Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................1 FEEDSTOCK SUPPLY STUDY........................................................................................................................4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3 PRELIMINARY SCREENING .............................................................................................................................5 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................17 INTERVIEW RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................20 DATA ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................................24 FUEL SUPPLY STUDY CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................30
LEGAL, PERMITTING AND REGULATORY ISSUES ...............................................................................32 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 PRELIMINARY ACTIONS FOR THE INTEGRATED BIO-REFINERY PROJECT AND RESULTS ...........................33 LOCAL ISSUES .............................................................................................................................................35 FEDERAL REGULATORY PROGRAMS AND PERMITS....................................................................................38 STATE PERMITS AND LICENSES ..................................................................................................................39
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT .....................................................................................................................43 4.1 4.2 4.3 PROTOTYPE CONVERSION PLANT CONFIGURATION, COST AND PERFORMANCE .....................................44 LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOMASS TO MIXED ALCOHOLS: THERMOCHEMICAL CONVERSION ............................45 POWER GENERATION ..................................................................................................................................48
11/2/2007
Executive Summary
Project Background At the request of Mayor George Fitch, ANTARES has performed a feasibility study for several biomass-to-energy options that could be located in the town of Warrenton, Virginia. The projects could produce enough electricity or fuel from local wastes and biomass residues to allow Warrenton and even Fauquier County to take a giant step towards energy independence. The Mayors intent is to encourage the development of a local bioenergy project that reduces the environmental footprint of local energy use by converting locally available biomass and/or waste materials into useful energy products, while also reducing the footprint and environmental impact of waste disposal in the area. The project could serve as a template for other communities and thereby provide an important element of a new approach to reducing our nations dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This report summarizes the results from the investigation. What follows is a review of the major findings from the research performed by ANTARES that will serve to assist Mayor Fitch in his venture to construct a bioenergy facility. Feedstock Supply Results The study performed by the ANTARES GROUP was two-phased. Phase 1 was a feedstock supply study that identified the types and quantities of biomass feedstock available within a 25 to 50 mile radius of Warrenton. This included municipal solid waste (MSW), nonrecyclable commercial debris at the landfill, wood residues, and used tires. The steps taken by ANTARES can be summarized by the following points: Identified biomass feedstock available in 25 and 50 mile radius Collated quantity and price information on feedstock that could be available for use by a bioenergy project Contacted landfills in the area to acquire level of interest in being suppliers Used results from the feedstock supply study to run financial analyses on varying scenarios for electricity and biofuel projects Summarized key results that show the feasibility of the projects considered based on different economic assumptions
The feedstock supply study identified up to 250 to 300 tons/day available from the Fauquier landfill. An additional 320 tons/day could be gathered from the neighboring counties of Rappahannock and Culpeper (~ 20 miles from Warrenton). The landfill operators from each county were contacted via phone and each one showed willingness to divert their waste to an energy project in Warrenton. Based on the preliminary economic analysis in this study, these resources would likely be the primary feedstock for the biorefinery because of their availability and the negative cost. Fauquier County could share the $46/ton tipping fee with
11/2/2007 1
the biorefinery in exchange for their avoided costs for landfilling. The Culpeper transfer station expressed a willingness to pass on their tipping fee of $40/ton. An additional 15,000 tons of woody biomass was identified as generated in the area based on a recent survey conducted by Virginia Tech. Most of this is wood chips, sawdust, and scraps left over from manufacturing operations. The weighted average delivered cost of these feedstocks is $20/ton. Several woody biomass generators in the area were contacted and showed interest in sending their residues to the biorefinery. Many of these operations generate wood residues as a waste product and are looking for someone to cheaply transport it away. Technology Characterization and Economic Analysis Phase 2 of the project consisted of exploring the economic feasibility of an energy plant, using the fuels investigated in Phase 1 as a feedstock. With the assistance of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PPNL), different technologies were examined to determine the potential process to use for a small scale integrated Biorefinery. Efforts were focused on evaluating different types of energy plants that can produce either liquid fuels or electricity. It was assumed that the available feedstocks can be used for the production of either end product. In each scenario, MSW was assumed to earn a tipping fee of $13/ton. This is the avoided cost of paying the landfill operator who would otherwise bury the MSW. Wood residues were set at a cost of $6.40/ton and assume using a portion of the Construction and Demolition wood from the landfill as well as wood chips bought from millworks. Lignocellulosic Biomass to Mixed Alcohols: Thermochemical Conversion A small scale, 250 ton/day Biorefinery based on gasification and conversion to ethanol and mixed alcohols would produce on the order of 6 million gallons per year (MGY) of product. At a capital cost of $72 million and an IRR of 10% it would require a wholesale ethanol sales price of $2.12/gal for MSW and $2.52/gal for C&D/Wood. If a grant of $30 million were provided by one of several DOE or USDA programs, the wholesale ethanol price would be $1.07/gal for MSW and $1.47/gal for C&D Wood. A similar plant with a $46 million capital cost would require a wholesale price of $1.29/gal for MSW and $1.70/gal for C&D/Wood. A $23 million grant would lower the Wholesale Price to $0.58/gal for MSW and $1.00/gal for C&D/Wood. If the plant could be constructed for $30 million, it would require a wholesale price of $0.79/gal for MSW and $1.19/gal for Wood. A $15 million grant would lower the price to $0.38/gal for MSW and $0.79/gal for C&D/Wood. A summary of these high, moderate, and low capital cost scenarios is shown in Figure 1. It displays the wholesale ethanol price for each of these cases at varying feedstock costs. The high-cost case mentioned above and shown in Figure 1 reflects additional costs associated with the construction and start-up of a pilot plant for a technology that has not previously been demonstrated at a commercial scale or on a fully integrated basis. This is currently the situation for thermochemical conversion of biomass to ethanol. The moderate cost scenario reflects reduced costs that could be expected according to published reports at a time in the near future after the technologies have been demonstrated on both a pilot and commercialscale. The low cost scenario represents potential future capital costs once the technology has fully matured, significant value engineering has occurred, and all required components and materials are readily available. A government grant would very likely be less applicable in that scenario.
11/2/2007 2
Figure 1. Capital Costs and Wholesale Ethanol Price ($/gal) for Different Cases
Feedstock Type and Cost
MSW ($40)/ton MSW ($13/ton) Wood $6.40/ton Wood $30/ton With No Government Grant Assistance $2.18 $2.74 $3.14 $3.62 $1.12 $1.68 $2.08 $2.56 $0.49 $1.04 $1.44 $1.92 *With a Government Grant $0.84 $1.39 $1.79 $2.27 $0.21 $0.76 $1.16 $1.65 $0.00 $0.48 $0.88 $1.37
*50% gov't cost share, or $30 million (whichever is less) Wholesale price represents requirement to achieve 0 NPV on investment, after meeting an assumed required weighted cost of capital of 13.9% Note: $0.60/gal tax credit, mixed alcohol by-producst @ $1.50/gal
Municipal Power Generation A 250 ton/day gasification to steam power plant with a capital cost of $41 million and an IRR of 10% would require a wholesale electricity price of $117/MWh (11.7 /kWh) for MSW and $106/MWh (10.6 /kWh) for C&D/Wood. If a $20.5 million federal grant were provided the price of power would drop to $68/MWh (6.8 /kWh) for MSW and $64/MWh (6.4 /kWh) for C&D/Wood. A summary of the different technologies evaluated with their respective capital costs and wholesale electricity prices for varying feedstock costs is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Capital Costs and Wholesale Electricity Prices ($/MWh) for Different Cases
Feedstock Type and Cost
Turnkey Capital $
MSW ($40)/ton MSW ($13/ton) Wood $6.40/ton Wood $30/ton 250 Tons/Day $36,934,332 $100 $130 $115 $141 $40,627,766 $116 $145 $129 $154 400 Tons/Day $133 $149
$60,000,000 $66,000,000
$109 $125
$114 $128
$135 $154
Wholesale price represents requirement to achieve 0 NPV on investment, after meeting an assumed required weighted cost of capital of 13.9%
Regulatory Outlook Based on the information for the regulatory agency processes concerned with approval of an integrated bio-refinery designed to produce both electricity and bio-fuel, it would appear that a reasonable time frame between selection of the technology to be used and its facility design completion and ground breaking should be between fifteen and twenty-four months, contingent on the availability of appropriate machinery. Importing new quantities of MSW from neighboring counties could be met with public opposition in this very affluent area. Steps should be taken early on to communicate to the community the purpose and benefits of building a Biorefinery based on biomass from the MSW stream. Determining the impacts of truck traffic on proposed sites is another area of concern that must be addressed early in the development process.
11/2/2007 3
Objectives ANTARES has conducted an extensive review of potential biomass supplies around the location of the proposed Warrenton power plant. The study is designed to determine whether there is a large enough supply of biomass available to support a 250-500 ton/day biomass-to-energy facility. The target fuel types for such a facility are wood residues, municipal solid waste (MSW), and other non-traditional biomass resources. The project team used in-house information, detailed manufacturer databases, and past experience to identify specific supply regions, biomass fuel supply types, and biomass residue generators/sources. The analytical methodology depended upon the fuel type considered. Thus, each section in the report is split according to the type of feedstock. 1) Wood residue fuel suppliers Data was gathered from a 2003 GIS database for Virginia wood residues developed for the Virginia Tech Department of Wood Science and Forest Products. Data for 12 counties including and surrounding the county of Fauquier was identified for analysis. The supply-shed boundary was set at 50 miles, which covered each of the 12 counties. Generally, the geometric range of the search area for a particular supply shed should not exceed an economic transport distance for a project. The transportation of biomass fuel beyond 50 miles is likely economically prohibitive, although if special circumstances presented themselves they were given consideration. The collected data included 1) County; 2) Type of manufacturer (sawmill, millwork, furniture, etc.); 3) Type of material (chips, sawdust, residues); and 4) Average material price delivered. The volume and price data was collated and used to generate weighted average fuel supple curves that show cumulative available supply quantities versus weighted average delivered prices. The curves depict the amount of fuel available in each supply region on a $/MMBtu and $/ton basis (delivered to the power plant). Finally, key wood residue generators were targeted from a database of manufacturing businesses and contacted individually to determine potential as suppliers. 2) Waste management and handling facilities Includes MSW from landfills, industrial facilities, and transfer stations. The project team began with a database of solid waste handling facilities located in Virginia. A list was developed that shows the facilities within a 25 and 50 mile radius of Warrenton with the most potential as fuel suppliers. The key suppliers were contacted via phone to inquire about interest as being a supplier as well as to confirm volume and price data. 3) Non-Traditional biomass fuel suppliers Includes waste tires, automotive shredder waste, and wood wastes such as right of way clearings and yard trimmings. Potential nontraditional fuel generators were identified using an in-house database of manufacturing businesses as well as contacts from past projects. These were mainly operations that generate a substantial amount of biomass waste but dont currently have a market for the material. The project team focused on gathering data for resource availability, current use for resources, cost information, and potential for use by Warrenton. None of the contacts in the resource category were able to provide quantifiable data regarding feedstock availability. The interview results with each contact are presented below is section 5.3. Once all the relevant data was gathered, it was compiled into a spreadsheet and organized to show the suppliers with the most potential from each biomass category. ANTARES staff
11/2/2007 4
followed up on the most promising leads and conducted a focused effort to estimate total supply potential. Results An analysis of the supply data in the target region suggests that sufficient supplies of biomass are available to support the proposed bioenergy facility. There is a substantial amount of wood residues in the Fauquier area but it should be noted that there is a competitive market for these products. Prices for these materials average around $10 to $25 per ton delivered. The key suppliers listed in the interviews section should be strongly considered as sources for biomass. A feedstock requirement of 250 tons/day should be attainable through the acquisition of wood residues, MSW, or a combination of the two. Wood residues will demand a higher price, but may offer technical advantages when considered for use as a fuel. These materials are relatively high in moisture content, but they are clean and their combustion and handling characteristics are well understood. The MSW is more attractive from a fiscal standpoint because the energy project could collect a tipping fee for acquiring MSW and will save valuable landfill space. On the other hand, technical factors may make the MSW less attractive. At this point, the non-traditional feedstocks should not be counted on as a consistent supply, but may prove valuable in the future.
