An Evaluation of Biomass Co-Firing in Europe

biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 620629
Available at www.sciencedirect.com
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe
An evaluation of biomass co-firing in Europe

Fouad Al-Mansour a,*, Jaroslaw Zuwala b
a
b
ef Stefan Institute, Energy Efficiency Centre, Jamova 39, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Joz
IChPW Institute for Chemical Processing of Coal, Zamkowa 1, 41-803 Zabrze, Poland
article info
abstract
Article history:
Reduction of the emissions of greenhouses gases, increasing the share of renewable energy
Received 26 November 2007
sources (RES) in the energy balance, increasing electricity production from renewable
Received in revised form
energy sources and decreasing energy dependency represent the main goals of all current
3 June 2009
strategies in Europe. Biomass co-firing in large coal-based thermal power plants provides
Accepted 6 January 2010
a considerable opportunity to increase the share of RES in the primary energy balance and
Available online 7 February 2010
the share of electricity from RES in gross electricity consumption in a country. Biomasscoal co-firing means reducing CO2 and SO2, emissions and it may also reduce NOx emis-
Keywords:
sions, and also represents a near-term, low-risk, low-cost and sustainable energy devel-
Biomass
opment. Biomass-coal co-firing is the most effective measure to reduce CO2 emissions,
Co-firing
because it substitutes coal, which has the most intensive CO2 emissions per kWh electricity
Evaluation methodology
production, by biomass, with a zero net emission of CO2. Biomass co-firing experience
Bioenergy
worldwide are reviewed in this paper. Biomass co-firing has been successfully demonstrated in over 150 installations worldwide for most combinations of fuels and boiler types
in the range of 50700 MWe, although a number of very small plants have also been
involved. More than a hundred of these have been in Europe. A key indicator for the
assessment of biomass co-firing is intrduced and used to evaluate all available biomass cofiring technologies.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1.
Introduction
Environmental protection represents one of the major strategic objectives for all countries. The obligations of the Kyoto
Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by 8% by 2012,
relative to the base year 1990, and its high energy dependency
(more than 50% [1]) is forcing the EU to achieve a doubling of
the share of renewable energy sources by 2010 (from 6% of
total consumption in 1996 to 12% in 2010) as the target of the
EU strategy [2] and the Directive adopted to increase the share
of electricity production from RES in its electricity consumption [3]. The European Commission has been finding that the
share of renewable energy is unlikely to exceed 10% by 2010
and proposes in its Renewable Energy Roadmap [4] a binding
target of increasing the level of renewable energy in the EU

overall mix from less than 7% today to 20% by 2020 [4,5].
The Directive on renewable energy in electricity generation
provides the framework for electricity from biomass and the
Biomass Action Plan [6] states that electricity can be generated
from all types of biomass. Several reliable technologies are
available. These technologies can be used to co-fire
biomass, by mixing it with coal or natural gas, or to run freestanding power stations.
Biomass-coal co-firing means reducing CO2 and SO2 emissions and it may also reduce NOx emissions [7,8] and represents a near-term, low-risk, low-cost and sustainable energy
development. Biomass-coal co-firing is the most effective
measure to reduce CO2 emissions, because it is the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 386 41974810; fax: 386 1 5885 377.

E-mail address: fouad.al-mansour@ijs.si (F. Al-Mansour).
0961-9534/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.004
621
Number of biomass co-firing plants
90
80
78
70
60
50
40
40
30
20
10
27
18
15
9
7
2
on
es
Ta i a
iw
Th an
ai
la
nd
In
d
ra
lia
us
t
A
U
SA
an
ad
a
C
U
Sw K
ed
e
D
en n
m
ar
k
N
Ita
et
he
l
r la y
nd
A s
us
tr
ia
Sp
ai
B
el n
gi
um
N
or
w
ay
Fi
nl
G an d
er
m
an
y
Fig. 1 Distribution biomass power plants worldwide [12].
substitution of coal (which represents the most intensive CO2

