Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
School of Business and Engineering Vaud, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, 1401 Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland 2 HEPIA, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, 1201 Geneva, Switzerland 3 Centre of Appropriate Technology and Social Ecology, Laboratories for Sustainable Energy Systems, Langenbruck, Switzerland 4 Corresponding author Ph: +41265577594, Fax:+41265577579, e-mail: jean-bernard.michel@heig-vd.ch
ABSTRACT
Torrefied wood pellets are produced from torrefied chips by thermo-chemical pre-treatment of biomass at 200-320C in the absence of oxygen during about 15-30 minutes. Overall, the torrefaction process efficiency has been reported to be 90-95% % as compared to 84% for pelletisation. Torrefaction improves the biomass: 30% higher calorific value and 50% higher energy density resulting in much lower handling and transport costs. The fuel becomes hydrophobic making long term outdoor storage possible. The purpose of this project was to compare the combustion and emission characteristics of torrefied vs. normal wood pellets. With no modification to the feeding and the burner parameters, the ignition and combustion characteristics of torrefied pellets are found very similar to those of normal pellets. Particulate emissions per energy output were found very close and directly related to the ash content in the feedstock. Using the Taguchi approach, it was possible to establish a model of the boiler performance as a function of the input parameters. Further testing confirmed the validity of the model showing optimum performance with a defined value of primary and secondary air flow rates which minimized particulate emissions for both the normal pellets and the torrefied pellets. Keywords: biomass, torrefaction, combustion, pellets, testing, Life-Cycle-Analysis, Life-Cycle-Impact N.B. In this paper, all figures of thermal energy content of the fuels are given on the Low Calorific Value (LCV) basis.
Torrefied wood pellets are an attractive fuel for co-combustion in coal-fired power stations (Maciejewska et al., 2006). Except for start-up, the process is autothermal (it generates its own energy due to mild pyrolysis reactions) and the energy of the off-gases, which represent about 10% of the input energy, is recovered. Overall, the process efficiency has been reported to be 90-95% % as compared to 84% for pelletisation in one given set of operating conditions (Uslu, 2008). The purpose of this R&D project is to compare the combustion and emission characteristics of torrefied wood pellets with those of normal wood pellets.
1.2
Approach
About 1 ton of torrefied pellets have been prepared by ECN on their 100 kg/h pilot facility, using poplar as the feedstock. Combustion tests have been carried-out on a 50 kW pellet boiler of the company Hoval with normal pellets and with torrefied pellets. Input and output measurements have been made during start-up
and during stabilized operation. Flue gas concentrations of O2, CO and NO were measured continuously. Total particulate emissions (TPM) were sampled using a disk filter following the proposed ISO/DIN 13336 standards. A scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) was used to determine the size distribution and the total number concentrations of particles. The analytical set-up is shown in the appendix. The design of experiment method from Taguchi was used to reduce the number of tests to a minimum while exploring the complete space of variables with a 9*4 test matrix.
Mass yield ~70% Energy yield ~90% 10% left is partly recovered LCV increase by ~ 30%
Figure 1 Simplified process description The work of Prins (2005) demonstrated that the mass yield during torrefaction is typically contains 70% while the energy yield is about 90% of the original energy content, that is 1 kg of chips (dry basis) will lose 30% weight and 10% of their initial energy content. Torrefaction gases are produced from the decomposition of hemicelluloses and are mainly composed of CO, CO2 and acetic acid. No moisture is left following torrefaction but the torrefied biomass may uptake 6% of moisture from the ambient air.
In 1985, Pechiney built a 10000 t/y production plant, to use torrefied wood instead of charcoal in electric furnaces (Peguret, 1986). This new type of fuel is very promising because it alleviates a lot of the disadvantages of normal biomass pellets: The volumetric energy density is 50% higher than with normal pellets resulting in the same reduction of handling and transport cost per energy output. Grinding energy is reduced by 90% and overall, the process efficiency has been reported to be 9094% as compared to 84% for pelletisation (Uslu et al., 2008). See Figure 2. Torrefied biomass is hydrophobic and therefore not subject to swelling and degradation allowing outdoor storage and in the long term. Its greater calorific value should be beneficial for combustion.