In 2004, total MSW generation for Virginia residents was 11,989,925 tons and the population was at 7,510,923. This amounts to an average of 1.6 tons of MSW per person per year.
11/2/2007 5
It is unlikely that there would be any costs associated with obtaining MSW for an energy project. The majority of MSW is disposed of at landfills, costing the supplier a tipping fee ranging from around $40 to $60 per ton. An energy project could charge a $20 to $30 per ton tipping fee and have as great a supply as is available.
11/2/2007 6
Service. Since biomass power and transportation fuel projects rely on low cost feedstock, the prices paid for biomass cannot compete with more traditional industry prices for merchantable timber. Therefore, the quantity of biomass available for biomass to energy projects is limited to the non-merchantable portion of thinning removals. Concerns about impacts to soil and water also limit the amount of removable thinnings available for a biomass project. It has been estimated that fuel removal projects are limited to only 85 percent of forestlands. Further, it is estimated that only 60 percent of North American forestland is accessible with conventional logging equipment. If a 30-year recovery cycle is assumed, annual supply quantities can be generated.2 Figure 4 below shows the availability of thinnings in supply shed area of the 50-mile radius surrounding Warrenton. Figure 4. Fuel Treatment Thinning Potential in Warrenton Area Supply Shed
11/2/2007 7
Extraction of forest residues for energy or other uses has traditionally been uneconomical. Rising costs of coal and other fossil fuels combined with a favorable policy environment could stimulate utilization of these products though. The US Forest Services Timber Products Output database tracks the total volume of roundwood products harvested from all sources in US forests. Included is data for forest residues as well. County level data is available for logging residues and other removals for the entire US. It has been estimated that conventional logging operations only allow for 60% to 65% of logging residues to be collected and land clearing projects only allow half of other removals to be recovered. The geographic intensity of forest residues available for collection in the Warrenton area supply shed is presented in Figure 5 below. Figure 5. Forest Residues in the Warrenton Supply Shed
Operational costs associated with obtained woody forest biomass typically involve a number of steps if bringing the resource to a central site. Figure 6 below details the different operational steps with cost estimates for obtaining thinnings and forest residues. Based on the specification of the final product, thinnings can be expected to cost $32 to $39 per ton delivered and forest residues can be expected to cost $20 to $27 per ton delivered.
11/2/2007 8
Thinnings ($/ton as rec'd)1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 19.15 2.85 9.61 3.52 3.18 5.82 24.97 7.07 32.03 7.40 39.43
Forest Residues ($/ton as rec'd)2 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6.69 3.52 3.18 5.82 12.51 7.07 19.58 7.40 26.98
NOTE: All prices are operational costs. Figures do not include profit or overhead. Estimates for chainsaw felling and cable skidding obtained from the article Productivity and cost of manual felling and cable skidding in central Appalachian hardwood forests in the Forest Products Journal (2004, Vol. 54). Estimates for loading, transport, and processing were calculated using the Forest Residue Transportation Costing Model (FoRTS) from the US Forest Service Forest Operations Research Unit. These estimates are based on cable loading, RO transport for in woods transport, using a tub grinder for processing, and using a 120 yd chip van for road transport. Estimates for loading, transport, and processing were calculated using the Forest Residue Transportation Costing Model (FoRTS) from the US Forest Service Forest Operations Research Unit. These estimates are based on cable loading, RO transport for in woods transport, using a tub grinder for processing, and using a 120 yd chip van for road transport.
2
11/2/2007 9
are much cheaper than other woody biomass residues that solely depend on income generated by the biomass. The US Forest Service tracks annual quantities of primary mill residues in its Timber Products Output database. This data is collected every five years, most recently in 2002. The data for primary mill residues is separated into four categories: residues used for pulpwood, fuel wood, miscellaneous products, and residues not used. Overall, 41 percent of total residues went to pulpwood, 42 percent went for fuel wood, 14 percent went for miscellaneous products, and only 2 percent was not used. Total primary mill residue quantities are presented spatially in Figure 7 below. Figure 7. Primary Mill Residues in the Warrenton Area Supply Shed
Urban Wood Residues For this study, urban wood residue refers to three categories of woody biomass: woody construction & demolition (C&D) debris, woody yard trimmings, and other woody manufacturing waste. Construction and Demolition waste consists of the waste materials generated during construction, renovation, and demolition of buildings, roads, etc. The woody component of C&D waste is primarily derived from residential and commercial construction, renovation, and demolition. The four principal sources for woody yard trimmings include municipal yard waste, utility tree trimmings, private tree service companies, and various woods hauled with trash. It includes all types of wood found in residential, commercial, and institutional waste. Other woody manufacturing waste consists of the residue from non-primary wood manufacturing businesses not including construction and demolition wastes. These types of businesses include pallet manufacturers and recyclers, truss companies, wholesale and retail lumber companies, cabinet manufacturers, furniture manufacturers, etc. The majority of this resource comes from pallet and lumber companies.
11/2/2007 10
The population of a certain location most directly influences the quantity of urban wood residues generated. A recent study analyzed the relationship between population and urban wood residue generation and found the following results3: 0.091 tons of C&D wood are generated per person per year 0.203 tons of yard trimmings are generated per person per year 0.039 tons of other woody manufacturing waste is generated per person per year Figure 8 below outlines the costs associated with obtaining manufacturing and urban wood residues. Mill residues are typically more expensive since the market for them can be highly competitive. Costs also depend greatly on the level of processing required. Figure 8. Prices for Manufacturing and Urban Wood Residues
Operational Phase Mill Residues ($/ton as rec'd)1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 20.60 20.60 7.07 27.66 7.40 35.06 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ C&D Waste ($/ton as rec'd) 8.37 8.37 7.07 15.43 7.40 22.83 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Yard Trimmings ($/ton as rec'd) 5.66 5.66 7.07 12.72 7.40 20.12 Other Waste Wood ($/ton as rec'd) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5.87 5.87 7.07 12.93 7.40 20.33
Residue Cost Processing Cost Est. FOB Cost Transportation Delivered Cost (Unground) Grinding / Secondary Processing Delivered Cost (Ground)
1
Mill residue cost based on prices paid for residual hardwood chips in the south central US. From Wood Resource Quarterly of Wood Resources International (3rd Quarter 2005, pg. 16).
Wiltsee, G. Urban Wood Waste Resource Assessment. NREL. November, 1998. Corn Stover for Bioethanol Your New Cash Crop? NREL. May 2001. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/29691.pdf.
11/2/2007 11
Ag Residue (dry tons/yr) = Crop Production (Bu) * Crop Residue Ratio x Dry Matter (%) / K Where: Bu = Bushels per year K = Bushel to Ton conversion or 2000 / Bushel weight in pounds. For corn, the following assumptions were made: crop residue ratio of 1.0, moisture content of 15.5%, and a bushel weight of 56 pounds.5 Figure 9 shows the calculated quantity of corn stover in the Warrenton are supply shed generated in 2005. Figure 9. Corn Stover Availability in the Warrenton Area Supply Shed
Figure 10 below details costs associated with obtaining corn stover. In this study, it is assumed that the farmer will be compensated $10 for each ton of corn stover removed from his/her land. Other operation steps involved in this cost estimation include mowing, baling, hauling to storage, stacking, storage fees, transportation to final destination, and processing. The delivered cost for baled corn stover amounts to around $53 per ton. Further processing of corn stover into a more usable form results in a final cost of around $60 per ton.
5 Residue calculations and crop assumptions based on A. Milbrandts A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass Resource Availability in the United States, prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, December 2005.
11/2/2007 12
2.1.6 Switchgrass
ANTARES has also reviewed the potential availability and cost issues for switchgrass for the supply region considered in this study. Switchgrass is a native prairie grass, which can be fast-growing and very drought tolerant, and is an energy crop that has received considerable attention from government research programs as a potentially economic and abundant biomass feedstock that also has a wide range of environmental benefits associated with it. Figure 11 shows a county-level map of potential switchgrass availability for the supply search region considered in this study. The information on the map was obtained from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, based on existing land-uses and projected county-level switchgrass yields (tons per acre per year). The potential supplies shown on the map are not existing supplies - they are the potential supplies if likely targeted lands were converted to switchgrass use if policy and economic
11/2/2007 13
conditions favored switchgrass energy crops. It is a reasonable assumption that there would be at least a several year ramp-up period for any new utility-scale switchgrass-based energy project once a supply contract is signed. This ramp-up period would be needed to enable local farmers to establish switchgrass on their lands, build up the capabilities, and supply network to deliver it as a fuel source for a large project. Figure 11. Switchgrass Potential in the Warrenton Area Supply Shed
Based on experience to date with the Chariton Valley Biomass Project in Iowa, a switchgrass supplier would need at least $40 to $45 per ton to deliver baled switchgrass to a processing facility at a local power plant. Depending on the type of facility the switchgrass might be used at, it would cost between $15 and $25 per ton (all costs included) to get it into the boiler in the proper form (to allow complete burnout, etc.). The overall cost by the time it gets to the boiler could be as high as $70/ton ($5.07/MMBtu) or as low as $50/ton ($3.62/MMBtu). In order to make a project attractive to both farmers/suppliers and the utility, the value of the switchgrass to the utility must be higher than the suppliers cost to deliver processed switchgrass to the boiler. Incentives or renewable energy mandates/requirements will likely be needed.
11/2/2007 14
at confined feedlots, odor issues, unconstrained methane emissions, and other environmental concerns. Quantity estimates for animal wastes were calculated using NASS population statistics for cattle, chicken, turkeys, and hogs and pigs. The equation for calculating manure mass is described below and assumption for each animal type can be found in Figure 12. Total Solids = Populationi * TAMi * VSi Where, TAMi = Typical animal mass for animal type i (lbs/head) VSi = Average animal volatile solids produced per unit of animal Figure 12. Average Animal Size and Annual Volatile Solids Production
Animal Type Cattle Beef Milk Other Poultry Layers Broilers Turkeys Hogs and Pigs Breeding Other
Volatile Solids Typical Animal per Pound Animal Mass, Mass (lbs), VS i TAM i 1,102 1,345 898 3.5 1.5 7.5 399 101 2.6 3.7 2.8 4.4 6.2 3.3 3.1 3.1
Data Source: Milbrandt, A. A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass Resource Availability in the United States. NREL Technical Report NREL/TP-560-39-181. December, 2005.
Often times, animal manures are used for fertilizer or agricultural purposes. Manures contain significant amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous that assists plant growth. Costs for obtaining animal manures for an energy project should closely correspond to the fertilizer value of the manure to the farmer. This value is typically around $11 to $18 per ton. With delivery and handling, this cost increases to up to $20 to $30 per ton.