emissions per kWh of electricity production) by biomass with
zero net emission of CO2.
One of the research activities on biomass co-firing is the
NETBIOCOF project, co-funded by the European Commission
under the 6th Framework Programme. The objective of the
NETBIOCOF [9] (Integrated European Network for Biomass Cofiring) project is to promote biomass co-firing and to foster the
uptake of innovative technologies to expand the use of
biomass co-firing in new and existing power plants in EU
member countries. One of the activities of the project is to
review (state of the arts) the co-firing of biomass with fossil
fuels [10] and the identification of best practices in biomass
co-firing in Europe [11]. This paper is based on the results of
both documents (reports).
2.
Biomass co-firing plants in Europe: state
of the arts and geographical distribution
Co-combustion is practised with different types and amounts
of biomass wastes in different combustion and gasification
technologies, configurations and plant sizes. Currently, direct
co-firing is the most commonly applied configuration. The
typical configuration applied in Finland is a fluidised bed
combustion installation within the range of about 20 to
310 MW where different biomass wastes from the wood
industry are directly co-fired, eventually with recycled refuse
fuel (REF), refuse derived fuel (RDF), coal or oil. Here, the
installations need to be fuel flexible, one reason for this being
that sparsely populated countries make specialized mass
burning installations uneconomic. In Sweden, there are
a large number of grate fired boilers in the range 130 MW
which are operated for district heating (mostly firing
biomass only, but it often means co-combustion of different
types of residues). In the paper and pulp industries, there are
both fluidised and grate furnaces that burn mixtures of bark,
sludge, wood residues, oil and some coal.
Worldwide, the current installed capacity of coal fired

power plants amounts to some 800 GWe. Thus, each
percentage of coal that could be substituted by biomass in all
coal fired power plants would result in a biomass capacity of
8 GWe, and a reduction of approx. 60 Mton of CO2. At a typical
co-firing ratio of 5% on an energy basis, this would correspond
to a global potential of approx. 40 GWe, leading to an emission
reduction of around 300 Mton CO2/year. About 200 million
tons of biomass would be needed to fulfil this demand.
Co-firing biomass with coal in traditional coal-fired boilers
is becoming increasingly popular, as it capitalizes on the large
investment and infrastructure associated with the existing
fossil-fuel-based power systems while traditional pollutants
(SOx, NOx, etc.) and the net greenhouse gas (CO2, CH4, etc.)
emissions are decreased.
The co-firing of biomass with coal in traditional coal-fired
boilers makes use of the large investment and extensive
infrastructure associated with the existing fossil-fuel-based
power systems, while requiring only a relatively modest
capital investment, typically up to $50$300 per kW of
biomass capacity. These costs compare very favourably with
any other available renewable energy option.
Power plant operating costs are, in most cases, higher for
biomass than for coal, due to the higher delivered cost of the
fuel, particularly if energy crops are used. Even when the
biomass is nominally free at the point of production, for
instance in the case of some dry agricultural residues, the
costs associated with collection, transportation, preparation,
and on-site handling can increase the cost per unit heat input
to the boiler to a point where it rivals, and often exceeds, the
cost of coal. When compared to alternative renewable energy
sources, however, biomass co-firing is normally significantly
cheaper, and co-firing has the advantage that it can be
implemented relatively quickly.
For most coal-fired power plants, the conversion efficiencies are commonly in the range 3038% (higher heating value
basis). These efficiency levels are much higher than those
associated with smaller, conventional, dedicated biomass
power-only systems and rival or exceed the estimated
622
100%
cofiring percentage (% heat)
90%
80%
70%
Grate
60%
BFB
50%
CFB
PF
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
10
100
1,000
10,000
Total fuel input (MW)
Fig. 2 Percentage of biomass co-fired as part of total fuel

in different power plants with experience in biomass
co-firing [12].
efficiencies of most of the proposed, advanced biomass-based