Energy
Drying
Grinding
Pelletisation
= 84 %
Raw chips, 57% moisture Energy content 100 (LCV base) = 90 94% Drying Energy
12 Figure 2 Process efficiency comparison. Normal pellets (top), torrefied pellets (bottom) after Uslu et al. (2008) Several large scale production plants are planned or in construction in Europe and elsewhere, for the cocombustion of torrefied wood in coal-fired power stations: Energy Center of the Netherlands, BO2 process (Kiel, J et al., 2008). They now work in association with Vattenfall. Atmosclear (Switzerland) large projects planned from 130 to 270 kt/y (Atmosclear web site) Integro Earth Fuels, Wyssmont process, USA, 84 kt/y Roxborrow, NC (Integro Earth Fuels web site) Topell, NL , Polow Torbed reactor technology, planned 60 ktons/y in Arnhem (NL) together with RWE (Maaskant, E, 2009) 4Energy Invest (B), 38 kt/y in Ambleve (B) and Stramproy (4Energy Invest web site)
Torrefaction
Grinding
Pelletisation
Essent trading (RWE) and Stramproy : 90 kt/y in Steenwijk (NL) (Essent trading web site)
A special session was devoted to torrefaction during the 18th biomass conference and exhibition (Lyon, France) where the status of some of these projects were presented. In Spain, the 500 kg/h pilot plant built by CENER was presented (Celaya et. al, 2010) However, there seems to be no project so far directly targeted to domestic heating and cogeneration.
4 COST ANALYSES
Several economic comparisons have shown the benefits of using of torrefied pellets instead of normal pellets. The table below provides a comparison of the cost of pellets for power generation with biomass from Canada and from South-Africa shipped to Europe. Hamelink (2005) reported that feedstock costs contribute around 2065% of the total delivery cost whereas pre-treatment and transport contribute 2025% and 2540%, respectively, depending on the location of the biomass resources. According to Uslu (2008) TOP pellets can be delivered at costs as low as 3.3 /GJ (73.5 /ton) with a biomass cost of 10 /ton as compared to 3.9 /GJ (66.3 /ton) for normal pellets. This is mainly due to higher energy density compared to conventional pellets, which lowers both the road and sea transport costs. This is also in agreement with the work of Peng et al. (2008) for pellets processed in South-Africa with the ECN process and transported to Europe. The comparison with pellets produced in Vancouver and processed in Europe after Herold, (2009) is presented in Table 1. Similarly Kiel (2007) reported delivery costs for sawdust pellets supplied to North-West Europe: 4.7 /GJ for torrefied and 5.9/GJ for normal pellets which confirms the economic advantage of torrefied pellets. Table 1 Pellet costs from various sources
Cost item
Source 1 (Peng, 2008) S-Africa B Europe Sawdust case 80 56 Torrefied pellets (ECN)
40
Pellets
23.6 70 62.6
11 41 54
15 45 42
Combustion tests were carried-out on a 50 kW pellet boiler of the company Hoval shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 - Schematic of the 50 kW Hoval Biolyt boiler and photograph of the sampling system A forced draught burner is used on this boiler (and not a grid or a drum), allowing a rather accurate control of primary and secondary combustion. A scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) was applied to determine the size distribution and the total number concentrations of particles in the range from 0.01-0.400 m. Exhaust gas is taken with a probe, which is also fed with particle free air. The resulting dilution factor is adjusted by the flow rate of the diluting air and the total flow. To prevent condensation of water onto the particle surface, the dilution factor is chosen high enough, to achieve a dew point below ambient temperature. (Wieser and Gaegauf, 2000). The design of experiment method from Taguchi was used to reduce the number of tests to a minimum while exploring the complete space of variables. A first test campaign was carried out in order to identify most relevant parameters and their levels. This resulted in a matrix of 4 variables and 3 levels as shown in Table 2 with a total of 9 test cases.
Table 2 Test case parameters Factors Pellet type Secondary air fan setting Primary air fan setting Feeding screw (65% = 100% load) Level 1 C1 (classical, swiss forest mix) 35% 35% 30% Level 2 T (torrefied) Poplar 45% 40% 50% Level 3 T (torrefied poplar) 60% 45% 65%
In the first and second test campaign the so-called classical pellets were commercial Swiss pellets and unfortunately not poplar for comparison with the ECN pellets. The third and last test campaign was carried out with poplar pellets made specifically for this purpose, referred to later as C2 pellets. Consequently, all the results were fitted with a model and the results are discussed in the next section.
