor heatandpowerinCaliforniaandthenationsothattheyareavailablewhentheneed arises(whichmanyargueisnow)isimportantbecauseoftheopportunitiesfor increaseddiversityinthepowergenerationfuelsupply,loadandvoltagesupporttothe gridfromthedistributedgenerationopportunities,improvementstoruraleconomies, reductionsingreenhousegasemissions,andotherenvironmentalimprovements. TherecentlyannouncedcommercialprojectsbyCarbonaandFERCOareencouraging, especiallybecausetwooftheFERCOdevelopmentsareintheUnitedStates.The announcedprojectsalltargethomogeneousfuelsources(mostlycleanwoodchips). Continuedinvestigationwhichincludessuitabilityofotherfuelsthatcomprisethe diverseCaliforniabiomassresourceisnecessary.Increasedavailabilityofcleanwood fuelsfromforestthinningandrelatedoperationsisnotassuredintheneartermbecause permittingforestfuelsreductioneffortsonpubliclandsisexpectedtobetiedupinthe courts.TherearelargeamountsofnonforestbiomasscurrentlyavailableinCalifornia, includingagriculturalresidues,andMSWbiomass.
1.4.3 Small Scale and Modular Biomass

In1998,theNRELplaced10costsharedcontractstodevelopsmall,modularbiomass powersystems.ThesewerethefirstphaseoftheSmallModularBioPowerInitiative (threephasesplanned),whichisaimedatdeterminingthefeasibilityofdeveloping systemsthatarefuelflexible,efficient,simpletooperate,andwhoseoperationwillhave minimumnegativeimpactsontheenvironment.PhaseIwastodeterminethefeasibility ofdevelopingcosteffectivetechnologiesandidentifyingthepotentialmarketsforeach ofthesystems. Smallmodularsystemshavepotentialapplicationsinbothdomesticandinternational markets.Theymayhavecostadvantagesinnichemarketsbecauseoftheirmodularity, standardizedmanufacture,andtransport.Simpleconnectionswillrequireaminimum
55
offieldengineeringatoperationalsites.Theintendedpowerrangeforthesesystemsis from5kWto5MW.ThecompaniesandprojectsawardedPhaseIfeasibilitystudiesare listedinTable115. DOE Small Modular Biomass Phase II In1999,PhaseIIawardsweremadetofourofthePhaseIprojectdevelopers (CommunityPowerCorp.,ExternalPower,FlexEnergy,andCarbona). CommunityPowerCorporation CommunityPowerCorp.(CPC)receivescofundingfromtheCaliforniaEnergy Commission(CaliforniasmallmodularbiomassPIER)onthisandothersmallscale biopowerprojects.Forthesmallmodularbiomassprogram(U.S.DOE),theCPCsystem usesafixedbeddowndraftgasifierwhichrunsasparkignition(SI)engineand generatorset(Biomax).Thesystemusesengineintakevacuumtoprovidedraftforthe gasifier.Theenginerunsonpropaneduringstartup.Duringsteadystateoperationof thegasifier,additionalairisinjectedinthebottomofthegasifiertooxidizesomeofthe charandmaintaintemperature.Someofthetarproductiscrackedorcombustedbythis actionitisclaimed.Theproducergasiscooledtoabout50Cwheresometaris condensed(thegasismeanttoremainabovethedewpointsothatwatervaporis inductedintotheengine).Theheatextractedinthecoolingprocessisusedtodrythe feedstockintheshortelevatorconveyancethattransfersfuelfromthehoppertothe gasifier.Thecooledgasisthenpassedthroughabagfiltertoremovemostofthe particulatematter.Itwasobservedfromoperationalexperiencethatasalayerofcarbon containingparticulatebuildsuponthefiltersurface,tarconcentrationintheexitgas decreased.Thematerialonthefiltersurfaceadsorbsand/orcrackssomeofthetar.Tar concentrationofthegassenttotheengineisconsistentlybelow50partspermillion (ppm),andlevelsof10ppmcanbeachieved.Aconsiderableadvantageisthatthe processemitsnoliquideffluent(whichusuallypresentsawastemitigationissue); howevertheparticulatematerialcapturedinthebagfilterislikelytobehazardousand willrequireappropriatedisposal(perhapsthismaterialcanbedisposedofbyre injectingitintothegasifier).ThemarketisforruralapplicationsintheUnitedStatesand developingnationsinacapacityrangeof2.5to100kW(Figure118).Currently,threeor four15kWunitsarebeingdeployedforlongtermfieldtesting.Thecurrentdesign capacityistoosmalltogathermuchinterestintheUnitedStatesmarket.TheUnited StatesForestService(USFS),NREL,andtheEnergyCommissionaresponsoringCPCto developalargercapacityunit.A50kWdesignisbeingdiscussedfordemonstrationin Californiaearlyin2005.
56
Table 1-15. DOE small modular biomass Phase I awards 19 Company Community Power Corporation, Aurora, CO Sun Power, Inc. (External Energy) Athens, OH Carbona Corporation, Napa, CA Reflective Energies, Inc. (FlexEnergy) Mission Viejo, CA Agrielectric Power, Inc. Lake Charles, LA Bechtel National Incorporated, San Francisco, CA Bioten General Partnership, Knoxville, TN Energy and Environmental Research Center Grand Forks, ND Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Syracuse, NY STM Corporation Ann Arbor, MI Technology Gasification with spark ignition engine / generator Combustion with Stirling engine / generator Up-draft gasification with boiler/steam turbine Microturbine for biogas applications Fluidized-bed combustion with steam turbine Gasification with spark ignition engine / generator, combustion turbine, or fuel cells Direct-fired combustion turbine Fluidized bed combustion, heat exchange fluid, steam generation, steam turbine Gasification with spark ignition engine / generator or combustion turbine / generator Gasification with Stirling engine / generator
See http://www.eere.energy.gov/biopower/projects.ia_tech_sm_exec.htm
Figure 1-18. Schematic of CPC small modular system in Phase I stage

Photo Credit: Adapted from the Small Modular Biomass Phase I executive summary
A12kWsystemhasbeenoperatedattheHoopaIndianReservationinNorthern Californiaincludingdemonstrationofgridconnectedperformance.InCombinedHeat andPower(CHP)operation,thesystemhasoverallefficiencyofapproximately60% 20

19.Seehttp://www.eere.energy.gov/biopower/projects.ia_tech_sm_exec.htm 20.CECPIER2002AnnualReport,http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/20030328_50002 076F.pdf 57
althoughtheelectricalefficiencyis15to16%basedonastatedfuelconsumptionof3lbs perhourperkWatanominalwoodmoistureof15%afterdrying.Fueldryingisoneuse oftheenginerejectheat.TheobjectivesfortheprojecttobecommercialinCalifornia(for aCHPsystem)includecapitalcostof$1,000/kW,costofelectricitylessthan15 cents/kilowatthour(kWh),andcostofheatlessthan$1.20/therm.Theunit(s)in Californiahavebeenoperatedoncleanwoodfueltypicalofforestthinningoperations andmillresidues.UnitsinthePhilippinesoperateonwoodresiduesandcoconuthusks andshell. CPCisalsoreceivingU.S.DOEfundsthroughtheSmallBusinessInnovationResearch Program(SBIR)tofuelthesystemwithpoultrylitter.Thisprojectiscooperatingwith FERCO,IowaState,UniversityofArkansas,andothersonthisproject.CPCclaimsto havebeenthefirstgrouptopowerasolidoxidefuelcellongasifiedbiomass.Thiswasa small,lessthan3wattfuelcelldevelopedbyAscentPowerSystems. 21 TheCPCdowndraftgasifierisnearlycommercialwhenoperatedoncleanwoodfuels andmaybeanattractiveoptionfordistributedgenerationwithfuelfromforest thinnings.CPChasrecentlybeenawardedanothergrantfromtheEnergyCommission fordevelopmentofa50kWunit. FlexEnergy FlexEnergyisdevelopingaLeanFueledcatalyticMicroturbineTechnology.Itisa microturbinecapableofoperatingonlowenergygas(biogas,airgasifiedbiomass,etc.). Thefuelgasismixedwithcombustionairpriortocompressionwhichreducesparasitic lossesfromseparatefuelgascompression.Toeliminateexplosionhazards,thefuelgas mustbemixedatconcentrationsbelowtheflammabilitylimitandtherebyrequiresa catalysttoinitiatecombustion.TheturbineisanadaptedCapstoneC30(30kW)turbine. Ithasbeenrunonsimulatedproducergas(COandH2)andbiogas(naturalgasdiluted torepresenttheenergycontentofadigestergas)andreportedlydevelopedfull30kW power. FlexEnergyiscurrentlyreceivingPIERfundstodemonstratethetechnologyusing digestergas(CalPoly)andlandfillgasatthePuenteHillslandfillnearLosAngeles. FuturedevelopmentworkincludesrunningtheFlexEnergymicroturbineongasified biomass(wood)fromCPCandothergasifiers.TheEnergyandEnvironmentalResearch CenterattheUniversityofNorthDakotaiscurrentlysettingupthetestgasifiersto operatethemicroturbine.Thereisalsoapendingdemonstrationprojecttogasifypecan shellsataprocessingplantinArizona(withsupportfromtheNationalRuralElectric CooperativeAssociation). AfurtherproposedandfundedprojectiswiththeSouthCoastAirQualityManagement District.Thisdemonstrationwillusewastegasesfromanindoorcompostingfacilityin Chino,California,supplementedwithdigestergasinordertoconsumetheVolatile
21.CPCmediarelease,2002.http://www.gocpc.com/ 58
OrganicCompounds(VOC)andammoniaemissionsfromthecompostfacility.Thisis attractivebecausethelowtemperaturecatalyticcombustionhasextremelylowNOx emissions. TheFlexEnergymicroturbineisstilldevelopmentalbutitspotentialadvantagewillbe theabilitytoproducepowerfromlowenergyfuelgaswithverylowNOxemissions,a significantinnovationforbiomasssmallmodulartechnology. SunPower(ExternalEnergy) Thissmallmodularbiomassconceptusescombustionofbiomasstoprovideheatfora freepistonStirlingengine(externalcombustionengine)togenerate1kWpowerand provideheatforspaceandwater.Thisistargetedforresidentialscaleuse.Duringearly stagesofthePhaseIIportionoftheU.S.DOEprogram,aprototypewasdevelopedand tested.Thereweretechnologyownershipissuesbeingdisputedandthecostofpre productionengineswasveryhighsotheprojectwasterminated(Bainetal.2003). StirlingEnergySystems,Inc. StirlingEnergySystems(SES)isdevelopingaStirlingenginetooperateondigestergas andsimilarfuels.SEShasacontractthroughtheHetchHetchyrenewablegeneration projectfundedthroughtheEnergyCommissionsPIERprogram(acompanionprojectof theSMUDReGenproject)andisscheduledtodemonstrateaunitatanInlandEmpire UtilityAgency(IEUA)site.SESisplanningonusingamodifiedKockums(Sweden) MarkIIengine. Carbona TheCarbonasmallmodularbiomassprojectinvolvesbiomassgasificationforcombined heatandpower.ThesystemisbeingpreparedfordemonstrationinSkive,Denmark.A fluidizedbedgasifierfedbyairandsteamgasifiespelletizedwoodfuel(seeFigure1 19).Hotproducergaspassesthroughacatalytictarcrackerreducingtaramounts(tar productionandreductionamountswerenotreported)followedbycoolingbefore passingthroughbagfiltersforparticulatematter(PM)removal.Theproducergasthen passesthroughawetscrubber(presumablytocapturesomeacidgasesandremaining tarsandPM).Thedispositionandqualityofthegasscrubbingwaterwasnotreported.
59
Figure 1-19. Simplified schematic of the Carbona Skive project

Photo Credit: Carbona Corporation
Aportionofthegasstreamisfiredinreciprocatingenginegensets(GEJenbacher GmbH)producingapproximately5MW.Theremaininggasstreamisburnedinaboiler andcombinedwithengineheat;about11MWisproducedforthedistrictheating application.Therelativeamountsofheatandpowerarevariabledependingonseasonal needs.Thissystemisexpectedtoconsume100tonsperdayofwoodfuel. Theprojectcostapproximately$24million,ofwhich$5millionisfromEuropean agenciesandU.S.DOE.Arecentpressreleaseindicatesthatacontracthasbeensigned fordeliveryandinstallationoftheCHPfacility(Patel2004). Other Small Biomass Power Systems (United States) Therearemanypotentialsmallscale(and/ormodular)biomasssystemsbeingmarketed intheUnitedStates.Mostaresolidfuelcombustioninaboilerforheatandpower generation.Somearebasedongasifierswithavarietyofprimemovertechnologyfor powergeneration.FollowingarebriefdescriptionsofaprojectoutsideofCaliforniaand twocompaniesthatareinvolvedinsmallbiomassgasification. ConnecticutCleanEnergyFund TheConnecticutCleanEnergyFundissponsoringtheinstallationofabiomassgasifier CHPsystem. 22 Theprojectwillconsumesawmillresidueandprovideabout300kWto thegridandhotwater(asmuchas500kW)tothesawmillatNorthCanaan, Connecticut.
22.TheCCEFcanbefoundathttp://www.ctcleanenergy.com/ 60
Thegasifierisa1MWdowndraftairblownreactorthatwilloperateatabout1.5 atmospherepressure(absolute).Thegasifier,aswellasthegascleaningsystem,is designedbyPuhdasEnergiaOyofTampere,Finland. Thegascleaningsystemconsistsofdirectandevaporativecooling(seeFigure120) followedbyanelectrostaticprecipitator(ESP)forparticulatematterandaerosol (condensedtars)removal.FollowingtheESP,thegasflowsthroughawaterscrubber whichcapturessomeoftheremainingcondensablecompounds.Thereispotentialfor theESPtocreateasmallamountofslurriedresiduewhichreportedlycanbedisposed bymixingwiththebiomassfuelbeforedrying(apotentialairemissionissuefromthe dryer)orburnedinanaccompanyingcombustor. 23 ThecleanedproducergaswillfuelaMercedesCIengineusingdieselasapilotfuel. Thesystemiscurrentlyundergoingpreliminarystartuptesting.Thereareseveral hundredhoursofgasifieroperationwhichincludessomepowergeneration(Miles 2005).Earlyestimatedinstalledcostwas$1.2million($4,000/kW)(Nadgauda2004).
Figure 1-20. Schematic of gasifier CHP project at North Canaan, Connecticut

Photo Credit: Nadgauda, 2004
23.SeewriteupbySampoTukiainenat http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/pudhas1mw.html 61
AltexTechnologies AltexTechnologiesisanengineeringservicesfirmwithexpertiseinlowemission combustionsystemsandheattransferapplications.UnderaU.S.DOEsmallbusiness innovationresearch(SBIR)grant,Altexdevelopedanddemonstratedasystemtocreate heatandpower(25kW)fromthecombustionofdairywaste. Thesystemconsistsofastagedcycloniccombustor,hightemperaturegastogasheat exchanger,andagasturbinepoweredbyhotgasfromtheheatexchanger.Ancillary equipmentincludedinitialmechanicaldewateringsystem(manurewasobtainedfrom thedairywastesluicingsystemwithinitial95%moisturecontent),arotarydrumdryer utilizingwasteheattoforfinalfuelmoistureconditioning,solidfuelstorageand handling,andashextractionsystems. Resourcesdidnotallowforselectionofoptimalsystemcomponents(e.g.,thegas turbineusedwasasurplusaircraftauxiliarypowerunit)andinitialexperimentsshowed thatthefuelneededtobedryerthanoriginallyplanned.JohnKelley(PresidentofAltex Technologies)indicatedthatwiththesuboptimalgasturbineusedinthedemonstration system,electricalproductionefficiencywaslessthan10%.Withoptimizedcomponents, thistypeofsystemburningdairymanuretopoweranexternalcombustiongasturbine cyclecouldprovidesmallscaleelectricityproductionefficienciesofperhaps20% includingfueldrying.Inorderforthecombustionsystemtooperatewiththeintended lowemissions,thefuelwasdriedbelowthatfortheoriginaldesignwhichresultedin highercombustiontemperaturesandcausingtheashtobecomemolten.Thedryash extractionsystemwouldbecomeblockedwhenmoltenashsolidifieduponcooling.The systemcouldoperateforperhaps20to30hoursbeforetheashremovalsystembecame inoperable.Slaggingashremovalsystemsareexistingtechnologyusedonwetbottom coalboilersandhightemperatureslagginggasifiers.Aminimalmodificationtothe combustorbottomandashsystemwouldallowthesystemtooperateforlongperiods withmoltenashproduct. Thecombustorburnsfuelatanominalenergyinputrateof700,000Btu/hour(205kW) whichforricestrawwithaHHVof15MJ/kgrequiresabout50kg/hour.Table116gives somecurrentlyavailableemissionsdatafromtestsonthreebiomassfuels.
Table 1-16. Emissions from the Altex combustor. Fuel Type NOx (ppm) CO (ppm) Dairy manure 150 (@3% O2, dry gas) 200 (@3% O2, dry gas) Rice straw 150 (basis not reported) nr Yard waste 100 (basis not reported) nr nr = not reported
Source: UC Davis Research Team ; Source: Robert Williams ; Source: Altex Technologies
Anadvantageofthestagedcycloniccombustoristhatitsphysicalsizeissmallerthana grateorsuspensionfiredburnerorboilerforagivensolidfuelfeedratebecauselikea fluidizedbedsystem(bubblingorcirculating),solidfuelparticlesremaininthehigh temperaturereactionzoneanduntilsmallenoughtopassthroughthecyclone

62
separatorswiththecombustiongases.Downstreamashfoulingmaybereducedbecause offewerandsmallerparticles(whichcanserveasalkalivaporcondensationsites) carriedinthehotexhaustgasestoheattransfersurfaces. AreportontheEnergyCommissionsEISGprojectisbeingpreparedsomoredetailed informationwillbeforthcoming.Theexecutivesummaryforthepowerfromdairy waste(SBIRPhaseII)indicatesthatacommercializedsystemof250kWcouldhavean internalrateofreturn(IRR)of33%oreven40%(economicanalysisconductedbyAltex). Theeconomicanalysisusedaretailpriceforelectricitycreditedtotheproject(equalto thepriceofelectricitythefarmhadtopay)of$0.10/kWhandreliedonsellingwasteheat at$6.70/MMBtuandclaimedafertilizervalueof$1.61/toneffluentfromthedewatered manure. MuchofthedetailfromAltexsU.S.DOESBIRworkisproprietaryatthistime,soa moreindepthevaluationisnotpossible. Itshouldbenotedthatexternallyfiredgasturbinecycles(indirectBraytoncycles),a possiblepathwaytoimproveconversionefficiencyoflowqualityordifficultsolidfuels, isconsideredexperimentalwithsubstantialtechnicalissuesstilltoovercome.These issuesincludeheatexchangermaterialsanddesignforusewithhightemperature alkalineandchlorinevaporsinthecombustiongasaswellaseconomicalgasturbines forthissizeandapplication. 24 Omnifuel Omnifuelbuildsandmarketsfluidizedbedgasifiersforbiomassandrefusederivedfuel (RDF).ThecompanyhasofficesinOntario,CanadaandFolsom,California.Theprocess originatedfromworkinCanadainthelate1970swhichinvolvedRDFpreparationand gasification.TwodemonstrationunitswerebuiltinCanada(160and500tonsperday capacity)andoneinFrenchGuyana.Allunitsoperatedsuccessfullybutdidnot continuepastthedemonstrationperiodbecauseofeconomics.Thecompanyandits partnersarerespondingtoseveralRequestforProposals(RFP)forrenewableenergy systemsinthewesternUnitedStates. OmnifuelisrespondingtotheSMUDrenewablepowergenerationRFPunderthe emergingrenewablescategory.TheproposedsystemwillbeaCHPfacilitylocated adjacenttotheFolsomPrisonandutilizeanexisting(butidle)wastereceivingand sortingfacility.Twoairblownfluidizedbedgasifiersareproposedtoconvert14tons perhourofshreddedwoodandgreenwastetoproducergas.Thegaswillbefiredina steamboilertorunasteamturbineandsupplyprocesssteamforsaletotheprison.The netelectricalcapacityisestimatedtobeabout3.5MW(Figure121).
24.AdevelopmentprojectispendingwiththeCaliforniaDivisionofForestryandFireProtection, UCDavis,andotherparticipantstodevelopandtestaCHPsystemusinganindirectfiredgas turbineconsumingforestthinnings. 63

Prison Food Waste 2 tpd Existing System Clean Woody Mixed Waste 60 tpd 318 tpd Wood
Sort
10 tpd 11 tpd
Compost
Recyclables Trash
22 tpd
Shred
Fuel Bin
14 tph
24x7
Fuel Storage
Prison Steam 20,000 #/h SMUD 3.35 MW Power
Gasification
Ash 15 tpd
Boiler
Power Gen
Figure 1-21. Schematic of proposed Omnifuel CHP facility

Photo credit: UC Davis Research Team; Photo credit: Robert Williams ; Photo courtesy of Omnifuel
Small-Medium Scale Gasification for CHP (India and Europe) India Indiahaslargeanddiversebiomassresources.Increasingpopulationcombinedwitha modernizingeconomyisresultinginarapidlyincreasingenergydemand.TheMinistry ofNonconventionalEnergySources(MNES)inIndiaissettingpolicyandgathering resourceandenergystatisticsinordertoincreaseuseofnonfossilenergyandincrease ruralelectrification.TheMNESreportsthatinIndiatherearepresently1,840biomass gasifiersforacombinedcapacityof58MW(30kWaverage)(Girdhar2004). AnkurScientific AnkurScientificinGujarat,India,buildsandmarketsdowndraftgasifiersforheatand powerproduction.Therearemanyunitsemployed,mostlyinAsiainvarioussizesless than500kW.Manyoftheinstallationsareusedtoreplaceaportionofdieselfuelin dieselenginegeneratorsets(Ankurindicatesthatdieselfuelflowisreducedbyabout 70%whenrunninginthedualfuelmode).TheEnergy&EnvironmentalResearch Center(EERC)atUniversityofNorthDakotaisoperatinganAnkurWBG200gasifierto supplyfuelgasforFlexMicroturbinetesting.
64
Coarse and Fine fabric filters Wet Scrubber

Figure 1-22. Schematic of Ankur downdraft gasifier with dual-fuel power generation configuration
Photo credit: UC Davis Research Team; Photo credit: Robert Williams ; Photo courtesy of Ankur Scientific
Gascleanupforuseinreciprocatingenginesiscomposedofawetscrubberandcoarse andfinefabricfilters(seeFigure122).PMandtarconcentrationsweremeasuredafter gascleaningforaBG400Ankurgasifier,presumablyfueledbywoodchips(Wenetal. 1999).WenreportsPMandtarconcentrationstobe0.30and1.34mg/Nm3,respectively. Table117listsapproximatePMandtarlimitsforproducergasusedtofuel reciprocatingorgasturbineengines.Thesearepostulatedorruleofthumbvalues, thoughapistonengineoperatedformorethan1,500hoursonaproducergaswithtar contentof300mg/Nm3withnooperationalproblems,suggestingthattheupperlimiton tarneedsfurtherinvestigation(Hasleretal.1998).Nevertheless,thereportedPMand tarcontentsoftheAnkursystemdescribedbyWenetal.(1999)arewellbelowthe requirementsforgasturbinefuel.
Table 1-17. Approximate producer gas quality requirements (Stassen 1993). Reciprocating Gas Turbine Engine Particulate Matter mg/Nm3 < 50 <30 Tar mg/Nm3 <100 <5 <0.24 Alkali metals mg/Nm3
Incompletetestsweredoneonthewetscrubbereffluentwhichindicatespresenceof hydrocarboncontamination(asexpectedwithscrubberwaterusedinproducergas cleaning).TheAnkurrelatedliteraturedoesnotdiscusstheamountofscrubbereffluent

65
norwhatdegreeofprocessingisrequiredtotreattheeffluentbeforedisposing. Hydrocarboncontaminatedwastewaterfromproducergascleaningremainsan importantenvironmentaland/oreconomicalissue. OverallelectricalefficienciesoftheAnkurgasifierandreciprocatingenginegenerator systemsareabout15to20%basedonreportedwoodfuelconsumptionof1to1.3 kg/kWh. IndianInstituteofScience,Bangalore TheIndianInstituteofScience(IISc)hasbeendevelopinganopentopdowndraft gasifier(modifiedfromanopentopChinesedesign)formanyyears.Professor Mukundahasbeentheleadinvestigator. Therearesome37systemsbasedontheIIScopentopdowndraftgasifierinstalled(31 areinIndiaofwhicheighthaveelectricitygenerationusingdualfueledcompression ignitionorgasonlyfueledsparkignitionengines).IIScisinvolvedinUnitedNations developmentprogramsforruralelectrificationinIndia.Additionally,anIIScCHP systemhasbeeninvestigatedandtestedbytheSwissFederalOfficeforEducationand SciencesandtheSwissFederalOfficeofEnergy(Hasleretal.1998;Haslerand Nussbaumer1999;HaslerandNussbaumer2000).TheBrazilianReferenceCenteron Biomass(CENBIO)atSoPauloUniversityisinvestigatingtheIIScsystemforpossible applicationinisolatedcommunitiesintheAmazonregion(Coelhoetal.2004). FollowingtheinterestoftheSwissgovernment,acompany(XylowattSA)formedto marketthesystemsinEurope.AfacilitywascommissionedbyXylowattin2002atasaw millinBulle,Switzerland.ThefacilityisaCHPoperationconsumingabout55kg/hour ofwoodresiduesfromthesawmill(1.4t/daybasedon24houroperation).Thefacility generates50kWand108kWth.Theelectricalgenerationandusefulheatefficienciesare 22%and48%,respectively(Giordano2003). Figure123showsaschematicoftheXylowattfacility.Gasiscleanedusingacyclone, followedbycooling,wetscrubbing,andfinallyfiltering(fabricfilter).Gasqualitybefore andaftercleaningisreportedinTable118.Thegascleaningsystememitswaterand sludgeatarateof14kg/hand0.2kg/h,respectively(Giordano2003).Analysisofwaste waterindicateditisacceptablefordischargeunderSwissregulations.Analysisofthe sludgedischargeandwhetherthewaterwastreatedbeforedischargewasnotreported.
66
Table 1-18. Product gas tar and particulate matter concentration, Xylowatt Bulle facility
(Giordano 2003)
Component Tar Particulate Matter Raw Gas 250 200 Cleaned Gas 106 42 Units mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3
Figure 1-23. Schematic of a Xylowatt SA biomass gasifier CHP facility

Photo Credit: P. Giordano
Small Biomass CHP in Europe Thereismuchcontinuingdevelopmentandimplementationofbiomasspowerandfuels productionsystemsinEuropewhichincludesmanysmallwoodgasifiersforheatand powerinthepilot,commercialdemonstration,ordemonstrationstatus(seeTable119 forapartiallisting).Thereareanumberoffacilitiesbeingpermittedorunder construction.Aresearchanddemonstrationunitandanewcommercialfacilityin Europearediscussedhere.TheSkive,Denmark,CHPfacilityisdiscussedintheU.S. DOEsmallmodularbiomasssectionabove(becauseitisreceivingsomeofitsfunding throughtheU.S.DOEprogram).
67
Table 1-19. Selected small scale gasifiers operating in Europe (Knoef 2003; Rauch et al. 2004; Buffinga and Knoef 2001).
Location Rossano Gssing Harboore Neustadt Tervola Hogild Regal Armaugh (Blackwater Valley II) Spiez Bulle Hengelo Gazel London (Beddington Zero Energy) Londonderry Armaugh (Blackwater Valley I) Bladel Lyngby Italy Austria Denmark Austria Finland Denmark Belgium N Ireland Switzerland Switzerland Netherlands Belgium UK N Ireland N Ireland Netherlands Denmark Supplier PRM Repotec Babcock & Wilcox, Volund AHT (modified) Entimos Oy Hollensen Xylowatt-Beigium Exus Energy (b9 Biomass) Pyroforce Xylowatt-Swiss (IISc design) HoSt Xylowatt-Beigium Exus Energy (b9 Biomass) Rural Generation Ltd. Exus Energy (b9 Biomass) BTG Technical University, Denmark (DTU) Grubl System* Updraft Dual Fluidized Bed Updraft 2- stage Dowdraft Combined Updraft/Downdraft Downdraft Downdraft Downdraft Downdraft Open top Downdraft Downdraft Downdraft Downdraft Downdraft Downdraft Bubbling Fluidized Bed Viking' 2-stage DTU
b a
Fuel Olive residue Wood chips Wood chips Wood chips Wood chips Wood chips Mill residue Wood chips Wood chips Wood chips Wood chips Mill residue Wood chips Wood chips Wood chips Chicken Manure Wood chips
Power (kWe) 4000 2000 1500 500 450 400 300 200 200 200 200 150 130 100 100 60 20
Year Commissioned 2003? 2002 2000 2003 2003 1998 2002 2000 2002 2002 2001 2000 2002 2000 1998 2002 2002
Stubenberg Austria Downdraft Wood chips 15 1998 *Except where noted, systems are fixed bed air-blown, atmospheric gasifiers. Reciprocating engines are used for power generation (multiple engines in some cases) a.) Steam Gasification with air fed char combustion (dual fluidized bed) b.) Fluidized bed Knoef 2003; Rauch et al. 2004; Buffinga and Knoef 2001
AnovelgasifierCHPprojectisoperatinginGssing,Austria.Thefacilitycanbe describedasacommercialscaledemonstration.Thesystemconsumeswoodchips producing2MWand4.5MWth.Thegasifierisadualfluidizedbedreactor.The biomassisgasifiedwithsteamandheatfrombedmediainabubblingbedreactor configuration.Thecharandbedmediaaretransferredtoaparallelreactorwhich operatesinrecirculatingfluidizedbedmodewhereairisintroducedtocombustthechar whichheatsthebedmedia.Theheatedbedmediaistransferredtothebiomassgasifier (SeeFigure124).TheconceptisessentiallythesameasthatemployedintheFERCO SilvaGasunits.
68
Steam
Figure 1-24. Schematic of the Fast Internal Circulating Fluidized Bed (FICFB) gasifier, Gssing, Austria
Photo Credit: Bolhar-Nordenkampf and Hofbauer 2004
Oneadvantageofgasifyingwithsteamisthattheproducergasisnotdilutedwith nitrogenasisthecasewithairblowngasification.TheproducergasfromtheGssing CHPfacilityiscooledandthencleanedintwostages.Thefirststagegascleaning consistsofafabricfilterwhichseparatesmostPMandsometar.Thematerialcollected bythefilterisrecycledtothecombustionreactor.Thesecondgascleaningstageisawet scrubber.Table120showslevelsofcomponentsintheproducergasthatmustbe controlledbeforeintroductiontoareciprocatingengine(beforeandafterthegasclean upsystem).

Table 1-20. Contaminants in Gssing producer gas before and after cleaning (BolharNordenkampf and Hofbauer 2004) Component Raw Gas Cleaned Gas Units Tar 1,500 4,500 10-40 mg/Nm3 Particulate Matter 5,000 10,000 <5 mg/Nm3 Ammonia 1,000 2,000 <400 ppm Hydrogen Sulfide not measured 20-40 ppm
Bolhar-Nordenkampf and Hofbauer 2004
Spentscrubberliquidcontainingtarandcondensedmaterialisevaporatedanddisposed inthecombustionreactor.Cleanedproducergasissenttoagasengineandboilerfor heat.Therelativedistributionofgastotheengineorboilerdependsonheatandpower needs.Figure125showsaschematicofgasflowattheGssingfacility.Thefacilityhas anelectricalefficiencyandoverallCHPefficiencyof25%and81%,respectively(Rauch etal.2004).
69
Figure 1-25. Schematic of the Gssing gasifier and gas clean-up

Photo Credit: Rauch et al. 2004
Kokemki,FinlandCHP AnupdraftbiomassgasifierforCHPisundergoingshakedown/commissioningtrialsat Kokemki,Finland.ThisprojectisbeingmanagedbyCarbonawithcooperationfrom VTT. 25 NovelGasifierBackground TheNovelgasifierwasdevelopedbyVTTandCondensOYtoovercomesomeofthe technicalproblemsexperiencedwiththecommerciallysuccessfulBioneergasification systemsoperatinginFinland.TheBioneerdesignusesanupdraft,atmosphericpressure, airblownreactor.Theproducergasisconveyedtoanearbycombustorwhereitis burnedwithoutanytreatmentofthefuelgas.Theprimarytechnicallimitationsofthe Bioneersystemsare;(1)notsuitableforlowbulkdensitywoodresidues(sawdust,bark, forestslash),(2)operatespoorlywhenfuelmoistureisabove45%,(3)tarbuildupin productgaspiperequiresfrequentshutdownandcleaning,and(4)fuelfeedingsystems leakproducergasduetobackpressure(Kurkelaetal.2000).TheBioneergasifiersare appliedmainlyindistrictheatingsystemsandbeganoperationinthemid1980s. ApproximatelynineBioneerfacilitieshavebeenconstructed.In2002,onewasstillin continuousoperationandtheotherswerefiredasneeded(IEA2002).TheBioneer facilitiesareautomatedrequiringminimalattention. TheNovelCondensOYreactorisessentiallythesameastheBioneer.Thefuelfeeding systemhasbeenimprovedtoeliminatebackflowofproducergas.Thefeedsystemalso allowsabroaderrangeoffuelparticlesizeanddensitiestobeutilizedsuchassawdust andotherfinematerial.Airforgasificationishumidifiedinawaterspraytankinorder toreducereactortemperature.Secondaryairisaddedabovethemainreactionzonein ordertocracksomeoftheproducedtars.Theproducedgascanbeburneddirectlyfor
25.VTTisalargetechnicalresearchcontractorganizationinFinland. 70
heatapplicationsorthegascanbeconditionedforuseinreciprocatingorgasturbine engines. Kokemki,FinlandCHPPlant The NovelCondens OY CHP plant at Kokemki, Finland, is undergoing shakedown trials (summer/fall 2005). The anticipated fuel is urban and/or sawmill waste wood. The design includes gas cleanup and conditioning (e.g., tar reforming, gas cooling, and filtering and final scrubbing) before being fed to three 600 kW Jenbacher reciprocating engines (see Figure 126). Not shown is an auxiliary boiler used for periods of high heat demand; otherwise recovered engine heat satisfies the district heat and fuel drying requirements.Thedesigncapacityis1.8MWand3.1MWthwithoutauxiliaryboilerand 4.3 MWth with firing the auxiliary boiler. Electrical and overall efficiencies are 30% and 80%, respectively, for normal operation and 26% and 85%, respectively, when using the auxiliaryboiler(seeTable121).
Table 1-21. Nominal energy balance for Kokemki CHP plant (Patel 2004)
Normal With Auxiliary Operation Boiler Fuel input Electricity Production Heat Production Fuel Drying (from existing separate heat plant) e* th overall kW kW kW 6200 1836 3100 7200 1836 4300
kW % % %
429 29.6 50.0 79.6
429 25.5 59.7 85.2
* = efficiency (useful energy or work output divided by energy input)
71
Figure 1-26. Schematic of novel gasifier CHP facility under construction at Kokemki, Finland
Photo Credit: VTT Processes
26
InvestmentcostforaNovelgasifierforheatonlyapplicationsissimilartothatofthe Bioneerfacilities(350to420Euro/kWthin2000)(Kurkelaetal.2000). Fuel Cell from Biogas Demonstration TheSouthWasteWaterTreatmentplantinKingCounty,Washington(PugetSound area)willdemonstrateoperationofa1MWmoltencarbonatefuelcellusingdigester gas.TheU.S.EPAisprovidingfinancialsupport.ThefuelcellwasdevelopedbyFuel CellEnergy,Inc.(Danbury,Connecticut).Athreeyeardemonstrationperiodisplanned. Thepotentialadvantageoffuelcellconversionofdigestermethaneisimproved conversionefficiencyandessentiallyzeroNOxemissions.Systemsofthisscalefor operationonmethanearedevelopmentalandveryexpensive.Designand construction/installationcostsoftheKingCountysystemwere$22million.Estimated annualoperationsandmaintenancecostsare$80,000(Bush2003).Phosphoricacidfuel cellshavealreadybeentestedbyEPAonlandfillgasatseveralsites. TheLosAngelesCountySanitationDistrictsinstalledamoltencarbonatefuelcellatthe PalmdaleWaterReclamationPlant.ThePalmdalefacilitytreatsapproximately9.5 milliongallonsperdayofwastewater.Theanaerobicdigestersatthefacilitygenerate about80scfm 27 ofbiogascontainingapproximately55%methane(McDannel2005). Thefuelcell,providedbyFuelCellEnergyisamoltencarbonatetypewithinternal reforminghavingagrosscapacityof250kW(modelDFC300A).
26.SmallscalegasificationprocessesforCHP.Technicalnote:http://www.vtt.fi.pro 27.Standardcubicfeetperminute,whichisameasureofairflowatastandardtemperatureand astandardpressureof1atmosphere. 72
Forfuelgastreatment,thebiogasispassedthroughaPMfilter,arefrigerationunit,and activatedcarbon.Thegascleaningsystemconsumesabout25kW.Table122displays gasqualitybeforeandafterthegascleaningsystem.

Table 1-22. Palmdale fuel cell raw and treated fuel-gas quality Contaminant Raw Digester Gas After Gas Clean-up H2S, ppm 23 ND<0.5 Chlorobenzene ppb 180 0.7 P-dichlorobenzene, ppb 30 ND <1.0 D4 siloxane, ppm 0.40 ND<0.03 D5 siloxane, ppm 0.95 ND<0.03
Source: UC Davis Research Team ; Source: Robert Williams ; Source: McDannel 2005
Thenetelectricalefficiencyofthefuelcellisestimatedat41%(HHV).Emissions, reportedbyLACountySanitationDistricts,areshowninTable123.
Table 1-23. Air emissions from the Palmdale WWTP fuel cell Pollutant NOx CO HC SO2 ppm @15% O2 0.05 1.2 1.3 ND<0.02 lb/MWh 0.0017 0.025 0.017 -
Source: UC Davis Research Team ; Source: Robert Williams ; Source: McDannel 2005
Installedcostwas$1.9million($8,400/netkW),ofwhich50%waspaidwithagrantfrom theCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission.AfterOperationandMaintenance(O&M) costsarepaid($0.037/kWhwhichincludesareserveforfuelcellstackreplacement),the powersavestheDistrictabout$0.09/kWhdelivered(assuminga$0.12/kWhretail purchaseprice).Simplepaybackofthissystemisabout12years.
1.4.4 Rice Straw Combustion Systems

RiceStrawintheSacramentoValley RicecultivationinCaliforniaoccursprimarilyintheSacramentoValley(morethan95% ofCaliforniariceacreage). 28 Itisanannualcropplantedinspringandusuallyharvested beginninginlateAugustandcontinuingthroughearlyNovemberdependingonwhen rainsbegin.Riceisharvestedwithcombineharvestersthatemployeitheracuttingor strippingtypeheaderdevicewithathresherandgraincleaningsystemallinamobile machine.Separatedgrainistransferredtoauxiliaryvehicles(bankoutwagons)for deliverytoroadtrucksattheedgeofthefieldwhilestrawandstubbleareleftinthe field.Newlyintroducedstripperheadersdonotcutthestembutinsteadpullthegrain fromthepanicle.Thematerialotherthangrainpassingthroughthecombineistherefore greatlyreduced,buttheseheaderscanonlybeemployedwherethereislittleorno lodgingofthecrop(collapseofthestem).Grainyieldis4to5tons/acreofroughrice (withhull,14%moisturecontentwetbasis).Theharvestablestrawandstubblebiomass
28.FromtheCaliforniaDepartmentofFoodandAgriculture2001AnnualCropReport. 73
leftinthefieldvariesfrom2to4tons/acredryweight.Approximately1.5milliondry tonsofricestrawisproducedannuallyinCalifornia. Historically,thestrawandstubblewereburnedinthefieldinthefallandspringbefore planting.Thiswasprimarilyduetocostandconvenience,thoughsomeamountof diseasecontroltookplacebyburning.Nowapparentistheadvantagethatburninghad onweedcontrolaswellcomparedwithincorporationofstrawintothesoil.In1991,AB 1378mandatedreductionsofpermittedopenfieldburningofricestraw.Allowable burnableacresdecreasedtoamaximumof25%ofplantedacresandonlyifburningis requiredfordiseasecontrol.Thereductioninopenburninghascreatedaneedforoff fieldutilizationofstrawalternativesfortheindustry.Strawharvestingforofffield utilizationalsohasadvantagesoversoilincorporationindiseaseandweedcontrol (similartoopenburning),andinreducinggreenhousegas(methane,nitrousoxide [N 2O])emissionsfromricefields. Marketsforstrawarecurrentlylimited,andalthoughanumberofindustrialusesfor strawhaveattemptedtodevelop(e.g.,fiberboard,ethanolandotherchemicals,refined animalfeeds),economicsremainchallenging.Limitedquantities(20,000to30,000tons peryear)arebeingusedforanimalfeedinganderosioncontrolproducts(bales,plastic netwrappedwattles). StrawFuelIssues Strawfuelshaveprovedtobeextremelydifficulttoburninmostcombustionfurnaces, especiallythosedesignedforpowergeneration.Noneofthebiomasspowerplantsbuilt todateinCaliforniacaneconomicallyfirestraw,eventhoughsomewerebuiltwithair permitsrequiringthemtodoso. Issuesconcerningtheuseofricestrawandotherherbaceousbiomassforpower generationhavebeenwidelydiscussedintheliterature,andhavebeenthefocusofa numberofresearchinvestigations.Fromatechnicalperspective,themostsignificant problemintheuseofstrawincombustionorotherthermalconversionsystemsisthatof managingashfouling,slagging,and,influidizedbeds,agglomerationresultingfrom inorganictransformationsandvapor/liquidformationatthetemperaturesoccurringin biomassfurnaces(Baxter1993;Salouretal.1993;Jenkins1993;Jenkins1998).The combustionofstrawinpowerboilersleadstotherapidformationofunmanageable depositsonheattransfersurfaces(especiallycrossflowscreentubesandsuperheaters). Thesedeposits,comprisedofalkaliandalkalineearthchlorides,sulfates,carbonates, andcomplexsilicates,retardheattransferandareassociatedwithacceleratedcorrosion oftubemetal(Jenkins1996).Depositscanbridgeacrosstubebundles,reducingfurnace gasfloworincreasingfanworkrequiredtomaintainflow.Highashcontentandlow ashfusiontemperatureofricestrawresultinslagformationinthefurnaceandgrates, hinderingfuelfeeding,combustion,ashremovalandhandling.
74
Theadditionofricestrawtowoodwasshown 29 toreducethealkalivolatilizationfrom wood,suchthatfuelblendingmaybeusefulasafoulingcontroltechniquewhen properlyapplied.Furtherinvestigationintothisaspectofstrawcombustioniscurrently ongoing,andtherelativeadvantagesoftheseveralapproachesneedtobeestablished. Leachingofalkalielementsandchlorinefromstrawbyrainwashingorotherwater washingmethodshasbeendemonstratedtosubstantiallyimprovethefuelvalueof strawandotherhighalkalibiomass.Fullscaletestshavedemonstratedthetechnical feasibilityofusingleachedricestrawinexistinggrate,suspension,andfluidizedbed boilersinCalifornia(Jenkins1997;JenkinsandWilliamsetal.1999).However,handling coststofeedstrawintoexistingboilersremainhighandgrindingandotherprocessing requirementsleadtotheemissionoffugitivedust,acceleratedwearratesonfuelyard equipment,increasedparasiticloads,andpossiblereductionsinnetpowerplant capacity(JenkinsandBakkeretal.2000).Rainwashingbyleavingthestrawinthefield overthewinterispossiblebutleadstoschedulingandtimelinessdifficultiesforplanting thenextricecropduetothelimitedpredictabilityoftheweather.Problemswithstraw useinwhatareessentiallywoodbasedcombustiondesignconceptshassofarexcluded thisresourcefromcontributingtorenewablepowergenerationinCalifornia. StrawFueledPowerGenerationinEurope Europe,andinparticular,Denmark,currentlyhasthegreatestexperiencewithstraw firedpowerandCHPplants.In1990,Denmarkembarkedonanewenergypolicywitha goaltodoubletheuseofrenewableenergybytheyear2005(Nikolaisenetal.1992).A largecomponentoftheDanisheffortisdirectedatutilizingsurpluscerealstrawforheat andpower.By1995,therewere61strawfiredplantswithatotalcapacityof230MW (includingCHP)consuming286,000metrictonsofstrawannually(LarsenandEvald 1996).In1998,some400,000metrictonsofstrawwereconsumedforenergyheatand power.By2001,750,000metrictonsperyearwerebeingconsumedinpowerplants(in additiontostrawconsumedinmorethan60districtheatingplantsinthecountry) (Schultz2001).Technologydevelopedincludescombustionfurnacesandboilers purportedlycapableofoperatingwithhighalkalifuelsandhavinghandlingsystems whichminimizefuelpreparation.Muchofthisdevelopmenthasoccurredwithsupport ofgovernmentpoliciesonCO 2emissionreductionstohelpmeetKyotoagreements. Table124listspowerplantsdevelopedinDenmarkforfiringstraw.Somearepartof CHPsystemsandothersgeneratepoweronly.RecentlycompletedfacilitiesinEngland andSpainweredesignedandbuiltbythecompaniesthatdevelopedthesystemsin Denmark. TheplantsatHaslev,Slagelse,andRudkbingweredevelopedinthelate1980sandare amongthefirstmodernplantsintheworldtofirestrawonagrate.Strawwas historicallyusedasafuelforstationarythreshersbutwasabandonedwiththeadventof liquidfueledenginestowardsthebeginningofthepreviouscentury.TheDanishboilers
29.Thyetal.2000. 75
applyaclassicalsuperheaterdesign(superheatertubesorientedperpendicularto furnacegasflow,generallypendantdesignsinexistingCaliforniafacilities),where depositionandproblemsrelatedtocorrosionwasexperienced.Theyarestillrunning andstillexperienceproblemswithdepositionandcorrosionincasethesteam temperatureisraisedabove520C.Operationalexperiencehasdeterminedthatthe maximumallowablesteamtemperatureis480Cforavoidingcorrosion(Frandsen2003). Haslev Haslevburnswholebaleswhicharepushedintoboilerbyotherbalesonthefeed conveyors(cigarburner).Combustiontakesplaceonthesurfaceofthefrontbales withhighvelocityairinjectedintheregiontoencouragestablecombustion.Fullload fuelinputis5,500kg/hcorrespondingto23MWth(15.05MJ/kg)(Jensenetal.1997). Slagelse Slagelseburnsstrawonamovinggrate.Thebalesarebrokenandloosestrawis conveyedbyninescrewsintotheboiler(Jensenetal.1997). Rudkbing RudkbingisalsoaFirstGenerationstrawplant.Itemploysawatercooledvibrating gratestrawfiringsystem.Balesarestoredandrecalledautomaticallytoabaleshredder. Fuelispushedbyhydraulicramintotheboiler.Thefuelinjectionchamberiswater cooledtopreventfuelburningwhileininjectionmode.Thesuperheatersareplaced horizontallyperpendiculartofurnacegasflow.Depositionandcorrosionstudies conductedatthisplantweredonetounderstandthesteamtemperatureand deposit/corrosionrelationships(Michelsenetal.1998;Montgomeryetal.2002).Figure1 27isaschematicoftheRukbingfacility.
76
Table 1-24. Large straw-fired power facilities developed in Denmark

Reported or Calculated Steam (0.6 capacity Pressure factor) Straw (bar) 92 Steam Consumption bar ~ Temperature -1 (tonne y ) 1300 psi (C)
Location Haslev Rudkbing Slagelse
Country
Boiler Company
Fuel Type
Straw Wood Fuel Power Consumption Consumption (net (metric t/h) (metric t/h) MWe) 5 3 2.3 11.7 (x2/3) 18.6 (2)
Thermal output (MWth) 13 7 28 (x2/3)
Start Date 1989 1990 1990
Volund (Cigar Denmark Burner) Straw FLS milj Denmark (Bioener Aps) Wheat Straw Volund, Aalborg Straw (2/3) and Denmark Ciserv, BWE waste(1/3) Straw/Coal (~50% each by energy) Straw and/or wood any combination of the two types
25,000 12,500 25,000
67 60 67
450 450 450
Gren
Denmark Volund / Ansaldo Volund (Cigar Denmark Burner)
10
60(2)
55,000
92
505
1992
Maabjerg
9.5
13
35,000
67
410 /520
1993
Masned Aabenraa (Ensted EV 3) MariboSakskbing Ely (Cambridge) Sangesa Avedore
Wheat Straw/ FLS milj with wood chip Denmark (Bioener Aps) back-up Wheat FLS milj Straw/wood Denmark (Bioener Aps) superheat FLS milj Denmark (Bioener Aps) Wheat Straw UK Spain Denmark FLS milj (Bioener Aps) Straw FLS milj (Bioener Aps) Straw Straw/wood
8.3
3.3
8.3
20.8
40,000
92 180 or 210 92 92 92 300
522
1995
20 8.1 26.3 20 25
5.6
37.5 9.7 38 25 45 20 Dedicated power
104,000 40,000 136,760 104,000 130,000
542 542 522 542 ?
1997 2002 2002 2002 2002
77
Figure 1-27. Schematic of facility at Rudkbing, Denmark
Masned TheMasnedCombinedHeatandPowerPlantCHPisa33MWthunit(fuelfeedrate) producing8MWelectricityand21MWthfordistrictheating.Theboilerisstokerfiredwitha watercooledvibrationgrate(Figure128).Strawistheprimaryfuel,butwoodchipsare occasionallyburned.Thestrawisconveyedintotheboilerbytwoscrewfeeders,whichreceive strawfromtwoseparatestrawshredders.Thestrawfirstlandsonaprimary(stationary)grate, wherethefuelbeginstopyrolyzeandflamingoccurs.Theburningstrawispushedandfallsoff theprimarygrateontothewatercooledvibratinggratewhereitburnsoutasitmovesacross thebottomofthefurnaceandisremovedbytheashhandlingsystem.Thefluegasmovesup throughthefurnacechambertothesuperheatersandintotheconvectionpass.Thefacilitywas builtwitha2,000balecoveredstorage(aboutthreedayscapacity)andthebalesarereclaimed fromstorageandfedtotheboilerautomatically.Theplantisdesignedsuchthatitcanbe operatedunmannedfor16hoursperday. Becauseofexperiencefromtheearlierstrawfiredplantsandahighersteamtemperature(520C comparedto450Cintheearlierdesigns),corrosionproblemswereexpected.Theboilerand superheatersectionsweredesignedsothatthesuperheaterscanbeeasilyreplacedintheevent ofcorrosion.Thesuperheatertubesareorientedparalleltogasflow,andamorecorrosion tolerantalloyisused.Thefacilityisnotequippedwithsootblowers.Theparallelheat exchangerconfigurationreducesfouling,butalsoreducesconvectiveheattransfercoefficientso requiresgreatersurfaceareacomparedwithcrossflowheatexchangers.Forhighalkalifuels likestrawthereductioninfoulinghasbeenofadvantage.
78
Figure 1-28. Masned Boiler

Photo Credit: Adapted from L.A. Hansen et al. 2000
Oncetheplanthadbeeninoperationforawhile,measuredcorrosionratesweremuchlessthan anticipated.Thereasonsforthiswereinvestigated(Hansenetal.2000)bytheTechnical UniversityofDenmark,whichresultedinsomeinterestingfindingsandanewhypothesis. Previousworkhadshownthathighsuperheatercorrosionratesexperiencedinstrawboilers wasduetochlorinewhichisdepositedonsuperheatersurfacesbycondensationofgaseous potassiumchloride(KCl) 30 (Sander1997).However,atMasned,itwasfoundthatmature deposits(lessthanoneyearold)didnothavethecharacteristicpotassiumchloride(KCl)layer againstthemetalsurface,ratherathinnonporouslayerofpotassiumsulfatewasobservedas theinnermostlayerofthedeposit.OntopoftheinnerlayerwastypicalKClandK,Casilicate materialwithsinteredflyashparticlesdepositedlast.Shortterm(8to100hours)deposit probes,however,didshowthebeginningsofthemoretypicalKClinnerdepositlayer.Hansen postulatesthatgaseoussulfitereactswithliquidKCl(knowntobepresentandliquidatthe superheatermetaltemperature)formingpotassiumsulfate,whichisthermodynamically favoredatthetubesurfacetemperature.Thesulfatedpotassiumlayerwasfoundtobenon porousanddisfavorschlorinediffusiontothemetalsurface.Sulfationofsurfacedepositsisalso knowntoleadtohighertenacityduetothegreatercompactionandbondinginthedeposit. OneofHansenscoauthorsindicatesthattheresultsoftheinvestigationchangedoperational proceduresattheMasnedandtheMariboSakskbingplantssuchthatwhennew
30.PotassiumandchlorinearetypicallypresentinDanishstrawinamountsof1%and0.4%,respectively, dryweightbasis. 79
superheatersareinstalled,thestrawiscofiredforatimewithaheavyoiltoinsurethesulfation ofKClincontactwiththefreshtubemetaltopotassiumsulfate(Frandsen2003).Thereafter,a thickdepositisencouraged.Althoughthistechniquemayreducecorrosion,thedesignneeds toincorporatealargersurfaceareaofheatexchangeduetothereducedthermalconductivity fromthedeposit. Aabenraa(EnstedEV3) Aabenraahasabiomassboilerwhichraisessteamforsupplementingthesteamproducedbyan existingcoalheatandpowerstation.Woodandstrawarefiredintwodifferentsectionsofthe biomassportionofthefacility(sometimesreferredtoasacombinationboiler).SeeFigure1 29.Thestrawboilerproduces470Csteamwhichisthenheatedto542Cbyheatfromthewood firedboiler.Thecombustionproductsfromthestrawsectionarenotallowedtocontactthefinal superheaterinthiscombinationarrangement.Thisdesignallowsthealkaliandchlorine containingstrawfueltobefiredwithminordepositandcorrosionproblems(Montgomeryetal. 2002)becauseofthelowersteamtemperatureinthestrawboiler.Thesteamraisedbythe biomassfuelscombineswiththatfromthecoalboilerandthenexpandsthroughtheturbine. Theelectricalconversionefficiencyofthebiomassportionisessentiallyequivalenttotheoverall plant.Theefficiencyisclaimedtobe40%(LowerHeatingValue[LHV]).
Figure 1-29. Schematic of Aabenraa Power Station

Photo Credit: Adapted from CADDET Technical Brochure No. 139, http://www.caddet-re.org/assets/no139.pdf
Maabjerg Thisfacilityhasthreeboilers,twofiredbyMSW,andonefiredwithstrawandwoodchips. Eachoftheboilersproduces410Csteam(Figure130).Naturalgasisfiredforthefinal superheater(52Csteamtemperature),whichislocatedinaseparatechamberwhereitdoesnot

80
receivethebiomasscombustionproducts.Sixcigarburnersarrangedthreeeachonopposing sidesoftheboiler,allowforsixbalestobeburnedsimultaneously. Maximumstrawconsumptionis9,500kg/h,orabout19bales/hr,butaveragessomethingless becauseofcofiringwithwood. 31
31.FromH.H.JakobsensCofiringofBiomassEvaluationofFuelProcurementandHandlinginSelected ExistingPlantsandExchangeofInformation,MaabjergPlant(CofiringPart2),dkTEKNIKEnergy& Environment. 81
Figure 1-30. Schematic of Maabjerg facility
82
Avedore,Denmark AvedoreUnit2isarecentlycommissionedlargecombinedheatandpowerplant.Its maximumcapacityis570MW(whensupplyingnodistrictheat)or485MWand570 MWthinCHPmode.Ithasalargecombustionboilerfuelledwithnaturalgasandfuel oil,asetofgasturbines(incombinedcyclewiththesteamcycle)andabiomassboiler thatfiresstrawandwood.Thebiomassboilercontributes47MWtotheplantoutput. Theplantraisesultrasupercriticalsteam(300bar,600C)andhasveryhighoverall efficiency(reportedly45to50%basedonLHV).Thesteamtemperatureinthebiomass boilerdoesnotreachthefinalsuperheatedvalue(againbecauseoffoulingissues).The biomassboilersteamcontinuestothefossilfuelboilerforfinalheating.SeeFigure131.
Figure 1-31. Avedore facility schematic.

Photo Credit: Adapted from Manczyk and Leach 2001.
Ely(Cambridge),England,andSangesa,Spain TherearetwostrawfiredfacilitiesrecentlycommissionedoutsideofDenmark.Located intheEnglandandSpain,theyweredesignedandbuiltbytheDanishcompany (formerlyFLSmilj).TheEnglandElyplantisthelargeststrawfiredfacilityinthe world(accordingtoBioener,ApS)consumingontheorderof150,000to200,000metric tonsperyear.Thefacilityusesnaturalgasasastabilizationfuelintheamountupto10% totalenergyinput.Itproducesonlypower(doesnotoperateinCHPmode)reportedly withacapacityof36to38MWatanavailabilityestimatedatabout80%.
83
Therearefourseparatewholebalefuelfeedlinesrunningintothesinglefurnace.Bales areshreddedbeforebeinginjectedintotheboiler.TheboilerusesaFLSmiljvibrating grate. OthersinvestigatedthebaleandstrawhandlingandfeedingsystemsatElyforpotential applicationtocofireswitchgrasswithcoalattheOttumwageneratingstationin Chillicothe,Iowa(MilesandGanz2002).TheirdiscussionsatElyyieldedthefollowing information:
Thecapitalcostwasapproximately$88million(about$2,300/kWgross installed). Thefacilityispaid$0.0855/kWh. TheplantisoperatedbytheDanishbuilder,whichguarantees96%availability over350days. Thecompanypays$31to$42/tonfordeliveredstraw,80%withinaradiusof55 milesfromtheplant,and20%comesfromaradiusof55to150miles. Thecompanywasconsideringgrowingdedicatedenergycrops(switchgrassor miscanthus)toincreasefuelsupply. Theplanthasbeenoperatingsince2000consumingabout22tons/hrlocalcereal straw.
TheMilesandGanz(2002)reportcontainsthefollowing; Bioener says its largest straw fired plant in world (at commissioning date). Miles trip report discusses this plant and includes some contact info. Plant cost $88 M US to build (~$2,300/kWgross installed) and can sell power for $.0855/kWh). At 93% availability for 350 days, corresponds to ~$24.8 M receipts fromelectricity.EleanPowerstation The Sangesa, Spain facility is a 25 MWe dedicated power facility. A decentralizedfuelstorageconceptwaschoseninwhichstrawisdeliveredfroma set of regional storage sites. There is onsite storage sufficient to run the plant for approximately three days. The capital cost was approximately $59 million (~$2,360/kW). BothElyandSangesahavehighsteamtemperatures(520to540C).TheElyboilerdoes notutilizeaseparatefuelforfinalsuperheat(combinationboilermentionedabove). SpecificboilerdetailscouldnotbeconfirmedforSangesa,soitisnotknownwhetherit isacombinationboiler. GrenandStudstrupvrket,Denmark Bothofthesefacilitiescofirestrawwithpulverizedcoal.Grenisacirculatingfluidized bed(CFB)boilerandStudstrupvrketisawallfiredsuspensionboiler.Frandsen
84
indicatesthatfoulingandcorrosionatthesefacilitiesisnoworsethanthatexperienced at100%coalfiredfacilities(Frandsen2003). Strawhandlingandpreparationforboiler AvarietyofmethodsareemployedbytheDanishplants(andthetwonewestfacilities inEnglandandSpain) 32 topreparestrawforcombustion.Mostuseautomatedtruck unloadingbridgecranesthatclampupto12balesatatime(Hesstontype4x4x8feet) andstackthemfourtofivebaleshighincoveredstorage(seeFigures132and133).The samebridgecraneisusedtoreclaimbalesfromthestackandplacethemonconveying chainsorcartswhichcarrythebalesoutofthestoragebarntotheboilerhouse(Figures 134to137showvariousimagesofbalehandlingsystems).Balemoistureismeasured byamicrowavebasedsystemintegraltothebaleclampmechanism(Figure134).Fuel suppliersarepaidbasedpartlyonthemoisturecontentofthebaledstrawandbalesthat arereceivedwithtoomuchmoisturecannotbestackedorstoredinthebalehouse becauseofpotentialforheatingfrommicrobialactionleadingtospontaneousbaleand stackfires.
Figure 1-32. Bridge crane unloading trailers

Photo Credit: Miles and Ganz, 2002
Figure 1-33. Crane moving bales to storage
Somesystemsfeedwholebalesintotheboiler.Probablythebestknownwholebale feederistheVlundcigarfeedingconcept,originallyappliedbyVlund(now BabcockandWilcoxVlund)(Koch1997).Wholebalesarepushedintothecombustion chamberandthestrawburnedoffthefaceofthebale.Someefforthasgoneinto understandingtheburningbehaviorofstrawinbales,andimprovingthepowerdensity (BechandWolff1995;WolffandBech1995;Bechetal.1996).However,thenewer

32.AutomaticstrawbalehandlingsystemsareprovidedbySeelenA/S,http://www.seelen.dk/,a Danishautomaticlogisticsandconveyorcompany.Theyhaveinstalledastrawhandlingsystem atastrawparticleboardfactoryinManitoba,Canada. 85
Danishplantshavemovedawayfromwholebalesystemstoshreddedstrawfeedfor higherefficiency.Balefeedersstillhaveadvantagesinreducingoverallhandling.
Figure 1-34. Bale crane with moisture sensing
Figure 1-35. Conveyance to boiler house
Figure 1-36. Twine cutter-remover*

Photo Credit: Miles and Ganz 2002
Figure 1-37. Twin vertical screw de-baler
Otherfeedsystemsremovebaletwineandshredorscarifythebaleswithloosestraw beingconveyedintotheboilerbyaugersorcounterrotatingscrews.Lowspeed hydraulicramsarealsoemployedtopushloosestrawwhichhasfilledtheexposed chamberwhentheramisretracted.Manyofthesefeedersystemsemploywatercooled sectionssothatheatfromtheboilerdoesnottransferintothestrawloadingchambers andbeginpyrolysisorignitethefuel. Forpulverizedcoalcofiring,thestrawusuallyneedstobegroundorcuttosmallsizes inordertoburncompletelywithinrelativelyshortresidencetimes(suspensionfired systems)ortofeedandmixuponinjectionwithbedmediainfluidizedbedsystems.
86
1.4.5 Systems for Conversion of MSW

AlargeandconcentratedsourceofbiomassisintheMSWstream.Advantagesofthis sourcearethatitcurrentlyisdeliveredtocentrallocationsanditusuallycomeswitha tippingfeeorachargethereceivingfacilityimposesonthesenderofthematerial.MSW isnotwithoutdisadvantages.Itistypicallyveryheterogeneous,cominginalargerange ofparticlesizes,moisture,andcomponentcharacteristics.MSWandvariousfractions areburnedincombustionfacilitiesforconversiontoenergyinallpartsoftheworld.Itis estimatedthat130milliontonsannuallyareconvertedtoenergyinover600facilities worldwide.Thereareapproximately90facilitiesintheUnitedStatescurrentlyburning MSWforenergyrecovery(abouttwothirdsofthemontheEastCoast)consuming29 milliontonsofMSWannually(Themelis2003).InCaliforniatherearethreeoperating powerplantsthatconsumeMSWastheprimaryfuelwithacombinedgenerating capacityofapproximately65MW(onefacilityisinStanislausCountyandtwoareinthe LosAngelesarea). Chlorinatedorganiccompounds,especiallypolychlorinateddibenzopdioxinsand dibenzofurans(PCDD/F)havebeenlinkedtocombustionofMSW.Inthelate1980s, combustionofMSWwaslistedastheleadingsourceofdioxinemissionsinthecountry (about60%oftotal)Maximumavailablecontroltechnology(MACT)regulations promulgatedbytheU.S.EPAin1995forcedtheindustrytoretrofitwithbetteremission controltechnologieswherepossibleandshutdownfacilitiesthatcouldnotbeimproved. Today,thelevelofdioxinairemissionsfromcombustionofMSWintheUnitedStates hasdecreasedfrom8,900gramstoxicequivalent(TEQ)peryearin1987to12gTEQper yearby2000,adecreaseof99.9%. 33 DioxinemissionsintheUnitedStatesfromall sourcesarenownearlyanorderofmagnitudeless(from14,000gtoxicequivalent(TEQ) to2,000gTEQ)andsolidwastecombustionisresponsibleforlessthan1%ofthetotal. 34 Thoughpolychlorinateddibenzodioxinanddibenzofuran(PCDD/F)emissionshave declinedconsiderablyduetoimprovedcombustionandairpollutioncontrolsystems, publicperceptionsthatunacceptabledioxinemissionsarelinkedtosolidwaste combustionremainsstrong.Opponentsofburningsolidwastehaveinfluencewith policyanddecisionmakersandthepublicsothatsitingnewfacilitiescanbedifficult.In California,currentlaw(AB2770)discouragessolidwastecombustionbynotallowing materialsenttonewcombustionfacilitiestobecountedasdiversionfromlandfill.The legislationalsodirectsCIWMBtoinvestigateandevaluatenoncombustionconversion technologiessuitableforpostrecycledMSW.UCDavis(DepartmentofBiologicaland AgriculturalEngineering)conductedapreliminaryinvestigation(PhaseI)toidentify (Williamsetal.2003)existingandneartermcommercialtechnologiesthatmaybe suitablefortheMSWstream.Recently,UCDavisandUCRiversidehavecompleteda
33.U.S.EPADocketA9045,VIII.B.11andUSEPADioxinSourceInventory2002. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20797 34.USEPADioxinSourceInventory2002. 87
moredetailedanalysisandevaluationoftheidentifiedtechnologiesandsystems.Much oftheinformationinthissectionwasdevelopedinthePhaseIstudy. EuropeandJapanbyfaroutrankNorthAmericaintermsofnumbersofinstallations usingnoncombustionthermalorbiologicalMSWconversion.Europeseffortshave beenmotivatedbyhigherlandfillcostsrelatedtolessavailablelandandrestrictionson materialsenttolandfill,greenhousegasreductiongoals,andproducerresponsibility requirementstorecycleorreuseproductwaste.InGermanyforexample,carbonand energylimitshavebeensetondisposedmaterial.Materialgoingtolandfillisrestricted tototalorganiccarbon(TOC)oflessthanorequalto18%,andenergycontentlessthan orequalto6,000kJ/kg(Ludwig2003). 35 Inordertoreducegreenhousegasemissionsin attemptstocomplywiththeKyotoProtocol,theEuropeanUnionisimplementing strategieswhichincludeincreaseduseofenergyproducedfromrenewablesources.The EuropeanCommunityDirective2001/77/EC(September27,2001)containsdefinitions forrenewableelectricalenergysources.Biomassis,ofcourse,arenewablesource.The ECDirectiveincludesinthedefinitionofbiomass:thebiodegradablefractionof industrialandmunicipalwaste 36 (althoughthisdefinitionappearsoverlyrestrictive dependinginturnonthedefinitionofbiodegradablethatmaydiscountsomefraction ofbiomass).TheDirectivealsoadvisesthatoftheelectricityproducedbyfacilitiesthat consumebothrenewableandnonrenewablefeedstocks,onlythatportionattributableto therenewableenergysourceisconsideredrenewableelectricity. 37 Electricityandheat fromtheorganicportionofMSWisconsideredrenewableintheNetherlands(Junginger 2004)andSwitzerland.Currently,thatfractioninSwitzerlandis50%,basedonarecent feedstockcharacterizationforMSWcombustionfacilities(Ludwig2003a).By comparison,theSacramentoresourceisabout60to70%biomass(Table15)ifthe characterizationstudiesareaccurate. InJapanthereareadditionalmotivesforimprovinguponalternativestolandfill.Japans lackofsignificantdomestic(traditionalfossil)energyresourcesincombinationwith verylimitedspaceforlandfillshasledtothedevelopmentofalargesolidwaste combustionforenergyindustry.Approximately75%ofthesolidwasteinJapanis convertedincombustionfacilities(Heermannetal.2001).Environmentalissuesrelated toemissionsfromthewastecombustionfacilitiesandleachingproblemsfromthe generatedashcausedtheJapanesegovernmenttoinvestigateandinvestinbetterair pollutioncontroltechnologiesandmethodstostabilizetheash.TheJapanese EnvironmentalAgencyestimatesthatdioxinemissionsin1998werereducedby70% from1997levels,andlegislationrequired2002emissionstobeonly10%ofthe1997 levels.ArangeofprocesseshavebeendevelopedthroughthiseffortinJapanincluding hightemperaturegasification(oxygenblownorplasmaarc)withashmeltingand specificplasmaarcsystemsformeltingashfromMSWcombustionfacilities.Europeis
35.CaliforniaaveragedisposedMSWstreamhasHHVabout10,800kJ/kg(Williamsetal.2003). 36.Directive2001/77/EC,September27,2001.Article2(b),http://europa.eu.int/eur lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/I_283/I_28320011027en00330040.pdf 37.Directive2001/77/EC,September27,2001.Article2(c). 88
beginningtoemployarangeofthermochemicalconversionmethods(Table125),and hasmadegreatprogresswithlargebiochemicalconversionfacilities(Table126). MSWConversionTechnologyDatabase AlargepartoftheeffortofthePhaseICaliforniaMSWprojectmentionedabovewasthe compilationofacurrentdatabaseofcompanies,institutions,andorganizationswith activityorinterestinconversiontechnologysuitableforMSW.Entitiesinvolvedinany typeofconversionwiththeexceptionofincinerationandusingeitherthewholeor separatedfractionsofMSWwereactivelysearched.Incineration(massburn)processes werespecificallyexcludedinthecontractduetoexistinglegislativeconstraints.Someof thecombustiontechnologysuppliersaswellassomefirmsnotcurrentlyinvolvedin MSWconversion(e.g.,biomassconversioncompanies)areincludedbecausethereis potentialtoapplytheirtechnologiestoconversionofMSWbynoncombustionmeans. Also,someancillarytechnologycompaniesorinstitutions,suchasMRF,handlingand separation,IEABioenergyandMSWtaskforces,andindustrialorganizationsare includedbecauseofrelevance.Thedatabaseisavailablethroughtheinternetat http://cbc1.engr.ucdavis.edu/conv/home.htm Thedatabasecontainsacomprehensivelistofcompanies,institutions,andrelated organizationswithrecentinterestandactivityinMSWconversion.Therecordsthat formthedatabasecontainvaryingamountsofinformation,fromperhapsjustanameof acompanyorpersontofullydevelopednotesandprocessdescriptions,contact information,andsomeassessmentofstatus. Verificationofstatusanddetailedprocessdescriptionsand/orexplanatorynotesare missingformanyoftherecordsduetoinsufficientorunqualifiedinformationfrom suppliers.Validationwillrequiresubstantialadditionaleffort.Thecurrentongoing PhaseIIeffortincludesanindustrysurveyusingtherecordsfromthedatabase.The surveyresultsandaportionoftheevaluationcomponentwillsupportfurtherdatabase development. Tables125and126listcompaniesinthedatabasethatwereidentifiedashavingMSW conversionfacilitiesthatare(1)currentlyoperatingcommercially,(2)commercialscale demonstrations,(3)reportedlyincommissioning,or(4)underconstruction.Table125 lists16thermochemicalconversionprocessorswhileTable126lists12biochemical processcompanies.Followingthesetwotablesarebriefdescriptionsoftheprocesses listedincludingsomeinformationonfacilitylocations,history,andscale.The thermochemicalprocessesarelistedfirstfollowedbythebiochemicalprocesses.Allof thethermochemicalprocessesandamajorityofthebiologicalprocesseshavethe capabilitytoproducepower,somebetterthanothers.
89
Table 1-25. Companies using thermochemical conversion methods to process MSW Company Name Hitachi Metals Environmental Systems Ebara/Alstom Brightstar Environmental Eco-Waste Solutions Enerkem Environmental Waste International Foster Wheeler Energia Oy Nippon Steel PKA SVZ Thermoselect Thide Environmental TPS WasteGen UK IES Plastic Energy LLC Corp. Headquarters Yoshii, Japan France-Switzld-Japan Queensland, Australia Burlington Ontario Sherbrooke, Quebec Ajax, Ontario Finland Tokyo, Japan Aalen, Germany Schwarze Pumpe, Germany Locarno, Switzerland Bretonneux, France Nykping, Sweden UK Romoland, CA Roseville, CA Process Name TwinRec & EUP SWERF EWOX BIOSYN Waste Melting HTR Arthelyze Process Type Gasification (plasma arc)
Gasification Pyrolysis w/ Char gasification Gasification Gasification Pyrolysis (microwave heat) Gasification Gasification Pyrolysis w/ char gasification Gasification Gasification/pyrolysis Pyrolysis Gasification Pyrolysis Pyrolysis Pyrolysis w/catalytic cracking
90
Table 1-26. Companies using biochemical conversion methods to process MSW Company Name Corp. Headquarters Process Name Process Type Valorga Montpellier, France Valorga Anaerobic Digestion (OS HS) Wehrle Werk AG Emmendingen, Biopercolat Anaerobic Digestion Germany (MS-HS) Wright Environmental Ontario, Canada In vessel Composting Management CiTec Finland/Sweden Waasa Anaerobic Digestion (OS LS) Linde-KCA-Dresden Dresden, Germany Anaerobic Digestion & composting (MBT) Kompogas Glattbrugg, Switzerland Kompogas Anaerobic Digestion (OS HS) U-plus Umweltservice Ettlingen, Germany ISKA MBT followed by Anaerobic Digestion Eco Tec Finland WABIO Anaerobic Digestion (OS LS) Organic Waste Systems Gent, Belgium Dranco Anaerobic Digestion (OS HS) BTA Munich, Germany BTA Anaerobic Digestion (OS or MS LS) Arrow Ecology Haifa, Israel Arrow Bio Anaerobic Digestion (MS lS) Masada Resource Group Birmingham, Alabama CES Oxynol Acid Hydrolysis for ethanol production
OS= One Stage MS = Multi Stage HS = High Solids LS= Low Solids MBT= Mechanical-Biological Treatment
Thermochemical MSW Conversion Systems

HitachiMetalsEnvironmentalSystemsCompany(Yoshii,Japan):PlasmaArc Gasification/meltingofMSW(commercial/commercialscaledemonstration) AfterdemonstrationofthegasificationtechnologyforMSWatthepilotplantinYoshii, Japanduring1999and2000,theJapanesegovernmentcertifiedthetechnologyfor constructionofacommercialsizeplant.AconsortiumcalledEcoValleyUtashinai,was formedbyHitachiLtd.,HitachiMetalsLtd.,HokaidoPrefecture,andtheUtashinaiCity. TheplantwascompletedinJuly2002.Thisnewplantusesprimarilyautomobile shredderresidue(ASR)asfuelwithapproximately165t/daycapacitybuthasbeen designedtorunwitha50%mixtureofMSW.Itcanalsoprocessapproximately300 ton/dof100%MSW.Aftercommissioning,theplantwasreleasedtothecustomerfor commercialoperationinApril2003.InDecember2002,thetwincitiesofMihamaand Mikata,JapancommissionedaMSWandsewagesludgetreatmentplant.HitachiMetals Ltd.designedandinstalledthisplant.Itprocesses24t/dayofMSWand4t/dayof sewagesludge.
91
TheR.W.BeckreportforHonolulu(R.W.Beck2003)indicatesHitachiand WestinghousePlasmawerecodevelopersofaMSWconversionplantinYoshii,Japan. Thisranatascaleof166ton/dsoitcanbeconsideredcommercialscaledemonstration. ElectricityPotentialFromPlasmaArcGasificationofMSW Plasmagasificationfacilitiesrequirealargeamountelectricitytooperatetheplasma torch.TheResorptionCanadaLtd.(RCL)Plasmawebsite 38 discussesmaterialand energyflowsfortheplasmagasificationprocess.RCLindicatesthat704kWh(about 2500MJ)ofelectricalenergyisrequiredtoprocess1metricton(wetbasis)ofMSW.The RCLprocessanalysisassumestheenergycontentofwastematerialusedintheirprocess is10,900MJ/ton. The2500MJrequiredtogasifyorpyrolyzeMSWinaplasmasystemisforthemostpart energythatwouldberequiredtogasify/pyrolyzethematerialbyothertechnologies(up ordowndraftorCirculatingFluidizedBed(CFB)gasifiers,orindirectlyheated pyrolyzersorexample).Whiletheseprocessesusepartoftheproductgastoprovide thermalenergybyburning(internallyforgasifiers,externallyforpyrolyzers),the plasmaarcsystemuseshighqualityelectricalenergytocreatetheheatforthe reaction.Efficiencyofelectricalgenerationisabout30%forfuelburnedinagasengine (orlargesteamcycle,orCaliforniagridaverageelectricity).Thiselectricalenergyused bytheplasmatorchrequiresaboutthreetimesthatamountinprimaryenergy. FromenergyflowdatafromtheRCLPlasmawebsite,netelectricalproduction(or efficiency)fromaplasmagasificationfacility(consumingMSW),isonlyabout7to10% basedontheenergyintheincomingfeedandassumingRankinesteamcycleor reciprocatinggasengineforpowerproduction(withproducergastoelectricity conversionefficienciesofabout30%).SeeTable127below. AreportonnewwastedisposalsystemsfortheCityandCountyofHonoluluthat reviewedplasmagasificationofsolidwastestatesthat900kWhelectricity(3240MJ)can beproducedpertonofrefuseprocessed,butonly300kWh(1080MJ)wouldbeavailable forexporttothegrid.ThesefigurescorrespondwiththosefromRCLasdisplayedin Table127. Incomparison,theHPowerMSWcombustionfacilityonOahu,Hawaii,reportedly produces534kWh(1900MJ)pertonofwasteconsumed(R.W.Beck2003).R.W.Beck doesnotindicateifthisisgrossornetelectricalenergyproduction.AnotherMSW combustionfacilityexportstogrid610kWh(2200MJ)electricitypertonMSW consumed(overallefficiencyof18%basedon12MJ/kgHHVofMSWusedinfacility) (Themelis2003).
38.ResorptionCanadaLtd.(RCL)isacompanymarketingplasmaMSWgasificationfacilities. http://www.rclplasma.com/overview.htm 92
Table 1-27. Process energy and net electrical energy production per ton of MSW (wet basis) from a plasma arc gasification facility 39
Energy per ton MSW (MJ) Input MSW Electricity to torch Out puts Torch loss Slag losses Vessel losses Other losses Non Recoverable losses Total Gas Sensible Energy Producer Gas Chemical Energy (based on HHV) 10900 2204 362 89 60 1278 (1789) 1291 10020 Recover sensible energy to Electricity (@ 20% eff.) 258.2 3264.2 2204 1060.2 9.7
Electricity Conversion Efficiency Recover Gas Sensible Energy Electrical Energy Generated Less Electricity to Torch Net Electricity (MJ) Net Conversion Efficiency (%) [Net Elect./MSW energy in]
Adapted from RCL website, http://www.rcl-plasma.com, September 2, 2003
0.3 0 3006 2204 802 7.4
Alstom/Ebara(France,SwitzerlandandJapan):TwinRecandEUPprocesses AlstomPower(MeudonlaForet,France)acquiredABBEnertechin1999whichhad exclusivelicenseofEbaras(Japan)fluidizedbedtechnologythathasseveralcommercial facilitiesinJapan(Heermannetal.2001).EbarabuildsandoperatesfullMSW combustionfacilitiesinJapanandsomeotherAsiancountries.Ebaraalsohasdeveloped theTwinRecandEUPgasificationprocessesthroughtheJapaneseinitiativetodevelop moresustainablewastedisposaltechnologies. TwinRecProcess Ebarahaslongexperiencewithfluidizedbedcombustionsystemsforwastematerials. Theyadaptedtheirbubblingfluidizedbedreactortooperateasagasifierandcoupledit
39.AdaptedfromRCLwebsite,http://www.rclplasma.com,September2,2003. 93
withasecondarycombustionchamberwheretheproducergasisburnedwiththe additionofsecondaryair.Thisisanatmosphericpressure,airblownprocess.Thelarger ashparticlesalongwithmetalandglasspiecesleavethegasifierbedasbottomashfrom whichthemetalscanbeseparated.Smallerashandcharparticlesarecarriedoverwith theproducergasandenterthecombustionchamberwhichoperatesathighenough temperaturetomelttheinorganicmaterialcarriedover.Thisslagiswaterquenched whichyieldsvitrifiedgranules.Itispossibletogrindthebottomashfromthegasifier portionandinjectitintothemeltingcombustor(athigherprocessingandenergy expense)toslagessentiallyalloftheinorganicmaterialpresentintheoriginalfeedstock Thisistheashmeltingprocessusedtomeetthelowleachabilityrequirementsforash fromconversionprocessesinJapan.Table128showsexistingfacilitiesusingthe TwinRecprocess. ThefollowingisexcerptedfromEbarawebsiteengineeringabstracts: 40 Japans first municipal waste, fluidizedbed, gasificationmelting furnace system, equipped with a power recovery steam turbine, has started operation at Sakata City, Japan. The dioxin concentration in the exhaust gas of this system is being controlled to be below the allowable standard and the produced slag is effectively encapsulated and used as pavement material (interlocking blocks). The exhaust gas from the furnace is used for driving a power recovery turbine (max. output 1990 kW) and excess electricity produced is being sold to the local electricitycompany. UEPProcess EbaraandtheUbeIndustriesLtd.(aplasticsandchemicalcompany)developedthis UEPprocessforrecyclingthechemicalsinwasteplastic.BasedontheTwinRecprocess, theUEPsystemusestwopressurizedgasifiersinseries.Theprocessoperatesupto10 atmospheresandisoxygenblown.Thefirstgasifierisessentiallythesamebubbling fluidizedbedasusedinTwinRecandrunsatarelativelylowtemperature.The producedgasflowstothesecondchamberwhich,asintheTwinRecsecondreactor, receivessecondaryoxygenallowinghighertemperaturestobereachedandslagging inertmaterial.Thereisstillinsufficientoxygenforcompleteconversionoftheproducer gas.Thecompletematerialflowthroughthesecondhightemperaturegasifier(gasand slag)isforcedthroughawatertrapwhichsolidifiesandcapturestheinertmaterial.The remaininggascanbeusedforenergyproduction,liquidfuelsproduction,orchemical feedstocks.Table129showsexistingfacilitiesusingtheUEPprocess. Alstomreportedly(Heermannetal.2001)marketstheEbarareactormodifiedtooperate asagasifierandistargetedforhigherenergycontainingfuels(automobileshredder residue,plastics,electronicscrap,tires),butcanprocessotherdomesticandurban residues.ButEbara(EnvironmentalEngineeringGroup)alsohasaZurich,Switzerland,
40.ReviewNo.197,2002,http://www.ebara.co.jp/en/ 94
officeplainlystatingitistherepresentativefortheEbaraTwinRecandUEPprocessesin Europe. NoAlstom/EbaraEuropeaninstallationswereidentified,butthereareseveralofthe EbaraTwinRecandUEPfacilitiesoperatinginJapan(SeeTables128,129).