power systems. The addition of biomass to a coal-fired boiler
has only a modest impact on the overall generation efficiency
of the power plant, depending principally on the moisture
content of the biomass.
Most biomass materials have lower ash contents than
steam coals, and there is a corresponding reduction in the
quantities of solid residues from the plant. Ancillary benefits
of co-firing may also include a reduced dependency on
imported fossil fuels, and there may be the potential to
develop local biofuel supply chains, which can benefit local
rural economies. It is clear, therefore, that biomass co-firing
technologies offer one of the best short and long-term means
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power generation,
but are only applicable where coal firing plays a significant
role in the electricity supply. The development of small,
dedicated biomass-energy technologies will also be required,
for application where co-firing is not an option.
The R&D demands arising from co-firing cover the proper
selection and further development of appropriate cocombustion technologies for different fuels, possibilities of
NOx reduction by fuel staging, problems concerning the deactivation of catalysts, characterisation and possible utilisation of ashes from co-combustion plants, as well as
corrosion and ash deposition problems.
3.
Operational experience worldwide
Biomass co-firing has been successfully demonstrated in over

228 installations1 worldwide for most combinations of fuels
and boiler types in the range 50700 MWe, although a number
of very small plants have also been involved. More than
a hundred of these were in Europe. In the United States there
have been over 40 commercial demonstrations and the
remainder have been mainly in Australia. A broad
1
The IEA biomass co-firing database included only 152 plants in
2007, but in the database now (May 2009) information for 228
biomass co-firing plants [12] is included.
Fig. 3 Biomass co-firing technologies. a) Direct co-firing. b)

Indirect co-firing. c) Parallel co-firing.
combination of fuels, such as residues, energy crops, herbaceous and woody biomasses have been co-fired in pulverised
coal combustion (PCC), stoker and cyclone boilers. The
proportion of biomass has ranged from 1% to 20%. Experience
with biomass co-firing in PCC boilers has demonstrated that
co-firing woody biomass resulted in a modest decrease in
boiler efficiency but no loss of boiler capacity. There was,
however, a considerable reduction of SO2, NOx and mercury
emissions.
Though herbaceous biomass has been co-fired in several
plant worldwide, its higher inorganic matter content results in
a higher chance of slagging and fouling. Co-firing herbaceous
fuels tends to be more difficult and costly than other fuels, but
it is possible to co-fire such fuels if there is a regulatory
incentive to do so. Throughout the world, coal is used extensively to generate electricity and process heat for industrial
623
Fig. 6 Thermal power plant at Lahti (gasifier and PC boiler

systems), Finland.
Fig. 4 Coal based power plant at St. Andra, Austria.
applications. There are significant numbers of coal-fired

utility-scale power plants currently installed in some 80
countries throughout the world. For most of these countries,
coal will continue to figure significantly in any future expansion of the electricity market required to meet increased
consumer demand. In the industrial arena, coal is used as
a source of energy for large energy intensive industries such
as paper production, cement manufacture, food processing
and steel manufacture. Again, there are large numbers of coalfired boiler plants encompassing a range of technologies
already installed throughout the world. The extensive use of
coal poses significant world environmental problems. Power
stations and industrial boilers emit substantial quantities of
CO2, which can contribute to global warning. In addition, they
contribute significant emissions of acid gas species such as
NOx and SO2. The ash produced from coal burning also
requires disposal in an environmentally acceptable manner.
There is now considerable interest in the utilisation of
biomass and municipal/industrial wastes within existing
coal-fired plant. The use of biomass and wastes in such plants
is now perceived by governments and industry as a viable
option. This area is now the subject of a number of ongoing
research activities within the European Union and the USA.
The different sources of statistics on biomass/waste reserves
illustrate that there is an enormous potential reserve of
biomass and wastes that could be utilised for energy
production. The huge installed capacity of existing coal-fired

power plant consumes 50,000 PJ of coal each year; if all were to
be co-fired at a rate of 10% (thermal), this would require 5000 PJ
of biomass/waste per year. The proximity of biomass and
wastes to power stations or other potential co-utilisation sites
will influence the scope of the market. On the basis of this and
the biomass/waste fuel production potential, the co-firing
potential has been estimated at 500 PJ per year in existing
coal-fired generating capacity, equivalent to one tenth of
existing capacity being modified to take 10% thermal input of
biomass. New plants could increase this level further.
Industry and commerce also account for significant coal use
(e.g. 8% of OECD coal use and 30% of Chinas coal use,
excluding iron and steel production). Introduction of a coutilisation element could result in significantly increased
biomass/waste utilisation, perhaps to around 50 PJ or more
per year.
There has been remarkably rapid progress over the past
510 years in the development of the co-utilisation of biomass
materials in coal-fired boiler plants. Several plants have been
retrofitted for demonstration purposes, or are involved in the
commercial co-firing of biomass.
Fig. 5 Thermal power plant at Zeltweg, Styria-Austria.
Fig. 7 Thermal power plant at Ensted, Denmark.
624
Table 1 Technology assessment table (key indicators).

