WOOD-FIRED COMBUSTION PLANTS

D. McIlveen-Wright, P.E. Sloan, B.C. Williams and J.T. McMullan Centre for Energy Research, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Co. Londonderry, BT52 1SA, UK.

ABSTRACT

The use of wood as a fuel for electricity generation can reduce emissions to the atmosphere. Combustion systems have lower efficiency than A range of wood

gasification plants, but have lower capital costs.

combustion plants, from 10 to 10,000 dry tonnes/day, is investigated using the ECLIPSE process simulation package. Various factors were

investigated to test their influence on the efficiency and the economics of the systems. The steam cycle conditions and the wood moisture content had the biggest effects on the system efficiencies, and the Discounted Cash Flow Rate and the Afforestation Level had the largest influences on the economics. Plants using more than 500 dry tonnes/day were found to be economically viable, and those using more than 1,000 dry tonnes wood/day were found to be competitive with conventional coal-fired plant.

Wood offers advantages over fossil fuels with regards to emissions. The sulphur content of wood is minimal, so SOx emissions are negligible. Similarly, there is little nitrogen in wood, so if combustion temperatures are controlled to avoid oxidation of nitrogen from the air, NOx emissions will also be low. Wood can also be grown sustainably, whereby the wood taken from a plantation and used in a combustion plant can be replaced over a short timescale. This implies that an equivalent amount of CO2 to that produced in combustion will be taken up during the growth of the replacement wood, and that wood can be considered neutral with regard to CO2 emissions. In fact, if wood-fired plants replace fossil fuel plants, a reduction in emissions may be considered to occur, as well as a saving in the non-renewable fossil fuel resource. Recently a lot of interest has been shown in the gasification of wood and its use in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) systems, which are inherently more efficient than the more straight-forward Combustion plants. There are, however, drawbacks1. The gas turbines may have to

be adapted for the use of low calorific value gas by increasing the expander throughput. The gasifier would have to be large and

pressurised. Capital costs for wood-fired IGCC systems would be high for these reasons, and may mean that the electricity produced would be no cheaper than that produced by the less efficient, combustion plants, which cost less to build. For these reasons it may prove rewarding to reexamine the case for using wood-fired combustion plants. The ECLIPSE package of process simulation programmes for the PC was used to make techno-economic assessments of these wood combustion systems.

In this paper various factors influencing the suitability of wood combustion

for power production are examined, i.e. :1) Any economies of scale i.e. increase in efficiency or other gain for larger plant size, - the steam cycle conditions. 2) The level of forestation required to achieve the desired wood input levels, - the annual yield of the trees used, - the availability of feedstock, - the transportation effect on feedstock costs. 3) The moisture content of the wood. 4) The influence of the "assumed values" of certain elements in the assessment e.g. the moisture content of the wood is assumed to be 100% (dry basis) and the Discounted Cash Flow rate to be 10%.

Willow from a nearby coppice plantation is harvested, chipped and transported to the power station. It is stored in piles of chips in the open, in sufficient quantities for 5 - 14 days throughput. This wood, which has a moisture content of approximately 100% (on a dry basis), is taken from storage, screened and then transferred pneumatically to buffer storage ready for use in the circulating fluidised bed combustor. Approximately 15% excess air is used in the combustor to ensure complete combustion. The conditions used in the simulation for the

steam turbines are those of commercially available turbines for the anticipated power output. These steam conditions are generally

determined by the type and size of boiler used 2. In only the two largest

power stations, using 5,000 and 10,000 dry tonnes of wood /day (DTE/day), was steam reheating included, together with multiple stage feed water preheating. In all of the other power stations a single low The superheated steam inlet

pressure feed water heater was used.

conditions at the high pressure steam turbine for the different processes are as shown in Table 1.

The technical results are summarised in Table 2. Whilst power generation from wood is perceived as being neutral with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, this table gives the level of gaseous emissions which would be emitted from the power station stack. The capital cost estimates are

study estimates, with an accuracy of 30%. A summary of the economic data is given in Table 3.

