Appendix

Biomass Co-ring
A Final Phase III Report Prepared by CCPC Technical Committee, November 2011

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ___________________________ Part A Co-ring Results from Kema Study _____ 1. Introduction ___________________________ 2. Generic Biomass Co-ring Congurations ___ 3. Biomass Feedstocks ___________________ 3.1. Raw Biomass__________________________ 3.1.1. Wood Chips ___________________________ 3.1.2. Willow ________________________________ 3.1.3. Flax Straw ____________________________ 3.2. Modied Biomass ______________________ 3.2.1. Pelletized Biomass _____________________ 3.2.2. Torrefaction ___________________________ 4. Six Co-ring Congurations Studied ______ 5. Conclusions From KEMA Report _________ 5.1. Evaluation of Co-ring Options ___________ 5.2. Technical Ranking ______________________ 5.3. Financial and Risk Analysis of Biomass Co-Firing Conversion ___________________ 5.4. Fuel Availability and Suitability ___________ 5.5. Optimum Co-ring Regimes and Implications of Co-ring Retrots on Heat Rates _________________________ Part B Co-ring Results from NS Power Study ___ 1. Introduction ___________________________ 2. Natural Gas Test Firing with Biomass _____ 3. Coal/Biomass Co-ring Tests ____________ 4. Coal/Biomass Co-ring Test Conclusions ___ 5. CFBC Testing __________________________ Part C Co-ring Conclusions _________________ 1. Conditions for Employing Co-ring _______ 1.1. Preferences of Power Producers _________ 1.2. Conditions Which Must be Met Before Co-ring Will be Adopted________________ 2. Conclusions ___________________________ C02 C02 C02 C02 C03 C03 C04 C04 C05 C05 C05 C08 C10 C21 C22 C22 C23 C24

Figure and Tables

Figure 1: Typical Biomass Co-ring Routes ________________________ C02 Table 1: Major solid biomass materials of industrial interest on a worldwide basis ______________________________________ C03 Table 2: Relevant chemical properties of raw biomass feedstocks ______ C04 Table 3: Relevant physical properties of raw biomass feedstocks _______ C04 Figure 2: Typical pellet manufacturing and processing chain _________ C05 Table 4: Advantages and disadvantages for pelletization of biomass fuel for co-ring ___________________________________ C06 Table 5: Typical specications of wood and ax in original and pelletized _____________________________________________ C07 Table 6: Properties of torreed pellets compared to non-torreed fuel types (indicative) ______________________________________ C08 Table 7: Advantages and disadvantages for torrefaction of biomass fuel for co-ring ___________________________________ C09 Table 8: Properties of some wood and willow biomass types (indicative) __________________________________________ C09 Table 9: Physical Characteristics of Co-ring Plants _________________ C10 Table 10: Fuel Characteristics ____________________________________ C11 C25 C26 C26 C26 C27 C27 C27 C28 C28 C28 C28 C30 Table 11: Capital Costs for Co-ring Cases ________________________ C11 Table 12: Avoided CO2 Emissions for Biomass _____________________ C12 Table 13: Rough Ranges of Biomass Feedstock Costs ______________ C12 Table 14: Cost of Operating a Co-ring Plant in Millions of Dollars per Year _________________________________________ C13 Table 15: Avoided Costs of CO2 Reductions/Incremental Cost of Power ____________________________________________ C13 Figure 3: Avoided Costs for Various Biomass Prices ________________ C14 Figure 4: Incremental Cost of Biomass Power for Various Biomass Prices ___________________________________________ C15 Figure 5: Incremental Cost of Biomass Power _____________________ C16 Figure 6: Increase in Power Cost for Each Case ____________________ C17 Figure 7: Avoided CO2 Cost Components _________________________ C18 Figure 8: Impact of Amortization Period on Avoided CO2 Cost _______ C19 Table 16: Comparison of Costs to Comply with GHG Requirements _____ C19 Figure 9: Avoided CO2 Cost of Natural Gas in a Coal Plant ___________ C20 Figure 10: Avoided CO2 Cost for Wind at Three Power Prices________ C20 Table 17: Technical ranking ______________________________________ C22 Table 18: Financial and risk ranking _______________________________ C23 Table 19: Fuel availability and suitability ___________________________ C24 Table 20: Likely feasible co-ring ranges and likelihood of a resulting plant derate _____________________________________ C25

This report was prepared for the Canadian Clean Power Coalition and its participants and associates (collectively the CCPC). The information contained in this report maybe referenced by any other party for general information purposes only. No other party is entitled to rely on this report, in any manner whatsoever, without the prior written consent of the CCPC. Under no circumstances, including, but not limited to, negligence, shall the CCPC be liable for any direct, indirect, special, punitive, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use of this report or the information contained herein by any other party.

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

C01

Introduction
The CCPC considers biomass co-ring as potential way to reduce the CO2 emissions from coal plants since biomass is generally considered a carbon neutral fuel. During the course of the CCPCs phase III work, it commissioned two studies related to biomass co-ring. The rst was prepared by Doug Campbell of Nova Scotia Power. The objective of this study was to determine the maximum size of biomass particle that could be successfully combusted in a coal plant and to identify how co-ring with biomass will affect the operation of the plant including thermal efciency, carbon burnout, slagging and fouling. The second study was completed by KEMA Consulting. The objective of this study was to characterize several fuels and determine the operating consequences and capital cost of ring these fuels in six co-ring congurations. This report has three parts. Part A summarizes the work completed by KEMA Consulting. Part B summarizes the work completed by Nova Scotia Power. Part C describes some of the conclusions reached by the CCPC about what would be required before a commercial scale biomass co-ring project would be considered feasible. It also includes conclusions reached from these studies and the analysis completed.

is co-ring of biomass in existing coal-red boilers. Co-ring projects replace a portion of the nonrenewable fuel coal with a renewable fuel biomass. In biomass co-ring, up to 20%-30% of the coal is typically displaced by biomass. The biomass and coal are combusted simultaneously. When used as a supplemental fuel in an existing coal-red boiler, biomass can provide the following benets: lower fuel costs, more fuel exibility, reduced waste to landlls, and reductions in sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, and CO2 emissions. Other benets, such as decreases in ue gas opacity, have also been documented.

2. Generic Biomass Co-ring Congurations

Biomass co-ring is currently a commercial technology for coal-red utility-scale power plants that has been tested in a wide range of boiler types including cyclone, stoker, pulverized coal, and uidized bed boilers. Biomass co-ring technology can be congured in several ways, depending on the percentage of biomass to be co-red and the design of the specic boiler system. In general, there are four main routes to accomplish co-ring, as shown in Figure 1. 1. 2. Co-milling biomass with coal. Separate milling, injection in pulverized-fuel (pf) lines, combustion in coal burners. Separate milling, combustion in dedicated biomass burners. Biomass gasication, syngas combusted in furnace boiler.

Part A Co-ring Results from Kema Study 1. Introduction

As electric utilities search for ways to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-fuel red power plants, one of the most attractive and easily implemented options Figure 1: Typical Biomass Co-ring Routes
4

3.

4.

Gasifier

Stack

Coal
1

Mills
2 3

Burners

Boiler

Flue Gas Treatment

Pretreatment

Steam Turbine

Biomass

Mills

C02

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

Co-milling biomass with coal and separate milling and injection/combustion of biomass in the coal burners are the most common applications of biomass co-ring when the overall percentage of biomass to coal is relatively small (<10%, but from KEMA experience generally at a maximum of 3-5 wt-%). In these applications, the biomass blends will be predominantly coal and the biomass is combusted in the boiler with little operational impact. For larger percentages of co-ring with biomass, typical applications will require the addition of separate feed streams of the biomass along with the addition of dedicated biomass burners. These boiler modications are needed because of the differing characteristics and heating values of the fuel (biomass ~ 9,000 Btu/pound versus coal ~ 7,000 to 12,000 Btu/pound) and the varying feedstock quality that can often be found in biomass fuel supply. A fourth route to co-ring biomass is to gasify biomass, usually in a uidized-bed gasier, and then combust the synthetic gas in the furnace with dedicated gas burners. This approach is increasingly gaining market acceptance,

particularly with the successful commercial operation of uidized bed gasiers, and is a driving technology behind the retrot of older biomass stoker plants.

3. Biomass Feedstocks
Biomass feedstocks can be categorized as belonging to one of two classes: raw biomass or modied biomass. Raw biomass is harvested, transported, and used directly for co-ring applications. Modied biomass is harvested and then processed before delivery to the plant in order to improve the quality, costs, and/or logistics associated with fuel transport, handling, and processing at the power plant site.