Technique value
Environmental impact
Sab..g
Operational experience
d
a
Efficiency
e
The majority are pulverised coal boilers, including tangentially fired, wall fired, and cyclone fired units. Bubbling and
circulating fluidised bed boilers and stoker boilers have also been
used. The co-firing activities have involved all of the commercially significant solid fossil fuels, including lignite, sub-bituminous coals, bituminous coals, anthracites, and petroleum coke.
Data based on the IEA Bioenergy Task 32 database [12] on
the number of biomass co-firing power plants by country
worldwide (including in Europe) are shown in Fig. 1.
From these data it is clear that 228 fuel mixed-fired plants
globally already have experience with biomass co-firing, at
least on a trial basis. Most of these plants are located in Finnland, USA, Germany, UK and Sweden, though in several cases
experience in the USA is limited to trials and demonstrations. A
geographical overview of these plants is shown in Fig. 1.
As of 2008, about 40 of these plants were co-firing biomass
on a commercial basis. These plants are mainly located in
Finland and Sweden (mostly fluidised beds), as well as
Denmark and the Netherlands (pulverised coal fired power
plants). This resulted in a replacement of 3.5 Mton of coal and
hence avoided the release of around 10 Mton of CO2. The
estimated technical and financially feasible potential to
replace coal is about 30 times higher.
The amount of biomass that is co-fired in different plants
varies. Pulverised coal boilers are typically much larger in terms
of MW fuel input requirements; therefore the amount of biomass
required for a certain co-firing percentage is usually much larger
than that for, e.g. a bubbling fluidised bed (BFB) boiler.
Achieved co-firing levels for different types of power plants
are shown in Fig. 2.
4.
Successful experience in Europe
4.1.
Biomass co-firing technologies
There are three basic co-firing options for biomass materials

in coal-fired boilers (Fig. 3), and all of these options have been
demonstrated on the industrial scale:
Direct co-firing,
Indirect co-firing,
Parallel co-firing.
4.1.1.
Direct co-firing
Direct co-firing is the least expensive, most straightforward,

and most commonly applied approach. The biomass and the
coal are burned in the coal boiler furnace, using the same or
separate mills and burners (Fig. 3a), depending principally on
the biomass fuel characteristics. This is by far the most
Applicability
New plant
Retrofitable
b
Economics
f
c
Biomass share
g
Remarks
commonly applied co-firing configuration as it enables cofiring percentages up to approx 3% on an energy basis, without
significant investment costs. This approach has been applied
in the power plant at St. Andra in Austria (Fig. 4, 124 MWe, 3%
wood chips).
4.1.2.
Indirect co-firing
It is possible to install a biomass gasifier to convert the solid

biomass into a fuel gas, which can be burned in the coal boiler
furnace (Fig. 3b). This approach can offer a high degree of fuel
flexibility, and the fuel gas can be cleaned prior to combustion
to minimise the impact of the products of combustion of the
fuel gas on the performance and integrity of the boiler. This
approach has been applied several times so far, for instance,
in the Zeltweg plant (Fig. 5) in Austria (137 MWe, 3% wood
biomass) and the Lahti plant (Fig. 6) in Finland (167 MWe, 17%
biomass).
4.1.3.
Parallel co-firing
It is also possible to install a completely separate biomass