11/2/2007 15
can complicate handling and processing. Woody biomass is also abundant in the region. Approximately 2.7 million tons of woody biomass is generated each year in the supply shed. The lowest cost woody biomass would be available from wood manufacturing businesses and urban wood wastes such as C&D waste and yard trimmings. Based on the findings in this preliminary review and from discussions with Mayor Fitch, the project team has focused its effort in the detailed feedstock analysis on wood residues, MSW, and regionally available non-traditional fuels. Wood residues and MSW show technically acceptable characteristics as a feedstock, are abundantly available, and are attractively priced. Efforts investigating regionally available non-traditional fuels hope to identify residue streams such as waste tires and any other available opportunity feedstocks. The following detailed analysis characterizes each of these feedstocks within the Warrenton area supply shed. Figure 13. Preliminary Feedstock Summary Table Feedstock Cost/Benefit $20 - $30 per ton tipping fee $32 - $39 per ton $20 - $27 per ton $10 - $35 per ton Tipping fee $23 per ton $53 - $60 per ton $50 - $70 per ton $20 to $30 per ton
Feedstock MSW Forest Thinnings Forest Residues Mill Residues Manufacturing and Urban Wood Residues Corn Stover Switchgrass Potential Animal Manures
Resource Potential 9,491,403 tons/yr 426,197 dry tons/yr 378,133 dry tons/yr 421,628 dry tons/yr 1,517,437 dry tons/yr 456,545 dry tons/yr 130,869 dry tons/yr 1,241,335 dry tons/yr
11/2/2007 16
11/2/2007 17
11/2/2007 18
11/2/2007 19
11/2/2007 20
very willing to take Rappahannocks waste to Warrenton, which is only 14 miles away, instead of Culpeper. He is also supportive of a waste-to-energy project and preserving landfill space, wherever it may be. Paul Howard Director of Environmental Services, Culpeper County: Culpeper County is located south of Fauquier. The Culpeper landfill closed in 1998. Their waste is currently being taken to the Culpeper transfer station, which then transports it to Richmond. Culpeper generates 300 tons/day of MSW. They are under long term contracts with the waste haulers but are able to get out of them. Mr. Howard stated that he would certainly be willing to transport the waste to Warrenton if the economics proved favorable.
2.3.3 Non-Traditional
These contacts provided insight into resources that are not currently considered sources of fuel for energy operations. The materials are usually waste products that are not quantified. Although there is no hard data available for these resources, these contacts could prove valuable as the first step in organizing and coordinating waste materials as a source of energy production. Glen McMillan - Virginia Department of Transportation: Mr. McMillan said that VDOT activities such as construction projects, small maintenance, and sub-division development generate a large amount of wood waste. This waste is generally in the form of wood chips, shrubbery, and tree thinnings. The problem is that the supply of these materials is very volatile. The operations that produce the biomass are sporadic and do not provide a reliable flow of material. There is also the problem of storage, which does not currently exist. Although a large amount of waste is generated, there is not enough of a dependable supply to be considered as a fuel source for a power plant. Mr. McMillan does believe that there will be more organization in the future, and if the waste could be better coordinated VDOT would be interested in supplying a waste to energy facility. Shawn Davis Virginia Department of Environmental Quality: Mr. Davis provided a great overall status report for biomass in the state of Virginia. He was not aware of the new waste to energy plant proposed in Warrenton, but said there is one in the Tidewater region, one in Arlington, and one off I-95. A large source of residue biomass in the state comes from clearings. These could be created by the utility companies for running their lines, water & sewer companies for their pipes, pipeline companies, and privately produced biomass from leaves and yard clippings. There is currently a sawdust explosion going on in southwest Virginia with all the new construction and development. There is only one CDD landfill there and it cannot handle all the waste. In the Shenandoah Valley, there is also a lot of leftover debris with nowhere to put it. As a result, it is being burned. Mr. Davis believes they waste generators would probably like to give it to someone else for disposal. One source that may have large potential as a biomass supplier is the Department of Emergency Response and in particular, the hurricane response team. After natural disasters, there is always an enormous amount of leftover biomass that has no use. There is a list of outlets that may take it and often have prepermitting sites for debris. In fact, there is probably still stored debris left over from the last hurricane season.
11/2/2007 21
Martin Ogle Fairfax Regional Park Authority: Mr. Ogle was referred by Charlie Becker of the Virginia Department of Forestry. He has expressed some interest to Mr. Becker about waste to energy power plants but only works within one park, which doesnt produce a large amount of biomass. After talking, however, it appeared that there might be some potential from his operations. There is a large problem at the parks with non-native vines growing everywhere and taking over. They are trying to keep them at bay and currently just leave the remains. As this problem becomes more of an issue (as it is expected to be) there needs to be an outlet for the cut down material. Another possible fuel source is hazardous trees. These are trees that are at risk of falling and pose at threat because of their proximity to power lines and houses. The park authority is hoping to instill a timber management program where they could cut down the trees and find a market for them. They were looking at giving them to local sawmills, but Mr. Ogle opened up to the possibility to send the material to a waste to energy plant. He should be considered as a potential supplier should the project commence. Allan Lassiter - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality: Mr. Lassiter is a member of the DEQs Waste Tire Management Staff. He said that for the purposes of a feasibility study, to estimate the waste tire generation figure one tire per person per year. The tires themselves are 20 lbs. apiece. There is currently a reimbursement program in Virginia for waste tires. A $1/tire tax is imposed on all new tire sales at a retail outlet. The $1 is passed along to end users as a subsidy for each tire they dispose of. The majority of end uses are for civil engineering project, tire derived fuel, and recycling projects. This amount is in addition to a tip fee received by the end user, which is typically $50-$100 per ton. Mr. Lassiter informed ANTARES that tire piles cannot be counted on as a fuel supply. There are currently only 2 million tires remaining in piles and those will be gone very soon. For a fuel supply, only the daily generation can be considered. Mr. Lassiter believes procuring a supply from the main waste tire generators (retail tire dealers, auto shops) would be very difficult because they are all under long term contracts. The only place tires may be able to be obtained would be from landfills that receive tires from small generators in the local area. Mr. Lassiter was not sure of the amount generated in the Fauquier area but advised using the 1 tire/person/year figure for estimation. Mr. Rait Fairfax County I-95 Landfill Operator: Mr. Rait was contacted to determine the potential for diverting their waste tires to the town of Warrenton for use as a fuel feedstock. Fairfax currently brings in 700-800 tons/month of used tires. Almost all of these are from companies that are under contract. The tipping fee is $75/ton paid to the landfill. The landfill then pays the landfill operator $60/ton to dispose of the tires. They are usually shred up and used to cover trash or for drainage. The contactor, being the end user of the tires, also receives the $22.50/ton subsidy for the Virginia government. After other costs are included, Fairfax just about breaks even. The landfill also has a waste-energy plant, which currently burns 3,000 tons/day of MSW. It does not burn the tires because the landfill space that burning the MSW saves is more valuable then burning tires that have a high BTU value and would thus cause more MSW to be landfilled. Mr. Rait informed ANTARES that they would be interested in taking their tires to Warrenton and a deal could be worked out to pass on a tipping fee similar to what the landfill operator is paid.
11/2/2007 22
Hafez Al-Haj Prince William County Landfill Operator: Mr. Al-Haj was questioned about the waste tire situation in Prince William County. The county currently receives around 2,000 tons/year of waste tires. The tipping fee is $60/ton and is usually paid through contracts with companies such as repair shops. The tires are then sent to a scrap metal contractor who shreds the tires along with other silt and fluff. The material is then sent back to the landfill to be used for cover. They did not have an estimate of what exactly is paid to the contractor because it is part of a packaged contract involving other materials in addition to the tires. Mr. Al-Haj informed ANTARES that they are very satisfied with their current operations but if the economics worked out there could be potential to send the tires to Warrenton.
11/2/2007 23
11/2/2007 24
Figure 16. Supply Curve for Potentially Available Biomass Weighted Average Delivered Cost vs. Quantity Counties within 50 miles of Fauquier
$ per Ton
20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
Chips Sawdust Scraps Cumulative Average Fuel Chip Price* Average Pulp Chip Price - Sawmill** Average Pulp Chip Price - Chipmill***
11/2/2007 25
Figure 17. Supply Curve for Potentially Available Biomass Weighted Average Delivered Cost vs. Quantity Counties within 50 miles of Fauquier
2.50
2.00
$ per MMBtu
1.50
1.00
Chips Sawdust Scraps Cumulative
0.50
Figure 18. Supply Curve for Potentially Available Biomass Weighted Average Delivered Cost vs. Quantity Counties within 50 miles of Fauquier
2.50 2.00
$ per MMBtu
11/2/2007 26
Figure 20. Total Daily Tonnage MSW from Fauquier, Rappahannock, and Culpeper County with Potential for Energy Production
Rubber, leather, textiles, 39.8 Metal, 41.5 Plastics, 64.4 Food Scraps, 64.9
Wood, 31.1
Paper, 186.6
11/2/2007 27
As learned from John McCarthy, the Rappahannock County Administrator, Rappahannock County would be willing to divert their waste to the Warrenton Landfill for the waste-toenergy facility. The countys landfill will be closing in September or October because of a lack of capacity. They will then ship their waste to the Culpeper County transfer station, located 21 miles away. They would much rather send their waste to Warrenton, which is only 14 miles away to save on transportation costs. Maps of the planned route to Culpeper and the alternative route to Warrenton are shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22 below.
Figure 21. Map of the route from Rappahannock County landfill, located in Amissville Virginia, to Culpeper County landfill, located in Culpeper Virginia. Distance 21 miles.
11/2/2007 28
Figure 22. Map of the route from Rappahannock County landfill, located in Amissville Virginia, to Fauquier County landfill, located in Warrenton Virginia. Distance 14 miles.
11/2/2007 29
Energy Value Ave. Feedstock (MMBtu/month) Price ($/ton) 391,833 166,770 57,060 $18.80 ($13.00) ($100)
Avg. Feedstock Typical Est. Price Heat Rate Capacity ($/MMBtu) (Btu/kWh) Factor $1.94 ($1.27) ($2.95) 20,000 20,000 20,000 80% 80% 80%
Waste Tires
1
1,681
The $13/ton is the avoided cost of paying a contracor to bury the MSW (currently $1 million per year for 75,000 tons of MSW). 2 Assumes one tire per person will be available from Fauquier County and the residents of 12 surrounding counties. A heating value of 39,480 kJ/kg was used for waste tires (from Phyllis online database). Also, the average feedstock price for tires takes into account the tire reimbursement program in Virginia provides $1 per re-used tire. This figure does not include a tipping fee which typically ranges between $50$100 per ton.
