Technical Paper

Bubbling Fluidized Bed or Stoker

Which is the Right Choice for Your
Renewable Energy Project?

J.P. DeFusco, P.A. McKenzie and M.D. Fick

The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.

Presented to:
CIBO Fluid Bed Combustion XX Conference
May 21 - 23, 2007
Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A.

 The Babcock & Wilcox Company

BR-1802
Bubbling Fluidized Bed or Stoker Which is the
Right Choice for Your Renewable Energy Project?
J.P. DeFusco, P.A. McKenzie and M.D. Fick
The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.
Presented to:
CIBO Fluid Bed Combustion XX Conference
May 21 - 23, 2007
Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A.
Abstract
Current market conditions are providing multiple economic
and environmental drivers to promote the use of renewable
fuels including: A Federal renewable energy tax credit; State
mandated Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) programs;
Voluntary green up programs; Displacement of higher cost
fossil fuels; and Biomass based power as CO2 neutral.
A viable renewable fuel in many parts of the country is
wood-based biomass. There are many ways to drive useful en-
ergy out of biomass fuels. In regard to power production and or
combined heat and power applications, a proven method is to
convert the chemical energy in the biomass to thermal energy
via gasification or combustion. This energy is transferred to
a working fluid such as steam, which in turn drives a turbine
generator, and/or provides heat to an industrial process.
This paper will explore two different technologies available
to convert the energy in wood biomass to do useful work in
a power plant application. Both options involve the use of a
steam generator. The fuel in both cases is identical it is as-
sumed to be whole tree chips and primarily the low value attri-
butes of the tree, which would be the tree tops, trimmings and
bark. It is assumed that the high value section of the tree will
be further refined to make lumber, furniture, or other higher
quality, valued-added products, and not utilized for power
production. For the purpose of this analysis, we assumed a
constant fuel moisture content. Also, we did not consider any
non-biomass fuels such as tire derived fuel (TDF), coal, or
petcoke; the later two would normally drive the technology
toward Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB).
For outputs of between 15 and 100 MWe and the conditions
we have outlined, there are two conventional, commercially
available technologies that could be considered Bubbling
Fluidized Bed (BFB) technology and Stoker technology.
While the boiler systems and designs are similar, there are
distinct differences. This paper will explore the differences
BR-1802
between these technologies in the areas of technical features,
capital cost and Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs.
The results of this evaluation can be utilized to pick the ap-
propriate technology for a specific project, given the same or
similar design conditions.
Review of stoker technology
Stoker technology has been around for more than one
hundred years, and was the means by which most of the early
solid-fuel boilers were fired. These early generation boilers
were stoked by an operator or fireman shoveling fuel in by
hand. Ash was later removed by manually raking the grate.
Modern stoker units for wood firing are normally me-
chanical rotating grates or water/air-cooled vibrating grates
depending on the fuel moisture content. Fuel is typically
introduced into the boiler through multiple fuel chutes. Air is
supplied under the grate as well as above via an overfire air
(OFA) system. Depending on the fuel moisture content, the
combustion air is pre-heated to 350 to 650F. The combustion
zone temperature is typically neither measured nor controlled
and can range from 2200 to over 3000F.
Due to high shaft velocities in the lower furnace and the
throwing of fuel onto the grate for proper distribution with
the stoker combustion process, a modern stoker unit will have
unburned fuel carried over and out of the furnace. This car-
ryover occurs by virtue of entrainment of unburned wood
particles in the flue gas moving up through the furnace shaft.
The unburned combustible loss leaving the boiler can be as
high as 4 to 6% on a fuel efficiency basis. If not recovered,
this unburned fuel results in efficiency losses, which increases
the required fuel consumption and equipment costs. In order
to recover what would have been a loss, stoker-fired boilers
typically include carbon re-injection systems that recycle the
carbon-rich boiler ash back into the furnace. Sand classifiers
are also typically required to separate out the high abrasive
silica content of the flyash before re-injection into the furnace.