boiler and utilise the steam produced in the coal power plant
steam system (Fig. 3c). This approach has been applied in the
Ensted power plant (660 MWe, wood chips and straw) in
Denmark (Fig. 7).
4.2.
Assessment of the technology key indicators
A general assessment of the technology regarding its technological value is based on the sum of points given in the
respective categories.
A points system has been defined to enable comparative
assessment of the technologies (scale from 1 to 3; 3 represents
the best result whereas one point is given for the worst result).
All types of technology have been assessed against the
following parameters:
Environmental impact this indicator defines the impact of
technology implementation on pollutant emission. 1 point was
given if emission parameters deteriorated after the implementation of the technology; 2 points if emissions did not change
or only CO2 and SO2 were reduced due to biomass combustion; 3
points were given for the reduction of NOx emission.
Applicability this indicator defines the ease of technology
application to newly built as well as existing installations
(retrofit). 1 point was given to relatively complex technical
solutions that require modifications of the furnace; 2 points to
relatively complex solutions that do not require modifications
of the furnace.
Operational experience this indicator defines the level of
operational experience for every group of technologies. 1 point
was given to technologies that have been tested experimentally
625
Table 2 Technology assessment table for direct co-firing in pulverised fuel (PF) boilers.
Key indicators
Technique value
17
Operational
experience
3
Country
The
Netherlands
The
Netherlands
The
Netherlands
UK
Poland
Poland
Poland
Retrofitable
2
Efficiency
3
Economics
3
Biomass share
Plant name
Output
(Mwe)
Biomas
share
(heat)
Primary
fuel
Cofired
fuel(s)
3%
20%
20%
7% wt
4%
Pulverised coal
Pulverised coal
Pulverised coal
Lignite
Pulverised coal
Wood chips
Straw
Straw
Wood, straw
Sewage sludge
Pulverised coal
Pulverised coal
Kernels, paper
sludge, shells,
fibers
Paper sludge
Hemwegcentrale 8
124
150
350
100
600
Borssele 12
403
Geertruidenberg
Amercentrale 8
600
Maasvlakte,
Rotterdam
Nijmegen
Maasvlaktecentrale
12
Gelderland
2 518
Pulverised coal
Biomass pellets
602
Pulverised coal
Pulverised wood
Skawina
Tilbury
Skawina
1085
590
10%
Pulverised coal
Pulverised coal
Rybnik
Electrabel
Polaniec
1800
1800
10%
10%
Pulverised coal
Pulverised coal
Wood
Sawdust,
coffee shells
Sawdust, chips
Sawdust, chips
Rybnik
Polaniec
ST. Andra
Studstrupvaerket #1
Studstrupvaerket #4
or have only few industrial applications; 3 points were given to

technologies that have been very widely used in industry.
Efficiency this indicator defines the impact of co-firing on
general process efficiency. 1 point was given for negative
impact on boiler efficiency; 2 points were given if an installation was neutral as regards boiler efficiency; 3 points were
given if boiler efficiency was improved.
Economics this indicator defines the total of capital and
operational costs. 1 point was given to very expensive technologies (both as regards capital and operational costs); 2
points were given to technologies characterized by high
capital cost and relatively low operational costs; 3 points were
given to low investment technologies also characterized by
low operational costs.
Biomass share this indicator defines the total biomass
share in the overall quota of all fuels burnt in a given installation. 1 point was given for low biomass share; 3 points for
high biomass share.
All explained above the indicators were collected in corresponding tables (for each technology). An example of
a technology assessment table is shown below (Table 1).
4.3.
Remarks
New plant
Location
Sample Applications EU Countries

Austria
ST. Andra
Denmark
Aarhus
Denmark
Aarhus
Germany
Lubbenau
The
Amsterdam
Netherlands
The
Borssele
Netherlands
Applicability
Co-firing technologies assessment
In order to conduct a comparative assessment of the technologies by the use of the introduced key indicators system,
technology sheets were evaluated.
8%
They comprise important information such as technology

description, simplified process layouts, the implementation
scale and what is of the most importance the technique
value based on the individual score system.
4.3.1.
Identification of successful experience in co-firing
4.3.1.1. Technology: direct co-firing in pulverised

fuel (PF) boilers.
4.3.1.1.1. Technology process description. Direct co-firing
which involves mixing the biomass with coal in the fuel yard,
and transporting the blend through the normal coal system
(crushers, bunkers and pulverisers, if PF boilers are used). The
biofuel can also be prepared separately from coal, and pneumatically or mechanically fed into the boiler without
impacting the fossil fuel delivery system; fuel mixing then
takes place in the combustion chamber (Fig. 3a).
Technology assessment table and sample application in EU
for direct co-firing in pulverised fuel (PF) boilers is shown in
Table 2.
4.3.1.2. Technology: direct co-firing in circulating fluidised bed