The data in Tables 2 and 3 show quite clearly the effect of economy of scale and of steam cycle conditions on the technical and economic performance of a wood-fired power generation plant. The efficiency of the smaller power stations is adversely affected by the intrinsically lower efficiency of the steam cycle and by the high base load penalty. The

magnitude of the base load penalty can be demonstrated for the 10 tonnes/day plant by using the same steam cycle as was selected for the 1000 tonnes/day plant. The efficiency of the 10 tonnes/day plant

increases from 17.5% to 23.4% compared with 25.4% for the 1000

tonnes/day plant. Similarly, the efficiency of the 5,000 tonnes/day plant falls from 31.1% to 25.5% when its steam conditions are changed to those of the 1,000 tonnes/day plant. There is no change in efficiency in going from the 500 tonnes/day plant to 2,000 tonnes/day for the same steam conditions, or from 5,000 tonnes/day to 10,000 tonnes/day with the same steam conditions. It is clear that the steam cycle conditions, rather than the plant size, have the major influence on the overall efficiency of the power plant for all but the smallest sizes. Overall Efficiency v. Plant Size is plotted in Fig. 1. Likewise the capital costs of the smaller power stations are relatively much higher. It is not until the wood feed rate approaches

5,000 tonnes/day that the technical and economic performance figures come close to those for a conventional fossil fuel fired power station.

Wood, especially wet wood, has too low an intrinsic value to justify transport over long distances. Therefore an important consideration, as well as efficiency and cost, is the availability of the wood feed-stock. Assuming a yield of 10 dry tonnes/ha/year for a power plant situated in the centre of the plantation, forest areas, forest radii, average

transportation distances and transportation costs have been estimated for 100%, 20%, 10% and 5% afforestation (see Table 4).

Wood feedstock costs can be calculated for the average transportation distances required for the various plant sizes using a standard fixed cost for harvesting and chipping plus 0.31/tonne/km for transportation3. These feedstock costs are then used with the other economic data to calculate the dependence of Break-Even Electricity Selling Price (BEESP)

on transportation, as displayed in Table 5. From Tables 5 it can also be seen that the break-even electricity selling price for the 1,000 DTE/day 100% forestation case and the 10,000 DTE/day 20% forestation cases differ by less than 5%, and that comparing the 5% forestation case of the 10,000 DTE/day process with the 100% forestation case of the 500 DTE/day plant shows that the economies of scale achieved by building the larger power station have been cancelled out by the increased transport cost for the wood fuel.

For the 10 and 100 dry tonnes of wood per day processes the feedstock is relatively easy to obtain and transportation costs are low. For the 10,000 dry tonnes/day plant, 400,000 hectares of forest is required. A single forest of this size gives the minimum feedstock cost, but it is not a practical proposition for Western Europe. With 20%

forestation which would seem to be more realistic for Europe, an area two thirds the size of Belgium is required to supply the wood for one power plant. At this level of forestation the 1,000 dry tonnes per day process is only marginally less attractive.

A series of simulations were made for a 500 DTE/day wood combustion plant, with wood of a different moisture content being used on each occasion. The amount of heat transferred from the combustion of the

wood to the steam cycle depends on the moisture content of the wood feedstock, as energy must be used to drive off the moisture in the drying and heating stage of combustion and raise it to the outlet temperature of the combustor. Radiant energy from the flames during combustion is transferred to boiler tubes lining the combustor walls and is used to vaporise water coming from the steam drum. The volume of wood

increases with moisture content, requiring larger, more expensive equipment and also increasing transportation costs. The moisture content of the wood feedstock has a significant effect. The higher the moisture content, the lower the efficiency of the combustion process (see Fig. 2). In Fig. 3 it can be seen that the BEESP falls with decreasing moisture content, and that BEESP could be reduced by up to 20% by using wood feedstock of 15% MCD instead of 100% MCD.

