A Techno-economic assessment of the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through the use of biomass co-combustion

D McIlveen-Wright, Ye Huang, S Rezvani, Jayanta Deb Mondol, David Redpath, Mark Anderson, Neil Hewitt, BC Williams

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

50 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Using sustainably-grown biomass as the sole fuel, or co-fired with coal, is an effective way of reducing thenet CO2 emissions from a combustion power plant. There may be a reduction in efficiency from the use ofbiomass, mainly as a result of its relatively high moisture content, and the system economics may also beadversely affected.The economic cost of reducing CO2 emissions through the replacement of coal with biomass can beidentified by analysing the system when fuelled solely by biomass, solely by coal and when a coal-biomassmixture is used.The technical feasibility of burning biomass or certain wastes with pulverised coal in utility boilers hasbeen well established. Cofiring had also been found to have little effect on efficiency or flame stability,and pilot plant studies had shown that cofiring could reduce NOx and SOx emissions.Several technologies could be applied to the co-combustion of biomass or waste and coal. The assessmentstudies here examine the potential for co-combustion of (a) a 600 MWe pulverised fuel (PF) powerplant, (i) cofiring coal with straw and sewage sludge and (ii) using straw derived fuel gas as return fuel;(b) a 350 MWe pressurised fluidised bed combustion (PFBC) system cofiring coal with sewage sludge; (c)250 and 125 MWe circulating fluidised bed combustion (CFBC) plants cofiring coal with straw and sewagesludge; (d) 25 MWe CFBC systems cofiring low and high sulphur content coal with straw, wood andwoody matter pressed from olive stones (WPOS); and (e) 12 MWe CFBC cofiring low and high sulphurcontent coal with straw.The technical, environmental and economic analysis of such technologies, using the ECLIPSE suite of processsimulation software, is the subject of this study. System efficiencies for generating electricity are evaluatedand compared for the different technologies and system scales. The capital costs of systems areestimated for coal-firing and also any additional costs introduced when biomass is used. The Break-evenelectricity selling price is calculated for each technology, taking into account the system scale and fuel used.Since net CO2 emissions are reduced when biomass is used, the effect of the use of biomass on the electricityselling price can be found and the premium required for emissions reduction assessed. Considerationis also given to the level of subvention required, either as a Carbon dioxide Credit or as a Renewable Credit,to make the systems using biomass competitive with those fuelled only with coal.It would appear that a Renewable Credit (RC) is a more transparent and cost-effective mechanism to supportthe use of biomass in such power plants than a Carbon dioxide Credit (CC).
LanguageEnglish
Pages11-18
JournalFuel
Volume90
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2011

Fingerprint

Coal
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide
Biomass
Economics
Straw
Sewage sludge
Costs
Power plants
Pulverized fuel
Gas fuels
Economic analysis
Pilot plants
Sulfur
Boilers
Wood
Sales
Moisture
Electricity

Keywords

  • Biomass Co-combustion
  • Fluidised bed
  • Economic analysis
  • Environmental credits