5.2
The combustion behavior of the torrefied pellets was found very similar to that of the normal pellets: The warm-up period was slightly reduced The mass flow of the torrefied pellets had to be reduced by about 10% to achieve the same energy input The optimum settings of primary & secondary air flows in terms of emissions were identical
Measured Model
Measured Model
Measured Model
Figure 4 Raw test results and comparison with the model data The raw results obtained with the various test campaigns are displayed in Figure 4. The points referred to as model are the calculated values from a curve fitting model (using a second order polynomial). This approach is necessary to show the separate influence of the various parameters, which otherwise is not possible with the raw results. A second measurement campaign was carried out, with the objective of finding the best air settings in terms of CO and particulate emissions. Surprisingly, the optimum settings were the same for C and T pellets with the following values: Primary air : 45% ; Secondary air : 55%.
NO=f(P)
120 mg/Nmat13%O2 118 116 114 112 110 20.0 30.0 40.0 Pin kW
C2
CO=f(P)
mg/Nmat13%O2 1500 1000 500 0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Pin kW
C2
50.0
60.0
50.0
60.0
Figure 5 Comparison of the emission characteristics (interpolated model data) The comparison of the flue-gas emissions of torrefied (T) and classical (C1 & C2) pellets is given in
NO=f(P)
120 mg/Nmat13%O2 118 116 114 112 110 20.0 30.0 40.0 Pin kW
C2
CO=f(P)
mg/Nmat13%O2 1500 1000 500 0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Pin kW
C2
50.0
60.0
50.0
60.0
Figure 5 with these settings. It shows that torrefied pellets can potentially produce less CO than classical pellets and at the same time make it possible to reduce the excess air, thereby increasing the thermal efficiency. Particulate emissions were found to depend strongly on the fuel ash content. In this case, the so-called C2 pellets are from poplar with a higher ash content than the poplar used for torrefied pellets which explains their higher particulate emissions. The particulate size distributions were also very similar. NOx emissions are found to be similar in this case, but one could expect lower NOx emissions depending on the amount of fuel nitrogen that has been released during torrefaction.
5.3
The comparison of impacts of the two biomass fuels was performed using the Impact 2002+ life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method. The functional unit was the MJ of heat produced by the boiler. Results are summarized in the following table showing an overall gain of 50% mainly due to the improvement of the overall process efficiency.
Unit [DALY] (Disability Adjusted Life Years [year] [PDF] (Potentially species) Damage Fraction of
efficiency compared to the existing plant by 45%. In the same time, the output of valuable products, such as gas, power, and storable, dense pellet-fuel increase by over 50% from 50 to 76.6 /t of wet plant input. This could be achieved using four innovative technologies. Autothermal torrefaction of the biowastes by firing the reactor with the off-gas of the torrefaction itself. The externally fired gas turbine, additionally increasing in its cycle efficiency: o o by after-firing it with biogas from the anaerobic digestion process (Kompogas-Plant) and using fogging to increase the efficiency of the turbocompressor.
Low temperature Combined Cycle by heat recovery to generate power using ORC-Technology.
A full RENEC (20000 t/a) represents polygeneration of heat, power, SNG and pellet fuel from one site from regional green wastes, collected from a region of approximately 80000 persons (38000 households) supplying power for 1500 households (if they are not equipped with an electric water boiler), pellet fuel for 1000 households and SNG to run 1500 cars. Meaning, RENEC could contribute to up to 3.5% of the energy supply of the region built into.