3.1. Raw Biomass

Various biomass types with different origin, composition, physical properties, and price are available in the market. When contemplating a biomass co-ring scenario, it is appropriate to consider designing the on-site plant modications to accommodate a variety of feedstocks.

Table 1: Major solid biomass materials of industrial interest on a worldwide basis 1

Agricultural products Harvesting Residues Cereal straws Oil seed rape and linseed oil straws Flax straw Corn stalks Forestry products Harvesting residues Forestry residues Domestic and municipal wastes Domestic/industrial Municipal solid waste (MSW) Refuse-derived fuels Construction and demolition wood wastes Scrap tires Waste pallets Urban green wastes Leaves Grass and hedge cuttings Willow Poplar Cottonwood Energy crops Wood

Processing residues Rice husks Sugarcane bagasse Olive residues Palm oil residues Citrus fruit residues Animal wastes Poultry litter Tallow Meat/bone meal

Primary processing wastes Sawdusts Bark Offcuts

Grasses and other crops Switchgrass Reed canary grass Miscanthus

Secondary processing wastes Sawdusts Offcuts

IEA Bioenergy Task 32, Deliverable 4, Technical status of biomass co-ring, 50831165-Consulting 09-1654, 2009.

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

C03

For the KEMA study, a set of raw biomass feedstock types were selected to be representative of a broad spectrum of possibly available feedstocks. In addition, a premise of the study was that the selected feedstocks should avoid potential for competition with food production and should be capable of being grown and harvested in a sustainable manner.

General properties of the selected raw biomass feedstocks wood chips, willow, and ax straw are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2: Relevant chemical properties of raw biomass feedstocks

Wood chips Moisture Ash Caloric value (dry) Sulphur Chlorine Humid Low High Low Low Willow Humid-Wet Low-Moderate Moderate Low Moderate-High Flax Dry Low High Low High Relation to Drying Ash retention Capacity & efciency Emissions Corrosion

Table 3: Relevant physical properties of raw biomass feedstocks

Wood chips Bulk density Fibrousness Homogeneity Moderate High High Willow Moderate High Moderate Flax Low Moderate High Relation to Sizing, transport Milling Operational window

The following subsections summarize the relevant characteristics of the raw biomass feedstocks. Since specications of biomass can vary from sample to sample, a range and typical value are presented for each feedstock. 3.1.1. Wood Chips The properties of wood chips can vary signicantly depending on numerous factors, e.g., type of wood, location of growth, and the harvesting method. See Table 5. The moisture content of freshly harvested wood typically ranges between 40-50 wt% as received (ar). Open storage can reduce the moisture content to a level of 10 to 20 wt%. The ash content increases when bark or impurities such as sand are mixed with the fuel. Core wood without bark or other impurities such as sand typically has an ash content of about 0.5 wt% (dry base). A clean harvesting method is important to keep the ash content as low as possible. Sulphur levels in wood are signicantly lower when compared to typical coal values. On the other hand, chlorine, calcium and (earth) alkali levels are somewhat higher than in coal, thereby increasing the risks of slagging

and fouling in the boiler. It should be noted that Nova Scotia Power did not nd slagging or fouling issues with high proportions of wood chip ring. 3.1.2. Willow Short rotation coppice (SRC) consists of dense plantations of high-yielding varieties of either poplar or willow. During harvesting, which typically occurs on a 2-5 year cycle, only the shoots are removed, leaving behind the roots to allow for re-growth. SRC is harvested as rods, chips, or billets with a moisture content of 50-60 percent. In the UK, yields have been reported between 5-18 oven dry metric ton per hectare per year. The major causes of this variation are the species planted, the conditions of the site on which the SRC is planted, and the efciency of harvesting. 2 Willow feedstock is assumed to be red as freshly harvested wood. This type of biomass will be quite humid and will not emit much dust. The physical properties can vary depending on the biomass production. Compared to typical wood chips, willow can have a somewhat higher moisture and ash content. Table 8 summarizes the characteristics of willow.

Themba Technology Ltd, Evaluating the sustainability of co-ring in the UK, September 2006.

C04

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

3.1.3. Flax Straw Flax is an important agricultural crop in Canada. For example, Saskatchewan producers plant 1.4 million acres of ax each year. 3 Flax is considered as a favorable addition to many farmers crop rotations. A constraint to ax production however is dealing with the ax straw residue. Because ax has a signicant percentage of long tough stem bers that decay slowly, it is difcult to incorporate ax straw into the soil after harvest. Flax straw used to be burned directly on the land, but today this practice is discouraged for a number of reasons. Currently, chopping and spreading is the preferred alternative but co-ring ax straw in a coal-red power plant can be a good alternative as well. Table 5 summarizes the characteristics of ax straw. The chlorine content of ax straw is considerably higher than that of wood chips or willow. To keep chlorine corrosion within reasonable levels, the waste incineration business has established a rule of thumb to keep the sulphur to chlorine ratio above 4 (S/Cl > 4) at all times. This means that co-ring percentage of ax straw needs to be limited because of this ratio. Figure 2: Typical pellet manufacturing and processing chain

3.2. Modied Biomass

A number of methods are available, or are being developed, that can improve the quality of raw biomass, render a more homogeneous product, reduce shipping costs, improve handling characteristics, and make processing of the biomass at the power plant site more effective. Several of the more prominent methods are described below. 3.2.1. Pelletized Biomass Pellets are attractive for co-ring applications because: they have a high caloric density, which makes them more economical when fuel must be transported over a long distance they can be used on-site with limited on-site modications and equipment investments they can be used at high percentages, often with limited boiler derate due to their cylindrical geometry pellets can be stored in silos and can easily be transported by all feeding equipment mechanical and pneumatic

A typical pellet manufacturing processing chain is presented in Figure 2.

Feedstock

Off-site Pre-processing

Pelletizing facility

Port

Product

Green hammer mill

Dryer

Dry hammer mill

Pellet press

Pellet cooler

Peller storage

www.saskax.com

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

C05

The quality of the milling and pelletization process is essential for obtaining the desired particle size after on-site milling and consequently good feeding behavior. The quality of the pelletizing process itself is very much dependent on the original biomass type. Generally it can

be said that the softer the wood (high content of lignin), the easier the pelletizing. Arguments for and against applying pelletization as a biomass pre-treatment technology for co-ring are listed in Table 4.

Table 4: Advantages and disadvantages for pelletization of biomass fuel for co-ring
Advantages High energy density pellets (transport) Known technology Not a lot of heat is required for drying Fully commercial All over the world Normally high availability Experience with pellet specications Pellets are applied at large scale Various input products possible Easier to process at power plant site Disadvantages Some fuels difcult to pelletize Dust (HSE) Wear of mills (soil) Operations sensitive to input material Odor can be an issue Expensive to produce Pellets sensitive to moisture

Important issues around wood pellets include: sustainability of the raw material (certication) product quality setting up the right technical specications for the wood pellets good quality assurance and quality control management system

When the pellets are not of a consistent and continuous quality, the effects on power plant operations may be signicant. These include (but are not limited to):

difculty with unloading at receipt limited storage capacity on-site formation and emission of dust problems with dust staining in the conveyors risk of (self) ignition wear of the mills not achieving the appropriate mill throughput ash quality deterioration value of the pellets (energy density may decrease) loss of boiler heat rate (due to high moisture or low burn out)

C06

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

Table 5 presents ranges and typical values for raw and pelletized woody and ax-type of biomass. Table 5: Typical specications of wood and ax in original and pelletized

Wood Chips Proximate analysis Moisture (% wt ar) Ash (% wt db) Volatiles (% wt db) Fixed carbon (% wt db) HHV (MJ/kg dry) Bulk density (kg/m3) Ultimate analysis (% wt db) C H N S O Cl K Ca 48-52 5.5-6.5 0.1-1 0.04-0.2 38-46 0.01-0.05 0.02-0.4 0.1-1.5 48-52 5.5-6.5 0.1-1 0.04-0.2 38-46 0.01-0.05 0.02-0.4 0.1-1.5 50 6 0.3 0.08 42 0.02 0.1 0.7 49-51 5.2-6.3 0.6-1.3 0.07-0.17 42-45 0.04-0.4 0.3-0.5 range 10-50 0.3-3 70-85 15-25 19-21 200-250 range 4-7 0.3-3 70-85 15-25 19-21 600-750 Pellets typical 6 1 80 19 20 700

Flax straw Chopped or baled range 6.5-8.5 2-6 80-81 13-18 19.5-20.5 70-140 Pellets typical 6 4 81 15 20 700

50 5.8 0.8 0.13 43 0.2 0.4

A substantial amount of experience has been gained with co-ring wood pellets, and when the quality and supply of

biomass pellets can be assured it is an attractive option for co-ring signicant amounts of biomass.