Table 1-28. Ebara TwinRec gasification facilities 41
Thermal Output LHV Capacity Elect. (MJ/kg) (MW) (MWe) 10.2 7.4
Location Kurobe
Commissioning Date Dec, 2000
Feedstock Mass (%) Automotive Shredder Waste 41 22,000 Waste Plastics 13 copper slag + sorbents 46 MSW Dry Sludge Waste Plastic MSW MSW MSW MSW MSW Automotive Shredder Waste Sewage Sludge MSW 100 68 32 100 100 100 100 100 70 30 100 548,000 34,000 57,000 61,000 72,000 72,000 75,000 153,000 160,000
Scale (t/y)
Minami-Shinshu Joetsu City Chuno Union Sakata Area Ube City Nagareyama City Kawaguchi Aomori Kuala Lumpur Malaysia
Mar, 2003 Mar, 2000 Mar, 2003 Mar, 2002 Nov, 2002 Feb, 2004 Nov, 2002 Feb, 2000
8.4 12.3 11.3 10.9 12.5 11.7 13 14.3
2x4.5 2.2 3x7.3 2x12.3 3x9.5 3x9.3 3x21.0 2x40
12 17
May, 2006
9.6
5x33.3
Adapted from Ebara Reference List: http://www.ebara.ch/downloads/ebara_Referencelist_TwinRec_100203.pdf
Table 1-29. Ebara UEP pressurized gasification for chemical recycling facilities 42
41.AdaptedfromEbaraReferenceList: http://www.ebara.ch/downloads/ebara_Referencelist_TwinRec_100203.pdf 42.AdaptedfromEbaraReferenceList: http://www.ebara.ch/downloads/ebara_Referencelist_EUP_0103.pdf 95
Location Ube City Ube City Kawasaki
Commissioning Date
Feedstock Waste Plastic Waste Plastic
Scale (t/y) 11,000
Product
1999 2002
Expected 2003 Waste Plastic
Fuel gas or feedstock for ammonia production Feedstock for 24,000 ammonia production Feedstock for 107,000 ammonia production
Adapted from Ebara Reference List: http://www.ebara.ch/downloads/ebara_Referencelist_EUP_0103.pdf
SolidWasteandEnergyRecyclingFacility(SWERF)Process BrightstarEnvironmental(Queensland,Australia) EnergyDevelopmentsLimited(Australia)isthemajorityownercompanyofBrightstar Environmental.BrightstarSynfuels(Texas)isaminorityholder. TheSWERFprocessacceptsunsortedMSW.Thematerialisfirsttreatedinanautoclave (steamandpressure)tocreateamanageablepulpandreduceodorsandpathogens,after whichstandardmaterialhandling/separationequipmentremovesmetalsandrigid plasticsforrecyclingordisposal.Theremainingpulpiswashedtoremovesandand glassfollowedbypulpdryingandstorage.Energyfordryingisprovidedbyexhaust heat. Thecoreconversiontechnologyconsistsoftwosteps,pyrolysisfollowedbycharsteam gasification.Thesynthesisgasisrunthroughreciprocatinginternalcombustionengines forprocessheatandpowerforexport. Thereisacommercialscale(50,000t/year)demonstrationinWollongong,NSW, Australia,whichhasbeenundergoingcommissioningsinceearly2001.Therewere problemswiththechargasificationcomponentoftheprocesswhichcausedtheparent companyEnergyDevelopmentsLtd.toceasefundingfurtherdevelopmentandsearch forabuyerofitsportionoftheBrightstarEnvironmentalstock(about88%).The WollongongCityCouncilannouncedthattheSWERFfacilityhasceasedoperationin March2004becauseEDLcouldnotfindaninternationalpartnertohelpsharetherisk. Thefacilitywillbeusedasamunicipalrecoveryfacility(MRF)andtransferstation. 43 It isnotknownwhetherSWERFtechnologyproposalsinEnglandandtheUnitedStates areproceeding. EcoWasteOxidizer(EWOX)
43.http://www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/yourcouncil/mediareleases/index_106.htm,accessed October17,2004. 96
EcoWasteSolutions(BurlingtonOntario) Thesearerelativelysmallscalesystems,sizedfor1to25t/day.Theprocessconsistsofa gasifierfollowedbyburningtheproducergasinacontrolledcombustionchamber. Unitstypicallyoperateona24hourbatchcycle.Thematerialisenclosedinthe gasificationchamberandthenheated(presumablywithnaturalgasorpropane)until enoughenergyisreleasedbythegasificationreactionstosustainitself. Systemsaremarketedtosmallscaleand/orremotewasteproducers.Unitsareinstalled inCanada,Alaska,Belize,andHawaii. CanadasEnvironmentalTechnologyVerification(ETV)programhasverifiedEcoWaste Solutionsperformanceclaimsforbothmunicipalandbiomedicalwaste. BIOSYNprocess Enerkem,UniversitdeSherbrooke,andKemestrieInc.(Sherbrooke,Quebec) EnerkemTechnlogiesInc.isasubsidiaryoftheKemestrieInc.Group,aspinoff companyoftheUniversitdeSherbrooke,foundedin1992.Itisthesoleownerofa technologyportfolioresultingfrominvestmentsbegunin1981bytheCanadianFederal GovernmentaspartofitsNationalEnergyPlan,andcontinuedinpartnershipwith theMinistredesResourcesNaturellesduQubec,theCentreQubcoisdeValorisation delaBiomasse(CQVB),theUniversitdeSherbrookeandKemestrieInc.Aprincipal memberofthecompanyisDr.EstebenChornet,amemberofthestaffatNREL 44 anda professorChemicalEngineeringatUniversitdeSherbrooke. 45 KnownastheBIOSYNprocess,itutilizesabubblingfluidizedbed(BFB)gasifier,with airoroxygenoperatingatpressuresupto16atmospheres.Theprocessincludes proprietarycatalystsforcrackingtarandothercomponentsintheproducergas.The processiscapableofoperatingonbiomass,sortedMSW,andplastics.Enerkemwill provideperformanceguaranteesofminimumenergyconversionefficiency(solidsto conditionedsynthesisgas)of70% 46 aswellascompositionofthesynthesisgasbasedon thecompositionofthefeedstock ThePoligsplantinRibesalbes(Castelln),ownedbyPoligsAmbiente,S.L.,andbuilt byEnvironmentalInternationalEngineering,S.L.(EIE)hasrecentlygoneintooperation. SpainsInstituteofEnergyDiversificationandEfficiency(IDAE),andthewaste managementcompanyRevimaparticipatedintheproject.Financingwasprovidedby regionalgovernment(Valencia)andEuropeanUnionfunds.Theplantisfuelledwith discardedplasticswrappingsfromtheceramicsindustry.Thisplantreportedly
44.http://www.nrel.gov/chemistry_bioenergy/staff_alpha.html#c 45.http://www.usherbrooke.ca/gchimique/personnel/profs/chornet/ 46.Note:Energyconversionefficiencyforoverallprocess(throughtoelectricalgeneration) wouldbeabout20%(steamturbine)uptoabout30%(largereciprocatinginternalcombustion). 97
(Enerkemwebsite 47 )isgenerating7MW(80mmBtu/hourofsynthesisgas)from approximately25,000metrict/yearwasteplastic. In2002,EnerkembeganworkingwiththeCityofSherbrooketoconvertwasteinto synthesisgas(BioSyngazEstrieproject).Federal,provincial,andcorporatemonies financedtheproject.Thepilotunitwasdesignedandconstructedwiththecapacityto convert2.5tonsofsortedmunicipalwasteresidueperday. MSWPilotPlantinSherbrooke(BioSyngasEstrieProject) Enerkem,theCityofSherbrooke,andprovincialandfederalagencieshavepartneredto buildandoperateapilotplantbasedontheBIOSYNprocessforsortedMSW. Apparently,thesystemranatcapacityof2.5metrict/dayformuchof2002with technicalreportsandfeasibilitystudiesthatshouldbecompleteatthistime. EnvironmentalWasteInternational(Ajax,Ontario) EWImanufacturesandmarketssystemsthatusemicrowaveheatingtopyrolyzethe feedstockinaninertorlowoxygenatmosphere.Thebasicprocessispyrolysiswith standardvolatilegases,tars,andcharastheproducts(relativeamountsand compositionsarefeedstockdependant).Existinginstallationsareusedindestructionof medicalwastes. ThecompanydoesnotforeseeamarketforthistechnologyinnonseparatedMSW conversion.Theyareinvestigatingtheprocesswithfeedstockssuchassludge,non recyclableplastics,automobileshredderresidue,diseasedanimalcarcasses,andused tires.Infact,thecompanybelievesthedestructionofusedtireswillbeimportantto futureoperationsduetothepotentiallyvaluablepyrolyticproductsincludingcarbon black,steel,liquidandgaseoushydrocarbons. CompanypressreleasesindicateithasanagreementwithaprivatefirminEnglandto designandbuilditsfirstfacilitytopyrolyzewastetireswiththemicrowaveheating process.Itwouldbecapableofconverting3,000tiresperday. Amaterialandenergyflowdiagramonthecompanywebsiteclaimsthatatire conversionfacilitythatconsumes6,000tires/daycanprovidesufficientenergytodrivea 6MWsteamturbine(ifallpyrolysisoilsandgasesareburnedinaboiler).The magnetronsandbalanceofplantwillconsume3MWofelectricalpowerleaving3MW availableforexport. FosterWheelerEnergiaOy(Lahti,Finland) FosterWheeler,incooperationwithKymijrviPowerStationatLahti,Finlandhas installedanatmospheric(airblown)circulatingfluidizedbed(ACFB)gasifiernexttothe coal/fossilfuelfiredutilityboiler(seeFigure138).Thermalcapacityofthegasifieris40 to70MWthdependingonthemoisturecontentofthefuel(whichcanbeupto60%).
47.http://www.enerkem.com/2002/pages_en/main_en1_ns.html 98
Theproducergasfromthegasifieriscofiredintheboiler.TheACFBissizedtoprovide upto15%oftheenergyinputtotheboiler(replacingupto30%ofthecoalfeed).The lackofgascleaninglimitsthefuelstowoodybiomassandlow/nochlorinecontaining wastederivedfuels(someamountofseparationofresidentialormunicipalwastesto removechlorinatedplastics).SeeTable130forcompositionoftherefusederivedfuel andTable131forfuelconsumptionbytypefortheyears1998to2002.Theproject demonstratescommercialscalefeasibilityofclosecoupledgasificationoflowquality opportunityfuelswhichotherwisecouldnotbeutilizedinthecombustionboiler. Amunicipallyowned,wastemanagementcompany(PijtHmeenJtehuoltoOy) startedtheprocessingofrefusederivedfuelin1997.Inthefirstyearofoperation,1998, morethan17,000tonsofresidentialrefusefuelwasgasifiedaccountingfor22%ofthe energythroughthegasifier(thebulkofthegasifierenergycamefromwoodresidues 71%).
99
Figure 1-38. Drawing of Lahti gasifier and co-fueled boiler

Photo Credit: Foster Wheeler.
Table 1-30. Composition of refused derived fuel at Lahti 48 Component Plastic Paper Cardboard Wood % by weight 5-15 20-40 10-30 30-60
http://www.fosterwheeler.com/publications/tech_papers/powgen/bagasse3.cfm
Table 1-31. Annual feedstock consumption by type at Lahti gasifier (Foster Wheeler)
Units Biomass RDF Plastics Paper Railway Sleepers Shredded Tires Total Hours of Operation
nr = not reported
1998 56729 17578 4395 1199 79900 4730
1999 60534 24426 13806 6372 106 956 106200 5460
2000
2001
2002 58128 32178 11418 2076 103800 nr
(tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (hours)
57834 71092 26622 30457 6885 14203 184 348 275 91800 116100 4727 7089
Cumulative Fraction (%) 61 26 9 1.8 1.0 0.4 100
48.http://www.fosterwheeler.com/publications/tech_papers/powgen/bagasse3.cfm 100
VarkausFinland FosterWheelerinstalledaBFBaspartofanintegratedrecyclingprocessattheCorenso UnitedOy,alargepaperandcardboard/packagingmaterialmanufacturer.Used multilayerpackagingmaterial(whichincludesplasticfilmandaluminumfoillayers,for example,Tetrapakasepticdrinkcontainers)isrecycledbyseparatingasmuchofthe cellulosematerialfromtheplasticandaluminumaspossibleandthengasifyingthe remainingplasticandaluminumcontainingportionintheFosterWheelerBFB. Aluminumisrecoveredfrombottomashandtheproductgas(presumablycondensed fromvaporform(seeFigure139).Thealuminumissolidifiedintoingotsandreused. Theenergyfromthegasreplacessomeofthefossilfuelusedtoraiseprocesssteam.The gasifieris40MWthincapacityandrecoversabout3,000t/yearofaluminumandgasifies 27,000t/yearofpolyethylene.Thefacilityhasaccumulatedover12,500hoursof operationbetweencommissioninginspringof2001andMay2004(Nieminen2004).
Figure 1-39. Schematic of Varkaus, Finland waste packaging gasifier and aluminum recovery facility
Photo Credit: Foster Wheeler
NipponSteel(Tokyo,Japan) Japangeneratesover100milliont/yearofMSWbuthaslimitedavailablelandfor disposal.Consequently,muchofthewaste(75%)(Heermannetal.2001)isburnedin combustionfacilities.ConcernoverhighlevelsofdioxinemissionsledtheJapanese governmenttoinstituteprogramstoaddresstheissue.Theseprogramsincludedtighter emissionslimits,investmentinmoreefficientfacilitieswithbetteremissionscontrol technologiesandRDDDofalternativestoMSWcombustion. Resultssofarappearsuccessful.TheJapaneseEnvironmentAgencyestimatesthat dioxinemissionsin1998werereducedby70%comparedtothoseof1997.Legislation

101
wasinplacetorequire2002emissionstobeonly10%ofthe1997levels(Heermannetal. 2001). OneoftheRDDDinitiativeslaunchedbytheJapanesegovernmentwasthe Technologiesforthe21stcenturywhichfocusedondevelopinggasification/pyrolysis systemsanddirectmeltingofwaste.Thenoncombustionthermaltechnologythrustis toaddressthedioxinissuewhilewastemeltingprogramsaddressashrecyclingand disposalproblems. AfurthermotivatorforJapanisitslackofsignificantdomesticenergyresources.Any energythatcanberecoveredfromconversionofMSWandothersolidwastesdirectly displacesimportedcoalorpetroleumfuels. WasteMeltingProcess TheNipponSteelWasteMeltingProcessevolvedfrommetallurgicalprocessing technology.TheprocessacceptsunsortedMSWthathasbeenprocessedtorequired particlesize.Heermannetal.(2001)reportthattheNipponSteelprocessusesafixed bedgasifier(notclearifpressurized),withenrichedoxygenairinjectioninthemelting section.CokeisaddedtotheMSW(about50kg/tonMSWor5%byweight)inputfeed whichreactswiththeoxygenandpyrolyticgasesattheairinjectionandmeltingregion. Thisisapparentlydonetohelpprovideenergyforfullashmelting.Limestoneisalso added(about5%byweightofinput)toprovidesomepHbufferingofthemelt.The producergasisburnedinconventionalsteamboilersfromwhichheatandpowercanbe generated.Outputmaterialsincludegranulatedslag(90kg/toninput),recyclableiron (10kg/toninput)andflyash(approximately30kg/toninput)whichissenttolandfill. Mercuryandheavymetalspresentinthewastearefoundintheflyashandproducer gas,requiringthatthesestreamsbemanagedappropriatelybeforedischarge. Thereareperhapsadozenplants(operationalorbeingcommissioned)inJapanutilizing theNipponSteelwastemeltingprocess.Thecapacitiesrangefrom100to450t/day. NipponSteelisamarketleaderinlargescaleMSWconversionapplications. PKAUmwelttecnik(Aalen,Germany) Thisisapyrolysisprocessfollowedbygasconverter(cracker).MSWfeedstockis preprocessedtoremoveglass,metals,andothermarketablerecyclables.Theremaining materialthengoesthroughasizereductionprocess.Dryingtobelow15%moistureis recommended,butnotmandatory.Otherfeedstocksthatcanbeutilizedwiththesystem includeautomobileshredderresidue(ASR),tires,industrialandplasticwasteand contaminatedsoil. Thepreprocessedmaterialisconveyedintoarotarypyrolysisdrumthatisexternally heatedto930to1020 Fbyhotcombustiongas(fromburningnaturalgasduringstart up,orfromburningaportionofthepyrolyticgasthatcanberecycledifavailablein sufficientquantityandquality).Thefeedstockmaterialtakesuptoonehourtoadvance
102
throughthedrum.Thepyrolyticproductgasesandvaporsarethentransferredtoa gasificationchamberwheretheyarecrackedtoaproducergasattemperaturesof1830F, cooled,andcleanedaccordingtotherequirementsforfinaluse. Thepyrolyticcharcanbeconditionedbygrindingandseparatingouttheferrousand nonferrousmetals.Usingaseparatesmeltingreactor,thecharfinescanbegasifiedwith addedoxygenatatemperaturebetween2550to2730Ftoyieldadditionalsyngasfor combustionandproductionofavitrifiedslag. APKAfacilityinAalen,Germany,hasbeenoperatingonablendofMSW,commercial waste,andsewagesludgesince2001.Thisunithasacapacityof28,000t/year.The facilityincludesachar/ashmelter.PKAhasa31,000t/yearunitinstalledin Freiberg/Saxony,Germany,wherehighaluminiumcontentindustrialwasteis pyrolyzedforrecoveryofthealuminium.Thealuminiumissenttoanadjacentmelting plant.Pyrolysisgasisusedtosupplyheatforthemeltingplant.Thisfacilityhasbeen operatingcontinuouslysincethesummerof2001.A9,000t/yearsewagedryingplant hasbeenoperatingsince1993inBopfingen,Germany.Asmaller0.4t/yearfacilityhas alsobeenusedfortestingsince1994. ThePKAprocesstechnologyisalsolicensedtoToshibaCorp.ofJapanandismarketed underthenameProductenEnergieCentrale(PEC)intheNetherlands.PECreportedly hasreceivedapprovalfora150,000t/yearfacilityinDefile,Netherlands,thatwillhave threelineseachof4t/yearcapacity.ECNhasalsooperatedasimilar25kWpilotplant since1997fortestingofvariousbiomasswastes. SVZ(SekundrrohstoffVerwertungszentrum)SchwarzePumpe,Germany Waste/Biomass Thisfacility,builttogasifypetroleumresiduesandcoalinthemid1960snowprocesses MSWandhouseholdwastewithlesseramountsofpetroleumrefineryresiduesandcoal. Thecapacityofthefacilityis495,000ton/yearand55,000ton/yofsolidwasteandliquid water/oilresiduesrespectively. 49 Arecentsurvey 50 ofgasifiersutilizedprimarilyinthe fossilenergysectorindicatesannualfeedstockflowsatSVZare1.3ton/yand190,000 t/yearforsolidandliquidwastesrespectively.Thereasonforthisdiscrepancyhasnot beenpursued,butmaterialflowratesthroughthisfacilityaresubstantial. Theproductsoftheprocessareelectricity(75MW)and300t/daymethanol(fromall gasifiersandfeedstocks). SVZclaimstoprocessplastics,wastewood,sewagesludge,domesticgarbage (combinedorsourceseparated),andothersolidwastes.Liquidandslurrywasteoils, solvents,paintsludges,etc.areprocessedaswell.
49.http://www.svzgmbh.de/GB/Seiten/rahmen.html 50.SFAPacificforU.S.DOENationalEnergyTechnologiesLaboratory(NETL): http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/gasification/models/models.html 103
Thereare10separategasifiersinthefacility.SevenareLurgiDryAshgasifiers,and oneeachofLurgimultipurpose,BritishGasLurgi,andNoellKRCgasifiers. TheLurgi(LurgiEnergie,Germany) 51 dryashgasifierisapressurizedoxygenand steamblownmovingbedgasifier.Dryashreferstotheconditionthatashmaterial doesnotreachitsmeltingtemperaturewhichwouldproducealiquidslag.Solid feedstockentersthereactorthroughalockhopperatthetopandmovesdownthrough thebed,whileoxygenandsteamareinjectedinthebottomandmoveupcounter currentlytothesolidfuel.TheLurgimultipurposeisapressurized,oxygenblown gasifierandconfiguredforliquidfeedstocks. BritishGasLurgifixedbedgasifierispressurizedandoxygen/steamblownsimilarto theLurgidryash.Thedifferenceisthefuelispresentasasubstantialpiledmassinthe reactorandslowlymovesdownasthematerialinthebottomofthepilereactsand gasifies.Oxygenandsteamareinjectedintothefuelmasswithlancesandreaction temperaturesareallowedtobehighenoughtomelt(orslag)theash,whichdrainsand isremovedfromthebottom.Synthesisgasleavesnearthetopofthereactor. TheNoellKRCgasifierisanentrainedflowgasifier(alsopressurizedandoxygen blown).Theliquidorsmallparticlefuelisinjectedatthetopofthereactorwithoxygen. Thefallingfuelparticlesreactwiththeoxygenandheat.Ashslagsandrunsdownthe reactorwall.Synthesisgasandslagexitthereactionchambertogetherthroughanorifice andarequenchedwithwatercondensingsomeofthetarsandcreatingvitrifiedash granuleswhicheventuallyexitthepressurizedvesselthroughlockhoppers. Thermoselect(Locarno,Switzerland) TheThermoselectHighTemperatureRecycling(HTR)processwascommercially demonstratedbeginninginFondotoce,Italy,in1989.Theprocessusesslowpyrolysis followedbyfixedbedoxygenblown(atmosphericpressure)gasificationandash melting(Calaminusetal.1998).Someinformationindicatesnaturalgasisburnedalong withaportionoftheproducergastothegasifierforsupplementalenergyfor gasification.Thismaybeduetovariabilityoffeedstockcharacter(e.g.moisture, energeticvalue). TheprocessacceptsunsortedMSW.Wasteisloadedintoachamberwhichispushed andcompactedbyhydraulicpressandmoved(inplugflowfashion)througha cylindricalheatingchamberwheredryingandsomepyrolysisoccurs.Attheendofthis horizontalheating/pyrolysistube,thesolidmaterialfallsintoahightemperatureoxygen blowngasifier.Organicmaterialisgasified,andashismeltedandallowedtoseparate bydensitybeforebeingcooled.Producergasiscleanedandutilizedappropriately. Recyclablemetalsandvitrifiedmineralsareuseableoutputs.Gascleaningcreatesa sludgecontainingheavymetals.Heermannetal.(2001)indicatethat23kg/tonMSWof naturalgasisaninput.Thisrepresentsabout12%oftheenergycontainedin1metric
51.SeeConversionTechnologydatabaseforLurgiEnergie. 104
tonofMSW. 52 Thesynthesisgascanbeusedforenergyproductionorpossible chemicalsorliquidfuels. ThereisoneclientownedfacilityinEurope(Karlsruhe,Germany)andtwoinJapan.The Karlsruhefacilityhasbeenplaguedbycommissioningproblemscausingdelaysin licensinganddesigningotherfacilitiesinGermany.Thisledtocancellationofsomeof theEuropeanorders.Recentinformationindicatesthatthefacilityishavingfinancial problemsandmayclose(Vehlow2004).TheJapanesefacilitiesseemedtoproceed throughcommissioningmoreeasily,perhapsduetodifferentorbetterairpollution controlsystems. Theprocessisattractivebecauseofminimalorzerofeedstockpreparation/processing. ThereasonsforthecommissionproblemsinKarlsruheneedtobelearned. AUnitedStatesCompany,InterstateWasteTechnologies,ismarketingtheThermoselect processinNorthAmericaandtheCaribbean.Thewebsiteindicatespotentialprojectsin CostaRica,U.S.VirginIslands,andPuertoRico(lettersofintent,artistconceptual drawingsoffacilities,etc.) ThideEnvironmental(VoisinsLeBretonneux,France) TheThideArthelyseprocessisarotatingdrumpyrolysisscheme(similarto WasteGenUK,andPKA).Followingmaterialssortinganddrying,thematerialis conveyedintotherotatingpyrolysisdrum.Residencetimeisapproximately30minutes. Thesynthesisgasisburnedtoprovidetheheatforthepyrolyzerandprocesssteamfor drying. Thideseemstobetryingtomarketthesolidresiduecharasasolidfuelforuseoffsite. Thecompanyclaimsthecharcanbewashedandseparatedfromthemetals,otherinerts, andsolublesalts.Evenifcharwashingiseffective,itseemsthatitwouldbecostlyand energyintensivepossiblymakingitunattractiveasanoffsitesolidfuel. Thidereportsthatofthesolidsoutput(in%ofinputmaterialmass),4%isrecyclable metal,10%isash,and23%isthewashedchar. HitachihasthelicensefortheprocessinJapanandthereisasmallplantlocatedin Nakaminatooperatingsince1999(capacityisabout10,000tony 1).Alargerfacility (50,000tony1)isunderconstructioninthetownofArrasandwasscheduledtodebutin 2004. TPSTermiskaProcesserAB(Nykping,Sweden) TPSisanemployeeownedcompanyinSwedenwithafairlylonghistoryingasification andcombustionforheatandpowerfueledbybiomassandcoal.Alargeamountof researchanddevelopmentisundertakenbythecompanyfromfundsprovidedbythe SwedishNationalEnergyAdministration,theEuropeanCommunity(variousenergy
52.AssumesnaturalgasHigherHeatingValueof55MJ/kgandMSWHHVof10MJ/kg. 105
agencies),aswellasprivatecompanies.TPSspecializesinfluidizedbed,bothcirculating (CFB)andbubbling(BFB)types,operatingincombustionorgasificationmodes.Gasifier attributesincludeatmosphericorpressurized,usingair,oxygen,orsteaminjection. TheirCFBdesignsarelicensed(underthenameofStudsvik)toseverallargeboiler manufacturesthroughouttheworldincludingBabcockandWilcox(UnitedStates), Kvaerner(Sweden),AustrianEnergy(Austria),andSERConsortium(Brazil). TPSisalsoinvolvedinIGCCsystemsfueledbybiomass.Ademonstrationplantofthis typehasbeenbuiltinEngland(ARBREproject)andhasbeenoperated.Itwasintended tobewoodfueledwithadesigncapacityof8MWbuttheprojecthasterminated(see sectiononBiomassIGCC).TPSwasalsoinvestigatinganddesigningtwoprojectsin BrazilwhichwoulduseIGCCplants.Onewouldbefueledbybagasseandsugarcane trash,andtheotherfromeucalyptustrees.Theprojectsarepurportedlyonholddueto lackoffinancing(seesectiononBiomassIGCC). Greve,Italy Inthelate1980s,TPSlicensedtheCFBprocesstoAnsaldoofItalyandprovidedthe designoftwogasifierstobefueledbypelletizedrefusederivedfuel(RDF).Theplant wasbuiltbyAnsaldoandbeganoperationin1991. Thetwo15MWthCFBgasifiersconsume100t/day(each)ofpelletizedRDFfromnearby Florence.Thegasifiersareairblownandoperateslightlyaboveatmosphericpressure near850C(belowashmeltingpoint).Rawgasleavingthecycloneparticleseparatoris combustedinaboiler.Theboilerraisessteamwhichisexpandedthroughacondensing turbine.Systemdesignisfor6.7MW.Thefacilitycanfeedgastoanearbycementplant ifelectricityeconomicsareunfavorable. ArecentcasestudyoftheGrevefacilitywaspublishedbytheIEATask36 53 (Energy fromSolidWasteManagementSystems).Operationalproblemswiththeplanthave beenexperienced.Thegasifiersthemselvesreportedlyoperateflawlesslybuttheboiler foulswithflyashandcondensedtar.Steamproductionhasbeenlow.Atwophase remediationprogramwasundertakenlatein1997withplannedcompletionin2000.The modificationstothesystemincludeanewRDFplantwithbetterqualitycontroland betterparticulateremovalfromthegasbeforeitenterstheboiler.Itwasunknownatthe timeofGranatsteinspublicationwhethertheoperationalproblemswerefixedasthe plantownershavenotreturnedrequestsforinformation.Thecasestudyincludesmass andenergydiagramsandemissionsinformationaswellaseconomicdata. WasteGenUK 54 WasteGenismarketingfacilitiestheyarecallingMaterialsandEnergyRecoveryPlants (MERPS).ThiscompanyseemstobetheinheritorofthetechnologydevelopedbyPLEQ,
53.http://www.ieabioenergy.com/ourwork.php?t=36#36 54.http://www.wastegen.com/template.htm 106
adefunctEastGermancompanythatdevelopedarotarykilnpyrolyzertoconvert municipalsolidwaste.FranzEickevonChristenisthetechnicaldirectorforthe company.HewasafounderanddirectoroftheoriginalPLEQcompany. AfullscaleunithasbeenoperatinginBurgau,Germany,since1987.Reportedly,the plantisownedbythemunicipality.Itconsistsoftworotarykilns,20meterslongby2.2 metersindiameter.Eachprocessinglineiscapableof3t/hour.TheBurgauplantis reviewedinbyHeermannetal.(2001).Some36,000t/hourofwastematerialis pyrolyzedatthefacility.AmixtureofMSW,commercialwaste,bulkywastes,and sewagesludgearemixedtogetherfromseparatestoragepits.Particlesizeisreducedto lessthan4inchesandthenconveyedtotherotarykilns.Thekilnsareheatedby combustionofaportionofthepyrolyticgas.Theremainingenergyinthepyrolysisgas isrecoveredfromcombustinginaboilerproducingsteamfora2.2MW turbine/generator.Itappearsthereisnosortingofthewasterequired.Ferrousmetalsare recoveredafterpyrolysis.Thecharproductisnotusedandissenttolandfill.Dustand flyashrecoveredinabaghousegascleaningsystemisconsideredhazardousbecauseof heavymetalscontaminationandmustbedisposedofproperly. Energyrecoveryisclaimedtobe470kWh/tonofinputmaterialwhichcorrespondsto 4.7t/hourofinputfeed.Thisfeedrateonanannualbasis(90%capacityfactor)wouldbe 37,000t/year,whichisessentiallyequivalenttothereportedannualinput.Onamass basis,12%isrecoveredasrecyclablemetaland21%(pyrolysischarandflyash)issentto landfill. Heermannetal.(2001)giveaveryfavorablereviewoftheprocesswithhighmarksfor reliability,minimalpreprocessing(nosorting),anddecentenergyrecovery.Thereport concludesthattheprocessshouldberegardedasaleaderformediumtolargescale pyrolysismixedwasteprocessing.
Biochemical MSW Conversion Systems

AnaerobicDigestionOverview Biodegradationoforganicmaterialoccursinnaturethroughtheactionofbothaerobic andanaerobicmicroorganisms.Inaerobicsystems,partialoxidationoftheingested organicmaterialistheresultyieldingcarbondioxideandwaterandundigestedresidue. Anaerobicbacteriawillalsodegradeorganicmatter,includingsomeabiogenicforms,in theabsenceofoxygenwithultimateproductsbeingnonreactiveresidues,carbon dioxide,andmethane.Thesebacterianaturallyoccurintheenvironmentinanaerobic nichessuchasmarshes,sediments,wetlands,andthedigestivetractsofruminants andcertainspeciesofinsects.Facultativeorganismsarecapableofpersistingineither environment. Anaerobicdigestionisafermentationtechniquetypicallyemployedinmanywastewater treatmentfacilitiesforsludgedegradationandstabilizationbutalsotheprincipal processoccurringinlandfills.LargedairiesandswinefarmsintheUnitedStatesare turningtotheuseofADprimarilyasameanstomitigatetheenvironmentalimpactsof
107
manurelagoonswithsomecaptureofmethaneforenergyproduction.Manyhousehold scaledigestersareemployedinruralChinaandIndiaandelsewherearoundthe developingworldforwastetreatmentandgasproduction.Approximately5million householdsinChinauseanaerobicdigesters.Thedigestersproducebiogasthatisused asanenergysourcebythehouseholds,andproducefertilizerthatisusedinagricultural production(Henderson2001).Europe,especiallyDenmark,hasdevelopedlargescale centralizedsystemsforsolidwastestabilizationandenergygenerationasabyproduct. AnaerobicDigestionProcessDescription Anaerobicdigestionoflignocellulosicwasteoccursinathreestepprocess.Thesesteps arehydrolysis,acetogenesis,andmethanogenesis.Themolecularstructureofthe biodegradableportionofthewastethatcontainsproteinsandcarbohydratesisfirst brokendownthroughhydrolysis.Thelipidsareconvertedtovolatilefattyacidsand aminoacids.Carbohydratesandproteinsarehydrolyzedtosugarsandaminoacids.In acetogenesis,acidformingbacteriausethesebyproductstogenerateintermediary productssuchaspropionateandbutyrate.Furthermicrobialactionresultsinthe degradationoftheseintermediaryproductsintohydrogenandacetate.Methanogenic bacteriaconsumethehydrogenandacetatetoproducemethaneandcarbondioxide.A schematicofthesepathwaysisgiveninFigure140.
108
Particulate Organic Material

Carbohydrates (including cellulose and hemicellulose)
Proteins
Lipids
Amino acids, Sugars
HYDROLYSI
Fatty acids
ACETOGENESI S Acetate Hydrogen
METHANOGENESIS (aceticlastic)
METHANOGENESIS (hydrogenotrophic)
Major Minor pathway
Methane CO2
Figure 1-40. Anaerobic digestion pathways of presorted MSW

Photo Credit: Adapted from Gujer and Zehnder 1983
Anaerobicdigestionoperateswithoutfreeoxygenandproducesbiogas.Biogasconsists principallyofmethaneandcarbondioxidebutalsohasimpuritiessuchasmoisture, hydrogensulfide,andparticulatematter.Anaerobicdigestionrequiresattentiontothe

109
nutritionaldemandsofthebacteriadegradingthewastesubstrates.Thecarbon/nitrogen ratioofthefeedstockisespeciallyimportant.Biogascanbeusedasfuelforengines,gas turbines,fuelcells,boilers,industrialheaters,otherprocesses,andthemanufacturingof chemicals(withemissionsandimpactscommensuratewiththosefromnaturalgas feedstocks). Anaerobicdigestersystemscanbecategorizedaccordingtowhetherthesystemusesa singlereactorstageormultiplereactors.Insinglestagesystems,theessentialreactions (hydrolysis/acidification,acetogenesis,andmethanogenesisFigure140)occur simultaneouslyinasinglevessel.Withtwoormultistagereactors,thereactionstake placesequentiallyinatleasttworeactors. Singlestagesystemsaregenerallysimplertooperate,havefewercomponentsfor maintenanceorfailure,andhavesmallercapitalcosts.Multistagesystemsofferthe potentialtoincreasetherateofmethaneproductionandtheamountofoverall biodegradationofthefeedstockbyseparatingandoptimizingthedifferentstepsofthe biochemicalprocess.Multistagereactorsseparatethehydrolysis/acidificationfromthe acetogenesisandmethanogenesisstages. Anotherimportantclassificationordesignparameterissolidsconcentrationinthe reactor.Solids(ortotalsolids,TS)areusuallyexpressedasafractionofthetotalmassof thepreparedreactorfeedstock(typicallyasapercentagebyweight)andconstitutethe drymatterfractionofthesubstrate.Theclassificationschemeforsolidscontentis usuallydescribedasbeingeitherhighsolids(HS)orlowsolids(LS).HSsystemsarealso calleddrysystemsandLSmaybereferredtoaswet.Apreparedfeedstockstreamwith TSlessthan15%isconsideredlowsolids(wet)andfeedstockswithTSgreaterthan15% areconsideredhighsolids(dry).InHSsystems,solidscontentisusuallykeptinthe rangeof20to40%TS.Dilutionwithprocesswatertodesirablesolidscontentistypically doneinfeedstockpreparationstages. SingleStageSystems(LowSolids) Singlestagewet(LS)anaerobicdigestionsystemsareattractivebecauseoftheir similaritytoanaerobicstabilizationofWWTPs.Thesolidwastesarepulpedandslurried tolessthan15%TSwithwatertoaconsistencynotunlikethatofbiosolidsbefore stabilizationinWWTPs.Thoughconceptuallysimple,therearecertaindrawbacksto singlestagewetsystemsincludingextensivepretreatment,higherwaterconsumption andpotentiallyhighenergyrequirementstooperatethesystem. AnearlyfullscalesinglestageLSplantfortreatingMSWwasbuiltinWaasa,Finland, in1989(Figure141)(MataAlvarez2003).Thefeedstockishomogenizedanddiluted usingwatertoobtaintherequiredsolidscontentinapulpingstep.Hydrolysisofthe carbohydratesubstratewillbegininthepulpingoperation,althoughthemajorityofthe hydrolysisphasetakesplaceinthereactortank.
110
PULPING
Biogenic fraction of MSW
METHANIZATION
Bioga
Pre-chamber
10-15% Heat addition

Make-up water
DEWATERING
Inoculation loop
Compostin Heavies Water treatment
Recycle process water
Figure 1-41. Schematic of a typical single-stage LS digester

Photo Credit: Adapted from Mata-Alvarez 2003
Theslurryispumpedintoalargecompletemixreactor(alsocalledacontinuously stirredtankreactor[CSTR])whereactivemixingkeepssolidsinsuspension. PompanoBeach,Florida(Chynoweth2002) Inthemid1970s,U.S.DOEfundedWasteManagementtodesign,construct,and operate/demonstratetheseparationsandADconversiontechnologyforMSWata50to 100t/dayscale.Otheragencies,includingtheNationalScienceFoundationandtheGas ResearchInstitutecontributedfunding.TheprojectwascalledRefCoM(Refuse ConversiontoMethane). Extensiveproblemswiththedesignandoperationwereexperiencedduringa2year period.Eventually,experimentalrunslastingupto70dayswereperformedforraw wastefeedrates,upto40t/day. Thesystemconsistedofextensiveupfrontpreparation,includingamaterialsrecovery facility(MRF),andshreddingandseparatingoperations.Thedigesterportion incorporatedtwo1300m 3CSTRreactorsoperatedatthermophilictemperatureswithTS concentrationof3to7%.Chynoweth(2002)reportsthatbiogasproductionaveraged7.5 ft3(0.212m3)oftotalgasperpoundofvolatilesolids(methaneconcentrationwasabout 55%). Aneconomicevaluationconductedin1990indicatedthata400t/dayfacilitybasedon thePompanoBeachRefCoMdesignwouldrequireatippingfeefrom$36.50pertonup to$53pertondependingonwhetherthefacilityispubliclyorprivatelyownedand energyprices(Chynoweth2002).
111
TheADportionofthedesignwasconsideredtobetechnicallyfeasiblebytheRefCoM demonstration.ThechoiceofawetdigestionsystemformixedMSW,whichrequired extensiveupfrontpretreatment/separationoperations,isregardedasaflawwiththe PompanoBeachproject(R.W.Beck2004). AtrueCSTRsystemwhichhascontinuousinflowandoutflowwillexperience somethingcalledshortcircuitingwhichisthepassageofaportionofthefeedthrough thereactorwithashorterretentiontimethanthatfortheaveragebulkmaterial.Short circuitingdiminishesbiogasyieldandemitsalessbiologicallystabilizedeffluent.To counteractshortcircuitingincompletemixreactors,somesystemsuseaprechamber wherethefeedstockisinoculatedwithorganismsfromthereactorvessel(Figure141). Thematerialintheprechambermovesinplugorpistonflow,whichtakesseveral daystogofromthepointofinjectiontowhereitjoinsthecompletemixportionofthe reactor,thusensuringallmaterialenteringtheprocesshasaguaranteedminimum retentiontime.Theprocesscanbeoperatedatboththermophilic(approximately130F) andmesophilic(approximately95F)temperatures.TheplantinWaasa,Finland,has bothtypesrunninginparallelwiththethermophilicprocesshavingaretentiontimeof 10daysandthemesophilicprocesshavingaretentiontimeof20days. Thepretreatmentrequiredtoobtainadequateslurryqualitywhileremovingcoarseor heavycontaminantsiscomplexandinevitablyincura15to25%lossofvolatilesolids (Farneti1999).Mechanicalmixingand/orinjectionofaportionofthebiogasintothe bottomofthereactortankisusedtokeepthematerialcontinuouslystirredand homogenousaspossible.However,energyforvigorousmixingissubstantial,so practicalsystemsrequiremeanstoremoveheavymaterialthatdoesntremain suspendedaswellasafloatingscumlayerwhichcanbuilduptoseveralfeetthick. SingleStageSystems(HighSolids) Indry,orHS,systems,thefermentingmassiskeptatasolidscontentof20to40%TS (equivalentto60to80%moisture).Thephysicalcharacteristicsofmaterialatthehigher solidscontentrequiredifferentapproachestohandlingandpretreatment(i.e.,conveyor belts,screws,andspecialpumpsforthehighlyviscousstreams).Assinglestagewet systemswerebasedonthewellestablishedanaerobicdigestionofwastewaters, researchinthe1980sindicatedthebiogasyieldandproductionratewereashighor greaterinsystemsthatkeptthewastefeedstocksintheiroriginalsolidstate(i.e.,not slurriedwithwater)(Farneti1999).Thechallengeofthesesystemsishandling,mixing, andpumpingofthehighsolidsstreamsratherthanmaintainingthebiochemical reactions. Althoughsomeofthehandlingsystemsmaybemoreexpensivethanthoseforwet systems(suchashighsolidspumps),theHSsystemsaregenerallymorerobustand flexibleregardingacceptanceofrocks,glass,metals,plastics,andwoodpiecesinthe reactor.Thesematerialsarenotbiodegradableanddonotcontributetobiogas productionbuttheygenerallycanpassthroughthereactorwithoutaffectingconversion
112
ofthebiomasscomponents.Theonlypretreatmentrequiredisremovalofthelarger pieces(greaterthan2inches),andminimaldilutionwithwatertokeepsolidscontentin thedesiredrange. Becauseoftheirhighviscosity,materialinHSreactorsmovesviaplugflowwithlittle mixing.Thispresentstheproblemofinoculatingnewlyinjectedfeedstockwithaportion ofthefermentingmass.Atleastthreecommercialscaledesignshavebeendeveloped whichadequatelyinoculatesthefeedstockbymixingaportionofthedigestedmaterial orrecirculatingbiogas(Figure142).
Bioga
B
Biogas
C
Biogas
Inoculum loop
Feed
Digeste d paste Feed Digeste d paste
Biogas recirculation provides inoculant
Digeste d paste Feed
Figure 1-42. High solids single stage digester designs, A Dranco, B Kompogas, C Valorga
TheDrancoprocess,diagrammedinFigure142(A),mixessomedigestedpastewiththe incomingfeedandpumpsthemixturetothetopofthereactorvessel.Fermenting materialflowsdownward,eventuallyexitingatthebottomwithbiogasbeingrecovered throughthetop.TheKompogasreactoralsomixesaportionofthedigestatewiththe incomingfeed.Thisprocessisahorizontalplugflowreactorwiththematerialmoving fromtheinputendtotheoppositeend.Thehorizontalreactorhasasetofinternal impellersthatslowlymovethematerialalong(someamountofmixingisprovidedas well).TheKompogassystemrequiresacarefuladjustmentofTStoabout23%(Mata Alvarez2003).IfTSistoolow,heavymaterialstendtoaccumulateonthebottomanddo notexitthesystem,whilehigherTSvaluesbecometoodifficulttomove.Thethird
113
conceptinFigure142wasadoptedbytheValorgaprocess.Thisreactorconsistsofa verticalcylinderwithaverticalinnerwallmountedalongadiameterofthereactorbut onlyextendingabout2/3ofthewayacrosstotheoppositeside.Materialentersatthe bottomononesideoftheinnerwallandmustflowacircularpathtopasstotheother sidewallbeforeitexits(DeLaclos1997).Biogasisperiodicallyreinjectedinthebaseof thereactoroneithersideofthedividingwalleffectingsomeverticalmixingandsolids suspensionwithnomechanicalmixingdevicesinsidethedigester.Thegasmixingand solidscirculationresultininoculumtransfertoinfluentfeed. MultiStageSystems Multistagesystemsaredesignedtotakeadvantageofthefactthatdifferentportionsof theoverallbiochemicalprocesshavedifferentoptimalconditions.Byseparately optimizingprimaryandsecondaryconditions,theoverallratecanbeincreased. Typically,twostageprocessesattempttooptimizethehydrolysisandacidification reactionsinthefirststagewheretherateislimitedbyhydrolysisofcellulose.The secondstageisoptimizedforacetogenesisandmethanogenesiswheretherateinthis stageislimitedbymicrobialgrowthrate.Withmultistaging,itispossibletoincrease hydrolysisratebyapplyingamicroaerophilicprocess.Thisprocessusesminimalairto allowsomeaerobicorganismstobreakdownsomeoftheligninthatmakesmore celluloseavailableforhydrolysis.Theairwouldinhibitthemethanogenicorganismsif theywerepresentastheywouldbeinasinglestagereactor.Figure143depictsabasic twostageADsystemwithhydrolysisoccurringinthehighsolidsfirststageand methanogenesisoccurringinthelowsolidssecondstage.
STAGE 1
(hydrolysis) Solid Feed
Make-up water
STAGE 2
(methanogenesis
Biogas Note: 2nd Stage could be: CSTR, UASB, Fixed Film, (among others)
Liquid Recycle
Dewaterin Liquid
Composting
Waste and Water Treatment (and/ or compost and liquid fertilizer)
Figure 1-43. Simple schematic of two-stage anaerobic digestion system (high solids first stage, low solids second stage)
114
Asmentionedearlier,inEuropethereareapproximately7ADplantsusingtwostage designsand79singlestageplants.Itwasexpectedthatmoreofthemultistagesystems wouldbeinoperationbynow,butthedegreeofincreasedyieldandratesdemonstrated inlabscalemultistagesystemshavenotbeenachievedincommercialunits. PerformanceofSomeCommercialandPracticalPilotScaleFacilities Table132listssomemethaneproductionvaluesreportedonaperVSbasisforsome commercialfacilitiesinEuropeandsomepilotscaleexperiments.Someofthefeedstocks arecharacterized. Thesefacilitiesarenominallyoperatedatthermophilictemperature(around130F)and retentiontimesofabout15days. TheSEBACexperimentswereconductedfor21and42dayswithbatchreactorsat120F. Thistemperaturewasusedbecauseitrepresentedthenaturaltemperatureexpectedto resultfrommetabolicheatasdeterminedbysystemscalculations(Okeefeetal.1993). MethaneproductionfromtheDrancoplantscitedintheliteratureseemsrespectableand reflectsthefactthefeedstocksaregenerallysourceseparatedandthefoodandgreen wastesaretargetedfortheAD.
115
Table 1-32. Performance data of some commercial and pilot AD facilities

Plant (or reference) Dranco, Salzberg (De Baere, 2000) Feedstock 80%Kitchen 20% Garden wastes TS (%) 31 57 40 VS/TS (%) 70 51 55 CH4 VS VS reduction production (g/g input) (%) (l/g VS) 0.217 0.2907 0.22 70 60 52 0.34 0.28 0.26 0.25 0.22 0.20 81 92.5 0.5751 0.6068 49.7 40.6 0.19 0.19 CH4 CH4 production Energy (g /g VS) (MJ/kg VS) 0.24 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 13.6 11.0 10.2 10.1 8.7 8.1 7.5 7.5 4.3 4.6 CH4 Energy (MJ/kg Input) 2.9 3.2 2.2
Dranco, Bassum (De Baere, 2000) "Grey" waste 15% Kitchen Dranco, Brecht (De Baere, 2000) 75% Garden 10% Paper wastes Venice (Cecchi et al., 1989) France/Valorga (begouen et al., 1988) Marseille (Marty et al., 1986) 60% paper, SEBAC pilot 42 days (O'Keefe et al., 1993) 6% yard waste SEBAC pilot 21 days (O'Keefe et al., 1993) 95% paper, 2% yard waste
35 71 65.6
SEBAC pilot 21 days (O'Keefe et al., 1993) Venice (Cecchi et al., 1989)
60% paper, 6% yard waste
71
81
0.5751
36.0
0.16 0.16
0.11 0.11
6.3 6.3
3.6
116
StatusofMSWAnaerobicDigestioninEurope Anaerobicdigestionsystemsusingsolidwastefeedstocksaremorewidelyutilizedin Europe.EuropeanCommunitypolicieshavedevelopedtominimizetheamountof materialbeinglandfilled.Thesepoliciesaredrivenbyseveralfactorsincludinglimited spacefornewlandfills,andtheneedsformethaneemissionreductionsandincreased renewableenergyproductionbecauseofKyotoProtocolrequirements.Examplesof policiesimplementedtoreducematerialflowtolandfillinEuropeincludeGermanys ExtendedProducerResponsibility(EPR)approachthatrequiresmanufacturerstobe responsibleforrecoveryofpackagingmaterial,andrestrictionsontheamountof biodegradablematerialthatcanbedisposedinlandfills ADandaerobiccompostingofkitchen,foodprocessor,andgardenwastesiswell establishedinEurope.ToimprovethequalityoffeedstocksusedinADandcomposting operations,sourceseparationofhouseholdandcommercialfoodandgardenwastesis utilizedextensively.Atleast11EuropeanUnioncountrieshaveimplementedorare abouttoimplementsourceseparationforfoodandgreenwastes. 55 InSwitzerlandfor example,approximately220lbperpersonperyearofsourceseparatedfoodandgreen wasteiscollected.About12%ofthematerialisstabilizedbyADfacilities,andthe balanceiscomposted(Ludwig2003).Germanyhasmorethan500facilitiesthattreat morethan8milliont/yearofgreenandfoodwastesinbiochemicaltreatmentfacilities, withthemajoritybeingaerobiccompostfacilities(Kubleretal.2000). AreviewofADintheorganicwasteindustryinEuropewasdonein2000andupdated in2003(DeBaere2000;DeBaere2003).Inthe2003update,86ADfacilitieswere identifiedaseitheroperatingortobeunderconstructionby2004withcapacitygreater than3,000metrict/year,andwithatleast10%ofthetreatedfeedstockfrommunicipalor commercialorganicwaste.Manyofthesefacilitieswillcodigestanimalwastesand municipalwastewatersludges.InSpain,the13largecapacityplants,whichaverage 70,000t/year,willbeanaerobicallytreatingnearly7%ofthebiodegradableMSWbythe endof2004(DeBaere2003).ForallofEurope,theinstalledcapacityin2000was1.1 milliont/yearandwasprojectedtoincreaseto2.8milliont/yearin2004,anincreaseof approximately250%infouryears.Figure144showsinstalledcapacityofMSWAD facilitiesbetween1990and2004.Figure145showshowthecapacityisdistributed betweensingleandtwostagesystems.Singlestageanaerobicdigestersaccountfor approximately92%oftheinstalledADcapacityinEurope.
55.EuropeanCompostNetwork,http://www.compostnetwork.info/biowaste/index.htm 117
3.0
2.5
Capacity (million tons/y)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004*
*Data projected for 2004
Figure 1-44. Growth of solid waste anaerobic digester capacity in Europe

Photo Credit: Adapted from De Baere 2000 and 2003
118
Single Stage
3
Two Stages
2.5
Capacity (million tons/y)
1.5
0.5
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 *
*Data projected for 2004
Figure 1-45. Installed AD capacity by stage in Europe

Photo Credit: De Baere, 2000 and 2003
Biochemical MSW conversion Facilities and Companies

Valorga(Montpellier,France) TheValorgaprocesswasdesignedtotreatorganicsolidwaste.Itisananaerobic digestionprocessandacceptsMSWafterappropriateseparationofrecalcitrantfraction. Theprocessdilutesandpulpstheorganicfractiontoabout30%solidscontent.Thisis consideredahighsolidsprocess.Steamisusedforheating/maintainingtemperaturein thereactorsasnecessary.Mesophilicorthermophilicsystemsareuseddependingon feedstockandeconomics. Thereactorisacontinuousonestepplugflowprocess.Thereactorconsistsofavertical outercylinderwithaninnerwallaboutthe2/3ofthediameteroftheouterone.Material entersatthebottomononesideofinnerwallandmustflowuponesideanddownthe othersidebeforeitcanexit(deLaclosetal.1997).Theretentiontimeisontheorderof threeweeks.Biogasisinjectedinthebaseofthereactorandthebubblesserveasa meansformixingandkeepingsolidssuspended(gasmixed).Thedigestateisdewatered andcanbecomposted.Table133listsexistingfacilities.
119
Table 1-33. Valorga process installations 56
Location Bottrop Germany Geneva Switzerland Engelskirchen Germany Freiburg Germany Tilberg The Netherlands Bassono Italy Mons Belgium Amiens France Varennes-Jarcy France Cadiz Spain Barcelona Spain Hanover Germany La Coruna Spain
Material Kitchen waste Kitchen/Green waste Kitchen/Green waste Kitchen/Green waste Kitchen waste Sorted MSW/sludge Sorted MSW Sorted MSW Sorted MSW Sorted MSW Sorted MSW Sorted MSW/sludge Sorted MSW
Capacity (ktonnes/y) 6.5 10 35 36 52 55 59 85 100 115 120 125 142
Start-up Date 1995 2000 1998 1999 1994 2003 2002 1988 2002 2002 2004 2002 2001
Adapted from corporate webpage, http://www.steinmuller-valorga.fr/index_en.php, and Velma 2002.
WehrleWerkAG(Emmendingen,Germany) BiopercolatProcess WerleWerkAGisalargecompanyactiveinthermalconversionofbiomassandMSW withseveralcombustionfacilities.Thecompanyisalsoactiveinwastewatertreatment whichhasledtoitsinvolvementwiththesolidwastedigestionfacilityatKahlenberg (2000t/year).ThefacilityusestheBiopercolatprocess. TheBiopercolatprocessisamultistagehighsolidsprocess(Verma2002),Figure146. Thefirsthydrolysisstageiscarriedoutunderpartialaerobicconditions.Processwateris continuallypercolatedthroughthemechanicallyagitated(andslightlyaerated) hydrolysischamber(ahorizontaltunnelmuchliketheWrightMBTsystem).The leachatehydrolysiswaterisfedtoananaerobicplugflowfilterfilledwithsupport materialoperatingasanupflowanaerobicblanketsludgereactor.Theprocesshasa retentiontimeofonlysevendays.
56.Adaptedfromcorporatewebpage,http://www.steinmullervalorga.fr/index_en.php,and Velma2002. 120
STAGE 1
(microaerobic hydrolysis) Solid Feed
Make-up water
STAGE 2
(methanogenesis
Biogas
Liquid Recycle
Note: 2nd Stage operates in plug flow through fixed film support media)
Dewaterin Liquid
Composting
Waste and Water Treatment (and/ or compost and liquid fertilizer)
Figure 1-46. Simple schematic of Biopercolat process (high solids first stage, low solids second stage)
Photo Credit: Adapted from Mata-Alvarez 2003.
WrightEnvironmentalManagement(Ontario,Canada) WrightEnvironmentalManagementsuppliesinvesselcompostingsystems.Theseare managedandacceleratedaerobicconversionprocesses.Thematerialisloadedintoa tunnellikeenclosureandmovesslowlyinplugflow.Anyleachateisrecirculatedand airisactivelypumpedthroughthematerialthroughoutthelengthoftheenclosure.In situmixingandmoisturemanagementresultsina10to14dayretentiontimefor material.Excessairandgaseousproductscanbefedthroughabiofilterforodorcontrol beforereleasetotheenvironment.Thesystemismodularandcapacitiescanbescaled from600lbs.to30tonsperdaythroughoneenclosuretube. MSWcanbeprocessedafterappropriateseparationofnoncompostablematerial. Thecompanylistsseveralreferenceplants,whichinclude: Aberdeenshire,Scotland IsleofWright,England 32,000t/yMSW 22,000t/ymixedfood/greenwaste 730t/yfoodwaste 730t/yfoodwaste 365t/yfoodwaste 18,250t/yorganicfractionMSW
Dept.ofCorrections,Powhatan,Va. Dept.ofCorrections,Ogendburg,N.Y. AlleghenyCollege,Pa. Albany,N.Y.
121
CiTec(Finland/Sweden) CiTecisagroupofFinnishandSwedishcompanieswiththemajorityofoperations originatingfromtheVaasa,Finland,office.TheWaasaprocesswasdevelopedbyCiTec. TheWaasaProcess Thisisasinglestagewet(totalsolidslessthan15%)ADsystem.Fortheorganic fractionofMSWtobeusedinthissystem,itmustundergopretreatmentinapulper whichshreds,homogenizes,anddilutesthematerialtothedesiredconcentrationoftotal solids(10to15%TS).Recycledprocesswaterandsomefreshmakeupwaterareusedin thedilution.Theslurryisthendigestedinlargecompletemix(completelystirred) reactors.Thepretreatmentrequiredtoobtainadequateslurryqualitywhileremoving coarseorheavycontaminantsiscomplexandinevitablyincura15to25%lossofvolatile solidsfromtheportionreachingthedigester(Farneti1999).Mechanicalimpellersand injectionofaportionofthebiogasintothebottomofthereactortankareusedtokeep thematerialcontinuouslystirredandashomogenousaspossible.Toreduceshort circuitingofthefeed(i.e.,passageofaportionofthefeedthroughthereactorwitha shorterretentiontimethanthatfortheaveragebulkmaterial),aprechamberwithinthe mainreactortankisused.Freshmaterialfromthepulperenterstheprechamberalong withsomeofthebiomassfromthemaintankforinoculation.Figure147showsa schematicoftheWaasadigesterprocess.Theprechamberoperatesinplugflowtakinga dayortwobeforethematerialmakesitswayintothemainreactor,thusensuringall materialenteringtheprocesshasaguaranteedfewdaysretentiontime.Evenwiththe prechamberarrangement,enoughshortcircuitingoccursthatallpathogensarenot eliminatedrequiringapasteurizationstepinthepretreatment.Steamisinjectedinthe pulpertomaintainfeedat70Cforonehour. Theprocesscanbeoperatedatboththermophilicandmesophilictemperaturesandthe plantatVaasahasbothtypesrunninginparallel(thethermophilicprocesshasa retentiontimeof10dayswhile20daysisrequiredinthemesophilicdesign).The operationalperformance(manufacturerssummarydata)indicatesthatgasproduction isintherange100to150m 3/tonofbiowasteadded,volumereductionof60%,weight reduction50to60%,anda20to30%internalconsumption(heat)ofbiogas.The digestatecanbefurthertreatedbyaerobiccomposting,butthisdependsonthewaste quality. SeveralplantsareoperationalinEuropeandJapanbasedontheWaasaprocess. Capacitiesrangefrom3,000to90,000tonsperyear(seeTable134).
122
Table 1-34. List of Waasa process AD sites 57
Waasa (CiTec) System Locations Feedstock Kil Sweeden Biowaste Vaasa Finland MSW Pinerolo Italy MSW /Sludge Groningen The NetherlandsMSW Friesland The NetherlandsMSW Tokyo Japan (Ebara) Biowaste/Sludge Ikoma Japan (Ebara) Biowaste/Sludge Shimoina Japan (Ebara) Biowaste/Sludge Jouetsu Japan (Ebara) Biowaste/Sludge * From pretreatment
Adapted from CiTec Waasa Reference List
Year Scale Temp began (t/yr) . (C) Operation Status 3000 55 1998 Operational 15000 55 1994 Operational 30000* 55 2003 Completion 85000* 55 1999 Operational 90000* 55 2002 Start-up 500 55 1997 unknown 3000 55 2001 unknown 5000 37 2001 unknown 12000 55 2001 In operation
Output Output heat Elect. (kWe) (kWth) 0 228 300 620 1200 1880 1920 3000 2000 3140
PULPING
METHANIZATION
Biogas Pre-chamber
10-15% TS
Heat addition Make-up water
DEWATERING
Inoculation loop Composting Heavies Water treatment
Figure 1-47. Schematic of single-stage low solids AD system, Vaasa, Finland

LindeKCADresdenGmbH(Dresden,Germany) LindeKCAisalargeengineeringdesign/buildfirmactiveinpharmaceuticals,chemical andwastewaterandsolidwastetreatment. Thecompanyisactiveinbothlowandhighsolids(wetanddry)digestionsystems(see Figures148and149),andmechanicalbiologicaltreatmentsystems(MBT)for separatedMSW.MBTsystemsincludeaerobiccompostingsystemswithmechanical
57.AdaptedfromCiTecWaasaReferenceList, http://www.citec.fi/ang/eng/enviroment/Wassa_process/Ref_biogas.pdf 123
manipulationofthefeedstockandintensiveaeration.Somesystemsincludeintensive aerobicdigestionasapreprocessforafeedstockthatislateranaerobicallydigested.The companyreportsitwasthedesignerbuilderoftheworldslargestcompostfacilityin Bangkok,Thailandwithanoutputof1200t/day.
Figure 1-48. Linde-KCA two stage wet digestion system
Figure 1-49. Linde-KCA dry digestion plug flow system

Photo Credit: Linde-KCA
Lindehasdesigned,built,andoperatedafacilityinRadeberg,Germany,which codigestssourceseparatedbiogenicwastesfromhouseholdandindustrialsourcesalong withsewagesludgefromwastewatertreatment.Thecompanyreportsthatthisco digestionconceptenhancesdegradationofthesewagesludgecomponentofthe feedstock(increasesbiogasproductionfromthesewagesludge)anddecreasedcapital andoperatingcostscomparedtothosefortwoseparatefacilities.
124
AnothercodigestionfacilitydesignedandbuiltbyLindeislocatedonadairyfarmin Behringen,Germany.Theplanttakesthelowsolidsmanureandcodigests,withgrease fromrestaurantgreasetraps,solidsfrompigmanure,andarangeofotherfood processingwasteincludingbrewerysludge,rapeseedpresscake,andlowgradeseed potatoes.Thefacilityprocessesabout100t/day(wet)ofwhich75%isdairycowmanure. Thefacilityproducesabout650kWfromtwoJenbacher450kWgensets.Thirtypercent ofthepowerproductionisusedonsiteforoperatingtheplantandthedairywiththe balancesoldtothegrid. Recentordersforcompanyprojectsincludeamechanicalbiologicalintegratedwaste treatmentplanttobelocatedatthelandfillinLeipzigCrobern.Thefacilitywillinclude materialseparationandrecovery.Thecapacitywillbe300,000t/year.Onethirdofthe materialwillberecycled,onethirdthermallyconverted,andonethirdtreated biologically.Residuesfromthethermalandbiologicaltreatmentswillbelandfilled. AnothermechanicalbiologicalwastetreatmentplanthasbeenorderedforFridhaff, Luxemburg. Projectscurrentlyunderconstructioninclude:
MunicipalSolidWasteTreatmentPlantECOARCIinBarcelona,Spain:wet pretreatment,AD,andcompostingofMSW. MunicipalSolidWasteTreatmentPlantPINTOinPinto/Madrid,Spain:wet pretreatment,AD,andcompositingforMSW. BiowasteTreatmentPlant,Lisbon,Portugal:organicfractionofMSW.
Kompogas(Glattbrugg,Switzerland) KompogashasseveraloperatingorplannedunitsthroughoutEurope.Kompogasplants arealsoinJapanandafacilityinMartiniqueisunderconstruction(totalof approximately25operatingorplannedplants). Theprocessisoptimizedongreenwasteandkitchenwasteforfermentationtobiogas. Thebiogaswillrunsmallenginesforheatandpoweror,insomecases,itisupgradedto naturalgasstandards(removeCO2andH2Oandotherdilutents)andgoesinto Switzerlandswelldevelopednaturalgasvehiclefuelingsystems,thusconverting householdorganicwastesintoatransportationfuel. TheKompogassystemisahighsolids,thermophilicsinglestagedigestionsystem (Verma2002).ItcanbeclassifiedasanMBT.Thereactionvesselisahorizontalcylinder intowhichfeedisintroduceddaily.Movementofmaterialthroughthedigesterisina horizontalplugflowmannerwithdigestedmaterialbeingremovedfromthefarendof thereactorafterapproximately20days.Anagitatorwithinthereactionvesselmixesthe materialintermittently.Thedigestateisdewatered,withsomeofthepresswaterbeing
125
usedasaninoculumsourceandtheremainderbeingsenttoananaerobicwastewater treatmentfacilitywhichalsoproducesbiogas. ISKA(UplusUmweltserviceAG,Ettlingen,Germany) TheISKApercolationprocessisusedfortheputresciblefractionofthewastestream.It involvesahighdegreeofmechanicalsorting/separatinginthepreprocessingstepsas wellasinthehydrolysisanddigestionportionsoftheprocessfinishingwiththe dewateringofthedigestate.ThisisclassifiedasMBTofMSW. Biodegradablematerialisfirstseparatedfromthestreamandthenissubjectedtoa hybridaerobic/anaerobicdegradationprocess.TheISKAprocessusesaerobicmeansfor hydrolysisofinsolubleorganicmaterialtoreducetheoverallprocess(retention)time. Afterthispercolationstep,thematerialpassestostandardanaerobicmethodsfor productionofbiogasandreductionofmass.Thedigestateisthendewateredandsentto aerobiccompostingorconversionbythermalmeanstoenergyorotherproducts.ISKA literature 58 indicatesthattheenergyavailablefromthebiogasproductionisroughly sufficienttopowertheprocess.Tocreateexportableenergy,thedewatereddigestate andthenondigestedstreammustbeconverted(thermally).TheISKAcompany informationalsoindicatesitispretreatingMSWandsendingtheresidualsolidtoSVS SchwarzePumpegasificationfacilitywhichmakesmethanolandpower. ThecommercialscaledemonstrationplantatBuchen,Germany,willbeexpanded(to 150,000metrictons/year)toacceptMSWfromtheLudwigsburgarea.TheISKAprocess waschosenforanewfacilitynearSydney,Australia.Thecapacitywillbe170,000metric tons/yearatfullbuildout.TheconstructionbrokegroundinJuly2003. EcoTec(Finland):WABIOProcess ThisADprocessistargetedfortheMSWstream.Thesystemincludesreceiving,sorting, mechanicalpreconditioning,digestion,anddewateringofthedigestateforpossible furthercompostingprocessing. Thedigestionprocessoccursinasinglestagelowsolidsreactor.Itoperatesinthe mesophilictemperatureregion. ThreeplantsinEuropearelistedinapartnercompanywebsite. 59 Theirlocationsare VaasaandForssa,Finland,andBottrop,Germany(6500t/yearsourceseparatedwaste). AUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramwebsite 60 discussesaproposedWabioAD facilityforthecityofKalyan,India.Thescalewouldbe55,000t/year.Noscheduleis givenfortheprojectandfurthersearchingcouldnotdeterminetheexistenceorstatusof theproject.
58.http://www.iskagmbh.de/allgemeine%20grafiken/iska_engl.pdf 59.http://www.casa2000.net/wsludgewabioplants.htm 60.http://www.undp.org.in/programme/GEF/september/page1620.htm 126
OrganicWasteSystems(Gent,Belgium):DrancoProcessandSordisepSystem OrganicWasteSystems(OWS)wasestablishedin1988andmaintainsbiodegradability labsinBelgiumandOhio.OWSalsohasanexclusivepartnerinJapanforproposed facilitiesthere.Thecompanydesigns,builds,andoperatesADplantsforMSW.The companyalsoconsultsonbiodegradationandwastemanagement. OWShasdevelopedtheDranco(DryAnaerobicComposting)processaswellasthe Soridsep(SortingDigestionSeparation)integratedwastesystem.Thetechnologyis patentedunderinternationalpatentnumberWO02102966. TheDrancoprocesswasdevelopedinthelate1980s.Itisahighsolids(15to40%TS), singlestageADsystemthatoperatesatthermophilictemperatures(Verma2002).Feedis introducedintothetopofthereactor,andmovesverticallyasplugflow.Aportionof thedigestateisrecycledasinoculationmaterial,whiletherestisdewateredtoproduce anorganiccompostmaterial.Thereisnomixingwithinthereactor,otherthanthat broughtaboutbythedownward,plugflowmovementofthewasteandsomegas bubblingupwards.Sourceseparatedhouseholdandindustrialwastesarepreferred. Existingcommercialsystems(seeTable135)arereportedtohavebiogasproduction ratesintherangeof6to10m 3biogasperm3reactorvolumeperday(orabout120m3 biogasperwettonoffeedstock,Table136).TheDrancoprocessproducesacompost productandheatorelectricityfromthebiogas.Thecompanyreportselectricity productioncanrangefrom0.1to0.3MWh/tonfeedstock. Figure150showsaschematicwithamassbalanceforanoperatingDRANCOsystem. Figure151showssomeofthereactordetail.
127
Table 1-35. Organic Waste Systems Dranco References 61
Dranco Process Locations Brecht I Salzburg Bassum Aarberg Villeneuve Kaiserslautern Brecht II Alicante Rome Laeonberg Hille Mnster Terrassa Pusan Victoria Belgium Austria Germany Switzerland Switzerland Germany Belgium Spain Italy Germany Germany Germany Spain South Korea Spain
Scale (ktonne/y) 20 20 13.5 11 10 20 50 30 40 30 38 24 25 75 20
Year Began Operation 1992 1993 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006
http://www.ows.be/
Table 1-36. Feedstock and gas production for three Dranco facilities (De Baere 2000)
TS (%) VS/TS VS (%) (g/g Input) VS reduction (%) CH4 Production (l/g VS) (g/g VS) (MJ/kg VS) (MJ/kg Input)
Plant
Feedstock 80%Kitchen 20% Garden wastes "Grey" waste 15% Kitchen 75% Garden 10% Paper wastes
Salzberg
31 57
70 51
0.22 0.29
70 60
0.34 0.28
0.24 0.20
13.6 11.0
2.9 3.2
Bassum
Brecht
40
55
0.22
52
0.26
0.18
10.2
2.2
61.http://www.ows.be/ 128
Biogas 5
FLARE
1 1. Biowaste 2. Other organics 2
GAS STORAGE DRANCO DIGESTER Steam 2 550 m 3 STEAM GENERATOR
GAS ENGINES GENERATORS
Electricity
SHREDDER < 40 mm Residue to Post-treatment 6 DOSING UNIT FEEDING PUMP Process Water 4
1 tons/year 22 500
2 7 500
3 1 200
4 6 900
5 7 050
6 31 050
Figure 1-50. Schematic and mass balance of the Dranco process

Photo Credit: OWS
129
Reactor Tank Reactor Feed Tubes
Mixing and digestate recirculation pump
Figure 1-51. Drawing of the Dranco reactor

Photo Credit: OWS
BTA(Munich,Germany)(CanadaComposting,NorthAmericanLicensee) BTAfacilitiescanbesingleormultistageADprocessfortheorganicfractionofMSW. Methaneandcompostablesolidresidueareproducedaswellasaliquidresiduewhich canbemarketedasliquidfertilizer.Theprocessusesalowsolidsconcentrationslurry andcanbeoperatedinmesoorthermophilictemperatureranges. Theprocessincludesequipmenttoseparateinorganicandsomenondigestibleorganic (plastics)fromtheincomingwastematerial.Aftersorting,theorganicfractionisdiluted toabout10%(lowsolidsconcentration)anddigestedinsingleormultiplestages dependingonfacilityandwastestreamrequirements.BTAhaslicensedtheProcessto MATMllundAbfalltechnikforWesternEuropetoBiotecSistemi,Genua,forItalyand NiigataEngineering,Tokyo,forJapan.AnexclusivelicenseforCanadaandNorth AmericawasgiventoCanadaComposting,Newmarket/Ontario(CCI).Several cooperationagreementsweremadewithnonEuropeanpartners.Table137lists facilitiesusingtheBTAprocess. TheCanadaCompostingNewmarketPlantwasoperatingforaperiod.Itproduceda grosspowerof5MWfromburningthebiogasinreciprocatinginternalcombustion engines.Theplantparasiticloadwas2MWwithanetoutputof3MW.Capacitywas 150,000metrictonsperyearona5.4acresite.AccordingtoJeffFlewellingatYork Region(Canada),CCINewmarketwentintoreceivershipduetoodorproblemsand
130
inadequatefinancialabilitytoremediate.TheNewmarketplant,nowoperating,has beensoldtoHaltonRecyclingLimited(HRL)ofBurlington,Ontario.Canada Compostinghasbuilta25kt/yearpilotfacilityinToronto.

Table 1-37. BTA process references (BTA) Scale Year began BTA Process Locations (ktonne/y) Operation Ko-Sung Korea 3 2003 Karlsruhe Germany 8 1996 Mertingen Germany 11 2001 Erkheim Germany 11.5 1997 Dietrichsdorf Germany 1995 17 Waden-Lockweiler Germany 20 1998 Kirchstockach Germany 20 1997 Elsinore Denmark 20 1991 Mlheim Germany 22 2003 Toronto Canada 25 2002 Villacidro Italy 45 2002 Ieper Belgium 50 2003 Newmarket Canada 150 2000 Planned or under construction Alghoba Libya 11 ? Krosno Poland 30 ~ 2005 Pamplona Spain 100 ~2005
ArrowEcologyLtd.(ArrowBioprocess)(Haifa,Israel) TheArrowBioADprocessisdesignedtoacceptunsortedMSW.Inherentintheprocess isafullyintegratedwatervatsortingandcleaningfacility,whichyieldssorted recyclablesmuchlikeatypicalMRF(theexceptionbeingthatallbiomasscomponents, includingpaperandcardboard,areeventuallycarriedintothelowsolidsbiochemical treatmentsystem;ifpaperrecoveryisdesired,papermustbeseparatedupstreamofthe watervatstage).Thesortingprocessalsoseparatesmostofthenonrecyclableinert materialfromthebiodegradablematter. Thebiochemicalprocessingconceptutilizesupflowanaerobicsludgeblanket technologycommonlyusedbyWWTPs.Thecompanyhasexperiencewithdesigning andbuildingwastewatertreatmentfacilities. Theprocessoutputsaresorted:ferrousandnonferrousmetals,glass,andothermineral matter,plastics,biogas,nondigestibleresidue,andlowstrength(lowchemicaloxygen demand(COD)orbiochemicaloxygendemand(BOD)wastewater.Thebiogascanbe burnedingasenginesonsiteforheatandpowerorupgradedtopipelinequalitygas,or processedtoaliquefiednaturalgas(LNG)foruseastransportationfuel.Theemissions fromthebiogasutilization,therefore,dependontheenduseofthegas,butwouldbe similartothosefromexistingbiogasandnaturalgasapplications.Thelowgrade
131
wastewatercanbeusedforirrigation(asisdoneatthefacilityinIsraelfortheonsite landscaping),orcanbetreatedinthelocalmunicipalwastewatertreatmentplant. Manyofthecompanyclaimsaredifficulttocorroborateasnoindependentreview,data, ortestresultsweremadeavailable.Thereisoneexistingcommercialscalefacilitybuilt andoperatedbyArrowEcology.Thisisa70,000t/yearfacilityattheTelAvivtransfer stationthatpresentlyhandlesapproximately1milliont/yearfortransporttoadistant landfill.ArrowEcologyindicatesthata220t/yearfacility(60,000to70,000t/year dependingonnumberofoperatingdays)requiresafootprintofapproximatelythree acres. CurrentlytheoperatingplantinIsraelreceives$24.50pertonofmaterialprocessed,and anewlandfilltaxwillbringthistippingfeeto$33.30perton.Thefacilitywasfinanced withcompanyfundsandabankloan.Additionalinformationmadeavailablebythe company 62 givesestimatedcapitalcosts(foraUnitedStatesinstallation)of approximately$12millionfora220tpdplant.Therequiredbreakeventippingfeeis approximately$50perton.ReportedproducttypesandvaluefortheTelAvivfacility arelistedbelow: Product$/unit Electricity$50/MWh($.05/kWh) Plastic$72/ton Metal$63.5/ton GlassGivenaway OrganicsoilamendmentGivenaway LiquidwaterUsedinternallyasmakeupprocesswater,withthe excessusedforlandscapemaintenance QuantitiesoftheseproductsandTelAvivwastecharacterizationwerenotreported. 63 ArrowEcologyholdsUnitedStatespatent6,368,500(Asa2002)forawastetreatment system.Thoughelaborate,theprocessutilizesacleverwatervatprimaryseparator (notedabove)creatingthreematerialfeeds:(1)theheaviermaterial(sinkers),mostly nonbiodegradablematerialcomposedofmetals,glass,plasticwithspecificgravity(SG) lessthan1,mineralmatter,etc.;(2)thelightermaterial(floaters),composedoffloating plastics,containers,woodybiomass,somefooditems,etc.;and(3)theneutrallybuoyant materialwhichismuchofthebiomass.
62.2003WTERTFallmeetingatColumbiaUniversity, http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/meet2003/wtert2003_finstein.pdf 63.Thecompanywebsiteindicatesthefacilityisexpectedtoexport2to3MWonceinfull operation.http://www.arrowecology.com/mainpage/index2.htm 132
Thefloatingmaterialisskimmedoffthewaterpitandreunitedwiththeheavysinkers fractionthatisdredgedfromthebottomofthewaterpit.Thisstreampassesthrough standardMRFtypeseparationandsortingmechanisms(SeeFigure152).
Figure 1-52. Schematic of the ArrowBio process

Photo Credit: http://www.arrowecology.com
Solublebiomassbeginstodissolvewithagitationinthewatervat.Dissolvedandwater logged/soggybiomassiscarriedoutofthevatwithliquidflow.Particlesizereduction anddissolutionofbiodegradablescontinueswithdownstreamtravel.Sizereductionis aidedbypassagethroughaslowspeedrotaryshear,followedbyaspecialHydro Crusherdevice(whichisanaspectofthepatent).Oversizeparticlesarescreenedand returnedtothevat. Thebiomassmaterialreceivedinvarioussolidforms(foodpreparationandplatewaste fromhomesandrestaurants,foodtaintedpaper,vegetativetrash,yardwastenot divertedforcomposting,etc.)istransformedintoastrongwastewater.Assuch,itis possibletoapplylowsolidsUASBwastewatertreatmenttechnologytothe biodegradablefractionofMSW. Biologicalprocessing Thepreparedbiomassrichwaterysolutionflowsfromthewatervatseparatorto acidogenicbioreactors(anaerobic),whereintermediatedorganicacidsareformed. Effluentfromtheacetogenicreactorisscreenedandthelargeparticlesreturnedtothis firstreactor.Theliquidwithsmallerparticlesisheatedtoabout40Cbeforeenteringthe
133
UASBreactor,wherethemethaneisproduced(seeFigure153).Presumably,theUASB reactoroperatesinthemesophilictemperaturerange.
Biogas Effluent
Gas collector
Sludge
Periodic nonbiodegradable removal
Figure 1-53. Schematic of a UASB bioreactor

Photo Credit: Grady et al. 1999
IntheUASB,theinflowingorganicacidsandsolidscomeincontactwiththe methanogenicmicrobialcommunityresidinginthereactor.Themicrobesselectively formthemselvesintodiscretegranulesthat,collectively,haveveryhighsurfacearea andmasstransportcapability.Themicrobegranulestakeintheorganicacidsand producemethaneasametabolicproduct.Thegranulesandbiomasssolidsarrivingas influentaresuspendedandmixinthesludgeblanketbymovementofbiogasbubbles thatfloatupward.AnadvantageofUASBisthatsolidsretentiontime(SRT)and hydraulicretentiontime(HRT)aredecoupled.IntheArrowBioprocess,onceinthe UASBreactor,SRTisontheorderof75dayswhileHRTisaboutoneday.ThelowHRT translatestorelativelysmallreactorvolumes,whilelongSRTgenerallyprovidesfor morecompletebiodegradationandhighratesofmethaneproduction. Table138showstheprojectedmassbalanceandelectricityproductionfromaCalifornia wastestreamasprovidedinthesurveyresponse.Moisturecontentofthebiodegradable portionofthewastestreamwasadjustedfromthatusedinthesurveyresponse(from 40%to30%).Inaddition,whileUASBreactorscanproducebiogaswithrelativelyhigh methaneconcentration,the75%(volume)valueclaimedbyArrowBioseemshigh. Independentevaluationortestresultsareneededtocorroboratethis.Forthematerial balance,methaneconcentrationwasadjustedto65%.Thesurveyindicatesthat approximately80%ofthebiomass(drymatterorTS)isconsumedinthebiological reactors,whichalsoisratherhigh.Approximately7to15%ofTSisinertashand another10to15%isnonbiodegradablelignin(dependingonwastestream).Thisleaves 70to83%ofthebiomassdrymatterthatisbiodegradable(representingupperlimitsfor
134
aperfectsystem).Finally,thematerialbalancecouldnotbeclosedusingtheprovided information(i.e.,about15%ofthemasscouldnotbeaccountedforintheproducts).
Table 1-38. Mass balance and power production for ArrowBio process.a Tons per year 200,00 0 % of Input 100
Waste Input Recovered (NonBiodegradable for recycling) Soil Amendment water) Outputs Biogas CH4 (26.6 Mm3, 65% of total biogas volume) CO2 Biogas Total Water To Landfill Total Outputs Unaccounted Electrical Production MWe kWh/ton (unsorted) kWh/ton (material digester) to
35,330 (50% 40,890
17.7 20.4
20,943 31,012 51,956 23,340 18,720 170,23 5 29,765 Gross 10.3 451 618
26.0 11.7 9.4 85.1 14.9 Net 8.8 385 528
a) Based on ArrowBio survey response using Santa Barbara RFQ waste stream and 35% efficiency for electricity generation.
Theprocesscanacceptanyadditionalanaerobicbiodegradablefeedstocksthatare collectedseparatelyorareoutsidethestandardMSWstreamincludingfoodprocessing andrestaurantwastes,raworpartiallytreatedsewer,andbiodegradableindustrial wastewaters.Moreinformationincludingrealoperatingdatafromtheexistingfacility inIsraelwouldbehelpfulforassessingtheprocess.Certainclaimsmustbemetwith skepticismuntilprovenwithrealdata.Theseincludethemethaneproductionandits highconcentrationinthebiogas,thehighextentofbiodegradationclaimed(80%oftotal solids),andtheamountofinertmaterialsseparatedinthewatervatprocess.
135
Bioconverter(SantaMonica,California) ThecompanyispartofMcElvaneyAssociatesCorporation.McElvaneyhasdeveloped andpatented(PatentNo.6,254,775)anADsystemthatcanbecharacterizedasasingle stagelowsolidsfixed(immobilized)filmanaerobicdigester.Recentannouncements indicatethecompanyhasnegotiateda20yearagreementtoprovidetheLosAngeles DepartmentofWaterandPowerwithelectricityfromthebioconversionofgreenwastes at$16millionperyear($48/MWh).Thefacilitywillbeginoperationin2008and consume3,000t/dayofLosAngelesgreenwasteandgenerate40MWofelectricity.Itis notclearwhethertherewillbeothercoststothecityfortheproject(presumably,a tippingfeewillalsobepaidtoBioconverterfordisposalofthefeedstock). Approximately1,000t/dayofdigesterresiduewillbecreated,whichpotentiallycanbe usedincompostoperationsorassoiladditives.Ifnomarketexistsforthematerial,it willlikelybedisposedinlandfills. AnotherannouncedprojectiswiththeCityofLancaster,California.A$16million facilityisproposedtoconvert200t/dayoflocalgreenwasteandproduce5,000gallons perdayofcompressednaturalgas(CNG)thatcanbeusedasatransportationfuel.Press releasesclaimthatdigesterresiduewillbeusedinpoultryfeedingoperations.The projectwillpursuealternativefuelandairpollutionreductionrelatedgrantsthrough thelocalairpollutioncontroldistrict,butotherwisethefacilityisexpectedtobefunded privately. Thefeedmaterialisprimarilygreenwastesandsourceseparatedfoodwastes.Itcanalso acceptwastepaper(magazinesandjunkmail,mixedresidential,etc.),fats,oils,and grease,andhighstrengthwastewaters.Feediscomminutedasnecessaryandliquid addedtoobtainaslurrywithTSofabout10%.Gasandliquidarerecirculatedinthe digestertopromotemixing. Thesinglestagedigesterreliesonafixedsupportmatrixofpolyethyleneforgrowing andimmobilizingmethanogenicmicroorganisms.Reactorliquidandbiogasare recirculatedthroughthemediumtomaintainsolidssuspension.Thesystemisprobably operatedinthemesophilictemperaturerangeabout95F)becauseofasolidretention timeontheorderof30days.ProductsaretypicalforADsystemsandincludemethane andsolidandliquidsoilamendments/fertilizers.Table139showsbasicinformationfor thetwoannouncedBioconverterprojects(LADWPandCityofLancaster).Thetable showssimpleenergyconversionefficiency(energyinproduct/energyinfeedstock) usingahighandlowestimateforfeedstockenergycontent.Theestimatedefficiencies rangefromabout10to20%(dependingonfeedstockcharacteristics)thatarereasonable thoughperhapstendingtowardtheoptimisticendoftherangethatcanbeexpected fromADsystems. SystemshavebeeninstalledintheCaribbean 64 andHawaii.InHawaii,a2t/daysystem operatedonfoodandgreenwasteforfouryearswithsomesaleofliquidfertilizer.The
64.Seehttp://www.dwacaribbean.com/articles.html 136
companycooperatedwiththeUNISYNsysteminWaimanalo,Hawaii,whichused feedstockofmanurefrom2,000cows,250,000poultrylayers(egglayinghens),and wastefromaUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)fruitflyrearingfacility. Thesystemwascolocatedwiththeanimaloperationsaswellasagreenhouse.Residue fromthedigesterswasusedasproteinsupplementinthepoultryoperationand aquaculture.Thefacilitytransitionedtoprocessingfoodandgreasewastesandwas closedin1999.