(CFB) boilers.
4.3.1.2.1. Technology process description. Circulating fluidised bed (CFB) combustion differs from BFB in two ways. The
bed material particle size is 0.10.6 mm and the fluidising
626
Table 3 Technology assessment table for direct co-firing in circulating fluidised bed (CFB) boilers.
Key indicators
Technique value
16
2
Country
Location
Applicability
2
Efficiency
2
Plant name
Output
(MWe)
Remarks
New plant
Retrofitable
3
Economics
3
2
Biomass share
2
Output
(MWth)
Biomas
share
(heat) %
Primary
fuel
Sample applications EU Countries

Austria
Ebensee
38
Coal
Finland
Finland
Finland
Finland
98
18
22
84
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Finland
Finland
Norway
Spain
Kokkola
Kuhmo
Lieska
Mikkeli
Rauhalahti
municipal
CHP
Rauma
Sande
La Pereda
Sweden
Fors
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Norrkoping
Nukopoing
stersund
O
100%
Hunosa power
station
Stora Enso
Fors Mill
Lignite, gas, oil,

wood
Peat, RDF, wood
Peat, wood waste
Peat, bark, sawdust
Lignite, wood
waste, oil, gas
Peat, wood waste
Coal
160
26
50
9.6
Cofired fuel(s)
Coal
Coal
Coal
55
90%
Peat, sludge, bark

Wood, RDF
Coal wastes,
wood waste
Wood, bark
Coal
125
80
25
Coal
Coal
Coal
Wood
Wood, peat
Wood, peat,
bark, wood
waste, oil
Table 4 Technology assessment table for direct co-firing in bubbling fluidised bed (BFB) combustion boilers.
Key indicators
Technique value
17
Operational
experience
2
Country
Location
Environmental
impact
Applicability
Remarks
New
plant
Retrofitable
2
Efficiency
3
Economics
2
Biomass share
Plant name
Output
(MWe)
Output
(MWth)
Biomas
share
(heat) %
Primary
fuel
Cofired
fuel(s)
Wood waste,
paper waste
Peat, wood
waste
Peat, wood
waste, HFO
Bark, sludges,
fibre wastes
Peat, wood
waste, HFO

Finland
Lohja
Lohja Paper Mill
36
Coal
Finland
Outokumpu
Outokumpo Oy
17.5, 24
Coal
Finland
Pieksamaki
20
Coal
Finland
Rauma
Pieksamaki District
Heating
Rauma Paper Mill
60
Coal
Finland
Seinajoki
Seinajoki Energy
20
Coal
627
Table 5 Technology assessment table for direct co-firing in grate firing boilers.
Key indicators
Technique value
12
1
Country
Applicability
1
Efficiency
1
Location
Plant
name
Output
(MWe)
Sweden
Linkoping
Sweden
Linkoping
New plant
Retrofitable
2
Economics
2
2
Biomass share
3
Output
(MWth)

Germany
Schwandorf
Remarks
Biomas
share
(heat) %
280
Tekniska
Verken
Ltd 1
Tekniska
Verken
Ltd 2
Primary
fuel
Cofired
fuel(s)
Lignite
Wood, straw
pellets
Rubber waste
Coal
Coal
velocity is 46 m s1. This changes the fluidising conditions

so that part of the bed material is carried out from the bed,
and transits through the furnace to the second pass of the
boiler. These particles exiting the furnace are separated from
the flue gas flow by a cyclone or other separation methods
such as a U beam, and circulated back to the fluidised bed.
The separation can be done in the middle of the second pass
and, in part, also at the outlet of the boiler pass, where
electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters can also be used
(Fig. 3a).
for direct co-firing in circulating fluidised bed (CFB) boilers is
shown in Table 3.
4.3.1.3. Technology: direct co-firing in bubbling fluidised bed