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

C07

3.2.2. Torrefaction Torrefaction is a thermal pre-treatment technology that produces a solid biofuel product with superior handling, milling and co-ring characteristics as compared to other biofuels. KEMA foresees that torrefaction will play an important role in co-ring biomass at coal-red power plants in the future. At present, torrefaction technology is making its rst careful steps towards commercialization, while the technology and product quality are still surrounded by

uncertainties. Nevertheless, some European utilities have taken the risk by signing long-term off-take contracts with torrefaction suppliers, which indicates torrefaction is gaining momentum. Table 6 shows typical physical and chemical properties of torreed solid fuels, compared to non-torreed fuels. The table shows that when biomass is torreed and subsequently pelletized, the product has similar handling, milling, and transport requirements as coal. However, more tests are required on torreed materials to substantiate these characteristics.

Table 6: Properties of torreed pellets compared to non-torreed fuel types (indicative)

Wood Moisture content (% wt) Caloric value (MJ/kg) Volatiles (% db) Fixed carbon (% db) Bulk density (kg/l) Volumetric energy density (GJ/m3) Dust Hydroscopic properties Biological degradation Milling requirements Handling properties Product Consistency Transport cost 30-45 9-12 70-75 20-25 0.2 -0,25 2.0-3.0 Average Hydrophilic Yes Special Special Limited High Wood pellets 7-10 15-16 70-75 20-25 0.55-0.75 7.5-10.4 Limited Hydrophilic Yes Special Easy High Average Torrefaction pellets 1-5 20-24 55-65 28-35 0.75-0.85 15.0-18.7 Limited hydrophobic No Classic Easy High Low Charcoal 1-5 30-32 10-12 85-87 ~ 0.20 6-6.4 High hydrophobic No Classic Easy High Average Coal 10-15 23-28 15-30 50-55 0.8-0.85 18.4-23.8 Limited hydrophobic No Classic Easy High Low

Many torrefaction reactor technologies exist, and more are under development. Some reactor technologies are being proven. These include: Rotary drying drum Multiple Hearth Furnace (MHF) or Herreshoff oven TurboDryer Torbed reactor Screw conveyor reactor Compact moving bed Belt dryer

Most of the torrefaction technology development takes place in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Canada, and the United States. Torrefaction development is performed by companies and research institutes such as CDS, Torr-coal, BIO3D, EBES AG, CMI-NESA, Wyssmont/ Integro Earth Fuels, Topell, BTG, Biolake, FoxCoal, ETPC, Agri-tech producers, ECN, Torspyd/Thermya, Buhler, Stramproy, NewEarth Eco Technology, etc. Some of these initiatives have not passed the exploration phase, while others have proven pilots and are in the demonstration phase. Which technology performs best depends on the functional requirements, fuel specications, heat source, and development status.

C08

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

Apart from the reactor technology, the performance of torrefaction is heavily dependent on the heat integration design. Although heat can be integrated in various ways, all torrefaction developers apply the same basic design in which the volatiles are combusted in an afterburner and the ue gas is used to heat the pre-drying process and the torrefaction process. Arguments for and against applying torrefaction as a biomass pre-treatment technology for co-ring are listed in Table 7.

Torrefaction is becoming a viable technology that could be a cost-effective method for utilities wanting to co-re signicant amounts of biomass. The cost savings can be achieved in long distance transport, biomass handling, and processing. In addition it is believed coal boilers will require very little modication to use substantial quantities. However, the technology and product quality is still surrounded by uncertainties. The rst generation torrefaction technology is most likely to operate with wood chips, as this biomass feedstock brings the lowest technical and nancial risks.

Table 7: Advantages and disadvantages for torrefaction of biomass fuel for co-ring
Advantages Produces high energy density pellets (transport) Material is brittle (easy milling) Material is hydrophobic (storage) Many proven initiatives exist (technology) Demonstrators being built (40-70 kt/a) (scale) Can use large amounts with little capex modications to boiler Disadvantages Pelletization requires additives (chemicals) Tar formation (operations) Odor (HSE) Loss of some volatiles (energy, HSE) Little experience heterogeneous input (exibility) Particle size and shape sensitive (operations) Combustion not really known (operations) Cooling for ignition prevention (HSE) No full scale demonstrations operational

Table 8: Properties of some wood and willow biomass types (indicative)

Wood Chips Proximate analysis Moisture (% wt ar) Ash (% wt db) Volatiles (% wt db) Fixed carbon (% wt db) HHV (MJ/kg dry) Bulk density (kg/m3) Ultimate analysis (% wt db) C H N S O Cl K Ca range 10-50 0.3-3 70-85 15-25 19-21 200-250 range 48-52 5.5-6.5 0.1-1 0.04-0.2 38-46 0.01-0.05 0.02-0.4 0.1-1.5 range 1-5 0.3-5 55-70 28-45 20-24 750-850 range 50-65 5-6 0.1-1 0.04-0.2 30-40 0.01-0.05 0.02-0.4 0.1-1.5 Torreed pellets typical 3 1 65 34 21 800 typical 60 5.5 0.3 0.08 33 0.02 0.1 0.7 Chipped range 50-60 1-4 80-90 10-20 18-21 range 46-51 5.5-6.5 0.2-1 0.02-0.1 40-46 0.01-0.05 0.2-0.5 0.2-0.7 Willow Torreed pellets typical 3 2 70 28 21 750 typical 55 5.5 0.3 0.08 37 0.02 0.1 0.7

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

C09

4. Six Co-ring Congurations Studied

The CCPC commissioned KEMA to evaluate several co-ring congurations employing different proportions of biomass ring and fuels. Those six congurations are described below. Case 1: 10% (by thermal input) ax pellets co-red in a 150-MWe lignite-red boiler with an assumed heat rate of 11,500 Btu/kWh Case 2: 60% co-ring of torreed willow pellets in a 150-MWe lignite or bituminous-red boiler, with an assumed heat rate of 9,600 Btu/kWh for the bituminous-red boiler and an assumed heat rate of 11,500 Btu/kWh for the lignite-red boiler Case 3: 60% wood pellet co-ring in a 400-MWe sub-bituminous-red boiler, with an assumed heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh Case 4: 60% co-ring of torreed wood pellets in a 400-MWe sub-bituminous-red boiler, with an assumed heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh

Case 5: complete retrot of a 150-MWe pulverizedlignite-red boiler, with an assumed heat rate of 11,500 Btu/kWh into a bubbling uidized-bed boiler ring 100% wood chips having a new capacity of 100 MWe Case 6: 20% wood chip co-ring in a 150 MWe sub-bituminous-red boiler, with an assumed heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh

Unfortunately in the KEMA study the CO2 intensity of a sub-bit unit was used for Case 6. To best match the numerical values for case 6 in the KEMA study, the heat rate for a lignite unit was replaced in this report with that for a sub-bit unit for Case 6. The following table describes some of the key features of the six co-ring plants evaluated by KEMA and assumed in the economic modeling. Thermal input refers to the % of the thermal input provided by biomass. Fuel displaced refers to the amount of coal displaced by the biomass on a GJ basis. The torreed material for cases 2 and 4 were pelletized.

Table 9: Physical Characteristics of Co-ring Plants

Plant Capacity (MW) 150 150 400 400 150 150 Base Heat Rate (GJ/ MWh) 11.5 9.6 10.0 10.0 11.5 10.0 Fuel Displaced (GJ/hr) 173 864 2,400 2,400 1,725 300

Biomass Fuel Pelletized Flax Torreed Willow Pelletized Wood Torreed Wood Wood Chips Wood Chips

case # 1 2 3 4 5 6

Plant Type Lignite Bituminous Sub-Bit Sub-Bit Retrot BFB Sub-Bit

Thermal Input 10% 60% 60% 60% 100% 20%

Capacity Factor 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%

C10

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

The following table describes the characteristics of the biomass fuel. The values are based on the characteristics of dried fuel. Nova Scotia Power did not nd a derate ring Table 10: Fuel Characteristics
Heat Content Biomass (GJ/t) 20 23 20 23 20 20

20% wood chips. Derates may be incurred if the biomass reduces the efciency of the boiler or if additional power is required to process, grind or hammer mill the biomass.