Table 1-39. Basic Bioconverter project input and output capacities.
Efficiency of Energy in feedstock Green Product Capital Payment from Energy in Conversion (%) (GJ / day) waste feed Agency cost Product Project CNG rate Electricity c ($M) ($million/year)a Highb (GJ/ day) Lowc Highb Low d (Tons/day) MWe (gallons/day) LADWP Lancaster 3000 200 ? 44 16 ? 30395 2026 15997 1066 40 5000 3456 198 11.4 9.8 21.6 18.6
a) $48 /MWh b) 11.4 MJ/kg assuming all prunings, trimmings, branches (@ 40% moisture) c) 6 MJ/kg assuming all leaves and grass (@ 60% moisture) d) Assumes compressed to ~ 3600 PSI, with volumetric energy density equal to 30% that of gasoline Source: UC Davis Research Team ; Source: Robert Williams
UCDavisAnaerobicPhasedSolids(APS)Digester ThissystemwasdevelopedandpatentedbyProfessorRuihongZhangandDr.Zhiqin ZhangfromUCDavis(ZhiqinZhangiscurrentlyattheCaliforniaEnergyCommission) (ZhangandZhang2002).ThesystemislicensedtoOnsitePowerSystemsfor commercialization.LaboratoryandpilotscalereactorsarelocatedatUCDavis. ApilotfacilityontheUCDaviscampus,fundedbytheEnergyCommissionand industrypartners,willbeoperationalearlyin2005.Thepilotfacilitywillhavea feedstockcapacityofabout3t/day,producingabout25kWfromareciprocatingengine. AninstallationtobelocatedonapproximatelytwoacresontheCaliforniaState UniversityChannelIslandscampushasbeenproposed.Thefacilitywouldprocess250 t/dayofgreenwastedivertedfromVenturaCountylandfillsandpresumablysome wastefromthecampus.Itisestimatedthatsufficientbiogasforgenerating2MWof powerwillbeproduced.Abyproductwouldbe25to50t/dayoffertilizer.Thecapital costoftheprojectisreportedtobe$12million($6,000/kWinstalled).Revenuesfromthe projectincludethepriceoftheenergydisplacedbythefacility,fertilizersales,and tippingfeesfromwastehauledinfromoffcampus. Thefacilitywouldoperateatthermophilictemperature(135F)andhaveasolids retentiontimeof12days. Theanaerobicphasedsolids(APS)digesterdecouplessolidstatehydrolysisand acetogenicfermentationfromthemethaneproducingfermentation,allowingfor separateoptimizationofthetwoprocesses.Thetworeactorsareconnectedthrougha closedliquidrecirculationloopthattransfersthesolublesreleasedinthehydrolysis
137
reactortothebiogasproducer(methanogenesis)(Figure154).Thebiogasreactorcanbe designedforrelativelyshortliquidretentiontimebyusingsuspendedgrowth,attached growth,anaerobicmovingbedreactor(AMBR),orUASBreactortypes(Zhangand Zhang1999). Thehydrolysisreactorcanaccepthighsolidsfeedstockthat,dependingonits characteristics,mayneedsomekindofpretreatmentsuchasshreddingtoincrease hydrolysisrate.Thehydrolysisreactoroperatesinbatchmode.Becauseofthisbatch operation,thestrengthofthesolublecompoundsintheliquidbeingtransportedtothe biogasreactorwillvaryfromnearzeroimmediatelyafteraddingafreshbatchoffeedto thehydrolysisvessel,toamaximumwhentherateofhydrolysisishighest, subsequentlytaperingoffastheremainingsolublebiomassdeclines.Correspondingly, thebiogasproductionratewillvaryfromlowtohightolowagainbecauseitdepends onthestrengthandrateoftheinflowliquidarrivingfromthehydrolysisstage. Byusingseveralbatchloadedhydrolysisreactors,theloadingofeachbeingtimed(or phased)oneafteranothersuchthatthestrengthofthemixedsubstrateflowingfromall hydrolysisreactorsismorestable(Figure155).
Figure 1-54. Schematic of APS digester system showing four hydrolysis vessels
Photo Credit: Courtesy of Ruihong Zhang
Thisrelativelystableaveragestrengthliquidallowsforsuitablesizeanddesignofthe singlebiogasreactorinordertooptimizethemethanogenicportionoftheprocess.
138
10 Methane Production (L/day) 8 6 H-I 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Total
H-II
H-III
H-IV
8 9 10 Time (Days)
11
12
13
14
15
16
Figure 1-55. Simulated biogas production rate for lab-scale APS digester system
Photo Credit: Karl Hartman, UCD
1.5 Summary of Biomass Conversion

PowergeneratedfromcombustionofbiomassintheUnitedStatesincreasedrapidly between1980and1995afterenactmentofPURPAin1978.Favorablefederaltaxpolicies forinvestmentsinrenewableenergyandstateincentives(e.g.,theStandardOffer4 contractthatwasavailableinCalifornia)contributedtothefinancialviabilityof biopowerfacilities.FortheUnitedStates,installedbiomasspowercapacityis substantial,currentlyatabout11GW.About6.2GWisfueledbyforestproductsand agriculturalresiduesandabout3.5GWisMSWbasedincludinglandfillgas.TheUnited StatescapacityprimarilyconsistsofdirectcombustionsteamRankinesystemswithan averagesizeof20MW.Efficiencyistypicallyabout20%duemostlytothesmallplant sizebutalsotofuelquality(moisture). ThegeneratingcapacityofbiomasspowerfacilitiesinCaliforniafollowedasimilar trendasthatfortherestofthenation.Installedsolidbiomassdirectcombustionsteam cyclepowercapacityinCaliforniapeakedatabout770MWin1990.Today,thereare approximately28solidfueledbiomassfacilitiescurrentlyoperatinginthestate comprisingatotalof570MWcapacitynotincludingthreeMSWcombustionfacilities thatcombinedgenerateanother70MW.Another31facilitieswithcombinedcapacityof 340MWareidle,dismantled,orhavebeenconvertedtonaturalgasfuel.
139
SystemsthatproducepowerfrombiogasinCaliforniaincludesome50landfillgasesto energyfacilities,10gridconnectedwastewatertreatmentplants,andseveraldairyor foodprocessingwastedigesters.Thecombinedgeneratingcapacityfrombiogasin Californiaisapproximately250MW(210MWfromlandfillfacilities). Thetypeandscaleofbiomassconversionfacilitiesdependtoalargeextentonthe biomassresourcetypeandamountthatistechnicallyandeconomicallyavailableforthe expectedlifeofthefacility.Characteristicsofthefuelareimportantindetermining suitableconversiontechnology.Ingeneral,dryerbiomassfeedstocksaremoresuitedfor thermochemicalconversion(combustion,pyrolysis,gasification)andthemorewet feedstocks(e.g.,wastewater,foodwastes,someMSWgreenwaste,someanimal manures)aremoresuitableforbiochemicalconversionmethods(anaerobicdigestion). Thesearenotabsoluterules,soinvestigatingarangeofconversionmethodsis worthwhile. AbiomassresourceinventoryfortheSacramentoregionindicatesthatthereisa technicalgenerationpotentialofsome520MWfromanarrayofbiomassresidues.These includethebiogenicfractionofMSW,agriculturalcropresidues,animalwastes,and forestbiomass. AdvancedSystems Systemsthatimproveuponcost,conversionefficiency,installedcapacity,environmental performance,publicacceptance,orthatcanincreasetherangeofavailablefeedstocks andproductscomparedwithexistingcommercialtechnologiesareconsidered advanced. Overallefficiencyofbiomassconversiontoelectricityistypicallylowerthanlarge centralstationfossilpowerplantsduetosmallerfacilitysizeandlowerfuelquality. Efficiencyofconversionforexistingbiomassbasedpowersystemsrangesfromlessthan 10%toabout25%.Atthelowerendoftherangearecombustionboilersteamengine systems,smallgasifierenginesystems,andADreciprocatingenginesystems.Theupper rangeofefficiencyisachievedbylargercombustionboilersteamturbinesystems(more than40MW). TheCaliforniasolidfueledbiomassindustryconsistsoffacilitieswithnetpower capacityaslowas4MWtothreefacilitieswithcapacitiesbetween47and50MW.The netefficienciesrangefromabout15to25%.Maximumcapacityhassofarbeen constrainedbyadditionalregulatoryandpermittingrequirementsforfacilitiesof50 MWandabove,andnotbyspecifictechnicalorfuelsupplylimitations.Deliveredcosts ofbiomassinfluencetheoptimalsizeoffacilities,buteconomicandtechnicalrisk limitationstofacilitysizehavenotsofarbeentestedinCalifornia. SolidFuelCofiring Probablytheleastexpensivemeansforincreasinguseofbiomassinpowergenerationis tocofirewithcoalinexistingboilersbydirectsubstitutionof10to15%ofthetotal
140
energyinputwithasuitablebiomassfuel.Biomasscofiringdirectlysubstitutes renewablecarbonforfossilcarbon.Inaddition,cofiringatlowfuelratioshaslittleorno impactontheoverallconversionefficiencyoftheplant.Cofiredbiomassreceivesthe benefitofthegenerallyhigheroverallconversiontoelectricityefficienciesinlargecoal powerplants(typically33to37%).CofiringbiomasscanalsoreduceNOxandsulfur dioxideemissionsfromcoalfiredpowerplantsdependingontypeofbiomassfired. OpportunitiesforcofiringincoalfacilitiesarelimitedinCaliforniaduetothelimited amountofcoalgeneration. GasifiedBiomassCofiring Withafuelgasderivedfrombiomass(whetherproducergasfromthermochemical gasificationorbiogasfrombiogasification),thereistheopportunitytocofirewith naturalgasinboilersorGTCCfacilities(assumingqualityofthemixedgasmeetsthe turbinerequirementsforenergycontent,hydrogengasconcentrationandcleanliness.) Thereareatleastthreebasicarrangementsforbiomasscofiringwithanaturalgasfueled GTCC: IndirectCofiringwithSteamSideIntegration Thismodeispracticalandhaslowerspecificinvestmentcoststhanstandalone combustion.Steamadditionfromthebiomassboilerisprobablylimitedtoabout10%. Energyefficiencyofthebiomasscomponentissimilartothatofconventionalbiomass fueledsteamcycles. DirectCofiringwithUpstreamThermalGasification Thismethodofcofiringallowsthebiomasscontributionoffuelinputtoenjoyessentially thesameconversionefficiencyasthenaturalgas.InaGTCCplant,theefficiencycan approach55%.Fuelqualityrequirementsofthegasturbine(calorificvalueand hydrogenconcentration)limitthecontributionofthebiomassfuelto2to8%(thermal basis). DirectCofirewithBiogas Thebiogasandnaturalgasfuelmixtureinthiscofiremodehasthesamerequirements asaboveinordertoavoidmajorgasturbinemodifications.However,biogasisgenerally easiertocleanthanproducergas.ColocatingabiogassourcewithaGTCCfacilityor upgradingbiogastopipelinequalityaresimplewaystoboosttheconversionefficiency ofthebiogasfromthe25to40%levelobtainedinreciprocatingenginesormicroturbines (simplecycle)tothehigherGTCCefficiencyofabout50%.Upgradedbiogascouldbe cofiredinanyproportionwithnaturalgas. ThermalGasification BiomassIntegratedGasifierCombinedCycle
141
UnitedStatesBIGCCdemonstrationshavenotsofarprogressedtofullsystem operation.UnitedStatesfederaldevelopmentofbioenergyshiftedawayfrombiopower tobioproductsandbiofuelswiththe2001changeinadministrationinWashingtonD.C., alongwiththegoalofaddressingthenationsrelianceonimportedpetroleum.Federal researchanddevelopmentsupportforbiomasspowergenerationhastherefore diminished. BIGCCistechnicallyviableasdemonstratedatVrnamo,Sweden.Thereasonsthatthe BIGCCdemonstrationprojectsintheUnitedStatesnevercametofruitionareultimately financial.TheMnVAPprojectinMinnesotawasnotconstructedduetolossoffinancing underperceivedhighrisk.AprojectinPaia,Hawaii,wasnotcontinuedtofullsystem testinglargelyasaresultofinadequatedevelopmentofafuelfeedingsystemforthe pressurizedreactor.Adualfluidizedbed(BattelleFERCO)projectinBurlington, Vermont,bymostreports,successfullydemonstratedtheBattellegasifierata commercialscale.FederalfundinginsupportoffullIGCCimplementationdidnotoccur andtestingbeyondgascofiringtothesolidfuelboilerwasnotconducted. CommercialprojectsbyCarbonaandFERCOhavebeenrecentlyannounced.These projectstargethomogeneousfuelsources(mostlycleanwoodchips).Continued investigationwhichincludessuitabilityofotherfuelsthatcomprisethediverse Californiabiomassresourceisnecessaryifthesetechnologiesaretobeconsideredfora rangeoffeedstocks.Increasedavailabilityofcleanwoodfuelsfromforestthinningand relatedoperationsisuncertainintheneartermbecausepermittingforestfuelsreduction effortsonpubliclandsmaybesubjecttolitigation.Therearelargeamountsofnonforest biomasscurrentlyavailableinCalifornia,includingagriculturalresiduesandMSW biomass. ThereremainsaneedtofullydemonstratebiomassIGCCintheUnitedStatesinorderto providefinanciersahomegrowncasestudy.Therearegenerallyfewoptionsavailable todeveloperswhenfacedwithrepoweringafacilitythathasreacheditsusefullife,or whensitinganewone.Thereareopportunitiesforadvancedsystemdevelopment includingincreaseddiversityinthepowergenerationfuelsupply,loadandvoltage supporttothegridfromdistributedgenerationopportunities,improvementstorural economies,reductionsingreenhousegasemissionsandotherenvironmental improvements. SmallScaleandModularBiomass Mostrecentdevelopmentworkinsmallscaleand/ormodularbiomasspowersystems hasbeendirectedatatmosphericairblowngasifierscoupledwithreciprocatingengine generators.TheU.S.DOEsmallmodularbiomassprogram(PhaseI,1998)selectedfour projectsforaPhaseIIin1999.Thesolicitationconsideredsystemswithelectrical generationcapacitiesintherangeof5kWto5MW.TwoofthefourPhaseIIprojectsare basedonthermalgasifiersystems.Asmallscalesystemof15kW(CommunityPower CorporationorCPC)wasawardeddevelopmentfundingandseveralunitsareorhave
142
beentestedinthewesternUnitedStates.ThelargergasifiersystemtobeawardedPhase IIfunding(developedbyCarbona)is,unfortunatelyformanyUnitedStatesand Californiainterests,beingconstructedinDenmark. EuropeandIndiahavedevelopedseveralindependentgasifierbasedpowersystems under8MW.Therehasbeenprogressaddressingthegasqualityandwatereffluent (dependingonuseofgas)issuesthathaveimpededsafeandreliablesystemsinthepast. TheMinistryofNonconventionalEnergySourcesinIndiareportsthatmorethan1,800 gasifierpowersystemsaredeployedinthecountryforacombinedcapacityof58MW. SystemsdevelopedfordeploymentinEuropetendtobeconfiguredforCHPandmany aredesignedforlowcostoflaborintheoperation(e.g.,automaticwithsafety shutdowns).SystemsdevelopedinIndiagenerallyareforruralanddevelopingareas. Cheaperlaborandthehigherneedforemploymentintheseregionshasledtosystems thatarenotasautomatedasthoseinEurope.TheSwissFederalOfficeofEnergy evaluatedtheIIScgasifierdesignbothinIndiaandataresearchfacilityinSwitzerland. TheSoPauloUniversityinBraziliscurrentlyevaluatinganIIScgasifierforrural electrificationintheAmazonregion. Withlargeamountsofforestbiomasspotentiallyavailableinthenextfewyearsfrom forestfuelreductionmeasures(permitlitigationnotwithstanding),Californiaand federalagenciesareinterestedintechnologiesthatcreatesomeproductorvaluefrom theresource.Thealternativeisprescriptionorpileburningorsomeotherformof disposal.TheCPCgasifierisbeinginvestigatedasapossibletechnologyfortheresource buttheprototypesystemsaresmall(15to50kW).Itisunclearhowthoroughlyoverseas developmentshavebeeninvestigatedforapplicationintheUnitedStates. RiceStrawasaFuel Morethan95%ofCalifornias500,000acresofricecropisgrownintheSacramento Valley.Therearesome1.5milliondrytonsofresiduericestrawafterharvestingricein thefall.Historically,thestrawandstubblewereburnedinthefieldinthefallandspring beforeplanting.Legislationenactedinthe1990srestrictedopenfieldburningofrice strawtoamaximumof25%ofplantedacresandonlyifburningisrequiredfordisease control.Plowingthestrawbackintothegroundisexpensiveandpromotesgermination andspreadofweeds.Marketsforstrawarelimitedandonlyabout30,000tonsareused annuallymostlyforanimalfeedinganderosioncontrolproducts(bales,plasticnet wrappedwattles).Currently,lessthan15%oftheacreageisburned. Strawfuelshaveprovedtobeextremelydifficulttoburninmostcombustionfurnaces, especiallythosedesignedforpowergeneration.Theprimaryissueconcerningtheuseof ricestrawandotherherbaceousbiomassforpowergenerationisfouling,slagging,and corrosionoftheboilerduetoalkalineandchlorinecomponentsintheash.Noneofthe biomasspowerplantsbuilttodateinCaliforniacaneconomicallyfirestraw,even thoughsomewerebuiltwithairpermitsrequiringthemtodoso.
143
Europe,and,inparticular,Denmark,currentlyhasthegreatestexperiencewithstraw firedpowerandCHPplants.In1990,Denmarkembarkedonanewenergypolicywitha goaltodoubletheuseofrenewableenergyby2005.Becauseofthelargeamountof cerealgrains(wheatandoats)growninDenmark,thesurplusstrawplaysalargerolein thecountrysrenewableenergystrategy.In2001,750,000metrictonsperyearwasbeing consumedinDanishpowerplants(inadditiontostrawconsumedinmorethan60 districtheatingplants).RecentlycompletedfacilitiesinEnglandandSpainwere designedandbuiltbythecompaniesthatdevelopedthesystemsinDenmark.The facilitieseachhavethecapacitytoconsumemorethan100,000tonsperyearofstraw fuel. Technologydevelopedincludescombustionfurnaces,boilers,andsuperheatconcepts purportedlycapableofoperatingwithhighalkalifuelsandhavinghandlingsystems whichminimizefuelpreparation.Muchofthisdevelopmenthasoccurredwithsupport ofgovernmentpoliciesonCO 2emissionsreductionstohelpmeetKyotoagreements. OpportunitiesaffordedbyachievementsinEuropetodeveloppowersystemscapableof usingstraw,includingjointCaliforniaEuropeanprojects,shouldbeinvestigated. SystemsforConversionofMSW TheamountofmunicipalsolidwastefromSacramentoCountyjurisdictionsdisposedin landfillswas1.5milliontonsin2003.Biomasscomprisesanestimated70%ofthe disposedmixedwastestream(weightbasis).Ifallthebiomassmaterialinthewaste streamwasconvertedtoelectricity,about40MWpowerwouldresult.Forallof California,about40millionwettonsofMSWarelandfilledannually.Some27million wettonsarebiomass.ConversionofallCalifornialandfilledMSWbiomasstoelectricity wouldgenerateapproximately2,000MW(Williamsetal.2003). Someadvantagesofthissourceofbiomassarethatitcurrentlyisdeliveredtocentral locationsandissubjecttodisposalortippingfeesthataddeconomicsupport.MSWis notwithoutdisadvantages.Itistypicallyveryheterogeneouscominginalargerangeof particlesizes,moisture,andcomponentcharacteristics. CIWMBiscurrentlyinvestigatingconversiontechnologiesasalternativestolandfill. SeveraljurisdictionsintheStateareinterestedaswell.Combustionbasedsystems (incineration)arelikelytofacestrongoppositionfromsomemembersofthepublic. ProposedregulationsdisadvantagethermalconversionofMSWbynotallowingthe materialprocessedtoreceivefulldiversioncredit.OnlyADconversionsystemswill receivesuchcredit.Thisisalreadyinfluencingtheselectionofsystemsforwaste jurisdictionsintheStatethatarecontemplatingMSWconversionsystems. Duetotheheterogeneousnatureofmixedwaste,extensivepreparationandsorting wouldlikelyberequiredbeforeintroducingthefeedstocktoaconversionprocess. Gasifierdesignsandgascleaningsystemssuitableforcleanwoodchips,forexample,
144
willneedtobemodifiediffueledwithMSWcomponents(unlesssourceseparatedwood orpaperisavailable). ThermochemicalSystems EuropeandJapanhavedevelopedseveralnoncombustionconversiontechnologies forthepurposeoftreatingorreducingwaste.ThermochemicalandbiochemicalMSW conversionsystemsarebothoperatingoverseas.PoliciesandenergypricesinEurope andJapanhelpcreatemarketconditionsthatmakesomeofthesesystemseconomically feasible.Highertippingfees,wastemanagementpolicies,and/orinternalizing environmentalbenefitsforavoidinglandfillsinCaliforniaareprobablyneededbefore significantnumbersofMSWconversiontechnologiesarebuiltinthestate. NoncombustionconversiontechnologiesforMSWcomponentsareemerging technologiesintheUnitedStates.Greaterinstateexperienceisneededwithintegrated wastemanagementsystemsthatincludeconversiontechnologiesforenergyandother products.FundamentalunderstandingoffuelsderivedfromMSWandtheirbehaviorin avarietyofconversionprocessesisnecessaryinordertooptimizeperformance includingmeetingenvironmentalrequirements. BioconversionSystems ADisafermentationtechniquetypicallyemployedinmanywastewatertreatment facilitiesforsludgedegradationandstabilizationbutalsotheprincipalprocess occurringinlandfills.LargedairiesandswinefarmsintheUnitedStatesareturningto theuseofADprimarilyasameanstomitigatetheenvironmentalimpactsofmanure lagoonswithsomecaptureofmethaneforenergyproduction.TheUnitedStateshas approximatelyadozendigestersystemsoperatingonanimalwastesandproducing power.ProjectsrecentlycommissionedandunderconstructioninCaliforniawilladd aboutadozenmoretothenumber.Manyhouseholdscaledigestersareemployedin ruralChinaandIndiaandelsewherearoundthedevelopingworldforwastetreatment andgasproduction.Approximately5millionhouseholdsinChinauseanaerobic digesters.Thedigestersproducebiogasthatisusedasanenergysourcebythe households,andproducefertilizerthatisusedinagriculturalproduction.Europe, especiallyDenmark,hasdevelopedlargescalecentralizedsystemsforsolidwaste stabilizationandenergygenerationasabyproduct. ToimprovethequalityoffeedstocksusedinADandcompostingoperations,source separationofhouseholdandcommercialfoodandgardenwastesisutilizedextensively inEurope.Atleast11EuropeanUnioncountrieshaveimplementedorareaboutto implementsourceseparationforfoodandgreenwastes.InSwitzerlandforexample, approximately220lbperpersonperyearofsourceseparatedfoodandgreenwasteis
145
collected.About12%ofthematerialisstabilizedbyADfacilities,andthebalanceis composted. Therearesome86ADfacilitiesinEuropeeitheroperatingorunderconstructionwith capacitygreaterthan3,000tonsperyearandwithatleast10%ofthetreatedfeedstock frommunicipalorcommercialorganicwaste.Manyofthesefacilitieswillcodigest animalwastesandmunicipalwastewatersludges.TotalMSWandotherorganicwaste ADcapacityinEuropeisabout2.8milliont/year.InSpain,the13largecapacityplants, whichaverage70,000t/year,wereanaerobicallytreatingnearly7%ofthebiodegradable MSWbytheendof2004. Theprimarydriversforthesetechnologieshavebeenenvironmentalprotectionand wastemanagement,withenergyrecoverysecondary.Morerecentvaluingofthe renewableanddistributedenergyattributesofADincreasesprojectdesirability.Co digestingmultiplefeedstockscanincreasemethaneproductionandreducecapitalcosts comparedtoseparatelytreatingwastestreams.OpportunitiesforapplicationsofAD shouldcontinuetobeinvestigatedforcertainbiomassresourcesintheSMUDregionas wellastherestofthestate. Improvementsinbiogasconversiontoelectricityshouldcontinuetobeaddressedas well.Thisincludesgascleaningandupgradingtopipelinestandardsinordertomix withandfireinnaturalgaspowerplantsandimprovementstoreciprocatingengineand microturbineperformancewhenfuelledbybiogas.Forexample,coproductionof hydrogengaseitherinADsystemsorbyreformingaportionofthemethaneinthe biogascanlowerNOxemissionsfromreciprocatingenginegeneratorswhichwould improvetheenvironmentalperformanceofelectricityproduction.
146
2.0 Environmental Impacts

2.1 Introduction
Environmentalimpactsfrombiomasspowergenerationincludethoseduetogaseous, liquid,andsolidprocessemissionsorbyproducts,noise,nuisanceandaestheticfactors, andindirectorlifecycleimpacts.Indirectemissionscanincludefugitiveemissionsfrom fuelyardandfeedstockoperationssuchasdust,volatileorganiccompoundsandodors fromhandlingandfuelstorage,andvehicleandequipmentemissionsfromfuel, feedstock,residue,andothermaterialtransportandprocessing. Oneofthemostimportantenvironmentalimpactsrelatedtobiomassconversion technologiesareairemissions,especiallyNOx,duetothefactthatsuchalargeportion oftheStatefailstomeetfederalandstateambientairqualitystandardsforozone. Groundlevel,ortropospheric,ozoneisrarelyemittedbyhumanactivitybutisformed whennaturalandanthropogenicozoneprecursors,primarilyNOxandVOCs,reactin thepresenceofsunlight,hencethenamephotochemicalsmog.Troposphericozoneis controlledbymanagingprecursoremissions. Oxidesofnitrogenarecreatedbyhightemperaturereactionsofoxygenandnitrogen. Thesourceofnitrogenforthesereactionsisprimarilythecombustionairbutfuelborne nitrogencanbesignificant.ThoughNOxisacriteriapollutant,itisnotemittedatlevels highenoughtoraisetheambientconcentrationabovestateorfederallimits.Ofthe ozoneprecursors,thecontrol,orreductionofNOxemissionsarethemoredifficultand expensive.Forthesamefuelandpoweroutput,intermittentcombustionsystemssuch asreciprocatingengineshavehigheruncontrolledNOxemissionsthancontinuous combustiondevicessuchasflares,boilers,andgasturbines. Theotherimportantozoneprecursors,VOCs,areusuallyemittedfromcombustion sourcesasproductsofincompletecombustion.Theycanbecontrolledwithwell designedandoperatedcombustionsystemsforalltypesoffuels.Noncombustion anthropogenicVOCsourcesincludeevaporatedhydrocarbonfuels,fugitiveemissions fromoilrefineriesandpetrochemicalplants,fermentedbeveragemanufacturing,large animalfeedingoperationsandfeedensiling.Carbonmonoxideemissionsarealso controlledbyfollowinggoodcombustiontechniques. Particulatematteriscurrentlycontrolledbystandardmethodsthatincludecyclone separators,filtering,andelectrostaticprecipitators,oftenwithmultipleparticlecontrol devicesusedincombination.Controlofsulfurandammoniaemissionsareimportant foratmosphericPMreductionaswellbecauseofsecondaryreactionsleadingtothe formationofsulfatesandnitrates.Bothsulfuroxides(SOx)andNOxalsocontributeto aciddepositionintheenvironment(acidrain). Liquidemissionsfromgasifiersystems(condensedtarsand/orspentscrubberliquids) maybetoxicandshouldnotbereleaseduntreated.Thereareavarietyofmeanstotreat theseliquidsthataregenerallytechnicallyviableandarecommerciallyappliedin
147
handlingindustrialwasteliquids.Whetherthetechniquescanbeeconomicallyapplied tobiomassfueledgasificationsystemsinCaliforniaremainsuncertainasfewlarge commercialscaletestshavebeenconducted,andnonehaveoccurredinCaliforniausing biomassalthoughresearchprojectshavebeencompleted.Dependingonthetreatment, theremaybetoxicsolidsremainingwhichwillrequiredisposalashazardouswaste.The latterispotentiallytrueforanybiomassconversiontechnologyhandlingunseparated municipalwastes. Solidfuelcombustionfacilitiessuchasbiomassfiredstokerorfluidizedbedcombustors generallyhaveloworzeroliquidemissions.Usually,liquidemissionsfromthese systemsareassociatedwithboilerblowdownorcoolingtowerdischarges.Thesetypes ofdischargesareintermittentand/orofsmallvolumeandcanbedisposedthrough municipalsewersystemsorkeptonsiteinretentionpondswherethewatereventually evaporates. LiquidemissionsfromADsystemscanbesubstantialandmayneedtreatment dependingonthesourceoffeedstock.
2.1.1 Organization
EnvironmentalPerformanceSection ThefirstpartofSection2containsresultsfromareviewofemissionsandenvironmental impactsofselectedbiomassconversionsystems(essentiallytheTask1.1.2.1report). Emissionsandimpactsfromsmall/modulargasifiersaswellasamediumBIGCCunit arediscussed.SolidfuelbiomassboileremissionsinCaliforniaarecomparedtothe strawfiredfacilityinEly,England.Reciprocatingenginesare(orwillbe)theprime moverofchoiceforsmall/modularbiomassgasifiersbecauseofcostandefficiency. Severalsourceswereconsultedforrecentemissionsandoperationsexperiencefrom enginesfueledbygasifiedbiomass. Informationonsolidwasteenvironmentalimpactsispresentedaswellasinformation fordairymanuredigestersystems.Themostusedprimemoverforelectricityfrom biogasispresentlythereciprocatingengineduetolowcostandrelativelyhigh efficiency.Mucheffortwasspentinvestigatingreciprocatingengineandemissions issues;recentsourcetestresultsfrombiogasfueledenginesareincluded.Gasturbines fueledbybiogasofferimprovedemissionsandaregainingafootholdinthemarket. SomeemissionstestresultsfromtheLosAngelesCountySanitationDistrictsare presented.Fuelcellsthatusereformedmethanefrombiogasarebeingdemonstratedin severallocationsintheUnitedStates.Thoughpresentlyveryexpensive,theyofferthe advantageofextremelylowemissions. AiremissionsfromprimemoversfueledbybiomassarepresentedinTable20.
148
Table 2-0. Air emissions from biomass fueled power systems. Prime Mover
California solid fuel biomass boilers BIGCC, various fuels (Vrnamo, Sweden)
Control Technology
SNCR, flue gas recirc., & PM control Gas turbine -Untreated Lean burn
units
lb/MWh lb/MWh or (ppm dry gas) (ppm, 15% O2) lb/MWh lb/MWh lb/MWh
NOx
0.64 - 0.95 2.2 - 9.8
CO
0.1 - 1.5 (50-450)
UHC/THC
0.01 - 0.09 (<1) (<10) 0.03
ROGs
PM
0.09 - 0.55 (<1)
SO2
0.02 - 0.26 0.2-2.0
Source
1,2 3 4,5 6
(30 - 300) (100 - 1000) 0.65 .65-1.9 0.95 0.03 6.4-10.6 5.84
Reciprocating Engines fueled Rich-burn SI engine w/ 3by gasified biomass way catalytic converter (single test, CPC) Large, lean burn Rich Burn, 3-way catalyst (dairy, 300 kW)
.36-1.7 0.08
7 8
Reciprocating Engines fueled by biogas Rich Burn -no controls (LFG. WWTP, manure (swine manure, 100 kW digesters) capacity operating @ 45 kW CARB BACT Recommendation Gas Turbine 30 kW (LFG) uncontrolled
lb/MWh
12
58
112
23
lb/MWh lb/MWh lb/MWh lb/MWh
1.9 0.2-0.24 1.25 0.0017
1.9 0.6-0.72 2.4 ppm, (3% O2)
7.8 est. 1.03
10 11 10
Gas Turbine (<3 MW) fueled CARB BACT by biogas Recommendation Fuel Cell, LFG fuel uncontrolled
0.025
0.017
nd
11
Sources: 1) Yolo-Solano APCD. (2003) Woodland Biomass source test results. 2) Wiltsee, G. (2000). Lessons learned from existing biomass power plants. NREL/SR-570-26946, Appel Consultants, Inc/NREL, Valencia, Calif. 3) Stahl, K. (2001). Varnamo - The Demonstration Program, Berlings Skogs, Trelleborg. 4)Ahrenfeldt, J., Pedersen, T., Henriksen, U., and Schramm, J. (2000). Ford VSG 411 fueled by producer gas from two-stage gasifier. 5) Herdin, G., Robitschko, R., Klausner, J., and Wagner, M. (2004). GE Jenbacher experience with wood gas plants. IEA Task 33, Fall meeting, Copenhagen. 6) Bain, R. NREL. 2004 IEA Task 33 Gasification Workshop, Copenhagen. 7) Clifton, N. (2004). Inland Empire Utility Agency. Engine source test results. 8) SJVAPCD (2005). Cottonwood Dairy manure digester engine source test results. 9) (2004). Environmental Technology Verification Report - Swine waste electric power and heat production - Martin Machinery internal combustion engine. SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-22, Southern Research Institute and US EPA. 10) (2002). Guidance for the permitting of electrical generation technologies. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/energy/dg/dg.htm 11) McDannel, M., Wheless, E., and Stahl, J. (2005). Installation and startup of a digester gas-fired microturbine and fuel cell at two water reclamation plants. Power-Gen Renewable Energy Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
149
EmissionControlsandRecommendationsSection ThelatterpartofSection2containsdetaileddiscussionofemissioncontroltechnologies astheyapplytobiomassconversionsystems(primarilyfromtheTask1.1.2.2report). Earlierportionsofthisstudyexaminedbiomassconversiontechnologiesforapplication withintheSMUDregionandidentifiedfourprincipaltypesforfurtheranalysis.These aregasification,combustionofstrawandotheragriculturalbiomass,ADofseparated municipalwastesandgreenwastes,andADofdairymanure.Environmentalreviewsof eachofthesetechnologieswerecompleted(Williamsetal.2003).Thisreportaddresses environmentallimitationsfortheuseofthesetechnologiesinCaliforniaanddescribes potentialimprovementsorremediationmeasurestoallowimplementationbySMUDor SMUDpartners.Themainenvironmentalareasaddressedareoutlinedbelow:
Conversion technology Gasification Fixed bed small to medium scale BIGCC medium scale Straw combustion system (solid fuel boiler) MSW/green waste AD systems Environmental Improvement Discussed Engine or gas turbine NOx and CO, waste water or tar disposal, char utilization or disposal Boiler NOx, PM emissions (esp. silica), ash disposal, emission offset credits Gas engine NOx, biogas cleaning Emissions offsets from reduced transport of waste Gas engine NOx, biogas cleaning and sulfur removal for engine, turbine, CNG or pipeline upgrading, and fuel cell applications
Dairy manure digester systems
ThecriteriapollutantstatusoftheairqualitydistrictsintheSacramentoregionis discussedandareviewoftheregionsAirPollutionControlDistricts(APCD)permit requirementsforstationaryenginesispresented.Thisisfollowedbyadiscussionof NOxsourcesandNOxformation.Controlstrategiesandtechnologiesarepresented followedbysuggestionsforimprovedNOxperformanceforboilersandreciprocating engines. Environmentalimpactsfrombiomasspowersystemsincludepositiveandnegative impacts.Thepositiveimpactsoflocalbiomassutilizationforpoweraretouchedononly brieflyhere(e.g.,calculationshowingemissionsreductionduetohaltingMSWtransport fromSacramentotoReno),butthereisalargebodyofinformationdocumenting benefits.Morris(2000)isarecentexample. Solidandliquidemissionsfrombiomassconversionsystemsaswellasnoise,nuisance, andaestheticfactorsmaybeshowstoppersforanewfacilitydependingonproposed locationandprocessbuttheyarenotpreciselytechnicalproblems. Liquidemissionsfromsomegasificationcleaningsystemsaretoxicandrequire treatmentbeforedisposal.Thisisanaddedcostforthefacilitybut,generally,canbe
150
accomplishedwithestablishedmethods.Improvementstosystemsinordertoreduceor eliminateliquidemissionsfromgasificationprocessesexist(tarcrackingand/orhotgas cleaningandfiredtogasturbine),orarebeingdeveloped(forexampletheCPC downdraftgasifier,warmgasfiredtoengine). Solidemissions(ashorchar)cantypicallybedisposedinconventionallandfillorland applied.Somegascleaningsystemsforgasifiedbiomassrelyoncondensationofa portionofthetarsinthegasontochar/ashparticleswhicharethenremovedfromthe gas.Insomecases,thesesolids(withcondensedtar)presentahandlingandtoxicwaste disposalissue(thesolidsfromtheCPCsystemareanexample).Whetherthesolidsare toxicdependsonthegasifierconditions,thegascleaningsystem,andthefuel.Some systemsmayallowatleastsomeofthesesolidstoberecycledtothegasifier.Eventually, fuelashmustberemovedandifitcontainscondensedtarcompoundsitispotentially toxic.Forthesetypesoftarandsolidsremoval,gasifierstartup,turndown,upsets,or sustainedoperationatoffdesignconditionscanincreasethechanceofcontaminating thesolidresidue. Airemissionsandtechnicalissuesforemissionsreductionsarethehighesttechnical hurdlefacingwidespreaduseandacceptanceofnewbiomassenergyfacilitiesin California.ControlofNOx,VOC,andPMemissionsareofhighestimportanceinmost Californiaairbasins. Forsolidfuelbiomasspowerplants,theBestAvailableControlTechnology(BACT)is CFBboilersandSNCR(forNOxreduction).CurrentNOxemissionsrangefromabout 0.6to1lb/MWh.Forthisclassoftechnology,NOxemissionscanbeimprovedwithfuel stagingandreburningtechnologyand/orSCRNOxreduction,bothofwhichare developmentalforsolidfuelbiomassboilers. BiomassIGCCairemissionsareexpectedtobecontrollabletoacceptablelimitsusing demonstratedfuelgascleaningtechnologiesandexistingcontrolsystems.Thehurdles forBIGCCarepredominantlyeconomic,accountingforthelackofoperatingcommercial facilitieseventhoughthetechnologyhasbeenlargelydemonstratedinEurope. Acceptableairemissionsfromgasenginesfueledbybiomass(biogasorproducergas) presentatechnicalhurdleforinstallationinmuchofCalifornia.Providingthefuelgasis sufficientlyclean,reciprocatingenginesfueledbybiogasorproducergasshouldrealize similarorimprovedemissionsascomparedtoenginesfueledbynaturalgas.Richburn enginesgenerallywillneedathreewaycatalystforcontrolofNOx,CO,and hydrocarbons.Thefuelgasmustbecleanedofsulfur,potassium,chlorine,andmetalsin orderforthecatalyticconvertertohaveanacceptableservicelife. Leanburnenginetechnologyispreferredbyoperatorsbecausereductioncatalystsare notcurrentlyrequiredand,therefore,thefuelgasqualityrequirementislessstringent. Leanburnenginesarecurrentlynotavailableunderabout180kW.
151
Increasedmarketinterestmayenticeenginemanufacturerstodevelopleanburnengines inthesmallercapacitiesrequiredformanydairyscaledigestersandsomeofthesmaller scaleMSWADsystemsthatmightdevelop.Amarketstudywasnotperformed,but SMUDisencouragedtoconsiderinvestigatingenginemanufacturestoassessleanburn forsmallengines. Hydrogenmixed(orincluded)withtheproducergasorbiogasextendstheleanburn flammabilityrange.Investigatinghydrogenassistedleanburntechnologyshouldbe pursuedforsmallenginebasedbiopowersystems(thisiscurrentlybeinginvestigated forLFGTE).ImprovedhydrogencoproductionmethodsfromADandgasificationof biomassshouldbelinkedwithemissionsimprovementforconventionalpowersystems (engines)aswellasforitsfuelvalue.Fullhydrogenproductioncanalsobeinvestigated forthelongerterm,includinguseinstationaryfuelcellsaswellasvehicles.Molten carbonatefuelcellsarealreadyoperatingonlandfillgas. Sulfurremovaltechniquescanbeimprovedtoreducecosts.Biofiltermethodsthat removesulfurmayofferbenefitsandshouldbeexplored.Biogasupgradingbystripping carbondioxidealsoresultsinloweredsulfurcontent.Forstationarypowerusing digestergas,simplewaterscrubbingforsulfurandpartialCO 2removalwouldallowfor easiercatalyticconversionforemissionscontrolandoffersthepotentialforpipelining.
2.1.2 Recommendations
SolidFuelBoilersandStrawCombustionPowerPlants BecauseofthelargebiomassresourceinCalifornia,theaggressiveRPS,theagingsolid fuelbiomassfleet,andthepoorairqualityinmanyCaliforniaairbasins,thestateshould continueandexpandactiveparticipationinNOxreductionresearchfornewand existingsolidfuelbiomassfacilities. Fornewsolidfuelcombustionofbiomass,advancedreburningshouldbeconsideredas partoftheoriginalplantdesignusinggasifiedbiomassforthereburnfuelorother reburningtechniquessuchasdirectbiomassinjection.Forexistingfacilities,there remainunansweredquestionsregardingtheviabilityofretrofitreburnsystemsusing biomassgasification.Thosequestionslikelywontbeansweredwithoutafullscale commercialdemonstrationofaretrofitsystem. Foraricestrawfiredpowerplant(basedonrecentEuropeandesigns),uncontrolled NOxemissionsareexpectedtobehigherthanthatfromawoodfiredfacilitybecauseof higherfuelNOxresultingfromthehighernitrogencontentofstrawcomparedtowood. Selectivecatalyticoxidation(SCR)technologyforNOxreductioninbiomassfueled boilersisdifficulttoimplement(becauseofcatalystdeactivationissues)andis considereddevelopmental.ResearchisongoingbothintheUnitedStatesandEurope. Californiashouldmonitor,oractivelypursueSCRbiomassresearch. SocalledregenerativeSCR(RSCR)mayofferanimprovementoverthecurrentlyused nonselectivecatalyticoxidation(NSCR)methodforNOxreduction.RSCRtreatsflue
152
gasafterPMremovalbyreheatingthegastoalevelrequiredforthecatalystto function.Duetotheexpenseandenergyrequiredforreheat,RSCRsystemsdonot necessarilyoperateattheoptimaltemperatureforthecatalyst.Therefore,NOx reductionfromRSCRisexpectedtobenotasgoodasstandardSCR.Performance informationfromthetwobiomassfacilitiesintheNortheastrecentlyretrofittedwith RSCRshouldbepursued.WhetherRSCRissuitable(andsufficient)forCalifornias needsshouldbedetermined. Lowtemperatureozoneinjection(alsocalledlowtemperatureoxidation)isintriguing, butadetailedreviewwasnotcompletedduringthisproject.Thetechniqueshouldbe investigatedasacandidateforinstallationatnewbiomasscombustionfacilitiesaswell asforretrofitcases. PowerfromADofMSW Improvedgasengineemissions(NOx)and/orincreasedefficiencyofgasturbinesystems areneededtoincreasethedesirabilityofeachprimemovertypeinADinMSWpower applications. DivertingtheorganicfractionofMSWtoADandlandfillingthetreateddigestate(or completelybypassingthelandfillbyupgradingthedigestatetovalueaddedproducts) willhavepositivelongtermenvironmentalimpact(comparedtosimplelandfillingof untreatedwastestreams).Thesebenefitsshouldbeusedtohelpoffsetcostsorimpacts ofMSWconversiontoenergy. Policystrategies,suchaslandfilltaxes,extendedproducerresponsibility(packagingand producttakebackrequirements),banningbiodegradablematerialsinthelandfill,and/or assigninglifecyclecostsofwastemanagement/disposaltothepriceoftheproductor serviceshouldbepursued.Theemissionsproducedfromtrucktrafficrequiredtohaul Sacramentowasteoutofstatearecalculatedasanexampleofdirectemissionoffsetsthat mightbeavailableifthepracticewascurtailedandthematerialwasusedlocallyin energyproduction. DairyDigesterPowerSystems Managingdairymanuretodecreasegroundandsurfacewatercontaminationand reduceuncontrolledairemissionsmaycreateopportunitiesforpowerproductionasa byproductofimprovedenvironmentalperformanceofthedairyindustry.Ifpoweris producedfromdairydigestergas,thefacilityshouldbecreditedwithemissionoffsets foremissionsthatwouldhaveoccurredhadthegasbeenflared. GasEngines NOxemissionsfromenginescanbereducedviacatalyticaftertreatmentofexhaustgas, and,insomecases,treatment,orremovalofnitrogencompoundsinthefuelgas. However,catalystdeactivationcanoccurwhensulfur,alkalis,andmetalsarepresentin thefuelgas.
153
Forreciprocatingenginespoweredbygasifiedbiomass,thefuelgasisusuallycooled beforeinductiontotheenginewhichshouldcondensealkaliandmetalvaporsonto particlesoraerosols(sulfurisgenerallynotanissuewithproducergasbecauseoflow sulfurcontentinmostbiomass).ProvidingPMissufficientlycleanedfromthefuel,there maybefewerproblemsusingcatalyticemissioncontrolwithreciprocatingenginesthan withgasturbinesandhotgascleanupsystems. ThepotentiallyhighconcentrationofH2Sinbiogaspresentsaproblemforemissions, bothasasourceofSO2emissionsaswellastheroleitplaysindeactivatingcatalysts. Nitrogen,amacronutrientrequiredforplantgrowth,ispresentinbiomassatvariable concentrationdependingonspeciesandcultivationpractice.Fuelboundnitrogenwill bereleasedpredominantlyasammoniaandhydrogencyanide(HCN)inthefuelgas createdbythermalgasification.Whenthefuelgasiscombusted(inaboiler,gasengine, orgasturbine),thesenitrogencompoundsprimarilytransformtoNOx(fuelNOx).Itis difficulttoremoveammoniabycondensationinhotgascleaningsystems.Catalytic meanstoreduceammoniatonitrogengasarebeinginvestigated. Fuelgascleaninginassociationwithcatalyticemissionscontrolshouldbeinvestigated inmoredetail.Fuelgascleaninghasotherbenefitsaswell,includingreducedcorrosion ratesingashandlingandpowergenerationequipmentandasatechniquetopermituse ascleanvehiclefuelorforadditiontonaturalgasdistributionpipelines. Hydrogenmixed(orincluded)withtheproducergasorbiogasextendstheleanburn flammabilityrange.Investigatingtheeffectofincreasedhydrogeninthefuelgasshould bepursuedforsmallenginebasedbiopowersystems.Improvedhydrogenco productionmethodsfromADandgasificationofbiomassshouldbelinkedwith emissionsimprovementforconventionalpowersystems(engines)aswellasforitsfuel value. OngoingandnewdemonstrationorfirstcommercialbiomassgasificationwithCHP facilitiespresentatimelyopportunityforobservingandmonitoringthesefacilities. Furtherdevelopmentofexistingassociationwiththeprojectdevelopersinorderto facilitateexchangeofinformationisrecommended. 65
65.Thesefacilitiesinclude:UnitedStatesatleasttwoCPC50kWorlesssmallmodularpower systems,aCHP(1MW)facilityinConnecticut;EnglandSkive,Kokemki,andmanymore.A listofindustrycontactsandpotentialprojectparticipantsisincludedinTask4. 154
2.2 Environmental Performance of Selected Technologies

2.2.1 Gasification Environmental Issues
Airemissionsfrompowersystemsthatcombustbiomassproducergasesdependonthe choiceofprimemover.Manybiomassfuelscontainnitrogenwhichcanformammonia, orHCN,inthegasphase.Thesenitrogencompounds,inmostcircumstances,will completelyoxidizetoNOxwhentheproducergasisburned. ThenextsectiononIGCCincludesdiscussiononairemissionsfromagasturbinefiring producergasfromavarietyoftypesofbiomass.Formoredetailonreciprocating enginesfueledbyproducergas,seethesectiononreciprocatingengines. Liquidandsolidresidues Gasifiersthatcoolthegasforcleanupand/oremploywetscrubberswillhave significantlevelsoforganiccompoundsinliquidorsludgeform,someofthemtoxic. Systemsthatusehotgascleanupbeforefiringagasturbinewillhaveverylittletono liquidresiduesfortreatmentordisposal(i.e.,theVrnamoBIGCCfacility). Twosimilargasifiersystemsavailablecommerciallyusewetscrubbing(sometimeswith chilledwater)forgascleaningbeforefiringinanengine(seeFigures21and22).These systemsarebasedontheAnkurandtheIIScgasifiers,bothdevelopedinIndia.
Diesel pilot fuel
Coarse and Fine fabric filters Wet Scrubber

Figure 2-1. Schematic of Ankur downdraft gasifier with dual-fuel power generation configuration
Photo Credit: Wen 1999
155
Figure 2-2. Schematic of a Xylowatt SA biomass gasifier CHP facility

Photo Credit: Giordano 2003
Table21displaysanalysisofsomewastewaterfrombiomassproducergaswet cleaningsystems.Thetableshowsrepresentativecompoundtypesandconcentrations forbothtreatedandrawwastewater.Thewastewatercannotbedisposedwithout treatment.Watertreatmentcanbeaccomplishedbyavarietyofabsorptionand separationmethodsaswellasbiologicalremediation.Thoughtechnicallyachievable,the addedcomplexityandexpenseofwastewatertreatmentsystemscanmakeaproject economicallyinfeasible. Drygascleanupsystemscanoffersomeadvantage,therefore.CommunityPower Corporationhaspursuedthispathforgascleanup.Thisleavesonlysolidresidueinthe fabricfilterandtheashandcharinthegasifierthatneeddisposal.Thereisapotential forthefiltersolidstocontaintoxiccompoundswhichshouldbeaconsiderationwhen specifyingasystem.
156
Table 2-1. Organic compounds in raw and treated producer gas scrubber water (Hasler et al. 1998)
Photo Credit: Wen 1999
2.2.2 IGCC
TheVrnamo,Swedenplantwastheworldsfirst(andsofar,only)biomassfueled IGCCplantthatoperatedsuccessfullyforextendedperiodsoftime.Thisdemonstration facilityproducedpowerandheat(6MW,9MWth)andwasdevelopedbySydkraftAB andFosterWheelerInternational.Thegasifierwasapressurizedairblowncirculating fluidbedreactorthatoperatedatpressuresof18to22atmospheres.Thefacilityused finelyground,driedwoodandbarkfeedstock(10to20%moisturecontent)deliveredto thepowergenerationsitefromanadjacentpreparationfacility.Limitedtestswith pelletizedstrawandrefusederivedfuelwerealsoperformed(Stevens2001)withsome success. Thegascleaningsystemconsistedofacycloneseparator,followedbyheatexchangeto coolthegastoabout350C(fromabout900C)therebycondensingalkalivaporson particulatematter(Stevens2001).Thepartiallycooledgaswaspassedthroughabarrier filter(ceramicand/orsinteredmetalcandlefilters).Tarandalkalicontentinthe filteredgaswerelessthan5g/m 3,and0.1ppm(byweight),respectively(Stahland Neergaard1998).Thefilteredgaswasthenfiredinagasturbine(EuropeanGas Turbines,Ltd).Thegasturbinegeneratedabout4MW,andthesteambottomingcycle produced2MWadditional(Engstrom1998).
157
TheVrnamogasificationsystemhasmoreoperationalexperiencethananyother biomassfiredgasturbinesystem.Figure23showsaschematicoftheVrnamosystem. Thegasifierwascompletedin1993.Intotal,thegasifieroperatedformorethan7,000 hours.Thegasturbinewasmodifiedforusewiththelowenergygasin1995,andtest operationsoftheintegratedbiomassfueledpowergenerationsystembeganthatyear. Bytheendof1999,theintegratedfacilityhadoperatedforatotalofabout3,500hours, withmostofthoseduring1998and1999.Thefacilitywasbuiltasanearcommercial demonstrationandwasnotintendedtoprovidelongtermpowergenerationona commercialbasis.Thedemonstrationofthetechnologywascompletedin1999,andthe facilitywasclosed(Stevens2001). Anonprofitcompanywithtiestoalocaluniversityhasbeenestablishedtoutilizethe facilityforresearchwhichincludesdevelopmentofrefusederivedfuelsforuseinIGCC, productionofhydrogenrichsynthesisgas,andpilotproductionoftransportationfuels fromsynthesisgas(Stahletal.2004).
Figure 2-3. Schematic of the Vrnamo, Sweden BIGCC facility

Photo Credit: Adapted from Stahl and Neergaard 1998
EmissionsandResidues Becausethefacilityusedahotgasceramicfilterforgascleaning,condensedtarsand othermaterialwerenotformedandtherewasnoliquidtodispose.Solidresiduesare typicalbiomassashsimilartothatfromcombustionsystems.
158
Themainissueswithemissionsfromagasturbinefiredbybiomassproducergasare NOxandCO.UnburnedhydrocarbonsandPMemissionsarequitelowbecausethe cleanedproducergascontainsonlysmallamountsofeach. Becauseofcomparativelylowcombustiontemperaturesexperiencedbythemodified gasturbineoperatingonproducergas,thermalNOxwaslow(Stahletal.2004).Fuel derivedNOxwasquitehighinsomecasesanddependentonfuelnitrogencontent.See Table22andFigures24and25. However,thefacilitydidnotutilizeanyfluegasemissioncontrolsforNOxorCO.A commercialfacilitywouldincludestandardemissioncontrolequipmentasrequired (suchasSCRandCOoxidationcatalystfortheexhaustaswellasselectivecatalytic oxidation[SCO]ofammoniaandHCNinthefuelgas.)
NOx (ppm)
Figure 2-4. NOx emissions showing fuel dependence, Vrnamo IGCC
Photo Credit: Stahl et al. 2004
159
Table 2-2. Fuel nitrogen and emissions for the Vrnamo BIGCC facility (approx. 3% O2) (Stahl 2001)
Fuel Forest Slash and Bark Wood Chips Bark Salix Straw RDF Fuel LHV (MJ/kg, dry basis) 18.9 18.7 20 18.3 17.1 20.6 Gas Turbine Load (MW) 3.6 3.8 4.15 3 2.9 3 Fuel Nitrogen NOx CO (ppm, (% dry basis) (mg/MJ fuel) dry gas) 0.2 - 0.4 0.1 0.55 0.55 0.9-1.7 0.2-0.8 265 95 290 390 430 110-210 100-170 50 80 180 300-450 150-250 SO2 (mg/MJ fuel) 30 10 30 50 90 30
10
450 400
Untreated NOx (lb/MWh)
350 300 y = 9.4x 2 R = 0.72

0.61
200 150
100 50
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Fuel Nitrogen (wt. % dry basis)

Figure 2-5. Untreated NOx emissions vs. fuel nitrogen content for the Vrnamo IGCC facility
Photo Credit: Stahl 2001.
2.2.3 Straw Facility

TherearetwostrawfiredfacilitiesrecentlycommissionedoutsideofDenmark.Located inEnglandandSpain,theyweredesignedandbuiltbytheDanishcompanyFLSmilj, nowBioenerApS.TheEly,England,plant,operatedbyEnergyPowerResources,is purportedlythelargeststrawfiredfacilityintheworldconsumingontheorderof 150,000to200,000metrictonsperyear.Thefacilityusesnaturalgasasastabilization
160
(ppm)
250
fuelintheamountupto10%totalenergyinput.Itproducesonlypower(doesnot operateinCHPmode)withacapacityofabout34MW(net)and36to38MW(gross)at anavailabilityestimatedatabout80%.Grossefficiencyisabout33%(HHVbasis). BothElyandtheSangesafacilityinSpainhavehighsteamtemperatures(520to540C), andthesteampressureatElyis92bar.TheElyboilerdoesnotutilizeaseparatefuelfor finalsuperheat(combinationboilermentionedabove).Specificboilerdetailscouldnot beconfirmedforSangesa,soitisnotknownwhetheritisacombinationboiler. FortheEly,England,plant,therearefourseparatewholebalefuelfeedlinesrunning intoasinglefurnace.Balesareshreddedbeforebeinginjectedintotheboiler.Theboiler usesaFLSmiljvibratinggrate(seeFigure26).
Figure 2-6. Schematic of Ely, England, Power Station

Photo Credit: Newman 2003
AirEmissionControlEquipment ThefacilityatEly,England,usesstagedaircombustiontechniquesandfurnace temperaturemodulationisusedforcontrolofbothNOxandCO(noammoniaorurea injectionsystemisused).Fuelmoistureislimitedtoamaximumof26%(wetbasis)and naturalgasiscofired(uptoabout10%oftotalenergyinput),bothofwhichaidin maintaininggoodconditionsforstrawcombustion(theunburnedcomponentsinthe ashaccountforabout0.6%oftheoriginalbiomassenergy). SulfurdioxideandHClareremovedfromthecooledfluegasinagassuspension absorber(GSA)usingfinedrylime(CaO)mixedwithrecirculatedflyash,astandard

161
acidgascontrolsystem.Thelimereacts,producingsolidcalciumchloride(CaCl2)and calciumsulfates.Thelimeisaddedasneededbyacontrolsystemusingcontinuous measurementofHClandSO2inthestack.Limeinjectionratevariesfromabout25to130 lbs/hr(100500t/year).Theflyashandcalciumcompounds(PM)areremovedfromthe fluegasbyafabricfiltersystem.Theexhauststackisnearly47metershigh(153feet) andissizedsuchthatthemeanstackgasvelocityisgreaterthan15meterspersecond duringnormaloperatingconditions. AirEmissionsandComparisons Table23showstheactualandpermittedairemissionsforthefacility.Thevaluesin mg/Nm3aretakenfromarecentreportdescribingperformancetestsusingseveralfuel types(Newman2003).Emissionvaluesinlbs/MWhandtons/yearwerecalculatedfrom furnaceoperatingparameters.Actualemissionsareabout50%ofthepermittedlevelfor NOxandHCl.Carbonmonoxideemissionsareabout30%ofpermitlevelandSO2and PMemissionsareabout20%orlessofthepermittedamount.
Table 2-3. Actual and permitted air emissions for straw facility, Ely, England (Newman 2003). mg/Nm3 (11% O2) Actual Permitted 4 25 56 79 149 15 300 250 300 30 lbs/MWh Actual Permitted 0.05 0.32 0.73 1.03 1.94 0.19 3.90 3.25 3.90 0.39 tons/y Actual Permitted 6.1 37.8 84.8 119.6 225.6 22.7 454.1 378.4 454.1 45.4
PM SO2 CO NOx HCl
Table24showspermittedairemissionlevelsforseveralCaliforniasolidbiomasspower facilitiesandtheEly,England,strawfiredpowerplant.Theemissionlimitsare presentedbothinpoundspernetMWhaswellastonsperyear(basedon85%capacity factor).
162
Table 2-4. Air permit limits for several California solid fuel biomass power plants and one UK facility. Permit Limits Net Energy (lbs/(net MWh)) Net GWh/y VOC, Plant Name Town/City County MW @85% total PM SO2 NOx CO PM capacit HC, y factor NMHC AES Delano O Delano Kern 50 372.3 0.28 0.42 1.01 1.76 0.16 52.1 Wheelabrator 148.9 O Anderson Shasta 50 372.3 0.80 0.28 3.05 15.86 1.78 Shasta Ely Straw O Ely, UK 34 253.2 0.32 3.90 3.90 3.25 37.8 Burney 148.9 O Burney Shasta 31 230.8 1.29 0.71 1.85 8.66 1.54 Forest Power Rio Bravo O Fresno Fresno 25 186.2 0.23 0.40 1.18 0.49 0.42 21.6 AES 52.8 O Mendota Fresno 25 186.2 0.57 0.41 1.11 1.55 0.39 Mendota Woodland 26.8 O Woodland Yolo 25 186.2 0.29 0.53 1.06 47.52 0.70 Biomass Madera 37.2 O Madera Madera 25 186.2 0.40 1.16 2.00 2.40 0.96 Biomass Pacific 105.0 O Scotia Humboldt 19 141.5 1.48 5.58 22.26 Lumber Tracy San 32.6 O Tracy 18.5 137.8 0.47 0.34 1.47 2.94 0.69 Biomass Joaquin Covanta 39.2 O Oroville Butte 18 134.0 0.59 2.41 36.87 1.24 Oroville Fairhaven 46.9 O Eureka Humboldt 17.5 130.3 0.72 2.71 10.86 Power Covanta 33.0 O Burney Shasta 10 74.5 0.89 0.59 3.30 21.22 2.93 Burney 23.1 Chowchilla II C Madera Madera 10 74.5 0.62 1.04 1.04 2.29 1.04 22.3 El Nido C Merced 10 74.5 0.60 0.80 1.04 2.29 1.0 40.0 SPI Burney O Burney Shasta 9.5 70,.7 1.13 0.28 5.26 43.82 3.39 Status*
(tons/year) SO2 77.4 52.40 454.1 81.9 37.2 38.3 49.50 108.0 23.3 22.0 38.7 29.8 10.0 NOx 187.6 568.1 454.1 213.7 110.0 103.5 98.60 186.2 394.6 101.3 161.2 176.5 122.9 38.7 38.7 186.2 CO 328.4 2952 378.4 1,000 46.0 144.1 4423 223.4 1575 202.5 2471 707.4 790 85.3 85.3 1550 VOC, total HC, NMHC 29.8 331.3 178.0 38.7 36.1 65.2 89.4 47.7 83.1 109.0 38.7 37.2 120.0
Source 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
* Status; O= Operating C= Closed Sources; 1). Title V airpermits available on-line at; http://www.arb.ca.gov/fcaa/tv/tvinfo/permits/permits.htm 2) Wiltsee, G. (2000). Lessons learned from existing biomass power plants. NREL/SR-570-26946, Appel Consultants, Inc/NREL, Valencia, Calif. 3) Newman, R. (2003).
163
4.0
3.5
Chowchilla-Permit El Nido-Permit
Chowchilla-Actual El Nido-Actual Madera-Actual Woodland-Actual Ely,UK-Actual
3.0
Madera-Permit Woodland-Permit
2.5 (lbs/MWh)
Ely,UK-Permit
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 CO NOx SO2 PM THC
Figure 2-7. Permitted and actual emissions for several solid fuel biomass plants
Figure27displaysthepermittedandactualemissionsfromfourbiomasspowerplants inCaliforniaaswellastheEly,England,strawcombustionpowerplant.TheElNido andChowchillafacilitiesarecurrentlyidle,whileWoodland,Madera,andElyare operating.NotethatfortheCaliforniafacilitiesshown,NOxemissionsaregenerally runningnearthepermittedlevels(exceptforMaderawhichhasthelowestNOx emissionsoftheplantsshownbuthasahighNOxpermitlevel).CostofNOxcontrol suchaspurchaseofammoniaforSNCRandavoidanceofammoniasliptypicallyresults inoperationsnearpermitlevelsforNOx.Particulatematteremissionsarenear permittedlevelsfortheCaliforniafacilitiesexceptforElNidowhichemittedwellbelow itsPMpermitlimit.EmissionsfromtheEly,England,strawfacilityarewellbelow permittedlevels.Infact,exceptforSO2andNOx,Elyemissionsarebelowtheaverage permittedlevelsfortheCaliforniafacilitieslistedinTable24. Sulfurdioxideemissionsderivefromfuelbornesulfur.Sulfurcontentinthecereal straws(wheatandbarley)firedattheElyfacilityrangefromabout0.1to0.4%(by weight,drybasis).SulfurcontentofSacramentoValleyricestrawtypicallyrangesfrom 0.06to0.09%(drybasis)(Jenkins1996;Jenkins1989).Sulfurdioxideemissionsfroma facilityfiredbyricestrawinCaliforniaarenotanticipatedtobeacontrolissueand
164
fluidizedbedsusinglimestoneordolomiteinjectiontohelpcontrolfoulingwillalso assistinremovingsulfurfromthefluegas. NOxemissionsfromtheElystrawfacilityarelowconsideringthatthereissignificant fuelnitrogenpresent(seeTable25)andnopostcombustionNOxcontroldevicesare used.NOxattheElyfacilityiscontrolledsolelybymanagingthecombustion parameters.Ingeneral,CaliforniasolidfueledbiomassfacilitiesuseSNCRand/orflue gasrecirculationandcombustionmanagementforNOxcontrol.Reburninghasnotso farbeendeployedforNOxreductioninCaliforniafacilities,althoughinvestigatedona pilotorresearchlevel.

Table 2-5. Nitrogen content of several biomass types Nitrogen Content Biomass Sources* (% by weight, dry basis) Rice Straw 0.47 - 0.93 1,2,6 Wheat Straw 0.44 - 0.91 1,4,5 (typical Ely, UK fuel) Orchard Prunings (English and Black 0.22 - 0.66 1,5,6 Walnut, Almond) Fir / Pine / Spruce 0.05 - 0.30 3,5,6
*Table Sources: 1) Jenkins, B. M. (1989). Physical Properties of Biomass. Biomass Handbook, O. Kitani and C. W. Hall, eds., Gordon and Breach, New York, 860-891. 2) Jenkins, B. M., Bakker, R. R., and Wei, J. B. (1996). On the properties of washed straw. Biomass and Bioenergy, 10(4), 177-200. 3) Jenkins, B. M., Kayhanian, M., Baxter, L. L., and Salour, D. (1997). Combustion of residual biosolids from a high solids anaerobic digestion/aerobic composting process. Biomass and Bioenergy, 12(5), 367-381. 4) Newman, R. (2003). A trial burn of rape straw and whole crops harvested for energy use to assess efficiency implications. B/U1/00768/00/00 URN 03/1569, New & Renewable Energy Programme, ETSU/DTI (UK). 5) Phyllis, database for biomass and waste, Energy research Centre of the Netherlands, http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis 6) Rizeq, G., and Zamansky, V. (2004). Utilization of waste renewable fuels in boilers with minimization of pollutant emissions. California Energy Commission contract no. 500-98-037, GE Global Research, Irvine.
Ricestrawcontainsaboutthesameamountofnitrogenaswheatstraw(Table25). Therefore,afacilityinCaliforniaburningricestrawwouldhavesimilarNOxproduction (i.e.,expectsimilarcontributionstototalNOxproductionfromfuelbornenitrogenand thermalNOx).UncontrolledNOxemissionswhenburningricestrawwithwoodhave previouslybeenshowntoincreaseabout30%fora20%blend(Jenkins1994;Jenkinsand Bakkeretal.2000).Whenfiredasablendincommercialpowerboilers,ricestraw requiredincreasedammoniainjectiontomaintainNOxwithinpermitlevelsadding about$0.08/MWhtothecostofgeneration(JenkinsandWilliamsetal.1999). BottomandFlyAsh TheElyfacilityconsumesstrawthathasanashcontentofabout6%(wetbasis).Fora strawconsumptionrateof200,000Mgperyear,totalsolidresidueisapproximately 12,000Mgor13,230shorttons.Thisisequivalenttoapproximately40tonsperdayor
165
abouttwotruckloadsperday.TheElyfacilityreturnsmostofthesolidresiduetoarea farmsforlandapplication.Californiaricestrawhasanashcontentofabout15%(wet basis).Solidresidueforasimilarlysizedfacilityburningricestrawwillbe approximately2.5timesmoreorabout33,000tonsperyearor100tonsperday(four truckloads/day).Ofsomeconcernrelativetowheatstrawisthehighersilicacontentof ricestraw,leadingpotentiallytotheneedforgreaterprecautionsinashhandlingto avoidinhalationhazards. LiquidResidues Ifwetscrubbingsystemsarenotusedinemissionscontrol,thenliquidemissionsfrom thefacilitywouldbeverylow,limitedtoboilerwaterblowdownanddischargesludge fromcoolingtowers.Aproperlylinedandsizedholdingpondshouldbesufficientto receiveandevaporateallliquidsfromthefacility.AnumberoffacilitiesinCaliforniaare alreadyzerodischargeforwastewater.
2.2.4 MSW/green Waste AD Systems and Dairy Manure Digester Systems

TreatmentofMSWandanimalmanuresbyADsystemsareusuallyviewedasawaste managementoptionwithfewernegativeenvironmentalimpactsthanconventional disposalmethods. ForMSW,conventionaldisposalisbylandfillwithsomecaptureofthegenerated methane.Olderlandfillsdidnotemployengineeredlowpermeabilitylinersfor reducingleachatetransport.Newerlandfillsaredesignedtorestrictleachateleakage bothduringfillingandafterthelandfillhasreachedcapacityandceasedreceiving material,butitisgenerallyacceptedthatthesesystemswilleventuallyfailwithleachate intrusionintogroundwater.Shortofmonitoringleachatefromclosedlandfillsandthen miningthemtorecoverandtreatorstabilizethematerialbeforegroundwater contaminationoccurs,theonlyothermeansofensuringstablewastedisposalistotreat thematerialbeforelandfillingoravoidlandfillingaltogether.Burningorbiochemically stabilizing(compostingoranaerobicdigestion)wastesaretreatmentoptionsthatare nowrequiredinEurope,andonlyMSWresiduescanbelandfilled. TraditionalanimalmanuredisposalintheUnitedStatesconsistedofscrapingpensand spreadingmanureonsurroundingfields.Feedingoperationsusedtobemuchsmaller andruminantanimalsusedtospendalargerfractionoftheirlifetimesinpastures comparedtoconfinedanimalfeedingoperations.Liquidwasteswereallowedtobe flushedintostreamsorsimplyheldinlagoonswithseepagecontrolledonlybylocalsoil conditions.Airandwateremissionsandodorsweretoleratedbecauseoflowanimal andhumanpopulationdensities.Propermanagementtoavoidoverloadingsoilswith saltswasrequiredtoreducesalinizationoffarmlands.Thisremainsacriticalissuewith landapplicationofmanuresanddigesterresiduestoday. AgriculturaloperationsinCaliforniaarenowsubjecttostrictairandwateremission regulations.Airpermitsarerequiredforallagriculturaloperationswithairpollution emissionsthatexceedonehalfofthemajorsourcethresholdofanycriteriapollutant.
166
Nutrientlimitationsinwatershedsalsodeterminesolidshandlingdisposaltosome extent. Energyproductionfromthebiogascreatedindigestersystemsisanenvironmental benefitwhencomparedtosimpleflaringwithnoenergyrecovery,orthefugitive methaneandVOCemissionsthatwouldhaveoccurredusingthetraditionaloptions.As discussedinTask1.1.3.3(EconomicAssessments),energyproductionfromthese systemsisexpensiveandpossiblyuncompetitiveifenergyrevenuesaloneareneededto financetheentiretreatmentsystem. MSWADEmissions EmissionsfromMSWADsystemsincludeairemissionsfromtheuseofbiogas(usually stationaryreciprocatingengine,vehicle,gasboiler,gasturbine,orflare),airemissions fromposttreatmentofsolids/digestate(compostand/orlandapplication),liquid emissionsfromexcessprocesswateranddewateringoperations,andlandemissions dependingonhowthesoliddigestatesareusedordisposed. Inaddition,therecanbefugitivegasanddustemissionsthatdependoncontrol strategies,operationalpractices,andlevelofmaintenanceataparticularfacility(e.g., enclosedreceivingbuildingswhichmayhaveexhaustairtreatmenttominimizeVOC anddustemissionsfromunloadingandfeedstockstorage). AirEmissionsfromUseofBiogas Emissionsfromtheuseofbiogasaretypicalofcombustionprocessesburningmethane withtheexceptionofsulfur.GaseousemissionsincludeNOx,SOx,CO,unburned hydrocarbons,andparticulatematter.Ifthebiogasisconsumedinapplicationsother thansimpleflaring,theemissionsshouldreceiveanoffsetcreditbytheamountthat wouldhavebeencreatedfromthedisplacedfuel. Verylargelandfillsandwastewatertreatmentfacilitiescanproduceenoughbiogasto justifyrelativelyhighcapitalcostprimemoverssuchasgasturbineswithheatrecovery (combinedcycle),orsteamboilersforlargescalecombinedheatandpower.Forthe scalesbeingconsideredforinvesselMSWADanddairymanuretopowersystemsin California,reciprocatinginternalcombustionenginesarethemostlikelychoice.Incases whereNOxemissionlimitsareverylow,microormidsizedgasturbinesmaybe attractive.Theconversionefficiencyofturbinesatthesescales(lessthan2MW)arenot ashighasreciprocatingengineefficiencies.Turbinesgenerallyaremoreexpensiveas well,buttendtohavesuperioremissionscontrolperformancebecauseofthegreater controlachievablewithcontinuouscombustionenginesascontrastedwithintermittent reciprocatingtypeenginesandhigherexcessair.Thechoiceofprimemovertype dependsonthevalueofpower,heat,emissionreductions,etc. DependingonSOxemissionlimitsand/orconcentrationofH 2Sinthebiogas,gas cleaningtolowersulfurandmoisturecontentpriortouseinreciprocatingenginesmay benecessary.Wetscrubbingistypicalandironcatalyzedoxidationandbiologicalfixed
167
filmreactorgasscrubbingmethodsarealsousedforsulfurremoval.Insomecases, simplecompressionandcoolingofthegas,acommonmoistureremovaltechnique,is sufficienttolowersulfurcontenttoasuitablelevel(Pierce1997).Elementalsulfuris eventuallydepositedandcanbesafelydisposed. NOxisalwaysproducedtosomedegreewhenfuelisburnedwithairandcanbe emittedathighlevelsfromuncontrolledreciprocatinggasengines.InCalifornia,NOx emissionsareusuallythelimitingfactorforstationarypowergenerationusing reciprocatingengines.Becauseofimpuritiesinbiogassuchassulfur,andinsomecases siloxanes(principallyassociatedwithlandfillgasandsewagedigestergas),catalytic convertersforcontrolofNOxandunburnedhydrocarbonsarenotoftenused.Flaring biogasgenerallyemitslowerNOxbecausetemperatureswithhighexcessairarelower thanthoseencounteredincombustionchambers,butthereisnorecoverableenergy. Leanburn,prestratifiedcharge,andexhaustgasrecirculationtechnologiesareusedfor reducingNOxemissionsfromthisclassofengine,butarecurrentlynotavailablefor powersetsbelowabout500kW. Carbonmonoxideemissionscanbecomeanissueespeciallywhenimplementingsome NOxcontrolstrategiesforreciprocatingengines.Forexample,veryleanburnconditions canleadtoincompletecombustionormisfiringwhichwillincreaseCOandunburned hydrocarbonsintheexhaust. TheadditionalimpactsofwastetreatmentbyADduetoenergyproductionarealmost entirelyduetoproductsofcombustionofthebiogasanddisposaloruseofdigester residues(digestates).Amoredetaileddiscussionofemissionlimitsandbehaviorof reciprocatinggasenginescanbefoundbelow. VOCEmissionsfromCompostingofDigestate Volatileorganiccompoundsarealargegroupofanthropogenicorbiogenicorganic compoundswithrelativelyhighvaporpressures.VOCscanbepotentialairpollutants, duetotheirmalodorousandhazardouspropertiesandcontributiontotropospheric ozone.Inaddition,VOCscancontributetoglobalwarmingandstratosphericozone depletion.VOCsareusuallydefinedastheorganiccompounds(exceptmethane)with boilingpointslessthan175F,whilesemivolatilecompoundsaretheorganic compoundswithboilingpointsbetween175Fand350F(Komilisetal.2004). Methane alsoparticipateswithNOxintheformationofozone,buttheratesareslowerandthe effectismoreimportantonaglobalatmosphericscalethanonalocalscaleofdiurnal variation. VOCsareemittedfromdecomposingbiogenicmaterialincludingMSWandgreenwaste compostfacilitiesaswellasposttreatmentofdigestatefromMSWADsystems.The amountofVOCemissionsaresignificantandneedtobeconsideredforinstallationsin ozonenonattainmentortransportairbasins.
168
Smetetal.(1999)comparedVOCandammoniaemissionsfromtwodifferentmethods forbiochemicaltreatmentofbiodegradablewastes.Sourceseparatedhouseholdand gardenwastes(70%garden,20%kitchen,and10%paperwastes)weretreatedby(1) standardaerobiccompostingwithupflowaeration,and(2)acombinationofAD followedbyaerobicstabilizationofdigestate.VOCandammoniaemissionswere measuredfromeachprocess.AssumingthebiogasproducedintheADstageof treatmentmethod(2)isflaredorcombustedinanengine,thenthetotalvolatile emissionsfortreatment(2)wouldcomeonlyfromtheaerobicstabilizationportionofthe treatmentor6%ofthosefromtreatmentmethod(1)(i.e.,44mg/tonfromtreatment(2) versus742mg/tonfromtreatment(1),seeTable26).Additionally,thepartially stabilizeddigestatefromtheADportionofthecombinedtreatmentrequiresabout1/10 theamountofairduringtheaerobicphasecomparedtothefullaerobictreatment method(1),whichrequiresaproportionatelysmallerfanandbiofilterforfinalcontrol. However,mostofthevolatileemissionfromtreatment(2)wascomposedofammonia (NH 3)(morethan500mgpercubicmeter)requiringammoniascrubbingifthegasisto bepassedthroughabiofilterpriortoexhaust.
Table 2-6. Emissions for different biochemical treatment methods Emission Compound Total VOC NH3 H2S Total Volatiles Treatment (a) Aerobic Composting Emission (mg/ton) 590 152 nd 742 Treatment (b) Anaerobic Aerobic Digestion Stabilization Emission Emission (mg/ton) (mg/ton) 217 3 1.8 41 17 nd 236 44
Komilisetal.(2004)foundgaseousVOCemissionsfromallprincipalbiogenic componentsofMSWcompost.TotalVOCemissionsmeasuredrangedfrom570gper drykgforfoodwasteandyardwastes(mixedat22%and78%bydryweight respectively)to6,060gperdrykgformixedpaper.Amixturetorepresentthebiogenic fractionofMSW(mixedpaper,foodwastesandyardwastes)producedVOCemissions attherateof1,200gperdrykg.TheVOCemissionsarenotproportionalto,or additivewith,theratiooforganicmaterialsinthewastemixtureimplyinginteractions occuramongthedifferentsubstrates.TheonlychlorinatedVOCdetectedwas1,4 dichlorobenzene,andemissionsvarieddependingonthesubstrate.Komilisetal.(2004) containsagoodreviewofVOCemissionsfromMSWandcompostingoperations. LandfillGasEmissions Anevaluationoftheemissionsimpactsofconversiontechnologieswouldnotbe completewithoutadiscussionoflandfillgasemissions,whichrepresentthecurrent stateofwastedisposal.TheconversionofbiodegradablematerialinADsystemswill reduceeventuallandfillgasproductionandemissionandshouldreceiveemission creditsthatcanbeappliedtooffsetemissionsfromthepowerproductioncomponent.
169
Asdiscussedabove,thebacterialdecompositionofbiogeniclandfilledmaterial producessignificantquantitiesoflandfillgas,whichiscomposedofapproximately50% methaneand50%carbondioxide.Themethaneemissionsfromlandfillsareparticularly important,sincemethaneisamorepotentgreenhousegasthancarbondioxideandsince landfillsrepresentthesecondlargestsourcecategoryofanthropogenicmethane emissionsbehindtheenergyindustry(seeTable27). MethaneemissionsfromUnitedStateslandfillsfor1990to2002arepresentedonatotal massbasisinTable27.Totallandfillmethaneproductionincreasedovertheperiod,but correspondingincreasesinlandfillgasrecoveryledtoabouta10%reductioninnet methaneemissionstotheatmosphere.Amajorityofthelandfillgasproducedbyactive landfillsinthestateisconvertedtoelectricity,andcomparisonsofelectricalcapacities provideagoodcomparisonofthelevelofcontrolofmethaneemissionsfromlandfillsin thestate.Forthestate,landfillgasthatiseithercurrentlyusedforelectricityproduction, isplannedforelectricityuse,orisflared,representsapproximately305MW,while uncontrolledorventedlandfillshaveacapacityof31MW(Hackett2004).
Table 2-7. CH4 emissions from United States landfills (Gg) 66 Activity MSW Landfills Industrial Landfills Recovered Gas-to-Energy Flared Oxidized Total 1990 11,599 812 (824) (478) (1,111) 9,998 1996 1997 13,520 13,802 946 966 (1,360) (2,059) (1,105) 9,942 (1,618) (2,390) (1,076) 9,685 1998 14,047 983 1999 14,385 1,007 2000 14,659 1,026 (2,376) (2,764) (1,055) 9,491 2001 14,954 1,047 (2,630) (3,146) (1,022) 9,202 2002 15,221 1,065 (2,748) (3,325) (1,021) 9,192
(1,938) (2,177) (2,692) (2,750) (1,040) (1,047) 9,360 9,419
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. oxidized in soil covering
SolidResidues Lignincomponentsofbiomasscannotbedegradedanaerobically.WithpracticalAD systems,size,capital,andtimeconstraintslimittheportionofbiodegradablematerial thatisactuallyconvertedtosomethinglessthantheoretical.Thisportion,combined withthelignincomponents,microbialcellbiomass,andtheinorganic(ash)components, resultinsubstantialsolidresiduethatmayormaynothavecommercialuse. ApotentialproductfromADofMSWisacompostorsoilamendmentresultingfrom aerobicstabilizationofthesolidresidueordigestate.Ifacompostmarketdoesnotexist oradequatequalitycannotbeachieved,thenthesolidresidualmaybeusedin thermochemicalconversionorsenttolandfill. Compostqualityconsistsofatleastfouraspects:
66.UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,2004.InventoryofU.S.Greenhousegas EmissionsandSinks:19902002.EPAreportNo.EPA430R04003. 170
Contentoftoxiccompoundssuchasheavymetals. Absenceofpathogens. Contentofundesirablegoodssuchasplastic,metal,glassetc. Plantnutritionalvalue,i.e.inorganicnutrientsaswellascontentoforganic compoundsforimprovingthestructureandhumuscontentofthesoil.
CompostQualityHeavyMetals Thequalityofcomposteddigestatedependsheavilyonthequalityorcompositionofthe digesterfeedstock.OperatorsandregulationsinEuropestronglyencouragesource separationofhouseholdandyardbiogenicwastesfromthegrayorrestfractionfor useinbiochemicaltreatmentforbothimproveddigesterperformanceandhighquality oruseablecompostfromthesolidresidue. Heavymetalsandothercontaminantspresentindigesterfeedstockpredominatelyend upinthesoliddigestate.Kubleretal.(2000)reportedthat80%oftheheavymetals introducedintothedigester(afterpulpingandseparationofheavyandlightfraction) weredischargedtothesoliddigestate.Thebalancewasnotreportedbutpresumably mostoftheremainingheavymetalswereinsolutionintheprocesswater.Metals concentrationisgenerallyhigherinthedigestatecomparedtothatofthefeedstock becauseofbiomassconversiontobiogas.Edelmannetal.(2004)indicatethatresults frommorethan1,000analysesofcompostfromanaerobicdigestionwithaerobic stabilizationorjustaerobictreatmentofsourceseparatedbiogenicfractionofMSW showedheavymetalconcentrationswerelessthanhalfoftheSwisslimitsforcompost (inppmdrymatter:Pb:120,Cr:100,Ni:30,Zn:400,Cu:100,Hg:1,Cd:1). Composteddigestatequalityandheavymetalconcentrationfromoperatingcommercial facilitiesinBelgiumusingtheDrancoADprocessisreportedontheOrganicWaste SystemscompanywebsiteandcontainedinareportbyDeBaereandBoelens(1999). Table28displayssomeofthesedata.Itincludesdetailedanalysesoffinishedcompost fromtheBrecht,Belgiumplant,whichfeedssourceseparatedhouseholdbiogenicand yardwastestoathermophilichighsolidsdigester.Thedigestateisdewateredand compostedinacoveredfacilitywithforcedaeration.Thefinishedcompostmeetsthe compostqualityrequirementsfortheFlandersregioninBelgium(Table28).Datafor heavymetalscontentforcomposteddigestatefromtheBassumplantisalsoshownin Table28.
171
Table 2-8. Compost analysis from two Dranco facilities in Belgium Average of Bassum Plant (grey waste digestion) Flemish Brecht Fiber material Sludge Fraction Compost Plant Standard (source Untreate Treate Untreate Treate Units s separated) d d d d Lead (Pb) (ppm TS) <120 97 80 60 220 90 Nickel (Ni) (ppm TS) <20 8 25 18 30 18 Zinc (Zn) (ppm TS) <300 180 350 180 900 250 Copper (Cu) (ppm TS) <90 32 100 55 240 80 Cadmium (Cd) (ppm TS) <1.5 1 0.9 0.5 1.9 1.4 Chromium (Cr) (ppm TS) <70 23 60 40 40 36
TS = total solids Source: Organic Waste Systems website and De Baere and Boelens 1999.
Thefeedstockusedfordigestionisthebiogenicportionobtainedfromseparationofthe socalledgrayorrestfractionofthewastestream.Graywasteistheremainderafter recyclables,packaging,hazardous,andhouseholdbiogenicwastefractionsaresource separated.About60%ofthegraywastestreambecomesfeedstockfortheBassumplant. Heavymetalscontentofthefiberandsludgefractionsfromcomposteddigestateofa portionofthegraywastefractionishigherthanthatforsourceseparatedfeedstocks. ThecompostfromBassumcannotmeettheFlemishstandardswithoutfirstremoving someoftheheavymetals,especiallyzincandcopper,fromthefeedstock(DeBaere 2003). KrausandGrammel(1992)examinedcompostinseveralregionswithinGermanyand observedthatheavymetalscontentincompostofsourceseparatedbiogenicfraction averaged25%thatofmixedMSWcompost(Table29).Most,ifnotall,ofthesecompost sampleswerefromrawornonADtreatedfeedstock.
172
Table 2-9. Heavy metal content in compost from solid wastes in Germany (Kraus and Grammel 1992) Element Mixed MSW SourceCompost (ppm) separated Compost (ppm) Lead (Pb) 420 83 Nickel (Ni) 84 26 Zinc (Zn) 919 224 Copper (Cu) 222 41 Cadmium (Cd) 2.8 0.4 Chromium (Cr) 107 61 Mercury (Hg) 1.9 <0.2
DioxininTrashandCompost Acommonmisconceptioninmanagementofsolidwasteisthatemissions(gas,liquid, solid)frombiochemicalprocessingofMSW,incontrasttothermochemicalprocessing, arecompletelybenign.Bothprocessingstrategiesinvolvepotentiallyhazardous emissionsandexposureroutesneedcarefulinspection.Dibenzopdioxinand dibenzofuran(PCDD/Fordioxin/furans)compoundsaregeneratedbymanyindustrial processes.Operatingwastetoenergy(WTEorincineration)facilitiesintheUnited StateshavebeenretrofittedtoMACTstandardsandasaresult,theindustryemits approximately12gTEQofPCDD/Fperyearconstitutingadecreaseof99.9%from1987 emissions. 67 Amongalldioxinsources,MSWcombustionaccountsforlessthan1%of totalairemissionsintheUnitedStates. 68 Dioxin/furansarepresentindetectableamountsintheenvironment.Thecompounds arepersistentandfatsolubleandthereforetendtobioaccumulate.Becauseofthe backgroundaccumulationofPCDD/Fcompoundsinfoodandfiber,MSWintheUnited Statesislikelytocontaindetectibleamountswhichmayneedtobeconsideredinoverall environmentalimpacts. FurtherdiscussioninthedetailedreportbyBrinton(2000)oftheKrausandGrammel (1992)resultsrevealsdatafromdioxinanalysisofseveraltypesofcompostandraw householdsolidwastefromGermany(Figure28).Averagesfromseveralsamplesof eachcategoryshowedPCDD/Finrawhouseholdmixedwastewaspresentinthe amountof57ng/kgToxicEquivalent.CompostedmixedMSWhadPCDD/Flevelsof38 ng/kgTEQ,followedbycompostofsourceseparatedhouseholdwastewith14ng/kg TEQandabout10ng/kgTEQingreenandgardenwastecompost.Brinton(2000)did notindicatewhetherthecompostedmixedhouseholdwastewasfromthesamesource astherawmixedhouseholdwasteorwhythePCDD/Fconcentrationwaslowerinthe compostedmixedhousewaste.
67.U.S.EPADocketNo.A9045,VIII.B11andU.S.EPADioxinSourceInventory2002. 68.U.S.EPAPCDD/FEmissionsDatabase, http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20797 173