Summary of Results The 10 DTE/day and 100 DTE/day direct wood combustion processes to generate electricity are not attractive as can be seen from their BEESP values in Table 5. In Fig. 4 some BEESP values, chosen at the most

appropriate forestation level for each plant size, are shown as system "A". (For the 100 and 500 DTE/day plant size the BEESPs for the 100% forestation level are shown; for the 1,000 and 2,000 DTE/day plant the 20% forestation BEESP values; and for the 5,000 and 10,000 DTE/day plant the 5% BEESPs are taken). This curve has a broad minimum, extending from around 1,000 to 3,000 DTE/day, with the BEESP falling below 4.6 p/kWh in this range.

The 500, 1,000 and 2,000 DTE/day direct wood combustion process give reasonable performance and costs. This is probably the most appropriate scale of process which could be justified, both by the economics and the feedstock availability, for power generation by combustion in Europe.

Until this point certain assumptions have been made in making the assessments of the various wood-fired electricity generation systems. Some of these are: The moisture content of the wood is 100% (dry basis). An "appropriate" level of afforestation was used for different plant sizes i.e. for plants using large amounts of wood it is unlikely that one plantation in an area could support them, whereas a single forest could support a smaller plant. Yields from the SRF coppice plantations were taken to be 10 dry tonnes/ha/year. The Discounted Cash Flow Rate was taken as 10% in the comparisons. Contingency was also taken as 10%.

In this section the effect of changing these assumed values to other, perhaps equally-valid, values is investigated.

It may be more appropriate to assume that the incentives to plant SRF coppice on non-rotational set-aside land would influence the afforestation levels. For set-aside at 18%, and assuming that about 10% of the

plantation area would be required for "rides" used by harvesting and

planting machinery, then an afforestation level of 15% for all plant sizes may be valid. For the smaller systems, afforestation decreasing from

100% to 15% increases the transportation costs, whereas the reverse is true for the larger systems, where afforestation rises from 5% to 15%. This can be seen in system "B" in Fig. 4, with the BEESP values falling (when compared to system A) for the larger systems and increasing for the smaller.

A yield of 15 dry tonnes/ha/year replaces the value of 10, which may be considered conservative, since yields of 12 - 20 dry tonnes/ha/year have been widely reported. This causes the necessary forest sizes to be These changes are

smaller and the transportation costs to decrease. shown as system "C" in Fig. 4.

However, the fall in BEESP due to this

(large) change in yield is relatively small.

A DCF of 7.5%, rather than 10%, may be more appropriate at certain times. System "D" shows the use of DCF equal to 7.5%. A significant

improvement over system "C" can be observed.

The Contingency was changed from 10% to 5%.

This is shown as system

"E" in Fig. 4. There is very little change from the values in system "D". The changes that have been made so far only affect the economic side of the systems and their simulations. The next possibility is to change the moisture content. As has been shown earlier, the moisture content of the wood affects the efficiency of the system, as well as the economics.

Moisture Contents as low as 25% can be found, even in the United Kingdom, when the wood is stored as rods in the open air before chipping. However, it is more likely that a higher value would be obtained on most occasions. For this reason an intermediate value of 55% (dry basis) is

taken as an alternative value. In Fig. 5, system "A" is the same BEESP distribution as in Fig. 4, and system "B" shows it for the new moisture content value of 55%. A

significant change is apparent on reducing the moisture content of the wood fuel.

The sequence of economic changes which had been made for the plants using 100% Moisture Content feedstock were repeated for the lower MC systems. In Fig. 5, system "C" refers to the change to 15% afforestation levels; system "D" to the change in Yield to 15 dry tonnes/ha/year; system "E" to the change in Discounted Cash Flow rate to 7.5%; system "E" to the change in Contingency from 10% to 5%. The effects of these economic changes are similar to those seen previously with the systems using 100% MC wood.