These re-injection systems are high maintenance items and
have been shut down at many plants. A mechanical dust col-
lector is also typically installed to prevent any heavy particle
carryover from reaching the precipitator. Concerns over un-
burned carbon carryover, and the potential fire hazard that can
result, usually dictate that a precipitator be used for particulate
control in stoker applications. The precipitator is used instead
of a baghouse, due to concerns about hot carryover particles
possibly igniting the bags.
Review of fluid bed technology
The term fluidized bed is derived from the process that
takes place in the lower part of the boiler. The lower furnace
or bed of a BFB boiler is charged with an inert medium such
as sand, which is initially brought up to temperature by using
auxiliary fuel. Once at temperature, the auxiliary fuel is shut
off and biomass is introduced into the unit. The high pressure
air introduced under the bed fluidizes the sand/bed, i.e., it
takes on characteristics similar to a fluid. This is distinctly
different from a stoker because the bed creates a large mass
of hot material that is able to absorb fluctuations in fuel condi-
tions with little to no change in performance.
Another distinct difference is that the BFB bed temperature
is both measured and controlled to an optimum temperature of
approximately 1500F. Bed temperature is typically controlled
by staging (adding or removing) air to the bed, fuel feed
adjustments and/or the use of flue gas recirculation (FGR).
Maintaining a nearly constant bed temperature minimizes
boiler upset conditions due to fuel variations (moisture, ash,
heating value, etc.) providing near steady-state conditions for
boiler performance and emissions.
The lower furnace combustion process is characterized by
operating in sub-stoichiometric condition, i.e., at significantly
less than the total air needed to complete combustion. It is
not unusual to operate at 35% of theoretical air. This has the
effect of gasifying the fuel. The gasified fuel is then fully Post-combustion emissions considerations
combusted with overfire air introduced above the bed.
This process is sometimes described as close-coupled gas-
ification, because the gasification process and heat transfer
apparatus are close coupled to each other. This differs from a
synthetic gas process where the gas product may be fired in
an engine or gas turbine located downstream from the gasifier.
Close-coupled gasification is more common in biomass ap-
plications due to the high volatile matter content of biomass
fuels and problems associated with the tar byproducts.
Like the stoker, fuel is typically introduced into the BFB
through fuel chutes on one or more of the walls. Because less
under-bed air is used compared to a stoker, velocities in the
bed are lower. Mechanical attrition of the fuel due to the bed
fluidization, coupled with the lower bed velocities, minimizes
the potential for any significant large-particle unburned car-
ryover from the BFB. The unburned combustible loss leaving
 The Babcock & Wilcox Company
the boiler is less than 1% on a fuel efficiency basis. Because
there is little to no carryover, BFB systems do not usually
have carbon re-injection systems since there are no cinders
to capture and re-inject. This also eliminates the need for
mechanical dust collectors (MDC) downstream of the boiler.
Without the concern for large particle carryover from a BFB,
a baghouse is the technology of choice for particulate removal
as compared to a precipitator for the stoker application.
Uncontrolled emissions
Due to the improved combustion process previously de-
scribed for a BFB, the uncontrolled (upstream of any post
combustion air quality control systems) NOx, CO and VOC
emissions for a BFB are typically 10 to 25% less for a given
biomass fuel than for a stoker. The BFB emissions are also
less susceptible to variations in fuel properties that are inherent
with any biomass plant. Under normal steady state operating
conditions, both the BFB and stoker can be operated reliably
within permitted emission limits. However, normal day-to-
day operations in a typical plant are anything but steady state.
Fuel variability is a fact of life, even when a conscious effort
is made in the fuel yard to keep the fuel homogeneous. The
large mass of bed material in the BFB creates a flywheel ef-
fect, which is better suited to minimize spikes in emissions
due to any changes in fuel characteristics. Conversely, the
relatively low fuel inventory on a grate will typically be much
more susceptible to an upset and potential emissions spikes,
under changing fuel conditions.
The fuel ash distribution is different between a BFB and
a stoker. The typical distribution in a stoker is approximately
35% bottom ash / 65% flyash; in a BFB almost all the fuel