140
120
100
Teq (ng/kg)
80
60
40
20
Source-separated Household Household Household Biogenic Waste Compost Trash Trash Compost
Green Waste Compost
Garden Waste Compost
Note: Each column represents an individual sample.
Figure 2-8. PCDD/F content of raw household wastes and several compost types
Photo Credit: Source Kraus and Grammel, 1992, as reported in Brinton (2000).
PesticidesandHerbicidesinCompostandCompostedDigestate Certainsyntheticpesticidesorherbicidesareknownorsuspectedtopersistinthe environmentafterapplication.Clopyralidisapersistentherbicideusedtocontrol broadleafweedssuchasdandelions,clover,andthistle.Itisharmlesstohumansor animalsbutsurvivesanimaldigestionandcompostprocesses. 69 Clopyralidhasbeen bannedfromcertainusesinWashingtonafteritwassuspectedofdamagingtomato cropsfertilizedwithcompost.Thechemicalhasbeendetectedinsomecompostin Californiabutnocropdamagehasbeenconfirmed.Inanattempttolimituse,AB2356, Statutesof2002requiresclopyralidbesoldonlytoqualifiedapplicators. 70 ThereispotentialfordetectableamountsofpesticidesandherbicidesinMSWAD feedstocksinCaliforniabasedoninvestigationsdoneinEurope.Thesestudieshave shownpresenceofchemicalsandpesticidesinhouseholdorganicorbiowaste(Taubeet al.2002;Vorkampetal.2002;Vorkampetal.2003).Taubeetal.(2002)examinedsamples ofbiogenicwastecomponentsofMSWcropprotectionproducts(CPP).Typical
69.http://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/Pesticides/docs/Clopyralid/ClopyralidFactSheet.pdf 70.http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Organics/Threats/Clopyralid/Background.htm 174
householdandyardwastesinGermanyoverafourseasonperioddistributedbetween ruralandurbansourceswereexaminedformorethan50pesticide/herbicidechemicals. AllsamplescontainedCPPresidues.Tropicalfruitpeelsandresidueshadsignificant concentrationofthiabendazoleandmethidathion,whicharetypicallyappliedpost harvestforprotectionintransportandstorage.Dimethoat,dodemorph,endosulfan,and otherfungicideswerefoundinvegetableandgardenwastes.LaboratoryADwas carriedoutonrawsamplesandshowedthatsomeCPPscouldbemetabolized, modified,orotherwisestabilizedtovaryingdegrees.However,manyarepersistent (suchasdodemorph)andcannegativelyaffectplantsandcropsifthecompostcontains highenoughlevels.
2.2.5 Dairy Emissions

Emissionsduetodairypowersystemsareinfluencedheavilybytheprimemover.As indicatedabove,biogasproductionfromevenlargedairiesisnotlargeenoughto warrantmediumtolargegasturbinesorevenlargereciprocatingengines.Seeelsewhere inthisreportfordiscussiononreciprocatingenginesfueledbybiogasand/orproducer gas.Theoverallbenefitsofreductionsindairyandagriculturalemissionswhichmaybe obtainedwiththeutilizationofdigestionsystemsandmanuresolidshandlingshouldbe assessedwhenpermitlevelsforstationaryengineoperationarebeingdetermined. Energyproductionwhencombinedwithdairyemissionreductionsshouldbe encouraged(andappropriateairpermitlevelsgranted)sothatgasflaringisnotthe automaticdefaultforbiogasdestruction. Statelaw(SB700,2002)requiresagriculturaloperationstoobtainairpermitsif emissionsexceedgreaterthanonehalfthethresholdforamajorsourceofcriteria pollutants. 71 FortheSanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict,dairies(andotherconfined animalfeedingoperations)thatemitmorethan12.5t/yearofVOCwillrequireair permits.Thesizeofthedairy(innumberofanimals)thatwilltriggertherequirement foranairpermitiscurrentlybeingdecided.Theprimaryissueremainingisthe determinationofaccurateVOCemissionsfromafacility.Methaneemissionsdatafrom anearlystudywasmisappliedandtakenasVOCemissionsandwrittenintothe emissioninventory. 72 On23June2005,theCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard(CARB)approveddefinitionsfor largeconfinedanimalfeedingoperations(CAFO). 73 Fordairiesinozoneattainment areas,alargeCAFOisafacilitywith2,000ormorelactatingcows(supportstockisnot
71.http://www.valleyair.org/farmpermits/updates/draft_dairy_bact.pdf 72.BenedictandRitzman(1938)determinedmethaneemissionfactortobe160lbs/cow/year, whichwaslatermisinterpretedtobeTOGemissionfactor.A1980U.S.EPAstudydetermined that8%oflivestockTOGisreactive,orROG.Taking8%of160givesthe12.8emissionfactor. 73.AirBoardsetsstageforlargedairyrules,2005.CARBnewsrelease,availableat: http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr062305.htm 175
countedforpurposesofthedefinition,butemissionsfromsupportstockmustbe accountedforinthepermittooperate).Fordairiesinozonenonattainmentairbasins, 1,000lactatingcowsdefinealargeCAFO.TheVOCemissionfactorusedbyCARBfor CAFOdefinitionisstillthedisputed12.6lbs/cowyearfiguresoCAFOdefinitionis subjecttochange. TheSanJoaquinValleyandtheSouthCoastairbasinsarebothdesignatednon attainmentforthefederal1hourozonestandard.Usingthe1,000lactatingcownumber forCAFOdeterminant,29%ofdairiesand73%ofanimalsintheSanJoaquinValleywill beconsideredCAFsaswellas50%ofdairiesand75%ofanimalsintheSouthCoastair basin. 74 IndividualairdistrictsarefreetousemorestringentCAFOdefinitions. CARBandtheSanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrictarefundingongoing investigationstodetermineairemissionsfromCaliforniadairies.Researchersfromthe UniversityofCalifornia,CaliforniaStateUniversity,TexasA&M,IowaState,state agencies,andprivateconsultantsareengagedinseveralparallelmeasurementand modelingstudies. Preliminaryresultswererecentlypresented. 75 Preliminaryfindingsincludethoseof Mitloehner(UCCooperativeExtension)whoreportsabout3.8lbs/cow/yearofVOC comedirectlyfromtheanimalmostlyfromrumination.Another2.6lbs/cow/yearwas measuredfromthefreshmanure(uptothreedaysoldleftinpen).Schmidt,an independentconsultant,conductedanextensivesuiteoffluxchambermeasurementsof thefollowing11typesofemittingsurfacesataflushedlanedairyinMercedCounty:

Flushedlanes:preandpostflushed Solidsstoragepiles Lagoon(inletandoutletoflagoon) SolidsinSolidsseparator Beddinginpileforfreestall Freestallarea Barnturnoutandcorralarea Manurepilesinturnout Heiferpens(drycowarea) Openfeedstorage(inbarnfeedlanes)
74.Initialstatementofreasonsfortheconfinedanimalfacilitydefinition,2005.CARBstaff report,availableat:http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/lcaf05/isor.pdf 75.LivestockEmissionsResearchSymposium,January26,2005,Fresno,California.Proceedings availableat:http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/agadvisory/lersymp.htm 176
Milkparlor(wastewatereffluentstream)
Morethan40fluxchambermeasurementsweremadewithanalysisforspeciated reactiveorganicgases(ROGsorVOCs),ammonia/amines,totalorganiccompounds,and methane.SchmidtspreliminaryresultsindicatetheVOCemissionfactorfromdairy operationsurfacesonly(nocowbelching,ruminating,etc.)rangesfrom3.6to19 lbs/cow/year.ThedominantROGspeciesisethanolemittedfromensiledfeed. Emissionsfromthewastewaterlagoonwererelativelylow. 76 Hobbsetal.(2004)measurednonmethaneVOCemissionsfromslurriedmanureina chamberandestimatestotalemissionsforlivestockinEngland.Resultsforcattle manure(whichincludesthatfromdairyanimals)managedwithflushedstallsandwet storageindicatesnonmethaneVOCemissionsare9kg/cow/year(19.8lbs/cow/year). UsingthepreliminarydatafromMiltloenerfordirectanimalemissionsandresultsfrom SchmidtandHobbsforVOCemissionsderivedfrommanure,totalemissionfactor potentiallyrangesfrom7.4to23.6lbs/cow/year. Bylaw,theAirPollutionControlOfficer(APCO)fortheSanJoaquinValleyAir PollutionControlDistrictwastoadoptadairyemissionfactorbyJuly1,2005(since extendedtoAugust1,2005). 77 AreportfromtheAPCOwiththedeterminationofdairy VOCemissionfactorswasrecentlyreleasedpriortoapublicworkshoponJuly11,2005 (Crow2005).ThedairyVOCemissiondeterminedbytheAPCOintheDraftReportwas 20.6lbs/cow/yearandreviseddownwardto19.3lbs/cow/yearintheFinalReport releasedAugust1,2005(Crow2005).Thisissignificantlylargerthanthevaluecurrently usedbyCARB(12.8lbs/cow/year).Thereportdiscussestheprocessusedtoarriveatthe determinationandweighstheargumentsbehindthethreedifferentemissionfactor recommendationsmadebytheDairyPermittingAdvisoryGroup(DPAG).TheDPAG couldnotarriveataconsensusopinionbeforeissuingitsreport.Thethreeopinionsin theDPAGreportderivefromeachofthreefactionsamongthestakeholders:thedairy industry,theUniversityofCalifornia,andtheenvironmentalcommunity. 78 TheDPAG recommends5.6,13.3,and38.2lbs./cow/yearfordairyfacilityVOCemissionfactor(see Table210).
76.SeepresentationbySchmidtinproceedingsat: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/agadvisory/lersymp.htm 77.SettlementAgreement.WesternUnitedDairymen,AllianceofWesternMilkProducersv.San JoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict.FresnoSuperiorCourt,2004. 78.DairyEmissionsFactorsforVolatileOrganicCompoundsRecommendationstotheSan JoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlOfficer.Finalreport,May6,2005,DairyPermitting AdvisoryGroup.Availableat: http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/dpag/DPA_%20EF_Report_Final.pdf 177
Table 2-10. Summary of recommended and SJVAPCD determination for VOC emission factors from dairy operations in the SJVAPCD.
Constituent or process Emissions from cows and feed in environmental chamber Dairy Industry* 2.7 0.2 1.2 Emissions (lb/hd-yr) SJVAPCD University of NRDC* California* Determination 3.4 0.2 1.2 4.3 11.0 1.2 1.4
SJVAPCD Comments
(2.7) 0.2 1.2
Underestimate and further research is recommended " Clearly understimate of actual emissions, further work recommended Underestimate and further research is recommended Most probably represents an underestimate of VFA emissions. Futher research is needed Insufficient data available but emissions are known to be greater than zero " "
2 Amines from dairy processes VOCs 3 (except VFAs and Amines) from miscellaneous dairy processes VOCs 4 (except VFAs and Amines) from lagoons and storage ponds
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5 VFAs from dairy processes
0.5
7.5
17.0
15.5
6 Phenols from dairy processes 7 Land application Feed storage, settling basins, 8 composting, & manure disturbance Totals
0 NA Included above or insignificant 5.6
0 NA NA 13.3
2.6 1.0 0.1 38.2
TBD, >0 TBD, >0 TBD, >0 19.3
* Viewpoints 1, 2, and 3, from; (2005). Dairy Emissions Factors for Volatile Organic Compounds Recommendations to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Officer. Final Report, May 6, 2005, Dairy Permitting Advisory Group. Crow, D. L. (2005). Air Pollution Control Officer's Determination of VOC Emission Factors for Dairies. Final Report. August 1, 2005, SJVAPCD. Crow, D. L. (2005). Draft Air Pollution Control Officer's Determination of VOC Emission Factors for Dairies. June 27, 2005, SJVAPCD.
Thedairyindustryrecommendsthelowestemissionfactorwhiletheenvironmental communityrecommendsthehighest.ThevaluedeterminedbytheAPCOfromaline itemexaminationofthedataandthevariousargumentssetforthintheDPAGreportis slightlyhigherthanasimpleaverageoftheDPAGrecommendations(DPAGaverage= 19.0). NotableinthediscussionbytheAPCOinhisreportarethecommentsgivenintheline itemevaluation(thelineitemsaretheeightVOCconstituentsordairyprocesseslisted inTable210).TheAPCOstatesthatthebestavailabledataunderestimatetheemissions foreachoftheeightlineitems.Theexpectationthenisthatasbetterdatabecome available,theVOCemissionfactorwillincreaseabovethecurrent19.3lbs/cow/year. Thisisanevolvingissue.BesidesthemagnitudeofthedairyVOCemissionfactor,there isdiscussionanddisagreementoverwhatcompoundsshouldbeincludedintheVOC category(Capareda2005).Ifthe19.3lbs/cow/yearemissionfactorisaccepted,then CARBwillneedtochangethelargeCAFOdefinitioninnonattainmentareasfrom1,000
178
lactatingcowstoaround600(CAFOinattainmentareaswouldchangefrom2,000 lactatingcowstoaround1,200).Asvolatilefattyacids(VFA)constitutethelargest sourceofVOCandthegreatestuncertaintyintheestimate,increasingattentionwillbe focusedonemissionandreactivityofVFA. Onehalfto80%oftheVOCemissionsappeartobefrommanurewhichindicatesdairy practicesandmanuremanagementcanplayalargeroleinreducingdairyVOC emissions.TheSanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrictsdraftdairyBest AvailableControlTechnology(BACT)recommendscoveredlagoonsasacomponentof BACT.Coveredlagoonsareonetypeofdigesternowbeingoperatedfordairypower systemsdeployingmostlyinternalcombustionenginesforbiogasfueledpower generation.Theotherprincipaltypeistheplugflowdigester.Otherdesigntypes, includingattachedgrowthdigestersarealsobeingconsidered. OtherAirEmissions Ammoniaisabyproductofmicrobialdecompositionoforganicnitrogencompoundsin manureproducedbybothanaerobicandaerobicfermentation.Ammoniaaccumulates intheliquidcomponentsofmanureandvolatizesupondrying.Ammoniadoesnot participateingasreactionsproducingphotochemicalsmog,butreadilyreactswithSO 2 andNOxtofromammoniumsulfateandammoniumnitrateasaerosolsinthe atmosphere(Seinfeld1986). Hydrogensulfideandotherreducedsulfurcompoundsarebyproductsofanaerobic manuredecomposition.Sulfurispresentinaminoacidsinanimalfeedandinmineral feedadditivessuchascopperandzincsulfate.HydrogensulfidewilloxidizetoSO2 contributingtoammoniumsulfateproductionand/oracidprecipitation(Seinfeld1986). Particulatematter(PM)canbeemittedinsubstantialamountsfromalargedairy. Sourcesincludestandingdrymanureandmanurestorageandhandlingaswellasdust fromunpavedroadsandsurfaces.
2.2.6 Gas Engines

Internalcombustionenginesareaclassofheatenginesinwhichthecombustion productsaretheworkingfluidasopposedtoexternalcombustiontypesrequiringheat exchangetotransferenergytotheworkingfluid.Theenergyinthecombustionproducts isconvertedtoworkbyexpansionandmovementofapistonorrotor.Internal combustionenginesincludereciprocating(piston),rotary(Wankel),andgasturbine engines. Gasturbineenginesarecontinuouscombustionmachineswhoseoperationis approximatedbytheidealBraytonthermodynamiccycle,differingfromtheOttoand DieselcyclesofthereciprocatingandWankelengines.Comparedtoreciprocating engines,gasturbineshavehigherpowertoweightratiosandareusedforpropulsionin mostcommercialandmilitaryaircraft(i.e.,jetengines).Becausefuelisburned continuouslyinagasturbine,thecombustionchambercanbeoptimizedforlower
179
emissionsincludingNOxandproductsofcombustion.Mostlargestationarypower applicationsdeployaeroderivativegasturbines.Moreexpansionorturbinestagesare usedtoconvertasmuchofthefuelenergyintomechanicalenergyaspossible(higher efficiency).Gasturbinepowerenginesgenerateenoughmechanicalenergytodrivethe compressor,auxiliaryequipment,andtheelectricalgenerator. Reciprocatingenginesincludesparkignition(SI)andcompressionignition(CI)Diesel engines(Table211).Sparkignitionanddieselenginescanbeeitherfourstrokeortwo stroke.Thefourstrokeenginerequirestworevolutionsofthecrankshaftforeachpower strokeofthepiston(thus,thepistonmovesthroughfourstrokesforeachpowerstroke: intake,compression,expansion,exhaust).Inatwostrokeengine,eachpistonhasa powerstrokeforeachrevolutionofthecrankshaft.Twostrokeengineshavehigher powertoweightratiosthanfourstrokeenginesbutgenerallyhavelowerefficiencyand higheremissions.CIenginesoperateathighercompressionratioandgenerallyhave higherefficienciesthanSIengines.CIenginesoperateonheavyoils,dieselfuel, vegetableoil,biodiesel,andotherbiofuels.CIenginescanbeoperatedinadualfuel modeusingagaseousfuel(naturalgas,biogas,producergas)withsomeamount (typically10to30%)ofdieselpilotfueltocontrolignitiontimingandcombustion stability.SIenginesarerequiredtoreliablyfiregaseousfuelsandlighterliquidfuels suchasgasoline.
Table 2-11. Classification schemes for reciprocating engines. Classification Parameter Label Ignition method SI or CI Operating Cycle 2 or 4 Stroke Air:Fuel Ratio Rich or Lean Burn Fuel State Liquid, Gas, or Dual-Fuel Carbureted or metered injection (throttle-body, Method of fuel addition port, or direct cylinder) Air Induction method Naturally Aspirated , Turbo- or Supercharged
MostenginesusedforpowergenerationfromgaseousbiomassderivedfuelsintheUS arefourstrokeSItype.Enginegeneratorefficienciesrangefromabout25%forthe smallersizes(lessthan100kW)uptoabout45%forthelargestsizes(morethan3MW). Incombinedheatandpower(CHP)applications,overallefficienciesapproach85%. EmissionLimits Table212displaystherangeofemissionsachievedinpracticeforreciprocatingengines operatingonbiogasinCalifornia.Theemissionsarefromactualmeasurementof enginesfueledbylandfillgasorWWTPdigestergas.Theenginesareallsparkignition andemployedleanburnorprestratifiedchargetechnology(forNOxreduction).The smallestengineinthedatasetwas260brakehorsepower(bhp)withacapacityof195 kW.Thelargestwas4,235bhpwithacapacityof3.1MW.
180
Table 2-12. Emissions achieved in practice from reciprocating engines fueled by biogas in California 79 (g/bhp-hr) NOx VOC CO PM 0.31 - 0.6 0.05 - 0.54 1.5 - 3.9 NA (lb/MW-hr) 1 - 1.9 0.16 - 1.7 4.7 - 12.1 NA
Tables213and214showCARBrecommendedBACTforreciprocatingengineandgas turbine(lessthan3MW)distributedgenerationapplicationsrespectively.BACT emissionsdependonthefueltype(wastegasorfossilfuel)andclassofprimemover (turbineorreciprocating).Thehigheremissionsallowedforbiogasapplicationsmainly reflectthefactthatuseofcatalyticconverterswithbiogasfuelisdifficultandisnotin routinepractice.Theachievedinpracticeemissions(Table212)fallbelowthe recommendedBACTlevelsexceptforCO.

Table 2-13. CARB recommended BACT emissions for reciprocating engines (see footnote 79) Waste gas fired (g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd) NOx VOC CO PM 0.6 0.6 2.5 NA 50 130 300 NA (lb/MW-hr) 1.9 1.9 7.8 NA Fossil fuel fired (g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd) 0.15 0.15 0.6 0.02 9 25 56 (lb/MW-hr) 0.5 0.5 1.9 0.06
ppmvd parts per million by volume dry - values are approximate for reciprocating engines
Table 2-14. CARB recommended BACT emissions for gas turbines less than 3 MW 'Waste gas' fired (any capacity) (g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd) (lb/MW-hr) NOx VOC CO PM 25 1.25 Fossil fuel fired (g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd) 9 5 10 (lb/MW-hr) 0.5 0.1 0.4
DistributedGenerationDefinitionandEmissionRequirements SenateBill1298(chapteredSeptember2000) 80 setairemissionsstandardsfordistributed generation(DG)unitswithinCaliforniathatareotherwiseexemptfromexistinglocalair districtrules.TheBilldefinedDGsimplyaselectricgenerationlocatedneartheplaceof use.Thereisnosizeortechnologyspecifiedinthedefinition.Apracticaldefinition mightbethatDGisgenerationthatisintendedforconsumptionatthegenerationsite
79.Guidanceforthepermittingofelectricalgenerationtechnologies,CARB2002.Availableat: http://www.arb.ca.gov/energy/dg/dg.htm 80.Thechapteredversionisavailableat: http://www.arb.ca.gov/energy/dg/sb1298bill20000927chaptered.htm 181
and/orgenerationthatisconnectedtothelocaldistributionsystemandnotconnectedto thetransmissionsystem. ThebilldirectedCARBtoissueelectricalgeneratingtechnologyBACTguidelinesforthe localairdistricts.TheCARBissuedaregulationdefiningaDGcertificationprocedure andsettingatimelineforemissionsrequirements. 81 Essentially,theemissions requirementsforDGarethattheymeetBACTlevelsforcentralstationpowerplantsin California(Table215).

Table 2-15. DG emission standards beginning January 2007 Emission Standard Pollutant (lb/MWh) NOx 0.07 CO 0.10 VOCs 0.02 Corresponding to natural gas with fuel sulfur content PM no more than 1 grain/100 scf
SenateBill1298andtheresultingCARBregulationapplyonlytoelectricalgeneration systemsthatarenotalreadycoveredbyexistinglocalairdistrictrules.Ingeneral,local airdistrictshaveexistingstandardsforreciprocatingengines(usuallymorethan50 bhp),smallergasturbinesfueledbywastegas,andsolid/liquid/gaseousfuelledboilers (whichincludesmostbiomassboilers).TheDGemissionlimitsgenerallyapplytofuel cells,microturbines,andreciprocatingenginesbelow50bhp.UnlessSenateBill1298is changed,orindividuallocalairdistrictsenactmorestringentBACTrequirementsfor nonexemptdevices,small(butmorethan50bhp)biomassfueledfacilitiesthatuse reciprocatingenginesorsolidfuelcombustionboilerswillnotneedtomeetthecentral powerplantemissionlevelsorthelimitsinTable215.Itisunclearatthistimeifgas turbinesfueledbybiogasorsynthesisgaswillberequiredtomeetthesecentralstation emissions. 82 Emissions from Reciprocating Engines Reciprocatingenginescombustfuelintermittently(asopposedtogasturbineswhichare continuouscombustiondevices),andassuchtheyencounterhigherpeaktemperatures andhigherthermalNOxproductioninthecombustionchamberandrapidlyfreezethe compositionuponexhaustwhichincreasesthefinalNOxemission.Table216shows typicalNOxemissionsforgeneralstationaryreciprocatingengines.
81.CARBFinalRegulationOrderEstablishaDistributedGenerationCertificationProgram, availableat:http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/dg01/finreg.pdf 82.Note:CARBwassupposedtocompleteanelectricalgenerationtechnologyreviewbyJuly 2005todeterminewhattechnologieswilllikelynotmeetthecentralstationemissionlevels.Asof earlyAugust2005,thisreviewhadnotbeenissued. 182
CarbonmonoxideandPMemissionrequirementsaregenerallymetwithbiogasfueled enginesorturbines.BiomassproducergasfueledenginesmayhavehighCOemissions. ThisispartlyduetothehighlevelofCOintheproducergasandthetradeoffbetween adjustingairtofuelratioandcombustiontemperatureforNOxmitigation(lower temperaturestoreduceNOxformationreduceoxidationratesforCO).

Table 2-16. Typical NOx emissions for reciprocating engines using fossil fuels 83 Engine Type CI CI SI Fuel Distillate Heavy Oil Natural Gas Eff (%) 37-44 42-48 35-42 NOx Emissions (Uncontrolled) (ppmv) (g/kWh) (lb/MWh) 450 - 1350 7 - 18 15.4 - 39.7 900 - 1800 12 - 20 26.5 - 44.1 45 - 150 0.7 - 2.5 1.5 - 5.5
Figure29illustratestheeffectofengineefficiencyonNOxmassemissionratefora constantconcentrationof50ppmvintheexhaustgas.Emissionperformanceforseveral individualsystemsisplottedaspointsonthefigureaswell.
83.TechnologyCharacterization:ReciprocatingEngines,EnergyNexusGroup,2002.Available at:http://www.epa.gov/chp/pdf/EPA_RecipEngines_final_5_16_02.pdf 183

6
System (a) 150 ppm
NOx (lb/MWh)
50 ppm NOx (@ 15% O 2)

System (b) 80 ppm
2
System (c) 44 ppm System (d) 46 ppm
1 20 25 30 35 40 Engine-Generator Efficiency (%) 45 50
System Descriptions (fueled by natural gas) (See footnote 83) (a) 300 kW - Cummins GSK19G (b) 800 kW - Caterpillar G3516 LE (c) 1,000 kW - Caterpillar G3616 LE (d) 3,000 kW Wartsila 5238 LN
Figure 2-9. NOx emissions vs. efficiency for 50 ppmv exhaust concentration with quoted uncontrolled emissions for several engines fueled by natural gas
AirtoFuelRatioEffects EnginesoperatedinfuelleanconfigurationscanresultinsignificantlylowerNOx emissions.Largeramountsofairresultincoolercombustiontemperaturesthereby reducingthermalNOxproduction.Forextremelyleanconditions(highairtofuelratios [AF]),partiallyburnedfuelisemittedintheexhaustascombustionisquenchedbefore completionand/ormisfiringoccurs. AconvenientdimensionlessparameterfordescribingAFinthecylinderchargeofan engineis(Greeklambda).LambdaistheratioAFactual:AFstoich,or
AFactual AFstoich.
where<1denotesafuelrichcombustion.ThisistheconditionwhereAFactualis substoichiometric.>1isfuellean,denotingexcessaircomparedtostoichiometric requirements.

184
Figure210showsemissionsversusforagasolinefueledSIengine.Notehydrocarbon andCOemissionsincreasefortheleanestconditions.Maximumpowertypicallyoccurs underfuelrichconditionswithelevatedCOandhydrocarbonemissions.Maximum efficiencytypicallyoccursunderfuelleanconditionswithelevatedNOxemissions unlessenginedesignpermitssufficientlyhighlevelsofexcessairtobeutilizedwithout enginemisfiring.
Figure 2-10. Gasoline engine emissions vs. Lambda

ActualEmissionsfromBiogasFueledReciprocatingEngines Actualemissionsfromrecentsourcetestingforseveralenginegeneratorfacilities operatingonmanurederivedbiogasarepresented.Sourcetestresultsfromenginesat theInlandEmpireUtilityAgency(IEUA),theJosephGalloCottonwoodDairy,andthe ColoradoPorkswinefacilitywereobtained. EmissionsfromthreetypesofWaukeshaleanburnenginesoperatingonbiogasatIEUA arepresentedinTable217.NOxemissionsvariedfromabout0.8lbs/MWhforthe1400 kWgensetsto1.9lbs/MWhforthe864kWunit.NOxconcentrationsvariedfrom17to 34ppmv(drygas,15%O2).Thepermitvalueswerenotavailablebuttheemissions levelsgenerallymettheSouthCoastAQMDRule1110.2(emissionsfromgaseous/liquid fueledengines).
185
Table 2-17. Emissions from Waukesha engines fueled by biogas at IEUA (Im 2004)*
Waukesha 8L-AT27GL 1400 kW Factory IEUA Actual Specs. Unit1 / Unit 2 (natural gas) (g/bhp-hr) NOx CO VOC 0.23 / 0.28 3.3 / 2.2 0.16 / 0.12 (lb/MW-hr) 0.7 / 0.8 9.8 / 6.4 0.47 / 0.36 (lb/MW-hr) 1.9 6.7 2.1 Waukesha L7042GL 1050 kW Waukesha L5790GL 864 kW Factory IEUA Actual IEUA Actual Specs. (natural gas) (g/bhp-hr) 0.57 3.58 0.4 (lb/MW-hr) 1.7 10.6 1.2 (lb/MW-hr) 2.7 8.0 3.0 (g/bhp-hr) (lb/MW-hr) 0.65 4.667 0.57 1.9 13.8 1.7
* South Coast AQMD Rule 1110.2 stipulates that NOx limits for these engines are approximately 45 50 ppmv (15% O2) or about 1.7 1.9 lb/MWh
Resultsfromrecentperformanceandemissionstestingofabiogasfueledengineata swinewastefacilityinColoradoareshowninTable218.TheengineisaCaterpillar 33066cylinder,4strokeSIengine.Theenginegeneratorsetisratedfor100kWbutgas productionatthetimeoftestingwasonlysufficientfor45kWpowerproduction.No emissioncontrolequipmentwasinstalledwiththeengine.Notethatallemissionsare quitehigh.Theenginewasbeingoperatedbelowtheminimumrecommendedpower settingandisnotnecessarilyrepresentativeofbiogasfueledenginesatthisscale.

Table 2-18. Colorado Pork gas engine emissions at 45 kW 84 (ppmv, 15% O2) NOx CO VOC SO2 255 1966 6724 352 (lb/MWh) 12 58 112 23
SourcetestresultsandpermittedlevelsfortheCaterpillar300kWenginegenerator sitedattheJosephGalloCottonwoodDairy(aparticipantoftheCaliforniaDairyPower ProductionProgramfundedthroughtheCaliforniaEnergyCommissionthroughSB5X) arepresentedinTable219. Thefacilityutilizesanironsponge(ironoxideimpregnatedwoodchips)andchillerfor H2Sandmoistureremoval.Theengineoperatesnearthestoichiometricairfuelratio (richburn)andemployeesathreeway(automotivetype)catalyticconverterfor emissionscontrol. Permitlimitsforthecriteriapollutantsaregivening/bhph,whichisanoutputbased emissionlimit.Theunitmetthepermitrequirementforthemeasuredcriteriapollutants
84.EnvironmentalTechnologyVerificationReportSwineWasteElectricPowerandHeat ProductionMartinMachineryInternalCombustionEngine,SouthernResearchInstituteand U.S.EPA.SRI/USEPAGHGVR22,2004. 186
atthetimeofthesourcetest(December2004).Sincethattime,theironspongeand moistureremovalunitwereresizedandrelocatedadjacenttotheflarenearthelagoon. Apparently,theoriginalsulfurremovalsystemwasundersizedandrequiredfrequent changingofthemedia(Morris2002).Theairpermitincludesarequirementfor maximumH2Slevelintheenginefuel(orminimumH2Sremovalefficiency).Duringthe test,H2Slevelsintheuntreatedbiogasaveraged1,500ppm.Removalefficiencyatthe timeofthetestwasbetterthan97%butH2Scontentofthefuelgaswas41ppm. Apparently,theunitpassedbasedontheremovalefficiencyrequirement.

Table 2-19. Source test results for DPPP engine at the Cottonwood Dairy*
Parameter Std. T Engine Load Engine Load Flow Rate (M2) Flow Rate (M19) Generator Out Brake Hp Fuel F-factor O2 CO2 H2O NOx NOx (@15% O2) NOx NOx NOx NOx CO CO CO CO CO CO THC (EPA 25C) CH4 TNMHC TNMHC (@15% O2) TNMHC TNMHC TNMHC TNMHC Fuel Scrubber H2S Scrubber Inlet H2S Scrubber Outlet H2S Removal Eff. Unit F MMBtu/hr % DSCFM DSCFM kW hp DSCF/MMBtu % % % ppm ppm lbs/hr lbs/day g/bhp-hr lbs/MMBtu ppm ppm lbs/hr lbs/day g/bhp-hr lbs/MMBtu ppm ppm ppm ppm lbs/hr lbs/day g/bhp-hr lbs/MMBtu ppm ppm % Test Number 1 2 60 60 4.1 3.5 74 74 568 584 611 525 250 250 335 335 9030.6 9027.1 0.04 0.02 14.8 14.7 16 16.9 54.79 58.02 15.5 16.4 0.22 0.24 5.4 5.8 0.302 0.329 0.059 0.0625 607.5 579.9 171.8 163.9 1.5 1.48 36.1 35.5 2.036 2 0.3984 0.3801 5889 5714 5875 5700 14 14 4 4 0.02 0.02 0.5 0.5 0.027 0.028 0.0052 0.0052 1300 40 96.9 1600 41 97.4 3 60 4 74 574 598 250 335 9026.6 0.03 14.7 17.2 60.68 17.2 0.25 6 0.338 0.0623 560.3 158.4 1.4 33.7 1.9 0.3673 5344 5330 14 4 0.02 0.5 0.027 0.0052 1600 42 97.4 Average Permit of tests Limit 60 3.9 74 575 578 250 335 9028.1 0.03 14.7 16.7 57.83 16.4 0.24 5.7 0.323 0.6 0.0613 582.6 164.7 1.46 35.1 1.979 2.65 0.382 5649 5635 14 4 0.02 0.5 0.027333 0.25 0.0052 1500 41 97.2
23 80
* SJAPCD Source Test ATC #N-1660-7-0 (12/17/2004)
187
ProducerGasandReciprocatingEngines Reciprocatingenginesfueledbyproducergasaretheprimemoverofchoicefor capacitiesrangingfrom15kWtoabout5MWbecausetheyareproven,relatively inexpensive,offerhighefficiencies,andcanbeusedinCHPapplications.Themain disadvantagesarethepotentialforhighuncontrolledNOxandCOemissionsandthe needforextensivegascleaning. ProducerGasCharacteristics Producergasfromairblownbiomassgasificationiscomposedprimarilyofdiluent nitrogengasfromtheairusedingasification,CO2,CO,H2,CH4,andsmallamountsof higherhydrocarbons(seeTable220),thelatterfourcategoriescomprisingtheprimary fuelspecies.RawproducergasalsocontainsPM,tars,nitrogencompounds(e.g.,NH3, HCN),volatilealkalinemetals,sulfurasH2S,andchlorineinamountsthatdependon thebiomassandthegasificationprocessused.
Table 2-20. Composition of producer gas from air blown biomass gasifiers (Hasler and Nussbaumer 1999) Vol. %, Component dry gas CO 10-22 H2 10-30 1-6 CH4 0-2 CxHy 8-15 CO2 35-50 N2 HHV 4-7 MJ/Nm3
Therearegasqualityrequirementsforthesustainedoperationofreciprocatingandgas turbineenginesfueledbyproducergas.Table221displaystypicalgasquality requirementsfoundintheliterature.Generally,gasturbinesaremoresusceptibleto operationalproblemsfromPMandalkaliinthegasduetobladeerosionanddeposition issues,butdonotneedgascooling.ReciprocatingenginesrequirePMremovalaswell buttoalesserdegree.Tarinthegasismostproblematicwithreciprocatingengines becauseoftheneedtocoolthegaspriortointakeinordertomaintainhighvolumetric efficiency.Coolingthefuelgastobelowtardewpointswillcondensetarmaterialwhich candepositonthecoolintakesurfacesoftheengine.Gasturbinescanaccepttarinthe fuelgasaslongasthetemperatureremainsabovethetardewpointbecausetarremains inthegasphaseuntilburned.Acidformingcompounds(sulfurandchlorine)inthe producergasareaconsiderationforreciprocatingengines.Acidscandepositoncool intakesurfacesaswellascylinderwallswheretheyaresweptintothecrankcasebythe pistonoilringscausingtheengineoilpHtodecreaseovertime.Acidicengineoilcauses corrosionofbearingsurfacesandshortensenginelife.Acidformingcompoundsmust eitherberemovedfromthefuelgasormorefrequentengineoilchangesarerequired.
188
Table 2-21. Gas quality requirements for engines (Hasler and Nussbaumer 1999) Engine type Component Unit Reciprocating Gas turbine <50 <30 PM mg/Nm3 Particle size m <10 <5 <100 Tar mg/Nm3 < 0.24 Alkali metals mg/Nm3
Impuritiesintheproducergasthatmaynoteffectengineoperationorservicelifebut candegradeemissionsperformanceincludenitrogencompounds(NH3,HCN),alkali metals,sulfur,andchlorine.ThenitrogencompoundswillprimarilyconverttoNOxand sulfurcompoundswillbeemittedasSO2.Thealkalis,sulfur,andchlorinecandegrade emissionscatalystsiftheyarebeingused.Dependingonthelocalemissionslimitsand thefuelcharacteristics,propergascleaning,fuels,andemissionscontrolstrategiesmust becompatible. PerformanceandEmissionsofEnginesFueledbyProducerGas Producergashasimprovedleanflammabilitycomparedtonaturalgas.Producergas alsohashighoctaneratingmakingitacceptableforhighcompressionratioSIengines withincreasedefficiency.AFordindustrialnaturallyaspiratedSIenginefueledby producergasfromtheDTU2stageVikinggasifier(woodfuel)isabletooperateunder veryleanfuelconditions,to>3).Thesameenginefueledonnaturalgasmisfiredand quitat~1.7(Ahrenfeldtetal.2001).Figure211showsthebrakefuelefficiencyand powervs.fortheFord1.1literSIenginefueledwithnaturalgasandgasifiedwood (Ahrenfeldtetal.2000).
189
35 Efficiency (%) Power (kW) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 1.5

Efficiency (% ) - Natural gas Pow er (kW) - Natural gas
2 [-]
2.5
Efficiency (% )- Producer gas Pow er (kW)- Producer gas
Figure 2-11. Brake fuel efficiency and power vs. , Ford VSG 411 fueled by natural gas and producer gas
Photo Credit: Ahrenfeldt et al. 2000.
Forreciprocatingenginesfueledbyproducergas,theprimarydifferenceexperiencedat highair:fuelratiosisthemuchhigherCOemissionorslipthatoccurs.Thisisdueto COpassingthroughtheengineunburned.Figure212showstheeffectofvaryingAFon NOxandCOforthegeneralcaseofSIenginesfueledbygasifiedbiomass(notethescale forCOis10xthatforNOx).
190
10
100
8 NOx Concentratin (relative)
80 CO Concentration (relative)
6 NOx 4
60
40
CO 2 20
0 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6
[-]
Figure 2-12. General emission performance vs. Lambda, producer gas fuel Note: the parabolic fit
of the NOx curve would not be expected to trend upwards at high lambda. Photo Credit: Ahrenfeldt et al. 2001; Jensen et al. 1997; Ahrenfeldt et al. 2000.
DTUExperience Figure213displaysNOxandCOemissionsvs.fortheFordVSG411discussedby Ahrenfeldtetal.(2000and2001).Untreatedemissionsfromnaturalgasfuelanda syntheticproducergas(amixturecreatedfrombottledgases)areshown.Thesynthetic producergasdidnotcontainammoniaorHCNwhichwouldbepresentinrawor partiallycleanedproducergas,butprovidesgoodcontrolovergascompositionfor testing. NOxemissionsforbothfuelspassthroughamaximumaround=1.4andthensteeply declineasincreasesuntilreachingtheleanflammabilitylimitforeachfueltype.The untreatedNOxemissionsfromthesyntheticgasarelowerthanwhatwouldbeexpected fromarealproducergascontainingammoniaorHCN. TheCOemissionsforbothfuelsincreaserapidlyfor>1.4duetoincomplete combustioninthecaseofnaturalgasandbulkflamequenchinthecaseoftheproducer gas.Forveryleancombustionwithproducergas,thecombustionflamefrontinthe
191
cylinderextinguishesbeforepropagatingthroughthecylindervolume,allowing unburnedfuelwhichhashighCOcontenttopassthroughtheengine(partialfiringof thefuelcharge).

600
500 400
ppmv (15% O2)
300 200
100 0
1.5 [-]
CO- Natural gas NOx- Natural gas
2.5
CO- Synthetic producer gas NOx- Synthetic producer gas
Figure 2-13. NOx and CO emissions from Ford VSG 411 fueled by natural gas and synthetic producer gas
Photo Credit: Ahrenfeldt et al. 2000
JenbacherEngineCompanyExperience GEJenbacherofAustriahasextensiveexperiencewithlargereciprocatingengines fueledbyproducergas(aswellasbiogas).ThereportbyJenbachertoIEATask33 (ThermalGasificationofBiomass)describessomeoftheexperiencegainedfrom supplyingenginesforandworkingwithbiomassgasificationCHP developers/researchers(Herdinetal.2004). Jenbacherenginesareusedinatleastfourexistingbiomassgasificationdemonstration projects(Gssing,Austria;Harbore,Denmark;Spiez,Switzerland;WienerNeustadt [CVNova],Austria)andarespecifiedinatleasttwofacilitiesunderconstruction(Skive, Denmark,andKokemki,Finland).Enginesizesusedinthisapplicationrangefrom180 kWto2MW. TheGEJenbacherreport(Herdinetal.2004)alsocommentsonthefuelnitrogento ammoniatoNOxpathway.Figure214illustratestheeffectammoniainthefuelgashas
192
onNOxproduction.EmissionsfromleanburnJenbacherengines,onepoweredwith fuelgascontainingverylittleammonia(aThermoselectMSWgasifier/pyrolyzerin Chiba,Japan),andagasrichinammonia(about580ppmvNH3inputgasifiedwood fromGssing,Austria).TheAFoftheengineatGssingwasadjustedtomeettheNOx emissionlimitof500mg/Nm3(at5%O2)(about90ppmv,15%O2).Inthisinstance, ammoniainthefuelgasisresponsiblefor85%oftheNOxemission.
100 NOx (ppm, 15% O2) 80 60 40 20

Thermal NOx NH3 contribution
0
Gasified MSW - Chiba
~ no NH3 in fuel gas
'W ood gas'-Gssing

~580 ppmv NH3 in fuel gas
Figure 2-14. Effect of ammonia in fuel gas on uncontrolled NOx emission from reciprocating engines
The GE Jenbacher report, Herdin et al. 2004
TheJenbacherreportalsodescribeshighCOemissionsfromleanburnenginesfueledby producergas(explanationissimilartothatbyAhrenfeldtabove).Also,theCONOx tradeofffromvaryingAFisconfirmedbyHerdinetal.(2004).Figure215showsNOx andCOemissionlevelsintheuntreatedengineexhaustforseveralJenbacherengines fueledbygasifiedbiomassorMSW.Theengineshavebeenoptimizedforeach installationdependingonrequirementorlocallimitations(capacity,efficiency, emissions,etc.).
193
400
NOx (ppmv, 15% O2)
300
13% CO in
200
Solid curves show effect of changing AF ratio
28% CO in 34% CO in 17% CO in 12.9% CO in
100
0 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
CO (ppmv, 15% O2)

Note: % CO in = CO concentration in the fuel gas. Engines optimized for individual conditions
Figure 2-15. Untreated emissions from Jenbacher engines fueled with producer gas
Herdin et al. 2004
ThehighCOemissionsfromleanburnlowNOxoptimizedenginesfueledbyproducer gasareanissuethatneedsaddressing.Someofthedevelopmentprojectsdiscussedin theJenbacherexperiencereporthavetriedoxidationcatalystontheengineexhaustto reduceCOemissions.Theyhavemetwithmixedresults.Acceptableoxidationcatalyst lifetimeispossiblewithsufficientgascleaningafterthegasifierandorselectionoffuel lowincatalystpoisons(metals,alkalis,sulfur,andchlorine).TheHarbore,Gssing, andSpiezdemonstrationfacilitieshaveeachsuccessfullyusedCOoxidationcatalyst technology.COconversionratesvariedfrom70to90%withonefacilityreporting2,000 operationalhoursonthecatalystandtworeporting3,000hours. JenbacheralsoreportsfacilitiesthatchoosetocontrolengineCObycombustionafter treatment.Atleastonefacilitytakesadvantageofcolocationwithabiomassboiler whereitsengineexhaustisfedintotheboilerwhichoxidizestheCO.Otherinstallations usecommercialthermaloxidizertreatmentunitswhichcomewithenergyandcost penalties. OtherProducerGasEngineEmissions Informationonemissionsfromenginesfueledbyproducergasisdifficulttofind.Table 222displaysemissionsfromtwodemonstrationprograms,oneinEngland,andthe otherintheUnitedStates.Theinformationwasobtainedfrompresentationspostedon
194
theIEATask33ThermalGasificationofBiomasswebsite. 85 Actualtestconditionsand methods,fuelgasquality,andwhetherornotemissionscontroldeviceswereinplace (andtheirlongevity)werenotavailableinthepresentationmaterial.

Table 2-22. Emissions from producer fuel gas engines from two demonstration programs. Capstone C-330 microturbine (30kW)* CO NOx UHC Source 26 5 11 A SI-Recip Perkins Model 2006* 1039 18 1 A CPC Biomax 15 kW (automotive SI engine) ppm (?% O2) 2 30 4 B (lb/MWh) 0.65 0.03 0.03
ppm (15% O2)
* Not stated whether emissions control devices are used. Gas quality (or ammonia content) not stated 3- way catalyst used. Gas quality (and ammonia content) not reported. Durability of catalytic converter not reported. Sources; A) Conner and Peacocke, Biomass Engineering Ltd. Warrington, England, 2004 IEA Task 33 Gasification Workshop, Copenhagen B) R. Bain, NREL. 2004 IEA Task 33 Gasification Workshop, Copenhagen
TheCPCBiomax15kWsystemthatyieldedtheemissionsinTable222wasusinga threewaycatalyticconverter(Sethi2005).OtherCPCsystemsareplannedtobe deployedfortestinginCaliforniainlate2005orearly2006.Emissionstestingare anticipatedbutitisnotknownifemissionswillbeassessedthroughoutthe demonstrationprogramorjustonceafterinitialcommissioning.
Microturbine and Fuel Cell Emissions Fueled by Biogas

TheLosAngelesCountySanitationDistrictsaregeneratingheatandpowerfromLFG, digestergasfromwatertreatment,andcombustionofsolidwaste.Totalelectrical generatingcapacityfromtwelvefacilitiesis127MW.Amongthesearemicroturbines(30 kWeunitsattheCalabasaslandfillanda250kWunitattheLancasterWRP)anda moltencarbonatefuelcellatthePalmdaleWaterReclamationPlant. 30kWMicroturbineFueledbyLFG AttheCalabasaslandfill,tenCapstone30kW(nominalgross)microtubinesarefueled byLFG.Thefuelgasispretreatedusingacompressor,chiller,andtwosorbentvesselsin seriesfilledwithsilicagel.Table223displaysNOxandCOemissionsfroma30kW (grossat63Finletairtemperature)CapstoneturbinefueledbyLFG.Itisnotknownif theseareresultsfromthesameunit.Netoutputisapproximately25kWdueinletair temperaturemorethan63Fandparasiticlossesinthegascleanupsystem.NOx emissionsrangefrom0.2to0.24lb/MWh.COemissionsrangefrom0.6to0.72lb/MWh. SO 2emissionsareestimatedatabout1lb/MWh(assumesallH2Sinthefuelgaswas convertedtoSO2).
85.SeepresentationsfromtheOctober2004meeting: http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=iea/taskminutes.xml 195
Table 223. Emissions from a 30 kW (gross) microturbine at Calabasas Landfill Source Test Date November, 2004
Parameter
Unit
2003 Inlet
Limit
O2 CO2 N2 H2O H2S CH4 NMHC Stack Flow Rate LFG Flow Rate LFG Flow Rate Temperature LFG NOX:
% % % % ppm % ppm dscfm dscfm dscfh F Btu/scf ppm ppm @ 15% O2 lb/hr (as NO2) lb/MM Btu (as NO2) lb/MWh CO: ppm ppm @ 15% O2 lb/hr lb/MWh
41 297 -
Exhau st 3 0.006 0.2 0.24 12 0.015 0.6 2.4 15
Inlet 0.5 35.8 23.7 130160 40 17.5 1052 403 9.26 -
Exhau st 17.89 2.7 79.4 3.7 532 514 1.3 2.5 0.005 0.012 0.20 7.5 14.7 0.018 0.72 0.026 1.03 0.057 2,000 25 0.017 1200
SCAQM D Rule
1134
407
SO2 (estimated)*: NMHC
lb/hr lb/MWh ppm (3% O2) ppb
Formaldehyde
S
* H2 in inlet fuel is assumed to convert to SO2 and emitted in exhaust. 145 ppm H2S in fuel is ~ 0.014 lb/hr at inlet McDannel, M., Wheless, E., Maguin, S., and Stahl, J. (2005). Operating experience at two biogas-fired microturbine facilities. SWANA 2005. Wheless, E. (2005). LA County Sanitation Districts. Personal communication.
196
250kWFuelCellFueledbyDigesterGas AfuelcellisoperatingonwastewatertreatmentdigestergasatthePalmdaleWRP.The Palmdalefacilitytreatsapproximately9.5milliongallonsperdayofwastewater.The anaerobicdigestersatthefacilitygenerateabout80scfmofbiogascontaining approximately55%methane(McDannel2005). Thefuelcell,providedbyFuelCellEnergy,isamoltencarbonatetypewithinternal reforming,havingagrosscapacityof250kW(modelDFC300A). Forfuelgastreatment,thebiogasispassedthroughaPMfilter,arefrigerationunit,and activatedcarbon.Thegascleaningsystemconsumesabout25kW.Table224displays gasqualitybeforeandafterthegascleaningsystem.
Table 2-24. Palmdale fuel cell raw and treated fuel-gas quality Contaminant Raw Digester Gas After Gas Clean-up H2S, ppm 23 ND<0.5 Chlorobenzene ppb 180 0.7 P-dichlorobenzene, ppb 30 ND <1.0 D4 siloxane, ppm 0.40 ND<0.03 D5 siloxane, ppm 0.95 ND<0.03
Source: McDannel 2005
Thenetelectricalefficiencyofthefuelcellisestimatedat41%(HHV).Emissions, reportedbyLosAngelesCountySanitationDistricts,areshowninTable225.NOxand COemissionsfromfuelcellsareextremelylow.

Table 2-25. Air emissions from the Palmdale WWTP fuel cell. Pollutant NOx CO HC SO2
Source: McDannel 2005
ppm @15% O2 0.05 1.2 1.3 ND<0.02
lb/MWh 0.0017 0.025 0.017 -
2.3 Air Permitting Process

LocalairdistrictsinCaliforniahavetheresponsibilityandauthorityforregulating stationarysourceswhiletheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard(CARB)hasauthorityover mobilesources.AirdistrictrulesandregulationsderivefromtheCaliforniaandFederal CleanAirActs. 86 Whensitingnewsourcesinfederalcriteriapollutantnonattainment areas,rulesaredesignedtoachievenonetemissionsincreaseofnonattainment
86.TheFederalCleanAirActwasfirstenactedin1963andamendedin1977and1990.The CaliforniaCleanAirActwasenactedin1988.SeeCaliforniaairqualitytimelineat: http://www.sparetheair.org/teachers/bigpicture/IIIc3.html 197
pollutantsortheirprecursors.Forareasthathavegoodairquality,thedistrictisobliged topreventsignificantdeteriorationormaintaingoodairquality. 87 InmostCaliforniaairdistricts,apermittoconstructisrequiredbeforeworkcanbegin fornewormodifiednonexemptstationarysources.Forpowerplants50MWandover, theCaliforniaEnergyCommissionhasultimatelicensingauthorityforthefacility.A permittooperateisrequiredbeforeoperationscancommence. Toreceiveapermittoconstruct,theprojectmustundergoanewsourcereview(NSR) bythelocalairdistrictwhichmayentailanengineeringevaluationbydistrictengineers. Eachdistrictdetermineswhatclassorsizeofsourcesisexemptfromairpermits(for example,mostdistrictsexemptenginessmallerthan50bhp).Forprojectswherethereis uncertaintyregardingtheneedforpermitting,theNSRprocesswilldeterminewhether itisexemptornotfromairpermitrequirements. Dependingontheareadesignationandthepotentiallevelofemissions,thefacilitymay berequiredtouseBACT.Althoughthereisacodifieddefinition 88 forBACT,itis determinedatthedistrictlevelwhichconsidersemissionlevelsthatareachievableon technicalandcosteffectivebasesaswellasthosethathavebeenachievedinpractice. InadditiontousingBACT,newormodifiedsourcesinnonattainmentareasmaybe requiredtoprovideemissionoffsetstomitigatethenewsourceemissions.Mostdistricts specifytheemissionslevelabovewhichoffsetsarerequiredbytheproject(thesocalled offsettrigger).Offsetsareobtainedbyretiringorreducingemissionsfromother sources.Tobeeligible,emissionreductionoffsetsorcreditsmustbesurplustoany federal,state,orlocallawsorregulation,andmustbeenforceable,quantifiable,and permanent.Emissionoffsetsorcreditsmaybebankedwiththedistrictforfutureuseby thesourcethatgeneratedthem,usedconcurrentlytooffsetnewsources,orsoldto othersforuseasmitigation. 89 Eachdistrictsetsrulesforhowcreditsarecertifiedand banked.Individualairdistrictsarerequiredtocollectandpublishspecificinformation onemissionoffsettransactionsincludingpricepaidpertonofoffset,theamountofeach pollutanttraded,andtheyearoftransaction.CARBpublishesanannualreport summarizingemissionoffsettransactionswithinthestate. 90
2.3.1 Air District Attainment Status and Emission Limits

AirqualitycontroldistrictsintheSacramentoregionincludetheSacramento MetropolitanAirQualityManagementDistrict(AQMD),theYoloSolanoAQMD,the
87.SeeCARBdiscussionofnewsourcereviewpermittingprogramsat: http://www.arb.ca.gov/nsr/nsr.htm 88.CaliforniaHealthandSafetyCode,section40405. 89.CaliforniaHealthandSafetyCode,sections4070940713,Emissionreductioncreditsystems andbanking. 90.Transactionsummaryreportsdatingto1993areavailableat: http://www.arb.ca.gov/nsr/erco/erco.htm 198
SanJoaquinValleyAPCD,theFeatherRiverAQMD,andthesinglecountydistrictsofEl Dorado,Placer,Amador,andColusacounties. 91 ThesedistrictsarealldesignatedNonAttainment 92 bytheStatesstandardsforozone andPM10(seeTable226),withtheexceptionsoftheColusaCountyAPCD,whichis transitioningtononattainmentforozoneandtheAmadorCountyAPCDwhichis unclassifiedforPM10(i.e.,dataisinsufficientorinconclusivetodeterminedesignation). TheSanJoaquinAPCDisratedseverenonattainmentforozone.TheSacramento MetropolitanandYoloSolanoAQMDsandportionsoftheFeatherRiverAQMD,Placer andElDoradoCountiesareratedasseriousnonattainmentforozone. TheSacramentoMetropolitan,SanJoaquinValleyandthesouthernportionofthe FeatherRiverairdistrictsarenonattainmentforPM2.5,withtheotherdistrictsinthe regioncurrentlyunclassified.TheregionsdistrictsareinattainmentforNOxandSOx andinattainmentorunclassifiedforCO. Fordistrictsthatarenonattainmentforacriteriapollutant,tougheremissionstandards orlimitsareplacedonsourceswithinthedistrictaswellasfornewsourcesinupwind districts.Ozoneisnotemittedinappreciableamountsdirectlybymobileorstationary sources,butgroundlevelconcentrationsdependheavilyonthesesources.Tropospheric ozoneisformedbyreactionsofprecursorsinthepresenceofsunlight(photochemical smog).Inordertominimizetheformationofgroundlevelozone,strategies,regulations, andtechnologieshavedevelopedtocontroltheprecursorcompounds. NOxandVOC(alsoknownasreactiveorganicgases,orROGs)areozoneprecursors andareemittedinsignificantamountsfromanthropogenicsources.Thoughtheentire stateisinattainmentforNOxasacriteriapollutant,andVOCsarenotcriteria pollutants,bothareheavilyregulatedbecauseoftheircontributionstoozoneformation. Majorstationarysourcesareclassifiedbyemissionofaregulatedpollutantinamounts greaterthanthethresholdsetbytheairdistrict.Majorsourcesaresubjecttogreater controlandscrutinyunderthepermitprocess.Table227listsmajorsourcethresholds forseveralpollutantsfortheSacramentoregionairdistricts.
91.AmapofCaliforniasairdistrictsisavailablehere:http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/dismap.htm 92.Attainmentrequiredthatthestandardhasnotbeenviolatedforthreeyearsanywhereinthe airdistrict.Seedesignationdefinitionsat:http://arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/Define.htm 199
Table 2-26. Criteria pollutant attainment status for air districts in the Sacramento region (California designations) 93 Sacramento San Joaquin El Dorado Placer Feather Colusa Amador Yolo-Solano Pollutant Metropolitan Valley County County River County County AQMD AQMD APCD APCD APCD AQMD APCD APCD Ozone
NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5

Key;
-Attainment (standard not violated for three years) -Transitioning to Non-Attainment UC-Unclassified (insufficient or inconclusive data to determine designation) * The Yuba County portion of the Feather River AQMD remains unclassified
-Non-Attainment
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
/UC* UC /UC* UC
UC UC UC
Table 2-27. Emission levels (tons/year) required for designation as a major source and offset trigger limits 94
Sacramento San Joaquin El Dorado Yolo-Solano Metropolitan Valley County AQMD AQMD APCD APCD Rule 202, section 220 25 25 100 100 100 Rule 3.4, section 222 25 25 100 100 100 Placer County APCD Feather River AQMD* SFNA* North Portion Portion Rule 10.1 section D.20 25 25 100 100 100 100 100 100 Colusa APCD Amador County APCD
Pollutant (Tons/ year)
ROG NOx SOx PM10 CO
Rule 2201, Rule 523, Rule 502, section section section 3.25.1 523.2-X 225 25 25 50 25 25 50 70 100 100 70 100 100 100 100 100
Rule 3.17 section Rule 102 b.20 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
*SFNA means severe federal non-attainment. The SFNA portion of the Feather River AQMD is south of a line connecting the northern border of Yolo County to the SW tip of Yuba County and continuing along the southern Yuba 95 County border to Placer County.
EmissionthresholdsabovewhichBACTisrequired(BACTtriggers)fornewor modifiedsourcesintheSacramentoregionarelistedinTable228.BACTtriggersfor ROGandNOxaregenerally10lb/dayexceptforportionsoftheFeatherRiverAQMD andtheColusaAPCDwhichare25lb/dayandtheSanJoaquinValleyAPCDwhichis muchlowerat2lb/day.BACTtriggersforoxidesofsulfurandPM10rangefrom2to80 lb/day.CarbonmonoxideBACTthresholdsrangefrom250to550lb/dayandthelead BACTtriggeris3.23.3lb/day.TheBACTthresholdsreflectthegeneralairqualityinthe district.
93.Attainmentareamapsareavailableat:http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm#state 94.CARBdatabaseofairdistrictrulescanbefoundat:http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdb/htm 95.40CFRSection81.305fortheSacramentometroarea. 200
Table 2-28. BACT trigger thresholds for air districts in the Sacramento region
Feather River Placer Sacramento AQMD* El Dorado Colusa Yolo-Solano San Joaquin Pollutant County Metropolitan APCD AQMD Valley APCD County APCD (lb/day SFNA* North APCD AQMD - unless noted Portion Portion otherwise) Rule 10.1 Rule 202, Rule 3.4, Rule 2201, Rule 523, Rule 502, Rule 3.6 section E.1 section 301 section 301 section 4 section 523.3A1 section 301 section c.1 ROG 10 10 2 10 10 10 25 25 NOx 10 10 2 10 10 10 25 25 SOx 10 80 2 80 80 80 80 80 PM10 10 80 2 80 80 80 80 80 CO 550 250 100 ton/y 550 550 500 500 500 Lead 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 Asbestos 0.03 Beryllium 0.002 Mercury 0.5 Vinyl chloride 5.5 5.5 5 Fluorides 15 38 38 35 Sulfuric acid Hydrogen 55 55 50 sulfide Reduced 55 55 50 sulfur
* See note for Table 2-27 Amador County APCD requires air quality modeling to determine potential impacts of the new source on ambient concentrations in the air district. BACT and offset requirements are based on the modeling results. See Amador County Regulation IV- Authority to Construct Regulations.
EmissionreductionoffsettriggeramountsareshowninTable229.Sourcesthatemit abovetheoffsetthresholdlevelsmustprovideemissionreductionoffsetstomitigate emissionsabovethethresholds.Generally,sourcesemittingabovetheoffsettriggersare subjecttoBACTsincetheBACTthresholdsareusuallymuchlower(thereseemstobe anexceptiontothisfortheCOoffsettriggeramountforElDoradoandPlacerCounty APCDswhichislowerthantheBACTthreshold). Becauseofpollutanttransportbetweenairbasins,strictcontrolofnewNOxandVOC emissionsindistrictsupwindofozonenonattainmentareashasbeenrecentlyenacted. FortheSacramentoMetropolitanandYoloSolanoairdistricts,portionsofwhichare generallyupwindoftheSanJoaquinValleyairbasin,theVOCandNOxoffsettrigger limitsfornewormodifiedsourceshavebeenloweredto5,000lb/quarterand20,000 lb/year,respectively(Table229).Whennewemissionsexceedtheseamounts,thesource isrequiredtooffsetthoseemissionssothatregionalairqualityisnotdegraded.
201
Table 2-29. Emission Offset Trigger Amounts for districts in the Sacramento region
Feather River Placer Sacramento Yolo-Solano San Joaquin El Dorado AQMD* County Metropolitan Pollutant AQMD Valley APCD County APCD SFNA* North AQMD APCD (Note Units) Portion Portion Rule 10.1 Rule 202, Rules 3.20, Rule 2201, Rule 523, Rule 502, section E.2 section 301 3.4 sections section 4.5 section 523.3B1 section 302 ROG 5,000 lb/qtr 10 ton/y 10 ton/y 5,000 lb/qtr 7,500 lb/qtr 10 ton/y 25 ton/y NOx 5,000 lb/qtr 10 ton/y 10 ton/y 5,000 lb/qtr 7,500 lb/qtr 10 ton/y 25 ton/y SOx 13,650 lb/qtr13,650 lb/qtr 27.4 ton/y 12,500 lb/qtr 12,500 lb/qtr PM10 7,500 lb/qtr 13,650 lb/qtr 14.6 ton/y 7,500 lb/qtr 7,500 lb/qtr 10 ton/y 25 ton/y CO 49,500 lb/qtr49,500 lb/qtr 100 ton/y 7,500 lb/qtr 7,500 lb/qtr Colusa APCD Rule 3.6 section c.2 25 ton/y 25 ton/y 25 ton/y -
* See note for Table 2-27 Amador County APCD requires air quality modeling to determine potential impacts of the new source on ambient concentrations in the air district. BACT and offset requirements are based on the modeling results. See Amador County Regulations IV- Authority to Construct Regulations.
LimitsforReciprocatingEngines FortheairdistrictsintheSacramentoregion,emissionsfromreciprocatingenginesare regulatedbylimitingmaximumconcentrationofapollutantintheexhaustgas.CARB recommendsoutputbasedemissionlimitsforengines(i.e.,limitpollutantmassperunit ofenergyproduced.SeeTables230and31).Emissionlimitsbasedonexhaustgas concentrationallowlowefficiencysystemstohaveincreasedemissionsperoutputkWh. Ingeneral,stationaryenginesbelow50bhp(38kW)areexemptfromairpermitsto operate. CARBBACTRecommendations Tables230and231showCARBrecommendedbestavailablecontroltechnology requirementsforreciprocatingengineandgasturbine(lessthan3MW)distributed generationapplicationsrespectively.BACTemissionsdependonthefueltype(waste gasorfossilfuel)andclassofprimemover(turbineorreciprocatingengine).Thehigher emissionsallowedforwastegasincludingbiogasapplicationsmainlyreflectthefact thatuseofcatalyticconverterswithbiogasfuelisdifficultandisnotinroutinepractice. CARBlimitsincludebothoutputbasedaswellastheapproximateequivalent concentrationbasedemission. 96
96.Foragivenoutputbasedemissionlevel,theequivalentconcentrationbasedemissionlevel dependsontheoverallthermodynamicefficiencyofthesystem. 202
Table 2-30. CARB recommended BACT emissions for reciprocating engines.

'Waste gas' fired (g/bhp-hr) NOx VOC CO PM 0.6 0.6 2.5 NA (ppmvd) 50 130 300 NA
Fossil fuel fired (g/bhp-hr) 0.15 0.15 0.6 0.02 (ppmvd) 9 25 56 (lb/MW-hr) 0.5 0.5 1.9 0.06 1.9 1.9 7.8 NA
(lb/MW-hr)
ppmvd parts per million by volume dry - values are approximate for reciprocating engines Source: CARB
Table 2-31. CARB recommended BACT emissions for gas turbines less than 3MW. 97 Waste gas fired (any capacity) (g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd) (lb/MW-hr) NOx VOC CO PM 25 1.25 Fossil fuel fired (g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd) 9 5 10 (lb/MW-hr) 0.5 0.1 0.4
SacramentoRegionStationaryEngineEmissionsRules Table232displayscurrentorproposedemissionlimitsforNOx,CO,andVOCsfrom stationaryreciprocatingenginesfortheeightairdistrictsintheSacramentoregion(note thatexceptfortheFeatherRiverAQMD,theyareallconcentrationbasedlimits).The limitsaretypicallydifferentiatedforsparkignited(SI)leanorrichburnand compressionignited(CIordiesel)enginetypes.NOxlimitsforreciprocatingenginesin theregionvaryfrom25ppmvat15%O2inElDoradoCountyforarichburnengine greaterthan50bhpto740ppmvinColusaCountyforaleanburnenginelessthan300 bhp. ThedefinitionusedtodeterminewhetheranSIengineoperatesasfuelrichorfuellean (richorleanburnrespectively)variesslightlyamongtheregionsairdistricts. 98 For example,theSacramento,ElDoradoCounty,andPlacerCountyairdistrictsdefinerich burnenginesashaving1.1. 99 TheYoloSolanoAQMDdefinesleanburnashaving exhaustgasO2concentrationmorethan2%byvolume.TheSanJoaquinValley (SJVAPCD)andtheColusaAPCDsuseexhaustgasO2concentrationofmorethan2%to definealeanburnengine. OnlytherulesfromSanJoaquinValleyAPCDandtheFeatherRiverAQMDspecify differentlimitsforSIenginesfueledwithwastegas.Inaddition,therecentlyamended SanJoaquinValleyAPCDRule4702createdanewengineclassforstationarySIengines
97.CARBdatabaseofairdistrictrules:http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdb/htm 98.CIordieselenginesoperateinfuelleanconditionsbutduetofundamentaldifferencesin operationandfuels,CIenginesareclassifiedseparately. 99.TheGreekletterlambda()istheratioAFactual:AFstoich,whereAFisairfuelratio. 203
UsedExclusivelyinAgriculturalOperationsinthedistrict.TheruleallowsNOx emissionsfromAOenginestobe90and150ppmv(15%O2)forrichandleanburn enginesrespectively.TheAOdesignationwascreatedinthenewruleinordertoallow continuedoperationofnaturalgasenginesthathadreplaceddieselenginesinstationary applicationsonfarms.However,theruleappearstoeaserequirementsforpower generationfrombiogasfueledenginesthatareownedandoperatedbyagricultural operations.Enginesusedinpowerproductionfueledbybiogasatdigesterfacilitiessited atfoodprocessingfacilitieswillneedtomeetthemorestrictrequirements. EfficiencyEffectsonOutputBasedNOxEmissions Inpowersystems,emissionlimitsbasedonlyonconcentrationignoretheeffectthat conversionefficiencyhasonpollutantemissionperunitofoutputenergy(e.g.kWhor MWh).Foragivenconcentrationlimit,lessefficientconversionsystemswillhave significantlylargeremissionrates(onanequalenergyoutputbasis)thanmoreefficient devices(forreciprocatingenginegeneratingsets,thesmallercapacitiesaretypicallyless efficient). Figure216showsreciprocatingenginegensetNOxemissionratevs.conversion efficiencyforagivenexhaustconcentration.Forasystemwith45%conversionefficiency and65ppmNOxintheexhaust,theNOxemissionrateisabout1.9lb/MWhof electricityproduced(thiswouldbealargeenginegenerator,leanburnwithperhaps2to 3MWcapacity). 100 Asystemoperatingat25%conversionefficiencywith65ppmNOx concentrationintheexhaustgaswillemitattherateofabout3.5lb/MWh.The25% efficientunitwouldneedtohaveaNOxexhaustconcentrationof35ppminorderto emitatthesameCARBrecommendedoutputbasedrateasthe45%efficientdevice emittingat65ppm(seeFigure217). Inthelongterm,theconcentrationonlybasedemissionlimitswillbeadisincentiveto improvedconversionefficiency.TheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoardaswellastheU.S. EPAandtheRegulatorAssistanceProjectrecommendoutputbasedemissions regulationsforpowergenerationsystems. 101
100.TheCARBBACTrecommendationis1.9lbNOx/MWhforwastegasfueledreciprocating engines. 101.InformationfromCARBsGuidanceforthepermittingofelectricalgeneration technologies,availableat:http://www.arb.ca.gov/energy/dg/dg.htmandTheRegulatory AssistanceProjectsModelregulationsfortheoutputofspecifiedairemissionsfromsmaller scaleelectricgenerationresources,availableat: http://www.raponline.org/Pages/Feature.asp?select=8.Seealso http://www.epa.gov/chp/chp_support_tools.htm 204
Table 2-32. Emission limits (ppmv at 15% O2- unless otherwise noted) for reciprocating engines in air districts within the Sacramento region
District
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rule 412, RACT & located at major NOx source (25 t/y) > 50 hp (38 kW) 1.1 Not specified 50 (or 90%) 4000 (or 90%) 250 (or 90%) not rich Not specified 125 4000 750 700 4000
Yolo-Solano AQMD Rule 2.32
San Joaquin Valley APCD
El Dorado County APCD Rule 233
Rule Citation
Rule 4702
Feather River AQMD Likely use Bay Area AQMD BACT guidelines
Colusa APCD Rule 2.36 >50 & 300 hp > 300 hp (>38 & 225 (225 kW) kW) not lean Gaseous fuels 640 4500 >4% exh. O2 Gaseous fuels 740 4500 700 4500 150 4500 90 4500 -
Placer County APCD Rule 242
Engine Size Definition Fuel Type NOx Rich CO VOC / NMHC Definition Fuel Type NOx Lean CO VOC / NMHC NOx
> 50 hp (38 kW) not lean Not specified 90 2000 >2% exh. O2 Not specified 150 2000 600 2000
AO > 50 hp (38 kW)
> 50 hp (38 kW)
> 50 hp (38 kW) 1.1 Not specified 25 (or 96%) 2000 not rich Not specified 65 (or 90%) 2000 600 2000
not lean Not specified Waste gas AO ; 90 (or 80%)
> 50 hp-Rich (38 kW) > 250 hp-Lean (187 kW) Natural gas 0.15 g/bhp-hr (~ 9ppmv) 0.6 g/bhp-hr (~55 ppmv) 0.15 g/bhp-hr (~ 25ppmv) Waste gas 1.25 g/bhp-hr (~100 ppmv) 2.65 g/bhp-hr (~330 ppmv) 1.0 g/bhp-hr (~215 ppmv) 6.9 g/bhp-hr (~500ppmv) 2.75 g/bhp-hr (~320 ppmv) 1.5 g/bhp-hr (~310 ppmv)
> 50 hp (38 kW) 1.1 Not specified 90 2000 > 1.1 Not specified 150 2000 600 2000 -
50 (or 90%)
2000 250 >4% exh. O2 Not specified AO ; 150 (or 75%)
SI
Not specified 65 (or 90%)
2000 750 * *
CI (Diesel)
CO
VOC / * 750 NMHC District Rules Database maintained by CARB; http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdb.htm SJVAPCD Rule 4702, amended 16 June, 2005 Available at; http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/Rule_4702_0605.pdf = reduction of untreated amount by AO means 'Used Exclusively in Agricultural Operations' * EPA Tier 2,3, or 4 depending on size (See Table 2 in Rule 4702). (2005) Personal communication with Matt Baldwin, FRAQMD. See; http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/bactworkbook/default.htm Amador County APCD has not promulgated specific rules for stationary engines.
205
8 7 6
NOx Emissions (lb/MWh)
8 7 6 5 4 3 2
35 ppm NOx
SJVAPCD 'AO' 150 ppm NOx
5 4 3
SJVAPCD 'AO' 90 ppm NOx
50 ppm NOx
65 ppm NOx
2 1 0
20 25
CARB Recommended BACT for W aste gas fueled Engines (1.9 lb/MW h)
1 0
45 50
30 35 40 Engine-Generator Efficiency (%)
Figure 2-16. NOx emission rate vs. efficiency for given exhaust concentration (concentrations are at 15% O2)
80
70 NOx (ppmv-@ 15% O 2 dry gas)
60
50
40
30
20 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Engine-Generator Efficiency (%)
Figure 2-17. Maximum NOx concentration vs. efficiency for 1.9 lbs/MWh emission rate
206
2.4 Nitrogen Oxides Background and Control

NOxemissionscompriseprimarilynitricoxide(NO)andnitrogendioxide(NO2).Fossil fuelcombustionaccountsforabout40%oftheglobalproductionofNOxandisthe primaryanthropogenicsource(Seinfeld1986).Nitrogenoxidesareemittedfrom combustionsourcesprincipallyasNO,althoughdirectemissionsofNO2aresignificant, especiallyfrommobilesources(AQEG2004).NitricoxideisquicklyconvertedtoNO2in theatmosphere,hencethestandardreportingbasisforNOxasNO2.Biomassburningin naturalandhumancausedforestandrangelandfirescontributesabout25%ofthe worldsNOx.Lightningandmicrobialsoilactivityareresponsiblefortheremaining 35%.TotalglobalNOxemissions(asNO2)areabout165Tgperyear(180milliontons peryear)(Logan1983). TheUnitedStatesNOxemissionsareabout23milliontonsperyearandhavedecreased by15%since1983. 102 InCalifornia,theestimatedanthropogenicNOxemissionsare1.2 milliontonsperyearwithabout84%frommobilesourcesand16%fromstationary sources(Katoetal.2004). Inadditiontotheroleinozoneformation,atmosphericNOxisassociatedwithacid deposition(acidrain)andacidificationofaquaticsystems,formationofaerosols,and degradationofvisibility(Priceetal.1997).Ozoneexposureislinkedtoanumberof healtheffects,includingsignificantdecreasesinlungfunctionandaggravationoflung diseasessuchasasthma,leadingtoincreasedhospitaladmissionsandmortality. 103 ThoughVOC,NOx,andappropriateatmosphericanddaylightconditionscombineto formozone,theNationalResearchCouncilsuggeststhatinthegrossaverage,after mixing,transportofozoneprecursors,etc.,NOxisthelimitingfactorinphotochemical ozoneproduction.Therefore,NOxcontrolstrategiesaregenerallymoreeffectivethan VOCcontrolstrategiesforpreventionoftroposphericozone(NRC1991).
2.4.1 NOx from Combustion Sources

TherearetwopossiblesourcesofNOxfromfuelcombustion(nitrogenincombustionair andnitrogeninfuel)andthreemechanismsorpathwaysforNOxformation(thermal, fuel,andpromptNOx)(MillerandBowman1989). ReactionsbetweenN2andO2inairathightemperatureleadtothermalNOxformation. ActivationenergiesoftheseveralformationreactionsinvolvedinthermalNOxarehigh andthustherateofthermalNOxproductionisstronglytemperaturedependent(the rateofNOxformationincreasesexponentiallywithtemperature)andkineticlimited. ThermalNOxisformedincombustionnearregionsofpeakflametemperature.InSI
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 2002. From More details on nitrogen dioxide based on data through 2002, available at http://www.epa.gov/aortremds/nitrogen2.html 103 U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. From The Ozone Report Measuring Progress through 2003, available at: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ozone/html 207
102
reciprocatingengines,forexample,thisoccursinthepacketoffuelandairnearthe sparkplugwhichisthefirsttoignite.Thefirstelementsthatburnalsohavethelongest timeathightemperaturesenablingNOxformationtoproceednearlytoequilibriumin thisregion.TheratesofformationanddissolutionofthermalNOxaresuchthatrapid coolingofcombustiongasesoccurringinreciprocatingenginesduringexpansionofthe gasesinthepowerstrokeimmediatelyafterignition,effectivelyfreezesNOxinthe gasbecausethedissociationreactionsaremuchsloweratthecoldertemperatures (Seinfeld1986). Thenitrogencompoundscontainedinthefuelarethesecondsourceofcombustion NOx.Biomassandcoaldifferintheformofnitrogeninthefuel.Nitrogeninsolidfuel biomassispresentmainlyinaminecompounds.Whenconvertedtosyngas,producer gas,orbiogas,nitrogenisprincipallyavailableasammoniaorhydrogencyanide(HCN). ReductionsduringcombustionleadtotheformationofradicalssuchasHCN,N,CN, andNH.Becausethenitrogencarbonandnitrogenhydrogenbondshavemuchlower activationenergythanthenitrogennitrogenbondsinthemolecularnitrogeninair,fuel nitrogenismorereadilyconvertedtoNOxanddoesnotdependstronglyonflame temperature(asisthecasewiththermalNOxformation).Fiftyto90%ofNOxformedin coalorheavyoilcombustioninboilersisduetofuelnitrogendependingonsourceand composition(someportionofthefuelNwindsupinNOx,theremainderismostlyN 2or nitrousoxide,N2O)(Seinfeld1986).Emissionfractionsforbiomassaregenerallyatthe higherendduetothetypicallylowerflametemperaturescomparedwithcoal,gas,oroil firing.ThehighNcontentsinstrawcomparedwithmostwoodsleadstohigher uncontrolledNOxemissionlevels.Figure218showsdependenceofuncontrolledNOx onnitrogencontentofthefuelforaBIGCCandcoal/fueloilfacilities.VrnamoBIGCC dataarefrommeasurementsinthecombustionturbineexhaustattheVrnamobiomass IGCCdemonstrationfacilityinSweden(mgNOx/MJfuel).Coalandheavyoildata (ppmNOx)arefromSeinfeld(1986)forutilityboilersupstreamofanyNOxcontrol devices.
208
500
2000
400
1600
Vrnamo BIGCC Heavy Oil or Coal
NOx (mg/MJ fuel)
200
800
100
400
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Fuel Nitrogen (wt. % dry basis)

Figure 2-18. NOx vs. Fuel Nitrogen content (uncontrolled emissions)
Photo Credit: Stahl (2001), Seinfeld (1986)
ThethirdNOxpathwayistermedpromptNOx.PromptNOxisformedfromN2from combustionairreactingwithCHradicalsformingHCNandCNcompoundsand monatomicN.TheCNcompoundsandNquicklyreactwithoxygenformingNO. PromptNOxformationissmallcomparedtothermalandfuelNOxforleanandslightly leancombustionbecausetherearerelativelyfewCHradicalsavailable.PromptNOx becomesimportantandcanbethedominantNOxmechanisminfuelrichmixtures( <1),especiallywithhydrocarbonfuelswhenrateofformationisfasterthanthermal NOx(MillerandBowman1989).Biomassfueledboilerscanhaveregionsoffuelrich combustionwhichmaysupportpromptNOxformation,whichisoftenoverlookedin biomassemissionsinvestigations(GrassandJenkins1994).Figure219displaysNOx emissionfactorsforseveralCaliforniasolidfueledbiomassfacilities.PermittedNOx emissionsrangefromabout1to2lb/MWh.Emissionsfromsourcetestsrangefrom about0.6to1.2lb/MWh.Actualemissionsaverage70%ofthepermittedlevels.
209
NOx (ppm)
300
1200
2.5 NOx Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Permit Level
Source Test Results
1.5
0.5
II
er a
ns
ns
ns
ns
as
illa
ad
om
ch
ki
ki
ki
ki
en
en
en
en
&J
&J
&J
&J
ss
ss
ss
ss
ra
ra
ra
ra
Figure 2-19. NOx emission factors for several California solid biomass facilities
Photo Credit: Figure Straw 2 Task 1.1.2.1 Report and Grass and Jenkins 1994
2.4.2 Controlling NOx