11/2/2007 30
11/2/2007 31
An integrated bio-refinery producing electricity and bio-fuel involves special considerations in addition to those issues typically encountered in the permitting and licensing of energy facilities. First, the nature of the project, which consists of a unique configuration of new but proven green gasification technology with technology still in development, does not fall tidily within the definitions and concepts of existing permit language. Usual regulatory interpretation is that, if a thing is not specifically allowed, then it is deemed prohibited.6 Presentation of innovative technology faces both a learning curve and a credibility challenge in addition to ordinary permit issues. Since this project is a first of its kind and potential template for subsequent users means that the project must also accept and anticipate concomitant disconnects with existing permit and licensing processes. Second, Fauquier County itself presents a mix of problems for approval of any energy related project. Geographically, the county is on the Virginia Piedmont located about 40 miles south and west of the Washington, D.C., metroplex.7 All runoff and some groundwater eventually affect the Chesapeake Bay, critical waters already the subject of stringent federal and State regulations, multiyear planning and designated high dollar actions to prevent and counter present or future pollution. 8 Water quality is carefully monitored.9 Likewise, due to prevailing weather conditions and increasing population and transportation growth in Northern Virginia, there are air quality problems. Fauquier Countys ambient air quality is subject to monitoring and all activities which contribute to air pollution are subject to conditions defined by the federal Clean Air Act and Virginia law and regulations.10 Further, any activity that might adversely affect air quality is a matter of intense concern to the National Park Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Shenandoah National Park with its scenic Skyline Drive lies directly west of the County. Visibility from the Park as well as health of the Park ecosystem is already impaired, and any potential for further degradation
6 E.g., Fauquier County Zoning Ordinance, Article 2-301, www.fauquiercounty.gov/government/departments/commdev/index.cfm?action=zoningordinance1. 7 Fauquier County Government Home Page, www.fauquiercounty.gov/government. 8 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33U.S.C. 1251-1376, See especially 33 U.S.C. 1267 et seq. 9 Virginia Water Quality Improvement Act of 1997, Va. Code 10.1-2117-2134; Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, Va. Code 10.1-2100. 10 Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. (1970), Va. Code . 10.1-1300 et seq., 9 VAC 5-20-200. Fauquier County is bounded by Counties, Loudoun to the north and Prince William to the east. Both of which have been determined to be Nonattainment Areas requiring special protection under federal and State regulations for Ambient Air Quality. Thus far, Fauquier County air quality has not exceeded limits set by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and retains status as a prevention of significant deterioration are (PSD). However, future readings may reveal sufficient exceedences to affect its status. Interview, Terry H. Darton, Environmental Engineer Consultant, and K. Dean Gossett, Environmental Engineer Senior, Department of Environmental Quality, Fredericksburg, June 20, 2007. Air pollution sources in any PSD are regulated by defined Classes to maintain air quality as new businesses develop. Permits and emission control requirements vary by the classification, with the most strict being Class I, which are primarily national parks and wilderness areas; Shenandoah National Park and the James River Face Wilderness Area are Class I areas. Class I areas may require controls of nearby industrial development. Class II, which includes Fauquier County, allows only limited amounts of new emissions and requires a showing of specific technological levels (Best Available Control Technology or BACT) by any facility seeking a permit. www.deq.state.va.us/air/permitting/xcaa.
11/2/2007 32
would trigger both state and federal responses.11 Both George Washington and Jefferson National Forests and the James River Face Wilderness Area could also be affected by a decrease in air quality in Fauquier County, thereby also involving the U.S. Department of Agricultures National Forest Service. The entire County is a nationally significant historic area.12 The historic character of the region has made tourism is a major economic factor for Fauquier County.13 A real or perceived adverse impact on scenery, open space, the many historic homes and buildings, Revolutionary and Civil War battlegrounds, or other archaeological sites inevitably engenders intense scrutiny by a number of vigilant and aggressive organizations, which have had no hesitation in raising legal and public opinion challenges to actions deemed a threat to Fauquier County heritage14.
3.1 Preliminary Actions for the Integrated Bio-refinery Project and Results
3.1.1 Public Opinion
Success for the proposed integrated bio-refinery depends upon economic and environmental concerns being foreseen and dealt with sensitively. The practical considerations associated with routine permitting and regulatory requirements are compounded by a need to inform and persuade an intensely interested and often far from credulous public. The Mayor and the Town of Warrenton recognized the historic and environmental concerns presented by the concept of building any electric generation or fuel refinery in Fauquier County, albeit a green one. Steps were taken early to involve the public in organizing and planning the project.15 Private citizens have been the driving force for the project since the Mayor and Town Council of Warrenton made the first public overtures for the Green
11 www.shenandoah.national-park.com/nat.htm#air; www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/ARIS/shen;National Parks Conservation Association, www.npca.org/stateoftheparks/shenandoah. 12 Fauquier County, Journey Through Hallowed Ground, www.hallowedground.org., See also, www.pecva.org, the website for Piedmont Environmental Council: www.mosbyheritagearea.org, website for Mosby Heritage Area Association. 13 www.fauquiercounty.gov/government/departments/econdev. . 14 The coalition of citizens opposed to the construction of a theme park by the Disney organization resulted in international publicity and years of public relations and legal confrontations led by the Piedmont Environmental Council; Disney lost. Similarly, local activists have rallied to oppose any enlargement of existing power transmission corridors by Dominion and Allegheny Power companies. This controversy also has achieved national status, involving legislative proposals in the United States Congress supported by Virginia and New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania Representatives, and could be expected to last years until resolution. Electric power generation is a particularly hot topic in the locale. See, Were With You PEC Pledges To Help Southern Fauquier Defeat Preferred Power-line Route, Fauquier Times-Democrat, March 7, 2007, A1; Southern Fauquier Signs On In Fight Against Power Line, Fauquier Times-Democrat, April 4, 2007, A1; www.pecva.org. 15 Several public meetings of interested persons have been held including an initial March 15, 2007, briefing by personnel from the Idaho National Laboratories and from Antares Group, an USEPA Partner listed consulting firm, concerning technology potentials followed by a general discussion of availability and costs of possible feedstock sources. On April 10, 2007, a forum of interested citizens convened in the Warrenton City Hall and volunteered to research and work in various areas to support the Initiative. This citizen based approach comports with the recommendations and guidelines published by the Rocky Mountain Institute for successfully developing local economies and improving communities using renewable energy technologies. See, www.rmi.org.
11/2/2007 33
Initiative by submitting an application for a funding grant from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development office.16 A volunteer citizen group, the Green Initiative Committee, is chaired by the Mayor. The Committee has undertaken preliminary actions including outreach to citizens as well as to concerned groups, including the formidable Piedmont Environmental Council. Committee members have publicized the concept and have made efforts to meet, inform and include other citizens in the Green Initiative. To date, this approach has worked. No local citizen opposition is known to exist to the Green Initiatives proposal to use County waste to produce electricity and develop bio-fuel.17
11/2/2007 34
County employees and agencies have received preliminary contacts as well, and all have reacted favorably to the concept. Meetings and briefings are being arranged for County Planning and Zoning staff members as well as for appointed Planning Board members. It is anticipated that these discussions will proceed and be mutually informing as the project for the integrated bio-refinery goes forward.20 In the light of the above background, the following legal, permit, license, and regulatory issues have been identified, described, and likely time constraints set out.
20 Ibid.; electronic communication from County Administrator Paul McCulla,, paul.mcculla@fauquiercounty.gov, June 18, 2007, 9:57:46 AM EDT. 21 Fauquier County Zoning Ordinance, Article 2, Part 1, 2-102, www.fauquiercounty.gov/Government/departments/commdev/index.cfm?action=zoningordinance. 22 Ibid., 2-101, 102 23 Interview, June 4, 2007, Melissa Dargis, Assistant Chief of Planning, Planning Division, Department of Community Development, Fauquier County; Interview, June 4, 2007,Charles W. (Wally) Horton IV, AICP, Senior Planner: Zoning, Permitting & Inspections, Department of Community Development, Fauquier County. 24 Interview, Dargis, Ibid. 25 See, attached maps, Ex.1 & 2. 26 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Waste, Permit 575 (September 23, 1994); Virginia Department of Health, Bureau of Solid Waste & Vector Control, Permit 149 (February 4, 1974) (Note: this permit is now administered by the Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Waste).
11/2/2007 35
southeast border of the Town of Warrenton. The area is zoned RA, although a portion of a 50-acre parcel zoned R1 overlies the headquarters office area in the north end of the site.27 A subdivision and the Warrenton campus of Lord Fairfax Community College occupy the tract northwest of the landfill, occupying the old farmstead from which part of the landfill was carved many years ago.28 There are outlying waste transfer sites throughout the County where household waste may be deposited and some recycling occurs, but all nonrecyclable and most waste eventually is transported to the existing landfill. Landfill access is now via a major highway intersection connection. The landfill itself operates pursuant to a Special Exception to the Zoning Regulations.29 A large electric power transmission line, which is part of the Mid-Atlantic power grid known as the PJM Interconnection, LLC,30 crosses the eastern border of the present landfill site. Depending upon the technology selected, the proposed integrated bio-refinery could utilize daily waste transported to the landfill site for feedstock, could use waste materials mined from old, closed landfill cells, or could combine both streams as feedstock for its process as well as being able to accommodate special wastes such as used tires or bio-mass specially transported to the site as feedstock. In addition, the County has recently purchased another approximately 197 acre tract to the north of the landfill.31 Planning of the uses of this new acreage has not been finalized; but, it is anticipated that landfill operations will participate in some aspects of that acreage if only for vehicle parking and uses associated with mining necessary soil for waste coverage.32 This tract is roughly bisected by the electric transmission line mentioned above. The geographical attributes and physical location of the landfill predispose site selection for the proposed biorefinery project.33 In view of the sensitive nature of the entire area and the existing conditions, placing the proposed facility anywhere but on the County landfill site or on adjacent land parcels seems impractical.
27 RA indicates that the land is Rural Agricultural, a status that indicates that the area is and is intended to protect agricultural uses. R1 zoning indicates that the land is in a Residential District and has been assigned a density of one unit per acre. Fauquier County Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Part 1, 3-100. 28 Map. Ex. 1, n. 20 supra. 29 Note: The landfill special exception is listed pursuant to 3-311.13 of Category 11 (Public and Quasi-public Uses), Chapter 3, Planning and Zoning Ordinance. However, Chapter 3s Category 20 (Public Utilities) 3-320.5 provides a special exception designation precisely for electric generation facilities. It is unclear why this category was not selected for the methane to electricity facility, and it might be the better choice for a second facility on site. Staff advised that they will review the files and provide additional guidance in advance of any actual application being filed on behalf of the Green Initiative project, and the County Administrator recommends this procedure. The County Administrator advises that no County permit was issued at the time of construction of the plant to convert methane to electricity because at that time it was theorized that the County was already disposing of the methane by one method (flaring it off) and that the conversion of the methane to electricity was just another method of disposal. The current administration is not confident that the same analogy would apply to a bio-fuel refinery and will wish to discuss that matter when and as technology is selected. Communication, McCulla, n. 15 supra. 30 Interstate electric transmission lines such as the Mid-Atlantic grid are regulated and administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). See, http://www.pepcoholdings.com/about/ferc. 31 See, Map, Ex. 1 supra. 32 Interview, June 1, 2007, Fauquier County Director of Environmental Services and Landfill Manager Mike Dorsey. 33 For example, the proximity of the college campus, classified as a school under existing pertinent regulations dealing with waste regulation, could potentially bar a new landfill operation, but the operations and permitted activities of the present site grandfather similar activities on site.
11/2/2007 36
Fauquier County Zoning Ordinance, Article 2, 2-101, 2-102. Interview, Darton and Gossett, June 20, 2007, n. 5 supra. LGOF certification may be shown by a local government representative signing an acknowledgment or by permittee presenting DEQ with return receipt documentation of mailing and receipt of the notice; if no local governmental official objects to the process, a DEQ permit may be issued within 45 days for an otherwise proper and complete application for an air permit. 36 Interview, Horton, n. 17, supra. 37 Communication. Paul McCulla, n. 15 supra.