Biomass Fuel Pelletized Flax Torreed Willow Pelletized Wood Torreed Wood Wood Chips Wood Chips

case # 1 2 3 4 5 6

Mass of Biomass (t/hr) 8.6 37.6 120.0 104.3 86.3 15.0

Density (kg/m3) 700 700 700 800 250 250

Volume of Biomass (m3/hr) 12 54 171 130 345 60

Derate (MW) 0 1 3 2 50 4

The table below shows the rough capital costs identied for each case. Table 11: Capital Costs for Co-ring Cases
Biomass Fuel Pelletized Flax Torreed Willow Pelletized Wood Torreed Wood Wood Chips Wood Chips case # 1 2 3 4 5 6 Capex ($m) 6.7 7.9 49.4 12.2 43.3 21.9 Capex ($/kWth) 447 88 206 51 289 730

Capital costs include those costs directly related to the on-site equipment to be installed and modied, including engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC), civil works, development, and owners costs (based on eastern/ Midwestern U.S. cost indices). Interest during construction, tax, on-site operational costs during commercial operations, loss-of-income due to derate, fuel purchase and transportation costs for pellets, wood chips, etc., and renewable energy or CO2 emission certicates were excluded. The capital costs are estimated with an accuracy of +/- 50% given the high-level character of this study. The following table shows the CO2 intensity of the plant operating on coal. This is followed by the amount of CO2 produced by the coal plant before co-ring. There are two signicant sources of CO2 associated with biomass co-ring. First there are the emissions associated with

processing the biomass. A signicant amount of drying and grinding may be involved to produce the fuel. Biomass co-ring may also derate the plant since biomass is often a lower quality fuel with a lower heat content than the coal being replaced. It is assumed that all of the emissions associated with coal displaced are avoided. However, the fossil fuel emissions related to offsite processing and for replacing the lost power must be added back to determine the amount of CO2 avoided. The net CO2 avoided is used to calculate the revised CO2 intensity. In this report CO2 Avoided is calculated based on the values in Table 12. CO2 Avoided is equal to CO2 Before Conv CO2 Before Conv x % Co-red CO2 from Offsite CO2 from replaced power. The Revised CO2 Intensity is equal to (CO2 Before Conv CO2 Avoided) / MWh produced in year.

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

C11

Cases 2, 3 and 4 were chosen to meet a CO2 intensity similar to that for a natural gas combined cycle unit. This may be the intensity the Federal government may require coal plants to meet in the future. Case 5 has a CO2 Table 12: Avoided CO2 Emissions for Biomass
Base CO2 Intensity (t/MWh) 1.18 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.18 1.00

intensity close to zero because 100% of the fuel in this case is biomass. Case 6 provides only 20% of the fuel from biomass. Therefore the CO2 intensity is reduced by about 20% assuming biomass is a carbon neutral fuel.

Biomass Fuel Pelletized Flax Torreed Willow Pelletized Wood Torreed Wood Wood Chips Wood Chips

case # 1 2 3 4 5 6

CO2 Before Conv (kt/yr) 1,085 837 2,453 2,453 1,085 920

CO2 from CO2 from Offsite Process replaced (kt/yr) power (Kt/yr) 3 30 53 83 0 0 0.0 5.6 18.4 12.3 361.8 24.5

CO2 Avoided (kt/yr) 106 467 1,400 1,376 724 159

Revised CO2 Intensity (t/MWh) 1.07 0.40 0.43 0.44 0.00 0.83

The next table provides assumed ranges for the cost of obtaining biomass feedstocks. These values are based on rough estimates from internal sources and some published material. The CCPC did not study fuel costs in phase III. However, biomass feedstock costs represent the most signicant cost associated with biomass co-ring. Biomass feedstock costs are highly dependent upon the type of biomass involved, the cost to process the fuel, the location of the raw fuel, the volume available Table 13: Rough Ranges of Biomass Feedstock Costs
Coal Cost ($/GJ) 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

and the distance it must travel to the power plant, etc. For this reason a range of values were studied. A great deal more work would be required to rene these cost estimates for a given plant. The fuel costs on the right hand side of the table below include both the biomass cost and transportation costs to move the biomass to the power plant site. The coal cost for Case 2 is high because it represents the cost for expensive imported coal in Nova Scotia.

Biomass Fuel Pelletized Flax Torreed Willow Pelletized Wood Torreed Wood Wood Chips Wood Chips

case # 1 2 3 4 5 6

Biomass Cost Low ($/t) 120 160 130 160 60 60

Biomass Cost High ($/t) 150 200 182 220 100 100

Transport to Site ($/t) 10 10 10 10 10 10

Fuel Cost Low ($/GJ) 6.5 7.4 7.0 7.4 3.5 3.5

Fuel Cost High ($/GJ) 8.0 9.1 9.6 10.0 5.5 5.5

C12

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

The following table shows the rough costs for burning biomass in a coal plant for a year. The net fuel costs were based on the costs per tonne identied above and the heat content of the fuels less the cost of coal displaced. The O&M charge was based on a study by Dr. Zhang 4. The value of lost power is the opportunity cost associated with not being able to sell the power, at $90/MWh,

associated with plant derates. The capex was taken from above and multiplied by a capital recovery factor to dene a yearly value. This was divided by the operating hours assumed. The two columns on the right show the range of costs in millions of dollars per year for the low and high fuel costs. These values were used in the derivation of the avoided costs of CO2 for the cases.

Table 14: Cost of Operating a Co-ring Plant in Millions of Dollars per Year
Net Fuel Cost Low ($/yr) 5.8 18.0 88.3 94.1 37.0 4.6 Net Fuel Cost High ($/yr) 7.4 27.2 126.6 132.5 58.2 8.3 Value of Lost Power ($/yr) 0.0 0.6 1.7 1.1 27.6 2.2 Total Cost Low ($/yr) 7.0 20.4 98.7 97.7 72.7 10.6 Total Cost High ($/yr) 8.6 29.6 137.0 136.1 93.9 14.3

Biomass Fuel Pelletized Flax Torreed Willow Pelletized Wood Torreed Wood Wood Chips Wood Chips

case # 1 2 3 4 5 6

O&M ($/yr) 0.2 0.7 1.5 0.8 1.8 0.6

Capex ($/yr) 1.0 1.2 7.2 1.8 6.3 3.2

The table below shows the estimates for cost of CO2 reduction and the incremental cost of power produced from the biomass. The values in the right hand were divided by the avoided CO2 emissions for a year to determine the avoided cost. The total cost per year were also divided by the energy produced by biomass

for each case to determine the incremental cost of power in $/MWh basis. However, the remaining costs for operating the plant may change very little except that less coal will be used. Therefore biomass co-ring will generally increase the cost of operating the plant.

Table 15: Avoided Costs of CO2 Reductions / Incremental Cost of Power

Avoided Cost Low ($/t) 66.5 43.7 70.5 71.0 100.5 66.6 Avoided Cost High ($/t) 81.6 63.4 97.8 98.9 129.7 89.7 Incr.Cost Low ($/MWh) 76.3 36.9 67.1 66.4 79.0 57.7 Incr.Cost High ($/MWh) 93.6 53.6 93.1 92.5 102.0 77.7

Biomass Fuel Pelletized Flax Torreed Willow Pelletized Wood Torreed Wood Wood Chips Wood Chips

case # 1 2 3 4 5 6

Life Cycle Emissions and Cost of Producing Electricity from Coal, Natural Gas, and Wood Pellets in Ontario, Canada, Yimin Zhang, University of Toronto, 20 November, 2009.

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

C13

The gure below shows the avoided costs for the six co-ring congurations as the cost of biomass fuel varies. Figure 3: Avoided Costs for Various Biomass Prices
140 Avoided CO2 Cost ($/t) 120 100 80 60 40 0 50 100 150 200 250 1 10% FP 2 60% TW 3 60% WP 4 60% TW 5 100% WC 6 20% WC

Biomass Cost ($/t)

Cases 2 and 4 both employ torreed wood. The reason Case 2 has such a low avoided CO2 cost is that it displaced coal priced at $4.00/GJ compared to $1.00/GJ for the other cases. Case 5 is expensive because it is based on a complete retrot of the plant to a bubbling uidized bed. The capital cost for this case and the signicant derate associated with this retrot contribute most to the additional costs. Cases 1 and 3 have a similar range of fuel costs. Case 6 is based on ring 20% wood chips. The cost

for the fuel is expected to be relatively low. However, the capital cost for this case is relatively high. The avoided costs in this graph could be compared to the costs to reduce CO2 emissions by carbon capture processes. However, the fuel costs would need to be rened to make a more accurate comparison. One of the advantages of biomass co-ring is that it is more mature 5 than carbon capture and therefore may have less risk.