Fermenter Heating 65 kWth Offgas recirculation 8%
1280 kW th x 8000 h/a
3 BG 160 m /t, 50% CH 4 = 400 kW
Green-Matter
8000 t/a 30% TS Screening
Kompogas Fermenter
132 kW e Strom
Kompost
Wood
3250 t/a, 40% DM Hu = 1.83 kWh/kg 730 kW
Wood
1750 t/a, 40% DM Hu = 1.83 kWh/kg 400 kW EFGT Wood-CHP e = 22% tot = 86%
50 kWth Biogas
Foging
82% Efficiency
Sketch for Kompogas AG from CATSE (kozentrum Langenbruck), 9.9.2008 /ms
Waste Heat (radiation to heat the fac.) 60 kWth Rekuperated Band Dryer 275 kWth @ 70C ORC heat CHP e = 16% tot = 95% Waste Heat (radiation) 10 kWth Thermo-Oil Boiler tot = 62%
265 kWe Power 530000 CHF/a @25 Rp./kWh =105 CHF/t 200kWth @ 170C
33 kWe Strom
KOMPOGAS
1250 t/a, dry, stable pellet fuel 835 kWth, 440000 CHF/a = 135 CHF/t
Figure 6 - RENEC I as it should look after the project. All installations mentioned above the dashed line are the existing 8000 t/a Kompogas-plant (SOTA) near Zurich. 10
REFERENCE LIST
4Energy Invest web site: www.4energyinvest.com (accessed 22.03.10) Airless systems web-site http://www.airless-systems.co.uk/ Annales des Mines, Troisime Srie, Tome XII, 1857. Recueil de mmoires sur lexploitation des mines et sur les sciences et les arts qui sy rapportent, chez Cardillan-Goery diteur libraire. Paris 1857. Available at http://books.google.com Atmosclear web site: www.atmosclear.com (accessed 22.03.10) Available at www.ieabcc.nl/meetings/task32_Hamburg2009/cofiring/03%20Topell%20revised.pdf (accessed 22.03.10) Celaya J, Goin, I Gil, J, Etcheveria I, 2010 - New Pilot Plant for Biomass Torrefaction. 18th biomass conference and exhibition. 3-7 May 2010, Lyon, France ECN web site: www.ecn.nl (accessed 22.03.10) Essent trading web site: www.essent.eu (accessed 22.03.10) Hamelinck CN, Suurs RAA, Faaij APC. 2005. Techno-economic analysis of international bioenergy trade chains. Biomass Bioenergy. 2005;29(2):11434. Herold, I. 2009. Biomass and Waste to Energy: Trends in Investment in the EU. Biomass Industry Day. Hamburg, July 1st 2009. Integro Earth Fuels web site: www.integrofuels.com (accessed 22.03.10) Kiel, J et al., 2008 - BO2-technology for biomass upgrading into solid fuel pilot-scale testing and market implementation. 16th European Biomass Conference & Exhibition. 2-6 June 2008, Valencia, Spain Kiel, J., 2007- Torrefaction for biomass upgrading into commodity fuels, IEA Bioenergy Task 32 workshop, Fuel storage, handling and preparation and system analysis for biomass combustion technologies, Berlin, 7 May 2007 Maaskant, E, 2009. Topell on torrefaction. IEA Bioenergy Task 32, New Biomass Co-firing Concepts. Hamburg, 30th June 2009. Maciejewska A. et al. 2006. Co-firing of biomass with coal: constraints and role of biomass pretreatment. European commission report, DG JRC, Institute for Energy, EUR 22461 EN, 2006, ISBN 92-79-02989-4 Peguret A. 1986. Le bois torrfi: cots et position par rapport aux autres combustibles. Rapport AFME 85-91-1001, 1986 N INIST 10128404 Peng J, S Sokhansanj, X Bi, CJ Lim and S Melin, 2008. A Study of Torrefaction for the Production of High Quality Wood Pellets. CSBE 50th Annual Conference. North Vancouver, B.C., Canada, July 13-16, 2008. Prins M.J. 2005. Thermodynamic analysis of biomass gasification and torrefaction. Ph.D. Eindhoven Technical University, The Netherlands. Topell web site: www.topell.nl (accessed 22.03.10) Uslu A., Faaij A.P.C., Bergman P.C.A. 2008. Pre-treatment technologies, and their effect on international bioenergy supply chain logistics. Techno-economic evaluation of torrefaction, fast pyrolysis and pelletisation. Energy, Volume 33, Issue 8, August 2008, Pages 1206-1223 Schmid M., Gaegauf C. , Sattler M. , Dezentrale Stromerzeugung mit Feststoffbiomasse, Langenbruck, 2007, available at www.powerchips.gi/press/070119_SB_Investors_Knowledge_Solid_Fuel_CHP_page28&53.pdf 11
Wieser U. and Gaegauf C.K., 2000 - Nanoparticle emissions of wood combustion processes.1st World Conference and Exhibition on Biomass for Energy and Industry, June 2000 Available at www.oekozentrum.ch/files/nanoparticles.pdf (accessed 22.03.2010)
12