(BFB) combustion boilers.
4.3.1.3.1. Technology process description. Bubbling fluidised
bed (BFB) combustion is a modern combustion technology
especially suitable for inhomogeneous biofuels. A BFB
consists of a 0.51.5 m high bed on the fluidising air distribution plate. The fluidising velocity is about 1 m s1. The density
of the bubbling bed is about 1000 kg m3. Bed materials used
can be sand, ash, fuel, dolomite, limestone, etc. The particle
size distribution in the fluidising bed material is typically
within 0.51.5 mm. Smaller particles will be carried out with
the fluidising gas flow, and larger particles will sink onto the
distribution plate (Fig. 3a).
Table 6 Technology assessment table for indirect co-firing.

Key indicators
Technique value
18
2
Country
Applicability
3
Efficiency
3
Location
Plant name
New plant
Retrofitable
3
Economics
1
3
Biomass share
3
Remarks
Output
(MWe)
Biomas
share
(heat)
Primary
fuel
Cofired
fuel(s)
3% heat
Bark, sawdust,
wood chips
Wood chips
from recycled
fresh
wood, bark
and hard and soft
board residues
Waste wood

Austria
Zeltweg
Biococomb
137
Belgium
Ruien
Ruien
540
Pulverised Polish
hard coal
Pulverised coal
The
Netherlands
Geertruidenberg
Amercentrale 9
600
Pulverised coal
628
Table 7 Technology assessment table for parallel co-firing.

Key indicators
Technique value
15
2
Country
2
Efficiency
2
Location

Denmark
ST. Andra
Poland
Trzebinia
Poland
Konin
Poland
Ostroleka
Plant name
Output
(MWe)
Mabjerg
Siersza
Konin
Ostroleka
68
813
233
93,5

for direct co-firing in bubbling fluidised bed (BFB) combustion
boilers is shown in Table 4.
4.3.1.4. Technology: direct co-firing in grate firing boilers.

4.3.1.4.1. Technology process description. The typical operating principle in grate firing of coal may differ for cocombustion of biomass. Sloped grates are typically used for
biofuels. They can be static or mechanically activated. If
travelling grates are used, a homogeneous layer is fed on it. As
an alternative, the fuel can also be fed onto the grate by a socalled spreader located on the furnace wall (spreader-stoker
system). The spreader throws the fuel on the grate against the
direction of grate movement. Thus the longest burning time
can be achieved for the biggest particles, because they are
thrown over a longer distance close to the entry of the travelling grate (Fig. 3a).
for direct co-firing in grate firing boilers is shown in Table 5.
4.3.1.5. Technology: indirect co-firing.

4.3.1.5.1. Technology process description. Indirect co-firing
usually involves gasification of the supplementary fuel in
Applicability
New plant
Retrofitable
3
Economics
2
3
Biomass share
3
Remarks
Biomas share (heat)
Primary fuel
Cofired fuel(s)
8%
10%
10%
Pulverised coal
Pulverised coal
Pulverised coal
Pulverised coal
Straw, wood chips

Straw
Chips, briquet
Chips, barks
a separate gasification facility. The synthesis gases are then

co-combusted in the coal fired furnace. Indirect co-firing is
more suited to fuels containing contaminants such as those
derived from municipal waste streams, since, the synthesis
gas can be purified prior to its use (Fig. 3b).
for indirect co-firing is shown in Table 6.
4.3.1.6. Technology: parallel co-firing and others.

4.3.1.6.1. Technology process description. Co-firing in a hybrid
system is also called parallel co-firing. This involves a number
of boilers supplying steam for a common header and using
fossil and biomass/biogas in the combustion process. In such
an arrangement of boilers there should be no technical
possibility of supplying the biomass combusting boilers with
fossil fuels. Fuel preparation and feeding lines should be
physically independent (Fig. 3c).
for parallel co-firing is shown in Table 7.
The evaluated value of the aggregated index for the technology assessment of different technologies is shown in Fig. 8.
The results of the evaluation show that the highest aggregated value of the indicator is for bubbling fluidised bed (BFB)
Agregated indey (technical value
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
In-direct
cofiring
Direct
cofiring
BFB cofiring CFB cofiring
Paralel
cofiring
Grate cofiring
Cofiring technological option