The biomass co-ring experience is generally at lower percentages of co-ring.

C14

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

The following gure shows the cost of producing power with biomass fuel. This incremental cost includes the cost to co-re the fuel less the cost of coal displaced. A

proportion of the cost for this power must be added to the cost for the underlying plant and in all cases will have the effect of increasing the overall cost of power from the plant.

Figure 4: Incremental Cost of Biomass Power for Various Biomass Prices

110 Cost of Biomass Power ($/MWh) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 0 50 100 Biomass Cost ($/t) 150 200 4 60% TW 5 100% WC 6 20% WC 1 10% FP 2 60% TW 3 60% WP

Case 2 suggest that torreed wood may have the lowest incremental cost even though the cost of the fuel is expected to be relatively high. Recall the reason the Case 2 costs are lower than Case 4 costs is related to the

assumption that expensive bituminous coal imported by sea is being displaced in Case 2 compared to mine mouth coal in Case 4. Case 6 has a cost which is expected to be slightly lower than all the other cases except for Case 2.

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

C15

The gure below shows the cost components for the incremental cost of producing power with biomass for each case. Figure 5: Incremental Cost of Biomass Power
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 10% FP 2 60% TW 3 60% WP 4 60% TW 5 100% WC 6 20% WC Capex Net Fuel High Net Fuel Low Derate O&M

Incremental Power ($/MWh)

The purple bar shows the fuel costs assuming fuel has a low cost. The orange bar is added to the purple bar to show the total net fuel cost for the high case. Clearly fuel costs account for most of the incremental costs in each case. Case 5 has a substantial opportunity cost associated with not being able to sell a signicant amount of power at $90/MWh because of the signicant derate. Likewise

Case 6 also have a substantial opportunity cost associated with a plant derate. As mentioned above Case 6 has a relatively high capital cost compared to the other cases. Cases 2, 3 and 4 have very low capital costs requirements because the torreed wood and wood pellets required very little capital costs modication to use the fuel directly in the coal boiler and because the fuel is delivered dry.

C16

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

The gure below shows the expected increase in power costs associated with adding biomass co-ring to an existing plant. Given that case 1 has such a small proportion of co-ring it will have a smaller impact on the Figure 6: Increase in Power Cost for Each Case
Increae in Power Cost ($/MWh) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 10% FP 2 60% TW 3 60% WP 4 60% TW

overall cost of power production from a plant than the other cases. Since case 5 essentially replaces 100% of the output of the plant the average cost of power for this case will increase by the full amount shown above.

Net Fuel High Net Fuel Low Derate O&M 5 100% WC 6 20% WC Capex

As mentioned above Case 5 is based on a signicant retrot of the plant and as such incurs signicant capital costs. As described above Case 2 has a modest fuel cost increase because expensive bituminous coal is being replaced and its cost is subtracted from the biomass fuel cost. Cases 1 and 6 show modest increases in power costs because the proportion of fuel displaced is relatively small. The fuel costs represent the majority of the marginal costs associated with co-ring. It may be that the plants will be incented to operate with co-ring as a strategy to reduce it CO2 emissions as part of a scheme to comply with GHG or other emission regulations. If this is the case the plant may not have the option to operate without co-ring. This

is an issue for plants in markets like Alberta, which generally encourage supply offers for power based on marginal cost. The fuel costs in the graph above show the impact of co-ring on the average marginal cost of the unit. That is the average marginal cost for the unit is expected to increase by at least the costs associated with the purple bars. These higher marginal costs will likely have the effect of decreasing the amount of time the plant is economically able to operate. These higher costs may force the plant to dispatch at lower output or come off line more often for economic reasons. The marginal cost for most carbon capture technologies is likely to be much lower than those in the graph above for similar reductions in CO2 emissions because most carbon capture costs are xed.

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

C17

The following gure shows the costs which make up the avoided CO2 costs for each of the cases. Figure 7: Avoided CO2 Cost Components
140 Avoided CO2 Cost ($/t) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 10% FP 2 60% TW 3 60% WP 4 60% TW 5 100% WC 6 20% WC Derate O&M Capex Net Fuel High Net Fuel Low

The most signicant cost associated with carbon capture is generally capital cost. It should be noted that capital costs for most of the co-ring cases represents a relatively small proportion of the overall costs. Unlike carbon capture, biomass co-ring does not put nearly as much capital at risk

to reduce a tonne of CO2 emissions. However, the cost of biomass co-ring is clearly more dependent on fuel costs than carbon capture. Except for Case 5, derates associated with biomass co-ring are also expected to be signicantly lower than for many carbon capture technologies.

C18

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

The gure below shows the impact of amortizing a co-ring and a post combustion capture project over 5 to 25 years. It is assumed that the capital component of the avoided CO2 cost for a co-ring project constitutes 10% of $100/t. It is assumed that the capital component of the avoided CO2 cost for a post combustion CO2 capture project constitutes 50% of $100/t. Given that co-ring projects are expected to have a relatively low capital cost component they are a more attractive option when a plant is expected to operate for Figure 8: Impact of Amortization Period on Avoided CO2 Cost
150 145 140 Avoided CO2 Cost ($/t) 135 130 125 120 115 110 105 100 0 5 10

less than 20 years. Even if the co-ring project is operated for only 5 years the avoided CO2 costs only increases by 10% compared to a 25 year project. Generally it is expected that if post combustion capture is going to be added to an old plant signicant life extension costs will be incurred to allow the plant to operate over a further 20 years. Therefore co-ring may be a more attractive option for retrotting coal plants with short economic lives than other more capital intensive options like post combustion capture.

Post Combustion Co-firing

15 Project Term (years)

20

25

30

If the Canadian Government requires old coal plants to adopt an NGCC CO2 intensity, and the economic life of the plant is short, it may not make sense to add a lot of capital to the plant to capture CO2. It may however make sense to employ large amounts of wood pellets or torried material even if the price of the fuel is expensive. Table 16 shows the cost to employ biomass to reduce the CO2 intensity of a coal plant by 0.6 t/MWh. The incremental cost would increase by $40 to $60/MWh. If the plants

capital is written off, there may be $20/MWh of O&M remaining. The average cost would be about $60 to $80/ MWh. However, if carbon capture is employed for a 5 year period the incremental cost would be about $90/MWh and the average cost would be $110/MWh. Employing biomass rather than carbon capture for older plants with short economic lives may make sense. However, the marginal cost of the plant employing biomass will be high.

Table 16: Comparison of Costs to Comply with GHG Requirements

Bio Low Biomass Cost ($/t) Net Fuel Cost ($/GJ) Avoided Cost ($/t) Incremental Cost ($/MWh) 130.0 6.0 70.5 42.3 Bio High 182.0 8.6 97.8 58.7 100.0 60.0 150.0 90.0 CC Low CC High

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

C19

Coal plants can also be co-red or repowered with natural gas. However, natural gas delivers less radiant heat per gigajoule than coal. This can seriously impact the performance of the boiler particularly as it relates to energy transfer in the waterwalls and may require signicant boiler modications. The graph below shows the avoided cost assuming natural gas is used to replace coal at two coal Figure 9: Avoided CO2 Cost of Natural Gas in a Coal Plant
160 Avoided CO2 Cost ($/t) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

prices. The natural gas is assumed to be burned with a heat rate of 10 GJ/MWh. The avoided CO2 costs appear low at low gas prices, but increase signicantly as gas prices increase. This graph only includes fuel costs and does not account for any other costs related to plant modications, such as burner and pressure part modications, required to combust natural gas in the boiler.

$1/GJ Coal Price $2/GJ Coal Price

8.0

9.0

10.0

Gas Price $/GJ

The combustion of biomass to make power is generally considered to be a renewable process. Wind is also considered a renewable process. The following graph is based on the assumption that wind displaces 0.65 t CO2/ MWh. Wind may offer a low avoided cost and may be an attractive may to reduce GHG emissions. However, credits from wind may not be allowed to be used to allow Figure 10: Avoided CO2 Cost for Wind at Three Power Prices
70 60 Avoided CO2 Cost ($/t) 50 40 30 20 10 -10 -20 80 85 90 95 100

coal plants to meet regulatory requirements to reduce GHG emissions. The avoided CO2 cost is calculated as the difference between the cost of wind and the market power price divided by 0.65t/MWh. The national average emission intensity is closer to 0.2t/MWh. Using this gure would cause the avoided costs of wind to increase by more than threefold.