ash becomes flyash. This shift does not usually affect the
size of the particulate control devices since that equipment
is typically sized based upon flue gas flow, but should still
be a consideration for the particulate control system and its
associated ash handling system.
Regulatory agencies continue to push the envelope regard-
ing emissions. Currently, best available control technology
(BACT) for post-combustion NOx control would normally
be considered Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR)
for biomass fuels. The SNCR process involves injecting am-
monia in a 1600 to 1900F temperature window in the furnace
to react with the NOx to produce water vapor and nitrogen.
Today, there are increasingly more stringent requirements
for NOx, SO2 and air toxins, even on projects firing clean
wood fuels.
Higher NOx reduction along with a lower ammonia slip
can be achieved with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
as compared to SNCR. The SCR process involves injecting
ammonia in a 600 to 750F temperature window upstream
of a catalyst surface to react with the NOx to produce water
vapor and nitrogen. The SCR process achieves higher NOx
reduction rates along with lower ammonia consumption and
slip values, as compared to an SNCR. While there is limited
SCR experience in this country on wood-fired boilers, there
is a growing experience base in Europe. The SCR catalyst
manufacturers remain concerned about exposing catalyst to
unburned carbon carryover coming from a typical stoker unit.
Conversely, the growing experience in Europe supports the
use of a conventional SCR located behind a BFB when burn-
ing clean wood that will result in a catalyst life that would be
acceptable to most operating companies.
As previously discussed, the particulate matter (PM10)
leaving the stack is controlled by either a baghouse for a
BFB or an MDC and electrostatic precipitator for the stoker.
Another benefit of the BFB, which utilizes a baghouse in lieu
of a precipitator, includes the additional removal of SO2 and
other acid gases such as HCl from the flue gas. The bags of
the baghouse serve as a good gas-to-solids contact device.
Alkalis inherent to the wood ash contribute as a reagent to
provide reduction of SO2 and HCl emissions.
System design and layout
B&W recently engineered a 400,000 lb/hr steam capacity
boiler island configured as both a BFB and as a water-cooled
vibrating grate. The boiler design basis was identical. The
project terminal points were consistent between the two tech-
nologies and the scope differences resided in the description
outlined below.
In general, equipment sizing and layout are comparable
between a steam generator configured with a BFB combustor
and that with a water-cooled vibrating grate. Flow schematics
of the BFB and stoker configurations considered are depicted
in Figures 1 and 2 respectively.
Fig. 1 Flow schematic for a bubbling fluidized-bed boiler configuration.
The Babcock & Wilcox Company
For the size considered in this paper, furnace dimensions
were approximately the same. For larger steam capacity units
configured with stoker combustors, the furnace plan area is
dictated by the ability to adequately distribute the fuel on the
grate. Typically the fuel delivery is arranged on the front wall
and is thrown towards the rear of the unit. With air-swept
spouts the practical throw distance is limited to approximately
26 ft and larger furnace configurations must be achieved by the
less economical approach of widening the furnace. BFBs, on
the other hand, have the ability of adding fuel from any wall
as well as multiple wall feed configurations. This flexibility
allows BFBs to maintain an economical furnace aspect ratio
through a very large capacity range.
The boilers have similarly configured convection passes
and back-end heat traps. The superheater and generating banks
are arranged similarly and have approximately the same heat
transfer surface. Due to higher combustion air temperature re-
quirements the stoker arrangement has more tubular air heater
surface. Consequently, the BFB is arranged with a larger
economizer. In general, convection pass surface is designed
for lower flue gas velocities in the BFB. Tubular air heaters
on the BFB are designed for gas-over-tube construction.
Auxiliary equipment including fuel feed, feedwater, desu-
perheat, boiler cleaning, boiler trim, flyash removal, and stack
are basically the same for both configurations.
The BFB requires auxiliary fuel to attain solid fuel ignition
temperature. This is accomplished by firing either fuel oil or
natural gas in dedicated start-up burners. The stoker, while not
always practical, can be started from a cold condition without
the use of auxiliary fuel.
Most BFBs are equipped with a dedicated sand addition
and reclaim system. Proper bed inventory and sizing are main-