35
34
11/2/2007 37
11/2/2007 38
interstate transmission grid must be allowed; however, the conditions and special rates which can be charged should the proposed facility not meet requirements pertaining to generation, stability of operation, and potential risk factors to the grid must be considered and addressed as early as possible. This is an area which may develop as the project itself grows. Due to the specialized nature of any filings or submissions under FERC rules, and since it is likely that all power sales would be as a result of the intervention of a licensed electric power broker, implications of any FERC role should probably be left to the broker. In addition, many of the aspects of this connection to the interstate grid are in practice handled through the Virginia State Corporation Commissions (SCC) oversight of state electric power generation and rates. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) mission is to advance and promote energy technology.42 DOEs most likely involvement with the proposed bio-refinery would be as potential source of grant or other funds or in supporting research and development aspects of the project.43 A major funding role will likely require environmental findings and documentation under NEPA.
www.energy.gov.
www.energy.gov/r&dsupport.htm. Note: Idaho National Laboratories is participating in the preparation of this document and is assisting the Project in providing technical language for bidding processes necessary to implement subsequent stages of the project. 44 56 VAC 67-101, 102. 45 See, www.deq.state.va.us, This homepage contains a complete reference of pertinent laws and regulations, permits, and a guide to permitting authorities which is comprehensive and most helpful. 46 State permitting conditions and emissions standards must reflect federal regulations and may be more strict in efforts to control and reduce pollution and protect public health but may not be less stringent that the federal rules. Virginia permitting processes provide for the concept of allowing simultaneous construction and operation of a facility thus somewhat streamlining the permit process for the applicant. Interview, Darton and Gossett, n. 5
11/2/2007 39
supra.; Air quality permits are issued to industries and facilities that emit regulated pollutants to ensure that these emissions do not harm public health or cause significant deterioration in areas that presently have clean air. The permit also ensures that facilities make adequate provisions to control their emissions. Virginia regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution set out criteria for deciding if any new proposed facility or any change to an existing facility are contained in the for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution The Northern Virginia Regional Office, one of the seven DEQ reviewing offices, will determine the criteria applicable and decide upon issuance of air permits based on the facility. www.deq.state.va.us/air/permitting/homepage. 47 9 VAC 20; Va. Code 10.1 -1400 et seq. 48 See, www.deq.state.va.us/. 9VAC 20-80. 49 Ibid. Interview, Dorsey, n. 24 supra. 50 9 VAC 20-80-30; Va. Code 10.1 1400-1457. 51 Interview, Richard C. Doucette, Waste Program Manager, Northern Virginia Regional Office, DEQ, April 30, 2007. 9VAC 20-80-485. 52 9 VAC 20-80-485 B and C. 53 9 VAC 5.
11/2/2007 40
such as is proposed by the integrated bio-refinery project.54 It is not possible to determine precisely which permit application process should or would be selected, or to state the probable timeline for approval of a permit to construct and operate a facility designed both to produce electricity and a bio-fuel from municipal, construction and other waste until the precise technology is selected.55 Virginias Air Emissions Program differs from federal and other delegated programs in that Virginia may issue a permit which allows simultaneous construction and operation under appropriate conditions.56 Informal preliminary contacts made by citizens supporting the integrated bio-refinery proposal with the Northern Virginia Regional Office demonstrate that, while a proper and complete application for a permit will need to be submitted to allow construction and operation of any facility erected in Fauquier County utilizing waste from the County landfill or other biomass materials, the permitting process can proceed as expeditiously with the required public participation notices, hearings, comments and rulings likely being the primary time consumer. 57 One matter ancillary to the application for and receiving of an air emissions permit is that, depending upon the permit, there will be a fee associated with it, and this cost should be factored into the permitting process.58
The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 requires the states to deal with air quality issues including healthbased standards for six criteria pollutantscarbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone (O2), particulates, and sulfur oxides (SO2) as well as certain hazardous pollutants not within the sir quality standards criteria. Virginia regulations not only administer federal programs and regulatory provisions but include some issues not addressed under federal law such as controlling dust sources to prevent particulates from becoming airborne and prohibiting odors objectional to individuals of ordinary sensibility. www.deq.state.va.us/air/permitting/xcaa; . 55 Electronic communication, Terry H. Darton, Environmental Engineer Consultant, Northern Regional Office, DEQ, June 22, 2007 2:53:34 PM EDT. Permit types are categorized as to the potential of a facility to emit regulated pollutants. This potential is determined by the amount and to some extent the type of waste and other feedstock involved in the regulated facility process. Until a technology is selected and a capacity for that technology is selected with regard to the amount of material to be processed, the type of permit applicable to the facility and level of controls on potential emissions is conjectural. State Air Program personnel have offered assistance to aid the Green Initiative in determining which permit to seek when the time is appropriate. Interview, Terry H. Darton, Environmental Engineer Consultant, Air Program, Northern Regional Office, May 15, 2007; Interview, Darton and Gossett, n. 5 supra. 56 Interview, Darton and Gossett, June 20, 2007, n. 5 supra. The Virginia Air Operating Permit System is a new, streamlined system which seeks to place all air permitting requirements for a facility into one single permit. This permit is then subject to renewal every five-years to allow changes reflecting both facility needs and changing regulations. www.deq.state.va.us/air/permitting/xcaa. 57 Interview, Darton and Gossett, Ibid. No precise time table can be stated until an application is submitted, but, if the permit process determined to be applicable is the most onerous, it could take as much as a year to complete. 58 Ibid.
54
11/2/2007 41
pollutants produced by biomasses which could act as additional feedstock for the facility would likely be environmentally beneficial.59
59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
Interview, Doucette, n. 48 supra. Article IX, Section 2 of the Constitution of Virginia. Va. Code, Title 56, Chapters 1, 9.1, 10, 10.1 and 10.2:1; Title 15.2, Ch. 43. Va. Code Title 56, Chapter 10; 9VAC 5. www.state.va.us/scc/division/pue/ 20 VAC 5-302, 5-302-20, 5-302-25, and 5-302-10. Electronic communication, William.Chambliss@scc.virginia.gov, June 25, 2007 9:41:54 AM EDT. Electronic communication, William.Chambliss@scc.virginia.gov, June 25, 2007 11:58:30 AM EDT. Ibid. Va. Code 56-580D, Va. Code 10.1-1186-2:1.
11/2/2007 42
Technology Assessment
There have been some interesting recent developments in the field of plasma gasification that ANTARES believes are of importance. An article in the October issue of Biomass magazine describes how several plants are using plasma to process municipal solid waste (MSW) into electricity. Plasma technology has been around for decades but only recently has it started to be used commercially for the production of energy from MSW. The article focuses on a plasma gasification plant in Ottawa Canada that can processes 85 tons per day of MSW. The city of Ottawa has teamed up with Plasco Energy Group Inc. to deliver the plasma technology. The Plasco system uses a variation of traditional plasma technologies. Their system uses a separate gasification chamber to gasify the MSW. The plasma is then used to refine the gas, as opposed to refining the shredded up MSW. The refined syngas is then used to produce 5 MW of electricity for every 100 tons of MSW. 4 MW are sold to the grid and 1 MW is used to power the plant. All that is landfill is 1 kg of ash. Construction on the plant finished in June and it started processing MSW in late September. Plasco is planning to build another plant in Spain and two more in Canada in the near future. The largest plant to date is planned to start up in 2010 in St. Lucie County, Florida. The energy developer is Geoplasma LLC and the technology provider is Westinghouse Plasma Corp. The plant will start by processing 1,000 tons per day and eventually reach 3,000 tons. St. Lucie county expects to completely consume their landfill within 20 years. Another story of interest is the recent news that Volkswagen and Daimler have acquired a minority shareholding in CHOREN Industries, a gasification vendor. CHORENs plants use a Shell technology that converts synthetic gas into liquid fuels. This technology is based on the Fischer-Tropsch process. CHOREN is currently building the worlds first commercial biomass to liquid plant in Freiberg, Germany. The facility will produce 4.6 million gallons of fuel per year, and be the test model for future plants capable of producing 61 million gallons per year. Their technology uses a three-stage gasification process that occurs in low temperature, high temperature, and endothermic conditions. Through their investment, Volkswagen and Daimler are trying to promote the use of biomass derived liquid fuel. This commitment is part of Volkswagens Driving ideas campaign to support sustainable mobility. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory conducted a review of gasification technologies that could be employed to convert MSW to ethanol. That report was conveyed to the Mayor of Warrenton as a separate document. That report is in draft form and therefore is used only as an advisory input to the findings of this report. Technologies reviewed in the PNNL report include: Company Ebara Nippon Steel Mitsui Technip Thermoselect Von Roll Brightstar Environmental Compact power PKA Technology Fluid bed gasification, secondary combustion, melting Gasification & secondary combustion & melting Pyrolysis secondary combustion & melting Thermal Gasification Pyrolysis gasification and melting Pyrolysis secondary combustion & smelting 2 stage gasification Pyrolysis, gasification, combustion Pyrolysis, gasification, & melting
11/2/2007 43
At this stage all of the technologies proposed to be used to gasify MSW and then convert the syngas to ethanol are in a developmental stage. Any project developed on this basis would therefore be experimental and would entail significant risk. The benefits of converting biomass in the MSW stream to power or liquid fuels are well recognized: Biomass makes up typically 60 -70% of MSW Diversion of the biomass portion of MSW to fuels extends landfill capacity Diversion to fuels reduces greenhouse gas emissions attributed to decomposition of the biomass in landfills and displacement of fossil fuels used in energy production A pilot plant built on technologies to convert MSW to liquid fuels is clearly in the national interests and a major portion of the risks associated with the first time use of these technologies could be offset by Federal and State funding to demonstrate the application of the technology. Under those circumstances an investment in a pilot plant could be made by a municipal utility or public works department. In the following section we describe conceptually how that plant would be configured and what the range of product throughput and cost is likely to be.
4.1
4.1.1
The trend in MSW handling is toward increased waste reduction and separation of components for recycling. This has been extended to separation of biomass components of the waste stream by Taylor Recycling and others68. Transfer stations and recycling centers are a necessary ingredient in a project that demands a consistent feedstock with as few non-productive contaminants as possible. Removing metals, glass and treated biomass from the feedstock stream significantly reduces the capital and operating cost of a gasification facility and helps to assure good environmental performance. The feedstock for a municipal Biorefinery project should be biomass with very little contamination. This will of course add to the cost of managing wastes and would be reflected in the price of the feedstock provide by municipal waste authorities to the conversion facility.