Fig. 8 Comparison of co-firing technologies according to the value of the technical indicator.
technology as the best practice for biomass co-firing. This

result confirms the BAT evaluation [13] putting this technology
at the top of all biomass co-firing technical options. At the
moment, fourteen BFB boiler units are operating worldwide
(Forsa Kiimassuo, Fortum Rauhalahti Jyvaskyla, Fortum
Sateri Valkeakoski, Vamy Oy Anjalankoski).
5.
Conclusion
Biomass co-firing in large coal based thermal power plants

gives a considerable opportunity to increase the share of
renewable energy sources in the primary energy balance and
the share of electricity from RES in gross electricity
consumption in the country. Biomass-coal co-firing means
reducing CO2 and SO2, emissions and it may also reduce NOx
emissions and represents a near-term, low-risk, low-cost and
sustainable energy development.
Biomass co-firing has been successfully demonstrated in
over 150 installations worldwide for most combinations of
fuels and boiler types in the range 50700 MWe.
An evaluation of the current/implemented co-firing technology by key indicators showed that in-direct co-firing is the
best technology followed by direct co-firing in pulverised
fluidised (PF), bubbling fluidised bed (BFB), and circulating
fluidised bed (CFB) boilers. The fluidised bed combustion
process provides excellent conditions for burning a wide
variety of different fuels efficiently with low emissions.
references
[1] European Commission-Dg TREN. EUROPEAN UNION Energy &

transport in figures, Statistical pocketbook, 2007/2008, http://ec.
europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/figures/pocketbook/doc/
2007/2007_pocketbook_all_en.pdf. 2004 edition.
629
[2] Communication from the Commission: Energy for the

future: renewable sources of energy, White Paper for
a Community Strategy and Action Plan COM(97)599 final
(26/11/1997).
[3] Directive 2001/77/EC of 27 September 2001 on the promotion
of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the
internal electricity market. Official Journal of the European
Communities, L 283/33, 27.10.2001. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_283/l_28320011027en00330040.pdf.
[4] Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council. Renewable energy roadmap:
renewable energies in the 21st century; building a sustainable
future COM (2006) 848. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_
policy/doc/03_renewable_energy_roadmap_en.pdf.
[5] Communication from the Commission to the European
council and the European parliament: an energy policy for
Europe, {SEC(2007) 12}, COM(2007) 1 final, Brussels, 10.1.2007.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uriCOM:2007:0001:FIN:EN:HTML.
[6] Commission of the European Communities: Biomass action
plan, {SEC(2005) 1573}, COM (2005) 628 final, Brussels, 7.12.
2005. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/biomass_action_plan/
doc/2005_12_07_comm_biomass_action_plan_en.pdf.
[7] The European Bioenergy Networks (EUBIONET): Biomass cofiring an efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/sectors/doc/bioenergy/
cofiring_eu_bionet.pdf.
[8] Larry Baxter, Jaap Koppejan. Biomass-coal co-combustion:
opportunity for affordable renewable energy. http://www.
ieabcc.nl/publications/paper_cofiring.pdf.
[9] Netbiocof Integrated European Network for Biomass Cofiring; 6th FP, no. SES6-CT-020007- (SES6). http://www.
netbiocof.net/.
[10] First State-of-the-Art Report. Deliverable D14, Netbiocof
Project (no. SES6-CT-020007). http://www.netbiocof.net/.
[11] First report Best Practies in biomass co-firing in Europe,
Deliverable D15. NetbioCof Project (no. SES6-CT-020007).
http://www.netbiocof.net/.
[12] IEA Bioenergy Task 32: Biomass Combustion and Co-firing,
Database of Biomass Co-firing. http://www.ieabcc.nl/.
[13] Iea Clean Coal Centre Profiles. Fuels for biomass co-firing.
November 2005. http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/publishor/
system/component_view.asp?LogDocId81393.

An Evaluation of Biomass Co-Firing in Europe

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

An Evaluation of Biomass Co-Firing in Europe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 620629