StrategiestocontrolNOxemissionsfromcombustionsourcesgenerallyfallintooneof twocategories:(1)minimizeNOxformationbymanagingcombustionzoneparameters and/orminimizefuelnitrogen(sometimesreferredtoasprimarycontroltechniques) or(2)reduceNOxinfluegasbeforereleasetotheatmosphere(alsoknownassecondary controltechniquesoraddoncontroltechnologies). PrimaryControlTechniquesBoilers StagingofCombustion Stagedcombustionisacombustionmanagementtechniquetocontrolorminimizethe productionofNOx.Thetechniqueiscommonlyemployedinthedesignofliquidand gasburners(lowNOxburners)andcanbeusedwithgratefiredboilers.Staged combustioncanbeaccomplishedbystagingtheair,stagingthefuel,oracombinationof theair/fuelstaging.Combustionstagingherereferstotechniquesforburners,boiler, furnaces,etc.Forreciprocatingengines,prestratifiedchargeandprecombustion chambersareformsofstagedcombustionprimarycontrol.
210
oo
dl an
ho w
Bi
El
Ni
do
AirStaging Airstagedcombustionstartswithburningthefuelinaslightlyfuelrichzone.The mixtureischosentopromoteconversionoffuelnitrogentoN2.Flametemperatureis relativelylowunderfuelrichconditionssothermalNOxproductionislow. Downstream,additionalairisaddedtocompletecombustion.Thegastemperaturesin theburnoutzonealsoremainlowenoughthatthermalNOxproductionisminimized. Figure220displaysaschematicofatypicaltravelinggratestokerboilershowingair injectionlocationsandcombustionzonesusingairstagingforNOxcontrol. FuelStaging Fuelstagingorreburningisathreestepprocessinwhichthemajorityofthefueland airchargearecombustedundernormalleanconditionswithNOxbeingformed(from boththermalandfuelNOxpathways).Thisstageisfollowedbyinjectionofadditional fuel(withminimumair)creatingafuelrichreburnzonewhereNOxisreducedtoN 2. Finally,overfireairisaddedtooxidizeremainingunburnedfuel.Asinstagedair,this burnoutzoneisatalowenoughtemperaturetokeepthermalNOxproductiontoa minimum.Figure221showsthetravelinggratestokerboilerconfiguredforstagedfuel NOxcontrol.Thereburnfuelneednotbethesameastheprimaryfuel.Intheboiler arrangementshown,thereburnfuelshouldbecapableofquicklyvolatilizingorburning insuspensionmodeifnotagaseousfuel(i.e.,iffuelparticlesordropletsaresized incorrectly,theywilleitherfallorflyoutofthereburnzoneandbelesseffective).The techniqueisemployedinsomecoalfiredfacilitiesusingnaturalgasorpulverizedcoal asthereburnfuel.NOxreductionsof50to60%areachieved(HardingandAdams 2000).Pilotscaleexperimentsusingsolidand/orgasifiedbiomassasthereburnfuel showpromisingresults(Malyetal.1999;HardingandAdams2000;Vilasetal.2004; RizeqandZamansky2004;Rudigeretal.1996;DagautandLecomte2003;Arumugamet al.2005).
211
Burn-out Zone
2 Air Fuel
2 or Over-fire Air
1 Air
Fuel-rich Zone
1 Air
Primary (1) Air

Figure 2-20. Staged air combustion in a traveling grate stoker boiler
Note: 2 = secondary Photo credit: UC Davis Research Team; Photo credit: Robert Williams
212
Burnout Zone
Overfire Air Staged Fuel Primary Fuel
(tertiary combustion zone)
Fuel-Rich Reburn Zone

(NO reduced to N2)
Overfire Air
Staged or Reburn fuel

~Stoichiometric Combustion
(production of NO)
1 Air
1 Air
Primary (1) Air

Figure 2-21. Staged fuel or reburning in a traveling grate stoker boiler
SecondaryControlTechniquesBoilers SecondarycontrolsareusedtolowerNOxafterinitialformationduringcombustion. ThemajorityoftechniquesaccomplishthisbyselectivelyreducingtheNOxtomolecular nitrogen(selectivecontrol).LowtemperatureNOxoxidationisanemergingtechnology withpotentialapplicationstoengineorboilerexhauststreams. Selectivenoncatalyticreduction(SNCR) SNCRutilizesammonia,urea,orothersuitableaminebasedcompoundsthatreact selectivelywithNOxinthepresenceofoxygen.TheSNCRtechniquereducesoxidesof nitrogentoN2.Thereactionsproceedatfairlyhightemperatureandthetemperature rangeforthereactionstooccurisrathernarrowat1600to2100F(900to1150C)which iswhythetechniqueisalsoknownasthermaldeNOx(Srivastavaetal.2005).Ator belowthelowerendofthisrange,reactionsareslowandrequirelongresidencetimes
213
whicharelimitedbythefurnacesize.Temperatureshigherthantherangecausethe nitrogenintheaminecompoundstooxidizeincreasingNOx.Typically,morethan stoichiometricamountsofammoniaorureaareinjectedinordertosufficientlydrivethe NOxreductionreactionswhichleadtocertainamountsofammoniapassingunreacted throughthesystem(socalledammoniaslip).Insufficientreactiontime,lowgas temperature,ortoomuchammoniainjectionleadtounacceptableammoniaslipwhich contributestoparticulatematteremissionandvisibleplumes. SNCRisusedextensivelyinindustrialandutilityboilersandfurnaces,including biomassboilers.SNCRisacomponentofBACTforbiomassboilersinCalifornia.SNCR performanceisspecifictoeachuniqueapplication.NO xreductionlevelsfromSNCR systemsrangefrom30%toover75%,withthemajorityofinstallationsachievingmore than50%NOxreduction(Srivastavaetal.2005). SelectiveCatalyticReduction(SCR) SCRreducesNOxthroughthesameprinciplereactionsasoccurintheSNCRprocess bututilizesacatalystthatallowsthesystemtooperateatlowertemperature.Typical SCRoperatingtemperaturerangeis650to750F(350to400C).Typicalcatalystsinclude preciousmetaloxides(e.g.,oxidesofvanadium,platinum,palladium,etc.). SCRsystemscanbehighlyeffectiveatreducingNOxintheexhauststreamwith reportedNOxreductionexceeding90%.Thecatalystissusceptibletodeactivationby poisoningordepositscoveringactivesurfaceareabutcatalystservicelifetimesincoal firedfacilitiesroutinelyreach14,000to32,000hoursofoperation.Therearenoknown commercialbiomassfacilitiesusingtraditionalSCRsystemsforNOxreduction.There areatleasttwofacilitiesintheUSNortheastthathavebeenretrofittedwitha regenerativeSCRortailendSCR(seeRSCRbelow). BiomassFuelsandSCRDeactivation AtwoyearprogramwascarriedoutinDenmarkduringwhichstrawwascofiredwith coalina150MWpulverizedcoalboiler(WieckHansenetal.2000).SCRcatalyst exposedtofluegasfrom20%straw,80%coalcofiringshowedmuchfastercatalyst deactivationthannormallyexperiencedwithcoalonlyfiring.Forcatalystmaterial exposedtofluegasbeforeparticulatematterremoval,deactivationratesof approximately8%/1,000hoursexposurewereobservedovera2,900hourtest.Catalyst exposedtofluegasafterPMremovalbyanESPandbaghousefiltershowed deactivationratesofabout6%/1,000hoursexposurefora2,350hourtest. InSweden,SCRtestshavebeencarriedoutina125MWcirculatingfluidizedbedplant firingforestresiduesanda75MWplantfiringpulverizedwood.Whenusinga conventionalhoneycombcatalyst,80%oftheoriginalactivityremainedinthecaseofthe circulatingfluidizedbedboilerafter2,100hours,butonly20%remainedinthe pulverizedwoodboiler.Thedeactivationratewasreducedbyabout66%usinga catalystwithincreasedvanadiumcontentcomparedtoaconventionalcatalystusedin
214
coalfiredboilers(Khodayarietal.2000).Increasedvanadiuminthecatalystorhigher catalystoperatingtemperaturesdonotnecessarilyimprovecatalystlifetime(Zhenget al.2004). Theexactmechanismsforcatalystdeactivationfrombiomassfiredsystemsarenot definedbutalkaliandalkalineearthmetalsarepoisonstovanadiumcatalysts(which includesallcommercialSCRsystems).Mostbiomassfuelscontainsignificantamounts ofalkaliand/oralkalineearthmetals.ItispostulatedthatSCRdeactivationfrom biomassfuelsissomecombinationofdirectvanadiumcatalystpoisoningand fouling/depositionfromthevolatileinorganicsinthefuel(Baxter2005). Atsomepointinthefuture,increasedlevelsofNOxcontrolmayberequiredfornew biomassfacilitiesinCaliforniawhichmayonlybeachievableusingSCRsystems.The increasedrateofvanadiumcatalystpoisoningassociatedwithbiomassfuelswillbean importantproblemtosolve. RegenerativeSCR(RSCR) TailendorRegenerativeSCR(RSCR)isanSCRtechniquethathasbeenappliedto solidwastecombustors,somecoalfiredfacilities,andretrofittedtotwosolidfuel biomassunitsintheNortheastUnitedStates.RSCRistypicallylocatedbetweenthe induceddraftfanthepowerplantexhauststack,hencethenametailend. RSCRmayofferanimprovementovertheSNCRmethodforNOxreductioncurrently usedinmanybiomassfiredfacilitiesinCalifornia.RSCRsystemsarearetrofitoptionfor largecoalpowerplantswhenspacedoesnotallowforinstallationupstreamofPMand sulfurcontrol.BecauseRSCRtreatsfluegasaftercoolingbygascleaningsystems,itis necessarytoreheatthegastoalevelrequiredforthecatalysttofunction.Inlargecoal facilitieswithRSCR,theenergypenaltyforreheatingthefluegasto300C(570F)is about3%ofplantoutput.Babcockindicatesthemainadvantagefortailendorlow dustSCRarrangementsistheextendedworkinglifeofthecatalystbecausemanyofthe catalystpoisons(arsenic,alkaliandalkalineearthmetals)havebeenremovedupstream (Beckmann2000). Figure222depictstheRSCRarrangementforacoalfiredpowerplant.Notethat additionalfuelisdirectlyfiredinthefluegasafteragasgasrecuperatingheat exchanger.Ammoniaisinjectedintothereheatedfluegaswhereitscarriedintothe catalystwhereitreactswithNOx.
215
Figure 2-22. Schematic showing tail-end SCR arrangement

Photo Credit: EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, 6 edition (EPA/452/B-02-001)
th
ThetwobiomassfacilitiesretrofittedwithRSCRaretheWhitefield,NewHampshire,16 MW(net)BabcockWilcoxwoodfiredboilerandtheMcNeilGeneratingStation50MW (net)stokerboilerinBurlington,Vermont.BothfacilitiesaddedRSCRforNOx reductioninordertoqualifyfortheConnecticutRenewableEnergyCertificate(REC) program. TheConnecticutRPSrequiresbiomassfacilityNOxemissionstobelessthan0.075lb NOx/MMBtufuelinput.ConnecticutRECsareworthabout$0.035/kWh(Pletka2005). ThedraftoperatingpermitfortheWhitefield,NewHampshire,facilitylimitsNOx emissionsto0.075lb/MMBtu.Basedontheboilermaximumfuelinputof220MMBtu/h andthenetpoweroutputof16MW,themaximumNOxemissionsareapproximately1 lb/MWh.ThislevelofNOxcontroliscurrentlybeingachievedbyseveralCalifornia biomassfacilitiesusingSNCRintheSanJoaquinandlowerSacramentoValleys. ThereareatleasttwocompaniesofferingtailendSCRforbiomasspowerplants;BD HeatRecoveryDivision,Inc.(Seminole,Florida)whichisassociatedwithaGermanheat exchangermanufacturerandBabcockPowerEnvironmental(Worcester,Massachusetts). Duetotheexpenseandenergyrequiredforreheat,RSCRsystemsdonotnecessarily operateattheoptimaltemperatureforthecatalyst.Therefore,NOxreductionfrom RSCRisexpectedtobenotasgoodaswithstandardSCRbutstillmaybean improvementoverSNCR. PerformanceinformationfromthetwobiomassfacilitiesintheNortheastrecently retrofittedwithRSCRshouldbepursued.WhetherRSCRissuitable(andsufficient)for Californiasneedsshouldbedetermined.
216
LowTemperatureOxidationUsingOzone OzoneoxidationofNOxisconsideredanemergingtechnologyinwhichozoneis injectedintothelowtemperaturefluegas,whichreactswithNOxproducingN2O5. Nitrogenpentoxidereactsquicklywithmoistureinthegasstreamformingnitricacid (HNO3)whichiseasilyremovedfromthegasbyawaterscrubber(removalefficiencies are96to98%).Theeffectivetemperaturerangeis150to250F(65to120C).The technologyrequiresanozonegenerator(whichusuallyrequiresindustrialgradeoxygen tobeonsite)andawetscrubber,andincreasesparasiticpowerdemand.Thewet scrubbercouldbeintegratedtoremovePMandSO2aswell.Figure223providesa schematic.
Figure 2-23. Schematic of BOC gases LoTOx system for NOx reduction
Photo Credit: CARB Innovative Clean Air Technology Grant Program, Low temperature oxidation system demonstration 104 at RSR Quemetco, Inc. Progress Report (2000)
Thesystemhasbeendemonstratedinseveralcommercialboilers(naturalgasandcoal fired)andprocessingplants.ReportedNOxremovalefficiencyis80to95%depending oninitialNOxconcentrationandotherparameters.TreatedNOxconcentrationswereas
104.Availableat:http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/projects/boc.htm 217
lowas5ppm.AleadbatteryrecyclingfacilityinCaliforniaservedasademonstration sitewhereNOxwasreducedby80%. 105 PrimaryControlTechniquesReciprocatingEngines CombustionorprimaryNOxcontroltechniquesforreciprocatingenginesareaimedat reducingthepeaktemperaturewithinthecylinder.Methodsincludeair:fuelratio(AF) adjustment,ignitiontimingretard,prestratifiedcharge,precombustionchamber,water injectionorwater/fuelemulsions,exhaustgasrecirculation(EGR),andchargeair cooling(e.g.,turbochargercompressoraftercooling)(Obert1973). Air:Fuelratio(AF)management AFisdefinedasthemassofairpermassoffuelinacombustionreaction.Lean combustionoccurswhentheactualAF(AFactual)ismorethanthestoichiometric requirement(hence,fuelleanconditions).Fuelrichcombustionreferstocaseswhere AFactualislessthanthestoichiometricrequirement. AconvenientdimensionlessparameterfordescribingAFinthecylinderchargeofan engineis(Greeklambda).LambdaistheratioAFactual:AFstoich,or:
AFactual AFstoich.
ThermalNOxisstronglydependentontemperature.Forareciprocatingengine,the maximumflametemperatureoccursfor1.1,orslightlyfuellean.Thisiswhere maximumNOxproductionisexpected(foragasolinefueledengine,seeFigure224). Forlowemissionoperation,enginesareoperatedeitherslightlyrich(=1orslightly lower)orleanburnconditionswherethevalueofdependsonthefuel.Itturnsout thatbestfuelefficiencyoccurswithAFthatachievespeakflametemperature.AF adjustmentstolowerNOxalsodecreasefuelefficiency(overallefficiencydecreasesby about2to3%). Richburnconditionshavelimitedoxygenavailableinthecylinderandflame temperatureisrelativelylowbecausefuelisnotcompletelyburned.Unburned hydrocarbons(HC)andCOemissionscanbehighwithrichburnengines(dependingon thefueland).
105.InformationfromCARBInnovativeCleanAirTechnologyGrantProgram,Lowtemperature oxidationsystemdemonstrationatRSRQuemetco,Inc.ProgressReport(2000)andtheHoustonAdvanced ResearchCenter,TheWoodlands,Texas,Evaluationofpotentialcontroltechnologiesforoxidesofnitrogen frompointsourcesinEllisCounty,Texas(2004). 218

Figure 2-24. Gasoline engine emissions vs. Lambda
Leanburnconditionsreducepeakflametemperaturebywayofprovidingexcessair effectivelydilutingthecombustiongases.Tominimizepowerderatinginleanburn engines,thechargeairisoftencompressedbyturboorsupercharger(toallowmoreair andthusfuelintotheengine).Aftercoolingofthecompressedchargeairbefore inductiontothecylinderisrecommendedforpeakflametemperaturecontrol.Lambda valuesforleanburnenginesoperatedonnaturalgascanbefrom1.5to2.4(excessairof 50to140%).Maximumislimitedbytheonsetofmisfiringattheleanlimit.Unburned HCandCOemissionsincreaseattheonsetofmisfiring.Insomeinstances,highenergy ignitionsystems(HEIS)canbeusedtoreducethechanceofmisfiring(andhigh emissions)whenoperatingatveryleanconditions. Hydrogenenrichmentoffuelgascanbeusedtoextendtheflammabilitylimittoallow operationataleanerAF,reducingpeakflametemperatureand,thus,reducingthermal NOxproduction.TIAXLLCiscurrentlyworkingonahydrogenenrichmentofLFG powersystemproject.Thesystem,calledhydrogenassistedleanoperation(HALO) intendstouseaportionofanLFGgasstreaminareformertomakehydrogen,whichis thenmixedwiththeremainingportionoftheLFGandusedasfuelinareciprocating engine.TIAXexpectstoachieve95%reductionofNOxemission(comparedto uncontrolled,LFGfueledengine)toalevelof0.6lb/MWh(TIAX2002).Theproject couldbeundergoingfieldtrialsataCalifornialandfillbyearly2006.Theprojectis supportedbyPIERfundsthroughtheCaliforniaEnergyCommission. Prestratifiedcharge Thisisamethodofinjectingfuelintotheintakemanifoldindistinctslugswhichends upcreatingstratifiedlayersofrichandleanfuelmixturesinthecylinders.Therich packetsaremeanttoimproveignitionwhiletheoverallmixtureislean(SOTA2003). Precombustionchamber
219
Thisisanothertechniquewhereoverallleanburnconditionsaremetusingarich mixtureforignition.Aprechamberinwhichthesparkplugislocatedreceivesarich mixtureensuringignition.Theprechamberisventedtothemaincombustionchamber whichhasafuelleanmixture.Asitexpandsintothemainchamber,theignitedcharge intheprechamberignitestheleanmixture. Ignitiontimingretard Peakflametemperaturescanbeloweredbymovingtheignitioneventtolaterinthe compressionortothebeginningofthepowerstroke(ignitionretard).Inthelattercase, byignitingthechargewhenthepistonisaftertopdeadcenteronthepowerstroke,the chargeburnsentirelywhilethechambervolumeisincreasing,ratherthanadecreasing volumefirstencounteredbytheburningmixturewithearlyignitiontime(beforetop deadcenter),althoughintherockpositionneartopdeadcenterthevolumechangeis small. EGRandCooledEGR Recirculatingexhaustgasesintotheintakeoftheengineservestolowerpeak combustiontemperaturebyactingasadiluentorheatsink.Effectively,thisisamixture leaningtechnique. WaterInjectionandWater/FuelEmulsions Injectingwaterorincludingwaterinthefuellowerspeaktemperaturebyvirtueofthe latentheatofevaporationofthewater.Flamespeedandtemperaturearelowered.This isacommonmethodofNOxandengineknock(detonation)controlforlargeslowspeed CIengines. Table233summarizesexpectedNOxreductionbyemployingcombustionflame temperaturemanagementtechniquesusingreciprocatingengines.
220
Table 2-33. NOx reduction potential (%) by combustion management techniques (adapted from SOTA 2003
SI Peak flame temperature (natural gas CI management technique or propane) (diesel fuel) Adjustment Rich-Burn Lean- Burn Pre-stratified Charge/ Precombustion Chamber Ignition Timing EGR Water Injection / Water in Fuel Emulsion 10 - 40 85 na na Dual-Fuel CI (natural gas, diesel pilot) na 85
75-90
na
na
20-40 -25 - 30
20 - 30 50-80 25 - 30
20 - 30 -25 - 30
SecondaryControlTechniquesReciprocatingEngines NonselectiveCatalyticReductionNSCR Thisistheprincipleemployedinautomotivecatalyticconverters.Typically,thecatalyst sequentiallyreducesNOxcompoundsandoxidizesCOandunburnedHC.Itoperatesin averynarrowoxygenconcentrationrangerequiringanexhaustoxygensensorand air/fuelcontroller.Itisonlyapplicabletorichburnenginesbecausethecatalystrequires verylowoxygenamounts(lessthan1%)inorderforNOxreductiontotakeplace.NSCR catalyststypicallyrequireexhausttemperatureinthe800to1200Frange.Thecatalystis subjecttodamagebysulfurcompoundsintheexhaust. SelectiveCatalyticReductionSCR Asdescribedaboveinthesectionaddressingboilersandfurnaces,SCRselectively reducesNOxbytheinjectionofammoniaorureareagentupstreamofapreciousmetal oxidecatalyst.Thisrequiressomeoxygenintheexhauststreamandthereforeisonly applicabletoleanburnSI,CI,anddualfuelCIengines.Thecatalystisalsosusceptible tosulfuradsorptionrenderingsitesinactive.Acertainamountofammoniapasses throughunreactedwhichrequiremonitoringinordertomeetammoniasliplimits.An SCRsystemconsistsofreagentstorage,feedandinjectionsystem,catalyst,and monitoringequipmentforuseincontrollingammoniaslip.Predictivemappingand monitoringofengineparameterscanbeusedforreagentflowcontrolinsteadofexhaust monitoring.
221
SelectiveNonCatalyticReduction(SNCR) TheprincipleofSNCRwasdescribedabove(boilerfurnacesection).Thetechnique requireshightemperature(1400to1500F)whichmayrequireadditionalfuelinjected intotheexhausttoraiseexhausttemperaturetosuitablelevel.Acertainamountof ammoniaslipistypical.Dependingonexhaustgasheatrecoveryrequirements,SNCR maynotbethebestchoiceforNOxcontrol(i.e.,ifexhaustheathasbeenextracteditmay betoocostlyorimpracticaltoburnfuelintheexhausttoincreaseitstemperaturetothat requiredforSNCR). LeanNOxCatalystTechnology LeanNOxcatalystisapplicabletoleanburnengines,suchasCI.Itisapotential technologyfordieselfueledvehiclesorstationaryapplications.Thetechniquerequires injectionofahydrocarbonintheexhauststreamwhichservesasareductant.The literaturedescribestestsusingdieselfuelasthehydrocarbonsource,achievingNOx reductionsuptoabout45%.Adecreaseinfueleconomyofupto5%wasestimated (Heimrich1997).Therecurrentlyisnodemonstratedcatalysttechnologythatcan satisfactorilyreduceNOxinleanburnautomotiveapplications(CIdiesel)(Tonkynetal. 2003).OtherresearchinvestigatedaleanNOxcatalystthatdoesnotrequire hydrocarbonadditionandcanoperateincoolexhaustgases(Pauletal.1998).LeanNOx catalysttechnologyfordieselandleanburnSIenginesisdevelopmental.Thereismuch recentandongoingdevelopmentwork(Traaetal.1999;Pasquiers2004;Leeetal.2004). Thetechnologycurrentlyhasdifficultywiththevariableloadconditionsthat transportationenginesaresubjectedto.Theremaybeopportunitiestoapplythe technologytostationaryenginesthatmorecommonlyoperateatconstantloadand speed. LowTemperatureOxidationUsingOzone OzoneinjectionintocooledengineexhaustwillfurtheroxidizeNOx.Theresulting nitrogencompoundsarehighlysolubleinwaterandcanberemovedfromthegas streamusingliquidscrubbingtechniques(seesectiononboilers/furnacesabove). Table234summarizesreciprocatingengineNOxreductionpotentialsfortheseveral controltechniques.
Table 2-34. NOx reduction potential (%) using secondary controls (adapted from SOTA 2003)
222
Secondary NOx Control Technique NSCR SCR SNCR Lean-NOx Catalyst Ozone Injection
SI Rich-Burn SI Lean-Burn (natural gas (natural gas or propane) or propane) 80 - 90 na 50 - 95 na 85 - 95 na >90 50 - 95 ?>90 85 - 95
CI (diesel fuel) na 90 - 98 50 - 95 ?>90 85 - 95
Dual-Fuel CI (natural gas, diesel pilot) na 90 - 98 50 - 95 ?>90 85 - 95
2.4.3 Sulfur and Catalysts

Sulfurinenginefuel(asH2Sinmostuntreatedbiogas)oxidizestoSO2andiscarried alongintheexhaust.Preciousmetalcatalystsusedincatalyticconvertersforreduction ofHC,CO,andNOxaresusceptibletodeactivationbysulfurdioxide.TheSO2is adsorbedontoacatalystsiteandcanbeoxidizedtoSO3orsulfate(SO4compounds) suchassulfuricacid.Thecatalystloseseffectivenessassulfurcompoundscontinueto build. DigesteroperatorsthathaveengineswithcatalyticconvertersandnoH2Sremovalhave reportedcloggingand/orfiresinthecatalyticconverterduetosulfurdeposits. 106 Automotiveemissionsliteraturereportsthatitispossibletoregeneratecatalyststhat havebeendegradedbysulfurcompounds.Essentially,runningtheenginewithlower sulfurcontentthanusedpreviously,orzero,willcausesulfurcompoundstodesorb fromcatalystsitesandexitwiththeexhaust.Thecatalystsusuallydonotrecoverfully bythismethod.Sulfurpurgecycleshavebeenshowntobeeffectiveinautomotive systems.Essentially,thisinvolvesoperatingtheengineinafuelrichmodeforaperiod, followedbyfuellean.Fuelrichoperationprovidesunburnedfuelcompoundstothe catalystwhichareoxidizedduringtheleanportionofthepurgecyclereleasingheat whichpromotessulfurcompoundstooxidizefurtherandleavethecatalyst.The literatureindicatesthatthecatalyticconvertermustbeatsufficientlyhightemperature inordertoeffectivelypurgesulfur,soseveralpurgecyclesmayberequired. 107 SulfurandMoistureRemoval Sulfurwillneedtoberemovedfrombiogasorproducergasbeforefiringinanengine thatusescatalyticconversionforNOx,CO,and/orhydrocarbonreductionintheexhaust gas.Informationdescribingbiogassulfurcontentforacceptableexhaustcatalystlife couldnotbefound(thereiscopiousliteraturedetailingcatalystlifeversussulfurcontent
106.FromDaraSalour,RCMDigesters. 107.InformationfromEffectsoffuelsulfuronlowemissionvehiclecriteriapollutants, AmericanAutomobileManufacturersAssociation&AssociationofInternationalAutomobile Manufacturers,1997;CRCSulfurLowemissionVehicleProgram,CoordinatingResearch CouncilInc.,CECProjectNo.E42,1997. 223
inliquidfuels).Informationregardingsulfurlimitsingaseousfuelswillbeveryhelpful fordesigningbiogaspowersystemsthatwillbesitedinozonenonattainmentareas. Removalofmoistureishelpfulaswellbecauseitreduceschanceofformingsulfuricacid whichishighlycorrosiveandmayshortenenginelife.Enginesusingbiogaswithno catalyticexhaustcontrolcanoperatewithhighlevelsofH2Sinthegas(upto1,000ppm thoughlowerispreferred) 108 (Cockrell2005).Thisisageneralguidelinebutenginelifeis shortenedwithhighersulfurcontentinthefuelgas.Morefrequentoilchangesare requiredascorrosivesulfurcompoundscollectintheoilfromblowbygasesandfrom depositsremovedbypistonringsfromthecylinderwalls. Moisturecanberemovedbyoneoracombinationofseveraltechniques.Forentrained dropletsandaerosols,mechanicalseparationsuchascycloneseparatorsand/orsettling chamberscanbeused.Misteliminationscreensandfilterscanbeusedaswell. Adsorptiveliquidsandsolidssuchasglycols,silicagel,molecularsieves,etc.,are techniquesforwatervaporremoval.Themediarequiresregenerationperiodicallyby heatingorexposingtolowhumidityairstreams.Probablythemostusedmoisture removaltechniqueforbiogasissimplegascompressionandcooling(orjustcooling) whichdecreasesthedewpointtemperaturecausingwater(withsomeH2S)tocondense. SulfurRemoval Hydrogensulfideremovalfromnaturalgasorbiogasisstraightforwardandcanbe accomplishedbyanumberoftechniques.Perhapsthemostwidelyusedisthesocalled ironspongemethod.Bypassingsulfurcontaininggasthroughamediumcontaining ironoxide(Fe2O3),H2Swillreactwiththeironoxideformingironsulfide.Steelwoolcan serveastheironoxidemedium,butmorecommonlywoodchipsimpregnatedwith Fe2O3orFe2O3pelletsareused(muchimprovedsurfaceareacomparedtosteelwool). Theironspongemustbeperiodicallyregeneratedbyoxidationwithair,anexothermic reactionrequiringcautionespeciallywithFe2O3impregnatedwoodchips.Ironsponge systemscanremoveH2Stobelow5ppm. SelectivesolventscanbeusedinscrubberoperationsforH2Sremoval.Water,NaOH solution,alkanolamine,andethyleneglycolarealleffectivesolventsforhydrogen sulfideremovalaswellasCO2. Biofilters Thiobacillusisanaturallyoccurring,ubiquitous,sulfuroxidizingbacteriathatconverts H2Stosulfite(SO32).Avarietyofbiofiltermethodshavebeendevelopedthatuse ThiobacillusandotherbacteriaforodorcontrolwhichincludestheremovalofH2S. Hydrogensulfideremovalefficienciesfrombiogasofgreaterthan99%bybiofiltration havebeenreportedfromlaboratoryandpilotscaleexperimentsandcommercial demonstrations.Recentworkreports80%removalefficiencyusingcowmanureas
108.BiogasupgradereferenceEU. 224
biofiltermedia(Zicari2003).Commercialbiofiltersystemsusedinodorcontrol(which oxidizeH2S)exist(e.g.,BiopuricandThiopaq).Arecentreportdocumentsthe performanceoftheThiopaqsystemtreatingbiogasfromanindustrialwastewater treatmentplantreducedbiogasH2Scontentby99.9%(from19,300to28ppm).Because ofawaterscrubbingstepintheprocess,thegaswasslightlyupgradedbyremovalof someCO2(methanecontentwentfrom62to69%,drygasbasis). 109 Investigationsinto sulfurremovalbybiofiltrationforwasteandwatermanagementsystemsarecurrently ongoing(Chungetal.2004;Ngetal.2004;Lietal.2003;NicolaiandJanni2001;Dinget al.2000;Chitwoodetal.1999;KongandAllen1997). InsituMethods Insitusulfideabatementtechniquesincludeadditionofironchlorides,phosphates,or oxidesintothedigester(ironchloridesareaddedtomunicipalwastewatertreatment digestersforodorcontrol).ThismethodcanachievereductionsinbiogasH2Sdownto about100to200ppmwithcarefulattentionbeingpaidtodigesterpH.Solublesulfide levelswillincreaseinthedigesterwhichwillinhibitmethaneproductionifnot managed.Theinsolubleironsulfidesaddtosolidsbuildupinthedigesterwhichisa concernformixedsystems.Additionalsulfurremovaltechniqueswillberequiredif verylowlevelsofH2Sinthebiogasareneeded(Zicari2003).
2.5 Lean Engines with High CO in the Fuel

Goodqualityproducergasfromairblownbiomassgasificationcancontain10to25% (volume)carbonmonoxide.AleanburnengineoptimizedforlowNOxcanemitlarge amountsofunburnedCO.Thisisexperiencedinsomeofthedemonstrationfacilitiesin Europe.OxidationcatalystsforCOreductionintheengineexhausthavebeenemployed withsomesuccess,thoughspecificsarenotreported(Herdinetal.2004).Additional aftertreatmentincludesthermaloxidationbyairinjectioninto(withorwithoutusingan oxidationcatalyst)theengineexhausttoconvertunburnedfuelcomponents.
2.5.1 Nitrogen Removal from Producer Gas

Nitrogeninbiomassprimarilyappearsasammonia(NH3)withsmalleramountsof hydrogencyanide(HCN)intheproducergas(orsynthesisgas).Ammonia concentrationintheuntreatedproducergascanrangefrom400to5,000ppm(drygas) dependingonthefuelnitrogencontentandthegasificationprocess(Mojtahedietal. 1995;Prolletal.2005;Turnetal.1998;Stahl2001).Whencombusted,essentiallyallof theNH3canbeexpectedtoconverttoNOx.Somegascleaningsystemswillremove muchofthesenitrogencompounds(e.g.,waterscrubbing)beforefiringtheproducergas inthegasturbine.However,hotgascleanupispreferredforsomepowergasifier systemsbecausetarsandothercondensablesremaininthevaporphaseandthermal efficiencyisimprovedbynotcoolingthegas.
109.U.S.EPA,TechnologyVerificationStatement;PaquesTHIOPAQ.Availableat: http://www.srirtp.com/Thiopaq%20Verification%20Report%20Statement.pdf 225
Selectivecatalyticoxidation(SCO)technologyforconversionofammoniainhot producergasisbeingdevelopedandmayproveeffectiveinammoniareductionbefore combustingtheproducergas(Simell2002).Thecatalystissusceptibletodeactivationby poisoningfromalkalimetalsandsulfuraswellasdepositionfromashand/ortar constituents.AbriefliteraturereviewofSCOforNH3treatmentfollows. Inlabtestsusingsyntheticproducergas,nickelandchromiumcatalystsshowedhighest reactivityinthe700to900Ctemperaturerange(Darvelletal.2003).Usingnickelbased monolithiccatalystsonlabscalebiomass(pinewoodchips)producergas,Corellaetal. (2005)achievedNH3reductionsthatrangedfrom44to96.5%(volume).Thegasifierwas anatmosphericbubblingbedreactorwhichusedsilicabedmaterialwithdolomiteand laterolivinetoreducetarproduction.Theproducergas,exceptforsomePMremovalin acycloneseparator,wasnototherwisetreatedbeforebeingsenttothecatalyst.The catalystwasnotlonglivedbecauseofashdepositionandsitepoisoning(Corellaatal. 2005). Wangetal.usedhotgasfromapressurizedfluidizedbedgasifierwhichhadpassed throughaceramichotfilterforparticulatematterremoval.Thefilteredgaswaspassed throughahighpressurefixedbednickelcatalystforNH3andlighttardestruction. Ammoniaremovalsof35to95%wereobserved,resultsthatwereratherlowcompared withthoseobtainedforsyntheticgas.Ammoniaconcentrationsleavingthecatalyst sectiontrendedtoward200ppm.Lighttardestructionwas90to95%.Theproducergas containedabout150ppmofH2Swhichdidnotcausemeasurablecatalystdeactivation duringtestsofsixhours.Catalyticreactortemperatureof900Cresultedinmaximum ammoniaconversion.Hydrocarbonsintheproducergasaremorecompetitivethan ammoniaforreactionsites,thussufficientsurfaceareaandresidencetimeisrequiredfor theammoniatoreact.ModelingshowedthatthehighertheconcentrationofH2inthe producergas,thelowertheconversionofNH3inthecatalyticreactor(Wang2000;Wang 1999;Wang2002). Asanexampleofagascleaningcommercialdesign,Table235belowpresentsfuelgas cleaningperformanceachieved(orexpectedtobe)bytheNovel/CondensOygasifierfor engineandcombinedheatfacilitiestheyaredesigning(seeinformationonKokemaki CHPfacilityelsewhereinthisreport).ForPM,tar,andnitrogencompoundsinthefuel gas,greaterthan95%removalefficienciesareclaimed.
Table 2-35. Gas cleanup recommendations/capabilities, Novel CHP facilities (Simell 2004) Impurity PM Tars Nitrogen compounds (NH3, HCN) Sulfur Control Method Bag filters Catalytic reformer Catalytic reformer and gas scrubbing Low sulfur feedstock and gas scrubbing 226 Concentration, [mg/Nm^3] (removal efficiency %) < 10 (>99%) < 100 (>95%) < 10 (> 95-99 %) < 10
Chlorine
Low chlorine feedstock and gas scrubbing
<10
Some,orall,ofthesesystemsareinplaceattheKokemki,Finland,CHPfacility.This facilitywillbeundergoingcommissioningsoonpresentinganopportunityfor monitoringitsprogressandtolearnhowitmayapplytoinstallationsinCalifornia.
2.6 Improvements for Biomass Boilers

Solidfuelbiomasscombustionfacilitiesinthestateutilizeacombinationofcombustion parametermanagement,SNCR,andadherencetolownitrogeninthefuelblendsfor NOxcontrol.Inexistingbiomassboilers,SNCRisestimatedtoremoveuptoabout50% ofthefluegasNOxcontent(RizeqandZamansky2004).Improvementsarelimitedbut mightincludereburningtechniquesusinggaseousfuels(eitherfossilorrenewablere burnfuelsseebelow).Forbiomassgasification,theeffectoffuelnitrogencanbe largelyneutralizedbywaterscrubbingtheammoniafromtheproducergasbeforefiring inenginesorturbines. AdvancedReburningforBiomassNOxEmissionsControl AdvancedreburningtestswereconductedbyEnergyandEnvironmentalResearch Corporation(nowpartofGEGlobalResearch)inIrvine,California(Malyetal.1999). Thefacilityusedisa300kWboilersimulator.Advancedreburningreferstotheuseof nitrogenagentsand/orpromotersinjectedeitherwiththereburnfuelorintheoverfire air.Intheexperiments,coalornaturalgaswasusedasthemajorityfuel.Ammoniawas addedtotheflameasnecessarytocreateNOxconcentrationsbetween200and1300 ppminthegasbeforeenteringthereburnzone.Severalreburnfuelswereused(See Table236).Basicreburningachieved70%NOxreductionswhichissimilartousing naturalgasasareburningfuel.Advancedreburningusingureanitrogenagentand sodiumpromoter(Na 2CO3)achievedNOxreductionsof85to95%withreburnheat inputof10%andincomingNOxconcentrationof600ppm.Woodparticlesasreburn fuelandureaandsodiuminjectedachieved95%NOxreduction,yieldingafinal concentrationoflessthan30ppm.
227
Table 2-36. NOx reduction achieved in pilot scale advanced reburning experiments (Maly et al. 1999)
NOx Reduction for Type of Reburn Process Reburn Fuel Natural gas Biomass (fir mill waste) Carbonized RDF Coal fines Basic 47% 50% 50% 44% Advanced (urea as N- agent) 81% 90% 75% 70% Advanced w/ Na2CO3 promoter (30 ppm in gas) 91% 96% 94% 78%
ThefactthatbiomassandRDFachievedgoodresultsledGEGlobalResearchtopursue furtherinvestigationsofadvancedreburningusingbiomassfuels(seeMalyetal.1999). TheEnergyCommissionfundedaprojectwithGEGlobalResearchthatincluded researchersatStanford,UCDavis,andaprivateconsultantassubcontractors.Thegoal oftheeffortwastoinvestigatethefeasibilityofusinglowgrade,generallyunused, biomassasagasifierfuel,withproducergasusedasagaseousreburnfuelinexisting solidfueledbiomasspowerplants.Thepotentialwouldbetohelpcreateamarketfor thelowgradebiomassaswellasreducingNOxemissionsfromexistingornew facilities. Theinvestigationincludedasurveyofbiomassresourcesinthestate(amorerecent efforthasbeendonebytheCaliforniaBiomassCollaborative 110 ),laboratory characterizationsofsixselectedfuels,pilotscaletesting,andeconomicanalysisfor eventualscaleupofanaddongasifiertooneofthreeexistingbiomassfueledpower stationsintheSacramentoValley. Resultsfrompilotscaleexperimentsusinggasifiedbiomassasthereburningfuelwere variableasfaraseffectivenessoftreatmentanddependedheavilyonfuelnitrogen content.Sewagesludge,withanitrogencontentof3to5%(drybasis)isnotsuitableasa gasifiedreburningfuel(useofthisfuelresultedinanincreaseofNOxratherthana decreaseduetotheveryhighammoniaproduction).Resultsfromtheotherfuels (orchardprunings,wholetreewoodwaste,ricestraw,nonrecyclablepaper,and almondshells)showedthateffectivenessasareburnfuelisdirectlyproportionaltofuel nitrogencontent.Dependingonthecombinationoffueltypeandreburningprocess (basic,advanced,advancedwithalkalipromoter),effectsonNOxrangedfrom increasingformationtoreducingNOxupto65%.
110.Seehttp://biomass.ucdavis.edu/pages/assessment.html 228
Usingthepilotscaleresultsandmodeling,theprojectedNOxreductionsusingbiomass producergasasareburningfuelinretrofittedbiomasspowerplantsinCaliforniawere 20to65%ofuncontrolledNOxemissions(RizeqandZamansky2004). Theoverallcostsoftheseveralretrofitsanalyzeddependstronglyonreburnfuelprice. RizeqandZamansky(2004)concludedthatatleastforretrofitreburningsystemsusing gasifiedbiomass,theopportunityfuelusedinthegasifierwillneedtobepricedbelow themajorityfuelbyatleast$12/ton.Theirstudydidnotaddressthecostsof incorporatingthiskindofNOxcontrolintoanewfacility.ItslikelythatthecostofNOx reductionusingsuchasystemthathadbeenpartoftheplantsoriginaldesignwouldbe lowerthanforaretrofitsystem.Gasifiedbiomassreburningshouldbeconsideredfor NOxreductiononnewsolidbiomasscombustionfacilities. HardingandAdams(2000)experimentedwithwoodasreburnfuelforpurposesofNOx reductionsatcoalfiredfacilities(HardingandAdams2000).Pilotscaleexperimentsat theUniversityofUtahthatwereconductedina3kWcombustionfacilityfiredwith naturalgasdopedwithammonia(inordertocreatethedesiredNOxconcentrationin thegasenteringthereburnzone)achieved60to70%NOxreduction(from500ppmto about175ppm). Usingresultsfromthepilotscaleexperiments,simulationsofbiomassfueledreburning weredonewithamodelofanoperating265MWcoalfiredboiler.EstimatesofNOx reductionfromthemodelingeffortvariedfrom40to55%whichissimilartoreal systemsusingnaturalgasasthereburnfuel.Amajorfactorinthedesirabilityof advancedreburningisitseconomics.RizeqandZamansky(2004)estimatethecostof NOxreductionsusingstandardSNCRtechniquesisbetween$550to$700/tonofNOx reduced.Theysuggestthatthereburnfuelwillneedtobesignificantlycheaperthanthe majorityfuelforthetechniquetobeeconomic.Thisisnotoutofthequestion,assome opportunityfuelshavelowcostduetotheircurrentlowdesirability.
2.7 Out of State Transport of Sacramento MSW and Potential for Emissions Reduction
SacramentotransportsasubstantialamountofsolidwastetoalandfillnearReno, Nevada,becausethetippingfeesintheRenoareaareabout$5to$10perton,whichis significantlylowerthanthe$26pertonpublishedvalueforKieferlandfill.In2003, about195,000tonsofMSWfromSacramentoCountyweretruckedtotheRenoarea. 111 At25tonspertruckload,thisrepresentsabout7,800tripsperyearor26tripsperday(6 daysperweek,50weeksperyear).RoundtripdistancebetweenSacramentoandRenois about260miles.MSWtransportationtoRenoresultsin2milliontruckmiles,which consumes338,000gallonsoffuel(using6mpgaveragefueleconomy).Totalfuelcosts are$574,600peryear($1.70/gallonor$2.95/tonofMSWtransported).
111.Task1.1.1Report. 229
DisposingorconvertingthisMSWlocallyinsteadofhaulingtoRenowouldreduce heavytrucktraffic,fuelconsumption,andemissionsassociatedwithMSW transportation.Inadditiontofuelsavingsandvehiclewearandtear,theremaybea monetaryvaluetoNOxreductionsthatwouldresultfromreducingoreliminatingMSW transportation. ThefollowingdiscussesthepotentialvalueofNOxreductioncreditsassociatedwith reducingoreliminatingthetransportationofSacramentoMSWtoReno. NOxOffsetTransactionsinCalifornia In2003,some650tonsofNOxemissioncreditsweretradedresultingintotaltransaction valueofmorethan$15million(averagepricepertonofNOxwas$23,574)(Marquisand Werner2004).Table237showsselectedNOxoffsettransactiondetails(Figure225 chartsNOxoffsettonspertransactionagainstpriceperton).IntheSacramentoregion, about21tonsofNOxoffsetcreditsweresoldformorethan$30,000perton.Thesingle largesttransactioninthestateoccurredintheMojaveDesertAPCDwhere175tonswere tradedforanamountof$2.275million. HeavyDutyDieselNOxEmissions Cockeretal.measuredNOxemissionswithamobilelaboratorythatservesasthesemi trailerforaheavydutydieseltrucktractor.Withagrossvehicleweight(GVW)of60,000 lbs,NOxemissionsaveraged20g/mileforthe106mileroundtripbetweenRiverside andVictorville,California(withanaltitudechangeof3,000feetbetweenthetwocities).
Table 2-37. Selected NOx offset transaction details for 2003 in California Transaction details Region Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Placer County APCD Mojave Desert APCD San Diego APCD State of California Relevance Tons 20.5 0.97 175 3.73 647.6 Price ($/ton) $32,500 $30,041 $13,000 $140,000 $23,574 Total Transaction ($) $666,250 $29,140 $2,275,000 $522,200 $15,266,056
Local Local Largest transaction in State Highest price per ton in state Overall totals and $/ton average
230
200 180 160 140 Transaction Tons

Cumulative
800 720 640 560 480 400 320 240 160 80 0 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 Price per Ton of Nox (2003)
Cumulative Tons
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 $0 $20,000 $40,000
Figure 2-25. NOx offset transaction tons versus price per ton for California in 2003.
CARBEMFAC(CARBsonroadmotorvehicleemissionsmodel)givesNOxemissions from13.4to23g/mileforvehiclesmanufacturedbetween1984and2002. 112 SacramentotoRenoroundtripdistanceisapproximately260miles.NOxemissionsfora heavydutydieseltruck(Class8)makingthisroundtripwillbeapproximately5.2kg (usinganemissionfactorof20gNOx/mile).Payloadisapproximately25tons(50,000 lbs.) 113 EstimatedNOxemissionsfortransportingsolidwastefromSacramentotoReno are,therefore,0.46lb/ton(0.208kg/ton).The195,000tonsofSacramentoMSWtruckedto Renoareresponsibleforapproximately45tonsofNOxemissionsdistributedalong Interstate80. Usingthestatewideaverageof$23,500/tonofNOxoffsetcreditprice,reducingNOx emissionsfromSacramentoMSWtransporttoRenohasapotentialvalueof$1million (iftheregionaverageNOxoffsetcreditvalueof$32,400isused,MSWtransportNOx reductionsrepresent$1.5million).OnapertonofMSWbasis,transportNOxoffset creditswouldbe$5to$7.50.IfSacramento(orthewastehauler)wasabletostop transportingMSWtoRenoandinsteadselltheforgoneNOxemissionsasoffsetcredits,
112.http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/downloads/tsd/HDT_Emissions_New.pdf 113.Maximumgrossvehicleweight(GVW)is80,000lbs. 231
theresultingrevenuecouldbecreditedagainstthecostoftreatingordisposingthe materiallocally. PMandCO2Emissions FromCARBEMFAC,approximateemissionfactorsforPMandCO2are0.4g/mileand 2,000g/milerespectively.Therefore,emissionsofdieselenginePMandCO2dueto MSWtransportfromSacramentotoRenoareabout0.9and4,400tonsrespectively(see Table238).

Table 2-38. Summary of emission and costs associated with transporting Sacramento MSW to Reno Savings Fuel NOx CO2 PM Vehicle miles 338,000 45 4400 0.9 2,028,000 Unit gallons Tons Tons Tons miles Unit price ($) 1.70 23,500 32,400 ? Total ($) 574,600 1 - 1.5 million ? Per ton MSW Transported $2.95 $5.40 - $7.40 45 lbs CO2 4g ?
Emission factors used are 2,000, 0.4, and 20 g/mile for CO2, PM, and NOx, respectively.
MSWTransportationSummary Sacramentodisposesabout195,000tonsofMSWperyearinalandfillnearReno, Nevada.Thisrepresentsabout7800truckloadsperyear.Theroundtripdistanceis about260miles,whichmeansmorethat2milliontruckmilesareneededtohaulMSW toReno.Approximately338,000gallonsofdieselfuelareconsumedperyearwith annualtotalemissionsof45,4,400,and0.9tonsofNOx,CO2,andPM,respectively. Associatedfuelcostis$2.95pertonofMSWhauledandpotentialvalueofNOxcredits is$5to$7.70pertonofMSWusingstateandregionaverageNOxoffsetcreditvalues from2003. Thereisprecedentforreceivingemissionsoffsetsduetoreducedvehicletrips. SacramentoMetropolitanAQMDRule2056addressesreductioncreditsfrommobile sources.Therulespecificallystatesthatreductionofvehicletripscanbeusedasabasis foremissionreductions(therulementionstelecommutingasameansforvehicletrip reduction).
2.8 Recommendations
ImprovementsforSolidFuelBoilersincludingStrawCombustionPowerPlants BecauseofthelargebiomassresourceinCalifornia,theaggressiveRPS,theageingsolid fuelbiomassfleet,andthepoorairqualityinmanyCaliforniaairbasins,thestateshould continueandexpandactiveparticipationinNOxreductionresearchfornewand existingsolidfuelbiomassfacilities.
232
Fornewsolidfuelcombustionofbiomass,advancedreburningshouldbeconsideredas partoftheoriginalplantdesignusinggasifiedbiomassforthereburnfuelorother reburningtechniquessuchasdirectbiomassinjection.Forexistingfacilities,there remainunansweredquestionsregardingtheviabilityofretrofitreburnsystemsusing biomassgasification.Thosequestionslikelywontbeansweredwithoutafullscale commercialdemonstrationofaretrofitsystem. Foraricestrawfiredpowerplant(basedonrecentEuropeandesigns),uncontrolled NOxemissionsareexpectedtobehigherthanthatfromawoodfiredfacilitybecauseof higherfuelNOxresultingfromthehighernitrogencontentofstrawcomparedtowood . SelectivecatalyticoxidationtechnologyforNOxreductioninbiomassfueledboilersis difficulttoimplement(becauseofcatalystdeactivationissu es)andisconsidered developmental.ResearchisongoingbothintheUnitedStatesandEurope.California shouldmonitor,oractivelypursueSCRbiomassresearch. SocalledregenerativeSCRmayofferanimprovementoverthecurrentlyusedNSCR methodforNOxreduction.RSCRtreatsfluegasafterPMremovalbyreheatingthegas toalevelrequiredforthecatalysttofunction.Duetotheexpenseandenergyrequired forreheat,RSCRsystemsdonotnecessarilyoperateattheoptimaltemperatureforthe catalyst.Therefore,NOxreductionfromRSCRisexpectedtobenotasgoodasstandard SCR.Performanceinformationfromthetw obiomassfacilitiesintheNortheastrecently retrofittedwithRSCRshouldbepursued.WhetherRSCRissuitable(andsufficient)for Californiasneedsshouldbedetermined. Lowtemperatureozoneinjection(alsocalledlowtemperatureoxidation)isintriguing, butadetailedreview wasnotcompletedduringthisproject.Thetechniqueshouldbe investigatedasacandidateforinstallation atnewbiomasscombustionfacilitiesaswell asforretrofitcases. ImprovementsinMSWRelatedPower Improvedgas engineemissions(NOx)and/orincreasedefficiencyofgasturbinesystems areneededtoincreasethedesirabilityofeachprimemovertypeinADofMSWpower applications. DivertingtheorganicfractionofMSWtoADandlandfillingthetreateddigestate(or completelybypassingthelandfillby upgradingthedigestatetovalueaddedproducts) willhavepositivelongtermenvironmentalimpact(i.e.,futuremethaneandleachat e releasesfromlandfillsarereduced.) MostofEuropeisnowrequiringallbiodegradablewastetobestabilizedbefore landfilling.Digestion,composting,orthermalconversionwithenergyrecoveryare preferredmethods.Ref ertotheTask1.1.2.1Report(Summaryreviewonenvironmental assessment).ThesebenefitsshouldbeusedtohelpoffsetcostsorimpactsofMSW conversiontoenergy.
233
Policystrategies,suchaslandfilltaxes,extendedproducerresponsibility(packagingand producttakebackrequirements),banningbiodegradablematerialsinthelandfill,and/or assigninglifecyclecostsofwastemanagement/disposaltothepriceoftheproductor serviceshouldbepursuedtorealizethis.Theemissionsproducedfromtrucktraffic requiredtohaulSacramentowasteoutofstatearecalculatedasanexampleofdirect emissionoffsetsthatmightbeavailableifthepracticewascurtailedandthematerial insteadusedlocallyinenergyproduction. DairyDigesterPowerSystems Managingdairymanuretodecreasegroundandsurfacewatercontaminationand reduceuncontrolledairemissionsmaycreateopportunitiesforpowerproductionasa byproductofimprovedenvironmentalperformanceofthedairyindustry.Ifpoweris producedfromdairydigestergas,thefacilityshouldbecreditedwithemissionsoffsets foremissionsthatwouldhaveoccurredhadthegasbeenflared. ImprovementsforReciprocatingEngines GasengineemissionreductionsrepresentthenearesttermimprovementforLFGpower systemsandbiogasutilizationADsystems.Reciprocatingenginesarestillpreferreddue tocostandhighefficiencycomparedtosimplecyclegasturbines. Anincreasedmarketwilllikelyenticeenginemanufacturerstodevelopleanburn enginesinthesmallercapacitiesrequiredformanydairyscaledigestersandsomeofthe smallerscaleMSWADsystemsthatmightdevelop.Deutzmarketsaleanburnengine generatorfordigesterandLFGatcapacities aslowas180kW(ThemodelTCG2015V6is availableatleastinEurope)andWaukeshasellsa280kWleanburngensetfordigester andLFG(modelfamilyVGF280). NOxemissionsfromenginescanbereducedviacatalyticaftertreatmentofexhaustgas, and,insome cases,treatment,orremovalofnitrogencompoundsinthefuelgas. However,catalystdeactivationcanoccurwhensulfur,alkalis,andmetalsarepresent in thefuelgas. Forreciprocatingenginespoweredbygasifiedbiomass,thefuelgasisusuallycooled beforeinductiontotheenginewhichshouldcondensealkaliandmetalvaporsonto particlesoraerosols(sulfurisgenerallynotanissuewithproducergasbecauseoflow sulfurcontentinmostbiomass).ProvidingPMis sufficientlycleanedfromthefuel,there maybefewerproblemsusingcatalyticemissioncontrolwithreciprocatingenginesthan withgasturbinesandhotgascleanupsystems. Nitrogen,amacronutrientrequiredforplantgrowth,ispresentinbiomassatvariabl e concentrationdependingonspeciesandcultivationpractice.Fuelboundnitrogenwi ll bereleasedpredominantlyasammoniaandHCNinthefuelgascreatedbythermal gasification.Whenthefuelgasiscombusted(inaboiler,gasengine,orgasturbine) , thesenitrogencompoundsprimarilytransformtoNOx (fuelNOx).Itisdifficultto
234
removeammoniabycondensationinhotgascleaningsystems.Catalyticmeansto reduceammoniatoN2gasarebeinginvestigated. Fuelgascleaninginassociationwithcatalyticemissionscontrolshouldbeinvestigated inmoredetail.Fuelgascleaninghasotherbenefitsaswell,includingreducedcorrosion ratesingashandlingandpowergenerationequipmentandasatechniquetopermituse ascleanvehiclefuelorforadditiontonaturalgasdistributionpipelines. Sulfurremovaltechniquescanbeimprovedtoreducecosts.Biofiltermethodsthat removesulfurmayofferbenefitsandshouldbeexplored.Biogasupgradingbystripping carbondioxidealsoresultsinloweredsulfurcontent.Forstationarypowerusing digestergas,simplewaterscrubbingforsulfurandpartialCO2removalwouldallowfor easiercatalyticconversionforemissionscontrolbutcouldalsoallowforasmaller enginebecausethegashasahigherenergycontent. Hydrogenmixed(orincluded)withtheproducergasorbiogasextendstheleanburn flammabilityrange.Investigatingtheeffectofincreasedhydrogeninthefuelgasshould bepursuedforsmallenginebasedbiopowersystems.Improvedhydrogenco production methodsfromADandgasificationofbiomassshouldbelinkedwith emissionsimprovementforconventionalpowersystems(engines)aswellasforitsfuel value. OngoingandnewdemonstrationorfirstcommercialbiomassgasificationwithCHP facilitiespresentatimelyopportunityforobserving andmonitoringthesefacilities. Furtherdevelopmentofexistingassociationwiththeprojectdevelopersinorderto facilitateexchangeofinformationisrecommended. 114
114.Thesefacilitiesinclude:UnitedStatesatleasttwoCPC50kWorlesssmallmodularpower systems,aCHP(1MW)facilityinConnecticut;EnglandSkive,Kokemki,andmanymore.A listofindustrycontactsandpotentialprojectparticipantsisincludedinTask4. 235
236
3.0 Engineering and Economic Analysis

3.1. Economic Analysis Introduction
AsubsetofthetechnologiespresentedinTask1.1.1,TechnologyAssessmentfor BiomassPowerGeneration,wereanalyzedusingamodeltoestimaterevenue requirementsintheformoflevelizedcostofenergylevelizedrequiredtippingfeefora scenarioofMSWanaerobicdigestion. Thetechnologiesanalyzedinthistaskare: Gasification CirculatingFluidizedBed(CFB),reciprocatingenginegenerators,mediumscale; Carbona/GTIgasifierCHPfacilityunderconstructioninSkive,Denmark,5.4 MW. Fixedbed,reciprocatingenginegenerators,smalltomediumscale; Novel/CarbonaCHPfacilityunderconstructioninKokemki,Finland,1.8MW. BIGCCmediumscale;Carbona/GTIpressurizedgasifier,waitingfinancingin India,12.5MW.
Strawcombustionsystem Strawfueledinclinedvibratinggrateboiler,steamcyclepowerplant,largescale; Ely,England,facilitydesignedandbuiltbyFLSmiljofDenmark,38MW.
MSW/greenwasteADsystems GenericgreenwasteandorganicfractionofMSWsystembasedonreviewof industry;100,000wettonsperyearfeedstockcapacity,1.2MW. APSgreen/foodwastedigestersystembasedonCSUChannelIslandsproposal configuredforelectricityproduction;76,000wettonsperyearfeedstockcapacity, 1.2MW.
Dairymanuredigestersystems ReviewofpreliminarycostinformationforprojectsintheCaliforniaDairy PowerProductionProgram(DPPP);Plugflow,coveredlagoon,mixedtank systemswithestimatedcapacitiesrangingfrom30kWto1MW.
237
3.2 Selected Technologies

3.2.1 Thermochemical Biomass Power Systems
Gasifiers CarbonaSkive,DenmarkCHP OneofthethermalsystemsselectedforanalysisistheSkive,Denmark,smallmodular biomassCHPprojectbeingdevelopedbyCarbona.TheprojectconsistsofaCarbona licensedcirculatingfluidizedbedgasifierandanickelcatalysttarcrackercombined withJenbachergasenginegeneratorsforCHPgeneration.Thedesignoutputcapacityis 5.4MWand11.5MWth.Nominalfuelfeedrateis3.7Mg/hofhighqualitywoodpellets. Theplantnetelectricalandoverall(electricplusthermal)efficienciesare25.7%and 80.2%,respectively(basedonHHVoffuel).Table3.21listsdesignandperformance characteristics. 115 Figure3.21showsaschematicofthemajorunitoperationsforthefacility.Table3.21 showsbasicdesignandoperationaldataforthefacility.
PRODUCT GAS FILTER GAS COOLER TAR CRACKER BOILER BIOMASS FLY ASH DISTRICT HEATING 11.5 MWth FLUE GAS HEAT RECOVERY TO STACK
PRODUCT GAS COOLING (Heat Recovery)
PRODUCT GAS BUFFER TANK GASIFIER PRODUCT GAS SCRUBBING (Heat Recovery)
AIR STEAM POWER 5.4 MWe ASH WATER TREATMENT GAS ENGINES
Figure 3.2-1. Schematic of Skive CHP facility

115.TheprojectisfinancedinpartbytheU.S.DOE.Moreinformationregardingthisfacilitycan befoundintheTask1.1.1Report.) 238
Table 3.2-1. Design/Operating data for Carbona-Skive 116

Load Gas engine BEMP GASIFICATION PLANT Fuel type Fuel moisture content AF Fuel LHV (db) Fuel HHV (db) Fuel feed rate Fuel thermal input (LHV) Fuel thermal input (HHV) Dolomite feed rate Gasifier ash flow rate Filter ash flow rate Process condensate flow rate Gasifier operation pressure Gasifier operation temperature Product gas LHV (to GE) Product gas HHV (to GE) Product gas from gasifier Product gas flow rate (to GE) Total product gas after treatment Total PG chemical heat LHV Total PG chemical heat HHV DH generation in GP (net) Aux. electricity consumption in GP Cold gas efficiency
GAS ENGINE PLANT Gas engines in operation GE efficiency Fuel gas thermal input (LHV) Fuel gas thermal input (HHV) Electricity generation DH generation in GE (net) BGGE PLANT PERFORMANCE Fuel thermal input (LHV) Fuel thermal input (HHV) Gross electricity generation Auxiliary consumption Net electricity generation District heat production Gross electrical efficiency (LHV) Net electrical efficiency (LHV) Overall gross efficiency (LHV) Overall net efficiency (LHV) Gross electrical efficiency (HHV) Net electrical efficiency (HHV) Overall gross efficiency (HHV) Overall net efficiency (HHV)
bar
base 13
psi
base 189
%w kJ/kg kJ/kg kg/s kJ/s kJ/s kg/s kg/s kg/s kg/s bara C kJ/kg kJ/m3n kJ/kg kJ/m3n kg/s kg/s kg/s kJ/s kJ/s kJ/s kW %
wood pellet 9.5 18986 20260 1.149 19488 21067 0.012 0.006 0.016 0.150 2.00 850 5214 5530 5633 5973 3.146 2.995 2.995 15616 16871 3451 427 80.1
%w Btu/lb Btu/lb lb/h MMBtu/h MMBtu/h lb/h lb/h lb/h lb/h psia F Btu/lb Btu/scf Btu/lb Btu/scf lb/h lb/h lb/h MMBtu/h MMBtu/h MMBtu/h kW %
wood pellet 9.5 8163 8710 9119 66.5 71.88 95 48 127 1190 29 1562 2242 141 2422 152 24968 23770 23770 53.3 57.6 11.77 427 80.1
pcs % kJ/s kJ/s kW kJ/s
3 37.80 15620 16875 5904 8031
pcs % MMBtu/h MMBtu/h kW MMBtu/h
3 37.8 53.3 57.6 5904 27.4
kJ/s kJ/s kW kW kW kJ/s % % % % % % % %
19488 21067 5904 483 5421 11482 30.3 27.8 89.3 86.7 28.0 25.7 82.5 80.2
MMBtu/h MMBtu/h kW kW kW MMBtu/h % % % % % % % %
66.5 71.88 5904 483 5421 39.2 30.3 27.8 89.3 86.7 28.0 25.7 82.5 80.2
116.CourtesyofJimPatel,CarbonaUSA. 239
CondensOyKokemki,FinlandCHP AnothergasificationconceptthatwasselectedismodeledaftertheKokemki,Finland biomassCHPfacilitycurrentlynearingcompletionofconstruction.Thisprojectisbeing managedbyCarbonawithcooperationfromVTT. 117 TheNovelCondensOYgasifierhas beenspecified(atmospheric,fixedbed,updraft).Initialshakedownoperationis expectedtobeginearlyin2005.Thediscussionandresultsoftheeconomicanalysis appearbelow. NovelGasifierBackground TheNovelgasifierwasdevelopedbyVTTandCondensOYtoovercomesomeofthe technicalproblemsexperiencedwiththecommerciallysuccessfulBioneergasification systemsoperatinginFinland.TheBioneerdesignusesanupdraft,atmosphericpressure, airblownreactor.Theproducergasisconveyedtoanearbycombustorwhereitis burnedwithoutanytreatmentofthefuelgas.Theprimarytechnicallimitationsofthe Bioneersystemsare:(1)notsuitableforlowbulkdensitywoodresidues(sawdust,bark, forestslash);(2)operatepoorlywhenfuelmoistureisabove45%;(3)tarbuildupin productgaspiperequiresfrequentshutdownandcleaning;and(4)fuelfeedingsystems leakproducergasduetobackpressure(Kurkelaetal.2000).TheBioneergasifiersare appliedmainlyindistrictheatingsystemsandbeganoperationinthemid1980s. ApproximatelynineBioneerfacilitieshavebeenconstructed.In2002,onewasstillin continuousoperationandtheotherswerefiredasneeded(IEA2002).TheBioneer facilitiesareautomatedrequiringminimalattention. TheNovelCondensOYreactorisessentiallythesameastheBioneer.Thefuelfeeding systemhasbeenimprovedtoeliminatebackflowofproducergas.Thefeedsystemalso allowsabroaderrangeoffuelparticlesizeanddensitiestobeutilizedsuchassawdust andotherfinematerial.Airforgasificationishumidifiedinawaterspraytankinorder toreducereactortemperature.Secondaryairisaddedabovethemainreactionzonein ordertocracksomeoftheproducedtars.Theproducedgascanbeburneddirectlyfor heatapplicationsorthegascanbeconditionedforuseinreciprocatingorgasturbine engines. Kokemki,FinlandCHPPlant TheNovelCondensOYCHPplantiscurrentlyunderconstructionatKokemki, Finland.Theanticipatedfuelisurbanand/orsawmillwastewood.Thedesignincludes gascleanupandconditioning(e.g.,tarreforming,gascoolingandfilteringandfinal scrubbing)beforebeingfedtothree600kWJenbacherreciprocatingengines(seeFigure 3.22).Notshownisanauxiliaryboilerusedforperiodsofhighheatdemand,otherwise recoveredengineheatsatisfiesthedistrictheatandfueldryingrequirements.The designcapacityis1.8MWand3.1MWthwithoutauxiliaryboilerand4.3MWthwith firingtheauxiliaryboiler.Electricalandoverallefficienciesare30%and80%,
117.VTTisalargetechnicalresearchcontractorganizationinFinland. 240
respectively,fornormaloperationand26%and85%,respectively,whenusingthe auxiliaryboiler(seeTable3.22).
Table 3.2-2. Nominal energy balance for Kokemki CHP plant (Patel 2004)
Normal With Auxiliary Operation Boiler Fuel input Electricity Production Heat Production Fuel Drying (from existing separate heat plant) e* th overall kW kW kW 6200 1836 3100 7200 1836 4300
kW % % %
429 29.6 50.0 79.6
429 25.5 59.7 85.2
* = efficiency (useful energy or work output divided by energy input)
Figure 3.2-2. Schematic of Novel gasifier CHP facility under construction at Kokemki, Finland.
Photo Credit: VTT Processes
InvestmentcostforaNovelgasifierforheatonlyapplicationsissimilartothatofthe Bioneerfacilities(350to420Euro/kWthin2000)(Kurkelaetal.2000).
241
CarbonaIndiaBIGCC Athirdgasifierbasedsystemwasselectedforanalysis,theBIGCCconceptwhichoffers higheroverallconversionefficiency.AproposedanddesignedfacilityforIndiawas analyzedusingCaliforniabasedcostparameters. Carbonaissupplyingthegasifier(RENUGASgasifierlicensedfromGTI)andgas cleaningsystemforanIGCCprojectinIndia.Itisproposedtoconsumewoodwasteand cashewandcoconutshells.Thefacilityincludesthepressurizedair/oxygenblown RENUGASgasifier,catalytictarcrackerdevelopedwithVTT,gascoolingandgas filtering.Twogasturbinegenerators,about4MWeach,arespecified.Gasturbine exhaustraisessteaminarecoveryboilerwhichpowersasinglesteamturbineforabout 4.5MWadditional.Fuelfeedrateisplannedforapproximately210t/dayandshouldnet 12.5MW(theTask1.1.1reporthasmoreinformation). Nominalfuelcharacteristicsusedforenergyandefficiencycalculationsare20% moisturecontentand18.7MJ/kg(HHV,dry). 118 Overallplantefficiencyisestimatedto be34.3%.Theprojectcostis$22million(Patel2004).Projectinitiationisawaitingfinal decisionfromfinancingpartners.SeeFigure3.23foraprocessdiagramoftheIndia project.
STEAM TO HRSG CYCLONE PARTICULATE REMOVAL CLEAN PRODUCT GAS WATER FROM HRSG AI
4 MWe GASIFIER GA COOLER FLY ASH AI GAS TURBINE No. COMPRESSOR BOOSTE BIOMASS WASTE 8 t/h BOOSTER COMPRESSOR BED AIR FROM GAS COOLER STACK TO COOLER 4 MWe HEAT STEAM
STEAM
4 MWe
Figure 3.2-3. Process diagram of the Carbona India IGCC project

118.Basedonreportedfuellowerheatingvalue(LHV)of17.5MJ/kg(drybasis). 242
Combustion StrawFiredCombustionFacility Thefinalthermochemicalbiomassconversionsystemselectedforanalysisisastoker gratefiredsystemdesignedforstrawfuel.Denmarkhasbeenfiringstrawforheatand powerasamatterofpolicyforthelastdecade.Consequently,governmentandindustry haveinvestedsubstantialeffortstodesignstrawcombustionsystemsincludingfuel logistics,handling,andstorage.TheDanishdesignhasnowbeenexported(refertoTask 1.1.1Reportformoreinformation). TherearetwostrawfiredfacilitiesrecentlycommissionedoutsideofDenmark.Located inEnglandandSpain,theyweredesignedandbuiltbytheDanishcompany(formerly FLSmilj).TheElyPowerStationinEnglandisthelargeststrawfiredfacilityinthe world(accordingtoBioener,ApS),consuminganywherefrom150,000to200,000metric tonsperyear.Thefacilityusesnaturalgasasastabilizationfuelintheamountupto10% totalenergyinput.Itproducesonlypower(doesnotoperateinCHPmode)witha capacityof36to38MWatanavailabilityestimatedatabout80%. BothElyandSangesahavehighsteamtemperatures(520to540C),andthesteam pressureatElyis92bar.TheElyboilerdoesnotutilizeaseparatefuelforfinal superheat(socalledcombinationboilerusedinEuropewithproblematicbiomassfuels). SpecificboilerdetailscouldnotbeconfirmedforSangesa,soitisnotknownwhetherit isacombinationboiler. Therearefourseparatewholebalefuelfeedlinesrunningintothesinglefurnace.Bales areshreddedbeforebeinginjectedintotheboiler.TheboilerusesaFLSmiljvibrating grate(seeFigure3.24). OthersinvestigatedthebaleandstrawhandlingandfeedingsystemsatElyforpotential applicationtocofireswitchgrasswithcoalattheOttumwageneratingstationin Chillicothe,Iowa(MilesandGanz2002).TheirdiscussionsatElyyieldedthefollowing information:

Capitalcostwasapproximately$88million(about$2,300/kWgrossinstalled). Thefacilityispaid$0.0855/kWh. TheplantisoperatedbytheDanishbuilder,whichguarantees96%availability over350days. Thecompanypays$31to$42/tonfordeliveredstraw,80%withinaradiusof55 milesfromtheplant,and20%comesfromaradiusof55to150miles. Thecompanywasconsideringgrowingdedicatedenergycrops(switchgrassor miscanthus)toincreasefuelsupply. Planthasbeenoperatingsince2000consumingabout22tons/hrlocalcereal straw.
243
Figure 3.2-4. Schematic of the Ely Power Station

Photo Credit: Newman 2003.
3.2.2 Biochemical Conversion to Power

Anaerobic digestion and MSW AD systems GenericMSWAD TwoADsystemsusingMSWcomponentsasfeedstockanddairymanuredigesterswere theselectedtechnologies.OneoftheMSWsystemsanalyzedwasagenericdesignthat wasmodeledusingarangeofperformanceandcostvaluesfoundintheliteratureand frompersonalcontacts.Figure3.25showsaschematicofatypicalsinglestagedigester systemfororganicwastes(includingportionsoftheMSWstream).
244
PULPING
METHANIZATION
Prechamber
Biogas
10-15%
Heat addition Make-up water
DEWATERING
Inoculation loop Composting Heavies Water treatment
Figure 3.2-5. Schematic of a Typical Single-Stage Digester

UCDavisAnaerobicPhasedSolids(APS)Digester TheothersysteminvestigatedwastheAPS(UCDavis)designusingcostand performanceparameterssuppliedbyanindependentconsultantaswellasfromthe systemdesigners. Background ThissystemwasdevelopedandpatentedbyProfessorRuihongZhangandDr.Zhiqin ZhangfromUCDavis(ZhiqinZhangiscurrentlyattheCaliforniaEnergyCommission) (ZhangandZhang2002).ThesystemislicensedtoOnsitePowerSystemsfor commercialization.LaboratoryandpilotscalereactorsarelocatedatUCDavis. A3t/daypilotfacilityontheUCDaviscampus,fundedbytheEnergyCommissionand industrypartners,willbeoperationalearlyin2005.Thepilotfacilitywillacceptfood andgreenwastesandisexpectedtogenerateabout25kWfromareciprocatingengine. OnsitePowerSystemshasproposedagreenwasteprocessingfacilityusingtheAPS digesterfortheCaliforniaStateUniversityChannelIslandscampusinVenturaCounty (Figure3.26).Thefacilitywouldprocess250t/dayofgreenwaste(orabout76,000 t/year)divertedfromVenturaCountylandfillsandpresumablysomewastefromthe campus. Thefacilitywouldoperateatthermophilictemperature(135F)andhaveasolids retentiontimeof12days.Biogaswouldbepipedtoanearbycogenerationfacilitywhere itwouldbeusedtodisplacesomeofthenaturalgasfuel.Revenuesourcesincludea tippingfee(netofprocessingcosts),gassales,compostablematerialsales,andsome valueforusingexcessprocesswatertodisplacecampusirrigationwater.
245
Figure 3.2-6. Conceptual drawing of APS digester at CSU-Channel Islands

Photo Credit: Karl Hartman
Theanaerobicphasedsolids(APS)digesterdecouplessolidstatehydrolysisand acetogenicfermentationfromthemethaneproducingfermentation,allowingfor separateoptimizationofthetwoprocesses.Thetworeactorsareconnectedthrougha closedliquidrecirculationloopthattransfersthesolublesreleasedinthehydrolysis reactortothebiogasproducer(methanogenesis).Thebiogasreactorcanbedesignedfor relativelyshortliquidretentiontimebyusingsuspendedgrowth,attachedgrowth, anaerobicmovingbedreactor(AMBR),orupflowanaerobicsludgeblanket(UASB) reactortypes(ZhangandZhang1999). Thehydrolysisreactorcanaccepthighsolidsfeedstockthat,dependingonits characteristics,mayneedsomekindofpretreatmentsuchasshreddingtoincrease hydrolysisrate.Thehydrolysisreactoroperatesinbatchmode.Becauseofthisbatch operation,thestrengthofthesolublecompoundsintheliquidbeingtransportedtothe biogasreactorwillvaryfromnearzeroimmediatelyafteraddingafreshbatchoffeedto thehydrolysisvessel,toamaximumwhentherateofhydrolysisishighest, subsequentlytaperingoffastheremainingsolublebiomassdeclines.Correspondingly, thebiogasproductionratewillvaryfromlowtohightolowagainbecauseitdepends onthestrengthandrateoftheinflowliquidarrivingfromthehydrolysisstage. Byusingseveralbatchloadedhydrolysisreactors,theloadingofeachbeingtimed(or phased)oneafteranothersuchthatthestrengthofthemixedsubstrateflowingfromall hydrolysisreactorstothebiogasificationreactorismorestable,shouldleadtorelatively
246
stablegasproduction(Figure3.27).Thisphasedsolidsloadingapproachisusedinboth theUCDpilotplantandtheChannelIslandsdesigns.
Figure 3.2-7. Schematic of APS digester system showing four hydrolysis vessels
Photo Credit: Courtesy of Ruihong Zhang
DairyManureDigesters Threetypesofanaerobicdigestersarecommerciallyavailableforthedigestionofdairy manure:completemix,plugflow,andambienttemperaturecoveredlagoon.Thechoice ofdigesterisdependentonthetypeofmanurecollectionsystemusedonthedairy. Dairieswithflushmanurecollectionsystems(2to3%totalsolids)wouldtypicallyuse anambienttemperaturecoveredlagoondigesterwhereasadairywithamechanical scrapesystemofcollection(10to13%totalsolids)wouldbeacandidateforaplugflow digester.Completemixanaerobicdigestersoperateonmanurethathas3to10%total solidsandcanbeusedwitheitherflushedorscrapedmanure.Bothcompletemixand plugflowdigesterscanbeheatedusingheatcapturedfromaboileroranengine generator. Manuredigestionsystemstypicallyhavefivesubsystems:amixtank,adigester,an effluenttank,asolidsseparatorandapowerplantorothergasenergyconversion system(seeFigure3.28). Recentlegislation(SB5X)appropriatedmoniesforassistingdairiesinCaliforniainthe installationofsystemstocreatepowerfromdairywastes.Thisledtotheestablishment oftheDairyPowerProductionProgrambytheCaliforniaEnergyCommissioninorder toencouragethedevelopmentofbiologicallybasedanaerobicdigestionandgasification (biogas)electricitygenerationprojectsinthestate.Objectivesincludedeveloping commerciallyprovenbiogaselectricitysystemstohelpCaliforniadairiesoffsetthe
247
purchaseofelectricity,andprovidingenvironmentalbenefitsthroughreductionofair andgroundwaterpollutantsassociatedwithstorageandtreatmentoflivestockwastes. Approximately$10millionwasavailableincludingprogramadministrationcosts.
Figure 3.2-8. Schematic of digester subsystems (typical of low solids dairy effluents)
Photo Credit: Mattocks 2003
Approximately14dairiesinCaliforniahavebeenawardedgrantmoniesfor constructionofdigestersundertheDPPP.Thisincludessevencoveredlagoonsystems, sixplugflowdesigns,andacompletemixreactordesign.Performanceandcost estimatesarediscussedbelow(alsorefertoTask1.1.1Reportformoreinformation).
3.3. Economic Analyses

Astandardrequiredrevenuemodelwasusedtocomputelevelizedcostofenergyor requiredtipfeeforasetofbasecaseassumptions. 119 Thecostofenergycalculatoremploysastandardrevenuerequirementsmethodto calculatetheenergyrevenue($/kWh)requiredtoearnthedesiredrateofreturn.The
119.Themodelutilizedwasamodifiedversionofthecostofenergycalculatoravailableat http://faculty.engineering.ucdavis.edu/jenkins/CBC/Calculator/cal.html 248
modelcomputeslevelannualcostofenergyincurrentdollars(whichdoesnotinclude theeffectofinflationintheanalysis),andconstantorinflationadjusteddollars. 120 Valuesforcapitalcost,fixedandvariableoperatingcosts,fuel/feedstockprice(or tippingfee;negativeprice),andsystem(plant)performancecharacteristicsareneeded forcomputingtheprojectrevenuerequirements.Inaddition,financingdetails(suchas ratioofdebttoequityandinterestrateassociatedwitheach),inflation/escalationrates, taxratesandcredits,anddepreciationschedulesareusedintherequiredrevenueor costcalculator.
3.3.1. Tax treatment in the Model

Becausetherevenuerequirementmethodspecifiesarateofreturn(orinterestondebt thatmustbemet),taxesmustbecomputedindirectlybecausetheyareimplicitinthe revenuesrequired. Acombinedtaxratecanbecomputed, t=tF(1tS)+tS
wheretFandtSarefederalandstatetaxrates,respectively.Thetaxesrequiredforeach yearoftheanalysiscanbedeterminedfrom where Cr=capitalrecovery(principal)payment Dt=depreciation(depreciationamountsarecalculatedusingthemodifiedaccelerated costrecoverysystem(MACRS)forthefiveortenyearpropertyclass) Ir=returnoninvestment. Di=interestondebt Becauseofaccelerateddepreciation,thetaxfortheprojectinthefirstyearsoftheproject maybenegative.Forlargeprofitablecompanies(i.e.,companieswithtaxableprofits fromotherenterprises),negativetaxescanbetakenasataxcredittotheproject againstotherincome.Acompanythatdoesnotgenerateenoughtaxableincome elsewheretobeoffsetbythesenegativetaxes,orforwhichtheprojectconstitutesthe wholeofthecorporateactivity,cannotcreditthesenegativetaxestotheprojectand insteadsimplyreducestaxtozero.Moresophisticatedtreatmentsallowingfor forwardingoftaxbenefitsorcostsarenothandledwithinthemodelusedhere.Thebase caseandmostsensitivityanalysestreatnegativetaxesascredittotheproject.
T=
t (C r Dt + I r Di ) 1 t
120.Abackgroundandmodeldescriptioncanbeaccessedat http://faculty.engineering.ucdavis.edu/jenkins/CBC/Calculator/CalculatorBackground.pdf 249
Productiontaxcredits(PTCs)areassumedtobeavailablefortheseprojects,atleastfor thefirstfiveyears. 121 Foropenloopbiomassfuel(biomassnotspecificallygrownfor energy),thePTCis0.9cents/kWh.
3.3.2 General Procedure

ABaseCasecomposedofexpectedcosts,revenues,inflation,taxandfinancerates wascreatedforeachtechnologyandinputtothemodelwhichyieldedtheBaseCase revenuerequirementintotaldollarsperyearandperenergyunit(kWh),orpertonof feedstockforthecaseswhenarequiredtippingfeewasofinterest.Then,thesensitivity oftherequiredrevenuewasinvestigatedbymakingchangestotheinputassumptions. Thiswasdonebychangingasingleinputvariableatatimewhileholdingallothers constantattheirbasecasevalues.Plotsshowingthechangeinrevenuerequirements overthespanofinputvariableweregeneratedandappearintheindividualsystem resultssection.
3.3.3 Base Case Results

Thebasecaseresultsaretabulatedbelow(Table3.31)andshowninFigure3.31.The tableshowsthelevelizedCOE(constant$/kWh)requiredfortheprojecttomeet expensesandprofitdefinedintheassumptionsforeachbasecase(SeeFigure3.32fora comparisonofcapitalcostforbiomassandotherpowergenerationtechnologies).Akey toheadings(projectnames)inTable3.31isimmediatelybelowthetable. TheupperandlowerCOEextremesdeterminedbyasensitivityanalysisareshownas well.ThelowerendoftheCOErangepresentedisduetochangesinfuelpriceor tippingfeeforalltechnologiesexceptthedairydigestercategory(DPPP)ofwhichits COErangeisduetoalargespreadincapitalcosts.Thefuelortippingfeeusedinthe basecaseaswellasthevaluenecessarytoreachthelowerendoftheCOErangeare showninthetable.Changesinotherparameters(suchascapitaloroperatingcosts)can resultinCOEsoutsidetherangeshownbutitisnotlikelythesewillvarybythe50to 100%fromthebasecaseassumptionthatwouldbenecessarytoproduceaCOEoutside therangeshown.Fuelandtippingfeescaneasilyvarybysuchlargemagnitudesover timeorbylocation.
121.TheSection45taxcredits(PTC)wereextendedwhenHR4520(AmericanJobsCreationAct) wasenactedonOctober22,2004.Geothermal,solar,wind,andclosedloopbiomassareeligible forthe1.5cents/kWhcreditindexedforinflation(nowat1.8cents/kWh).Openloopbiomass, municipalsolidwaste,andsmallirrigationhydroelectricareeligibleforonlyhalfofthat,hence thecurrent0.9cents/kWhcreditforthosecategories.Refinedcoal(essentiallysynfuels)getsa creditof$4.375/ton.Wind,closedloopbiomass,andrefinedcoalcanreceivePTCfor10years, andtheothersaregoodforfiveyears.Note:Anewenergybillhasrecentlybeensignedinto law.Thenewbillhasnotyetbeenconsultedforrelevantchangestothisfootnote. 250
Table 3.3-1. Results of Base Case Analyses

CA C-K (paid off) (w/CHP) Capital Cost ($/kW) Cost ($/ton capacity) Fuel/Feedstock Price (Base Case) 0 $20/bdt 2451 C-I 2800 CA 2000 C-S (w/CHP) 3700 $45/bdt DPPP 1500 6000 0.018 0.066 0.100 Straw Facility 2300 Morris (2000) 2000 C-K (noCHP) 2451 $30/bdt APS 13,500 222 ton ton 0.000 0.080 0.200 MSW AD 20,000 250 ton ton 0.000 0.084 0.250 C-S (noCHP) 3700 DPPP (5 yrs) 1500 6000 0.046 0.133 0.212
$30/bdt $30/bdt $20/bdt
$20$34/bdt 30/bdt $17/bdt 0.053 0.067 0.092 0.044 0.076 0.108
-$27/wet -$26/wet $45/bdt -$40/wet -$33/wet -$10/bdt

0.073 0.101 0.129
Fuel/Feedstock Price $10/bdt -$10/bdt -$10/bdt $10/bdt (Lower limit) Levelized COE (Constant $/kWh) Low End 0.015 0.048 0.052 0.035 Base Case 0.037 0.056 0.060 0.061 High End 0.048 0.087 0.088 0.073
-$10/bdt
0.045 0.062 0.101
-$10/bdt
0.060 0.076 0.099
Key to Table Headings

CA (paid off) C-K C-I CA C-S Straw Facility DPPP Morris (2000) APS MSW AD W/ CHP noCHP Existing California steam cycle biomass plants with capital fully amortized Fixed Bed Novel Gasifier being installed in Kokemki, Finland (Carbona) Carbona BIGCC project specified for India Existing California steam cycle biomass plants still paying capital loans or new facility CFB Carbona (GTI) Circulating Fluidized Bed Gasifier being installed in Skive, Denmark Concept using Danish design installed in California and firing rice straw California Dairy Power Production Program Capital cost used for base-case is $3600/kW, (15 yr. economic life, 10yr loan repayment) DPPP (5 yrs) means loan repayment in 5 years, productive life remains 15 years Estimates for California solid fuel biomass industry Advanced Phased-Solids digester using Channel Islands proposal as basis Generic digestion facility using of MSW as feedstock Sales of co-generated heat are credited to the project (C-K and C-S are evaluated both with and without heat sales) Effect of no combined heat generation from C-S and Kokemaki (capital costs were not reduced for the no CHP cases)
5 yrs Effect on COE of requiring all investment and borrowed money to be recovered in 5 years (similar to a 5 year payback period) Data collected by Robert Williams
251
0.25
0.20
COE (constant $/kWh)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
CA PP F Cac K (n ility o M or C H ri s P (2 ) 00 0) AP M S C- SW S (n A D DP o C PP H P (5 ) yr s) w
252
f)
C-
HP
ai
/C
CA
(w
(w CS
(p
/C
C-
Figure 3.3-1. COE estimates for biomass power conversion technologies

Photo credit: UC Davis Research Team; Photo credit: Robert Williams; Photo Credit: Jenkins 2004
ThebasecaseCOEsvaryupwardfrom$0.037/kWhforexistingsolidfuelbiomasspower plantsinCaliforniathathavepaidofftheoriginalcapitalloan(Jenkins2004).Itisnot knownexplicitlywhetheranyoperatingsolidfuelbiomasspowerplantsinCalifornia havepaidofftheircapitaldebtbutthebulkofoperatingcapacitybeganoperations between1985and1990(33facilitieswithcombined650MWcameonlineduringthis period)(Morris2000)andanecdotalinformationsuggestsmostcapitalhasbeenrepaid formanyoftheexistingfleet.Newfacilitiesorthosestillmakingpaymentsbasedon installedcostsof$2,000/kWandfuelcostof$10to$20/bonedrytonhaveestimated COEsthatrangefrom$0.035to$0.073/kWh(Jenkins2004)and$0.044to$0.108/kWh (Morris2000).
St
ra
DP
HP
of
Conv Gas/Oil Comb Cycle Adv Gas/Oil Comb Cycle (CC) Distributed Generation -Base Distributed Generation - Peak Wind ADV CC with Carbon Sequestration Scrubbed Coal New Coal IGCC MSW - Landfill Gas Biomass IGCC (nth plant) Advanced Nuclear Coal IGCC with Carbon Sequestration Biomass Stoker Boiler Fuel Cells Geothermal Stoker Boiler - Danish Straw Design Fixed Bed Gasifer (Kokemaki)* BIGCC (Carbona India) Solar Thermal CFB Gasifier (Carbona-Skive)* CA DPPP (prelim.+ updated average) Photovoltaic MSW AD 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
MSW AD is 10-20 k$/kW
Capital Cost ($/kWe)
*Kokemki and Skive are CHP facilities-heat recovery equipment costs included Textured bars are technologies in this report, Solid bars are adapted from EIA 2004.
Figure 3.3-2. Installed costs of power generation technologies

Photo Credit: Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2004, DOE/EIA-0554
Thesecondlowestbasecasepowercostestimateis$0.056/kWhfortheFixedBedNovel GasifierCHPprojectbeinginstalledinKokemki,Finland(byCarbona).BasecaseCOEs inthisanalysisrangeupwardtotheestimated$0.133/kWhrepresentinganaveragefor theCaliforniaDairyPowerProductionProgramprojects(14proposedoroperating facilities)withafiveyearloanrepaymentperiod.TheCarbonaKokemkiandDPPP estimatesarediscussedindetailinthisreport. Thetwoprojectsthatincludecombinedheatproduction/salesareprojectsbeing constructedinEuropebyCarbona.ThesearetheCK(w/CHP)andtheCS(w/CHP) circulatingfluidizedbedgasifierfuelingreciprocatingengines.Whenheatsalesareset tozero,theCOErisessubstantiallyforeach;COEincreases0.02and0.039$/kWhforthe CKandCSprojects,respectively.Clearly,therearesignificantcostandenergy efficiencyadvantagestoCHPatthesescales. TheestimateforCOEofabiomassintegratedgasificationcombinedcycleis$0.060/kWh (projectCIinTable3.31).ThisisforaninstallationproposedinIndiabyCarbona.This
253
estimatecompareswellwithanenergycostestimatethatcanbedeterminedusingthe assumptionspublishedbytheEnergyInformationAgencyforadvancedbiomasspower plantintheAnnualEnergyOutlook(costof$1,731/kW,andalowoperationand maintenanceof$0.0094/kWh). 122 UsingtheEIAassumptions,aCOEfromBIGCCis$0.03 to$0.045/kWh.CraigandMann(1996)estimatedCOEvaluesfrom$0.051to$0.063/kWh forseveralBIGCCsystemdesigns(nocapacitypayments). ThestrawcombustionfacilityisestimatedtocostsimilartotheexistingCaliforniasolid fuelbiomasscombustionindustry(foranewfacility).Thetechnologyissimilarand specialfuelhandlingsystemsneededforstrawhavebeendevelopedoverseas.The mostvariableorvolatileparameterisstrawfuelcostanddeliveryinfrastructure. MSWanddairymanuredigestersarecostlyandrequirehighenergypricesiffinanced solelybyelectricitysales.EnergyproductioniscomparativelysmallfromADsystems (capitalcostsinthisreportforADvaryfrom$1,500to$20,000/kW).Tippingfeesand/or compostablematerialsalesrevenuesareusuallyrelieduponforfinancialviability.There arelikelycaseswherethesystemsarefinanciallyviableonenergyrevenueifthefacility isalargeelectricityconsumerandtheonsitegenerationcanoffsetretailelectricity prices.Heatrecoveryforbeneficialuseisalmostalwaysfinanciallyattractiveifthereisa convenientheatclient,suchasnearbyfoodprocessingoperation.
3.4. CFB Gasifier- Carbona Skive, Denmark CHP

Assumptions(basecase) Table3.41showsthebasicinputparameterstothemodelforthebasecase(someofthe valuesarecalculatedfromtheinputs).Capitalcostisapproximately$20million,or nearly$3,700/kWinstalled(thisishighbutincludesheatrecoveryequipment)(Patel 2004).Capacityfactor(heretakenasavailability)is91%andstationelectricalefficiency is25.7%(fromtheoperatingparametersinTable3.21).Fuelenergycontent,net efficiency,andcapacityfactorareusedtocalculatefuelconsumptionrate.Thetechnical andeconomiclifeofthefacilityisassumedtobe15years. Costs Basecasefuelcostisassumedtobe$45/dryshortton(about$30/drytonmaterialplus $15/drytonforpelletizing;fuelpriceinthemodelis$49.50perdrymetricton). 123 Fuel costintermsofnetelectricalenergyis3.4cents/kWh.Nonfueloperatingand maintenancecostsareassumedtobeabout3cents/kWh.Thenonfueloperating expensesaredefaultvaluesappropriatefortypicalcombustionboilerbiomassfacilities currentlyinoperationinCaliforniaandmaybedifferentforthiskindoffacilityusing differenttechnology(Morris2000).
122.AssumptionstotheAnnualEnergyOutlook2004,availableat: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/index.html 123.FuelpriceinDenmarkisapproximately$75/ton(unclearifshorttonormetricton). 254
Table3.42showsindividualexpensecategoriesinboth$/kWhnetelectricalenergyand annualamounts.Totaloperatingcostsusedinthebasecaseamountto6.4cents/kWhof electricitydelivered.Dependingonthelevelofautomationthatcanbeincorporatedinto thistypeoffacilityandmaintenancerequirements,operatingcostsmaybelowerthan usedinthisanalysis.