4.1.2
The goal of the project is to manage deliveries of feedstock in a manner that minimizes onsite storage and management. In the best of all worlds just in time deliveries to the facility with daybin storage of 18 to 24 hours of feedstock materials would meet that goal. Being able to minimize onsite storage of biomass has significant implications for project siting. Meeting this goal is essential to minimizing plant siting and permitting risks
4.1.3
Feedstock Processing
With one notable exception (hydrothermal gasification) gasifiers require low moisture feedstocks generally less then 15%MCW and manageable particle size and density. Generally gasifiers will accommodate material screened to 2 minus. For this type of project
68
http://www.taylorbiomassenergy.com/company/?id=2
11/2/2007 44
a pelletized fuel like that produced on a pilot scale for Wisconsin Electric by Americology would be ideal in terms of moisture content, density and uniform size.69
4.1.4
Gasification
Of the experimental technologies reviewed several could be considered for a pilot scale facility: Alico Inc, Range Fuels and Pearson Technologies Inc for Ethanol production, Carbona Energy and Taylor Biomass for Power production. For this technology review two technologies will be used as prototypes for a pilot facility in Warrenton: Range Fuels gasification and mixed alcohols process was selected by DOE for a cost shared grant to build a pilot plant in Georgia that will produce 10MGY of alcohols by 2011. At commercial scale the plant will be design to product 40MGY EtOH and 10MGy MeOH. Carbona is currently building a pilot facility in Skive Denmark and Taylor Biomass is advancing a gasification system that is based on knowledge gained at a pilot scale system built by FERCO at the McNeil Plant in Burlington VT. These technologies are all proprietary and our estimates of performance and cost are based on studies of the processes that are used in these technologies. Actual performance will vary from these estimates.
4.2
Technology Description Range Fuels uses a proprietary process that is similar to the process described here. The conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Mixed Alcohols via Thermochemical synthesis is related to Fischer Tropsch (FT) synthesis which had been used commercially for coal to liquids production most notably in South Africa. However the end products are alcohols not distillates. Figure 25 shows a block diagram for the process. Higher Alcohol Synthesis (HAS) is done in reactors similar to those used for FT and methanol synthesis. The most effective types of catalysts include modified methanol synthesis catalysts, modified FT catalysts, and alkali-doped molybdenum catalysts (Nexant Inc. 2006). The modified methanol synthesis and Mo catalysts show higher alcohol yields than modified FT catalysts. The Mo catalysts also have the best selectivity for higher alcohols, and a high tolerance for CO2 and sulfur in the syngas (Nexant Inc. 2006). However, although this higher sulfur tolerance requires less clean-up of the syngas before conversion, it may require sulfur removal downstream in the mixed alcohol fuel.
69
11/2/2007 45
Biomass Pre-treatment
Sizing Dryer Syngas Gas Clean-up & Conditioning Conversion / Alcohol Synthesis
Gasifier
Ash
Diagram based on Figure in Phillips et al. (2007) The process involves complex set of reactions that produce a variety of products, depending on catalyst used and process conditions. The major reactions include methanol synthesis, FT reactions, higher alcohol synthesis, and water-gas shift. The process is optimized at syngas compositions with ratios of H2/CO ~ 1 (Spath and Dayton 2003). Regardless of the type of catalyst used, typically 40 to 90% of product stream needs to be recycled to maximize mixed alcohol production (Nexant Inc. 2006). The main by-products of the process are CO2 and water, and large quantities of methane are also often produced. Technology Status Although the process to generate higher alcohols from syngas has been known since the early 1900s, the technology has not yet reached commercialization (Spath and Dayton 2003). As of April 2005, there were no commercial plants that solely produce mixed alcohols in the C2 to C6 range (Nexant Inc. 2006). However, Range Fuels, Inc. is planning a demonstration facility to generate ethanol and other alcohols via thermochemical conversion (see details below). The main technical hurdles for higher alcohol synthesis include poor selectivity to higher alcohols and low yields. Typical conversion rate for single pass processes is about 10% production of alcohols, which is mostly methanol (Spath and Dayton 2003). The methanol can be recycled back through process to generate higher alcohols. Research and development efforts for HAS have been performed by several companies since the early 1980s. Some of the most advanced processes were developed by DOW, IFP and Snamprogetti (Spath and Dayton 2003). However, none of these companies are currently active in this area of research (Nexant Inc. 2006). Recent efforts for commercialization of the process have been spurred by new catalyst developments, new project developers, and the interest in alternative fuels (Nexant Inc. 2006). Some of the current commercialization efforts are described below based on information from Nexant Inc. (2006): Pearson Technologies has a 30 ton/day biomass gasification with syngas conversion to alcohols in Aberdeen, Mississippi. Pearson is also trying to develop a demonstration plant in Hawaii. As mentioned above, Range Fuels Inc. is developing a 1,200 ton/day (wood chip input) demonstration facility to generate ethanol and methanol. This project is supported by DOE and is scheduled for completion in 2011 (see U.S. DOE 2007). Power Energy Fuels is continuing to work on their proprietary EcaleneTM process. Although this process is currently only developed at the bench-scale, there are 2 or 3 pilot plants under consideration which would produce mixed alcohols from biomass sources (wood chips, RDF, and tires). One of these pilot facilities is a 2,000 gallon per
11/2/2007 46
day plant that would be located at Wabash River Coal Gasification facility (with ConocoPhillips). Standard Alcohol Company of America is continuing to work on their EnviroleneTM process. This is only a bench scale process currently, but the company is interested in developing a pilot.
Despite this recent surge of development, there are still a number of technical and economic hurdles that must be overcome for the commercialization of the conversin process. According to Nexant Inc. (2006, p. 3-2), the primary technical barriers include: the overall process feasibility to produce the desired product slate, the ability to scale-up the process to a commercial level, the appropriate process conditions both in the reactor and upstream units, performance of various catalysts at commercial conditions, catalyst sensitivities, and appropriate syngas compositions. Additionally, large-scale mixed alcohol synthesis will require detailed consideration of the market interest and production costs relative to other fuels. Performance and cost analysis Antares developed a performance and cost model for thermochemical ethanol production via mixed alcohol synthesis based on recent work by NREL (Phillips et al. 2007). NREL developed a detail process model and economic analysis for a projected thermochemical ethanol facility. The analysis is based on the DOE targets for synthesis yields and selectivity for a 2,205 dry ton/day facility (equivalent to 772,000 ton/yr for a plant with 96% availability). The NREL model configuration uses an indirect steam gasifier and a conventional steam power cycle. The syngas clean-up and conditioning step includes tar reforming, water scrubbing (for cooling and quench), and acid gas removal. Clean syngas is converted to alcohols in a fixed bed reactor, using a MoS2 catalyst with a very high ethanol selectivity. 70 The alcohol separation section includes dehydration and separation of alcohols. Methanol is recovered and recycled through the alcohol synthesis section to increase yield of ethanol and higher alcohols. A portion of the unconditioned syngas is diverted from to generate electricity and heat. Although this model produces exactly the amount of energy required to sustain the process (consuming 28% of the syngas), an actual plant could vary the energy production depending on favorable market conditions to buy or sell electricity from the grid. If all the syngas was converted to alcohols, the ethanol yield would be 110.9 gallons per dry ton of biomass, and the total alcohol production would be 130.0 gal/ton (Phillips et al. 2007). With 28% of the syngas used for energy production, the ethanol yield is 80.1 gal/ton. Antares has scaled down the capital cost and throughput for a Biorefinery at the 200 dry ton per day capacity. Our preliminary estimate of output is 6 MGY Ethanol. Because of many uncertainties in the process design at this stage the capital cost can only be very roughly
70 This is a modified Fischer Tropsch catalyst based on the former Dow/UCC catalyst, with conversion performance modeled based on target results. In addition to higher total CO conversion and higher alcohol selectivity, the projected distribution of ethanol and methanol used in the NREL model differ from current results. The Phillips et al. (2007) model assumes that 71% of the alcohol production is ethanol, and 5% is methanol. In contrast, the Dow distribution was 30-70% methanol and 34.5% ethanol.
11/2/2007 47
estimated for a pilot plant - $72 Million. If the process was commercialized and performance targets met the capital cost could be potentially cut in half. References 1. Nexant Inc. Equipment Design and Cost Estimation for Small Modular Biomass Systems, Synthesis Gas Cleanup, and Oxygen Separation Equipment. Task 9: Mixed Alcohols from Syngas - State of Technology. NREL subcontractor report no. NREL/SR-510-39947. 2006. 2. Phillips, S., et al. Thermochemical Ethanol Via Indirect Gasification and Mixed Alcohol Synthesis of Lignocellulosic Biomass. NREL technical report no. NREL/TP-510-41168. 2007. 3. Spath, Pamela L., and David C. Dayton. Syngas Analysis - Preliminary Screening, Technical Briefs, and Technical Barrier Assessment for Syngas to Fuels and Chemicals. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. June 30 2003. 4. U.S. DOE. DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding. February 28 2007 <http://www.energy.gov/news/4827.htm>.
4.3
Power Generation
There are a number of technology choices for gasification based power generation. These include mature, close coupled gasification (multi-staged combustion) and more advanced cycles that rely on prime movers such as reciprocating engines or gas turbines. The latter are the focus of intense research, development and demonstration.
4.3.1
Several technology vendors now offer a technology aimed at gaining improved performance over traditional wood fired boiler systems. These technologies are referred to as hybrid biomass gasifiers/combustors, close coupled gasifiers or staged combustion units. These systems are often contained within a single vessel (may use more than one) where a gasification zone is established to vaporize the volatile gases from the solid fuel. The heat for this reaction is driven by carbon remaining on the reciprocating grate. The combustion chamber above the gasification zone will mix the volatile gasses with combustion air and transfer the heat from the gas to generate steam from the feedwater. This technology has several advantages over the other technologies considered. These are primarily derived from the maturity of the technology. There are a few key disadvantages as well, marked primarily by technical limitations of the technology. In context of overall fuel and capital efficiency, these systems can be very competitive. System like this are offered by a variety of vendors at a variety of scales. Manufacturers at smaller scales include Hurst Boilers, Chiptec, and NEXTERRA. At larger scales, Energy Products of Idaho and Foster Wheeler have experience in this area. Historically the smaller systems have found a niche in heating applications, but under the right economic circumstances, cogeneration and power generation only applications are possible. Larger systems are more applicable to cogeneration and industrial/utility scale power. Several schematics for potential systems are shown in figures Figure 26 and Figure 27 below.