The minimum in the system "A" curve is narrower than that of the system "F" curve, and occurs at lower plant sizes. On comparing systems "A" and "F" it can also be seen that, with the "new" versions of the assumed values used in system "F", Wood Combustion can be considered viable for all power plant above 500 dry tonnes/day. In fact, above 1,000 dry

tonnes/day these systems are competitive with fossil fuel-fired plants. BEESP fell by 18.5% for the 100 dry tonnes/day plant and 39.7% for the 10,000 dry tonnes/day plant when the "assumed values" are changed

from their initial values to the final values.

The simulations were also made for similar systems, which also used some low pressure steam to dry the wood to 15% MC D prior to combustion. For reasons of brevity they are not shown here 4. It can be shown that, except for the smallest one, all plant having a drying stage are more efficient than those without, and that the efficiency gain increases with plant size. However, specific investment is lower for plant not having a drying stage. For plant size up to 500 DTE/day, the BEESP is lower for the plant without the drying stage. As the plant size increases, the efficiency gain tends to compensate for the capital expenditure on the drying stage, and the difference in BEESP for the wet and dried wood plant becomes insignificant and fall within the margin of error of the economic analysis.

Plant Size (Wood Input) DTE /day 10 100 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000

Superheated Steam Conditions Pressure (bar) 23 60 80 80 80 160 160 Temperature (oC) 350 480 520 520 520 538 538 Reheat None None None None None Yes, to 538oC Yes, to 538oC

Plant Size (DTE/day) Heat Input ( MW, LHV) Gross Electrical Output (MW)

10 2.0 0.43

100 20.1 5.3

500 100.5 28.1

1000 201.1 56.2

2000 402.1 112.3

5000 1005.3 338.6

10000 2010.6 676.5

ANCILLARY ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION Receipt/Storage/Dryer/Solids Removal (MW) Fans/Compressors (MW) Condensate Pumps (MW) Cooling Water (MW) Total Ancillary (MW) 0.04 0.03 0.0 0.01 0.08 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.5 1.3 0.4 0.4 2.6 0.8 2.6 0.8 0.8 5.0 1.4 5.2 1.6 1.6 9.8 3.3 11.3 7.5 3.7 25.8 5.9 22.5 15.2 7.4 51.0

OVERALL RESULTS Net Electricity (MW) Overall Efficiency (%) 0.35 17.5 4.7 23.1 25.5 25.4 51.2 25.4 102.5 25.5 312.8 31.1 625.5 31.1

GASEOUS EMISSIONS CO2 (g CO2/kWh) SO2 (g SO2/kWh) NOx (g NOx/kWh) 2190 0 3.1 1650 0 2.6 1500 0 2.4 1500 0 2.4 1490 0 2.4 1220 0 2.0 1220 0 2.0

Power Station Size (DTE/day) Wood Reception /Storage CFBC and Steam Generator Steam Turbines Condenser/Condensate System Utilities Systems Miscellaneous Items Total Capital Cost Specific Investment (/kW)

10 0.3 0.8 1.1 0.1 0 0 2.3 6,680

100 1.4 3.7 2.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 8.6 1,850

500 4.7 13.3 9.0 1.1 0.6 0.3 29.0 1,130

1,000 7.6 22.9 10.5 1.9 1.3 0.6 44.8 880

2,000 18.5 42.3 13.5 3.3 2.4 1.3 81.3 790

5,000 35.1 106.8 55.5 14.5 5.4 4.0 221.3 710

10,000 57.1 224.2 111.0 27.9 10.7 7.0 437.9 700

The cost unit is M (UK, 1992), except where stipulated otherwise.