Price of Wind Power $120/MWh $110/MWh $100/MWh

105

110

Market Power Price ($/MWh)

C20

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

5. Conclusions From KEMA Report

The feasibility of biomass co-ring at a coal-red power plant is highly dependent on the availability of biomass fuels, the processing required to modify the fuels for consumption in the power plant, the on-site characteristics of the power plant, and the degree of tolerance for modications that might result in output derates of the power plant. While this study looked only at capital costs associated with a co-ring conversion, it is the balance between capital costs, fuel costs, other operational costs, and regulatory requirements compared to the cost of other options to meet these requirements that will determine the economic feasibility of specic biomass co-ring projects. In general, a specic biomass supply and market study is needed to determine the availability and cost of fuels and cost of transporting fuel to the plant. This can be completed on a eet basis or individual plant basis. International trading in wood pellets is well established. Therefore, a fuel market and supply study can be performed with reasonable accuracy and reliability, and helps in creating a reliable biomass co-ring business case. The suitability of certain types of biomass is always dependent on the percentage of co-ring, boiler type, coal type, etc. Flax needs special attention because of its potential to cause corrosion. Torreed material is attractive as it is thought that it can be milled directly in a coal mill. However, to date no real large-scale experience exists using torreed material in a coal plant. Converting a boiler to high percentages of biomass (or even complete retrot) will likely lead to an output derate and heat rate penalty. This will certainly require a closer look at the individual feasibility of these measures, and associated conceptual design. In this context, large (lignite) red boilers are generally thought to be more attractive for complete retrot, as large boilers are likely to suffer less from a signicant output derate.

Drying of biomass may be an option in cases where biomass can be collected from various suppliers in locations near the power plant. Heat that is present in the ue gas may be used for drying, and if not available, steam at a low temperature could be a candidate. This may induce some output derate, depending on the amount and quality of steam that is required. For both wood pellets and torreed material, it is recommended that utilities secure fuel supply, and leverage responsibilities to the suppliers where possible. If supply and fuel quality cannot be secured and power generation capability must be maintained at all times, multifuel handling options should be considered. Regulatory aspects should not be forgotten in the co-ring business case. However, it is recommended to secure subsidy tariffs for an extended period of time, if applicable. The timeline for initiating, engineering, designing, tendering, realizing, commissioning, and obtaining stable commercial operation with a secure biomass supply and minimal heat rate penalty and/or output derate, is often in the order of 5 to10 years. This timeline for low biomass percentages and wood pellet co-ring may take around 5 to 7 years. Nova Scotia Power prepared to re 20% biomass over a 4 year period. Using torreed materials may shorten this timeline, however, it is dependent on how quickly manufacturers can deliver torreed pellets. Torreed pellets will most likely come at a signicant cost, even if they might become available without having bilateral contracts in place with specic suppliers. The timeline for complete retrots (e.g., BFB installation) or high percentages of co-ring utilizing different types of wet biomass are likely to take close to 10 years.

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

C21

5.1. Evaluation of Co-ring Options

KEMA completed the following evaluations of the co-ring congurations studied: Technical ranking of options; High level nancial and risk analysis applied to the above; Fuel availability and suitability analysis; and Optimum co-ring regimes and impact on heat rates

5.2. Technical Ranking

Table 17 provides a qualitative ranking of technical feasibility for each of the congurations studied. The technical maturity and challenges are based on all on-site activities that have to be performed, and do not consider the maturity and complexity of all off-site processes (as torrefaction and pelletization), i.e. quality of the delivered fuel is assumed to be assured.

Table 17: Technical ranking

Extent of modications required Limited Limited Moderate Limited Signicant Substantial

Case No 1 2 3 4 5 6

Unit size (MWe) 150 150 400 400 150 150

Conguration type 10% ax pellets co-ring 60% torreed willow pellets 60% wood pellets 60% torreed wood pellets 100% wood chip BFB retrot 20% wood chips

Maturity Moderate Low High Moderate-Low High-Moderate High-Moderate

Operational challenges Several Expected feasible Limited experience Several but known Expected feasible Limited experience Various challenges Some challenges

Technical ranking Feasible with some challenges Feasible in the long run Feasible Feasible in the long run Very plant specic with major challenges Feasible with some challenges

The main conclusion is that co-ring wood pellets is technically proven and technically feasible. Firing torreed material is expected to be technically feasible; however, there is currently a lack of experience with this material. There is some experience with retrotting a bubbling

uidized bed into a coal-red unit, but this option requires signicant modications and therefore various operational challenges are expected. Installing a dryer is technically feasible, but special attention must be paid to the integration aspects.

C22

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

5.3. Financial and Risk Analysis of Biomass Co-ring Conversion

Table 18 shows qualitative nancial and risk rankings for each conguration. The capital and operational costs are associated with the avoided CO2 emission, and only refer Table 18: Financial and risk ranking
Unit size MWe) 150 150 Sensitivity factors / risks Fuel availability, corrosion Fuel quality, fuel cost/ availability, fans, mills, heat release, HSE Equipment size/cost, fuel cost, milling, combustion Fuel quality, fuel cost/ availability, fans, mills, heat release, HSE Boiler type, fans, storage size (delivery), fuel price, derate Heat source drying, storage size (delivery), fuel price

to the on-site costs. Financial risks refer to risks that increase capital and operational costs.

Case No 1 2

Conguration type 10% ax pellets co-ring 60% torreed willow pellets 60% wood pellets

CapEx Moderate Low

OpEx (fuel) Moderate High

OpEx (non-fuel) Moderate Low

400

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

400

60% torreed wood pellets 100% wood chip BFB retrot 20% wood chips

Low

High

Low

150

Moderate-High

Low

Moderate

150

High

Low

High

The nancial and technical risk for torreed wood may be high since so few plants have been constructed. The main conclusion is that, due to the expected minor modications, the investment in equipment is lowest for the torreed pellets. However, it is expected that the price of good quality torreed pellets will be high. Untorreed wood pellets will come at a lower price, but then more investment will have to be completed on pre-treatment

facilities. When wet wood chips can be guaranteed to be purchased for a long-term period, then capitalintensive investments can still be feasible. Availability of ax is dependent on local conditions, and it is likely that arrangements will have to be made with farmers for harvesting, baling, and intermediate storage. Whether one of these options is economically feasible depends on the exact business case.

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

C23

5.4. Fuel Availability and Suitability

Table 19 summarizes the factors that inuence the availability of the biomass supply and/or measures to secure Table 19: Fuel availability and suitability
Unit size (MWe) 150 150 400 400 150 150 Biomass type (origin) Flax Willow Wood Wood Wood chips Wood chips

the biomass supply, and shows the suitability of each of the biomass fuels types within the given congurations.

Case No 1 2 3 4 5 6

Conguration 10% ax pellets co-ring 60% torreed willow pellets 60% wood pellets 60% torreed wood pellets 100% wood chip BFB retrot 20% wood chips

Availability Dependent on agriculture To be outsourced to pellet manufacturer To be outsourced to pellet manufacturer To be outsourced to pellet manufacturer Likely various suppliers Likely various suppliers

Suitability Moderate Moderate-High High Moderate-High High Moderate

The main conclusion is that woody (both torreed and untorreed) types of biomass are generally available or can be made available. However, there are no commercial scale torrefaction plants in Canada. Processing these types of biomass in the form of pellets is performed by pellet manufacturers. This will come at a cost, but long-term contracts are likely to enhance security of supply. Generally, wood pellets are suitable for co-ring.

Flax can also be suitable but has more operational risks, as well as it needs more organization for harvesting and processing, depending on the local agricultural situation. Wood chips are cheaper (as is sawdust), but often have to be collected from various suppliers and industries in the direct vicinity of the power plant, presenting potential logistical and security of supply problems.