11/2/2007 48
Figure 26 Schematic for Close Couple Gasification System at University South Carolina
Source: JCI/Nexterra Press Release: www.nexterra.ca/industry/johnson.cfm Figure 27 Diagram of Steps in Gasification Process
11/2/2007 49
4.3.2
Reciprocating IC engines are commonly used for standby power generation in commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or by facilities requiring continuous power that are not connected to the electric grid. Most of the reciprocating IC engine plants are under 5 MW in capacity. The predominate sources of fuel for reciprocating IC engine generator sets in the biomass industry have been landfill and digester gases. The use of wood gas in engines has not been demonstrated or commercially performed in the United States, although this technology has been demonstrated by GE Jenbacher in Europe at several locations. Other engine manufacturers such as Caterpillar and Waukesha have used landfill gases, but no other engine manufacturer has been as willing as GE Jenbacher to use wood gas due to its low energy content and gas clean-up issues. The primary piston engine design relevant to this power generation application is the sparkignition (SI), 4-stroke Otto-cycle engine. The essential mechanical components of the Ottocycle are a cylindrical combustion chamber in which a close-fitting piston travels. Sparkignition engines (Otto-cycle) use a spark plug to ignite a pre-mixed air-fuel mixture introduced into the cylinder. The piston is connected to a crankshaft that transforms the pistons linear motion into rotary motion. Most engines have multiple cylinders that power a single crankshaft. For power generation applications, the crankshaft drives an AC generator. Reciprocating engines are categorized by their original design purpose automotive, truck, industrial, locomotive and marine. The engines intended for industrial use are designed for durability and for a wide range of mechanical drive and electric power applications. They range from 20 kWe up to 11 MWe output and include industrialized truck engines in the 200 to 600 kWe range and industrially applied marine and locomotive engines above 1 MWe. Although there is extensive information available on costs, performance and operating history of gas engines, there is far less commercial experience in using low Btu gases for fuel. This is especially true for gases derived from biomass gasifiers. Beyond the low energy density of biomass gas, cleaning the producer gas of particulates, heavy hydrocarbons and other compounds potentially damaging to the engine remains a significant technical and economic challenge. At this point in the technology development cycle there are numerous vendors competing to offer commercially viable power generation technologies. Any detailed discussion is further complicated by the fact that most are focusing on cogeneration (or combined heat and power) because of the overall high thermal efficiency of such projects. Although this aspect of the cycle configuration is not entirely applicable, these projects do provide a basis for understanding the technical issues surrounding power only projects. Note that additional data on several power only projects is also provided below. By way of example, the Finnish company Carbona Oy (Carbona Corporation is an affiliate), incorporated in 1996 and spun off from Tampella Powers interest in biomass gasification and the 20 MWth biomass gasification pilot plant constructed in Tampere, Finland. Carbona also has gained the licensing rights to the Gas Technology Institutes developed pressurized fluidized bed gasification process and is the licensed vendor of Condens Oys Novel CHP plant previously discussed. Carbona states their atmospheric fluidized bed gasifiers are available between 5 MWth and 100 MWth for generating product gas to be used in boilers, lime / cement kilns, and engines. Carbona has gasification experience with woody biomass, agricultural residues, paper mill sludge, and plastics.
11/2/2007 50
The project in Skive is a cogeneration project. Development terms are reported to be commercial but subsidies are being provided by the US Department of Energy, the European Union and the Danish Energy Agency. The owner of the project is Skive Fjernvarme and is acting the main contractor with the responsibility of integrating the various parts of the CHP plant. The new plant will replace an existing district heating plant at the same site. The plant is designed to use 110 tons per day of wood pellets with a moisture content of 9.5%, the gasification CHP plant in Skive will produce 5.5 MWe from three Jenbacher gas engines and 11.5 MWth of district heat. The process will produce a low Btu gas with a lower heating value (LHV) of 5.5 MJ/Nm3 from the fluidized bed gasifier and after the gas clean up. A schematic of the process at Skive is shown in Figure 28 below. Ground breaking for the plan was initiated in April 2005 (Babu 2006), and hot commissioning was scheduled to start in 2007 (Patel 2006). Figure 28 Skive CHP Gasification Plant
GAS COOLER TAR REFORMER GAS FILTER TO STACK
BOILER
Carbona is also reportedly developing a gasification project in Andhra Pradesh, India. Less information is available regarding this project, but the design concept is an integrated Gasificatoin Combined Cycle (IGCC), power only project with a nominal net plant output of 12.5MWe. The project will consume approximately 210 tons per day of woodchips with a design moisture content of 20 percent. The project configuration employs two 4.7MWe gas turbines and a 4 MWe bottoming cycle. The status of this project is unclear, but the scale is consistent with the expectation that a biomass IGCC project must be at least 10MWe to be technically practical.
11/2/2007 51
Taylor Biomass LLC is currently developing a technology that combines an MSW separation and recycling plant with a biomass gasification process. The targeted end products for the system include power, heat, liquid fuels, and hydrogen. A representative block flow diagram of a Taylor Biomass Energy Facility Process (www.taylorbiomassenergy.com) is shown in Figure 29 below. Figure 29 Block Flow Diagram of Taylor Biomass Energy Process
Specific flow diagrams for the plant are proprietary, but the a similar technology was planned for a biomass generation project that was under development by Peninsula Power. That project was designed to produce heat and power from locally sourced energy crops (short rotation willow coppice and miscanthus) other forestry products, clean waste wood and cellulose fiber. The project was expected to produce about 23 MWe (gross) of electricity. The site for the project is a 10 acre plot located on the former Winkleigh Airfield approximately 1.2 miles from the town center. The project is designed to supply fuel to a 12.9 MWe SGT-400 gas turbine supplied by Siemens (formerly the Alstom Cyclone). The exhaust gas from the turbine will be used to fire the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), which will drive the Siemens SST-100 steam turbine. A diagram of the Winkleigh process is shown in Figure 30 below. The gasifier selected for the project was FERCOs Sylva Gas process. This process was demonstrated in a cofiring application sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy at McNeil Generating Station in Burlington, Vt. This indirect gasification process produces a medium Btu gas. Unfortunately, the future of this project is unknown as it appears to have gotten mired in a permitting issue late in 2006.
11/2/2007 52
4.3.3
The following system and performance data (Figure 31, Figure 32, Figure 33) is representative of information collected across a variety of technologies, vendors and scales. They are representative of the information that ANTARES used in its economic analysis for the power options performed in this study. However, as necessary, modifications to these data were made to account for the specific configuration and applications considered. Figure 31 Boiler w/Steam Turbine System Performance Projections Plant Size MW 3.4 10 10 Capacity factor Percent 90 90 90 Net heat rate Btu/kWh 20,400 26,686 26,686 Total Capital 2004$/kW 3,735 2,875 3,570 Fixed Operating 2004$/kW-yr 262 270 300 Variable operating 2004 C/kW-hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 90 26,508 2,476 219 0.00 15 90 26,508 3,116 254 0.00 25 90 11,373 2,540 89 0.58
11/2/2007 53
Figure 32 Gasifier w/ Steam Turbine Plant Size MW Capacity factor Percent Net heat rate Btu/kWh Total Capital 2004$/kW Fixed Operating 2004$/kW-yr Variable operating 2004 C/kW-hr
Figure 33 Gasifier w/Reciprocating Engines Plant Size MW 2.16 2.16 8.88 8.88 Capacity factor percent 90 90 90 90 Net heat rate Btu/kWh 10,520 10,520 9,175 9,175 Total Capital 2004$/kW 5,263 8,020 3,631 5,204 Fixed Operating 2004$/kW-yr 410 507 144 171 Variable operating 2004 C/kW-hr 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07
Economic Analysis
The feedstock supply study gave the project team a good idea of how much biomass fuel is available for the proposed project and what feedstock costs to expect. Next, efforts were focused on evaluating different types of energy plants that can produce either liquid fuels or electricity. It was assumed that the available feedstocks can be used for the production of either end product. The feedstock costs associated with each are the same and are based upon best estimates from the feedstock supply study. Analyses were performed utilizing both MSW and wood residues as feedstocks. In each scenario, MSW was assumed to cost $13/ton. This is the avoided cost of paying the landfill operator who would otherwise bury the MSW. For the wood residues, it was assumed that the non-recyclable portion of C&D brought to the landfill would be used a fuel source. The Fauquier county landfill brings in about 40,000 tons/year of C&D. This translates into roughly 130 tons/day. It was assumed that the current $46/ton tipping fee could be reduced to $20/ton for the energy facility. For the remaining 120 tons/day (to equal the base case 250 ton/day plant) it was assumed that wood chips would be used. This resource is prevalent in the area, and its its consistent nature makes it a desirable for energy projects. Assuming wood chips cost $35/ton, the project team arrived at a weighted average price for wood resides of $6.40/ton.
5.1 Ethanol
The first scenario considered was a biomass-to-liquid fuel plant that would mainly produce ethanol, along with some other mixed alcohol byproducts. Figure 34 and Figure 35 below show the plant gate prices of ethanol given internal rates of return and feedstock costs. The feedstock costs represent MSW (-$13/ton), a combination of C&D and wood chips ($6.40/ton), and strictly wood chips ($35/ton). The summary tables show the effect of federal tax credits on the plant gate price. Please note that the discount rate used in these
11/2/2007 54
examples is 13.9%. This means that only the IRRs above 13.9% will yield a positive Net Present Value (NPV). That is, only the IRRs that are set at 15%.
Next, the same tables were created assuming that the project is awarded federal grant. In May 2007 The Department of Energy released a funding opportunity announcement supporting Section 932 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The FOA is for the demonstration of integrated biorefinery operations for producing biofuels. The award has a ceiling of $30,000,000 and a floor of $10,000,000. In addition, the cost share must be at least 50% of the total allowable project costs. Figure 36 and Figure 37 were generated under the assumption that the project receives a $30,000,000 DOE grant. The capital costs are then reduced to $38,750,930. As seen in tables, this drives down the plant gate prices of ethanol significantly.
11/2/2007 55
With DOE 30MD Grant Figure 36. Plant gate prices of ethanol with tax credits
IRR % 5 10 15
Biomass Cost ($/ton) -132 6.403 0.69 1.10 1.07 1.47 1.48 1.87
IRR % 5 10 15
Biomass Cost ($/ton) -132 6.403 35 1.46 1.87 2.47 1.84 2.24 2.83 2.28 2.67 3.26
11/2/2007 56
5.2 Power
The second scenario considered was using the biomass as fuel to produce electricity. There are numerous technologies available for producing electricity. Three were considered for this project, but the technology chosen for the base case analysis was gasification to Rankine Cycle steam. The product steam is then used to operate a turbine that produces electricity. The advanced nature of this technology requires that a 10% premium be put on the capital costs. There is currently much testing being performed on gasification technologies which should bring future costs. More traditional technologies are stoker plants which simply combust the feedstock to produce seam. More advanced technologies use a gas engine to operate the turbine instead of producing steam. The chosen scenario is a middle of the road case on the power production spectrum. As stated previously, the same feedstock prices were used for the power production scenarios that were used for liquid fuel production. To recap, -$13/ton was used for MSW and $6.40/ton was used for wood residues. Feedstock rates were assumed to be 250 tons/day in both cases. Other parameters are stated below. Wood/MSW Net Capacity (MW): 10/10 Annual Average Capacity Factor (%): 89/76 Full Capacity Generation (MW): 8.85/7.59 Annual Generation (MWh/year): 77,563/66,482 Total Total Total Total Investment Cost ($): 40,627,766/40,627/766 Fixed O&M ($/year): 1,684,483/1,684,483 Variable O&M ($/year): 553,090/474,077 Biomass Cost ($/year): 571,083/ (900,279)
Figure 38 shows the Net Present Value (NPV) for the three different technologies considered at various electricity prices. The feedstocks rates were set at 250 and 400 tons/day for both MSW and wood residues. Cases 5 & 6 were the base cases considered in the analysis. The table shows that only at prohibitively high electricity prices will the project yield a positive NPV. Figure 38. NPV for Cases at Different Electricity Prices (13.90% Discount Rate, 20-yr Life)
11/2/2007 57
The ethanol industry in the U.S. has grown from a production level of just 175 million gallons per year in 1980 to an estimated 5.6 billion gallons of production at the end of 2006. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05) requires a minimum of 7.5 billion gallons per year of renewable fuels to be used in the nations highway fuel supply by 2012. Due to the requirements of EPACT05, rising oil prices that are expected to remain at high levels due to increased world-wide demand and supply constraints, growing concerns about global climate change, and national security concerns associated with maintaining a high dependency on foreign oil, the recent surge in investment and construction in ethanol production capability in the U.S. is expected to continue. As of October 2007, the Renewable Fuels Association estimates the total installed ethanol production capacity to be about 6.9 billion gallons per year at 131 Biorefineries in the U.S., with an additional 83 plants totaling about 6.5 billion gallons per year of production capacity under construction or expansion. At the end of 2006, 46 of the existing 110 ethanol Biorefineries were farmer-owned.71 Whether through ownership in the Biorefineries, or through providing raw materials, goods, and services to the growing number of ethanol Biorefineries, the growth of this industry has generated a significant new source of revenue and economic activity in rural communities in the U.S. While corn dominates as the raw material for todays ethanol production, representing well over 90% of the grain input for current and near-term planned ethanol production, new feedstocks are expected to be required to sustain industry growth and approach government-announced targets for ethanol production of 35 billion gallons per year by 2017 with further increases thereafter to accomplish the displacement of 30 percent of 2004 gasoline use by 2030.72 Continued industry reliance on corn as the raw material for nearly all ethanol production is projected to create supply constraints and severe price inflation for food-based markets for corn, especially if the industry continues to grow at projected rates. As a result, the U.S. government is partnering with industry to develop and demonstrate the capability to produce ethanol economically and reliably using new feedstocks, such as the non-food portions of plants (including cellulose, primary structural components of plants) and non-food feedstocks including energy crops. Examples of such feedstocks include corn stover, wheat straw, wood, and a variety of grass species. The U.S. government is partnering with industry to build the first examples of commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol Biorefineries, and is also co-sponsoring research and development on new methods and technologies for producing ethanol from non-food feedstocks.