Table 3.4-1. Economic model base case parameters, Carbona-Skive
Cost and Performance Assumptions Total Capital cost ($) 20,000,000 Capital Cost ($/kW) 3,689 Net Plant Capacity (kW)e 5,421 Net District Heat Production (kW)th 11,482 Capacity Factor (%) 91 Net Station Electrical Efficiency (%) 25.7 Fuel Heating Value (kJ/kg, dry basis) 20,260 Fuel Consumption Rate (dry Mg/h) 3.748 Fuel Ash Concentration (%) 2 Annual Production (kWh)e 43,214,044 Annual Production (kWh)th 91,529,911 Annual Fuel Consumption (dry Mg/y) 29,878 Annual Ash Disposal (Mg/y) 598 Annual Hours 7972 Expenses Fuel Cost ($/dry Mg) 49.5 Fuel Cost ($/kWh)e 0.0342 Labor Cost ($/kWh) 0.0104 Maintenance Cost ($/kWh) 0.0078 Insurance/Property Tax ($/kWh) 0.0073 Utilities ($/kWh) 0.0010 Ash Disposal ($/kWh) 0.0000 Management/Administration ($/kWh) 0.0010 Other Operating Expenses ($/kWh) 0.0021 Total Non-Fuel Expenses ($/kWh) 0.0296 Taxes Federal Tax Rate (%) 34 State Tax Rate (%) 9.6 Combined Tax Rate (%) 40.3 Production Tax Credit ($/kWh) 0.009 Production Tax Credit ($yr) 388,926 Escalation/Inflation General Inflation (%/y) Escalation--Fuel (%/y) Escalation--Other (%/y) 2.80 2.80 2.80 Income other than from electricity Capacity Payment ($/kW-y) 0 Interest Rate on Debt Reserve (%/y) 7 Price heat energy ($/kWh)th 0.01877 Annual Capacity Payment ($/y) 0 Annual Debt Reserve Interest ($/y) 0 Annual heat sales ($) 1,718,138 Annual heat sales ($/kWh)electricity 0.03976 Price for Ash ($/Mg) 5 Revenue from Ash sales ($/y) 2988 Revenue from Ash ($/kWh)e 0.00007 Financing Debt ratio (%) Equity ratio (%) Interest Rate on Debt (%/y) Life of Loan (y) Cost of equity (%/y) Cost of Money (%/y) Total Cost of Plant ($) Total Equity Cost ($) Total Debt Cost ($) Capital Recovery Factor (Equity) Capital Recovery Factor (Debt) Annual Equity Recovery ($/y) Annual Debt Payment ($/y) Debt Reserve ($) Depreciation Schedule 5 Year MACRS
85.00 15 6 15 15 7 20,000,000 3,000,000 17,000,000 0.17102 0.10296 513,051 1,750,367 0
Level Annual Cost (LAC) Current $ Levelized COE ($/kWh) Constant $ Levelized COE ($/kWh) 0.075 0.062
Data collected by Robert Williams (insert contract dates); Source: Patel 2004
255
Table 3.4-2. Simple Year 0 costs and revenues for the Carbona-Skive project
($/kWh) Fuel Cost ($49.5/Mg) Labor Maintenance Insurance/Property Tax Utilities Ash Disposal Management/Admin Other Operating Exp. Total non Fuel Expenses Total Operating Expenses ($/y) 0.0342 1,478,972 0.0104 0.0078 0.0073 0.0010 0.0000 0.0010 0.0021 448,562 336,205 313,734 44,943 0 44,943 89,885
0.0296 1,278,271 0.0638 2,757,244
Debt & Equity Payment Heat Sales Revenue Requirement (simple calculation)*
0.0524 2,263,418 0.0398 1,718,138 0.0764 3,302,524
*Does not include effects of taxes, and inflation Data collected by Robert Williams (insert contract dates); Source: Patel 2004
Revenues(otherthanfromelectricity) Incomefromotherthanelectricitysalesincludeanominalamount($5/Mgorlessthan $3,000peryear)forsalesofashforlandapplicationandrevenuefromsaleofheat(or offsettingpurchaseofheatthatwouldotherwiseberequired).Therevenueforheatis conservativeandbasedondirectreplacementofnaturalgaspricedat$5.50/MMBtu ($0.55pertherm).Thecapacityfactorforheatproductionisassumedthesameasfor powerproduction(91%). Revenuefromheatsalesinthebasecaseanalysisissignificant.Itamountstonearly4 cents/kWhofnetelectricity,essentiallyoffsettingmorethan60%ofthefuelandO&M costs. Financing Thebasecaseassumesthat85%oftheprojectisfinancedat6%nominalannualinterest withequityorinvestorfinancingfortheremaining15%offirstcosts.Rateofreturn (ROR)onequityis15%/year.Nodebtreserveisheldinescrow.Thesensitivityanalysis exploreseffectsofchangesindebtratioandinterestrate.
256
Taxtreatment Theanalysisassumesfederalandstatetaxratesare34%and9.6%,respectively.Because therevenuerequirementsmethodspecifiesarateofreturn(orinterestondebtthatmust bemet),taxesmustbecomputedindirectlybecauserevenuesarenotdeterminedatthis stageoftheanalysis.ThefiveyearMACRSdepreciationscheduleisused,which typicallycreditstheprojectwithnegativetaxesinearlyyears.Inordertotake advantageofthiscredit,thecompanymustbeearningprofitsfromotherenterprises. Thisisassumedinthebasecaseandallofthesensitivityanalysesexceptforonecase whichdoesnotallownegativetaxestocredittheproject. Productiontaxcredits(PTCs)shouldbeavailableforthisproject,atleastforfive years. 124 Forclosedloopbiomassfuel(biomassnotspecificallygrownforenergy),the PTCis0.9cents/kWh.Thebasecaseanalysisincludesa$0.009/kWhPTCforthefirstfive years.TheabsenceofaPTCistreatedinthesensitivityanalysis. ResultsandSensitivity Forthebasecase,theCOEorsalespriceneededinordertomeetallexpenses,paydebt andmeettherequiredROR,is6.2cents/kWh(constantdollars),or7.5cents/kWh (currentdollars).The7.5cents/kWhistheamountthatwouldhavetobechargedfor electricityineachyearoftheproject(withnoescalationintheenergypricefortheentire 15years)inordertopayalldebtsandexpensesbytheendoftheprojectlife(assuming basecaseconditionsandescalationsforallcosts).The6.2cents/kWhCOEinconstant dollarsisthepriceofenergyrequiredforthefirstyearbutmustescalatewithinflation eachyear.Theconstantdollaramountcanbeusedtocomparetootheralternativesin yearzerodollars. Table3.43showsselectedresultsfromthesensitivityanalysis.Asmentionedbefore, salesofheatcontributesignificantlytorevenue.Ifnovalueforcombinedheatiscredited totheproject,theCOEismorethan10cents/kWh(arealprojectwithnoheat componentwouldnotneedasmuchcapitalequipmentandwouldhavelowerfirst costs).Lowercapital,orfuelcosts,withheatsalescanyieldaveryattractiveenergy priceofaround4cents/kWh(seetablebelow). GraphsshowingsensitivityofCOEtochangesindifferentvariablesappearbelow.Alist offiguresassociatedwiththesensitivityanalysisisprovidedhereforconvenience:
124.Seefootnote121onSection45. 257
Figure (in text) 3.4-1 3.4-2 3.3-3 3.4-4 Figure (in appendix) 3.4-5 3.4-6 3.4-7 3.4-8
Description Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis Current $ COE sensitivity analysis COE versus Fuel Cost COE versus non-Fuel O&M Costs
Description COE versus Debt Interest Rate COE versus Equity Ratio COE versus Electrical Efficiency Company size and PTC effects on COE
TheCOEisaboutequallysensitivetorelativechangesfromthebasecaseoffuel,O&M, andcapitalcost.Changesinanyofthesethreefactorsby10%willaffectCOEbyabout 6%.Relativechangesininterestrateontheloan(orROR)influencetheCOEtoalesser extentthanothercosts.COEisequallyalthoughinverselysensitivetoheatprice changes.
258
Table 3.4-3. Selected results of economic model for Carbona-Skive project (bold type indicates change from base case)
Parameter
Net District Heat Production (kW)th Total Capital cost Capital Cost Capacity Factor Net Station Electrical Efficiency Fuel Consumption Rate Annual Fuel Consumption Fuel Cost Labor Cost Other O&M Price heat energy Price heat energy Interest Rate on Debt Current $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements Constant $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements Current $ LAC of Energy Constant $ LAC of Energy
Units
(kWth) ($) ($/kW) (%) (%) (Mg/h) (Mg/y) ($/Mg) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh-th) ($/therm) (%) (current $)
Base Case 11,482 20,000,000 3689 91 25.7 3.7 29,878 49.5 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 3,248,063
Low Fuel Price 11,482
High Fuel Price 11,482
w/o Heat Sales 0
High Low Low High Interest Rate Conversion Capital Cost Capital Cost Loan Efficiency 11,482 11,482 11,482 11,482 20,000,000 3689 91 12.9 7.5 59,756 49.5 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 4,987,505
Equity Ratio (30% with 15% ROI) 11,482 20,000,000 3689 91 25.7 3.7 29,878 49.5 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 3,686,585
w/o PTC, Small Firm Large Firm (no 'neg. tax') 11,482 20,000,000 3689 91 25.7 3.7 29,878 49.5 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 3,425,375 11,482 20,000,000 3689 91 25.7 3.7 29,878 49.5 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 4,209,437
Moderate Case (includes PTCLarge Firm) 11,482 16,264,000 3000 80 25.7 3.7 26,267 39.6 0.0104 0.0118 0.009 0.28 6 2,962,620
20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 3689 91 25.7 3.7 29,878 24.8 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 2,376,582 3689 91 25.7 3.7 29,878 74.3 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 4,119,545 3689 91 25.7 3.7 29,878 49.5 0.0104 0.0192 0.000 0.00 6 5,272,882
12,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 2214 91 25.7 3.7 29,878 49.5 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 2,366,337 5534 91 25.7 3.7 29,878 49.5 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 4,350,221 3689 91 25.7 3.7 29,878 49.5 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 15 3,730,042
(constant $) (current $/kWh) (constant $/kWh)
2,681,040
1,961,695 0.055 0.045
3,400,384 0.095 0.079
4,352,381 0.122 0.101
1,953,239 0.055 0.045
3,590,791 0.101 0.083
3,179,783 0.086 0.074
4,116,822 0.115 0.095
3,061,797 0.085 0.071
2,827,398 0.079 0.065
3,474,584 0.097 0.080
2,445,427
0.075 0.062
0.078 0.064
Life of Project (loan/financing period) Financed amount General inflation/Escalation
(y) (%) (%)
15 85 2.8
Fuel Heating Value Net Plant Capacity Combined Tax Rate (34 Fed, 9.6 State) (kWe) (%)
20,260 5421 40.34
Data collected by Robert Williams (insert contract dates)
259
Fuel Price Efficiency Equity Ratio 0.14 0.12 COE (Constant $/kWh) 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 0.5
Heat Price Capital Cost
Capacity Factor O&M (non-fuel)
1 1.5 Factor relative to Base Case
Figure 3.4-1. Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis (Carbona Skive)

Fuel Price Efficiency O&M (non-fuel) 0.14 0.12 COE (Current $/kWh) 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 0.5
Heat Price Interest Rate
Capacity Factor Capital Cost
1 Factor relative to Base Case
1.5
Figure 3.4-2. Current $ COE sensitivity analysis (Carbona Skive)

260
Constant $
Current $
0.14 0.12 0.10 COE ($/kWh) 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 15 30 45 60 Fuel Cost ($/ton) 75 90 105
Base Case (49.5 $/Mg)
Figure 3.4-3. COE versus fuel cost (Carbona Skive)

Current $ 0.14 0.12 0.10 COE ($/kWh) 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.01
Constant $
Base Case
0.02
0.03 O&M [non-fuel] ($/kWh)
0.04
0.05
261
Figure 3.4-4. COE versus non-fuel O&M costs (Carbona Skive)

3.5. Fixed-Bed Gasifier- Carbona Kokemki, Finland CHP Plant

Assumptions(basecase) Table3.51showsthebasicinputparameterstothemodelforthebasecase(someofthe valuesarecalculatedfromtheinputs).Capitalcostisapproximately$5.5million,or nearly$3,000/kWinstalledincludingheatrecoveryequipment(Patel2004). 125 Electric systemcapacityfactor(heretakenasavailability)is91%andstationelectricalefficiency is30%(fromtheenergybalanceinTable3.22).Fuelenergycontent,netefficiency,and capacityfactorareusedtocalculatefuelconsumptionrate.Thetechnicalandeconomic lifeofthefacilityisassumedtobe15years. Costs Basecasefuelcostisassumedtobe$30/dryshortton($33/drymetrictonusedinthe model). 126 Fuelcostintermsofnetelectricalenergyis2cents/kWh.Nonfueloperating andmaintenancecostsareassumedtobeabout3cents/kWh.Thenonfueloperating expensesaredefaultvaluesappropriatefortypicalcombustionboilerbiomassfacilities currentlyinoperationinCalifornia.Table3.52showsfirstyearcostsandrevenue requirementoftheproject.Totaloperatingcostsusedinthebasecaseamounttoabout 4.9cents/kWhofelectricitydelivered.Dependingonthelevelofautomationthatcanbe incorporatedintothistypeoffacilityandmaintenancerequirements,operatingcosts maybelowerthanusedinthisanalysis. Revenues(otherthanfromelectricity) Incomefromotherthanelectricitysalesincludeanominalamount($5/t,orlessthan $900peryear)forsalesofashforlandapplicationandrevenuefromsaleofheat(or offsettingpurchaseofheatthatwouldotherwiseberequired).Therevenueforheatis conservativeandbasedonnaturalgaspriceof$0.55pertherm($5.50/MMBtu)and thermalenergycapacityfactorof60%.ThoughtheKokemkifacilityissizedtoutilize allrecoverableheatthroughouttheyear(highheatutilizationfactor),thebasecase analysishereassumesathermalenergycapacityfactorof60%. Revenuefromheatsalesinthebasecaseanalysisissignificant.Itamountstoabout2.1 cents/kWhofnetelectricity,offsettingmorethan40%ofthefuelandO&Mcosts.
125.Note:Capitalcostwasgivenas4.5millionEuros. 126.FuelforthisreactordoesnotrequirepelletizingasisthecasefortheCFBreactorspecifiedin theSkive,Denmark,project.Fuelcost,therefore,doesnotincludecostsforpelletizing. 262
Table 3.5-1. Economic model base case parameters, Kokemki, Finland, CHP Plant
Cost and Performance Assumptions Total Capital cost ($) 5,500,000 Capital Cost ($/kW) 2,996 Net Plant Capacity (kW)e 1,836 Net District Heat Production (kW)th 3,100 Capacity Factor-Power (%) 91 Capacity Factor-Heat (%) 60 Net Station Electrical Efficiency (%) 30.0 Fuel Heating Value (kJ/kg, dry basis) 20,260 Fuel Consumption Rate (dry Mg/h) 1.09 Fuel Ash Concentration (%) 2 Annual Production (kWh)e 14,635,858 Annual Production (kWh)th 16,293,600 Annual Fuel Consumption (dry Mg/y) 8,669 Annual Ash Disposal (Mg/y) 173 Annual Hours 7,972 Expenses Fuel Cost ($/dry Mg) 33 Fuel Cost ($/kWh)e 0.0195 Labor Cost ($/kWh) 0.0104 Maintenance Cost ($/kWh) 0.0078 Insurance/Property Tax ($/kWh) 0.0073 Utilities ($/kWh) 0.0010 Ash Disposal ($/kWh) 0 Management/Administration ($/kWh) 0.00104 Other Operating Expenses ($/kWh) 0.00208 Total Non-Fuel Expenses ($/kWh) 0.02958 Taxes Federal Tax Rate (%) 34 State Tax Rate (%) 9.6 Combined Tax Rate (%) 40.3 Production Tax Credit ($/kWh) 0.009 Production Tax Credit ($yr) 131,723 Escalation/Inflation General Inflation (%/y) 2.8 Escalation--Fuel (%/y) 2.8 Escalation--Other (%/y) 2.8 Income other than energy Capacity Payment ($/kW-y) Interest Rate on Debt Reserve (%/y) Price heat energy ($/kWh)th Annual Capacity Payment ($/y) Annual Debt Reserve Interest ($/y) Annual heat sales ($) Annual heat sales ($/kWh)electricity Price for Ash ($/Mg) Revenue from Ash sales ($/y) Revenue from Ash ($/kWh)e 0 7.00 0.0188 0 0 305,853 0.0209 5 867 0.0001
Financing Debt ratio (%) Equity ratio (%) Interest Rate on Debt (%/y) Life of Loan (y) Cost of equity (%/y) Cost of Money (%/y) Total Cost of Plant ($) Total Equity Cost ($) Total Debt Cost ($) Capital Recovery Factor (Equity) Capital Recovery Factor (Debt) Annual Equity Recovery ($/y) Annual Debt Payment ($/y) Debt Reserve ($)
85 15 6 15 15 7.35 5,500,000 825,000 4,675,000 0.17102 0.10296 141,089 481,351 0
Depreciation Schedule 5 Year MACRS
Level Annual Cost (LAC)

Current $ Levelized COE ($/kWh)
Constant $ Levelized COE ($/kWh) Data collected by Robert Williams (insert contract dates); Source: Patel 2004
0.068 0.056
263
Table 3.5-2. Simple Year 0 costs and revenues for the Kokemki CHP project
($/kWh) Fuel Cost ($33/Mg) Labor Maintenance Insurance/Property Tax Utilities Ash Disposal Management/Admin Other Operating Exp. Total non Fuel Expenses Total Operating Expenses Debt & Equity Payment Heat Sales Revenue Requirement 0.0195 0.0104 0.0078 0.0073 0.0010 0.0000 0.0010 0.0021 0.0296 0.0491 0.0425 0.0209 ($/y) 286,071 151,920 113,867 106,256 15,221 0 15,221 30,443 432,929 719,000 622,440 305,853
(simple calculation)*
0.0708 1,035,587
* does not include effects of taxes, and inflation Data collected by Robert Williams (insert contract dates); Source: Patel 2004
Financing AswasdoneintheCarbonaSkiveanalysis,thebasecaseassumesthat85%ofthe projectisfinancedat6%nominalannualinterestwithequityorinvestorfinancingfor theremaining15%ofcost.RORonequityis15%peryear.Nodebtreserveisheldin escrow.Thesensitivityanalysisexploreseffectsofchangesindebtratioandinterestrate. TaxTreatment Theanalysisassumesfederalandstatetaxratesare34%and9.6%,respectively.Taxes arecomputedindirectlybytherevenuerequirementsmethodusedhere(seemore explanationintheintroductionofthissection).ThefiveyearMACRSdepreciation scheduleisused,whichtypicallycreditstheprojectwithnegativetaxesinearlyyears. Inordertotakeadvantageofthiscredit,thecompanymustbeearningprofitsfrom otherenterprises.Thisisassumedinthebasecaseandallofthesensitivityanalyses exceptforonecasewhichdoesnotallownegativetaxestocredittheproject. Productiontaxcreditsshouldbeavailableforthisproject,atleastforfiveyears.For openloopbiomassfuel(biomassnotspecificallygrownforenergy),thePTCis0.9 cents/kWh.ThebasecaseanalysisincludestheopenloopPTC.TheabsenceofaPTCis treatedinthesensitivityanalysis.
264
Results Forthebasecase,theCOEorsalespriceneededinordertomeetallexpenses,debt payments,andtherequiredRORforequityinvestment,is7.1cents/kWh(current dollars),or5.8cents/kWh(constantdollars).The7.1cents/kWhistheamountthat wouldhavetobechargedforelectricityineachyearoftheproject(withnoescalationin theenergypricefortheentire15years)inordertopayalldebtsandexpensesbytheend oftheprojectlife(assumingbasecaseconditionsandescalationsforallcosts).The5.8 cents/kWhCOEinconstantdollarsisthepriceofenergyrequiredforthefirstyearbut mustescalatewithinflationeachyear.Theconstantdollaramountcanbeusedto comparetootheralternativesintodays(yearzero)dollars.Theresultingconstantdollar COE($0.058/kWh)isattractiveforasmallgeneratorandcanbeimprovedifmatched withacompatibleheatclientthatcanusemoreoftheavailableheatthanassumedinthe basecase. Sensitivity Table3.53showsselectedresultsfromthesensitivityanalysis.Asmentionedbefore, salesofheatcontributesignificantlytorevenue.Withnorevenuefromheatsales,the COEisabout7.9cents/kWh.Withimprovedheatcapacityfactor(tomatchelectrical capacityfactor),lowercapital,orlowerfuelcosts(oracombinationoffactors),aCOE below5cents/kWhcanbeachieved(seeTable3.53below). Figures3.51through3.58showrelativesensitivityofCOEtochangesindifferent variables.ThefollowingisalistofthefiguresassociatedwiththeKokemkisensitivity analysis:
Figure 3.5-1 3.5-2 3.5-3 3.5-4 Figure (in appendix) 3.5-5 3.5-6 3.5-7 3.5-8 Description Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis Current $ COE sensitivity analysis COE versus fuel cost COE versus non-fuel O&M costs Description COE versus interest rate COE versus Equity Ratio COE versus net electric power efficiency Variation of COE with tax consequences
TheCOEismostsensitivetochangesinpriceofheatcomparedtochangesinother factors(nearthebasecase).Thisisillustratedbythesteepslopeofheatpricecurvesin Figures3.51and3.52,forexample.COEisnextmostaffectedbyrelativechangesin O&Mcosts.RelativechangesinfuelpriceorcapitalcostsaffectCOEaboutequallybut toalesserdegreethanheatpriceorO&Mcosts.Relativechangesininterestrateonthe loan(orROR)influencetheCOEleastcomparedtootherfactors.Forexample,RORof 15%(insteadof6%)raisescurrentdollarsCOEfrom2.9to4cents/kWh.

265
Table3.53alsoincludesacaselabeledModerate.Thiscasegivesresultsformoderate changesfromthebasecaseforseveralfactorstogetherincluding:

Capacityfactorreducedfrom91%to85%. Heatsalespricereducedbyhalf;from0.68to0.34$/therm. Smalldecreaseinlaborcost;from0.0104to0.0100$/kWh. PTCeffectsforalargeorprofitablefirm.
TheconstantdollarCOEresultingfromtheModeratecaseis5.5cents/kWh,which maybeacceptableforcertainrenewableenergymarkets.Reducingcapacityfactorand heatsalesrevenuewillincreasetheelectricalenergyrevenuerequirements,while decreasinglaborcostsandincludingaPTCtendtodecreasetherequiredrevenue.
266
Table 3.5-3. Selected results of economic analysis for Kokemki CHP project (bold type indicates change from base case)
Parameter
Net Electrical Energy Production Net District Heat Production Total Capital cost Capital Cost Capacity Factor Net Station Electrical Efficiency Fuel Consumption Rate Annual Fuel Consumption Fuel Cost Labor Cost Other O&M Price heat energy Price heat energy Interest Rate on Debt Current $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements Constant $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements Current $ LAC of Energy Constant $ LAC of Energy
Units
Base Case
Low Fuel Price
High Fuel Price
w/o Heat Sales
Equity Ratio Low Improved Heat Low Capital High Capital High Interest Conversion (25% with Capacity Factor Cost Cost Rate on Loan Efficiency 15% ROI) (91%) 14,635,900 14,635,900 14,635,900 24,711,960 16,293,600 16,293,600 5,500,000 2,996 91 30 1 8,669 33 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 845,774 698,125 0.058 0.048 4,125,000 2247 91 30 1.09 8,669 33 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 885,564 730,969 0.061 0.050 8,250,000 4493 91 30 1.09 8,669 33 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 1,340,204 1,106,241 0.092 0.076 14,635,900 16,293,600 5,500,000 2996 91 30 1.09 8,669 33 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 15 1,161,823 990,430 0.079 0.068 14,635,900 14,635,900 16,293,600 16,293,600 5,500,000 2996 91 12 2.72 21,672 33 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 1,541,279 1,272,214 0.105 0.087 5,500,000 2996 91 30 1.09 8,669 33 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 1,117,323 926,080 0.076 0.063
w/o PTC
Small Firm (no 'neg. tax')
Moderate Case (includes PTCLarge Firm) 12,866,688 16,293,600 5,500,000 2996 80 30 1.09 7,621 26 0.0104 0.0100 0.009 0.28 6 918,406 758,077
(kWh)e (kWh)th ($) ($/kW) (%) (%) (metric ton/h) (metric ton/y) ($/t) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWhthermal) ($/therm) (%) (current $) (constant $) (current $/kWh) (constant $/kWh)
14,635,900 16,293,600 5,500,000 2996 91 30 1.09 8,669 33 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 1,037,111 856,060
14,635,900 14,635,900 14,635,900 16,293,600 16,293,600 5,500,000 2996 91 30 1.09 8,669 16.5 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 868,544 716,920 0.059 0.049 5,500,000 2996 91 30 1.09 8,669 66 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 1,374,245 1,134,339 0.094 0.078 0 5,500,000 2996 91 30 1.09 8,669 33 0.0104 0.0192 0.000 0.00 6 1,392,451 1,149,367 0.095 0.079
14,635,900 16,293,600 5,500,000 2996 91 30 1.09 8,669 33 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 1,097,164 905,629 0.075 0.062
14,635,900 16,293,600 5,500,000 2996 91 30 1.09 8,669 33 0.0104 0.0192 0.019 0.55 6 1,312,780 1,083,605 0.090 0.074
0.071 0.058
0.071 0.059
267
Life of Project (loan/financing period) Financed amount General inflation/Escalation
(y) (%) (%)
15 Nominally 85 2.8
Fuel Heating Value Net Plant Capacity Combined Tax Rate (34 Fed, 9.6 State)
(kJ/kg) (kWe) (%)
20,260 1836 40.34
268
0.12
Fuel Price Efficiency Equity Ratio
COE (Constant $/kWh)
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Factor relative to Base Case

Figure 3.5-1. Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis (Kokemki)
Fuel Price Efficiency Interest Rate 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.5
COE (Current $/kWh)
1.5
Figure 3.5-2. Current $ COE sensitivity analysis (Kokemki)

269
Current $ 0.10
Constant $
0.08 COE ($/kWh)
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00 0 15 30 45 Fuel Cost ($/ton) 60 75
Figure 3.5-3. COE versus fuel cost (Kokemki)

Current $ 0.10
Constant $
0.08 COE ($/kWh)
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00 0.01
0.02
0.04
0.05
Figure 3.5-4. COE versus non-fuel O&M costs (Kokemki)

270
3.6. Carbona India BIGCC

Assumptions(basecase) AneconomicanalysiswasperformedonaBIGCCprojectinCalifornia,similartothe CarbonaIndiaproject(i.e.,12.5MW).Figure3.61showsaschematicofthefacilityand Table310givesthebasicparametersinputtothemodelforthebasecase(someofthe valuesarecalculatedfromtheinputs).ThedesignspecifiesaCarbonaGTIpressurized circulatingfluidizedbed(CFB)reactor,warmgascleaning,twogasturbines(4.2MW each),aheatrecoveryboiler,andsteamturbine(about4.2MW).Fuelconsumptionis assumedtobe6.5dryMg/h,andnetgeneratingcapacityof12.5MW.Electrical efficiency(HHV)isestimatedat34.3%. ForthefirstfewinstallationsinCalifornia,capitalcostisassumedtobe$2,800/kW installed($35milliontotalinstalledcost).Capacityfactor(heretakenasavailability)is 90%andstationelectricalefficiencyis34.3%(HHVbasis).Fuelenergycontent,net efficiency,andcapacityfactorareusedtocalculatefuelconsumptionrate.Thetechnical andeconomiclifeofthefacilityisassumedtobe20yearswithprofit,taxes,and productiontaxcreditsconsideredintheanalysis.
STEAM TO HRSG CYCLONE
PARTICULATE REMOVAL CLEAN PRODUCT GAS WATER FROM HRSG AI
4 MWe GASIFIER GA COOLER FLY ASH AI GAS TURBINE No. COMPRESSOR BOOSTE BIOMASS WASTE 8 t/h BOOSTER COMPRESSOR BED AIR FROM GAS COOLER STACK TO COOLER 4 MWe HEAT STEAM
STEAM
4 MWe
Figure 3.6-1. Schematic of Carbona-India BIGCC facility

Photo credit: Carbona Corporation
271
Costs Basecasefuelcostisassumedtobe$30/dryshortton(assumesshreddedorchippedfuel isacceptable;fuelpriceinthemodelisforametricton).Fuelcostintermsofnet electricalenergyisabout1.8cents/kWh.Nonfueloperatingandmaintenancecostsare assumedtobeabout3cents/kWh.Thenonfueloperatingexpensesaredefaultvalues appropriatefortypicalcombustionboilerbiomassfacilitiescurrentlyinoperationin California(Morris2000).Tables3.61and3.62showexpensesinboth$/kWhofnet electricalenergyandannualamounts.Totaloperatingcostsusedinthebasecase amountto4.8cents/kWhofelectricitydelivered. Revenues(otherthanfromelectricity) Incomeotherthanfromelectricitysalesincludeanominalamount($5/Mgorlessthan $6,000peryear)forsalesofashforlandapplication.Thereisnocombinedheat production. Thebasecaseassumesacapacitypaymentof$100/kWy($1,250,000annually).The currentsolidfuelcombustionindustryinCaliforniaisreceivinganaverageof$166/kWy (about$0.02/kWh)incapacitypayment.Whetheranewfacilityisabletoobtaincapacity paymentswilldependonhowthepowerpurchaseagreementisstructured. Financing Thebasecaseassumesthat85%oftheprojectisbankfinancedat6%nominalannual interestwithequityorinvestorfinancingfortheremaining15%offirstcosts.Rateof returnonequityis15%/year.Thetechnicalandeconomiclifeofthefacilityisassumedto be20years.Adebtreserveequaltooneannualdebtpayment($2.6million)isheldin escrowwithearnedsimpleinterestreturnedtotheprojecteachyearandthedebt reserveeffectivelyusedasthefinal(year20)debtpayment. TaxTreatment Theanalysisassumesfederalandstatetaxratesare34%and9.6%,respectively.Taxes arecomputedindirectlybytherevenuerequirementsmethodusedhere(seemore explanationintheCarbonaSkivesection).The10yearMACRSdepreciationscheduleis used,whichtypicallycreditstheprojectwithnegativetaxesinearlyyears.Inorderto takeadvantageofthiscredit,thecompanymustbeearningprofitsfromother enterprises.Thisisassumedinthebasecaseandallofthesensitivityanalysesexceptfor onedealingwithPTCeffects. Productiontaxcreditsshouldbeavailableforthisproject,atleastforfiveyears.For openloopbiomassfuel(biomassnotspecificallygrownforenergy),thePTCis0.9 cents/kWh.PTCisincludedinthebasecaseanalysis.AcasewithoutPTCiscalculated toshowtheeffectonlevelizedCOE(smallbecausecreditisassumedtoonlybeavailable forthefirstfiveyears).SmallfirmsthatcannottakeadvantageofthePTCbecause depreciationalreadyreducestaxliabilitytozero(withnegativetaxes)arenotallowed.
272
Results Table3.62showstheresultsofthefirstyearCOE.TheresultinTable3.62doesnot accountforeffectsofinflation,othercostescalations,andtaxcredits. Usingtherevenuerequirementmodel, 127 thebasecaseCOEis7.6cents/kWh(current dollars),or6.0cents/kWh(constantdollars).The7.6cents/kWhistheamountthat wouldhavetobechargedforelectricityineachyearoftheprojectinordertopayall debtsandexpensesbytheendoftheprojectlife.The6.0cents/kWhCOEinconstant dollarscanbeusedtocomparetootheralternativesinyearzerodollars.
Table 3.6-1. Economic Base Case parameters for a BIGCC project in California
Cost and Performance Assumptions Total Capital cost ($) 35,000,000 Capital Cost ($/kW) 2800 Net Plant Capacity (kW)e 12,500 Net District Heat Production (kW)th 0 Capacity Factor (%) 90 Net Station Electrical Efficiency (%) 34.3 Fuel Heating Value (kJ/kg-dry basis) 20,260 Fuel Consumption Rate (dry Mg/h) 6.5 Fuel Ash Concentration (%) 2 Annual Production (kWh)e 98,550,000 Annual Production (kWh)th 0 Annual Fuel Consumption (dry Mg/y) 51,055 Annual Ash Disposal (Mg/y) 1021 Annual Hours 7884 Expenses Fuel Cost ($/dry Mg) Fuel Cost ($/kWh)e Labor Cost ($/kWh) Maintenance Cost ($/kWh) Insurance/Property Tax ($/kWh) Utilities ($/kWh) Ash Disposal ($/kWh) Management/Administration ($/kWh) Other Operating Expenses ($/kWh) Total Non-Fuel Expenses ($/kWh) Taxes Federal Tax Rate (%) State Tax Rate (%) Combined Tax Rate (%) Production Tax Credit ($/kWh) Production Tax Credit ($yr) Escalation/Inflation General Inflation (%/y) Escalation--Fuel (%/y) Escalation--Other (%/y) Income other than energy Capacity Payment ($/kW-y) Interest Rate on Debt Reserve (%/y) Price heat energy ($/kWh)th Annual Capacity Payment ($/y) Annual Debt Reserve Interest ($/y) Annual heat sales ($) Annual heat sales ($/kWh)electricity Price for Ash ($/Mg) Revenue from Ash sales ($/y) Revenue from Ash ($/kWh)e Financing Debt ratio (%) Equity ratio (%) Interest Rate on Debt (%/y) Life of Loan (y) Cost of equity (%/y) Cost of Money (%/y) Total Cost of Plant ($) Total Equity Cost ($) Total Debt Cost ($) Capital Recovery Factor (Equity) Capital Recovery Factor (Debt) Annual Equity Recovery ($/y) Annual Debt Payment ($/y) Debt Reserve ($) 85 15 6 20 15 7.35 35,000,000 5,250,000 29,750,000 0.1598 0.0872 838,748 2,593,741 2,593,741 100 3 0 1,125,000 77,812 0 0 5 5,105 5.181E-05
33 0.017096 0.01038 0.00778 0.00726 0.00104 0 0.00104 0.00208 0.02958 34 9.6 40.3 0.009 886,950 2.8 2.8 2.8
Depreciation Schedule 10 year MACRS
Level Annual Cost (LAC) Current $ Levelized COE ($/kWh) Constant $ Levelized COE($/kWh)
0.076 0.060
127.Seehttp://faculty.enigineering.ucdavis.edu/jenkins/CBC/Calculator/cal.html 273
Data collected by Robert Williams
Table 3.6-2. Simple Year 0 costs and revenues for the Carbona IGCC system
Fuel Cost ($33/Mg) Labor Maintenance Insurance/Property Tax Utilities Ash Disposal Management/Admin Other Operating Exp. Total non Fuel Expenses Total Operating Expenses Debt & Equity Payment Capacity Payment Revenue Requirement (simple calculation)* ($/kWh) 0.0171 0.0104 0.0078 0.0073 0.0010 0.0000 0.0010 0.0021 0.0296 0.0467 0.0348 0.0114 0.0701 ($/y) 1,684,810 1,022,949 766,719 715,473 102,492 0 102,492 204,984 2,915,109 4,599,919 3,432,488 1,125,000 6,907,407
* does not account for depreciation and tax affects, inflation and other cost escalations
ComparisontoOtherEstimates TheEnergyInformationAdministration(EIA)publishestheAnnualEnergyOutlook, whichincludesprojectionsofenergyproductionandmarketpenetrationoftechnologies andenergysources.Table3.63showssomeofthecostandperformanceassumptions usedtopreparetheEIAAnnualEnergyOutlook. Formodelingcostandperformanceofbiomass,EIAassumesthatanewbiomassIGCC facility,firstonlinein2010willhaveinstalledcostof$1,731/kWforacapacityof80 MW.Overallconversionefficiencyisassumedtobe38.2%.NonfuelO&Mcostsare0.94 cents/kWh. 128 LevelizedCOEusingthesecostandperformanceassumptionsis3.3 cents/kWh(constantdollars). 129 Ifnocapacitypaymentsareassumed,thenCOEwould be4.2cents/kWh.ThisislowerthantheBIGCCinCaliforniaprojectreviewedinthis reportwhichhasestimatedCOEof6.0and6.9cents/kWhwithandwithout$100/kWy
128.AssumptionstotheAnnualEnergyOutlook2004(U.S.DOE/EIA). 129.Assumesfuelcostsof$30/bdt,25%equityratio(15%ROR)and6%interestondebt, $100/kWycapacitypayment,PTCof$0.009/kWhforfiveyears,10yearMACRSdepreciation, and20yeartechnicalandeconomiclife. 274
capacitypayments.NonfueloperatingcostsassumedforCarbonaIndiafacilityadapted toCaliforniaareabout3cents/kWhcomparedtothe0.94cents/kWhassumedbyEIA. CraigandMann(1996)comparedprojectedlevelizedCOEvaluesforseveralBIGCC systemdesigns.TheconstantdollarCOEvariedfrom5.1to6.3cents/kWhdependingon thegasifiertypeandgasturbine.ThelowCOEcorrespondedtoaplantdesign specifyingalowpressureindirectlyheatedgasifierwithanadvancedutilitygasturbine withaninstalledcostof$1,108/kWandcapacityof122MW.ThehighCOEfigurewas foraplantutilizingahighpressuredirectfiredairblowngasifierandanaeroderivative gasturbine.Theinstalledcostwas$1,696/kWandcapacitywas56MW.Thefuelcostin thestudywas$42perdrytonandnocapacitypaymentswereassumed.Thesetwo differencesaccountforthehigherCOEintheCraigandMann(1996)studycomparedto thatestimatedinthisreportfortheCarbonaIndiaBIGCCprojectadjustedfor California.
Table 3.6-3. Cost and performance parameters used by EIA (Adapted from U.S. DOE/EIA)
Technology Adv Combustion Turbine Conv Gas/Oil Comb Cycle Adv Gas/Oil Comb Cycle (CC) Distributed Generation -Base Distributed Generation - Peak Wind ADV CC with Carbon Sequestration Scrubbed Coal New Coal IGCC MSW - Landfill Gas Biomass IGCC Advanced Nuclear Coal IGCC with Carbon Sequestration Fuel Cells Geothermal
3
Lead Conversion Contingency Optimism Installed Cost2 Size Time Efficiency 1 Factor (MW) Factor (2004 $/kWh) (y) (%) 230 250 400 2 1 50 400 600 550 30 80 1000 380 10 50 100 5 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 3 4 6 4 3 4 3 2 1.05 1.05 1.08 1.05 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.1 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.07 1.05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.04 1 1 1 1.02 1.05 1.03 1.1 1 1.1 1.1 489 569 646 854 1026 1066 1142 1226 1452 1551 1818 2024 2192 2270 2313 3062 4621 36.7 45.8 49.2 36.3 32.8 33.2 39.5 37.9 42.7 25.0 38.3 32.8 35.5 45.8 9.2 33.2 33.2
Solar Thermal Photovoltaic
(1) The technological optimism factor is applied to the first four units of a new, unproven design. It reflects the demonstrated tendency to underestimate actual costs for a first-of-a-kind unit. (2) Includes contingency and technical optimism factors. Does not include effect of investment tax credits (3) Estimate for least expensive plant that could be built in the Northwest Power Pool region.
Sensitivity Energycostsensitivitywasinvestigatedbymakingchangestoasinglemodelinput whileholdingallothervariablesattheirbasecasevalues.Table3.64showsselected

275
resultsfromthesensitivityanalysis.Fortheseconditionsshown,theconstantdollar COEfallsbetween5.2and8.8cents/kWh. TheModerateCaseinTable3.64hasthreevariablesthathavebeenchangedfromthe BaseCase.Theseare: CapacityFactor(availability)decreasedfrom90%to70%. Equityratioincreasedfrom15to25%. FuelPricedecreasedfrom$30to$26perton($33to$28.6permetricton).
ThefirsttwochangesaboveacttoincreasetheCOEwhilethelowerfuelpricereduces theCOE. Figures3.61through3.69showthesensitivityofCOEtochangesinmodelinputs(see listbelowandrefertoTable3.62forBaseCaseparameters).

Figure Description 3.6-2 Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis 3.6-3 Current $ COE sensitivity analysis 3.6-4 COE versus Fuel Cost 3.6-5 COE versus O&M Cost Figure (in Appendix) Description 3.6-6 COE versus Debt Interest Rate 3.6-7 COE versus Equity Ratio 3.6-8 COE versus Capacity Payment 3.6-9 COE versus Efficiency of Plant 3.6-10 Variation of COE with tax consequences
Figures3.62and3.63displaychangesinCOEagainstrelativechangesfromtheBase Caseforfuelprice,capacityfactor,plantefficiency,capitalcoast,nonfuelO&Mcosts, capacitypayment,andequityratio.Ofthese,relativechangesincapacitypaymentand equityratiohavetheleasteffectonCOE;doublingthecapacitypaymentreducesCOE byabout15%,whileeliminatingthepaymentwillincreaseCOEby15%.COEismost sensitivetorelativechangesinnonfuelO&Mcostsfollowedcloselybycapitalcost sensitivity.AdoublingofnonfuelO&MwillincreaseCOEbynearly50%.Doublingthe capitalcostincreasesCOEbyapproximately40%.Fortheremainingvariables,arelative changeof50%ineachwillinfluencetheCOEbylessthan30%fromtheBaseCase value.
276
Table 3.6-4. Selected results of economic analysis for CarbonaIndia/California BIGCC project (bold type indicates change from base case).
Parameter
Net Electrical Energy Production Total Capital cost Capital Cost Capacity Factor Capacity Payment Net Station Electrical Efficiency Fuel Consumption Rate Annual Fuel Consumption Fuel Cost Labor Cost Other O&M Interest Rate on Debt Current $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements Constant $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements Current $ LAC of Energy Constant $ LAC of Energy Units
Base Case
Low Fuel Price 98,550,000 35,000,000 2800 90 100 34.3 6 51,055 16.5 0.0104 0.0192 6
High Fuel Price 98,550,000 35,000,000 2800 90 100 34.3 6 51,055 66 0.0104 0.0192 6
Low Capital High Capital Cost Cost 98,550,000 26,250,000 2100 90 100 34.3 6 51,055 33 0.0104 0.0192 6 98,550,000 70,000,000 5600 90 100 34.3 6 51,055 33 0.0104 0.0192 6
High Interest Rate on Loan 98,550,000 35,000,000 2,800 90 100 34 6 51,055 33 0 0 15
Low Conversion Efficiency 98,550,000 35,000,000 2800 90 100 13.7
Zero Capacity High Capacity Payment Payment 98,550,000 35,000,000 2,800 90 0 34.3 6 51,055 33 0.0104 0.0192 6 98,550,000 35,000,000 2800 90 166 34.3 6 51,055 33 0.0104 0.0192 6
Equity Ratio (25% with 15% ROI) 98,550,000 35,000,000 2,800 90 100 34.3 6 51,055 33 0.0104 0.0192 6
w/o PTC, Large Firm 98,550,000 35,000,000 2800 90 100 34.3 6 51,055 33 0.0104 0.0192 6
Small Firm (no negative taxes) 98,550,000 35,000,000 2800 90 100 34.3 6 51,055 33 0.0104 0.0192 6
Moderate Case (also includes 25% equity ratio) 76,650,000 35,000,000 2800 70 100 34.3 6 39,709 28.6 0.0104 0.0192 6
(kWh)e ($) ($/kW) (%) ($/kW-y) (%) (metric ton/h) (metric ton/y) ($/t) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) (%)
98,550,000 35,000,000 2800 90 100 34.3 6 51,055 33 0.0104 0.0192 6
16.2 127,637 33 0.0104 0.0192 6
(current $)
7,511,740
6,471,372
9,592,475
6,683,853
10,823,288
8,877,573
10,623,385
8,636,740
6,769,240
7,924,783
7,861,129
8,641,445
6,362,590
5,916,727
5,097,267
7,555,647
5,264,630
8,525,114
7,377,726
8,367,658
6,802,849
5,331,887
6,286,630
6,191,928
6,806,555
5,011,583
0.076 0.060
0.066 0.052
0.097 0.077
0.068 0.053
0.110 0.087
0.090 0.075
0.108 0.085
0.088 0.069
0.069 0.054
0.080 0.064
0.080 0.063
0.088 0.069
0.083 0.065
Life of Project (loan/financing period) General inflation/Escalation Fuel Heating Value

(y) (%) (kJ/kg)
20 2.8 20,260
Net Plant Capacity Combined Tax Rate (34 Fed, 9.6 State) (kWe) (%) 12500 40.34
277
FuelcostandnonfuelO&McosteffectsareillustratedinFigures3.64and3.65, respectively. 130 TheeffectofchangesindebtinterestrateisshowninFigure3.66.Interestondebthas almostnoeffectonthecurrentdollarCOEandaveryweakeffectontheconstantdollar COE. Figure3.67depictsthechangeinCOEduetochangesintheequityratio. 131 Increasing investmentequityincreasesCOEviatwomechanisms,(1)theRORforequityishigher thaninterestrateondebt(15%comparedto6%inthemodel)and(2)increased investmentreducestaxdeductionsbecauseofsmallerloaninterestpayments.Forthis project,switchingfromborrowing85%ofthecapitaltofinancingwith100%equity (investmentwith15%ROR)increasestheCOEbyabout3.3cents/kWh(orabout0.4 cents/kWhforeach10%incrementofequityinvestment). TheeffectofcapacitypaymentonCOEisillustratedinFigure3.68.Asmentioned earlier,changesincapacitypaymenthaveafairlymildeffectonCOE(thoughstronger thaninterestondebt). ChangesinoverallplantefficiencyhaveanonlineareffectontheCOE(seeFigure3.6 9).Increasesinoverallplantefficiency(allelsebeingequal)obviouslyimprovethe economicsofthefacilitybutbecausethebehaviorisnonlinear,continuedincreasesin efficiencyyieldsmallerimprovementsinCOE.Conversely,acontinuingdeclinein efficiencyresultsindisproportionalCOEincreases. TheeffectsofproductiontaxcreditsandtaxliabilityontheBaseCaseenergypriceare showninFigure3.610.RecallthattheBaseCaseassumesthebusinesshasprofitsfrom otheroperationswhichallowsthenegativetaxes(thatresultfromtheaccelerated depreciationintheearlyyearsoftheproject)tobecreditedtotheproject.PTCsarealso abletobecreditedinfulltotheprojectforthesesocalledlargefirms.Smallfirms maynotbeabletotakenegativetaxesasacredittotheprojectandthereforedonot enjoythebenefitsofPTCswhenthereisnotaxliability(suchaswhenaccelerated depreciationreducestaxliabilitytozero).InFigure3.610,theleftmostsetofbars correspondstotheBaseCase.PTCandsmallfirmsizeeachaffecttheCOEbylessthan 15%.
130.Note:Figures3.66through3.610appearintheappendix. 131.Equityratioisthefractionofcapitalcostscoveredbyinvestmentmonies.EquityRatio(%)= 100DebtRatio(%),whereDebtRatioisthefractionofcapitalcostscoveredbyborrowedfunds. 278
0.12
Fuel Price Capital Cost Equity Ratio
Efficiency Capacity Payment
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Figure 3.6-2. Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis (Carbona India IGCC)
0.12
Fuel Price Capital Cost Equity Ratio
0.10 COE (Current $/kWh)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02 0 0.5 1 Factor relative to Base Case 1.5 2
279
Figure 3.6-3. Current $ COE sensitivity analysis (Carbona India IGCC)

0.12
Current $
Constant $
0.10
COE ($/kWh)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02 0 15 30 45 Fuel Cost ($/ton) 60 75
Figure 3.6-4. COE versus fuel cost (CarbonaIndia IGCC)

280
Current $ 0.12
Constant $
0.10 COE ($/kWh)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02 0.01
0.02
0.04
0.05
Figure 3.6-5. COE versus O&M cost (CarbonaIndia IGCC)

281
3.7. Straw Combustion Facility

Assumptions(basecase) AneconomicanalysiswasdonefortheElypowerstationdesignusingricestrawfuelat deliveredpricesinCalifornia.Thebasicpowerplantenergyrevenuerequirement calculatormodulewasused.Table3.71displaysthecompletelistofbasecase parametersusedaswellaslevelizedCOE(modeloutput).Someofthemoresignificant basecaseassumptionsaresummarizedhere:

$88Millioncapitalcost(usingEly,England,2000figures). Netcapacityis38MW. Nocogeneratedheatsales. Capacityfactoris83%basedonreportedannualenergyproductionatEly (Newman2003). Efficiencyis31.7%basedoncalculationusingElyreportedenergyproduction andfuelusage(ElyreportusesHHV[drybasis]forwheatstrawwhichisabout 17%greaterthanforricestraw,18.2MJ/kgforwheatstraw,and15.5MJ/kgfor ricestraw)(Newman2003). Deliveredfuelpriceis$34/shorttonandincludesfuelprocessing.Pricefor Californiaricestrawisdiscussedelsewhere(BakkerDhaliwaletal.1999;Jenkins andBakkerDhaliwaletal.2000;Haase2003). Themodelstandardforotheroperatingcostsisusedexceptforashdisposal whichissettozero.Thisassumesdisposalandhandlingcostsareoffsetbysales ofashbacktogrowers. Capacitypaymentof$100/kWyisused. Ashsalesarezero,butassumessmallincometooffsethandlingmentioned above. Escalationandgeneralinflationare4%,exceptforPTCescalation,whichis3%. Equityratiois20%. Debtinterestis6%,equityreturnis15%. Debtreserveofoneannualpaymentisassumed,whichearnsinterestat4%/year. Analysisperiodis20years. MACRSdepreciationscheduleis10years PTCavailabilityisfiveyears.
282
Abletotakefullcreditfromtaxdeductions(depreciationandPTCcreating negativetaxes,impliesfirmwithprofitsinotherareas).
Income other than energy Capacity Payment ($/kW-y) Interest Rate on Debt Reserve (%/y) Price heat energy ($/kWh)th Annual Capacity Payment ($/y) Annual Debt Reserve Interest ($/y) Annual heat sales ($) Annual heat sales ($/kWh)electricity Price for Ash ($/Mg) Revenue from Ash sales ($/y) Revenue from Ash ($/kWh)e Financing Debt ratio (%) Equity ratio (%) Interest Rate on Debt (%/y) Life of Loan (y) Cost of equity (%/y) Cost of Money (%/y) Total Cost of Plant ($) Total Equity Cost ($) Total Debt Cost ($) Capital Recovery Factor (Equity) Capital Recovery Factor (Debt) Annual Equity Recovery ($/y) Annual Debt Payment ($/y) Debt Reserve ($)
Table 3.7-1. Economic Base Case parameters for a rice straw power plant
Capital Cost and Performance Assumptions Total Capital cost ($) 88,000,000 Capital Cost ($/kW) 2316 Net Plant Capacity (kW)e 38,000 Net District Heat Production (kW)th 0 Capacity Factor (%) 83 Net Station Electrical Efficiency (%) 31.7 Fuel Higher Heating Value (kJ/dry kg) 15,500 Fuel Consumption Rate (dry Mg/h) 27.8 Fuel Ash Concentration (%) 18 Annual Production (kWh)e 276,290,400 Annual Heat Production (kWh)th 0 Annual Fuel Consumption (dry Mg/y) 202,379 Annual Ash Disposal (Mg/y) 36,428 Annual Hours 7271 Expenses Fuel Cost ($/dry Mg) Fuel Cost ($/kWh)e Labor Cost ($/kWh) Maintenance Cost ($/kWh) Insurance/Property Tax ($/kWh) Utilities ($/kWh) Ash Disposal ($/kWh) Management/Administration ($/kWh) Other Operating Expenses ($/kWh) Total Non-Fuel Expenses ($/kWh) Escalation/Inflation General Inflation (%/y) Escalation--Fuel (%/y) Escalation--Other (%/y) PTC escalation (%.y) Taxes Federal Tax Rate (%) State Tax Rate (%) Combined Tax Rate (%) Production Tax Credit ($/kWh) Production Tax Credit ($yr) 100 4 0 3,154,000 245,512 0 0 0 0 0
37.4 0.0274 0.01038 0.00778 0.00726 0.00104 0 0.00104 0.00208 0.02958 4 4 4 3 34 9.6 40.3 0.009 2,486,614
80 20 6 20 15 7.8 88,000,000 17,600,000 70,400,000 0.1598 0.0872 2,811,802 6,137,793 6,137,793
Depreciation Schedule 10 year MACRS used
Level Annual Cost (LAC) Current $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh) Constant $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh)
0.094 0.067
283
Results Table3.72showstheresultsforthefirstyear.Thisresultdoesnotaccountforeffectsof inflation,othercostescalations,andtaxcredits.

Table 3.7-2. Simple Year 0 costs and revenues for the rice straw power plant
Fuel Cost ($37.4/Mg) Labor Maintenance Insurance/Property Tax Utilities Ash Disposal Management/Admin Other Operating Exp. Total non Fuel Expenses Total Operating Expenses Debt Payment Equity Recovery Capacity Payment Revenue Requirement (simple calculation)* ($/kWh) 0.0274 0.0104 0.0078 0.0073 0.0010 0.0000 0.0010 0.0021 0.0296 0.0570 0.0222 0.0102 (0.0114) 0.0780 ($/y) 7,568,964 2,867,894 2,149,539 2,005,868 287,342 0 287,342 574,684 8,172,670 15,741,634 6,137,793 2,811,802 (3,154,000) 21,537,228
* does not account for depreciation and tax affects, inflation and other cost escalations Data collected by Robert Williams (insert contract dates)
Forthebasecase,thecalculatoryieldsaCOEof6.7cents/kWh(constantdollar)or9.4 cents/kWh(currentdollars).Themoderatelyhighcapitalandfuelcostscombinefora fairlyhighCOE.HalvingthefuelpricereducestheCOEtonear5cents/kWh(constant dollar).Increasingcapacitypaymenttothecurrentindustryaverage($166/kWy)will reduceCOEfrom6.7to6.0cents/kWh. Sensitivity ThesensitivityoflevelizedCOEwasinvestigatedbymakingchangestoasinglemodel inputatatime(holdingallothervariablestotheirbasecasevaluesTable3.73shows selectedresultsfromthesensitivityanalysis.Fortheconditionsshown,theconstant dollarCOEfallsbetween5.3and9.2cents/kWh.
284
Figures3.71through3.79showsensitivityofCOEtochangesinseveralofthemodel inputs(refertoTable3.71forBaseCaseparameters).
Figure 3.7-1 3.7-2 3.7-3 3.7-4 Figure (in appendix) 3.7-5 3.7-6 3.7-7 3.7-8 3.7-9 Description Constant $ COE sensitivity for a rice straw power plant Current $ COE sensitivity for a rice straw power plant COE versus Fuel Cost (rice straw plant) COE versus non-fuel O&M Cost (rice straw plant)
Description COE versus Debt Interest Rate (rice straw plant) COE versus Equity Ratio (rice straw plant) COE versus Capacity Payment (rice straw plant) COE versus Efficiency of Plant (rice straw plant) Effect of tax consequences on COE (rice straw plant)
Figures3.71and3.72showabsolutechangesinCOEagainstrelativechangesfromthe BaseCaseforfuelprice,capacityfactor,plantefficiency,capitalcoast,nonfuelO&M costs,capacitypayment,equityratio,anddebtinterestrate.Ofthese,relativechangesin capacitypaymentorequityratiohavetheleasteffectonCOE.Doublingthecapacity paymentreducesCOEbyabout11%(or0.7cents/kWh),whileeliminatingthepayment willincreaseCOEby14%.Adoublingoftheequityratiofrom20%to40%increases COEbyabout0.6cents/kWh(orsome9%). COEisaboutequallysensitivetorelativechangesinnonfuelO&Mcosts,fuelprice,and capitalcost.Adoublingofanyofthesethreevariablesincreasesrevenuerequirements byabout40%.A20%decreaseinbasecaseplantefficiency(to25.4%netstation efficiency)willincreaseCOEby10%,allelsebeingequal,whilea20%boostinbasecase efficiency(38%net)lowersCOEby6.7%. Theeffectoffullydepreciatingcapitalandapplyingproductiontaxcreditsisdisplayed inFigure3.79.Aprofitablefirmthathastaxliabilitiesfromotherenterprisescanuse thesedeductionstooffsettaxesfromallofthecompanysbusinesses.Asmallerfirm withnoothercurrentbusinesswillnotbeabletocredittheprojectwithnegativetaxes andcanusedepreciationandtaxcreditsupuntiltaxliabilityreacheszero.Thiseffective smallfirmpenaltyincreasestheprojectCOEbynearly1cent/kWh(levelizedforthe lengthoftheanalysis,Figure3.79).
285
Table 3.7-3. Selected results of economic analysis for the straw power plant (bold type indicates change from base case)
Parameter
Net Electrical Energy Production Total Capital cost Capital Cost Capacity Factor Capacity Payment Net Station Electrical Efficiency Fuel Consumption Rate Annual Fuel Consumption Fuel Cost Labor Cost Other O&M Interest Rate on Debt Current $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements Constant $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements Current $ LAC of Energy Constant $ LAC of Energy Units
Base Case
98,550,000 88,000,000 2316 83 100 31.7 28 202,379 37.4 0.0104 0.0192 6 25,929,671
Low Fuel Price 98,550,000 88,000,000 2316 83 100 31.7 28 202,379 17.0 0.0104 0.0192 6 20,461,306
High Fuel Price 98,550,000 88,000,000 2316 83 100 31.7 28 202,379 68.0 0.0104 0.0192 6 35,815,069
Low Capital High Capital Cost Cost 98,550,000 66,000,000 1737 83 100 31.7 28 202,379 37.4 0.0104 0.0192 6 23,365,658 98,550,000 176,000,000 4632 83 100 31.7 28 202,379 37.4 0.0104 0.0192 6 34,433,501
High Interest Rate on Loan 98,550,000 88,000,000 2316 83 100 31.7 28 202,379 37.4 0.0104 0.0192 15 27,928,412
Low Zero Capacity High Capacity 100% Debt Conversion Payment Payment Ratio Efficiency 98,550,000 88,000,000 2316 83 100 22.0 40.1 291,612 37.4 0.0104 0.0192 6 30,092,437 98,550,000 88,000,000 2,316 83 0 31.7 28 202,379 37 0.0104 0.0192 6 29,083,671 98,550,000 88,000,000 2316 83 166 31.7 28 202,379 37 0.0104 0.0192 6 23,848,031 98,550,000 88,000,000 2,316 83 100 31.7 28 202,379 37 0.0104 0.0192 6 23,749,220
Small Firm
(kWh)e ($) ($/kW) (%) ($/kW-y) (%) (metric ton/h) (metric ton/y) ($/t) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) (%) (current $)
98,550,000 88,000,000 2316 83 100 31.7 28 202,379 37.4 0.0104 0.0192 6 28,402,265
18,436,416
14,548,320
25,465,094
16,613,361
24,482,777
21,347,872
21,396,210
20,678,961
16,956,336
16,535,783
20,194,470
0.094 0.067
(y) (%)
0.074 0.053
20 4
0.130 0.092
0.085 0.060
0.125 0.089
0.101 0.077
0.109 0.077
0.105 0.075
0.086 0.061
0.086 0.060
0.103 0.073
Life of Project (loan/financing period) General inflation/Escalation
Fuel Heating Value (kj/kg) 15,500 Data collected by Robert Williams (insert contract dates)
Net Plant Capacity Combined Tax Rate (34 Fed, 9.6 State)
(kWe) (%)
38000 40.34
286
Fuel Price Capital Cost Equity Ratio 0.14
0.12 COE (Constant $/kWh)
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04 0 0.5 1 1.5 Factor relative to Base Case 2
Figure 3.7-1. Constant $ COE sensitivity for a rice straw power plant
Fuel Price Capital Cost Interest on Debt 0.14
Capacity Factor O&M (non-fuel) Equity Ratio
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04 0 0.5 1 Factor relative to Base Case 1.5 2
Figure 3.7-2. Current $ COE sensitivity (rice straw power plant)

287
Current $
0.14 0.12 COE ($/kWh) 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0 15 30
Constant $
45
60
75
Fuel Cost ($/ton)
Figure 3.7-3. COE versus Fuel Cost (rice straw plant)

Current $ 0.14
Constant $
0.12 COE ($/kWh)
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04 0.01
0.02
0.04
0.05
Figure 3.7-4. COE versus non-fuel O&M Cost (rice straw plant)
288
3.8. MSW AD Systems

3.8.1 Review of Cost and Performance Data for Green Waste and MSW Digestion
Recentliteratureandreportswerereviewedforcostandperformancedataofseveral MSWandgreenwasteADsystems.SummariesofthisinformationappearinTables3.8 1and3.82.Thisinformationwasusedtoestimatesomeoftheinputstotheeconomic model. Theeconomicmodelrequiresafactorformethaneproductionpermassofinput feedstock.Table3.81listssomerecentliteraturevaluesformethaneproduction achievedinoperatingsystems(i.e.,theDrancolistingsandtheRWBeckreportwhich containsareviewofEuropeanfacilities).ProjectedvaluesfortheAPSUCDdigesterand genericfacilitiesaretakenfromrecentreports,andanengineeringthesis.
Table 3.8-1. Reported and projected average methane production for MSW-AD systems at 34% biogas to electricity conversion efficiency
Facility or Report R. W. Beck-Iowa Report average RIS Intl. Report to SMUD-Option 1 DRANCO - Brecht I APS - Channel Islands projections RIS Intl, Report to SMUD-Option 7 DRANCO Brecht II APS - UCD projections DRANCO -Salzberg DRANCO - Bassum DRANCO - Kaiserslautern Source R. W. Beck (2004) Kelleher (2005) De Baere (2000) McOuat and Gill (2004) Kelleher (2005) De Baere, (2000) Hartmann (2004) De Baere, (2000) De Baere, (2000) De Baere, (2000) Averages Biogas Production (ft^3/ton input) 2208 2900 3299 3081 3544 4003 3306 4323 4708 5444 3697 CH4 Productio 3 n (m /Mg) 42.1 49.8 56.7 57.7 60.9 68.8 73.4 74.3 80.9 93.6 66.8 Biogas Energy per Ton Input (Gross) (MMBtu) 1.31 1.56 1.77 1.80 1.90 2.15 2.29 2.32 2.53 2.92 2.10 (MJ) 1387 1643 1869 1904 2008 2268 2418 2449 2667 3084 2200 (kWh)* 131 155 176 180 190 214 228 231 252 291 208
CapitalCosts Capital,labor,andotheroperatingcostsforMSWdigestersystemsgatheredfromthe literaturearepresentedinTable3.82.Capitalcostestimatesvarywidely.Someofthe differencesareduetotechnology.Differencesmayalsodependonhowfaralongthe technologicallearningcurvetheprocessdeveloperwaswhenthefacilitywasbuilt.A thirdexplanationforcapitalcostdifferencesreportedintheliteratureisduetofeedstock characteristics,degreeofpretreatmentrequired,andwhatportionofhandlingandpost digestionstabilizationinfrastructureisattributedtotheproject.Thislastfactorprobably contributesmosttocapitalcostdifferencesamongthecomparisons.
289

Table 3.8-2. Cost Data used to determine base case model inputs. Capital Cost Facility or Report
Capacity Digester
O&M Labor
($/ton) (% of installed cost)
Proportion of Installed Cost Digeste r Plant (%) Genset (%)
(kt/y)
Total (M $) 6.9 24.5 2.1 5.5 2.3 15.0 16.9 7.4 12.8 3.9 11.3 4.6 16.8 31.0 55.0 Averages
($/ton capacity ) 690* 245 382 550 200 197 221* 206 186 260 514 104* 305 310 275 307
($/Mg capacity ) 761* 270 421 607 221 217 244* 227 205 287 567 115* 336 342 303 339
Engine O&M ($/kWh)
Whyte & Perry (2001) Whyte & Perry (2001) Kompogas- Volketswil, Switzerland (2000) (Kelleher 2005) Kompogas (1998) (Edelmann et al. 2000) APS- UCD APS- Channel Islands
10 100 5.5 10 11.5 76 76 36 69 15 22 44 55 100 200
in O&M 6.53 6.53* 3.55 2.88
4.00 3.00 3.00* 2.25 2.25
81.0 100 90.2* 87.7 87.5
19.0 9.8* 12.3 12.5
0.0150 0.0150* 0.0125 0.0125
APS- Channel Islands w/power production R. W. Beck small R. W. Beck large DRANCO-Bassum (1996) DRANCO-Kaiserslautern (1997) DRANCO - Rome (1999) DRANCO-Brecht II (1998) RIS - small RIS - large
8.63 6.12 5.57
2.70 2.70 2.83
84.7 83.3 85.23
15.3 16.7 14.8
0.0138
* Not used to calculate average Cost does not include power production
Capitalcostsforthesefacilitiesdoenjoyeconomiesofscale,mostnotablybetween10 and100,000t/yearcapacities.Ingeneral,facilitiesbelow20to25thousandt/year capacityhaveinstalledcostsbetween$400and$700pertonofcapacityaccordingto thesedata.TheexceptionsinthisdatasetaretheUCDAPSproposalfortheUCD campuswhichhasanestimatedcostof$200/toncapacityandtheDrancoBassumfacility whichwasinstalledforabout$260/toncapacity(escalatedto2004dollars).Thevaluefor theDrancoRomefacilityseemsverylowandprobablydoesnotincludeallassociated costs.Facilitieswithcapacitylargerthan75,000t/yearareprojectedtohavecapitalcosts betweenabout$200and$300pertonofcapacity.RISInternationalLtd.estimatescapital costsofabout$300and$275pertonofcapacityfor100,000and200,000t/yearfacilities anddependingonwhetherthefacilityisbuiltasanisolatedunitorcolocatedwithan existingwastehandlingfacility(Kelleher2005). InterestingistheprojectedcostfortheAPSChannelIslandsdesign(capacity76,000 t/year)atabout$200tonofcapacity.ThesmallerAPSproposalforUCDisalso
290
estimatedat$200pertonofcapacity.Thisisnotanexhaustivereviewofcostdataand furtherinvestigationisrecommended.Figure3.81presentssomeofthecapitalcost information.
Whyte&Perry (2001) RWBeck Iowa Report

800 700 Capital Cost ($/ton capacity) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 50
Kompogas Dranco (post 1995)
APS RIS Report to SMUD
100 150 Capacity (kt/y)
200
250
Figure 3.8-1. Capital costs vs. capacity for green waste and MSW AD systems
OperatingandMaintenanceCosts O&Mcostsincludelabor,buildingandplantmaintenanceandconsumables,insurance andpropertytaxes,andenginegeneratoroperationscosts.Laborcostestimatesvary fromabout$3tomorethan$8.50pertonprocessed.Differencesdependonhowsupport andadministrationcostsareallocatedandotherassumptionsusedtoderivethenumber ofemployeesrequiredtooperateandmanagethefacility. Forexample,intheeconomicevaluationsectionoftheR.W.BeckIowareport,one managerandthreelaborersareassumedtooperatealargefacility(69,000t/year),anda managerwithtwolaborersforthesmallerfacility(36,000t/year).ThenumbersintheR. W.Beckreportworkouttoaboutoneshiftof9or10hoursperdayandsixdaysper week(11,200personhoursperyearorabout5.6fulltimeemployees(FTE)forthe69,000 tonfacility).Theyear1laborvaluesusedintheR.W.Beckanalysisisapproximately $200,000,orabout$3/tonprocessed.R.W.Beckbasedthesenumbersforunitsoflabor onsimilarlysizedfacilitiesoperatinginEurope.
291
TheHMHanalysisoftheAPSChannelIslandsproposaluses12FTEforoperationsand 2FTEforgeneralservicesandadministration.Itisunclearhowmanyshiftsperdayare assumed(itappearstobetwoorthree),butmostlyfivedayweeksareusedintheir analysis(laborcostsworkouttobeabout$6.60/tonprocessed). TheRISconsultantreporttoSMUDestimateslaborcostsfrom$6to$9pertonprocessed dependingonfacilitysizeandwhethercertainfunctionsaresharedwithacolocated wastefacility.The$6/tonprocessedlaborcostcorrespondstoa200,000t/yearfacility with27FTEemployed(24tooperate,basedonthreeshifts,and3FTEadministration). The100,000t/yearfacilityuses16FTEtooperatewith3FTEinadministration(19FTE total)andhasalaborcostof$8.63/tonprocessed.A50,000t/year facilityisestimatedto require9FTE(sevenoperational,twoadministration)basedontwoshiftsperday costing$9/tonprocessedinlabor.Figure3.82plotspertonlaborcostestimates. ManyofthefacilitiesinEuropeoperateusingasingleshiftof8to12hoursperday duringasixdayweek.Materialreceivingandprocessingatthesefacilitiesis accomplishedduringthesingledailyshift,muchlikeatanMRForlandfill.Thedigester itselfdoesnotneedconstanthumanattentionandgasenginescanoperateunattended. Processmonitoringatnightisautomated.Duringoffhours,atechnicianisoncalland canbepagedautomaticallybytheprocesscontrolandmonitoringsystemifhuman interventionisrequired. Withthatinmind,thenumberofFTErequiredintheAPSChannelIslandsandtheRIS analysescanlikelybereducedoncereliableoperationisachieved .
RWBeck Report APS - Channel Islands RIS Analysis This Report
10 9 8
Labor Costs ($/ton)
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 50 100 150 200 250

Annual Capacity (kt/y)
Figure 3.8-2. Digester plant labor costs from several sources

292
EngineandPlantO&M Reciprocatinggasenginegeneratorsetstypicallyhaveoperatingcostsbetween$0.01 and$0.015perkWhofelectricitygenerated.Thedigesterandbalanceofplanthavebeen assignedannualO&Mcostsbetween2.3%and4%ofthedigesterinstalledcost(thus enginegeneratoranddigester/balanceofplantO&Mcostsareseparatedintheanalysis). Table3.82(above)showsthesplitoftotalcapitalcostsbetweentheenginegeneratorset andthedigesterplant.Thedigesterplantaccountsforbetween81%and88%oftotal capital(theaverageis85%withtheremainingallocatedtotheenginegenerator). Balanceofplant,buildingmaintenance,utilities,taxes,etc.togetherhasannualcostsof between3and5%oftotalinstalledcapital(lessenginegeneratorcapitalcost).
3.8.2 Economic Analysis of Generic MSW AD System