C24

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

5.5. Optimum Co-ring Regimes and Implications of Co-ring Retrots on Heat Rates
Table 20 shows the technically feasible biomass to total fuel co-ring percentage ranges; these are site specic, but generally: Low: Medium: High: below 20% co-ring 20-50% co-ring above 50% co-ring

Table 20: Likely feasible co-ring ranges and likelihood of a resulting plant derate
Unit size (MWe) 150 150 400 400 150 150 Feasible co-ring percentage Low Low-High Low-High Low-High High Low

Case No 1 2 3 4 5 6

Conguration 10% ax pellets co-ring 60% torreed willow pellets 60% wood pellets 60% torreed wood pellets 100% wood chip BFB retrot 20% wood chips

Likely effect on heat rate Minor Minor Some Minor Substantial Substantial

Likely derate Limited Limited Limited Limited Signicant Substantial

A retrot of a pulverized fuel boiler into a bubbling uidized bed is likely to result in a signicant derate, which may be up to 30-60% of its original capacity. In addition, the heat rate will increase. Utilizing wet wood chips and drying the wood chips by means of an integrated dryer (using steam from the plant steam cycle) will result in a derate and heat rate penalty, depending on the actual amount of water that needs to be evaporated. Generally, ring biomass results in an increased house-load for conveying, milling, and

(possibly) fans. Nova Scotia Power did not see any derate related to ring 20% wood chips given they had excess fan capacity. It should also be noted the fast growing species such as willow may cause fouling issues which may lead to derates or heat rate issues. Future studies should be focused on specic plants to determine the optimal fuel, co-ring percentage and co-ring technology as well as the cost for co-ring at the site.

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

C25

Part B Co-ring Results from NS Power Study 1. Introduction

Nova Scotia Power has been tasked with meeting a Renewable Portfolio Standard as part of Nova Scotia Government policy. In order to meet this requirement Nova Scotia Power has initiated studies to determine the feasibility of co-ring biomass in their pulverized coal units as well as the circulating uidized bed unit at Point Aconi. The Canadian Clean Power Coalition has an interest in following this work and has provided funding for research carried out by CanmetENERGY. Two areas of research were completed. The objective of the rst study was to determine the maximum size of biomass particle that can be successfully red and identify how co-ring with biomass will affect the operational aspects of the boiler including carbon burnout and slagging and fouling. The second area of research funded by the CCPC was to investigate the performance of biomass in a circulating uidized bed boiler co-red with a petroleum coke and coal red mixture. Ratios of biomass to coal of 10, 20, 30 and 40% by mass were targeted. While pulverized ring of coal has been long-established, experience with the addition of biomass to a suspension ame is limited, and doing so may present difculties in several areas. Problems may arise in material handling, ame stability, burnout, and increased corrosion or fouling of heat exchangers due to mineral matter within the biomass, etc. Full-scale experimentation on a subject such as this is very expensive and therefore seldom undertaken. Instead, laboratory analyses, bench-scale tests, and pilot-scale experimentation are employed to clarify and quantify as many parameters and variables as possible, thereby building up a body of information that gives full-scale implementation a high probability of immediate success. CanmetENERGY in Ottawa, a branch of Natural Resources Canada, has a wide array of facilities and fty years of experience in assisting Canadas energy industry by performing research such as this. Nova Scotia Power Inc. therefore contracted with Natural Resources Canada for extensive testing to investigate the impacts of biomass blends on fuel handling, combustion, and overall performance. The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the suitability of co-ring biomass with pulverized coal. Two fuels were therefore considered, which included wood chips sourced from the local forestry sector, and a low-sulphur Colombian bituminous coal. The ultimate aim was to determine how the biomass can be most effectively co-red with the baseline coal. Therefore, the study included: Basic chemical and physical characterization of the fuels; Kinetic modeling of the fuels for carbon burnout within existing boilers; and An experimental investigation involving co-ring wood chips with both natural gas and the baseline coal in the laboratory-scale research furnace (LSRF). This study was intended to address the performance of the biomass including: Determination of the maximum allowable size of wood chips; The maximum fraction of overall heat input from biomass attainable in the co-ring mix; Carbon loss as affected by size, red fraction, and excess air; Slagging and fouling as inuenced by the red fraction and the amount and composition of ash within the biomass; and Flame stability.

2. Natural Gas Test Firing with Biomass

The objectives of co-ring wood chips with natural gas was to better isolate the carbon burnout from the wood in a situation where the other fuel would not contribute to the carbon burnout data or the ash related data. In this manner the effects of exposing wood particles to specic temperature and oxygen proles in the furnace could be studied to determine an optimal biomass size for co-ring with the coal in the next phase of the experimental program. The furnace has four bottom ash sampling points and three probes at various temperatures and locations in the system. Results related to the fouling of the probes, the carbon content in the bottom ash and y ash samples, the proportion of CO in ue gas were used to help determine the size of biomass to be used in the coal co-ring tests. The data appear to show that the smaller fuel size burns more completely than the larger sizes, and that increasing the biomass feed rate decreases burnout. After presenting the interim results along with data for a smaller size of wood chips (with a distribution which let 90 % through 2.5 mm mesh), it became clear that ame stability was a critical factor in the decision on which size to select

C26

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

for co-ring with coal tests. As observed in the carbon monoxide run-time data, ame stability decreased with increased particle size, and since the 2.5 mm material was regarded as too ne, the decision was made to proceed with the 3.4 mm material. This size was considered to burn out fairly well within the ame, as minimal unburned material was collected post-testing.

3. Coal/Biomass Co-ring Tests

Biomass heat inputs of 5, 10 and 15% co-red with coal were tested. Coupled with the quantitative data regarding carbon concentration and ash origin, it is reasonable to conclude that the larger wood chips (within the 3.4 mm distribution tested) did not have sufcient time to burn out within the ame. Given the composition measurements for the back-end ash samples, it appears that the vast majority of yash will originate from coal, which makes sense given the low ash content in the wood chips. However, consideration should be given to potential challenges in full-scale conditions. If partially burned biomass travels far downstream and accumulates, it may be hazardous for the baghouse and other back-end equipment. This is because biomass char is quite volatile and reactive, and can ignite at conditions where coal char is essentially inert. Some biomass may fall to the bottom of the boiler. As long as oxygen is available and the temperature within this region is high, it is believed that overall the wood chips should be able to smolder in situ at the bottom of the boiler without a signicant negative effect on the overall combustion efciency.

within the back-end increases with fuel volatility, and since biomass char is more reactive than coal char, effort should be made to ensure that the wood burns out early within the full-scale furnace. This may be accomplished by injecting wood chips at a lower level within the burner region. Locating the suitable level must also consider the portion of material falling downwards to the base of the furnace, and may require further modeling effort. d. The largest particles within the wood chip size distribution were observed to land at the base of the furnace within the combustor, and burn in situ within approximately 2.5 seconds. Slightly smaller particles burned in approximately 1 second. These observations were for a high-temperature oxidizing environment in a full-scale boiler conditions may not support this burning rate for wood chips which fall to surfaces below the lowest burner level, which are typically reducing atmospheres. Further investigation of the ignition (gasication) behaviour of wood chips under these conditions can be tested in order to minimize the risk of explosion should a pulse of highoxygen air enter this region. e. Slagging of the LSRF interior walls was apparent for coal-only and coal-wood chip tests, however, severe slagging on the surfaces of cooled probes was not observed. Co-ring with wood did not appear to enhance or suppress slagging, likely due to the low ash content within the wood. f. The fouling deposition rate was seen to drop at the two in-combustor probe locations with increased biomass input. At full-scale, added biomass is not expected to increase fouling in the superheater region. g. Emissions of SO2 decreased in proportion to the feed rate of biomass, due to a much lower sulphur content within the wood. The nitrogen content of each fuel was similar; therefore nitrogen oxides were mostly thermal in origin and could be reduced through excess air control. Emissions of NOX may present a challenge should the biomass supply change to one rich in nitrogen.

4. Coal/Biomass Co-ring Test Conclusions

a. Flame stability decreased with increased biomass input, as observed with video footage of the burner. This is expected to affect air staging at both the local level (i.e., burner design) and at the global level (i.e., wood chip injection elevation within the burner zone). b. The degree of burnout achieved in all tests was acceptable for a combustor of this scale. c. Chemical composition analyses found that the vast majority of material collected in the back-end of the furnace originated from coal. This means that the wood chips fell or burned out earlier in the system and did not fully entrain in the gas stream. Rather, the biomass appeared to settle at the rst restrictions and burn in situ. There appeared to be no correlation between the wood chip red fraction and particulate loading in the baghouse. The risk of ignition

5. CFBC Testing
Further tests were completed on a CFBC. A blend of coke/ coal with biomass providing 0, 10, 20, 30 and 40% by mass were tested. Biomass has been successfully co-red in CanmetENERGYs pilot-scale CFBC at levels up to 40%. The combustion was stable as long as a steady feed rate could be maintained. NOX emissions decreased as the amount of biomass increased in the fuel feed. The addition of biomass had no effect on particulate matter emissions, and no effect on the properties of the y ash either.