1 DTE/day Catchmen t Area (1000's ha) Minimum Case 100% Forest Average Case 20% Forest 10% Forest Maximum Case 5% Forest 0.0365 0.1825 0.365 0.73 Forest Radius (km) Average Transport Distance (km) Catchmen t Area (1000's ha) 0.365 1.825 3.65 7.3

10 DTE/day Forest Radius (km) Average Transport Distance (km)

100 DTE/day Catchment Area (1000's ha) Forest Radius (km) Average Transport Distance (km) Catchment Area (1000's ha)

500 DTE/day Forest Radius (km) Average Transport Distance (km)

0.34 0.76 1.08 1.5

0.24 0.54 0.76 1.1

1.1 2.4 3.4 4.8

0.78 1.7 2.4 3.4

3.65 18.25 36.5 73

3.4 7.6 10.8 15.2

2.4 5.4 7.6 10.8

18.25 91.25 182.5 365

7.6 17.0 24.1 34.1

5.4 12.1 17.0 24.1

1,000 DTE/day Catchmen t Area (1000's ha) Minimum Case 100% Forest Average Case 20% Forest 10% Forest Maximum Case 5% Forest 36.5 182.5 365 730 Forest Radius (km) Average Transport Distance (km)

2,000 DTE/day Catchmen t Area (1000's ha) 73 365 730 1,460 Forest Radius (km) Average Transport Distance (km)

5,000 DTE/day Catchment Area (1000's ha) Forest Radius (km) Average Transport Distance (km)

10,000 DTE/day Catchment Area (1000's ha) Forest Radius (km) Average Transport Distance (km)

10.8 24.1 34.1 48.2

7.6 17.0 24.1 34.1

15.2 34.1 48.2 68.2

10.8 24.1 34.1 48.2

182.5 912.5 1,825 3,650

24.1 53.9 76.2 107.8

17.0 38.1 53.9 76.2

365 1,825 3,650 7,300

34.1 76.2 107.8 152.4

24.1 53.9 76.2 107.8

Plant Input Afforestation (%) Average Transport Distance (km) Transport Cost (/dry tonne) 100 0.24 0.07

1 DTE/day 20 0.54 0.17 10 0.76 0.24 5 1.1 0.34 100 0.76 0.24

10 DTE/day 20 1.7 0.53 10 2.4 0.74 5 3.4 1.05 100 2.4 0.7 4

100 DTE/day 20 5.4 1.67 10 7.6 2.34 5 10.8 3.35 100 5.4 1.6 7

500 DTE/day 20 12. 1 3.7 5 10 17.0 5.27 5 24.1 7.47

Total Feed-stock Cost (/dry tonne) Break-even Electricity Selling Price (p/kwh) Plant Input Afforestation (%) Average Transport Distance (km) Transport Cost (/dry tonne)

19.9 N/A

20.0 N/A

20.0 N/A

20.1 N/A

20.0 21.70

20.3 21.7 3

20.5 21.7 6

20.9 21.80

20. 5 7.2 0

21.5 7.29

22.1 7.35

23.2 7.45

21. 5 5.0 6

23. 6 5.2 3

25.1 5.35

27.3 5.53

1,000 DTE/day 100 7.6 2.34 20 17.0 5.27 10 24.1 7.47 5 34.1 10.6 100 10.8 3.35

2,000 DTE/day 20 24.1 7.47 10 34.1 10.5 7 5 48.2 14.9 4 100 17. 0 5.2 7

5,000 DTE/day 20 38.1 11.8 1 10 53.9 16.7 1 5 76.2 22.9 0 100 24. 1 7.5

10,000 DTE/day 20 53.9 16.7 10 76.2 22.9 5 107.8 34.7

Total Feed-stock Cost (/dry tonne) Break-even Electricity Selling Price (p/kwh)

22.1 4.35

25.1 4.60

27.3 4.78

30.4 5.04

23.2 4.20

27.3 4.54

30.4 4.79

34.7 5.15

25. 1 3.7 4

31.6 4.17

36.5 4.50

42.7 4.92

27. 3 3.8 6

36.5 4.48

42.7 4.90

54.5 5.69

Wood Moisture Content, MCD (%) Gross Electrical Output (MW) (MW) Heat Input (MW, LHV)