AgenericMSWADprocesswasmodeledtodetermineannualrevenuerequiredto meetalldebt,operatingexpense,andprofitobligations.Twobasecasescenarioswere considered:(1)atippingfeewasassumedandthelevelannualenergyrevenue(costof energyorCOE)wasdetermined;and(2)anenergysalespricewassetandtherequired revenuefromtippingfeeswasdetermined.ResultsofScenarios1and2appearbelow. ParametersforthebasecaseofScenarios1and2arefoundinTable3.83.Thefacilityis assumedtoprocess100,000tonsperyearofmostlygreenwastematerial.Capitalcostis assumedtobe$275/toncapacity.Methaneproductionis0.056m 3/kgoffeedstock(wet basis)and10%oftheproducedbiogasisconsumedintheprocessforheatingpurposes andtheremainderisconvertedtoelectricityat34%efficiency(HHVbasis).Thirtyper centofthegeneratedelectricityisconsumedbytheplantleaving70%availablefor energysales. Basecaseexpensesamountto$16.70perwettonofinput.Thisincludeslaborcostsof $5.50/ton,digesterO&Mof$6.90/ton,aswellasenginegeneratorO&M,insurance, propertytax,etc.ThedigesterO&Mis2.9%ofdigesterplantcapital(excludescapitalfor engine).EnginegeneratorO&Mare$0.0138/kWhofgrossgeneration.Insurance, propertytax,andprofessionalservicesare0.5%oftotalcapital.A5%contingencyis addedtoexpenses. Thebasecasescenariosassume85%ofthecapitalcost($23.4million)isborrowedatan annualinterestrateof6%foratermof20years.Theremaining15%($4.1million)is financedbyequityinvestmentwitharequiredRORof15%.Thisresultsinaneffective costofmoney(oreffectiveinterestrate)of7.35%/year.Theinterestontheequitythatis returnedrepresentstheprofitforthefacility.Annualdebtandequitypaymentstotal $2.7millionperyear,or$27/t.Nodebtreserveisusedintheanalysis. Combinedfederalandstatetaxrateis40.3%basedonfederalandstatetaxratesof34% and9%,respectively.A0.9cent/kWhPTCisappliedtoelectricitysalesforthefirstfive years.The10yearmodifiedacceleratedcostrecoverysystem(MACRS)depreciation
293
scheduleisused.ThePTCanddepreciationtypicallyremoveallincometaxliabilitydue totheprojectinearlyyearsandcanreducethecompanystaxliabilityfurtherifthe companyhasotherprofitable(taxable)enterprises.Theeconomicanalysesassumethe businessisprofitableinotherareaswhichallownegativetaxestobecreditedtothe project(thereforereducingrevenuerequirements). Generalinflationandpriceescalationratesaresetat2.1%peryear.Allexpenses,the PTC,compostsales,tippingfee(inthecaseofCOEdetermination),andelectricitysales price(inthecaseofrequiredtippingfeedetermination)escalateatthisrate. Thesolidresiduesaredewateredto50%moisturecontentandsoldfor$5/Mg ($5.50/ton)ascompostorsoilamendment.Otherincomeincludestippingfeerevenue forthematerialreceivedforprocessingandelectricitysales.Thevalueforeachinthe basecasedependsontheScenario(1or2)andarediscussedbelow(basecaseeconomic modelingassumptionsandresultsareshowninTable3.83below). Scenario 1-Generic MSW AD: COE Determination Given a Tipping Fee ForalevelizedCOEdeterminationforthegenericMSWADsystem,asettippingfeefor thematerialprocessedisassumed.Thetippingfeeusedis$26/tonofmaterial,whichis basedonthepublishedfeeforselfhaulmaterialtotheKieferlandfill. 132 Thefulltipping feeiscreditedtotheprojectandanypreparationorprocessingcostsareassumedtobe accountedforintheplantO&Mcharge. TheresultinglevelizedCOEforScenario1is10.1cents/kWhand8.4cents/kWh(current dollarandconstantdollarvaluesrespectively).SeetheScenario1ResultsinTable3.83. Scenario 2-Generic MSW AD: Determination of Required Tipping Fee Given an Electricity Sales Price ForadeterminationofthelevelizedtippingfeerequiredforthegenericMSWAD system,anelectricitysalespriceof5.3cents/kWh 133 wasassumed(andallowedto escalateat2.1%peryear). TherequiredtippingfeeforScenario2is$34.7/tand$29.0/t(currentdollarandconstant dollarvaluesrespectively).SeetheScenario2ResultsinTable3.83.
132.http://www.sacgreenteam.com/facilities/kieferrates.htm 133.Thispriceapproximatestheeffectivepriceofelectricityreceivedbyprojectsparticipatingin theCaliforniaDairyPowerProductionProgramthatchosesetenergypriceratherthancapital costbuydown. 294
Table 3.8-3. Generic MSW AD system economic assumptions and Scenario 1 & 2 results
Performance Assumptions Annual Wet Feedstock Consumption Methane Production Fraction of biogas used for heat or steam Gross Efficiency--Biogas to Electricity Gross Electrical Capacity Fraction of Electricity consumed on site Net Electrical Capacity Capacity Factor Annual Gross Electricity Generation Net Electricity available for sale (kWh/yr) Annual Sludge production (ton/y) (m3/kg Wet Feedstock) (%) (%) (kWe) (%) (kWe) (%) (kWh) (kWh/yr) (t/y -50% moisture) 100,000 0.056 10 34 1792 30 1254 100 15,696,049 10,987,234 43,203 43,818 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 34 9.6 0.009 40.34 5 238,166 TBD TBD TBD TBD Scenario 1 Results If Tip Fee is set at: Then Tip Fee Income Generated is: ($/t) ($/y) 26 2,600,000 Required Electricity Sales Price (Levelized COE) (Current $/kWh) (Constant $/kWh) 0.101 0.084 Depreciation Schedule 10 year MACRS used Debt ratio Equity ratio Interest Rate on Debt Economic Life Cost of equity Cost of Money Total Equity Cost Total Debt Cost Capital Recovery Factor Capital Recovery Factor Annual Equity Recovery Annual Debt Payment Debt Reserve Debt Payment and Equity Recovery Debt Payment and Equity Recovery Labor Cost Digester Plant Op & Maintenance Cost Insurance/Property Tax/utilities/professional Engine Operating Expenses Contingency Total O&M Expenses Total O&M Expenses Financing (%) (%) (%/y) (y) (%/y) (%/y) ($) ($) (Equity) (Debt) ($/y) ($/y) ($) ($/y) ($/t) 85 15 6 20 15 7.35 4,126,737 23,384,841 0.1598 0.0872 659,294 2,038,797 0 2,698,091 27 ($/y) ($/y) ($/y) ($/y) (@5%) ($/y) ($/ton input) 550,000 686,139 137,558 216,605 79,515 1,669,817 16.7 Capital Cost Total Facility Capital Cost Capital and Operating Costs ($/ton annual capacity) ($) 275 27,511,578
Liquid water, waste or re-use in (t/y) process Escalation/Inflation General Inflation (%/y) Escalation for Production Tax (%/y) Credit Escalation--Sludge sales (%/y) Escalation--Other (%/y) Taxes Federal Tax Rate (%) State Tax Rate (%) Production Tax Credit ($/kWh) Combined Tax Rate (%) Income Sales price for Compostable Stream Annual Income from Compost Sales Tipping fee Annual Income from Tipping fee Energy Price Electricity sales ($/t) ($/y) ($/t) ($/y) ($/kWh) ($/y)
Scenario 2 Results If Electricity Sales Price is set ($/kWh) 0.053 at: Required Levelized Tip Fee Then Energy Income ($/y) 582,323 Generated is: Data collected by Robert Williams (insert contract dates)
(Current $/ton) (Constant $/ton)
34.70 29.00
295
Comparison with Other Studies R.W.Beckestimatedrequiredtipfeesforrevenueneutraloperationofa70,000t/year MSWADfacilitytobeonlyabout$16/ton(noprofitortaximplicationsintheanalysis). Theanalysisassumedcapitalcostsofabout$200/toncapacity,$3/inputtoninlabor,and $7.20/inputtonforotherO&Mexpenses.RevenueintheR.W.Beckanalysisincluded $241,000forelectricitysales($0.031/kWhor$3.50/inputton)and$485,000forsludgeor digestatesales(32,350tonsat$15/ton).Thesludgesalesamountto$7/tonofinputto digester.R.W.Beckuseda20yeareconomiclife,3%annualinflation,anda5%discount rate(orinterestrateondebt)intheiranalysis.R.W.Beckassumedmethaneproduction ofapproximately1,350ft3/inputton(orabout2,200ft3/inputtonofbiogas).Grossand netelectricitygenerationwas9,000and7,770MWh/year,respectively.Thisimpliesa facilityparasiticloadofonly14%whichislowerthanreportedbyothers(SeeTable3.8 4). ThelowercapitalandO&Mcostsandthehighervalueassumedfortheresidueanda possiblyinflatednetelectricityvaluelikelyaccountforthelowrequiredtippingfee determinedbyR.W.Beck(Table3.84). TheRISInternationalreporttoSMUDinvestigatedseveraloptionsthatessentiallydiffer incapitalcosts(highforgreenfieldsiteormoderateforcolocationwithexistingwaste handlingfacility),andwhetherthedigestateischargedafeefordisposal(inthecaseof notcolocatedwithandowningacompostfacility)orzerofee/revenue(inthecaseofco locationwithcompostfacilityandcompostprocessingequalsitsrevenue). Option1intheRISestimatesamuchhigherrequiredtippingfee($68/ton)foreconomic viabilityofADofprimarilygreenwastefeedstock(at100,000tonsperyear)thanthe genericcaseanalyzedinthisreport.Itappearstheanalysisisbeforetaxand depreciationconsequencesareconsideredanddoesnotincludeownerprofit.TheRIS analysisassumescapitalcostis$310/toncapacityanduses$24.60/tonforO&Mofwhich $8.60/tonislaborcost.Electricityissoldfor$0.065/kWhandsludgeordigestateis disposedatacostof$25/ton.Theeconomiclifeis15yearsusing6.4%interestoncapital anda2%rateofinflation. TheRISOption7isananalysisofanADsystemcofedbygreenwasteandfoodwaste andcollocatedwithanexistingwastehandlingfacilitywhichallowscapitalandsome operatingcoststobeshared.Inaddition,Option7doesnotchargedigestatedisposal feestotheprojectbecausecompostingoccursonsiteasanaftertreatment.Theratioof greentofoodwastewasnotgivenbutgasproductionperinputmasswasincreasedby 22%.TheOption7capitalcostis$275/toncapacity(amortizedamountisequivalentto $29/toninput).Theoperatingcostsare$19/ton(ofwhich$6.15/tonislabor).The requiredtippingfee(beforetaxconsequencesandownerprofit)is$41whichassumes electricityissoldat$0.065/kWh.RISOption7ismoreinlinewiththegenericMSW ADanalysisinthisreportwhichhadabeforetaxandprofitrequiredtipfeeof$35/ton.
296
ThetwomostsignificantassumptiondifferencesintheRISanalysiscomparedtothat doneinthisreportaretheO&Mcostsandthevaluefortreateddigestate(seeTable3.8 4).TotalO&MintheRISanalysisis47%greaterthanthatusedinthisreport($24.60/ton comparedto$16.70/ton).TheRISanalysisassumesthedigestateandresidualmaterial incursadisposalfeewhilethisreportandtheR.W.Beckanalysisassumethematerial hasvalueandgeneratesastreamofincome. O&Miscomposedoflaborcostsandequipmentmaintenanceandconsumablescosts. ThelaborcostsassumedbyRIStendtobehigh(Option1isabout55%/tongreaterthan thoseusedinthisreport:$8.60/toncomparedto$5.50/ton).TheRISanalysisassumes aroundtheclockstaffingforsevendaysperweekwhichmaynotbenecessary.Waste pickupanddeliveriesusuallyoccurduringdaytimehoursonly.Feedstockpreparation anddigesterloadingcanalsobedoneusuallyinasingleshiftperday.Thedigesterand engineoperationcanbeautomated(alarmconditionscannotifyoncallstaffincaseof emergencies).FacilitystaffingisalsoaddressedaboveinthegeneralO&Msection. Theequipment,consumables,propertytax,andinsuranceportionoftheannualO&M chargeis5.2%oftotalcapitalintheRISanalysiswhile4.2%isusedinthisreport.This differenceonapercentbasisismagnifiedsomewhatbecauseofthehighercapitalcost assumedbyRIS(TheR.W.Beckanalysisuses3.6%ofcapitalfornonlaborO&M,which, whencombinedwiththemuchlowercapitalcost,resultsinarelativelysmallO&M charge). TheRISanalysis(Option1)assumedtheADfacilitywaslocatedandownedseparately fromacompostorlandfilloperation.Therefore,theresidue/digestateismodeledasa wasteproductthatreenterstheMSW/greenwastemarketandissubjecttoa$25/ton tipping/hauling/processingcharge.Theanalysisassumed65%(massbasis)oftheinput feedstockwindsupaseitherdigestateoruntreatedresidue.Effectively,thedisposal costsareequivalenttoanaddedfeeof$16.25/tonofinputmaterial(65%multipliedby $25/residueton).TheRSIOption7ismoreviablebecauseitiscollocatedwithawaste andcompostfacilitywhichreducescapitalandlaborcosts.Thebiggestcontributionto theviabilityofOption7(comparedtoOption1)comesfromtheabilitytodirectlyuse (ordispose)thedigestateinthecollocatedcompost(orlandfill)facilitywithnofee attached.Thisdirectlyreducestheprojectrequiredtipfeefortheprojectbymorethan $16/ton. ThisreportassumedtheADfacilityislocatedwithacompostfacilityownedand operatedbythesameorganization.Therefore,thedigestate/residuefractionhadavalue of$5/ton(representingtheprofitafterundergoingaerobicstabilization).Theincome generatedfromsaleofcompostedresidueinthisanalysisamountstoabout$2.40/tonof inputfeedstock.
297
Table 3.8-4. Comparison of performance and economic parameters used in three economic analyses of MSW AD systems
RIS Intl. Report to SMUD Parameter Capacity Capital Cost Analysis Period Effective Interest Rate or Cost of Money Annual Capital and Equity Payments Capital and Equity Payment per input ton Labor Non - Labor O&M Total O&M Digestate or Residue Ratio of Digestate:Input Digestate sales or disposal (negative) Digestate Revenue (Disposal Cost) per ton input Methane Production Gross Electricity Generation Parasitic Load Net Electricity for Sale Net Electricity per ton input Electricity Price Electricity Income Pre-Tax Required Tip Fee After Tax Required Tip Fee Units (tons per year) ($/ton-capacity) (years) (%) ($ 000) ($/ton) ($/ton) ($/ton) ($/ton) (tons) (-) ($/ton) ($/ton) (ft^3/ton) (MWh) (%) (MWh) (kWh/ton) ($/kWh) ($/ton) ($/ton) (constant $/ton) This Report
(Generic system)
RWBeck 69,000 200 20 5.00 1,029 14.91 3.00 7.20 10.20 32,364 0.47 15.00 7.04 1,347 9,038 14 7,767 113 0.031 3.49 15 ?
Option 1Mod. Capital cost, Residue Disposal fee
Option 7Ave. Capital cost, No Disposal fee
100,000 275 20 7.35 2,698 26.98 5.50 11.20 16.70 52,504 0.53 4.54 2.38 1,793 15,696 30 10,987 110 0.053 5.82 35 29
100,000 310 15 6.40 3,272 32.72 8.60 16.00 24.60 65,000 0.65 (25.00) (16.25) 1,595 13,923 38 8,588 86 0.065 5.58 68 ?
100,000 275 15 6.40 2,925 29.25 6.15 12.90 19.05 70,000 0.70 0 0 1,950 17,017 31 11,700 117 0.065 7.61 41 ?
Sensitivity Analysis SensitivityanalysesoftheScenario1and2resultsweredonebyvaryingasingleinput parameterwhilekeepingallotherinputsatthebasecasevalue.Theseresultsare discussedanddisplayedinasetofgraphswhichfollow. Figure3.83displaysrequiredtipfeeversuselectricitysalespriceforfourdifferent facilitycapitalcosts($250,$275,$300,and$350/tofannualcapacity).Thesecurveswere generatedfromtheeconomicmodelusingbasecaseparametersdiscussedaboveand showninTable3.83(basecasecapitalcostis$275/tannualcapacity).
298
Capital Cost ($/ton capacity)
250
275
300
350
50 45
Scenario 1
Required Tip Fee ($/ton)
40 35 30 25 20 15
250 $/t capital cost
Scenario 2
350 $/t capital cost
10 0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Electricity Price ($/kWh)

Figure 3.8-3. Required tip fee vs. electricity sales price for different capital costs of MSW AD systems
Scenario1SensitivityAnalysisDiscussion Forconvenience,alistofthegraphsdisplayingScenario1costofenergy(COE) sensitivityresultsisprovided:

Figure 3.8-4 3.8-5 3.8-6 3.8-7 3.8-8 3.8-9 3.8-10 Figure (in appendix) 3.8-11 3.8-12 3.8-13 Description Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis (MSW AD Scenario 1) Current $ COE sensitivity analysis (MSW AD Scenario 1) COE versus Tipping Fee (MSW AD Scenario 1) Current $ COE versus capital cost (MSW AD Scenario 1) COE versus compost sales price (MSW AD Scenario 1) COE and energy capacity vs. biogas production (MSW Scenario 1) COE versus electric parasitic load (MSW AD Scenario 1) Description COE versus equity ratio (MSW AD Scenario 1) COE versus interest rate on debt (MSW AD Scenario 1) COE versus O&M costs (MSW AD Scenario 1)
TheCOEcalculationisexceptionallysensitivetonettippingfee.The$26/tontippingfee usedinthecalculationisthepublishedvalueforselfhaulratestothepublic. Commercialwastehaulershavelikelynegotiatedlowertippingfees.Alowertippingfee

299
orafeedstockprocessingcostwillsignificantlyimpacttheCOE.Forexample,witha $20/ttippingfee(insteadofthe$26/tusedinthebasecase),theCOEincreasesto13.8 cents/kWh(constantdollar).Thisisanincreaseofmorethan60%inCOEfora23% decreaseintippingfee.Notethatatatippingfeeofapproximately$35.50/t,theCOEis zero(Figure3.84). COEisalsoquitesensitivetosmallrelativechangesincapitalcost.A10%changein capitalcostwillimpactCOEby32%. 134 Sensitivityofrequiredrevenuetochangesin O&Mcostislowerthanfortippingfeeandcapitalcosts,yetstillsignificant.For example,a10%changeinO&MaffectsCOEbyabout18%.AreductioninO&Mcosts fromthe$16.70/tbasecasetoabout$7/twillreduceenergyrevenuerequirementsto zero(meaningtippingfeeandcompostsalesaresufficienttomeetfinancialobligations). TheCOEismuchlesssensitivetochangesintheotherparametersusedinthemodel. Refertothefiguresbelow.
134.ChangesinCapitalCostalsoaffecttheO&Mchargeinthemodel.TheO&Mchargeis composedoftwocomponentsthatscalewithcapitalcost(about3%ofdigesterplantcapital)and electricalgeneration.O&Mcostsalsoincludecomponentsthatdonotvaryinthesensitivity analysis(e.g.,wages,insurance,utilities,andpropertytaxes).Thelargestsinglecomponentof O&MisthedigesterplantO&M,whichaccountsformorethan40%ofBaseCaseO&M. 300
Tipping Fee Capital Cost Equity Ratio

0.30
Biogas/ton input O&M Labor Cost
Elect. Parasitic Compost Sales
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10 0 0.5
1.5
Figure 3.8-4. Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis (MSW AD Scenario 1)

0.30
Tipping Fee Capital Cost Interest on Debt
Biogas/ton input O&M Equity Ratio
COE (Current $/kWh)
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10 0 0.5 1 Factor relative to Base Case 1.5 2
Figure 3.8-5. Current $ COE sensitivity analysis (MSW AD Scenario 1)

301
Current $ 0.30
Constant $
0.20 COE ($/kWh)
0.10
0.00
Base Case is $26/t
-0.10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Tipping Fee ($/short ton)

Figure 3.8-6. COE versus Tipping Fee (MSW AD Scenario 1)
Tipping Fee: 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 100 150
$13/ton
$26/ton
$39/ton
COE (Current $)
200 250 300 350 Capital Cost ($/ton-annual capacity)
400
450
Figure 3.8-7. Current $ COE versus capital cost (MSW AD Scenario 1)

302
Current $
0.30
Constant $
0.20 COE ($/kWh) 0.10 0.00 0 3 6 9 12 15 Compost Sale s Price ($/short ton)
Figure 3.8-8. COE versus compost sales price (MSW AD Scenario 1)

Current $
Constant $
Net Capacity
0.30
4,000
COE ($/kWh)
0.20
3,000 Capacity (kW)
0.10
2,000
0.00 0 30 60 90 Biogas Production (m^3/Mg Feedstock)
1,000 120
Figure 3.8-9. COE and energy capacity vs. biogas production (MSW AD Scenario 1)
303
Current $ 0.30
Constant $
COE ($/kWh)
0.20
0.10
0.00 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Internal Electricity Consumption (% of gross generation)

Figure 3.8-10. COE versus electric parasitic load (MSW AD scenario 1)
Scenario2SensitivityAnalysisDiscussion AswithScenario1,asensitivityanalysisofrequiredrevenuewasdonebyvaryinga singleinputparameterwhilekeepingallotherinputsatthebasecasevalue.Theresults arediscussedanddisplayedinasetofgraphswhichfollow.Forconvenience,alistof thegraphsisprovided:

Figure 3.8-14 3.8-15 3.8-16 3.8-17 3.8-18 3.8-19 Figure (in Appendix) 3.8-20 3.8-21 3.8-22 3.8-23 Description Constant $ Required Tip Fee sensitivity analysis (MSW AD scenario 2) Current $ Required Tip Fee sensitivity analysis (MSW AD scenario 2) Required Tip Fee vs. Electricity Price (MSW AD scenario 2) Required Tip Fee vs. Capital Cost (MSW AD scenario 2) Required Tip Fee vs. Compost Sales Price (MSW AD scenario 2) Required Tip Fee & electrical capacity vs. biogas production (MSW AD scenario 2) Description Required Tip Fee vs. Electrical Parasitic Load (MSW AD scenario 2) Required Tip Fee vs. Equity Ratio (MSW AD scenario 2) Required Tip Fee vs. Debt Interest Rate (MSW AD scenario 2) Required Tip Fee vs. O&M Costs (MSW AD scenario 2)
Therequiredtippingfee(givenasetelectricitypriceof5.3cents/kWh)ismostsensitive torelativechangesincapitalcost.Thisisnotsurprisingsincecapitalrepaymentisthe largestexpense(thedebtandequityYear1paymentamountto$27.00/tandenergyand

304
compostsalesamounttoonly$8.20/tinthefirstyear).Arelativechangeincapitalcosts affectsrequiredtippingfeebythesamerelativeamount(i.e.,a1%changeincapital costschangesrequiredtippingfeeby1%aswell). ThesecondmostsignificantfactoraffectingrequiredrevenueareO&Mcostswhich amountto$16.70/tforthefirstyear(seeFigures3.814and3.815).Arelativechangein O&Mcostsof1%affectsrequiredtippingfeebyabout0.6%. Therequiredtippingfeeisfairlyinsensitivetothesalespriceofelectricity.Forexample, doublingthesalespriceofelectricityto10.6cents/kWhreducesrequiredtippingfeeby about20%(to$23.30/tfromthebasecase$29.00/t). Tippingfeeisevenlesssensitivetorelativechangesintheothervariablesinvestigated (equityratio,biogasproduction,compostsalesprice,anddebtinterestrate)(seefigures 3.814and3.815).
Electricity Price Capital Cost Equity Ratio Biogas/ton input O&M Labor Cost Elect. Parasitic Compost Sales
60 Required Tipping Fee (Constant $/ton) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0
0.5
1.5
Figure 3.8-11. Constant $ required tipping fee sensitivity analysis (MSW AD Scenario 2)
305
Electricity Price Capital Cost Interest on Debt 60 Required Tipping Fee (Current $/ton) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.5
Biogas/ton input O&M Equity Ratio
1.5
Figure 3.8-12. Current $ required tipping fee sensitivity analysis (MSW AD Scenario 2)
Current $ 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.00
Constant $
Required Tipping Fee ($/ton)
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
Electricity Sales Price ($/kWh)

Figure 3.8-13. Required tipping fee vs. electricity price (MSW AD Scenario 2)
306
O&M ($/ton): 60
16
32
Required Tipping Fee (Constant $/ ton)
50
40
30
20
10
0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Capital Cost ($/ton-annual capacity)
Figure 3.8-14. Required tipping fee vs. capital cost (MSW AD Scenario 2)
Current $ 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 3 6
Constant $
12
15
Compost Sales Price ($/short ton)

Figure 3.8-15. Required tipping fee vs. compost sales price (MSW AD Scenario 2)
307
Current $
Constant $
Net Capacity
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 30 60 90 Biogas Production (m^3/Mg Feedstock)
4,000
3,000 Capacity (kW) 2,000 1,000 120
Figure 3.8-16. Required tipping fee & electrical capacity vs. biogas production (MSW AD Scenario 2)
3.8.3 Anaerobic Phased Solids (APS) Digester

Assumptions ApreliminaryeconomicanalysisandriskassessmentfortheproposedCSUChannel IslandsAPSdigesterfacilitywasevaluatedbyHMHEnergyResources,Inc.(Larkspur, California)(McOuatandGill2004).Theanalysisconcludedtheprojecthasarateof returnabovetheminimumrequiredbuttheeconomicsareverysensitivetochangesin theassumptions(forexample,tippingfee,capitalcosts,gasproduction).The recommendationbyHMHwasthatCSUChannelIslandsshouldnotpursuetheproject untilsatisfiedwiththeperformanceofthe3ton/daypilotplantnearingcompletionat theUCDcampus. BecausetheChannelIslandsfacilitywouldsellbiogastoanotherfacility,economicsof electricitygenerationwerenotincludedintheHMHreview.Forthemostpart,the analysisinthisreportusesthesameeconomicandoperationalassumptionsusedinthe HMHanalysis,butinstead,thebiogasisusedforfuelinreciprocatingengine generators. AdjustmentsandadditionstotheeconomicassumptionsfoundintheHMHreviewin ordertocomputeCOEaregivenhere:
Thecapitalandoperatingcostofgenerationequipmentwasaddedtotheother costsdetailedintheHMHreview.
308
Salariesandwageswerereducedby20%. Inflationandgeneralescalationchangedfrom3%to2.1%. A20eartechnicalandeconomiclifeisused(insteadof15). Adebtratioof85%(6%interestrateondebtand15%RORonequity). Nowatersalesintheproject.
Theseadjustments/additionsareapplicabletoamoregeneralsituationratherthanthe specificconditionsfoundatCSUChannelIslands. Usingthesamemethaneproductionpermassoffeedstock(asintheHMHanalysis),this facilityshouldbeabletogenerateabout1,560kW(gross,capacityfactor=100%).The costofgenerationequipmentaddedtothe$15.25milliondigesterplantis$1.66million (basedonarecentquoteof$1.060/kWwith$0.015/kWhO&MbyCaterpillarEngine Company)(Zughbi2005). Itwasassumedthat80%ofthegrossgenerationisavailableforsaleoruseoutsideofthe digesterfacility(i.e.,20%parasiticload). Twoscenarioswereinvestigated:(1)thecompanyisprofitablewithtaxableincomefrom otherenterpriseswhichallowthenegativetaxesgeneratedinearlyyearsby depreciationanda$0.009/kWhPTCforfiveyearstobecreditedtotheproject;and(2) thecompanyissmall,withperhapsthisprojectbeingitsonlyventure,andcannotutilize deductionsandcreditsoncetaxliabilityreacheszeroforanygivenyear. Results Tables3.85and3.86showtheassumptionsandoperationalparametersforScenarios1 and2,respectively.ForScenario1,thelevelizedCOEis$0.080/kWh(constantdollars). Scenario2hasalevelizedCOEof$0.102/kWh(constantdollars).Theabilitytomakefull useoftaxcreditsandcapitaldepreciation(typicallyforlargerfirms),reduceselectricity costby$0.02/kWh.However,theCOEforbothscenariosareprobablytoohighto competeontheopenmarket,butmayallowaprojecttobeeconomicalifthepoweris usedonsitetooffsethighretailelectricity. Basecasecashflowsappearintheappendix. Sensitivity SensitivityanalysesweredoneandtheresultsarepresentedinFigures3.824through 3.827forScenario1andFigures3.828through3.831forScenario2. AswithotherMSWADsystems,theCOEisextremelysensitivetochangesintipping fee.A10%changeintippingfeeinverselychangestheCOEbymorethan20%.Inother words,anincreaseintippingfeefromthebasecase$27/tonto$30/tonwilldecreasethe Scenario1COEfrom$0.08to0.062/kWh.Similarly,areductionintippingfeefrom$27 to24/tincreasesCOEfrom$0.08to0.098/kWh.
309
TheCOEisalsoquitesensitivetothecapitalcosts.A10%reductionincapitalcostswill reduceCOEbymorethan20%.SensitivityofCOEtoO&Mcostsisabout1.5:1,ora10% moveinO&McostschangesCOEbyabout15%.COEislesssensitivetochangesinsales ofcompostabledigestatematerial. ThehighdegreeofCOEsensitivitytotippingfee,capitalcosts,andO&Mcostsisdueto therelativelysmallenergyproduction(and,therefore,electricityrevenue)fromAD systems.Therevenuestreamsfromtippingfeeandcompostsalesareabouttwicethatof theelectricity.Together,thedebtpayment,equityrecovery,andexpensesamountto3.3 timestherevenuestreamfromenergy.Changesinanyofthemajorexpenseornon energyrevenuestreamshaveamagnifiedeffectonCOE.
310
Table 3.8-5. APS digester Scenario 1 base case, (full use of tax reductions)
Capital Cost and Performance Assumptions
Annual Wet Feedstock Consumption (Mg/y) Annual Wet Feedstock Consumption (ton/y) Digester Plant Cost ($) Engine Generator Cost ($) Total Facility Capital Cost ($) Complete Cost ($/ton annual capacity) Gross Electrical Capacity (kWe) Net Electrical Capacity (kWe) Parasitic Load (kWe) Capacity Factor (%) Methane Production (m3/kg Wet Feedstock) 3 Annual Methane Production (m /y) Fraction of biogas used for heat or steam (%) Gross Efficiency--Biogas to Electricity (%) Annual Gross Electricity Generation (kWh) Net Electricity available for sale (kWh/yr) Annual Sludge production (t/y -50% moisture) Liquid water, waste or re-use in process (t/y) 69,160 76,251 15,250,276 1,658,002 16,908,278 222 1564 1251 313 100 0.0577 3,990,532 0 34 13,701,979 10,961,583 32,420 33,963
Income
Electricity Capacity Payment ($/kW-y) Electricity Sales Price ($/kWh) Electricity sales (or offset) $/y Interest Rate on Debt Reserve, if any (%/y) Sales price for Compostable Material ($/Mg) Net Tipping Fee ($/t) [after $9/ton processing cost] Annual Capacity Payment ($/y) Net Water sales price ($/100 gallons) Annual Debt Reserve Interest ($/y) Annual Income from Compost Sales Annual Income from Tipping fee ($/y) Income from Water sales ($/y) Non-Energy Total Income ($/y) Non-Energy Total Income ($/t wet feedstock) 0 Model Output Model Output 2.0 13.20 18 0 0 0 330,274 1,372,169 0 1,702,458 22.3 85.00 15.00 6.00 20 15.00 7.35 2,536,242 14,372,036 0.1598 0.0872 405,194 1,253,020 0 1,658,213 21.7
Financing
Debt ratio (%) Equity ratio (%) Interest Rate on Debt (%/y) Economic Life (y) Cost of equity (%/y) Cost of Money (%/y) Total Equity Cost ($) Total Debt Cost ($) Capital Recovery Factor (Equity) Capital Recovery Factor (Debt) Annual Equity Recovery ($/y) Annual Debt Payment ($/y) Debt Reserve ($) Debt Payment and Equity Recovery ($/y) Debt Payment and Equity Recovery ($/t)
Expenses
Labor Cost ($/y) Digester Plant Op & Maintenance Cost ($/y) Insurance/Property Tax/utilities/professional ($/y) Engine Operating Expenses ($/y) Contingency Total Expenses ($/y) Total Expenses ($/ton input) 497,921 457,508 84,541 205,530 62,275 1,307,776 17.2
Escalation/Inflation
General Inflation (%/y) Escalation for Production Tax Credit (%/y) Escalation--Sludge sales (%/y) Escalation--Other (%/y) 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10
Depreciation Schedule
10 year MACRS used
Levelized Required Energy Revenue

Level Annual Revenue Required (current $) 1,043,733 874,065 Level Annual Revenue Required (constant $)
Taxes
Federal Tax Rate (%) State Tax Rate (%) Production Tax Credit ($/kWh) 34.00 9.60 0.009
Revenue Requirement (COE)

(Current $/kWh) (Constant $/kWh)
0.095 0.080
Combined Tax Rate (%) 40.34 Data collected by Robert Williams (insert contract dates)
311
Tipping Fee 0.30
Capital Cost
Compost Sales
O&M Costs
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10 0 0.5 1 1.5 Factor relative to Base Case 2
Figure 3.8-17. Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis (APS, Scenario 1)

312
Tipping Fee 0.30
Capital Cost
Compost Sales
O&M Costs
0.10
0.00
-0.10 0 0.5 1 Factor relative to Base Case 1.5 2
Figure 3.8-18. Current $ COE sensitivity analysis (APS, Scenario 1)

313
Current $ 0.30
Constant $
0.20 COE ($/kWh)
0.10
0.00
-0.10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Tipping Fee ($/short ton)
Figure 3.8-19. COE versus tipping fee (MSW AD, Scenario 1)

Net Tipping Fee: 0.30
$4.5/ton
$18/ton
$31.5/ton
0.20 COE (Current $)
0.10
0.00
-0.10 100 150 200 250 300 350 Capital Cost ($/ton-annual capacity)
Figure 3.8-20. Current $ COE versus capital cost (MSW AD, Scenario 1)
314
Table 3.8-6. APS digester Scenario 2 base case, (no negative taxes)
Capital Cost and Performance Assumptions
Annual Wet Feedstock Consumption (Mg/y) Annual Wet Feedstock Consumption (ton/y) Digester Plant Cost ($) Engine Generator Cost ($) Total Facility Capital Cost ($) Complete Cost ($/ton annual capacity) Gross Electrical Capacity (kWe) Net Electrical Capacity (kWe) Parasitic Load (kWe) Capacity Factor (%) Methane Production (m3/kg Wet Feedstock) Annual Methane Production (m /y) Fraction of biogas used for heat or steam (%) Gross Efficiency--Biogas to Electricity (%) Annual Gross Electricity Generation (kWh) Net Electricity available for sale (kWh/yr) Annual Sludge production (t/y -50% moisture) Liquid water, waste or re-use in process (t/y)
3
Income
69,160 76,251 Electricity Capacity Payment ($/kW-y) Electricity Sales Price ($/kWh) Electricity sales (or offset) $/y Interest Rate on Debt Reserve, if any (%/y) Sales price for Compostable Material ($/Mg) Net Tipping Fee ($/t) [after $9/ton processing cost Annual Capacity Payment ($/y) Net Water sales price ($/100 gallons) Annual Debt Reserve Interest ($/y) Annual Income from Compost Sales Annual Income from Tipping fee ($/y) Income from Water sales ($/y) Non-Energy Total Income ($/y) Non-Energy Total Income ($/t wet feedstock) 0 Model Output Model Output 2.0 13.20 18 0 0 0 330,274 1,372,169 0 1,702,458 22.3
15,250,276 1,658,002 16,908,278 222 1564 1251 313 100 0.0577 3,990,532 0 34 13,701,979 10,961,583 32,420 33,963
Financing
Debt ratio (%) Equity ratio (%) Interest Rate on Debt (%/y) Economic Life (y) Cost of equity (%/y) 85.00 15.00 6.00 20 15.00 7.35 2,536,242 14,372,036 0.1598 0.0872 405,194 1,253,020 0 1,658,213 21.7
Expenses
Labor Cost ($/y) Digester Plant Op & Maintenance Cost ($/y) Insurance/Property Tax/utilities/professional ($/y) Engine Operating Expenses ($/y) Contingency Total Expenses ($/y) Total Expenses ($/ton input) 497,921 457,508 84,541 205,530 62,275 1,307,776 17.2
Cost of Money (%/y) Total Equity Cost ($) Total Debt Cost ($) Capital Recovery Factor (Equity) Capital Recovery Factor (Debt) Annual Equity Recovery ($/y) Annual Debt Payment ($/y) Debt Reserve ($) Debt Payment and Equity Recovery ($/y)
Escalation/Inflation
General Inflation (%/y) Escalation for Production Tax Credit (%/y) Escalation--Sludge sales (%/y) Escalation--Other (%/y) 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10
Debt Payment and Equity Recovery ($/t)
Depreciation Schedule
20 year Straight-Line used
Levelized Required Energy Revenue

Level Annual Revenue Required (current $) Level Annual Revenue Required (constant $) 1,324,195 1,108,936
Taxes
Federal Tax Rate (%) State Tax Rate (%) 34.00 9.60
Revenue Requirement (COE)

(Current $/kWh) (Constant $/kWh) 0.121 0.101
Production Tax Credit ($/kWh) 0.009 Combined Tax Rate (%) 40.34 Data collected by Robert Williams (insert contract dates)
315
Tipping Fee 0.30
Capital Cost
Compost Sales
O&M Costs
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10 0 0.5 1 1.5 Factor relative to Base Case 2
Figure 3.8-21. Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis (APS, Scenario 2)

Tipping Fee 0.30
Capital Cost
Compost Sales
O&M Costs
0.10
0.00
-0.10 0 0.5 1 Factor relative to Base Case

316
1.5
Figure 3.8-22. Current $ COE sensitivity analysis (APS, Scenario 2)

317
Current $
0.30
Constant $
0.20 COE ($/kWh)
0.10
0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 Tipping Fee ($/short ton)

Figure 3.8-23. COE versus tipping fee (MSW AD, Scenario 2)
Net Tipping Fee: 0.30
$4.5/ton
$18/ton
$31.5/ton
0.20 COE (Current $)
0.10
0.00
-0.10 100 150 200 250 300 350 Capital Cost ($/ton-annual capacity)
Figure 3.8-24. Current $ COE versus capital cost (MSW AD, Scenario 2) 318
3.9. Dairy Manure Power Systems

Background Recentlegislation(SB5X)appropriatedmoniesforassistingdairiesinCaliforniainthe installationofsystemstocreatepowerfromdairywastes.Thisledtotheestablishment oftheDairyPowerProductionProgrambytheCaliforniaEnergyCommissioninorder toencouragethedevelopmentofbiologicallybasedanaerobicdigestionandgasification (biogas)electricitygenerationprojectsintheState.Objectivesincludedeveloping commerciallyprovenbiogaselectricitysystemstohelpCaliforniadairiesoffsetthe purchaseofelectricity,andprovidingenvironmentalbenefitsthroughreductionofair andgroundwaterpollutantsassociatedwithstorageandtreatmentoflivestockwastes. Approximately$10millionwasavailableincludingprogramadministrationcosts. WesternUnitedResourceDevelopment,Inc.(WURD)wasselectedbytheEnergy Commissiontomanagetheprogram.Theprogramcanprovidetwotypesofassistance forqualifyingdairybiogasprojects:(1)buydowngrantsthatcoverapercentageofthe capitalcostsoftheproposedbiogassystem;or(2)incentivepaymentsforgenerated electricity.Ingeneral,buydowngrantscoveramaximumofupto50%ofthecapital costsofthebiogassystembasedonestimatedpowerproduction,nottoexceed $2,000/kWinstalled,whicheverisless.Electricitygenerationincentivepaymentsare basedon5.7cents/kWhofelectricitygeneratedbythedairybiogassystempaidoutover amaximumoffiveyears.Thetotalcumulativepaymentsundertheincentivepayment routeareintended(afterfiveyears)toequaltheamountoffundingthatwouldbe providedforanequivalentlysizeddigestertoelectricitysystemunderthebuydown approach.
3.9.1 Determining Costs

Actualcostsfortheseprojectsarenotyetdocumented.Thecostswereestimatedinthe grantproposalswhichservedasthebasisfordeterminingtheawardamount.Grant paymentsaresubjecttoinvoicestobesubmittedbytheprojectowners.Complete invoicesarenotyetavailableforreview. Theestimatedcosts,generationcapacitiesandotherinformationfortheprojectsinthe DPPParelistedinTable3.91.Theestimatedcapitalcostsrangeis$1,470to6,000/kW. Thevalueof$1,470/kWseemslowsinceenginegeneratorsetsalonecostbetween$600 and$1,200(ormore)/kWdependingonsize,heatrecoveryandemissioncontrol equipment,etc.Thecostonaperheadbasisis$180to$860perlactatingcow.The costsperkWcapacitydonotcorrelatewiththecostsperanimalbecausenotallofthe informationisbelievedtobeconsistent.Forexample,someofthedesigncapacitiesare basedonafutureprojectedherdsizeand/ornotalloftheexistinglactatingcowsatthe dairyarenecessarilyservedbythedigestersystem.
319

Table 3.9-1. California Dairy Power Program estimated costs and capacities
Number of Lactating Cows

175 237 1050 1258 1600 6000 5081 1100 600 770 1900 1500 4700 7200
System Type
Cov'd lagoon Cov'd lagoon Cov'd lagoon Cov'd lagoon Cov'd lagoon Cov'd lagoon Cov'd lagoon Mixed Plug flow Plug flow Plug flow Plug flow Plug flow PF -2 stage Averages
Estimated Capacity (kW)

30 75 120 150 160 250 300 100 130 150 160 260 563 1000 246
Estimated Costs
($/kW)
2500 1811 3017 1530 4831 6000 4298 5820 3764 4413 3281 1469 2747 4565 3575
($/animal)
Grant Amount
Estimated Total Cost
Totals
PF = Plug Flow Data collected by Robert Williams (insert contract dates)
429 $37,500 $75,000 573 $67,900 $135,800 345 $181,000 $362,000 182 $114,779 $229,557 483 $320,000 $772,925 250 $500,000 $1,500,000 254 $600,000 $1,289,520 529 $200,000 $582,000 815 $244,642 $489,284 860 $300,000 $661,923 276 $262,449 $524,898 255 $190,925 $381,850 329 $773,175 $1,546,350 634 $2,000,000 $4,565,000 444 $413,741 $936,865 $5,792,370 $13,116,107
Morespecificoperationalandbettercostdataareneededinordertodoadetailed analysis.Recentprogressreportswithupdatedcostandthreemonthsofperformance dataareavailablefromtheEnergyCommission. 135 Threeofthefacilitiesdiscussedinthe reportutilizeacoveredlagoonforthedigesterandonefacilityisaplugflowsystem. Thedairysizesrangefrom250to5,350averagenumbersoflactatingcows.Twofacilities estimategasproductionisabouttwicewhattheinstalledenginecanconsumeandarein theprocessoforareconsideringaddingenginegeneratorcapacity.Ifmoreengine capacityisadded,theestimatedtotalinstalledcostforthesefoursystemsis$3,000to $4,500/kW.Table3.92displayssomeofthecostandperformanceinformationinthe recentprogressreports.
135.DPPP90dayevaluationreports(PublicationNos.CEC5002005114,115,116,and117. Availableat:http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/renewable/finalreports.html 320

Table 3.9-2. Updated cost and performance information from four DPPP dairies
DPPP Dairy Installed Ave. Est. Gas Est. Ave Final Installe Operatin Cost -w/ number HRT Capacit Engine Prodn. Power/co Powe Capital d Cost g Cost sufficient lactatin (days) y (kWe) eff. (ft^3/cow/d w r (kW) Cost ($) ($/kW) ($/kWh) capacity g cows ) (Kw/cow) ($/kW) 5,351 1,608 34 40 19 34 300 160 160 75 255 129 106 26 0.32 0.25 0.21 0.24 41 88 32 60 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.11 2.7 M 800,000 800,000 336,362 9,000 5,000 5,000 4,485 0.027 0.006 0.007 0.005 4,351 2,932 5,000 4,485
Cottonwood Castel. Bros.
Meadow 2,133 -brook Blakes Landing 247
Thereisreadilyavailableinformationfordairydigestersplannedandoperatinginthe upperMidwest(Kramer2004).TheBiogasCasebookbyKramercontainsinformation onanumberofdigesterfacilitiesdesignedforanimalmanureintheGreatLakesregion. Mostofthefacilitiesaredairies,butswineandpoultrymanuredigestersareincludedas well.Table3.93containsasummaryofinformationformostoftheoperatingor planneddairydigestersystemsintheCaseBook.Thecostinformationisreportedbythe projectdeveloperorestimatedbyKramer.Thecostsforthesefacilitiesrangefromabout $2,400to$5,900/kWandabout$400to$1,100perlactatingcow.

Table 3.9-3. Estimated costs and capacities for dairy digester systems in the Midwest (Kramer 2004).
Number of Lactating Cows

840 1,000 675 1,400 875 1,100 3,400 900 910 1,000 1,000 2,400 3,200 3,750
System Type
PF PF PF PF PF PF PF M M PF PF M VPF PF
No. of Stages 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Estimated Capacity (kW)

135 140 130 260 135 200 700 750 750 200 200 375 750 600 Averages
Estimated Costs
($/kW)
2630 3571 3858 5869 3852 3500 2429 3673
($/animal)
423 500 743 1090 594 636 500 641
Estimated Total Cost

$355,000 $500,000 $501,500 $1,526,000 $520,000 $700,000 $1,700,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $ 828,929
2 2
PF = Plug Flow, VPF = Vertical Plug Flow, M = Mixed tank NA = Not Available *Figures 3.9-1 through 3.9-4 display some of the information in Tables 3.9-1 and 3.9-2. Data collected by Robert Williams (insert contract dates)
321
Figure3.91showsestimatedcosts($/kW)versusdesignorestimatedcapacity.There doesnotappeartobeaneconomyofscaleifalldigestertypesarelumpedtogether.For thecoveredlagoondesignsinCalifornia,itappearsthatcostperinstalledkWincreases withcapacity,contrarytoexpectations.Areviewoftheactualcostdatawhenavailable isrecommendedbeforeanyconclusionscanbemaderegardingthisapparenttrend. Plugflowdesigns(PF)intheMidwesthaveasimilarcosttrend,butagain,further investigationsarewarranted.CaliforniaPFdesigns,andMidwesttwostagePFsdo seemtotrendtolowercostwithlargercapacity(Figure3.91),butagain,becauseofthe uncertaintyinthedatathesmallnumberoffacilitiesinthedataset,andtherelatively narrowrangesofsizesbuilt,noconclusionscanbemadeatthistime. Figure3.92showscostonaperanimalbasisversusnumberofanimalsatthefacility. Thedataaresomewhatlessscatteredbutthereseemstobeatrendtowardslowercost withincreasingherdsize. Figure3.93displaystotalcapacityversusnumberofanimals.Asexpected,capacity increaseswithnumberofanimals.Figure3.94showstheperanimalcapacity (kW/animal)comparedwithherdsize.Thereappearstobeaweaktrendtolower kW/animalwithlargerherdsizewhichisalsocounterintuitive.Onemightexpectbetter manurecollectionefficiencywithlargeroperations.TheweaktrendinFigure3.94 mightreflectspecificationofoversizedgeneratingcapacitiesinanticipationof increasingherdsizesometimeinthefuture.
CA- Covered Lagoon CA- PF, 2 stage 7000 6000 Estimated Cost ($/kW) 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Estimated Capacity (kW) CA- Mixed MidW est - PF CA- PF MidW est - PF, 2 stage
Figure 3.9-1. Estimated installed costs versus capacity for California and Midwest dairy digesters 322
CA - Covered Lagoon CA - PF, 2-stage 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 1000 2000
CA - Mixed MidWest - PF
CA - PF MidWest - PF, 2-stage
Cost ($/animal)
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Number of Lactating Animals

Figure 3.9-2. Dairy digester costs versus number of animals
CA - Covered Lagoon CA - PF, 2-stage

1200 1000 Estimated Capacity (kW) 800 600 400 200 0 0 1000 2000
CA- Mixed MidWest - PF
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Figure 3.9-3. Estimated total capacity versus number of animals for dairy digesters 323
324
CA - Covered Lagoon CA - PF, 2-stage

0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 1000 2000
CA - Mixed MidWest - PF
Estimated Capacity (kW/Animal)
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Figure 3.9-4. Estimated capacity per animal versus number of animals for dairy digesters
DPPPCOEEstimates CostofenergyestimatesfortheCaliforniaDPPPprojectswiththehighest($6,000/kW) andlowest($1,469/kW)capitalcostestimatesweremade.Theassumptionsinclude85% percentcapacityfactor,25%equityratio,6%loaninterestrate,15%returnonequity,15 yeareconomiclife,anda$0.009/kWhproductiontaxcreditforthefirstfiveyears. O&Mcostsareassumedtobe$0.02/kWh.Thisincludesenginegeneratorcostsof $0.015/kWh.Foreachscenario,thetotalO&Mcostsareabout$37,200forthefirstyear. ThefiveyearMACRSdepreciationschedulewasusedandthenegativetaxesfrom depreciationanddebtinterestareallowedorcreditedtotheproject.Combinedstateand federaltaxrateis40.34%. Thoughtheeconomiclife(andtechnicallife)wasassumedtobe15years,estimateswere madefortwoloanrepaymentperiods:oneat10yearsandanotherat15years.Also includedaretheresultsforCOEusingafiveyearloanandinvestmentrecoveryperiod whichapproximatesrevenuerequiredforafiveyearsimplepayback.
325
Results Forthelowcapitalcostscenario,theconstantdollarCOErangedfrom3.5cents/kWh (forthelowcapitalcostamortizedover15years)to10.0cents/kWhforthelargecapital costcasewitha10yearloanrepaymentperiod.Forthemidlevelcapitalcost ($3600/kWh),COEwasabout6.4cents/kWh(Table3.94). If40%oftheengineexhaustandcoolingwaterheatarerecovered(annualbasis),then COEisloweredbyroughly1.5cents/kWh(assumingdisplacementofnaturalgaspriced at$5.50/MMBtu. Forrecoveryofallinvestmentandloanamountsafter5years,thelevelizedCOEis approximately6,13,and21cents/kWhforthelow,midlevel,andhighcapitalcostcases, respectively(Table3.94). Figure3.95displaystherelationshipofCOEtocapitalcostusingdifferentloanperiods andprojectlifetimes.Forprojectswithsimplepaybackperiodoffiveyears(i.e.,five yearloanandrevenuessufficienttopayloanandoperatingcostsinthefirstfiveyears), theCOEisquitesensitivetocapitalcost,
326
Table 3.9-4. Economic parameters for California DPPP for highest, lowest, and midpriced project
Parameter Capital Cost Net Estimated Capacity Capacity Factor " Energy Production O&M Debt ratio Equity ratio Interest Rate on Debt Cost of Equity General inflation/escalation Total Cost of Plant Total Equity Cost Total Debt Cost Depreciation Production Tax Credit Combined Tax Rate Economic Life Loan Repayment Period Results Current $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh)
0.042 0.035 0.044 0.036 0.075 0.062 0.080 0.066 0.112 0.093 0.120 0.100
Units ($/kW) (kW) (%) (hours) (kWh) $/kWh (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) ($) ($) ($) ($/kWh) (%) (y) (y)
15 10 367,250 91,813 275,438 1469
Inputs and Results 3600 6000
250 85 7446 1,861,500 0.02 75 25 6 15 2.8

900,000 225,000 675,000 5 yr MACRS 0.009 40.34 15 15 10 15 10 1,500,000 375,000 1,125,000
Constant $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh)
Equity and Loan Repayment - 5 yrs, Analysis period 6 yrs to capture depreciation:
Current $ COE Constant $ COE
($/kWh) ($/kWh)
0.068 0.063
0.144 0.133
0.230 0.212
Assumes negative taxes are credited to the project.

327
0.20
15 yr loan 5 yr loan 5 yr Economic life
10 yr loan 5 yr loan, 10 yr life
Except where indicated, economic life is 15 years 0.16 COE (constant $/kWh)
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.00 0 2000 4000 Capital Cost ($/kW) 6000 8000
Figure 3.9-5. COE vs. capital cost for several loan periods or economic lifetimes for dairy digester power systems
Discussion Dairydigesterscanbecostlyandrequiremoderateenergypricesiffinancedsolelyby electricitysales.Therearelikelycaseswherethesystemsarefinanciallyviableonenergy revenueifthefacilityisalargeelectricityconsumerandtheonsitegenerationcanoffset retailelectricityprices.DeliveredpowertodairiesintheSanJoaquinValleyairdistrict variesbetween8andnearly16cents/kWhdependingonutilityandtimeofyear(see Table3.95).Heatrecoveryforbeneficialuseisalmostalwaysfinanciallyattractiveif thereisaconvenientheatclient,suchasnearbyfoodorcheeseprocessingfacility.Co digestionoffoodorindustrialwastesand/orsillagematerialislikelytobeofadvantage economicallybecauseofincreasedgasproductionand(inthecaseoffood/industrial waste)thepossibilityofreceivingadisposalortippingfee.
328
Table 3-9-6. Retail power rates 136
SCE = Southern California Edison PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric Company TID = Turlock Irrigation District MID = Modesto Irrigation District
136.BACTCostEffectivenessforDigester,SanJoaquinValleyAPCD,2004. 329
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

EnvironmentalandenergypoliciesinEuropeandJapanhavecreatedavibrantbiomass powerindustryandresearchanddevelopmentsector.Thesepoliciescreatehighfeedin tariffsforrenewableenergywhilesimultaneouslyimposinghighlandfillcoststhat enableMSWconversiontechnologydevelopmentanddeployment. InCalifornia,nonewsolidfuelcombustionfacilitieshavebeencommissionedsince1992 andseveralfacilitieshaveshutdownorconvertedtonaturalgasfuelasaresultofpoor economicconditionsincludingcoincidentlossofassociatedindustriessuchassawmills supplyingfueltocogenerationfacilities.Recentbiomasspowerrelatedactivityin Californiahaslargelybeendrivenbyenvironmentalconcernsovermanurefrom confinedanimaloperationssuchasdairiesandopportunitiesforgreateruseoflandfill gasandsewagedigestergas.Californiasrenewableportfoliostandard(RPS)now providesoneoftheprimarymechanismsforlongtermcontractingforrenewable energy,buthighergenerationcostsassociatedwithmanybiomasstechnologiesin competitionwithlowercostwindandgeothermalresourceshavesofarrestricted biomassentryintothismarket.Increasinginterestinrenewabletransportationfuelsis creatingmarketopportunitiesforbiomass,butpowergenerationwillremainakey industryforfurtherbiomassdevelopment,includinganintegralpartofbiorefineries. SomeofthesuccessfullydemonstratedoroperatingsystemsinEuropecouldcompetein Californiawhileotherswouldneedsomelevelofsupportbeforeachievingcommercial status.Mechanismsthatinternalizetheexternalbenefitsofsustainablebiomasspower systemsarerecommended,suchascarbontrading,carbonemissionstaxes,orrenewable energycredits. OneofthehurdlesfacingtransferofthetechnologytotheUnitedStatesisthehighrisk perceivedbyfinanciersduetothelackofdemonstratedfacilitiesoperatinginCalifornia andsatisfyingpermitrequirements.Toaddresstheseissuesoftechnologytransfer, SMUDmaywishtoconsidervariousdevelopmentalternatives,includingthefollowing:
Formapublicprivatepartnershiptodemonstrateadvancedthermochemical conversion(i.e.,BIGCC)andothertechnologiesinCaliforniausingpilotor commercialscaledesigns. Increasethebiomasspowerportfolio.SMUDisalreadyinvolvedinthe developmentofbiomasspowerprojectsthatenhancelocalwastemanagement (i.e.,greenandfoodwasteandmanure).Thelargeresourceintheregion composedofforestandagriculturalthinningsandresiduesrepresentan opportunityforSMUDtosignificantlyincreaseitsbiomasspowerportfolio. Specificprojectrecommendationsare: o TransferexistingbiomassCHPtechnology(500kWto2MW)toasuitable heatclientintheSacramentoregion(heatclientsincludeabsorptioncooling applications).
330
Exploitthefuelpotentialintheregionsricestrawandothercropresidues withtransferofexistingtechnology.
Increaseresearchanddevelopmentfundingandactivitytoobtainmoredetailed andmorereliableoperating,economic,andenvironmentaldatafornew anaerobicdigestionandotherfacilitiesandparticipateinormotivaterelated stateeffortstoenhancetheoverallqualityofinformationavailableonbiomass systems. Workwiththestateandfederalgovernmentstoincreaseresearchand demonstrationactivityonconceptstoimprovetechnologyandreduceemissions frombiomassconversion,including: o InvestigateadvancedreburningusingbiomassfuelstoreduceNOx emissionsforretrofitornewfacilitydesign. EvaluateSCRandregenerativeSCR(RSCR)NOxcontroltechniques. InvestigateozoneinjectiontoassessfeasibilityasaNOxcontroltechniquefor solidfueledandotherbiomasssystems.
o o
Improveemissionsperformanceofreciprocatingengines,including: o o Improvefuelgascleaning. H2Sandsiloxanefrombiogastoenablegreateruseofcatalyticaftertreatment ofcombustiongasesandothercontrolmeasures. Reducenitrogencompounds(NH3,HCN)inproducergasfromthermal gasificationsystems.
Continuedevelopmentofhydrogenenrichedfuelgasforimprovedleanburn engineperformance. Improveefficiencyofmicroturbines. Reducecostsofstationaryfuelcellpowersystems.
OngoingandnewdemonstrationorfirstcommercialbiomassgasificationwithCHP facilitiesoverseaspresentatimelyopportunityforobservingandmonitoringthese facilities.Furtherdevelopmentofexistingassociationwiththeprojectdevelopersin ordertofacilitateexchangeofinformationisrecommended.Inaddressingthegreater useofbiomasswithinitsterritoryandsurroundingregionforrenewablegenerationand improvedenvironmentalquality,SMUDwillserveasamodelfordevelopmentinthe restofthestate.SMUDactionscanhelpshiftstatewastemanagementpoliciestomore appropriateresourcemanagementstrategies.
331
Commercialization Potential and Benefits to California Therehasnotbeenanysubstantialincreaseinbiopowergeneratingcapacityin Californiasincetheearly1990s.Inorderforbiomasspowertomakeasignificant contributiontothesupplyofrenewableelectricityinCalifornia,theagingfleetof biomassfacilitieswillneedtoberepoweredandlargeamountsofnewcapacitymustbe developed.Ifthisistooccur,newstrategiesforutilizationofbiomassresourcewillbe required,includingincreasingtherangeoffeedstocksused,newerandupdated conversiontechnologies,andamoreconsistentpolicyapproach. Becauseofextensiveresearchanddevelopmentoverseas,advancedbiomasspower systemsthatarebuiltinCaliforniawilllikelybeimportedtechnologiesanddesigns. Withthehighernaturalgaspricesrecentlyexperienced,automatedbiomassCHP systemsarecommerciallyviableifasuitableclientfortheheatisavailable.Withoutheat coproduct,theeconomicsofadvanced(aswellasthestandardstokerorcirculating fluidizedbedboilers)biopowersystemsaremarginalatcurrentelectricitymarketprices. DependingonwhichsetofRPSgoalsarepursued(20%renewablesby2017,or33%by 2020),newrenewablegenerationcapacitywillberequiredattherateof3,200to5,000 MWeachyear.Currentbiopowercapacityisapproximately1,000MWandbiomass contributesabout2%oftotalor25%ofrenewablepowerconsumedinthestate.If biomasspowerweretocontinuetoprovideofnonhydrorenewablegenerationunder theRPS,thennewbiopowercapacitywouldneedtobeaddedattherateof800tomore than1,200MWeachyear. Thedescriptions,problemidentification,andanalysisinthereport,aswellasthe contactdatabasecanbeusedtohelpdefineastrategyforbuildingincreasedbiopower capacityinCalifornia.IncreasingbiopowerproductionbenefitsCaliforniabyincreasing therenewablecontentintheelectricityportfolio,generateseconomicactivityinthefuel supplyandlogisticssector,providesanumberofstablejobsatthegeneratingfacility, andutilizessomeofthevastbiomassresourceinthestatethatotherwisewouldbe consumedinprescribedburnsorwildfires,disposedinlandfills,orleftinfieldorforest foreventualdecay. Theinformationandanalysisinthisreportaddressesadvancedbiopowertechnologies andincludesrecommendationsformovingforward.Thisreportcanserveasa technologyreferenceandinformationsourceforthoseinvolvedinmappingastate biomasspowerstrategythatcontributestotheRPS.Usedinthisway,thereport(and project)willsavetheEnergyCommission,orotherstateagencies,timeandmoney.
332
Bibliography
Ahrenfeldt,J.,T.K.Jensen,U.Henriksen,andJ.Schramm.2001.Experimentswithwood gasengines.SAETechnicalPaper2001013681. Ahrenfeldt,J.,T.Pedersen,U.Henriksen,andJ.Schramm.2000.FordVSG411fueledby producergasfromtwostagegasifier.Proceedings1stWorldConferenceonBiomassfor EnergyandIndustry,Sevilla,S.Kryitsis,A.A.C.M.Beenackers,P.Helm. Amos,W.A.2002.SummaryofCharitonValleySwitchgrassCoFireTestingatthe OttumwaGeneratingStationinChillicothe,Iowa:MilestoneCompletionReport. NREL/TP51032424. AQEG.2004.NitrogenDioxideintheUnitedKingdom.DefraPublications,AirQuality ExpertGroup,Dept.forEnvironment,Food,andRuralAffairs,London. Arumugam,S.,K.Annamalai,S.Priyadarsan,andB.Thien.2005.Anovelapplicationof feedlotbiomass(cattlemanure)asreburningfuelforNOxreductionincoalfired powerplants.SymposiumStateofthescienceinanimalmanureandwastemanagement. Babu,S.P.1999.Thermalgasificationofbiomass.IEATask20overview. Bain,R.L.,W.P.Amos,etal.2003.BiopowerTechnicalAssessment:StateoftheIndustry andtheTechnology.NREL/TP51033123. BakkerDhaliwal,R.,B.M.Jenkins,andH.Lee.1999.Equipmentperformanceand economicassessmentsofharvestingandhandlingricestraw.Biomass:agrowth opportunityingreenenergyandvalueaddedproducts.R.P.OverendandE.Chornet, eds.Oxford:PergamonPress. Baxter,L.2005.Biomasscoalcocombustion:opportunityforaffordablerenewable energy.Fuel84(10):12951302. Baxter,L.L.1993.Ashdepositionduringbiomassandcoalcombustion:Amechanistic approach.BiomassandBioenergy4(2):85102 Bech,N.andL.Wolff.1995.Mathematicalmodelingofsurfacecombustingstrawbales. Proceedingsofthe8thEuropeanBiomassConference,Biomassforenergy,environment, agricultureandindustry.Pergamon,England. Bech,N.,L.Wolff,etal.1996.Mathematicalmodelingofstrawbalecombustionincigar burners.EnergyandFuels10:276283. Beckmann,G.andC.A.Erickson.2000.Operatingexperienceandfuturechallenges withSCRinstallations.PowerGenInternational.Orlando,Florida. BolharNordenkampf,M.,andH.Hofbauer.2004.Gasifierdemonstrationplantsin Austria.InternationalSlovakBiomassForum,Bratislava.February910,2004. Brinton,W.F.2000.Compostqualitystandards&guidelines:AnInternationalView. NewYorkStateAssociationofRecyclers. Buffinga,G.J.andH.A.M.Knoef.2001.Implementationanddemonstrationofan embeddedsmallscalepoultrymanureCHPprocess. http://www.btgworld.com/services/pdf/pei/930sum.pdf(AccessedOctober1,2004). Bush,Greg.2003.PersonalCommunication.KingCounty,Washington.
333
Calaminus,B.andR.Stahlberg.1998Continuousinlinegasification/vitrificationprocess forthermalwastetreatment:processtechnologyandcurrentstatusofprojects. WasteManagement18(68):547556. Capareda,S.,Mukhtar,S.,Shaw,B.,Parnell,C.,andFlocchini,R.2005.WhitePaper Highlyreactivevolatileorganiccompound(HRVOC)emissionsfromCAFOs.College Station,Texas:CenterforAgriculturalAirQualityEngineeringandSciences(CAAQES), BiologicalandAgriculturalEngineeringDepartment,TexasA&MUniversity. Carpentieri,E.andA.Silva.1998.WBP/SIGAMEtheBrazilianBIGGTdemonstration projectactualstatusandperspectives.BiomassandBioenergy15(3):229232. Chitwood,D.E.,J.S.Devinny,andF.E.ReynoldsJr.1999.Evaluationofatwostage biofilterfortreatmentofPOTWwasteair.EnvironmentalProgress18(3):212221. Chung,Y.C.,Y.Y.Lin,andC.P.Tseng.2004.OperationalCharacteristicsofEffective RemovalofH2SandNH3WasteGasesbyActivatedCarbonBiofilter.Journalofthe Air&WasteManagementAssociation54(4April):450458. Chynoweth,D.P.2002.Reviewofbiomethanefrommarinebiomass.TokyoGas Company,Ltd.andUniversityofFlorida,Gainesville. Cocker,D.R.,Shah,S.D.,Johnson,K.,Miller,J.W.,andNorbeck,J.M.(2004). DevelopmentandApplicationofaMobileLaboratoryforMeasuringEmissionsfrom DieselEngines.1.RegulatedGaseousEmissions.EnvironmentalScience&Technology 38:21822189. Cockrell,Paul.2005.PersonalCommunication.Folsom,California:HDREngineering,Inc. Coelho,S.T.,S.M.Velazquez,O.S.Martins,andA.H.Ushima.2004.Testspresentation resultsoftheimportedgasificationsystemfromtheIndianInstituteofScienceIISc. 2ndWorldConferenceandTechnologyExhibitiononBiomassforEnergy. Corella,J.,J.M.Toledo,andR.Padilla.2005.Catalytichotgascleaningwithmonoliths inbiomassgasificationinfluidizedbeds.3.Theireffectivenessforammonia elimination.Industrial&EngineeringChemistryResearch44(7):20362045. Craig,K.R.,andM.K.Mann.(1996).Costandperformanceanalysisofbiomassbased integratedgasificationcombinedcycle(BIGCC)powersystems.TP43021657, NREL. Crow,D.L.(2005).AirPollutionControlOfficersDeterminationofVOCEmission FactorsforDairies.FinalRepot1August,2005,SJVAPCD.Availableat: http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/dpag/APCO%20Determination%20of%20EF_A ugust%201_.pdf Crow,D.L.2005.DraftAirPollutionControlOfficersDeterminationofVOCEmission FactorsforDairies.SanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict. Dagaut,P.,andF.Lecomte.2003.ExperimentsandKineticModelingStudyofNO ReburningbyGasesfromBiomassPyrolysisinaJSR.EnergyFuels17(3):608613. Darvell,L.I.,K.Heiskanen,J.M.Jones,A.B.Ross,P.Simell,andA.Williams.2003.An investigationofaluminasupportedcatalystsfortheselectivecatalyticoxidationof ammoniainbiomassgasification.CatalysisToday81(4):681692. DeBaere,L.2000.Anaerobicdigestionofsolidwaste:Stateoftheart.WaterScienceand Technology41(3):283290.
334
DeBaere,L.2003.Stateoftheartofanaerobicdigestionofsolidwaste.Ninth InternationalWasteManagementandLandfillSymposium.Cagliari,Italy. DeBaere,L.,andJ.Boelens.1999.Restormixedwastesortingdigestionseparationfor therecoveryofrecyclablesandenergy.http://www.ows.be(accessedJuly28,2004). deLaclos,H.F.,S.Desbois,andC.SaintJoly.1997.Anaerobicdisgestionofmunicipal solidorganicwaste:ValorgafullscaleplantinTilburg,theNetherlands.Water Science&Technology36(67):457462. Ding,Y.,K.C.Das,W.B.Whitman,andJ.R.Kastner.2000.Microbialecologyand processperformanceofabiofiltertreatingmultiplegascontaminants.2000ASAE AnnualInternationalMeeting. Edelmann,W.,U.Baier,andH.Engeli.2004.Environmentalaspectsoftheanaerobic digestionoftheorganicfractionofmunicipalsolidwastesandofagriculturalwastes. Montreal,Canada:10thWorldCongressonAnaerobicDigestion. Edelmann,W.,Schleiss,K.,andJoss,A.2000.Ecological,energeticandeconomic comparisonofanaerobicdigestionwithdifferentcompetingtechnologiestotreat biogenicwastes.WaterScience&Technology41(3):263273. EIA.1997.RenewableEnergyAnnual1997.AnnualEnergyReview1996. EIA.2003.DOEEIAAnnualEnergyOutlook2003. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/appa.pdf EIA.2004.AssumptionstotheAnnualEnergyOutlook2004.DOE/EIA0554(2004). Engstrom,F.1998.Hotgascleanupbioflowceramicfilterexperience.Biomassand Bioenergy15(3):259262. Farneti,A.,C.Cozzolino,D.Bolzonella,L.Innocenti,andC.Cecchi.Semidryanaerobic digestionofOFMSW:thenewfullscaleplantofVerona(Italy).IIInt.Symp.Anaerobic Dig.SolidWaste,heldinBarcelona,June1517.(eds.J.MataAlvarez,A.TilcheandF. Cecchi),2:330333,Int.Assoc.Wat.Qual. Fondahl,L.V.2000.USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Region9,aspublishedbyZ. Zhang,CaliforniaEnergyCommission. Frandsen,F.2003.Personalcommunication.TechnicalUniversityofDenmark.October22, 2003. Giordano,P.2003.XylowattexperiencengasificationtechnologiesforCHPapplication inEurope.RoundtableonbiomassgasificationtechnologiesIISc,India.1113December 1113.http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in/rtc.html(accessedOctober2,2004). Girdhar,J.B.S.2004.Biomassgasifierprogramandpolicies.NewDelhi:Presentationby Ministryofnonconventionalenergysources. http://www.teriin.org/events/docs/biogasifier/jbs.pdf(accessedSeptember21,2004). Grady,C.P.L.,G.T.Daigger,andH.C.Lim.1999.BiologicalWastewaterTreatment. Secondedition.NewYork:MarcelDekkerInc. Grass,S.W.,andB.M.Jenkins.1994.Biomassfueledfluidizedbedcombustion: Atmosphericemissions,emissioncontroldevicesandenvironmentalregulations. BiomassandBioenergy6(4):243260.
335
Gujer,W.,andA.J.B.Zehnder.1983.Conversionprocessesinanaerobicdigestion.Wat. Sci.Tech.15:127167. Haase,S.2003.BiomassResourceAssessmentandUtilizationOptionsfortheThree CountiesinEasternOregon.OregonDepartmentofEnergy,C03057. Hackett,C.etal.2004.EvaluationofConversionTechnologiesProcessesandProducts. DraftFinalReport,UniversityofCalifornia. Hansen,L.A.,H.P.Nielsen,etal.2000.Influenceofdepositformationoncorrosionata strawfiredboiler.FuelProcessingTechnology64(13):189209. Harding,N.S.,andB.R.Adams.2000.Biomassasareburningfuel:aspecialized cofiringapplication.BiomassandBioenergy19(6):429445. Hartmann,K.M.2004.AnAPSdigesterforthetreatmentoforganicsolidwasteand energygeneration:UCDdigesterdesign.EngineeringReportfortheMasterof Engineering.UniversityofCalifornia,Davis. Hasler,P.,andT.Nussbaumer.1999.GascleaningforICengineapplicationsfromfixed bedbiomassgasification.BiomassandBioenergy16(6):385395. Hasler,P.,andT.Nussbaumer.2000.Samplingandanalysisofparticlesandtarsfrom biomassgasifiers.BiomassandBioenergy18(1):6166. Hasler,P.,P.Morf,R.Buehler,andT.Nussbaumer.1998.Gascleaningandwastewater treatmentforsmallscalebiomassgasifiers.FinalReport.SwissFederalOfficeof Energy&SwissFederalOfficeforEducationandScience. Heermann,C.,F.J.Schwager,etal.2001.Pyrolysis&GasificationofWaste:A WorldwideTechnologyandBusinessReview.JuniperConsultancyServicesLTD. Heimrich,M.J.1997.TestsofleanNOxcatalysttechnologyforcommercialdiesel enginesResearchNote972.CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard. Henderson,J.P.2001.AnaerobicDigestioninRuralChina,CityFarmer,CanadaOfficeof UrbanAgriculture.http://www.cityfarmer.org/biogasPaul.html(accessedDecember 5,2003). Herdin,G.,R.Robitschko,J.Klausner,andM.Wagner.2004.GEJenbacherexperience withwoodgasplants.IEATask33.Fallmeeting,Copenhagen. Hobbs,P.J.,J.Webb,T.T.Mottram,B.Grant,andT.M.Misselbrook.2004.Emissionsof volatileorganiccompoundsoriginatingfromUKlivestockagriculture.Journalofthe ScienceofFoodandAgriculture84(11):14141420. IEA.2002.IEABioenergyTask33:Thermalgasificationofbiomass.SpringMeeting Minutes.Amsterdam. Im,Julio.2004.PersonalCommunication.InlandEmpireUtilityAgency. Jenkins,B.M.1989.PhysicalPropertiesofBiomass.BiomassHandbook.O.KitaniandC. W.Hall,eds.NewYork:GordonandBreach.860891. Jenkins,B.M.,R.BakkerDhaliwal,etal.2000.Equipmentperformance,costs,and constraintsinthecommercialharvestingofricestrawforindustrialapplications. Paperofthe2000ASAEAnnualInternationalMeeting.ASAEAnnualInternational Meeting,Milwaukee,Wisconsin. Jenkins,B.M.,L.L.Baxter,T.R.MilesJr.andT.R.Miles.1998.Combustionpropertiesof biomass.FuelProcessingTechnology54(13):1746.
336
Jenkins,B.M.,R.R.Bakker,andJ.B.Wei.1996.Onthepropertiesofwashedstraw. BiomassandBioenergy10(4):177200 Jenkins,B.M.1993.Propertiesofbiomass.BiomassEnergyFundamentals,EPRITR102107. PaloAlto,California:ElectricPowerResearchInstitute. Jenkins,B.M.andL.L.Baxter.1994.Uncontrolledpollutantemissionsfrombiomass combustionundersimulatedboilerfurnaceconditions.ProceedingsAFRCJFRC PacificRimInternationalConferenceonEnvironmentalControlofCombustionProcesses. Maui,Hawaii. Jenkins,B.M.,R.B.Williams,etal.1999.Combustionofleachedricestrawforpower generation.Proceedingsofthe4thbiomassconferenceoftheAmericas.Oakland, California:13571363. Jenkins,B.M.,R.B.Williams,R.R.Bakker,S.Blunk,D.E.Yomogida,W.Carlson,J. Duffy,R.Bates,K.StuckiandV.Tiangco.1999.Combustionofleachedricestrawfor powergeneration.Overend,R.P.andE.Chornet,eds.Biomass:AGrowthOpportunity inGreenEnergyandValueaddedProducts.Oxford:PergamonPress. Jenkins,B.M.,R.R.Bakker,R.B.Williams,R.BakkerDhaliwal,M.D.Summers,H.Lee, L.G.Bernheim,W.Huisman,L.L.Yan,P.AndradeSanchez,andM.Yore.2000. CommercialFeasibilityofUtilizingRiceStrawinPowerGeneration.Proceedings Bioenergy2000.Buffalo,NewYork. Jenkins,B.M.,R.R.Bakker,R.B.Williams,andM.A.Goronea.1997.Combustionof LeachedRiceStrawinWheelabratorShastaBoilerNo.1atTemperaturesabove900 C.CombustionInstituteWesternStatesSection.SpringMeeting,Livermore,California. Jenkins,B.M.2004.BiomassCollaborativeLettertotheCaliforniaEnergyCommission. Jensen,P.A.,M.Stenholm,etal.1997.Depositioninvestigationinstrawfiredboilers. Energy&Fuels11(5):10481055. Junginger,M.,S.Agterbosch,etal.RenewableelectricityintheNetherlands.Energy Policy32(9):10531073. Kato,S.,M.Bueto,andC.Gallensten.2004.GasfiredpowerplantNOxemission controlsandrelatedenvironmentalimpactsReporttotheLegislature.CARB, StationarySourceDivision. Kelleher,M.2001.AnaerobicdigestionfacilitiesinSwitzerland.Biocycle42(10):3438. Kelleher,M.2005.FeasibilityofGeneratingGreenPowerThroughAnaerobicDigestion ofGardenRefusefromSacramentoArea.FinalReporttoSMUD.Toronto:RIS International. Khodayari,R.,C.Andersson,C.U.I.Odenbrand,L.H.Andersson.2000.Deactivation andRegenerationofSCRCatalystsUsedinBioFuelPowerPlants.Proceedingsofthe 5thEuropeanConferenceonIndustrialFurnaceandBoilers.Porto,Portugal. Knoef,H.2003.TechnologyBriefFixedBedGasification.IEABioenergyTask33:Thermal GasificationofBiomass. Koch,T.1997.Logisticsandfeedpreparationofstrawforgasificationandcombustion. Copenhagen,Denmark:DanishEnergyAgency. Komilis,D.P.,R.K.Ham,andJ.K.Park.2004.Emissionofvolatileorganiccompounds duringcompostingofmunicipalsolidwastes.WaterResearch38(7):17071714.
337
Kong,S.,andE.R.Allen.1997.Controloforganosulfuremissionsusingbiofiltration: Dimethylsulfide.1997Air&WasteManagementAssocConferenceProceedings. Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania. Kramer,J.M.2002.AgriculturalBiogasCasebook.GreatLakesRegionalBiomassEnergy Program. Kramer,J.M.2004.AgriculturalBiogasCasebook2004Update.GreatLakesRegional BiomassEnergyProgram. Kraus,P.,andU.Grammel.1992.DieRelevanzderSchadstoffdiskussionbeider Bioabfallkompostierung.(Relevanceofcontaminantdiscussionforbiowaste composting).Abfallwirtschaft9,MICBaezaVerlagKassel. Kubler,H.,K.Hoppenheidt,P.Hirsch,A.Kottmair,R.Nimmrichter,H.Nordsieck,W. Mucke,andM.Swerev.2000.Fullscalecodigestionoforganicwaste.WaterScience &Technology41(3):195202. Kurkela,E.,P.Simell,P.Stahlberg,G.Berna,F.Barbagli,andI.Haavisto.2000. Developmentofnovelfixedbedgasificationforbiomassresiduesandagrobiofuels. ResearchNotes2059.Espoo,Finland:TechnicalResearchCenterofFinland,VTT. Larsen,M.G.andA.Evald.1996.StrawFiredDistrictHeatingPlantsinDenmarkFacts andFigures.CentreofBiomassTechnology,Denmark Lee,J.H.,S.J.Schmieg,andS.H.Oh.2004.Catalyticreformingofethanolto acetaldehydeforLeanNOx(x)emissioncontrol.Industrial&EngineeringChemistry Research43(20):63436348. Li,H.,J.R.Mihelcic,J.C.Crittenden,andK.A.Anderson.2003.Fieldmeasurements andmodelingoftwostagebiofilterthattreatsodoroussulfurairemissions.Journal ofEnvironmentalEngineering129(8August):684692 Logan,J.A.1983.NitrogenOxidesintheTroposphere:GlobalandRegionalBudgets. JournalofGeophysicalResearch88(15):1078510807. Ludwig,C.2003.Personalcommunication. Ludwig,C.,S.Hellweg,andS.Stucki,eds.2003.MunicipalSolidWasteManagement StrategiesandTechnologiesforSustainableSolutions.Berlin:SpringerVerlag. Maly,P.M.,V.M.Zamansky,L.Ho,andR.Payne.1999.Alternativefuelreburning.Fuel 78(3):327334. Manczyk,H.andM.D.Leach.2001.CombinedHeatandPowerGenerationandDistrict HeatinginDenmark:History,Goals,andTechnology,Rochester,NewYork: UniversityofRochester. Marquis,N.P.,andB.Werner.2004.Emissionreductionoffsetstransactioncost summaryreportfor2003.CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard,Sacramento. MataAlvarez,J.2003.Biomethanizationoftheorganicfractionofmunicipalsolidwastes. London:IWAPublishing. Mattocks,R.2003.Selfscreeningassessment:theappropriatenessofacommunity manurefoodwastedigestionsystem.AgriculturalUtilizationResearchInstitute/ RCMDigesters,Inc.
338
McDannel,M.,E.Wheless,andJ.Stahl.2005.Installationandstartupofadigestergas firedmicroturbineandfuelcellattwowaterreclamationplants.PowerGen RenewableEnergyConference.LasVegas,Nevada. McOuat,W.,andB.Gill.2004.Proposeddigesterproject:Preliminaryeconomicanalysis andriskassessment.CSUChannelIslands,HMHEnergyResources,Inc.Larkspur, California. Michelsen,H.P.,F.Frandsen,etal.1998.Depositionandhightemperaturecorrosionin a10MWestrawfiredboiler.FuelProcessingTechnology54(13):95108. Miles,T.2005.PersonalCommunication.T.R.MilesTechnicalConsultantsInc.Portland, Oregon. Miles,T.R.andD.Ganz.2002.CharitonValleyBiomassProjectStrawBoilerTrip Report.T.R.MilesTechnicalConsultants. Miller,J.A.,andC.T.Bowman.1989.Mechanismandmodelingofnitrogenchemistryin combustion.ProgressinEnergyandCombustionScience15(4):287338. Mojtahedi,W.,M.Ylitalo,T.Maunula,andJ.Abbasian.1995.Catalyticdecompositionof ammoniainfuelgasproducedinpilotscalepressurizedfluidizedbedgasifier.Fuel ProcessingTechnology45(3):221236. Montgomery,M.,A.Karlsson,etal.2002.FieldtestcorrosionexperimentsinDenmark withbiomassfuelsPart1:Strawfiring.Materials&CorrosionWerkstoffeundKorrosion 53(2):121131. Morris,G.2000.BiomassEnergyProductioninCalifornia:Thecaseforabiomasspolicy initiative.NREL/SR57028805. Morris,G.2002.BiomassEnergyProductioninCalifornia.NRELProgressReport,Task OrderNo.KCL03004002. Nadgauda,S.S.2004.PersonalCommunication.StatenIsland,NewYork:Renova Engineering. NationalResearchCouncil(NRC).1991.Rethinkingtheozoneprobleminurbanandregional airpollution.WashingtonD.C.:NationalAcademyPress. Newman,R.2003.Atrialburnofrapestrawandwholecropsharvestedforenergyuse toassessefficiencyimplications.B/U1/00768/00/00URN03/1569.New&Renewable EnergyProgramme,ETSU/DTI(England). Ng,Y.L.,R.Yan,X.G.Chen,A.L.Geng,W.D.Gould,D.T.Liang,andL.C.C.Koe. 2004.UseofactivatedcarbonasasupportmediumforH2Sbiofiltrationandeffectof bacterialimmobilizationonavailableporesurface.AppliedMicrobiologyand Biotechnology66:259265. Nicolai,R.E.,andK.A.Janni.2001.Biofiltermediamixtureratioofwoodchipsand composttreatingswineodors.WaterScience&Technology,44(9):261267 Nieminen,M.2004.ThermalGasificationofBiomassTechnologyBrief.IEABioenergy Task33. Nikolaisen,L.ed.,C.Nielson,M.G.Larsen,P.Keller,andL.K.Henriksen.1992(1998). StrawforEnergyProduction,TechnologyEnvironmentEconomy.Copenhagen, Denmark:DanishEnergyAgency.
339
Obert,E.F.1973.InternalCombustionEnginesandAirPollution.NewYork:Harper& Row. Okeefe,D.M.,D.P.Chynoweth,A.W.Barkdoll,R.A.Nordstedt,et.al.1993.Sequential BatchAnaerobicCompostingofMunicipalSolidWasteMSWandYardWaste.Water ScienceandTechnology27(2):7786. Paisley,M.2004.PersonalCommunication.FERCOEnterprises. Pasquiers,S.2004.Removalofpollutantsbyplasmacatalyticprocesses.European PhysicalJournalAppliedPhysics28(3):319324. Patel,J.2003.Personalcommunication.Vallejo,California:CarbonaCorporation. Patel,J.2004.Personalcommunication. Paul,P.P.,M.J.Heimrich,andM.A.Miller.1998.LeanNOxreductioncatalysisby metalcompleximpregnatedmolecularsievesEffectofligandsandmetals.Catalysis Today42(12):6171. Pierce,J.L.1997.Landfillgaselectricpowergeneration:Acosteffectiveand environmentallysoundrenewableenergysource.PowerGen97Asia. Pitcher,K.,B.Hilton,etal.1998.TheARBREproject:progressachieved.Biomassand Bioenergy15(3):213218. Pletka,R.2005.PersonalCommunication.BlackandVeatch. Price,D.,R.Birnbaum,R.Batiuk,M.McCullough,andR.Smith.1997.Nitrogenoxides: Impactsonpublichealthandtheenvironment.EPA452/R97002.Washington,D.C.: U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofAirandRadiation. Proll,T.,I.Siefert,A.Friedl,andH.Hofbauer.2005.RemovalofNH3fromBiomass GasificationProducerGasbyWaterCondensinginanOrganicSolventScrubber.Ind. Eng.Chem.Res.44(5):15761584. R.W.Beck.2004.AnaerobicDigestionFeasibilityStudy.BluestemSolidWasteAgency& IowaDepartmentofNaturalResources. Rauch,R.,H.Hofbauer,K.Bosch,I.Siefert,C.Aichernig,H.Tremmel,K.Voigtlaender, R.Koch,andR.Lehner.2004.SteamgasificationofbiomassatCHPplantGuessing Statusofthedemonstrationplant.2ndWorldConferenceandTechnology. Rizeq,G.,andV.Zamansky.2004.Utilizationofwasterenewablefuelsinboilerswith minimizationofpollutantemissions.CaliforniaEnergyCommission50098037.Irvine, California:GEGlobalResearch. RosenbergM.,J.SperoT.T.Shih,andL.Duan.2004.CDFreportinpreparation. Rudiger,H.,A.Kicherer,U.Greul,H.Spliethoff,andK.R.G.Hein.1996.Investigations inCombinedCombustionofBiomassandCoalinPowerPlantTechnology.Energy Fuels10(3):789796. Salour,D.,B.M.Jenkins,etal.1993.Controlofinbedagglomerationbyfuelblendingin apilotscalestrawandwoodfueledAFBC.BiomassandBioenergy4(2):117133. Sander,B.1997.PropertiesofDanishbiofuelsandtherequirementsforpower production.BiomassandBioenergy12(3):177183. Schultz,G.2001.Securingofsupplyinshortandlongertermofwoodandstraw.Energi E2IEATask30ShortRotationCrops.
340
http://www.shortrotationcrops.com/PDFs/IEA_Gert_Schultz.pdf(accessedJune 2003). Seinfeld,J.H.1986.Atmosphericchemistryandphysicsofairpollution.NewYork:John WileyandSons. Sethi,P.2005.PersonalCommunication.CaliforniaEnergyCommission. Simell,P.2002.DevelopmentofSCOtechnologyandotherhightemperatureNH3 removalprocessesforgasificationpowerplants.ProjectNewsletter,VTTProcesses. Simell,P.(2004).Novelgasificationprocess.IEAWS3:Gascleaning&gasenginesfor smallscaleapplications. Simons,G.,Z.Zhang,etal.2002.LandfillGasToEnergyPotentialinCalifornia. CaliforniaEnergyCommissionStaffReport50002041V1 Smet,E.,H.VanLangenhove,andI.DeBo.1999.Theemissionofvolatilecompounds duringtheaerobicandthecombinedanaerobic/aerobiccompostingofbiowaste. AtmosphericEnvironment33(8):12951303. Springsteen,B.2000.AssessmentofCaliforniawasteresourcesforgasification,Final Report.EERSDVContractNo.50098037SDV.Sacramento:CaliforniaEnergy Commission. Srivastava,R.K.,W.Neuffer,D.Grano,S.Khan,J.E.Staudt,andW.Jozewicz.2005. ControllingNOxemissionfromindustrialsources.EnvironmentalProgress24(2):181 197. Stahl,K.2001.VarnamoTheDemonstrationProgram.BerlingsSkogs,Trelleborg. Stahl,K.andM.Neergaard.1998.IGCCpowerplantforbiomassutilization,Varnamo, Sweden.BiomassandBioenergy15(3):205211. Stahl,K.,L.Waldheim,andM.Morris.2004.BiomassIGCCatVarnamo,SwedenPast andFuture.GCEPEnergyWorkshop.PaloAlto,California:StanfordUniversity. Stassen,H.M.1993.Strategiesforupgradingproducergasfromfixedbedgasifier systemstointernalcombustionenginequality.R.G.Graham;BiomassGasification Hotgascleanup.IEAreportfortheBiomassGasificationWorkingGroup,Appendix II. StateoftheArt(SOTA)Manualforreciprocatinginternalcombustionengines.2003. Trenton,NewJersey:DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqpp/downloads/sota/sota13.pdf Stevens,D.2001.Hotgasconditioning:Recentprogresswithlargerscalebiomass gasificationsystems.NREL/SR51029952. SWIS.20003.CIWMBSolidWasteInformationSystem(SWIS). http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/swis/search.asp (accessedOctober31,2003). Taube,J.,K.Vorkamp,M.Forster,andR.Herrmann.2002.Pesticideresiduesin biologicalwaste.Chemosphere49(10):13571365. Themelis,N.J.2003.Anoverviewoftheglobalwastetoenergyindustry.Waste ManagementWorld(JulyAugust):4047. Tonkyn,R.G.,S.E.Barlow,andJ.W.Hoard.2003.ReductionofNOxinsyntheticdiesel exhaustviatwostepplasmacatalysistreatment.AppliedCatalysisB:Environmental 40(3):207217.
341
Traa,Y.,B.Burger,andJ.Weitkamp.1999.Zeolitebasedmaterialsfortheselective catalyticreductionofNOxwithhydrocarbons.MicroporousandMesoporousMaterials 30(1):341. Turn,S.Q.,C.M.Kinoshita,D.M.Ishimura,andJ.Zhou.1998.Thefateofinorganic constituentsofbiomassinfluidizedbedgasification.Fuel77(3):135146. Vehlow,Jurgen.2004.PersonalCommunication.InstituteforTechnicalChemistry, ForschungszentrumKarlsruhe. Verma,S.2002.Anaerobicdigestionofbiodegradableorganicsinmunicipalsolid wastes.MasterofScienceThesis.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity. Vilas,E.,U.Skifter,A.D.Jensen,C.Lopez,J.Maier,andP.Glarborg.2004.Experimental andmodelingstudyofbiomassreburning.Energy&Fuels18(5):14421450. vonBernath,H.I.,G.C.Matteson,R.B.Williams,L.Yan,M.C.Gildart,B.M.Jenkins,Z. Zhang,V.Tiangco,P.Sethi,G.Simons,M.Rosenberg,J.Spero.2004.Foodand ProcessingResiduesinCalifornia:ResourceAssessmentandPotentialforPower Generation.DepartmentofBiologicalandAgricultrualEngineering.Davis,California: UCDavis. Vorkamp,K.,E.Kellner,J.Taube,K.D.Moller,andR.Herrmann.2002.Fateof methidathionresiduesinbiologicalwasteduringanaerobicdigestion.Chemosphere 48(3):287297. Vorkamp,K.,J.Taube,J.Dilling,E.Kellner,andR.Herrmann.2003.Fateofthe fungicidedodemorphduringanaerobicdigestionofbiologicalwaste.Chemosphere 53(5):505514. Wang,W.Y.,N.Padban,Z.C.Ye,A.Andersson,andI.Bjerle.1999.Kineticsofammonia decompositioninhotgascleaning.Industrial&EngineeringChemistryResearch38(11): 41754182. Wang,W.Y.,N.Padban,Z.C.Ye,G.Olofsson,A.Andersson,andI.Bjerle.2000. Catalytichotgascleaningoffuelgasfromanairblownpressurizedfluidizedbed gasifier.Industrial&EngineeringChemistryResearch.39(11):40754081. Wang,W.,andG.Olofsson.2002.ReductionofAmmoniaandTarinPressurized BiomassGasification.5thInternationalSymposiumonGasCleaningatHigh Temperature. Wen,H.,C.Lausten,J.Pietruszkiewicz,P.Delaquil,andB.C.Jain.1999.Advancesin BiomassGasificationPowerPlants.AmericanPowerConference. Whyte,R.,andG.Perry.2001.AroughguidetoanaerobicdigestioncostsandMSW diversion.Biocycle42(10):3033. WieckHansen,K.,P.Overgaard,andO.H.Larsen.2000.Cofiringcoalandstrawina 150MWepowerboilerexperiences.BiomassandBioenergy19(6):395409. Williams,R.B.,B.M.Jenkins,andD.Nguyen.2003.SolidWasteConversionAreview anddatabaseofcurrentandemergingtechnologies.FinalReport.CIWMB interagencyagreementIWMC0172. Wolff,L.andN.Bech.1995.Surfacecombustionofstrawbales,atestfacilityfor pyrolysisinvestigations.Proceedingsofthe8thEuropeanBiomassConference,Biomassfor energy,environment,agricultureandindustry.Pergamon,England.
342
Zhang,R.H.,andZ.Q.Zhang.1999.Biogasificationofricestrawwithananaerobic phasedsolidsdigestersystem.BioresourceTechnology68(3):235245. Zhang,R.,andZ.Zhang.2002.Biogasificationofsolidwastewithananaerobicphased solidsdigestersystem.USPatentNo.6,342,378.RegentsoftheUniversityof California. Zhang,Z.2003.Personalcommunication. Zheng,Y.J.,A.D.Jensen,andJ.E.Johnsson.2004.Laboratoryinvestigationofselective catalyticreductioncatalysts:Deactivationbypotassiumcompoundsandcatalyst regeneration.Industrial&EngineeringChemistryResearch43(4):941947. Zicari,S.M.2003.Removalofhydrogensulfidefrombiogasusingcowmanurecompost. MasterofScienceThesis.Ithica,NewYork:CornellUniversity. Zughbi,Jamal.2005.PersonalCommunication.InlandEmpireUtilitiesAgency. Zwart,R.W.R.2003.Technical,economicandenvironmentalpotentialofcofiringof biomassandwasteinnaturalgasfiredturbinesandcombinedcycles.ECNRX03 003,ECN.
343
Glossary
AD ADC AF AFstoich AMBR APCD APS AQMD ASR ATDC BACT BDT BFB BGL BIGCC BTU C&D C/N ca CADDET CARB CC CDFFP CEC CENBIO CEQA CFB CH4 CHP CI CIWMB CNG COE CPUC CSTR d DOE DPPP EC Anaerobic digestion Alternative daily cover Air to Fuel Ratio (mass basis) Stoichiometric Air to Fuel Ratio (mass basis) Anaerobic Moving Bed Reactor Air Pollution Control District Anaerobic Phased Solids Air Quality Management District Automobile shredder residue After top-dead-center Best Available Control Technology Bone Dry Ton Bubbling fluidized bed British Gas- Lurgi Biomass integrated gasifier combined cycle British Thermal Unit Construction and demolition Carbon/nitrogen ratio Capita Centre for Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies California Air Resources Board Combined Cycle California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection California Energy Commission The Reference Center on Biomass (Brazil) California Environmental Quality Act Circulating fluidized bed Methane Combined Heat and Power Compression Ignited California Integrated Waste Management Board Compressed Natural Gas Cost of energy California Public Utilities Commission Continuously stirred tank reactor (complete mix reactor) Day US Department of Energy Dairy Power Production Program European Community 344
EGR EIA EISG EJ EPA EPR ESP EU FERC FOG FT GAIA GHG GPD GTCC GWh h HALO HHV HRSG HRT HS IEA IGCC IRR kg kW kWh LFG LFGTE LHV LS MACT MBT MJ MMBTU MNES MRF MS MSW Mt MW MWh
Exhaust gas recirculation US Energy Information Agency Energy Innovation Small Grant (a CEC program) 1018 joules (exajoule) Environmental Protection Agency Extended Producer Responsibility Electrostatic precipitator (for PM control) European Union Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Fats, Oils, and Grease Fischer-Tropsch Global Anti-Incinerator Alliance Greenhouse gas Gallons per day Gas turbine combined cycle Gigawatt-hour (109 watt-hours) Hour Hydrogen assisted lean operation Higher heating value Heat recovery steam generator Hydraulic Retention Time High solids International Energy Agency Integrated Gasifier Combined Cycle Internal Rate of Return Kilogram Kilowatt Kilowatt-hour Landfill gas Landfill gas to energy Lower Heating Value Low solids Maximum Available Control Technology Mechanical biological treatment 106 joules (megajoule) Million BTU The Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources (India) Material recovery facility Multi-stage Municipal Solid Waste Million short tons Megawatt Megawatt-hour 345
MWth NETL NREL NSCR PIER PM POTW PPA PTC PURPA RDDD RDF REC RFP ROG ROR RPS RSCR SBIR SCR SI SNCR SO4 SRAC SRT t TEQ TOC TPD TS UASB USDA VOC VS W WWTP y
Megawatt of heat or thermal energy National Energy Technology Laboratory National Renewable Energy Laboratory Nonselective Catalytic Reduction Public Interest Energy Research Particulate Matter Publicly owned treatment works Power purchase agreement Production tax credit Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act Research, development, demonstration, and deployment Refuse derived fuel Renewable Energy Credit Request for proposal Reactive Organic Gases. Precursor to ground level ozone formation. Rate of return Renewable Portfolio Standard Regenerative SCR Small business innovation research Selective Catalytic Reduction Spark Ignited Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction Standard Offer 4 short-run avoided cost Solids Retention Time Ton Toxic Equivalent Total Organic Compound Tons per day Total Solids Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket US Department of Agriculture Volatile Organic Compounds (sometimes referred to as ROG). Precursor to ground level ozone formation Volatile Solids Watt (Nms-1) Waste water treatment plants Year
346
Acidogenic Aerobic Anaerobic
Biogas
Carbonization Cellulose Co-digestion
Combustion Conventional pollutants Criteria air pollutants Digestion
Elutriation Entrain Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
Fermentation
Fischer-Tropsch
Acid-forming; used to describe microorganisms that break down organic matter to acids during the anaerobic digestion process With or in the presence of oxygen. Without oxygen A naturally occurring gas produced from anaerobic digestion. Biogas is composed primarily of methane (typically 5570% by volume) and carbon dioxide (typically 3045%). Biogas may also include smaller amounts of hydrogen sulfide (typically 502,000 parts per million [ppm]), water vapor (saturated), oxygen (trace), siloxanes (if gas is produced from a landfill or waste water treatment plant) and various trace hydrocarbons. A low temperature and high residence time pyrolytic process designed to produce the maximum quantity of char. Typically used to make char coal from wood. A complex carbohydrate, (C6H10O5)n, that is composed of glucose units. Cellulose forms the main constituent of the cell wall in most plants. The simultaneous digestion of a mixture of two or more feedstocks. Codigestion is sometimes employed to balance nutrient requirements of the process, improve gas production rate, as well as to process wastes from multiple sources. A rapid conversion of chemical energy into thermal energy. The reaction is exothermic. Organic matter is oxidized with sufficient air (or oxygen) for reactions to go to completion. The carbon and hydrogen are oxidized to carbon dioxide and water, respectively. As specified under the Clean Water Act, conventional pollutants include suspended solids, coliform bacteria, biochemical oxygen demand, pH, oil and grease. The six criteria pollutants are ozone (O3). carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Either in the presence of oxygen (aerobic) or in an oxygen-depleted atmosphere (anaerobic), the process in which microbes digest biogenic carbonaceous materials and emit any number of energetic, inert gases and liquids. The separation of finer lighter particles from coarser heavier particles in a mixture by means of a usually slow upward stream of fluid so that the lighter particles are carried upward: To carry (suspended particles, for example) along in a current. As it relates to solid waste management, refers to responsibility placed on waste producers for disposal or mitigation of their own waste. Producer pays or take-back laws are examples of implementing EPR. The use of microorganisms such as yeast, bacteria, and fungi to convert substrates such as sugar into products. In the absence of oxygen, these products can include ethanol, methane, and carbon dioxide plus some increase in cell mass. When oxygen is present, the increase in cell mass is generally much greater with water and carbon dioxide usually the primary products. A synthesis process for producing mainly straight-chain paraffinic hydrocarbons from a synthesis gas having the correct mixture of CO and H2. Catalysts are usually employed. Typical operating conditions for FT synthesis are temperatures of 390-660 F and pressures of 15-40 atmospheres depending on the desired products. The product range includes the light hydrocarbons methane (CH4) and ethane (C2), LPG (C3-C4), gasoline (C5-C12), diesel (C13C22), and waxes (>C23). The distribution of the products depends on the catalyst and the process conditions (temperature, pressure, and residence time). The synthesis gas should have low tar and particulate matter content to avoid progressive contamination of the catalysts. Biomass derived synthesis gas for 347
Gasification Hydraulic retention time (HRT)
Hydrogasification
Hydrolysis
Integrated Gasifier Combined Cycle (IGCC)
Incineration
Ligno-cellulosic
Mesophilic
methane Nonselective
FT liquid production is pre-commercial. However, it may be more easily commercialized than coal since it has smaller quantities of contaminants to remove in the synthesis gas cleaning process. Production of energetic gases from solid or liquid organic feedstocks usually by partial oxidation. Primary energetic gases produced are hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane, along with an inorganic ash residue. The average time a volume element of fluid resides in a reactor. It is computed from liquid-filled volume of an anaerobic digester divided by the volumetric flow rate of liquid medium. Gasification using hydrogen gas to react with the carbon in organic materials to produce a methane rich gas effluent, and provide heat for the process. Any pyrolytic products present are usually converted into methane. Steam pyrolysis is often used as a precursor process that can enhance the hydrogen reaction kinetics, despite the presence of water in the feed. Since oxygen is not intentionally introduced, carbon oxides are reduced and methane increased as the hydrogen pressure is increased. Toxic hydrocarbons, like furans and dioxins, are chemically reduced by hydrogasification to less hazardous chemical compounds. A chemical or biological process in which water is added to other molecules (the conditions are wide ranging and many molecules can be hydrolyzed). Hydrolysis is a pre-treatment or preliminary step in fermentation processes that ultimately yield biogas or ethanol. For cellulose and hemicellulose, a variety of hydrolysis methods can be used to break down the long chain polymer into simple glucose molecules, Efficiencies of hydrolysis vary among methods and feedstocks. Combined cycle systems that incorporate a gasifier for the purposes of converting the solid fuel to a fuel gas for combustion in a gas turbine using the Brayton cycle. Combined cycle (CC) power systems can extract more useful energy from a given amount of input energy or fuel by utilizing two power cycles in sequence: 1) a gas turbine Brayton cycle and 2) a steam Rankine cycle utilizing heat rejected in the gas turbine exhaust. In such systems, the steam boiler is conventionally referred to as a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). Gas turbines require a clean, particle free exhaust gas for expansion through the turbine. Using the effluent gases from gasified biomass or coal as a turbine fuel requires cleanup before introduction to the combustion chamber of the turbine, similar to those present in commercially cleaned natural gas. Gasification of coal for IGCC is being done in over 20 facilities worldwide. A generic term in the industry that connotes any process that combusts waste. Combustion of solid wastes that have had no sorting or pre-treatment applied to the whole solid waste mass used as feedstock. Heat and power may or may not be recovered. Consisting of cellulose intimately associated with lignin, an amorphous polymer related to cellulose that has strength and rigidity. Wood is the most abundant ligno-cellulosic material .though almost all plant biomass contains lignin. Lignin does not degrade anaerobically (and is the most recalcitrant component of biomass for aerobic decomposition). Because of the structural nature of lignocellulosic material, much of the cellulose is difficult to access for anaerobic digestion. One of two optimal temperature ranges for microorganisms involved in anaerobic digestion. Mesophilic temperature is around 95 F (35 C). Methane is the main component of natural gas and biogas. It is the simplest hydrocarbon consisting of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms (CH4). The heat content of methane is approximately 1,000 BTU/scf (standard cubic feet). Methane is a greenhouse gas with 21 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide by weight. The typical automotive '3-way' catalytic converter. Usually, the catalyst 348
Catalytic Reduction (NSCR)
Organic
Priority (toxic) pollutants Pyrolysis
Rankine cycle
Reactive organic gases
Regenerative SCR (RSCR)
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
Selective NonCatalytic Reduction (SNCR)
sequentially reduces NOx compounds and oxidizes CO and unburned HC. It operates in a very narrow (and low) oxygen concentration range requiring a exhaust oxygen sensor and air/fuel controller. This is not compatible with leanburn engines because exhaust oxygen concentration is too high. The catalyst is subject to damage by sulfur compounds in the exhaust. Material containing carbon and hydrogen. Organic material in MSW includes the biomass components of the waste stream as well as hydrocarbons usually derived from fossil sources (e.g., most plastics, polymers, the majority of waste tire components, and petroleum residues). Pollutants that are particularly harmful to animal or plant life. They are grouped primarily into organics (including pesticides, solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], and dioxins) and metals (including lead, silver, mercury, copper, chromium, zinc, nickel, and cadmium). A thermal degradation of carbonaceous material in an oxygen-free reactor. Pyrolytic oils, fuel gas, chars and ash are produced in quantities that are highly dependent on temperature, residence time and the amount of heat applied. The most widely used thermal cycle for electrical power generation throughout the world. It is commonly called a steam cycle when the working fluid is water. It consists of a boiler where heat is added to liquid phase pressurized working fluid (water) to create a high temperature and pressurized vapor (steam if the working fluid is water). The high-pressure steam is expanded through a turbine, which turns a generator creating electrical power. The low-pressure steam coming out of the turbine is condensed to liquid by cooling after which the pressure of the relatively low temperature liquid is raised by a boiler feed pump or pumps to repeat the cycle. Rankine cycle efficiencies depend on plant size, fuel, and design and typically vary from about 10% for very small (<1 MWe) solid-fueled systems to greater than 40% for large (>500 MWe) supercritical units. Typical solid-fueled biomass and waste fired power plants (~10-100 MWe) have net efficiencies of about 17-25%. A term equivalent to volatile organic compounds that is used by the California Air Resources Board. Reactive organic gases (ROG) are precursors to photochemical smog. Also called Tail-end SCR, an SCR system placed downstream of gas cleaning and cooling operations in order to reduce catalyst fouling by sulfur and other inorganic compounds in the exhaust gas. Because the gas has been cooled, it must be re-heated (regenerated) to a high enough temperature for the catalyst to function. In large coal facilities with RSCR, the energy penalty for reheating the flue gas to 300 C (570 F) is about 3% of plant output. Selectively reduces NOx by the injection of ammonia or urea reagent upstream of a precious metal oxide catalyst. This requires some oxygen in the exhaust stream and therefore, as pertains to reciprocating engines, is only applicable to lean burn SI, CI, and Dual-fuel CI engines. SCR is used in stationary gas turbine applications and regenerative SCR systems are utilized in coal and MSW combustion systems. The catalyst is also susceptible to sulfur and volatile inorganic compounds adsorption rendering sites inactive. A certain amount of ammonia passes through unreacted which requires monitoring in order to meet ammonia slip limits. An SCR system consists of reagent storage, feed and injection system, catalyst, and monitoring equipment for use in controlling ammonia slip. Predictive mapping and monitoring of engine parameters can be used for reagent flow control instead of exhaust monitoring. SCR for solid fuel biomass combustion systems is developmental due to gas cleaning requirements. Utilizes ammonia, urea, or other suitable amine based compounds that react selectively with NOx in a flue gas in the presence of oxygen to reduce oxides of nitrogen to N2. The reactions proceed at fairly high temperature and the temperature range for the reactions to occur is rather narrow at 1600 2100 F 349
Short-run avoided cost
Standard Offer No. 4 (SO#4)
Starved air incineration
Steam pyrolysis
Steam reforming
Stoichiometry
Synthesis gas Technical availability Thermal oxidation Total Solids
(900-1150 C) which is why the technique is also known as thermal de-NOx Typically, more than stoichiometric amounts of ammonia or urea are injected in order to sufficiently drive the NOx reduction reactions which leads to certain amounts of ammonia passing unreacted through the system (so-called ammonia slip). SNCR is used extensively in industrial and utility boilers and furnaces, including biomass boilers. SNCR is a component of BACT for biomass boilers in California. Marginal cost to generate or procure the next increment of electricity. For example, SRAC is used to set energy prices for qualifying facilities as defined by PURPA The Interim Standard Offer No. 4 (SO#4) were contracts made available to independent biomass power developers by PG&E and SCE. Available for signing in 1984 and 1985 with a 5 year window to bring projects on-line, the SO#4 guaranteed firm energy prices for 10 years based on the relatively high SRAC rates in effect at that time ($0.05-0.06/kWh) and escalating to above $0.12/kWh. At the end of the 10-year fixed rate portion, generators would receive the current market SRAC which had significantly declined by the late 1990s. This process is usually two fold. In the first stage, the reactor is fed with substoichiometric levels of oxygen, which creates a reducing environment, driving the organic components into the gas phase and leaving the inorganic material as ash residue. The next stage thermally oxidizes the organic gases by mixing with excess oxygen. A thermally driven decomposition of organic material in a high pressure superheat steam reactor. The steam produces more gas products and less pyrolytic oil than dry pyrolysis. The pyrolytic char formed is highly porous and is often used to make activated carbon from waste biomass. The activation of the char, enhances the reactivity of the gasification process, especially when using hydrogen. An endothermic chemical conversion process used to make hydrogen and carbon monoxide from superheat steam and hydrocarbon gases such as methane using a nickel based catalyst. Generally the molar or mass relationships among reactants and products of a chemical reaction. In any combustion reaction, for example, there is a specific molar or mass ratio of oxygen or air (contains 21% oxygen by volume) to fuel that is required for complete combustion to occur (fuel fully oxidized to carbon dioxide and water). This ratio is called the stoichiometric ratio or the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. The inverse ratio is referred to as the stoichiometric fuel-air ratio. If excess oxygen or air is supplied, the combustion occurs under fuel-lean conditions. If insufficient oxygen or air is supplied, the combustion is fuel-rich. The ratio of the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio to the actual air-fuel ratio is called the equivalence ratio (f), so that fuel-lean conditions occur at equivalence ratios less than 1, and fuel-rich conditions occur at equivalence ratios greater than 1. An equivalence ratio equal to 1 specifies the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. The inverse of the equivalence ratio is the air- or lambda-factor (l). Combustion conditions are commonly described by the equivalence ratio, while gasification conditions (extremely fuel rich) are commonly described by the air-factor. A mixture of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas formed via gasification for the express purpose of synthesizing products. Related to biomass resource, it is the amount of resource estimated to be practically and economically obtainable A high temperature oxidative process that uses excess oxygen to convert gaseous organic matter into carbon dioxide and water vapor. Used to characterize digester systems input feedstock. Total solids (TS) means the dry matter content, usually expressed as % of total weight, of the prepared feedstock. By definition, TS = 100 moisture content of a sample. Also, TS = 350
Volatile organic compounds
Volatile Solids
VS plus ash content. VOCs are non-methane, non-ethane, photoreactive hydrocarbon gases that vaporize at room temperature (methane and ethane are not photoreactive). The quantity of VOC is sometimes determined by measuring non-methane nonethane organic compounds. When combined with NOx and sunlight, VOCs produce ozone, a criteria air pollutant. Anthropogenic sources of VOCs include products of incomplete combustion, evaporation of hydrocarbon fuels, fugitive emissions from oil refineries and petro-chemical plants, fermented beverage manufacturing, large animal feeding operations and feed ensiling. However, natural VOC emissions account for the majority of VOC emissions (approximately 60% of the US VOC emission inventory). Vegetation, especially hardwood and pine trees account for most of the natural VOC emissions. They are also an intermediate product in the creation of methane during anaerobic digestion and are produced during enteric fermentation. Used to characterize digester systems input feedstock, volatile solids (VSs) are the organic (carbon containing) portion of the prepared reactor feedstock. Usually expressed as a fraction of total solids, but sometimes expressed as a fraction of total sample (wet) weight. The amount of VS in a sample is determined by an analytical method called "loss on ignition. It is the amount of matter that is volatilized and burned from a sample exposed to air at 550 C for 2 hours. The inorganic (ash) component of total solids remains after the loss on ignition procedure. VS + ash = TS. Not all of the VS component of a feedstock is digestible.
351
Appendix A Supplemental Figures from Chapter 3 (Economic Analysis)
APA1
Figure 3.4-5. COE versus Debt Interest Rate (Carbona Skive) A-3 Figure 3.4-6. COE versus Equity Ratio (Carbona Skive) ........................................... A-3 Figure 3.4-7. COE versus Electrical Efficiency (Carbona Skive) ............................... A-4 Figure 3.4-8. Company size and PTC effects on COE (Carbona Skive) ................... A-4 Figure 3.5-6. COE versus Equity Ratio (Kokemki) ...................................................... A-5 Figure 3.5-7. COE versus net electric power efficiency (Kokemki) ............................. A-6 Figure 3.5-8. Variation of COE with tax consequences (Kokemki) ............................. A-6 Figure 3.6-6. COE versus Debt Interest Rate (Carbona India IGCC) ......................... A-7 Figure 3.6-7. COE versus Equity Ratio (Carbona India IGCC) ................................... A-7 Figure 3.6-8. COE versus Capacity Payment (Carbona India IGCC) ......................... A-8 Figure 3.6-9. COE versus Efficiency of Plant (Carbona India IGCC) .......................... A-8 Figure 3.6-10 Variation of COE with tax consequences (Carbona India IGCC) ......... A-9 Figure 3.7-5. COE versus Debt Interest Rate (rice straw plant) .................................... A-9 Figure 3.7-6. COE versus Equity Ratio (rice straw plant) ........................................... A-10 Figure 3.7-7. COE versus Capacity Payment (rice straw plant) .................................. A-10 Figure 3.7-8. COE versus Efficiency of Plant (rice straw plant) .................................. A-11 Figure 3.7-9. Effect of tax consequences on COE (rice straw plant) .......................... A-11 Figure 3.8-11. COE versus equity ratio (MSW AD scenario 1) ................................... A-13 Figure 3.8-12. COE versus interest rate on debt (MSW AD scenario 1) ..................... A-13 Figure 3.8-13. COE versus O&M costs (MSW AD scenario 1) ................................... A-14 Figure 3.8-20. Required Tip Fee vs. Electrical Parasitic Load (MSW AD scenario 2) A-14 Figure 3.8-21. Required Tip Fee vs. Equity Ratio (MSW AD scenario 2) ................... A-15 Figure 3.8-22. Required Tip Fee vs. Debt Interest Rate (MSW AD scenario 2) ......... A-15 Figure 3.8-23. Required Tip Fee vs. O&M Costs (MSW AD scenario 2) .................... A-16
APA2
Current $
Constant $
0.14 0.12 0.10 COE ($/kWh) 0.08 0.06
Base Case
0.04 0.02 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 Interest Rate (% /y) 12 14 16
Figure 3.4-5. COE versus debt interest rate (Carbona Skive)