Fig. 2 Flow schematic for a stoker-fired boiler configuration.
tained via the bed sand drain system. Stokers are equipped
with bottom ash systems to collect the unburned and tramp
material from the grate.
Capital cost comparison
For the 400,000 lb/hr capacity boiler island, within the
accuracy level of our budget estimate, we found the capital
cost of the two systems to be essentially the same, with the
BFB system being slightly less than the stoker system. The
project terminal points were consistent between the two
configurations, and as such scope differences resided in the
combustion and auxiliary equipment as outlined above. While
the absolute costs can be subject to differences in the steel
market, labor, etc., the relative cost comparison for a snapshot
in time is insignificant.
Comments on operating cost differences
The BFB technology requires high pressure air in order
to fluidize the bed. This creates an additional parasitic load
burden on the forced draft fans when compared to the under-
grate air to the stoker. That being said, the flyash reinjection
system required for a stoker is an area of high maintenance as
well as an additional blower operating cost. Also, the stoker
convection pass, tubular air heater and mechanical dust col-
lector have higher gas-side pressure drop, which increases the
parasitic load required for the induced draft fan.
Due to the fuel mixing and controlled combustion process
inherent to the fluidized bed, on a day-in day-out basis, BFBs
tend to operate at lower excess air levels. This coupled with
lower loss on ignition (LOI) results in higher boiler efficiency,
correspondingly less fuel is consumed, and there are power
savings associated with the lower gas weights.
 The Babcock & Wilcox Company
In regard to the backend equipment, there is a significant
electrical usage associated with an electrostatic precipitator
(ESP) compared to a baghouse, though a baghouse normally
has more gas-side pressure drop.
Sand usage and make-up is a process stream unique to the
BFB. Bed drain rates, sand attrition and elutriation from the
bed are fuel dependent. The bed inventory initial charge and
make-up are typically commercially insignificant process
streams, but if sand usage becomes high there are man-
made substitutes which can decrease the make-up quantity
required.
When all these factors are combined, the electrical load to
the ESP and decreased fuel costs from higher boiler efficiency
can offset the higher fan power requirements of the BFB and
our analysis shows that the BFB has lower overall operating
cost than the stoker.
Conclusion
There may be compelling reasons beyond those noted
here for choosing one technology over another, but for the
design basis as specified in this paper, which amounts to a
typical woody-biomass fuel, we would conclude that weigh-
ing all factors including total capital cost of the boiler island,
total system O&M, and environmental concerns, Bubbling
Fluidized Bed Technology was evaluated as the preferred
technology. There certainly may be other situations such as
the case of a very dry fuel where a stoker unit may be prefer-
able, but for the above case, which is based upon a typical
woody-biomass fuel, BFB was evaluated as the preferred
technology choice.
 Copyright 2007 by The Babcock & Wilcox Company
All rights reserved.

No part of this work may be published, translated or reproduced in any form or by any means, or incorporated into any
information retrievalsystem, without the written permission of the copyright holder. Permission requests should be addressed
to: Market Communications, The Babcock & Wilcox Company, P.O. Box 351, Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A. 44203-0351.

Disclaimer
Although the information presented in this work is believed to be reliable, this work is published with the understanding
that The Babcock & Wilcox Company and the authors are supplying general information and are not attempting to render or
provide engineering or professional services. Neither The Babcock & Wilcox Company nor any of its employees make any
warranty, guarantee, or representation, whether expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or useful-
ness of any information, product, process or apparatus discussed in this work; and neither The Babcock & Wilcox Company
nor any of its employees shall be liable for any losses or damages with respect to or resulting from the use of, or the inability
to use, any information, product, process or apparatus discussed in this work.

The Babcock & Wilcox Company