15 33.5 100.5

25 32.9 100.5

45 31.7 100.5

65 30.4 100.5

80 29.5 100.5

100 28.2 100.5

ANCILLARY ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION Solids Handling (MW) Fans/Compressors (MW) Condensate Pumps (MW) Cooling Water (MW) Total Ancillary (MW) 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.5 2.7 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.5 2.7 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.5 2.7 0.5 1.3 0.4 0.5 2.6 0.5 1.3 0.4 0.4 2.6 0.5 1.3 0.4 0.4 2.6

OVERALL RESULTS Net Electricity Output (MW) Overall Efficiency (%) 30.8 30.7 30.2 30.1 29.0 28.8 27.8 27.6 26.9 26.7 25.6 25.5

GASEOUS EMISSIONS CO2 (g/kWh) SO2 (g/kWh) NOX (g/kWh) 1242 0 2.0 1268 0 2.0 1320 0 2.1 1378 0 2.2 1425 0 2.3 1493 0 2.4

Moisture Content MCD (%) Wood Reception/Storage Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustor & Steam Generator Steam Turbines Condenser/Condensate System Utilities Systems Miscellaneous Items Total Capital Cost Specific Investment (/kW) Wood Feedstock Cost (/green tonne) Electricity Selling Price (p/kWh)

15 3.1 12.9

25 3.1 13.1

45 3.1 13.1

65 3.1 13.3

80 3.1 13.3

100 3.1 13.3

10.0 1.2 0.7 0.3 28.2 916 21.91 4.4

10.1 1.2 0.7 0.3 28.3 936 20.16 4.5

9.9 1.2 0.7 0.3 28.2 974 17.38 4.7

9.8 1.1 0.7 0.3 28.3 1018 15.27 4.9

9.8 1.1 0.7 0.3 28.2 1050 14.00 5.0

9.7 1.1 0.6 0.3 28.1 1096 12.60 5.3

Costs are in Ms (UK, 1992), except where otherwise stipulated.

OVERALL EFFICIENCY v. PLANT SIZE

Wet Wood Combustion
36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

WOOD INPUT (daf Tonnes/day)

Fig. 1

Overall Efficiency against Plant Size for Wood Combustion

OVERALL EFFICIENCY v. WOOD MOISTURE CONTENT 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

MOISTURE CONTENT, dry basis (%)

Fig. 2 Overall Efficiency against Moisture Content, Wood Combustion

BREAK-EVEN ELECTRICITY SELLING PRICE v. WOOD INPUT

WOOD MOISTURE CONTENT = 100%
8.2 7.8 7.4 7 6.6 6.2 5.8 5.4 5 4.6 4.2 3.8 3.4 3 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 A B C D E SYSTEM

WOOD INPUT (daf Tonnes/day)

Fig. 4 Changes in Assumed Values, MCD = 100%

BREAK-EVEN ELECTRICITY SELLING PRICE v. WOOD INPUT

8.2 7.8 7.4 7 6.6 6.2 5.8 5.4 5 4.6 4.2 3.8 3.4 3 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 A B C D E F SYSTEM

WOOD INPUT (daf Tonnes/day)

Fig. 5 Changes in Assumed Values, MCD = 55% (except System A)

1 See, for example, discussion in :- McIlveen-Wright D., Williams B.C. and McMullan J.T., "A Comparison of Electricity Generation from Combustion and IGCC Plants using Wood Feedstock", in press. 2 Lake Colin, Peter Brotherhood Ltd., Private Communication, August 1993. 3 Three methods for estimating the transportation costs are discussed in:McIlveen-Wright D., Electricity Generation from Wood, DPhil Thesis, University of Ulster, 1995. 4 McIlveen-Wright, op. cit., Chapter Five.