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

C27

Part C Co-ring Conclusions 1. Conditions for Employing Co-ring

There are many factors which need to be considered when making the decision of whether or not to adopt biomass co-ring at a coal plant. What follows is a description of those things which would be preferred or helpful and this conditions which must be met before a project is likely to be approved. Few plant modications are preferred. Coal plants are sophisticated and the fewer modications made to them the better. Biomass fuel standards. Standards for biomass fuels would help make biomass a commodity that could be traded. It would also reduce the uncertainty regarding fuel quality. Co-ring which reduces other emissions such as sulphur. The utilization of some biomass fuels will have the effect of reducing other plant emissions which is considered benecial. Flexibility to use low cost opportunistic fuels. If the system is designed to allow for the use of multiple fuels and has spare capacity, it may be able to take advantage of seasonal fuels or fuels with inconsistent supply which may be available at low cost. Co-feeding of biomass with coal. Systems which rely on the use of the existing coal grinding and feeding infrastructure rather than separate grinding and feeding systems for the biomass are preferred to reduce capital costs.

1.1 Preferences of Power Producers

The following describes the characteristics of biomass co-ring systems which are generally preferred by owners and operators of coal plants. However, individual companies and plant operators may have other preferences and many not value some of those listed here particularly highly. Government subsidies to offset technology risk and support technology development. Many of the technologies are not well established and require several more pilot and demonstration plants before they will be considered commercial. Subsidies would help speed up this process. Prefer technologies which require less time to implement. Some technologies required very long development, design, regulatory and construction timelines. They may not be implemented in time to meet GHG reduction requirements. May prefer low capital cost plant modications. As plants age there is less time available to amortize capital additions. Therefore, projects with lower capital costs may be considered more favourably for older plants. Proven biomass technologies reduce risks. Utilities are risk adverse and prefer technologies which have been proven already at the commercial scale. Proven handling and ring technologies reduce risks. Technologies which have been used to handle material or re material in other settings would generally be perceived as having less risk.

1.2 Conditions Which Must be Met Before Co-ring Will be Adopted

What follows is a list of those conditions which may need to be met before co-ring is adopted by a power producer. Individual power producers may have other conditions and may not consider some of these items to be conditions at all. However, it is generally expected that most of these conditions will need to be met before co-ring is adopted. Regulatory framework mandating GHG reductions. Since most co-ring strategies are uneconomic, some form of regulatory mandate may be required to encourage co-ring.

C28

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

Regulatory approval to co-re. Some jurisdictions have forbidden coal red plants from burning biomass. In others, the regulator has not been very encouraging and environmental groups have forcefully opposed co-ring proposals scuttling projects. GHG protocol. Biomass is not necessarily treated at a carbon neutral fuel everywhere. If biomass is treated as a carbon neutral fuel protocols need to be in place to allow project developers to determine how to quantify the amounts of CO2 avoided. High and predictable GHG credit prices. If a market does not exist for GHG reductions biomass co-ring may be adopted to meet physical requirements to reduce emissions. However, if one can meet their GHG reduction requirement by purchasing credits or offsets or by paying a carbon tax, then the price of these alternatives needs to be higher than the avoided cost of CO2 from the co-ring options before one would adopt co-ring. The market price may need to be signicantly higher than a physical solution given the potential technology and operating risks inherent in biomass co-ring. Before upfront capital is spent, project developers will want to be satised that the market price for the CO2 reductions they create will generate a fairly predictable return on investment. The cost of biomass co-ring will be compared to the value of CO2 mitigation costs avoided or the value of CO2 credits sold. The cost of biomass co-ring is roughly the capital recovery charge, incremental O&M, cost of biomass fuel less the cost of the displaced coal. Western Canadian coals have a cost of about $1.00 to 2.00/Gj. The cost of biomass fuels alone is expected to be signicantly greater than this.

Minimal impact on heat rate, output, corrosion, availability, O&M, downtime to install, etc. Many biomass fuel and co-ring schemes may adversely impact the operation of a power plant. These impacts may increase costs or reduce the ability of the plant to sell power. These impacts will normally be included in the estimate of the cost of the co-ring scheme. Therefore, these costs must be considered reasonable. Long term secure and consistent supply of low cost high quality (dry) fuel must be available. In order to justify capital expenditures, the supply of fuel may need to be contracted for a signicant period of time. Currently the absence of robust biomass commodity trading makes it difcult to hedge supply risk. For many co-ring schemes fuel cost will be the greatest cost incurred. Therefore, increases in fuel costs or deterioration in either fuel quality or supply may adversely impact the economics of a co-ring project. Plant space availability. Many co-ring scheme required signicant space to receive, process, dry, grind, store and move fuel around. Many coal plants may not have sufcient space for these processes and may not have space to interconnect the biomass feeding systems into existing facilities. Fuel characteristics and their impact on plant operations must be well understood. Tests may need to be conducted to determine the following: Proximate, ultimate, elemental and trace analysis, ash fusion temperature, TGAs, bulk density, dust issues, particle size distributions and maximum allowable size, odour issues, biomass degradation issues, corrosion and fouling considerations, ame stability, burnout, other operational impacts, etc. Biomass co-ring can cause signicant operational issues in a coal plant. Therefore, one should have a very good understanding of the impact of specic biomass fuels at their expected ow rates on the performance of the coal plant. Fuels with certain characteristics at certain ow rates may not be suitable for used in some coal plants. Understanding the likely impact of the fuel on plant operations can help determine the kinds of mitigation strategies to consider.

Cost of GHG reductions from co-ring should be lower than other physical options. Biomass co-ring would be attractive if the cost and risk of doing so is perceived to less costly than for other physical options. Co-ring yields material decreases in GHG. Some co-ring schemes may not supply sufcient GHG reductions to warrant consideration. Co-ring schemes may be unattractive because large quantities of low cost fuel may not be available.

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C

C29

2. Conclusions
Figure 3 suggests that for all the cases where ax pellets, torreed wood, wood pellets or wood chips are used to replace sub-bituminous or lignite coals in existing boilers, the avoided CO2 cost ranges from about $70 to $100/ tonne. These values are even lower when torreed material is used to replace bituminous coal. These avoided CO2 costs are competitive with expected carbon capture technologies and may have lower technical risks. Figure 8 shows that for plants with short economic lives biomass co-ring may be a very attractive option to comply with GHG emission reduction requirements compared to other capital intensive carbon capture options. Amortizing capital related to carbon capture over a short number of years will signicantly increase the cost to reduce GHG emissions. Figure 6 showed that power costs will increase with co-ring. Many carbon capture technologies are capital intensive and may not impact marginal costs signicantly. Biomass co-ring will increase marginal costs. For cases 3 and 4 they may increase marginal cost by $40 to 60/MWh. This cost increase may impact the dispatch order of the plant reducing its capacity factor. However, unlike many carbon capture options, the co-ring options studied are not expected to materially decrease the output of a plant. Table 16 suggests that for older plants with short economics lives it may be more economical to use large amounts of wood pellets or torreed material to meet GHG requirements than to implement carbon capture. This table also suggests that for these older plants they may have competitive average prices for power when red on large amounts wood pellets or torreed material. More work is required to show that torreed materials can be produced at high volumes with consistent quality and be red high percentages at coal plants.

Cases 1 and 6 rely on lower proportions of biomass ring. Figure 6 suggests that increasing the proportion of these materials to 60%, for these two cases, the amount of co-ring required to meet NGCC GHG intensities, will yield increases in power costs similar to the 60% cases. However, it may not be possible to re wood chips at more than 20%. The Nova Scotia Power study showed that large biomass chips with a distribution of within 3.4 mm wood chips co-red well with coal up to 15% co-ring. Co-ring of up to 40% in a CFBC was successful as well. However, conversion of a coal plant to a bubbling uidized bed, as shown in case 5, does not look like an attractive option. The biomass studied is expected to have an ultimate sulphur concentration of between .04 and .2 % by weight. This is lower the sulphur content of most of the coals studies. Co-ring could have the effect of also signicantly reducing sulphur emissions from coal plants. Therefore, co-ring should be compared to not only the cost of reducing GHG emissions but to the costs of reducing sulfure emissions as well. Biomass co-ring may have lower avoided CO2 costs than current carbon capture technologies. If there are logistical or operational limits on the amount of co-ring possible at a plant it could be employed along with carbon capture to meet GHG reductions requirements. Figures 5 and 6 suggest that given capital and O&M costs account for such a small proportion of the costs, that errors in these estimates will only have a minor impact on avoided CO2 costs. Since the cost of biomass fuel accounts for most of the cost of co-ring, more work is required to establish the cost and ability to supply a consistent quality biomass to specic plants before a decision is made to implement co-ring.

C30

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Appendix C