Ethanol production and industry statistics obtained from the Renewable Fuels Association, October 2007, http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/#EIO. 72 Biomass Multi-Year Program Plan, October 2007, Office of the Biomass Program, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, p. ii.
71
11/2/2007 58
In 2005, President Bush laid out aggressive goals for moving Biofuels into the marketplace to reduce the nations dependence on foreign sources of energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. Specifically, the Presidents stated goals are to achieve the following73: Foster breakthrough technologies needed to make cellulosic ethanol cost competitive with corn-based ethanol by 201274 Increase the supply of renewable and alternative fuels to 35 billion gallons by 201775 Each year, the Renewable Fuels Association releases a report detailing the annual contributions of the ethanol industry to the economy of the United States.76 In the year 2006, their report states that the industry spent $6.7 billion on raw materials, other inputs, goods, and services to produce an estimated 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol with an additional $410 million spent transporting ethanol to blending terminals. The largest share of raw material expenses was for corn, totaling $4.1 billion. New capacity brought on-line in 2006 represented an additional expenditure by the ethanol industry of about $2.1 billion. The spending for goods and services represents the purchase of outputs from other industries. This spending circulates through the economy several fold, supporting the creation of new jobs, generating additional household income, and increasing tax revenues for all levels of government. Considering this multiplying effect throughout the economy, the report estimates that the ethanol industry added $23.1 billion to the nations Gross Domestic Product in 2006, resulting in the creation of 163,034 jobs in all sectors of the economy. Finally, the report estimates that the increased economic activity and new higher income level jobs resulted in putting an additional 6.7 billion into the pockets of American consumers in 2006. Based on a feedstock input of 400 tons per day, and a mixed alcohol production of about 9.6 million gallons per year, Figure 39 below lists the potential economic and environmental impacts of such a facility. Figure 39. Economic & Environmental Impacts of Alcohol Facility
Tax Revenues
$ $ $ $ $ $/yr 683,100 21,024 57,500 172,800 934,424
Ibid, p. 1-1. Advanced Energy Initiative. February 2006, The White House National Economic Council http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/energy/energy_booklet.pdf. 75 2007 State of the Union Address, 20 in 10: Strengthening Americas Energy Security, http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.html. 76 Contributions of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States, February 2007, prepared by LECG LLC (John M. Urbanchuk) for the Renewable Fuels Association. (http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/2006_ethanol_economic_contribution.pdf)
74
73
11/2/2007 59
The project generates almost a million dollars in state and local tax revenues while creating approximately 20 direct jobs. Equally important the project diverts biomass from landfilling and offsets nearly 450 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents greenhouse gas potential.
11/2/2007 60
11/2/2007 61
As Received Basis
Sample Type Sawdust (Green) Poultry Litter Whole Tree Chip Willow Energy Crop Corn Stover Stumpage Ground Pallets C&D Debris Switchgrass Sawdust (Dry) RTA Wood Wax Cardboard Btu/lb* 4,150 4,637 5,229 6,044 6,385 6,647 6,814 6,939 7,370 7,379 7,864 10,065 MCW^ 52.63 27.40 38.68 29.13 22.00 9.82 19.18 18.77 7.88 11.40 7.04 14.08 Carbon Hydrogen 24.17 2.75 27.22 3.72 32.35 3.68 35.61 3.60 36.27 4.53 40.77 4.39 42.13 4.95 42.91 5.11 44.70 5.57 45.18 5.34 46.19 4.98 42.92 7.98 Nitrogen 0.22 2.69 0.28 0.33 0.44 0.57 0.34 0.36 0.29 0.40 3.27 0.18 Sulfur 0.02 0.33 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.20 Ash 1.96 15.70 0.71 1.33 5.77 14.99 0.80 0.88 4.53 2.51 0.97 1.56 Oxygen 18.25 23.10 24.28 29.98 30.94 29.40 32.57 31.91 36.98 35.10 37.47 33.08
Analysis of MSW and RDF Compares to Bituminous Coal Analyses, % by wt Bituminous Coal Constituent MSW Carbon 27.9 72.8 Hydrogen 3.7 4.8 Oxygen 20.7 6.2 Nirtogen 0.2 1.5 Sulfur 0.1 2.2 Chlorine 0.1 0 Water 31.3 3.5 Ash 16.0 9 HHV (wet), Btu/lb 5,100 13,000 (kJ/kg) (11,863) (30,238)
Chemical Composition of Tire Derived Fuel Constituent % by wt Carbon 79.20 Hydrogen 7.30 Oxygen 3.10 Nitrogen 0.46 Sulfur 1.56 Chlorine 0.29 Water 1.30 Ash 7.00 HHV, Btu/lb 17,000 (kj/kg) 39,480
11/2/2007 62
11/2/2007 63
11/2/2007 64
11/2/2007 65
Code
Facility Type C&D Waste Inert Landfill C&D Waste Inert Landfill C&D Waste Inert Landfill Composting Site Industrial Facility Industrial Facility Industrial Facility Industrial Facility Landfill Landfill Landfill Landfill
Name Potomac Debris Landfill Rainwater Concrete Debris Landfill Furnace Road / Lorton Debris Landfill SWPP Ticonderoga Farms George Ayoob Thornton Hill #1 Hylton Enterprises Abex Corp Landfill Fauquier County Landfill Corral Farm LF Rappahannock County Landfill I-95 Landfill Prince William Sanitary Landfill & MRF Upper Occoquan Sewer Authority Landfill Quantico Landfill Rappahannock Regional Landfill
City
Miles to Warrenton 40
Waste Types Accepted Asphalt, Concrete, or Cement, C&D, MSW, Non-Friable Asbestos, Yard $ Waste Asphalt, Concrete, or Cement, C&D, $ MSW Asphalt, Concrete, or Cement, C&D, MSW, Tires (Auto), Wood, Yard $ Waste MSW, C&D, Yard Waste, Wood, Asphalt/Concrete/Cement C&D Dry Industrial Dry Industrial MSW C&D, MSW, Yard Waste C&D, MSW, Non-Friable Asbestos MSW, C&D, Sludge $ $ $ $
VA0239
Dumfries
VA0157
Lorton
44
212.37
312
30.00
VA0160
Lorton
44
2971.82
260
242.42
29 41 41 41 58 0 0 14 30
1500
60.00
Friable Asbestos, MSW, Non-Friable $ Asbestos C&D, Cont Soil, MSW, Ash, Recyclables, Tires (Auto), Waste Carpet Material, Yard Waste Sludge MSW C&D, Cont Soil, MSW, Ash, Yard Waste $ $
VA0058
Landfill
Dumfries
40
1390.6
364
45.00
40 43 44 373.96
36.00
VA0271
Landfill
Stafford
44
215.72
260
Animal Waste, Asphalt, Concrete, or Cement, C&D, Cont Soil, MSW, $ Recyclables, Sludge, Tires (Auto), Wood, Yard Waste C&D, MSW, Sludge, Tires (Auto), Tires (Tractor), Tires (Truck) C&D, Cont Soil, MSW, Non-Friable Asbestos, Ash, Recyclables, Tires (Auto) MSW, Recyclables MSW, Recyclables MSW MSW, C&D $ $
42.00
VA0744
Landfill
Battlecreek Landfill
Luray
47
296.64
312
35.00
VA0070
Landfill Materials Recovery (MRF) Mixed Waste (MRF/TS) Transfer Station Transfer Station
Page County Landfill BFI / Lorton Transcyclery Applehouse Compactor WMI Manassas Transfer Station Culpeper County Transfer Station I-66 Transfer Station
Stanley
55
778.59
312
44 36 24 27
250
260 156
14.00
188.5 300
260 312
48.00
VA0364
Transfer Station
Fairfax
30
2038.83
312
C&D, MSW, Tires (Auto), White $ Goods & Bulky Wastes, Yard Waste
55.00
11/2/2007 66
Code VA0239 VA0157 VA0160 VA0016 VA0197 VA0199 VA0203 VA0288 VA0037 VA0464 VA0094 VA0473 VA0058 VA0303 VA0187 VA0101 VA0271 VA0744 VA0070
Facility Type C&D Waste Inert Landfill C&D Waste Inert Landfill C&D Waste Inert Landfill Composting Site Industrial Facility Industrial Facility Industrial Facility Industrial Facility Landfill Landfill Landfill Landfill Landfill Landfill Landfill Landfill Landfill Landfill Landfill
Name Potomac Debris Landfill Rainwater Concrete Debris Landfill Furnace Road / Lorton Debris Landfill SWPP Ticonderoga Farms George Ayoob Thornton Hill #1 Hylton Enterprises Abex Corp Landfill Fauquier County Landfill Corral Farm LF Rappahannock County Landfill I-95 Landfill Prince William Sanitary Landfill & MRF Upper Occoquan Sewer Authority Landfill Quantico Landfill Rappahannock Regional Landfill Stafford County Landfill Battlecreek Landfill Page County Landfill BFI / Lorton Transcyclery Applehouse Compactor WMI Manassas Transfer Station Culpeper County Transfer Station I-66 Transfer Station
Miles to Warrenton 40 $ 44 $ 44 $ 29 $ 41 41 41 58 0 $ 0 $ 14 $ 30 $ 40 $ 40 43 44 $ 44 $ 47 $ 55 44 $ 36 24 27 $ 30 $
Days per Year 260 312 260 260 260 260 260 260
123,336.72 76,031.28 6,240.00 381,338.88 506,178.40 0.00 0.00 116,675.52 56,087.20 92,551.68 242,920.08 65,000.00
VA0437 Materials Recovery (MRF) VA0450 VA0452 VA0743 VA0364 Mixed Waste (MRF/TS) Transfer Station Transfer Station Transfer Station
14.00
250.00
11/2/2007 67
* 778,724.96 *
0.00 3,288,838.80
*Note: Tonnage from the facilities has NOT been included in the total tonnage to avoid double-counting.
11/2/2007 68
11/2/2007 69
11/2/2007
70
11/2/2007
71
11/2/2007
72
11/2/2007
73
11/2/2007
74
11/2/2007
75
11/2/2007
76