Current $ 0.14 0.12 0.10 COE ($/kWh) 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 20 40 60 Equity Ratio (% )
Constant $
80
100
Figure 3.4-6. COE versus equity ratio (Carbona Skive)

APA3
Current $ 0.14 0.12 0.10 COE ($/kWh) 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 15
Constant $
30
45
Efficiency of Plant -Electric Power (% )

Figure 3.4-7. COE versus electrical efficiency (Carbona Skive)
Current $
Constant $
0.14 0.12 COE ($/kWh) 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00
Large Profitable Company (Base Case)
Research Team; Photo credit: Robert Williams
Large Profitable Company, w/o PTC
Small Company (no 'neg. taxes')
Figure 3.4-8. Company size and PTC effects on COE (Carbona Skive)Photo credit: UC Davis
APA4
0.10
Current $
Constant $
0.08
COE ($/kWh)
0.06
0.04
Base Case (6%)
0.02
0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 Interest Rate (% /y) 12 14 16
Figure 3.5-5. COE versus interest rate (Kokemki)

Current $ 0.10
Constant $
0.08 COE ($/kWh)
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00 0 5 10 15 Equity Ratio (% )

Figure 3.5-6. COE versus equity ratio (Kokemki)
20
25
30
APA5
0.12
Current $
Constant $
0.10
COE ($/kWh)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02 0 15 30 45 Efficiency of Plant -Electric Power (% ) 60
Figure 3.5-7. COE versus net electric power efficiency (Kokemki)

0.10
Current $
Constant $
0.08
COE ($/kWh)
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00 Large Profitable Company Large Profitable Company (Base Case) (w/o PTC)
Figure 3.5-8. Variation of COE with tax consequences (Kokemki)
Small Company (no neg. taxes)
APA6
0.12
Current $
Constant $
0.10
COE ($/kWh)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02 0 2 4 6 8 10 Interest Rate (% /y) 12 14 16
Figure 3.6-6. COE versus debt interest rate (Carbona India IGCC)
0.12
Current $
Constant $
0.10 COE ($/kWh)
0.08
0.06
Equity Ratio is 15% in Base Case
0.04
0.02 0 20 40 60 Equity Ratio (% ) 80 100
Figure 3.6-7. COE versus equity ratio (CarbonaIndia IGCC)

APA7
0.12
Current $
Constant $
0.10
COE ($/kWh)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02 0 50 100 150 Capacity Payment ($/kW-y) 200
Figure 3.6-8. COE versus capacity payment (Carbona India IGCC)

Current $ 0.12
Constant $
0.10
COE ($/kWh)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02 0 15 30 45 Efficiency of Plant -Electric Power (% ) 60
Figure 3.6-9. COE versus efficiency of plant (Carbona India IGCC)

APA8
Current $ 0.10
Constant $
0.08 COE ($/kWh)
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00 Large Profitable Company, w/ PTC (base case) Large Profitable Company (no PTC) Small Company (no PTC or 'negative' taxes)
Figure 3.6-10 Variation of COE with tax consequences (Carbona India IGCC)
Current $ 0.14
Constant $
0.12
COE ($/kWh)
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04 0 2 4 6 8 10 Interest Rate (% /y) 12 14 16
Figure 3.7-5. COE versus debt interest rate (rice straw plant)
APA9
Current $ 0.14
Constant $
0.12
COE ($/kWh)
0.10
0.08
0.06 Equity Ratio is 20% in Base Case 0.04 0 20 40 60 80 100 Equity Ratio (% )
Figure 3.7-6. COE versus equity ratio (rice straw plant)
Current $
0.14
Constant $
0.12
COE ($/kWh)
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Capacity Payment ($/kW-y)

Figure 3.7-7. COE versus capacity payment (rice straw plant)
APA10
Current $ 0.14
Constant $
0.12 COE ($/kWh)
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04 0 15 30 45 60 Efficiency of Plant -Electric Power (% )

Figure 3.7-8. COE versus efficiency of plant (rice straw plant)
Current $ 0.14
Constant $
0.12
COE ($/kWh)
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04 Large Company SmallCompany

Figure 3.7-9. Effect of tax consequences on COE (rice straw plant)
APA11
APA12
0.30
Current $
Constant $
0.20 COE ($/kWh) 0.10

0.00 0 5 10 Equity Ratio (%)
Figure 3.8-11. COE versus equity ratio (MSW AD Scenario 1)
15
20
Current $ 0.30
Constant $
COE ($/kWh)
0.20
0.10
Base Case is 6%
0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Debt Interest Rate (% /y)

Figure 3.8-12. COE versus interest rate on debt (MSW AD Scenario 1)
APA13
Current $ 0.30
Constant $
0.20 COE ($/kWh)
0.10
0.00
-0.10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 O&M ($/short ton of feedstock)

Figure 3.8-13. COE versus O&M costs (MSW AD Scenario 1)
Current $ 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 15 30 45
Constant $
60
75
90
Internal Electricity Consumption (% of gross generation)

Figure 3.8-20. Required tipping fee vs. electrical parasitic load (MSW AD Scenario 2)
APA14
60
Current $
Constant $
50 Required Tipping Fee ($/ton)
40
30
20
10

0 5 10 Equity Ratio (%) 15 20
Figure 3.8-21. Required tipping fee vs. equity ratio (MSW AD Scenario 2)
Current $ 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 2 4 6 8
Constant $
10
12
14
Debt Interest Rate (% /y)

Figure 3.8-22. Required Tipping fee vs. debt interest rate (MSW AD Scenario 2)
APA15
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10
Current $
Constant $
15
20
25
30
35
40
O&M ($/short ton of feedstock)

Figure 3.8-23. Required tipping fee vs. O&M costs (MSW AD Scenario 2)
APA16
Appendix B Base Cash Flows
APB1
Annual Cash Flows-Carbona Skive Year Equity Recovery Equity Interest Equity Principal Paid Equity Principal Remaining Debt Recovery Debt Interest Debt Principal Paid Debt Principal Remaining Fuel Cost Non-fuel Expenses Debt Reserve Depreciation Capacity Income Annual heat sales ($) Annual Ash sales ($) Interest on Debt Reserve Taxes Tax Credit Taxes With PTC Energy Revenue Required Current $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) Cost of Money Present Worth (time 0) Total Present Worth Capital Recovery Factor (current) Current $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements ($/y) Current $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh) Constant $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) Real Cost of Money (inflation adjusted) Capital Recovery Factor (constant) Constant $ Level Annual Revenue Requ Constant $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh)
1 513,051 450,000 63,051 2,936,949 1,750,367 1,020,000 730,367 16,269,633 1,478,972 1,278,271 0 4,000,000 0 1,718,138 2,988 0 -1,863,594 388,926 -2,252,521 1,047,015
2 513,051 440,542 72,509 2,864,440 1,750,367 976,178 774,189 15,495,444 1,520,384 1,314,063 0 6,400,000 0 1,766,246 3,071 0 -3,456,494 388,926 -3,845,421 -516,874
3 513,051 429,666 83,385 2,781,055 1,750,367 929,727 820,640 14,674,804 1,562,954 1,350,857 0 3,840,000 0 1,815,701 3,157 0 -1,694,396 388,926 -2,083,323 1,275,048
4 513,051 417,158 95,893 2,685,162 1,750,367 880,488 869,879 13,804,925 1,606,717 1,388,681 0 2,304,000 0 1,866,541 3,246 0 -622,692 388,926 -1,011,618 2,377,411
5 513,051 402,774 110,277 2,574,885 1,750,367 828,295 922,071 12,882,853 1,651,705 1,427,564 0 2,304,000 0 1,918,804 3,337 0 -587,407 388,926 -976,333 2,444,213
6 513,051 386,233 126,818 2,448,067 1,750,367 772,971 977,396 11,905,458 1,697,953 1,467,536 0 1,152,000 0 1,972,530 3,430 0 228,808 0 228,808 3,681,754
7 513,051 367,210 145,841 2,302,225 1,750,367 714,327 1,036,040 10,869,418 1,745,495 1,508,627 0 0 0 2,027,761 3,526 0 1,047,267 0 1,047,267 4,533,520
8 513,051 345,334 167,717 2,134,508 1,750,367 652,165 1,098,202 9,771,216 1,794,369 1,550,868 0 0 0 2,084,538 3,625 0 1,089,292 0 1,089,292 4,609,784
9 513,051 320,176 192,875 1,941,633 1,750,367 586,273 1,164,094 8,607,122 1,844,612 1,594,292 0 0 0 2,142,906 3,726 0 1,133,838 0 1,133,838 4,689,529
10 513,051 291,245 221,806 1,719,827 1,750,367 516,427 1,233,940 7,373,183 1,896,261 1,638,933 0 0 0 2,202,907 3,831 0 1,181,058 0 1,181,058 4,772,932
0.0735 975,329 28,940,052 0.1122 3,248,063 0.0752
-448,518
1,030,672
1,790,178
1,714,466
2,405,706
2,759,441
2,613,751
2,476,913
2,348,360
0.0443 0.0926 2,681,040 0.0620
APB2
Annual Cash Flows-Carbona Skive Equity Recovery Equity Interest Equity Principal Paid Equity Principal Remaining Debt Recovery Debt Interest Debt Principal Paid Debt Principal Remaining Fuel Cost Non-fuel Expenses Debt Reserve Depreciation Capacity Income Annual heat sales ($) Annual Ash sales ($) Interest on Debt Reserve Taxes Tax Credit Taxes With PTC Energy Revenue Required 11 513,051 257,974 255,077 1,464,750 1,750,367 442,391 1,307,976 6,065,206 1,949,356 1,684,823 0 0 0 2,264,588 3,938 0 1,231,110 0 1,231,110 4,860,181
Continued 12 513,051 219,712 293,339 1,171,411 1,750,367 363,912 1,386,455 4,678,752 2,003,938 1,731,998 0 0 0 2,327,997 4,048 0 1,284,166 0 1,284,166 4,951,475
13 513,051 175,712 337,339 834,072 1,750,367 280,725 1,469,642 3,209,110 2,060,048 1,780,494 0 0 0 2,393,181 4,162 0 1,340,405 0 1,340,405 5,047,023
14 513,051 125,111 387,940 446,131 1,750,367 192,547 1,557,820 1,651,290 2,117,730 1,830,348 0 0 0 2,460,190 4,278 0 1,400,018 0 1,400,018 5,147,045
15 513,051 66,920 446,131 0 1,750,367 99,077 1,651,290 0 2,177,026 1,881,597 0 0 0 2,529,075 4,398 0 1,463,208 0 1,463,208 5,251,777
16 513,051 0 513,051 -513,051 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 346,850
17 513,051 -76,958 590,009 -1,103,060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 346,850
18 513,051 -165,459 678,510 -1,781,570 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 346,850
19 513,051 -267,236 780,287 -2,561,857 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 346,850
20 513,051 -384,279 897,330 -3,459,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 346,850
859,901
859,901
859,901
859,901
859,901
2,227,562
2,114,024
2,007,283
1,906,906
1,812,490
276,449
257,521
239,890
223,465
208,165
APB3
Annual Cash Flows - Kokemaki, Finland Year Equity Recovery Equity Interest Equity Principal Paid Equity Principal Remaining Debt Recovery Debt Interest Debt Principal Paid Debt Principal Remaining Fuel Cost Non-fuel Expenses Debt Reserve Depreciation Capacity Income Annual heat sales ($) Annual Ash sales ($) Interest on Debt Reserve Taxes before PTC Tax Credit Taxes With PTC Energy Revenue Required Current $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) Cost of Money Present Worth (time 0) Total Present Worth Capital Recovery Factor (current) Current $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements ($/y) Current $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh) Constant $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) Real Cost of Money (inflation adjusted) Capital Recovery Factor (constant) Constant $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements ($/y) Constant $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh)
1 141,089 123,750 17,339 807,661 481,351 280,500 200,851 4,474,149 286,071 432,929 0 1,100,000 0 305,853 867 0 -512,488 131,723 -644,211 390,509
2 141,089 121,149 19,940 787,721 481,351 268,449 212,902 4,261,247 294,081 445,051 0 1,760,000 0 314,416 891 0 -950,536 131,723 -1,082,259 -35,995
3 141,089 118,158 22,931 764,790 481,351 255,675 225,676 4,035,571 302,315 457,512 0 1,056,000 0 323,220 916 0 -465,959 131,723 -597,682 460,450
4 141,089 114,719 26,371 738,420 481,351 242,134 239,217 3,796,354 310,780 470,322 0 633,600 0 332,270 942 0 -171,240 131,723 -302,963 767,368
5 141,089 110,763 30,326 708,093 481,351 227,781 253,570 3,542,785 319,482 483,491 0 633,600 0 341,574 968 0 -161,537 131,723 -293,260 789,612
6 141,089 106,214 34,875 673,218 481,351 212,567 268,784 3,274,001 328,427 497,029 0 316,800 0 351,138 995 0 62,922 0 62,922 1,158,686
7 141,089 100,983 40,106 633,112 481,351 196,440 284,911 2,989,090 337,623 510,946 0 0 0 360,970 1,023 0 287,998 0 287,998 1,397,015
8 141,089 94,967 46,122 586,990 481,351 179,345 302,006 2,687,084 347,077 525,253 0 0 0 371,077 1,052 0 299,555 0 299,555 1,422,196
9 141,089 88,048 53,041 533,949 481,351 161,225 320,126 2,366,959 356,795 539,960 0 0 0 381,467 1,081 0 311,806 0 311,806 1,448,452
10 141,089 80,092 60,997 472,952 481,351 142,018 339,333 2,027,625 366,785 555,078 0 0 0 392,148 1,111 0 324,791 0 324,791 1,475,835
0.0735 363,772 8,863,591 0.1122 994,798 0.071
-31,234
372,200
577,824
553,864
757,100
850,328
806,386
765,043
726,135
0.0443 0.0926 821,133 0.058
APB4
(Continued) Annual Cash Flows - Kokemaki, Finland Year 11 12 Equity Recovery 141,089 141,089 Equity Interest 70,943 60,421 Equity Principal Paid 70,146 80,668 Equity Principal Remaining Debt Recovery Debt Interest Debt Principal Paid Debt Principal Remaining Fuel Cost Non-fuel Expenses Debt Reserve Depreciation Capacity Income Annual heat sales ($) Annual Ash sales ($) Interest on Debt Reserve Taxes before PTC Tax Credit Taxes With PTC Energy Revenue Required 402,806 481,351 121,658 359,693 1,667,932 377,055 570,621 0 0 0 403,128 1,143 0 338,555 0 338,555 1,504,400 322,138 481,351 100,076 381,275 1,286,657 387,613 586,598 0 0 0 414,416 1,175 0 353,146 0 353,146 1,534,206
13 141,089 48,321 92,768 229,370 481,351 77,199 404,152 882,505 398,466 603,023 0 0 0 426,020 1,207 0 368,611 0 368,611 1,565,313
14 141,089 34,405 106,684 122,686 481,351 52,950 428,401 454,105 409,623 619,907 0 0 0 437,948 1,241 0 385,005 0 385,005 1,597,786
15 141,089 18,403 122,686 0 481,351 27,246 454,105 0 421,093 637,265 0 0 0 450,211 1,276 0 402,382 0 402,382 1,631,693
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
689,511
655,027
622,550
591,957
563,129
APB5
Annual Cash Flows -Carbona IGCC Year Equity Recovery Equity Interest Equity Principal Paid Equity Principal Remaining Debt Recovery Debt Interest Debt Principal Paid Debt Principal Remaining Fuel Cost Non-fuel Expenses Debt Reserve Depreciation Capacity Income Annual heat sales ($) Annual Ash sales ($) Interest on Debt Reserve Taxes before PTC Tax Credit Taxes with PTC Energy Revenue Required Current $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) Cost of Money Present Worth (time 0) Total Present Worth Capital Recovery Factor (current) Current $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements ($/y) Current $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh) Constant $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) Real Cost of Money (inflation adjusted) Capital Recovery Factor (constant) Constant $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements ($/y) Constant $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh)
1 838,748 787,500 51,248 5,198,752 2,593,741 1,785,000 808,741 28,941,259 1,821,204 2,915,109 2,593,741 3,500,000 1,125,000 0 5,519 77,812 -1,252,395 886,950 -2,139,345 7,414,866
2 838,748 779,813 58,935 5,139,817 2,593,741 1,736,476 857,265 28,083,994 1,872,198 2,996,732 0 6,300,000 1,125,000 0 5,673 77,812 -3,112,537 886,950 -3,999,487 3,093,445
3 838,748 770,973 67,775 5,072,042 2,593,741 1,685,040 908,701 27,175,294 1,924,619 3,080,641 0 5,040,000 1,125,000 0 5,832 77,812 -2,225,938 886,950 -3,112,888 4,116,216
4 838,748 760,806 77,941 4,994,101 2,593,741 1,630,518 963,223 26,212,071 1,978,509 3,166,898 0 4,032,000 1,125,000 0 5,995 77,812 -1,507,617 886,950 -2,394,567 4,974,521
5 838,748 749,115 89,633 4,904,468 2,593,741 1,572,724 1,021,016 25,191,054 2,033,907 3,255,572 0 3,227,000 1,125,000 0 6,163 77,812 -924,323 886,950 -1,811,273 5,701,718
6 838,748 735,670 103,077 4,801,391 2,593,741 1,511,463 1,082,277 24,108,777 2,090,856 3,346,728 0 2,579,500 1,125,000 0 6,336 77,812 -445,164 0 -445,164 7,215,760
7 838,748 720,209 118,539 4,682,852 2,593,741 1,446,527 1,147,214 22,961,563 2,149,400 3,440,436 0 2,292,500 1,125,000 0 6,513 77,812 -207,236 0 -207,236 7,605,763
8 838,748 702,428 136,320 4,546,532 2,593,741 1,377,694 1,216,047 21,745,516 2,209,583 3,536,768 0 2,292,500 1,125,000 0 6,696 77,812 -160,701 0 -160,701 7,808,631
9 838,748 681,980 156,768 4,389,764 2,593,741 1,304,731 1,289,010 20,456,507 2,271,452 3,635,798 0 2,292,500 1,125,000 0 6,883 77,812 -111,375 0 -111,375 8,018,668
0.0735 6,907,187 79,191,558 0.0970 7,679,676 0.078
2,684,345
3,327,300
3,745,787
3,999,406
4,714,871
4,629,440
4,427,499
4,235,296
0.0443 0.0764 6,049,004 0.061
APB6
Annual Cash Flows -Carbona IGCC Year Equity Recovery Equity Interest Equity Principal Paid Equity Principal Remaining Debt Recovery Debt Interest Debt Principal Paid Debt Principal Remaining Fuel Cost Non-fuel Expenses Debt Reserve Depreciation Capacity Income Annual heat sales ($) Annual Ash sales ($) Interest on Debt Reserve Taxes before PTC Tax Credit Taxes with PTC Energy Revenue Required
(Continued) 10 838,748 658,465 180,283 4,209,481 2,593,741 1,227,390 1,366,350 19,090,156 2,335,052 3,737,600 0 2,292,500 1,125,000 0 7,076 77,812 -59,088 0 -59,088 8,236,164
11 838,748 631,422 207,326 4,002,155 2,593,741 1,145,409 1,448,331 17,641,825 2,400,434 3,842,253 0 1,151,500 1,125,000 0 7,274 77,812 767,711 0 767,711 9,232,800
12 838,748 600,323 238,424 3,763,731 2,593,741 1,058,510 1,535,231 16,106,594 2,467,646 3,949,836 0 0 1,125,000 0 7,478 77,812 1,604,934 0 1,604,934 10,244,615
13 838,748 564,560 274,188 3,489,543 2,593,741 966,396 1,627,345 14,479,249 2,536,740 4,060,431 0 0 1,125,000 0 7,687 77,812 1,667,208 0 1,667,208 10,486,369
14 838,748 523,431 315,316 3,174,226 2,593,741 868,755 1,724,986 12,754,264 2,607,769 4,174,123 0 0 1,125,000 0 7,902 77,812 1,733,218 0 1,733,218 10,736,884
15 838,748 476,134 362,614 2,811,612 2,593,741 765,256 1,828,485 10,925,779 2,680,786 4,290,999 0 0 1,125,000 0 8,124 77,812 1,803,189 0 1,803,189 10,996,527
16 838,748 421,742 417,006 2,394,607 2,593,741 655,547 1,938,194 8,987,585 2,755,848 4,411,147 0 0 1,125,000 0 8,351 77,812 1,877,358 0 1,877,358 11,265,679
17 838,748 359,191 479,557 1,915,050 2,593,741 539,255 2,054,485 6,933,100 2,833,012 4,534,659 0 0 1,125,000 0 8,585 77,812 1,955,978 0 1,955,978 11,544,740
18 838,748 287,257 551,490 1,363,560 2,593,741 415,986 2,177,755 4,755,345 2,912,336 4,661,629 0 0 1,125,000 0 8,825 77,812 2,039,314 0 2,039,314 11,834,131
19 838,748 204,534 634,214 729,346 2,593,741 285,321 2,308,420 2,446,925 2,993,882 4,792,155 0 0 1,125,000 0 9,072 77,812 2,127,651 0 2,127,651 12,134,291
20 838,748 109,402 729,346 0 2,593,741 146,816 2,446,925 0 3,077,711 4,926,335 -2,593,741 0 1,125,000 0 9,326 77,812 2,221,288 0 2,221,288 9,851,943
4,052,327
4,231,661
4,373,922
4,170,600
3,977,861
3,795,114
3,621,801
3,457,398
3,301,410
3,153,374
2,384,959
APB7
Annual Cash Flows - Straw Facility Year Equity Recovery Equity Interest Equity Principal Paid Equity Principal Remaining Debt Recovery Debt Interest Debt Principal Paid Debt Principal Remaining Fuel Cost Non-fuel Expenses Debt Reserve Depreciation Capacity Income Annual heat sales ($) Annual Ash sales ($) Interest on Debt Reserve Taxes before PTC Tax Credit Taxes with PTC Energy Revenue Required Current $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) Cost of Money Present Worth (time 0) Total Present Worth Capital Recovery Factor (current) Current $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements ($/y) Current $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh) Constant $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) Real Cost of Money (inflation adjusted) Capital Recovery Factor (constant) Constant $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements ($/y) Constant $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh)
1 2,811,802 2,640,000 171,802 17,428,198 6,137,793 4,224,000 1,913,793 68,486,207 7,568,964 8,172,670 6,137,793 8,800,000 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 -2,754,512 2,486,614 -5,241,126 21,837,939
2 2,811,802 2,614,230 197,572 17,230,626 6,137,793 4,109,172 2,028,620 66,457,587 7,871,722 8,499,577 0 15,840,000 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 -7,436,293 2,561,212 -9,997,505 11,573,433
3 2,811,802 2,584,594 227,208 17,003,418 6,137,793 3,987,455 2,150,338 64,307,249 8,186,591 8,839,560 0 12,672,000 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 -5,212,271 2,638,048 -7,850,319 14,375,470
4 2,811,802 2,550,513 261,289 16,742,129 6,137,793 3,858,435 2,279,358 62,027,891 8,514,055 9,193,142 0 10,137,600 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 -3,411,659 2,717,190 -6,128,849 16,777,987
5 2,811,802 2,511,319 300,483 16,441,646 6,137,793 3,721,673 2,416,119 59,611,772 8,854,617 9,560,868 0 8,113,600 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 -1,950,871 2,798,706 -4,749,576 18,865,547
6 2,811,802 2,466,247 345,555 16,096,091 6,137,793 3,576,706 2,561,086 57,050,686 9,208,802 9,943,303 0 6,485,600 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 -752,252 0 -752,252 23,599,491
7 2,811,802 2,414,414 397,388 15,698,703 6,137,793 3,423,041 2,714,752 54,335,934 9,577,154 10,341,035 0 5,764,000 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 -160,526 0 -160,526 24,957,301
8 2,811,802 2,354,805 456,996 15,241,707 6,137,793 3,260,156 2,877,637 51,458,297 9,960,240 10,754,676 0 5,764,000 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 -50,407 0 -50,407 25,864,147
9 2,811,802 2,286,256 525,546 14,716,161 6,137,793 3,087,498 3,050,295 48,408,002 10,358,649 11,184,863 0 5,764,000 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 66,319 0 66,319 26,809,470
10 2,811,802 2,207,424 604,378 14,111,783 6,137,793 2,904,480 3,233,313 45,174,689 10,772,995 11,632,258 0 5,764,000 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 190,048 0 190,048 27,794,940
0.0780 20,257,829 254,922,879 0.1003 25,579,227 0.0926
9,959,205
11,475,346
12,424,096
12,959,123
15,038,000
14,752,523
14,182,346
13,637,017
13,115,297
0.0365 0.0713 18,187,244 0.0658
APB8
Year Equity Recovery Equity Interest Equity Principal Paid Equity Principal Remaining Debt Recovery Debt Interest Debt Principal Paid Debt Principal Remaining Fuel Cost Non-fuel Expenses Debt Reserve Depreciation Capacity Income Annual heat sales ($) Annual Ash sales ($) Interest on Debt Reserve Taxes before PTC Tax Credit Taxes with PTC Energy Revenue Required
11 2,811,802 2,116,767 695,034 13,416,749 6,137,793 2,710,481 3,427,311 41,747,378 11,203,915 12,097,548 0 2,895,200 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 2,260,661 0 2,260,661 30,761,763
12 2,811,802 2,012,512 799,290 12,617,459 6,137,793 2,504,843 3,632,950 38,114,428 11,652,072 12,581,450 0 0 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 4,356,991 0 4,356,991 33,790,152
13 2,811,802 1,892,619 919,183 11,698,276 6,137,793 2,286,866 3,850,927 34,263,501 12,118,155 13,084,708 0 0 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 4,504,355 0 4,504,355 34,906,856
14 2,811,802 1,754,741 1,057,060 10,641,216 6,137,793 2,055,810 4,081,983 30,181,518 12,602,881 13,608,096 0 0 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 4,660,561 0 4,660,561 36,071,177
15 2,811,802 1,596,182 1,215,620 9,425,596 6,137,793 1,810,891 4,326,902 25,854,616 13,106,996 14,152,420 0 0 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 4,826,139 0 4,826,139 37,285,194
16 2,811,802 1,413,839 1,397,962 8,027,634 6,137,793 1,551,277 4,586,516 21,268,100 13,631,276 14,718,517 0 0 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 5,001,652 0 5,001,652 38,551,083
17 2,811,802 1,204,145 1,607,657 6,419,977 6,137,793 1,276,086 4,861,707 16,406,394 14,176,527 15,307,258 0 0 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 5,187,695 0 5,187,695 39,871,118
18 2,811,802 962,997 1,848,805 4,571,171 6,137,793 984,384 5,153,409 11,252,984 14,743,588 15,919,548 0 0 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 5,384,901 0 5,384,901 41,247,676
19 2,811,802 685,676 2,126,126 2,445,045 6,137,793 675,179 5,462,614 5,790,371 15,333,332 16,556,330 0 0 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 5,593,940 0 5,593,940 42,683,240
20 2,811,802 366,757 2,445,045 0 6,137,793 347,422 5,790,371 0 15,946,665 17,218,583 -6,137,793 0 3,504,444 0 0 245,512 5,815,521 0 5,815,521 38,042,614
13,464,953
13,720,344
13,148,217
12,603,688
12,085,232
11,591,414
11,120,888
10,672,393
10,244,740
8,470,229
APB9
Annual Cash Flows Generic MSW AD (COE Calculation) Year 1 Equity Recovery 659,294 Equity Interest 619,010 Equity Principal Paid 40,283 Equity Principal Remaining 4,086,454 Debt Recovery 2,038,797 Debt Interest 1,403,090 Debt Principal Paid 635,707 Debt Principal Remaining 22,749,134 Fuel Cost 0 Non-fuel Expenses 1,669,817 Debt Reserve 0 Depreciation 2,751,158 Income--Capacity 0 Income - Electricity sales 0 Income--Heat 0 Income--Compost Material 238,166 Income-- Tipping Fee 2,599,326 Income - Sales of waste water 0 Interest on Debt Reserve 0 Taxes w/o credit -984,439 Tax Credit 98,885 Taxes -1,083,324 Revenue Required 447,092 Current $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) Cost of Money 0.0735 Present Worth (time 0) 416,480 Total Present Worth 11,427,406 Capital Recovery Factor (current) 0.0970 Current $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements ($/y) 1,108,183 Current $ LAC of Electrical Energy ($/kWh) 0.101 Constant $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) Real Cost of Money (inflation adjusted) Capital Recovery Factor (constant) Constant $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements ($/y) Constant $ LAC of Electrical Energy ($/kWh) 0.0514 0.0812 928,039 0.084
2 659,294 612,968 46,325 4,040,128 2,038,797 1,364,948 673,849 22,075,285 0 1,704,883 0 4,952,084 0 0 0 243,167 2,653,912 0 0 -2,446,595 144,231 -2,590,826 -1,084,931
3 659,294 606,019 53,274 3,986,854 2,038,797 1,324,517 714,280 21,361,006 0 1,740,686 0 3,961,667 0 0 0 248,274 2,709,644 0 0 -1,749,687 147,260 -1,896,947 -416,089
4 659,294 598,028 61,265 3,925,588 2,038,797 1,281,660 757,137 20,603,869 0 1,777,240 0 3,169,334 0 0 0 253,488 2,766,546 0 0 -1,185,055 150,352 -1,335,407 119,889
5 659,294 588,838 70,455 3,855,133 2,038,797 1,236,232 802,565 19,801,304 0 1,814,562 0 2,536,567 0 0 0 258,811 2,824,644 0 0 -726,560 153,510 -880,070 549,129
6 659,294 578,270 81,024 3,774,110 2,038,797 1,188,078 850,719 18,950,585 0 1,852,668 0 2,027,603 0 0 0 264,246 2,883,961 0 0 -349,919 0 -349,919 1,052,633
7 659,294 566,116 93,177 3,680,933 2,038,797 1,137,035 901,762 18,048,823 0 1,891,574 0 1,802,008 0 0 0 269,795 2,944,525 0 0 -162,897 0 -162,897 1,212,448
8 659,294 552,140 107,154 3,573,779 2,038,797 1,082,929 955,868 17,092,956 0 1,931,297 0 1,802,008 0 0 0 275,461 3,006,360 0 0 -126,319 0 -126,319 1,221,249
9 659,294 536,067 123,227 3,450,552 2,038,797 1,025,577 1,013,220 16,079,736 0 1,971,855 0 1,802,008 0 0 0 281,245 3,069,493 0 0 -87,546 0 -87,546 1,231,661
10 659,294 517,583 141,711 3,308,842 2,038,797 964,784 1,074,013 15,005,723 0 2,013,263 0 1,802,008 0 0 0 287,152 3,133,953 0 0 -46,446 0 -46,446 1,243,804
-941,452
-336,341
90,276
385,180
687,804
737,987
692,449
650,538
611,972
APB10
Annual Cash Flows Generic MSW AD (COE Calculation) Year 11 Equity Recovery 659,294 Equity Interest 496,326 Equity Principal Paid 162,967 Equity Principal Remaining 3,145,874 Debt Recovery 2,038,797 Debt Interest 900,343 Debt Principal Paid 1,138,454 Debt Principal Remaining 13,867,270 Fuel Cost 0 Non-fuel Expenses 2,055,542 Debt Reserve 0 Depreciation 905,131 Income--Capacity 0 Income - Electricity sales 0 Income--Heat 0 Income--Compost Material 293,182 Income-- Tipping Fee 3,199,766 Income - Sales of waste water 0 Interest on Debt Reserve 0 Taxes w/o credit 603,455 Tax Credit 0 Taxes 603,455 Revenue Required 1,864,141
12 659,294 471,881 187,412 2,958,462 2,038,797 832,036 1,206,761 12,660,509 0 2,098,708 0 0 0 0 0 299,339 3,266,961 0 0 1,261,551 0 1,261,551 2,492,050
(Continued) 13 659,294 443,769 215,524 2,742,938 2,038,797 759,631 1,279,166 11,381,342 0 2,142,781 0 0 0 0 0 305,625 3,335,567 0 0 1,310,501 0 1,310,501 2,510,181
14 659,294 411,441 247,853 2,495,085 2,038,797 682,881 1,355,916 10,025,426 0 2,187,780 0 0 0 0 0 312,043 3,405,614 0 0 1,362,388 0 1,362,388 2,530,601
15 659,294 374,263 285,031 2,210,054 2,038,797 601,526 1,437,271 8,588,155 0 2,233,723 0 0 0 0 0 318,596 3,477,132 0 0 1,417,388 0 1,417,388 2,553,474
16 659,294 331,508 327,785 1,882,269 2,038,797 515,289 1,523,508 7,064,647 0 2,280,631 0 0 0 0 0 325,286 3,550,151 0 0 1,475,688 0 1,475,688 2,578,972
17 659,294 282,340 376,953 1,505,316 2,038,797 423,879 1,614,918 5,449,729 0 2,328,524 0 0 0 0 0 332,117 3,624,705 0 0 1,537,487 0 1,537,487 2,607,280
18 659,294 225,797 433,496 1,071,819 2,038,797 326,984 1,711,813 3,737,915 0 2,377,423 0 0 0 0 0 339,092 3,700,823 0 0 1,602,993 0 1,602,993 2,638,592
19 659,294 160,773 498,521 573,299 2,038,797 224,275 1,814,522 1,923,393 0 2,427,349 0 0 0 0 0 346,213 3,778,541 0 0 1,672,429 0 1,672,429 2,673,116
20 659,294 85,995 573,299 0 2,038,797 115,404 1,923,393 0 0 2,478,324 0 0 0 0 0 353,483 3,857,890 0 0 1,746,032 0 1,746,032 2,711,073
Total 13,185,870 9,059,134 4,126,737 -40,775,940 17,391,099 23,384,841 -0 40,978,633 0 27,511,578 0 0 5,844,779 63,789,512 0 6,124,450 694,238 5,430,213 30,736,364
854,390
1,063,977
998,340
937,551
881,253
829,113
780,823
736,097
694,671
656,297
APB11
Annual Cash Flows - Generic MSW AD (Required Tipping Fee Determination) Year 1 2 3 Equity Recovery 659,294 659,294 659,294 Equity Interest 619,010 612,968 606,019 Equity Principal Paid 40,283 46,325 53,274 Equity Principal Remaining 4,086,454 4,040,128 3,986,854 Debt Recovery 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 Debt Interest 1,403,090 1,364,948 1,324,517 Debt Principal Paid 635,707 673,849 714,280 Debt Principal Remaining 22,749,134 22,075,285 21,361,006 Fuel Cost 0 0 0 Non-fuel Expenses 1,669,817 1,704,883 1,740,686 Debt Reserve 0 0 0 Depreciation 2,751,158 4,952,084 3,961,667 Income--Capacity 0 0 0 Income - Electricity sales 582,323 594,552 607,038 Income--Heat 0 0 0 Income--Compost Material 238,166 243,167 248,274 Income-- Tipping Fee 0 0 0 Income - Sales of waste water 0 0 0 Interest on Debt Reserve 0 0 0 Taxes w/o credit -984,439 -2,446,595 -1,749,687 Tax Credit 98,885 144,231 147,260 Taxes -1,083,324 -2,590,826 -1,896,947 Revenue Required 2,464,094 974,429 1,686,517 Current $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) Cost of Money 0.0735 Present Worth (time 0) 2,295,383 845,563 1,363,279 Total Present Worth 35,752,933 Capital Recovery Factor (current) 0.0970 Current $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements ($/y) 3,467,174 Current $ LA Tipping fee Requirement ($/Mg) ($/short ton) Constant $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) Real Cost of Money (inflation adjusted) Capital Recovery Factor (constant) Constant $ Level Annual Revenue Requirements ($/y) Constant $ LA Tipping fee Requirement ($/Mg) 38.227
4 659,294 598,028 61,265 3,925,588 2,038,797 1,281,660 757,137 20,603,869 0 1,777,240 0 3,169,334 0 619,786 0 253,488 0 0 0 -1,185,055 150,352 -1,335,407 2,266,650
5 659,294 588,838 70,455 3,855,133 2,038,797 1,236,232 802,565 19,801,304 0 1,814,562 0 2,536,567 0 632,801 0 258,811 0 0 0 -726,560 153,510 -880,070 2,740,971
6 659,294 578,270 81,024 3,774,110 2,038,797 1,188,078 850,719 18,950,585 0 1,852,668 0 2,027,603 0 646,090 0 264,246 0 0 0 -349,919 0 -349,919 3,290,504
7 659,294 566,116 93,177 3,680,933 2,038,797 1,137,035 901,762 18,048,823 0 1,891,574 0 1,802,008 0 659,658 0 269,795 0 0 0 -162,897 0 -162,897 3,497,315
8 659,294 552,140 107,154 3,573,779 2,038,797 1,082,929 955,868 17,092,956 0 1,931,297 0 1,802,008 0 673,511 0 275,461 0 0 0 -126,319 0 -126,319 3,554,098
9 659,294 536,067 123,227 3,450,552 2,038,797 1,025,577 1,013,220 16,079,736 0 1,971,855 0 1,802,008 0 687,654 0 281,245 0 0 0 -87,546 0 -87,546 3,613,500
10 659,294 517,583 141,711 3,308,842 2,038,797 964,784 1,074,013 15,005,723 0 2,013,263 0 1,802,008 0 702,095 0 287,152 0 0 0 -46,446 0 -46,446 3,675,661
1,706,775
1,922,624
2,150,058
2,128,729
2,015,176
1,908,577
1,808,485
34.7
0.0514 0.0812 2,903,555 32.013
APB12
Annual Cash Flows - Generic MSW AD (Required Tipping Fee Determination) 11 12 13 Equity Recovery 659,294 659,294 659,294 Equity Interest 496,326 471,881 443,769 Equity Principal Paid 162,967 187,412 215,524 Equity Principal Remaining 3,145,874 2,958,462 2,742,938 Debt Recovery 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 Debt Interest 900,343 832,036 759,631 Debt Principal Paid 1,138,454 1,206,761 1,279,166 Debt Principal Remaining 13,867,270 12,660,509 11,381,342 Fuel Cost 0 0 0 Non-fuel Expenses 2,055,542 2,098,708 2,142,781 Debt Reserve 0 0 0 Depreciation 905,131 0 0 Income--Capacity 0 0 0 Income - Electricity sales 716,839 731,893 747,262 Income--Heat 0 0 0 Income--Compost Material 293,182 299,339 305,625 Income-- Tipping Fee 0 0 0 Income - Sales of waste water 0 0 0 Interest on Debt Reserve 0 0 0 Taxes w/o credit 603,455 1,261,551 1,310,501 Tax Credit 0 0 0 Taxes 603,455 1,261,551 1,310,501 Revenue Required 4,347,067 5,027,118 5,098,485
14 659,294 411,441 247,853 2,495,085 2,038,797 682,881 1,355,916 10,025,426 0 2,187,780 0 0 0 762,955 0 312,043 0 0 0 1,362,388 0 1,362,388 5,173,260
Continued 15 659,294 374,263 285,031 2,210,054 2,038,797 601,526 1,437,271 8,588,155 0 2,233,723 0 0 0 778,977 0 318,596 0 0 0 1,417,388 0 1,417,388 5,251,629
16 659,294 331,508 327,785 1,882,269 2,038,797 515,289 1,523,508 7,064,647 0 2,280,631 0 0 0 795,336 0 325,286 0 0 0 1,475,688 0 1,475,688 5,333,788
17 659,294 282,340 376,953 1,505,316 2,038,797 423,879 1,614,918 5,449,729 0 2,328,524 0 0 0 812,038 0 332,117 0 0 0 1,537,487 0 1,537,487 5,419,947
18 659,294 225,797 433,496 1,071,819 2,038,797 326,984 1,711,813 3,737,915 0 2,377,423 0 0 0 829,090 0 339,092 0 0 0 1,602,993 0 1,602,993 5,510,325
19 659,294 160,773 498,521 573,299 2,038,797 224,275 1,814,522 1,923,393 0 2,427,349 0 0 0 846,501 0 346,213 0 0 0 1,672,429 0 1,672,429 5,605,155
20 659,294 85,995 573,299 0 2,038,797 115,404 1,923,393 0 0 2,478,324 0 0 0 864,278 0 353,483 0 0 0 1,746,032 0 1,746,032 5,704,685
Total 13,185,870 9,059,134 4,126,737 -40,775,940 17,391,099 23,384,841 -0 40,978,633 0 27,511,578 0 0 5,844,779 0 0 6,124,450 694,238 5,430,213 80,235,200
Present Worth (time 0)
1,992,387
2,146,320
2,027,751
1,916,618
1,812,439
1,714,759
1,623,156
1,537,235
1,456,628
1,380,991
69,343,487 69,343,487
APB13
Table APS-2. Base Case Cash Flow, APS Scenario 1 (Full tax deductions)
Year Equity Recovery Equity Interest Equity Principal Paid Equity Principal Remaining Debt Recovery Debt Interest Debt Principal Paid Debt Principal Remaining Fuel Cost Non-fuel Expenses Debt Reserve Depreciation Income--Capacity Income - Electricity sales Income--Heat Income--Compost Material Income-- Tipping Fee Income - Sales of waste water Interest on Debt Reserve Taxes w/o credit Tax Credit Taxes Revenue Required 1 405,194 380,436 24,757 2,511,484 1,253,020 862,322 390,697 13,981,339 0 1,307,776 0 1,690,828 0 0 0 330,274 1,372,169 0 0 -605,024 98,654 -703,678 559,868 2 405,194 376,723 28,471 2,483,013 1,253,020 838,880 414,139 13,567,199 0 1,335,239 0 3,043,490 0 0 0 337,210 1,400,985 0 0 -1,503,647 125,907 -1,629,555 -374,296 3 405,194 372,452 32,742 2,450,271 1,253,020 814,032 438,988 13,128,212 0 1,363,279 0 2,434,792 0 0 0 344,291 1,430,405 0 0 -1,075,336 128,552 -1,203,888 42,908 4 405,194 367,541 37,653 2,412,618 1,253,020 787,693 465,327 12,662,885 0 1,391,908 0 1,947,834 0 0 0 351,521 1,460,444 0 0 -728,320 131,251 -859,571 378,585 5 405,194 361,893 43,301 2,369,318 1,253,020 759,773 493,247 12,169,638 0 1,421,138 0 1,558,943 0 0 0 358,903 1,491,113 0 0 -446,535 134,007 -580,542 648,793 6 405,194 355,398 49,796 2,319,521 1,253,020 730,178 522,841 11,646,797 0 1,450,982 0 1,246,140 0 0 0 366,440 1,522,426 0 0 -215,056 0 -215,056 1,005,273 7 405,194 347,928 57,265 2,262,256 1,253,020 698,808 554,212 11,092,585 0 1,481,453 0 1,107,492 0 0 0 374,136 1,554,397 0 0 -100,114 0 -100,114 1,111,019 8 405,194 339,338 65,855 2,196,401 1,253,020 665,555 587,464 10,505,121 0 1,512,563 0 1,107,492 0 0 0 381,992 1,587,040 0 0 -77,634 0 -77,634 1,124,110 9 405,194 329,460 75,734 2,120,667 1,253,020 630,307 622,712 9,882,408 0 1,544,327 0 1,107,492 0 0 0 390,014 1,620,368 0 0 -53,804 0 -53,804 1,138,354 10 405,194 318,100 87,094 2,033,573 1,253,020 592,945 660,075 9,222,333 0 1,576,758 0 1,107,492 0 0 0 398,205 1,654,395 0 0 -28,545 0 -28,545 1,153,826
Current $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) Cost of Money 0.0735 Present Worth (time 0) 521,535 Total Present Worth 10,762,802 Capital Recovery Factor (curren 0.0970 Current $ Level Annual Revenue 1,043,733 Current $ LAC of Electrical En 0.095
-324,797
34,684
285,072
455,088
656,858
676,250
637,371
601,255
567,701
Constant $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) Real Cost of Money (inflation ad 0.0514 Capital Recovery Factor (consta 0.0812 Constant $ Level Annual Revenu 874,065 Constant $ LAC of Electrical E 0.080
APB14
Table APS-2. (Continued) Base Case Cash Flow, APS Scenario 1 (Full tax deductions)
Year Equity Recovery Equity Interest Equity Principal Paid Equity Principal Remaining Debt Recovery Debt Interest Debt Principal Paid Debt Principal Remaining Fuel Cost Non-fuel Expenses Debt Reserve Depreciation Income--Capacity Income - Electricity sales Income--Heat Income--Compost Material Income-- Tipping Fee Income - Sales of waste water Interest on Debt Reserve Taxes w/o credit Tax Credit Taxes Revenue Required 11 405,194 305,036 100,158 1,933,416 1,253,020 553,340 699,680 8,522,654 0 1,609,870 0 556,282 0 0 0 406,567 1,689,138 0 0 370,876 0 370,876 1,543,255 12 405,194 290,012 115,181 1,818,234 1,253,020 511,359 741,660 7,780,993 0 1,643,677 0 0 0 0 0 415,105 1,724,609 0 0 775,334 0 775,334 1,937,510 13 405,194 272,735 132,459 1,685,776 1,253,020 466,860 786,160 6,994,833 0 1,678,194 0 0 0 0 0 423,822 1,760,826 0 0 805,418 0 805,418 1,957,177 14 405,194 252,866 152,327 1,533,449 1,253,020 419,690 833,330 6,161,504 0 1,713,436 0 0 0 0 0 432,722 1,797,804 0 0 837,307 0 837,307 1,978,431 15 405,194 230,017 175,176 1,358,272 1,253,020 369,690 883,329 5,278,174 0 1,749,419 0 0 0 0 0 441,809 1,835,557 0 0 871,109 0 871,109 2,001,374 16 405,194 203,741 201,453 1,156,819 1,253,020 316,690 936,329 4,341,845 0 1,786,156 0 0 0 0 0 451,087 1,874,104 0 0 906,940 0 906,940 2,026,118 17 405,194 173,523 231,671 925,148 1,253,020 260,511 992,509 3,349,336 0 1,823,666 0 0 0 0 0 460,560 1,913,460 0 0 944,920 0 944,920 2,052,779 18 405,194 138,772 266,421 658,727 1,253,020 200,960 1,052,059 2,297,277 0 1,861,963 0 0 0 0 0 470,232 1,953,643 0 0 985,180 0 985,180 2,081,480 19 405,194 98,809 306,385 352,342 1,253,020 137,837 1,115,183 1,182,094 0 1,901,064 0 0 0 0 0 480,107 1,994,670 0 0 1,027,855 0 1,027,855 2,112,355 20 405,194 52,851 352,342 0 1,253,020 70,926 1,182,094 0 0 1,940,986 0 0 0 0 0 490,189 2,036,558 0 0 1,073,090 0 1,073,090 2,145,543 Total 8,103,874 5,567,632 2,536,242 -25,060,392 10,688,356 14,372,036 -0 32,093,853 0 16,908,278 0 0 8,105,189 33,674,111 0 3,764,012 618,372 3,145,640 26,624,460
707,319
827,217
778,401
732,980
690,713
651,376
614,762
580,678
548,944
519,393
20,874,658 20,874,658
APB15
Table APS-4. Base Case Cash Flow, APS Scenario 2 (no negative taxes).
APB16
Year Equity Recovery Equity Interest Equity Principal Paid Equity Principal Remaining Debt Recovery Debt Interest Debt Principal Paid Debt Principal Remaining Fuel Cost Non-fuel Expenses Debt Reserve Depreciation Income--Capacity Income - Electricity sales Income--Heat Income--Compost Material Income-- Tipping Fee Income - Sales of waste water Interest on Debt Reserve Taxes w/o credit Tax Credit Taxes Revenue Required
1 405,194 380,436 24,757 2,511,484 1,253,020 862,322 390,697 13,981,339 0 1,307,776 0 845,414 0 0 0 330,274 1,372,169 0 0 -33,480 98,654 0 1,263,546
2 405,194 376,723 28,471 2,483,013 1,253,020 838,880 414,139 13,567,199 0 1,335,239 0 845,414 0 0 0 337,210 1,400,985 0 0 -17,632 125,907 0 1,255,258
3 405,194 372,452 32,742 2,450,271 1,253,020 814,032 438,988 13,128,212 0 1,363,279 0 845,414 0 0 0 344,291 1,430,405 0 0 -833 128,552 0 1,246,796
4 405,194 367,541 37,653 2,412,618 1,253,020 787,693 465,327 12,662,885 0 1,391,908 0 845,414 0 0 0 351,521 1,460,444 0 0 16,973 131,251 0 1,238,156
5 405,194 361,893 43,301 2,369,318 1,253,020 759,773 493,247 12,169,638 0 1,421,138 0 845,414 0 0 0 358,903 1,491,113 0 0 35,849 134,007 0 1,229,335
6 405,194 355,398 49,796 2,319,521 1,253,020 730,178 522,841 11,646,797 0 1,450,982 0 845,414 0 0 0 366,440 1,522,426 0 0 55,856 0 55,856 1,276,185
7 405,194 347,928 57,265 2,262,256 1,253,020 698,808 554,212 11,092,585 0 1,481,453 0 845,414 0 0 0 374,136 1,554,397 0 0 77,064 0 77,064 1,288,197
8 405,194 339,338 65,855 2,196,401 1,253,020 665,555 587,464 10,505,121 0 1,512,563 0 845,414 0 0 0 381,992 1,587,040 0 0 99,545 0 99,545 1,301,289
9 405,194 329,460 75,734 2,120,667 1,253,020 630,307 622,712 9,882,408 0 1,544,327 0 845,414 0 0 0 390,014 1,620,368 0 0 123,374 0 123,374 1,315,533
10 405,194 318,100 87,094 2,033,573 1,253,020 592,945 660,075 9,222,333 0 1,576,758 0 845,414 0 0 0 398,205 1,654,395 0 0 148,633 0 148,633 1,331,005
Current $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) Cost of Money 0.0735 Present Worth (time 0) 1,177,034 Total Present Worth 13,654,883 Capital Recovery Factor (curren 0.0970 1,324,195 Current $ Level Annual Revenue 0.121 Current $ LAC of Electrical En Constant $ Level Annual Cost (LAC) 0.0514 Real Cost of Money (inflation ad 0.0812 Capital Recovery Factor (consta Constant $ Level Annual Revenu 1,108,936 Constant $ LAC of Electrical E 0.101
1,089,253
1,007,835
932,325
862,303
833,876
784,094
737,832
694,837
654,876
APB17
Table APS-4. (Continued) Base Case Cash Flow, APS Scenario 2(no negative taxes).
Year Equity Recovery Equity Interest Equity Principal Paid Equity Principal Remaining Debt Recovery Debt Interest Debt Principal Paid Debt Principal Remaining Fuel Cost Non-fuel Expenses Debt Reserve Depreciation Income--Capacity Income - Electricity sales Income--Heat Income--Compost Material Income-- Tipping Fee Income - Sales of waste water Interest on Debt Reserve Taxes w/o credit Tax Credit Taxes Revenue Required 11 405,194 305,036 100,158 1,933,416 1,253,020 553,340 699,680 8,522,654 0 1,609,870 0 845,414 0 0 0 406,567 1,689,138 0 0 175,408 0 175,408 1,347,787 12 405,194 290,012 115,181 1,818,234 1,253,020 511,359 741,660 7,780,993 0 1,643,677 0 845,414 0 0 0 415,105 1,724,609 0 0 203,789 0 203,789 1,365,966 13 405,194 272,735 132,459 1,685,776 1,253,020 466,860 786,160 6,994,833 0 1,678,194 0 845,414 0 0 0 423,822 1,760,826 0 0 233,873 0 233,873 1,385,633 14 405,194 252,866 152,327 1,533,449 1,253,020 419,690 833,330 6,161,504 0 1,713,436 0 845,414 0 0 0 432,722 1,797,804 0 0 265,763 0 265,763 1,406,886 15 405,194 230,017 175,176 1,358,272 1,253,020 369,690 883,329 5,278,174 0 1,749,419 0 845,414 0 0 0 441,809 1,835,557 0 0 299,565 0 299,565 1,429,830 16 405,194 203,741 201,453 1,156,819 1,253,020 316,690 936,329 4,341,845 0 1,786,156 0 845,414 0 0 0 451,087 1,874,104 0 0 335,396 0 335,396 1,454,574 17 405,194 173,523 231,671 925,148 1,253,020 260,511 992,509 3,349,336 0 1,823,666 0 845,414 0 0 0 460,560 1,913,460 0 0 373,376 0 373,376 1,481,234 18 405,194 138,772 266,421 658,727 1,253,020 200,960 1,052,059 2,297,277 0 1,861,963 0 845,414 0 0 0 470,232 1,953,643 0 0 413,635 0 413,635 1,509,936 19 405,194 98,809 306,385 352,342 1,253,020 137,837 1,115,183 1,182,094 0 1,901,064 0 845,414 0 0 0 480,107 1,994,670 0 0 456,310 0 456,310 1,540,811 20 405,194 52,851 352,342 0 1,253,020 70,926 1,182,094 0 0 1,940,986 0 845,414 0 0 0 490,189 2,036,558 0 0 501,546 0 501,546 1,573,998 Total 8,103,874 5,567,632 2,536,242 -25,060,392 10,688,356 14,372,036 -0 32,093,853 0 16,908,278 0 0 8,105,189 33,674,111 0 3,764,012 618,372 3,763,135 27,241,955
617,730
583,197
551,089
521,231
493,462
467,631
443,597
421,232
400,415
381,034
26,483,902 26,483,902
APB18
APB19

Cec 500 2012 060

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cec 500 2012 060

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PublicInterestEnergyResearch(PIER)Program FINALPROJECTREPORT

UCDAVISTECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTFORADVANCED BIOMASSPOWERGENERATION

Preparedfor: CaliforniaEnergyCommission Preparedby: UniversityofCalifornia,Davis

MA Y 2012 C EC 500 2012 060

Prepared for: California Energy Commission Hassan Mohammed

Laurie ten Hope

Robert P. Oglesby Executive Director

Pleasecitethisreportasfollows: Williams,RobertB.2005.UCDavisTechnologyAssessmentforAdvancedBiomassPower Generation.CaliforniaEnergyCommission,PIERProgram.CEC5002012060.

CirculatingFluidizedBed,5.4MWcombinedheatandpowerfacilitybasedona unitunderdevelopmentinSkive,Denmark. Fixedbed,1.8MWcombinedheatandpowerfacilityindevelopmentin Kokemki,Finland. BIGCCpressurizedCirculatingFluidizedBed12.5MW.

Anaerobicdigestionofgreenwasteandtheorganicfractionofmunicipalsolid wastebasedonagenericsystemusing100,000wettons/yearandgenerating1.2 MWofelectricpower. Anaerobicphasedsolidsgreen/foodwastedigestersystemusing76,000wet tons/yearandgenerating1.2MWofelectricpower.

PreliminarydatafromtheCaliforniaDairyPowerProductionProgram. Plugflow,coveredlagoon,andmixedtanksystemswithcapacitiesrangingfrom 30kWto1MW.

lb/MWh lb/MWh lb/MWh lb/MWh

1.9 0.2-0.24 1.25 0.0017

1.9 0.6-0.72 0.025

2.4 ppm, (3% O2) 0.017

- = not reported or specified nd = not detected Sources; See Table in Section 2

COE (constant $/kWh)

Continuedevelopmentofhydrogenenrichedfuelgasforimprovedleanburnengine performance. Improveefficiencyofmicroturbines. Reducecostsofstationaryfuelcellpowersystems.

1.1 Biomass Power in California

Table 1-1 Disposition of solid fuel biomass power facilities in California.

Fuel Solid Biomass MSW Solid Biomass Solid Biomass

Disposition Currently Operating Currently Operating Operating Total Idle Dismantled

Solid Biomass Converted to Natural Gas Not Operating or Converted Total

1.2 Biomass Resource assessment for the Sacramento Region

ThebiogenicfractionofMSW. Residuesfromagriculture. Fieldandseedcrops. Orchardandvinecrops. Vegetablecrops. Animalmanure. Biosolidsfromwastewatertreatment. Forestoperationsresiduesandpotentialthinnings.

Figure 1-1. Map of counties included in biomass resource assessment.

Figure 1-2. 2003 Sacramento County disposed solid waste by origin

SacramentoCountyjurisdictionsolidwasteisdisposedinavarietyoflocations.For 2003,52%wasdisposedatoneoftwocountylandfills,28%atalandfillnearManteca (SanJoaquinCounty),13%wasshippedtoNevada 3 withtheremaindergoingtoother landfillsintheregion(SeeFigure13).

Figure 1-3. 2003 Sacramento County solid waste disposal by destination

Table 1-4. Solid waste facilities in Sacramento County. 5

Facility Name Kiefer Landfill L and D Landfill Co.

Address 12701 Kiefer Blvd 8635 Fruitridge Road

Galt Transfer Stn./MRF

104 Industrial Rd.

Pilot Green Project

9700 Goethe Rd. Raley Blvd& Vinci Ave.

BLT Transfer Stn.

CIWMB SWIS database, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/Search.asp

Potentialprimaryenergyestimatesweremadebysimplymultiplyingtheappropriate materialenergycontentonaperweightbasis(HHV)bytheamountofthatmaterial available.Thisisdoneforeachcomponentinthewastestream.

b b Ash Ash HHV -1 (% wb) (1000t y ) (MJ/kg, ar)

HHV contribution to composite stream (MJ kg-1 as received)

249.3 130.0 65.3 57.6 40.6 19.8

30.2 15.7 7.9 7.0 4.9 2.4

5.3 5.0 4.0 10.0 5.0 3.6

13.2 6.5 2.6 5.8 2.0 0.7

16 4.2 6 8.5 17 11.4

4.83 0.66 0.47 0.59 0.84 0.27

224.4 39.0 26.1 55.3 35.7 11.9

17.8 14.0 15.0 8.9 19.3 19.0

3.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2

3.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.2

Gross Potential Generation (right axis) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Potential Electrical Generation (MWe)

Table 1-6. Cultivated acres by crop category in the Sacramento region

Sacramento and Adjacent

Orchard Vineyard Crops

Oats 702 649 1,125 2,476 2,476 17.0 0.2 0.1

Sacramento and Adjacent Counties

800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 -

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Rice Corn Wheat Field & Grass Seed Safflower Cotton

Technical Capacity (MWe)

Sacramento and Adjacent Counties

Walnuts Plums & Peaches Prunes