Cite this

McIlveen-Wright, D ; Huang, Ye ; Rezvani, S ; Mondol, Jayanta Deb ; Redpath, David ; Anderson, Mark ; Hewitt, Neil ; Williams, BC. / A Techno-economic assessment of the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through the use of biomass co-combustion. In: Fuel. 2011 ; Vol. 90, No. 1. pp. 11-18.
@article{f6fe83db18cf41af9cc0791ff33eb4f1,
title = "A Techno-economic assessment of the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through the use of biomass co-combustion",
abstract = "Using sustainably-grown biomass as the sole fuel, or co-fired with coal, is an effective way of reducing thenet CO2 emissions from a combustion power plant. There may be a reduction in efficiency from the use ofbiomass, mainly as a result of its relatively high moisture content, and the system economics may also beadversely affected.The economic cost of reducing CO2 emissions through the replacement of coal with biomass can beidentified by analysing the system when fuelled solely by biomass, solely by coal and when a coal-biomassmixture is used.The technical feasibility of burning biomass or certain wastes with pulverised coal in utility boilers hasbeen well established. Cofiring had also been found to have little effect on efficiency or flame stability,and pilot plant studies had shown that cofiring could reduce NOx and SOx emissions.Several technologies could be applied to the co-combustion of biomass or waste and coal. The assessmentstudies here examine the potential for co-combustion of (a) a 600 MWe pulverised fuel (PF) powerplant, (i) cofiring coal with straw and sewage sludge and (ii) using straw derived fuel gas as return fuel;(b) a 350 MWe pressurised fluidised bed combustion (PFBC) system cofiring coal with sewage sludge; (c)250 and 125 MWe circulating fluidised bed combustion (CFBC) plants cofiring coal with straw and sewagesludge; (d) 25 MWe CFBC systems cofiring low and high sulphur content coal with straw, wood andwoody matter pressed from olive stones (WPOS); and (e) 12 MWe CFBC cofiring low and high sulphurcontent coal with straw.The technical, environmental and economic analysis of such technologies, using the ECLIPSE suite of processsimulation software, is the subject of this study. System efficiencies for generating electricity are evaluatedand compared for the different technologies and system scales. The capital costs of systems areestimated for coal-firing and also any additional costs introduced when biomass is used. The Break-evenelectricity selling price is calculated for each technology, taking into account the system scale and fuel used.Since net CO2 emissions are reduced when biomass is used, the effect of the use of biomass on the electricityselling price can be found and the premium required for emissions reduction assessed. Considerationis also given to the level of subvention required, either as a Carbon dioxide Credit or as a Renewable Credit,to make the systems using biomass competitive with those fuelled only with coal.It would appear that a Renewable Credit (RC) is a more transparent and cost-effective mechanism to supportthe use of biomass in such power plants than a Carbon dioxide Credit (CC).",
keywords = "Biomass Co-combustion, Fluidised bed, Economic analysis, Environmental credits",
author = "D McIlveen-Wright and Ye Huang and S Rezvani and Mondol, {Jayanta Deb} and David Redpath and Mark Anderson and Neil Hewitt and BC Williams",
note = "Reference text: [1] Baxter L. Biomass-coal co-combustion: opportunity for affordable renewable energy. Fuel 2005;84:1295–302. [2] Baxter L (op.cit., 2005). [3] Baxter L, Koppejan J. Co-combustion of biomass and coal. Euroheat and Power (English Edition) 2004;1:34–9. [4] Hein KRG, Bemtgen JM. EU clean coal technology–co-combustion of coal and biomass. Fuel Process Technol 1998;54:159–69. [5] Sami M, Annamalai K, Wooldridge M. Co-firing of coal and biomass fuel blends. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2001;27:171–214. [6] Pedersen LS, Nielsen HP, Kiil S, Hansen LA, Dam-Johansen K, Kildsig F, et al. Full scale co-firing of straw and coal. Fuel 1996;75:1584–90. [7] Hansson J, Berndes G, Johnsson F, Kjarstad J. Cofiring biomass with coal for electricity generation – an assessment of the potential in EU27. Energy Policy 2009;37(4):1444–55. [8] De S, Assadi M. Impact of Cofiring biomass with coal in power plants – A techno-economic assessment. Biomass and Bioenergy 2009;33:283–93. [9] McIlveen-Wright DR, Huang Y, Rezvani S, Wang Y. A technical and environmental analysis of co-combustion of coal and biomass in fluidised bed technologies. Fuel 2007;86:2032–42. [10] Fouquet D, Johansson TB. European renewable energy policy at crossroads – focus on electricity support mechanisms. Energy policy 2008;36(11):4079–92. [11] Toke D. The EU Renewables Directive – what is the fuss about trading. Energy Policy 2008;36(8):3001–8. [12] Jacobsson S, Bergek A, Finon D, Lauber V, Mitchell C, Toke D, et al. EU renewable energy support policy: faith or facts? Energy Policy 2009;37(6):2143–6. [13] Bertoldi P, Huld T. Tradable certificates for renewable electricity and energy savings. Energy Policy 2006;34(2):212–22. [14] Willams BC, McMullan JT. Development of computer models for the simultion of coal liquefaction processes. In: Imariso G, Bemtgen JM, editors. Progress in Synthetic Fuels. London: Graham and Trotman; 1988. p. 183–9. [15] McIlveen-Wright DR, Williams BC, McMullan JT. A reappraisal of wood-fired combustion. Bioresour Technol 2000;76(3):183–90. [16] McIlveen-Wright DR, Guiney DJ. Wood-fired fuel cells in an isolated community. J Power Sources 2002;106(1–2):93–101. [17] McIlveen-Wright et al., (2007), op. cit. [18] BP (2008), ‘‘BP Statistical Review of World Energy”, http://www.bp.com/ sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9023787&contentId=7044845 (accessed on 1st May 2009). [19] DOE/NETL, (2007) ‘‘cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants”, DOE/NETL-2007/1281, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/Bituminous{\%}20 Baseline_Final{\%}20Report.pdf, (accessed 4th May 2009). [20] EPZ Reports. ‘‘The 600 MW Supercritical Monotube Steam Generator Amer 9” and ‘‘Amercentrale Eenheid 9, Technische Gegevens”. c1988. [21] Gramelt S,Deutsche Babcock Anlagen GMBH. ‘‘FGD System for 600 MWe Coal Fired Power Plant – Process Description, PFD, Mass and Energy Balance, Equipment Specifications”. Private Communication 1994. [22] Breihofer D, Mielenz A, Rentz O. ‘‘Emission Control of SO2, NOx and VOC at Stationary Sources in the Federal Republic of Germany” Karlsruhe, 1991. [23] EPZ Reports, (1998), op.cit. and McIlveen-Wright et al., (2007), op. cit. [24] Rudiger H, Kicherer A, Graul U, Spliethoff H, Klein K. Investigations in combined combustion of biomass and coal in power plant technology. Energy and Fuels 1996;10:789–96. [25] Kicherer A, Spliethoff H, Maier H, Hein K. The Effect of different reburning fuels on NOx reduction. Fuel 1994;73(9):1443–7. [26] Asai A, Azaki K, et al. System outline and operational status of Karita Power Station New Unit 1 (PFBC). JSME Int J, Ser B: Fluids and Thermal Engineering 2004;47:193–9. [27] Operational Problems, Trace Emissions and By-Product Management for Industrial Biomass Co-Combustion. Contract No. JOR3-CT95-0057 – OPTEB, Joule-Thermie programme of the European Commission, (1998), op.cit. and McIlveen-Wright et al., (2007), op. cit. [28] Rajaram S. Next generation CFBC. Chemical Engineering Science 1999;54:5565–71. [29] Jacquet L, Jaud J, Ratti G, Klinger JP. Scaling up of CFB boilers the 250 MWe GARDANNE CFB project. Proceedings of the American Power Conference 1994;56:930–6. [30] McIlveen-Wright DR, Huang Y, Rezvani S, Wang Y. A technical and environmental analysis of co-combustion of coal and biomass in fluidised bed technologies. Fuel 2007;86:2032–42. [31] McIlveen-Wright et al., (2007), op.cit. [32] Baxter (2005), op.cit. [33] ‘‘Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants”, DOE/NETL-2007/ 1281 Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, Final Report (Original Issue Date, May 2007), Revision 1, August 2007. National Energy Technology Laboratory www.netl.doe.gov. [34] Heller MC, Keoleian GA, Mann MK, Volk TA. Life cycle energy and environmental benefits of generating electricity from willow biomass. Renewable Energy 2004;29(7):1023–42. [35] Hughes E. Biomass cofiring: economics, policy and opportunities. Biomass and Bioenergy 2000;19:457–65. [36] Hughes, 2000, op. cit.",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.fuel.2010.08.022",
language = "English",
volume = "90",
pages = "11--18",
journal = "Fuel",
issn = "0016-2361",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

A Techno-economic assessment of the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through the use of biomass co-combustion. / McIlveen-Wright, D; Huang, Ye; Rezvani, S; Mondol, Jayanta Deb; Redpath, David; Anderson, Mark; Hewitt, Neil; Williams, BC.

In: Fuel, Vol. 90, No. 1, 01.2011, p. 11-18.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Techno-economic assessment of the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through the use of biomass co-combustion

AU - McIlveen-Wright, D

AU - Huang, Ye

AU - Rezvani, S

AU - Mondol, Jayanta Deb

AU - Redpath, David

AU - Anderson, Mark

AU - Hewitt, Neil

AU - Williams, BC

N1 - Reference text: [1] Baxter L. Biomass-coal co-combustion: opportunity for affordable renewable energy. Fuel 2005;84:1295–302. [2] Baxter L (op.cit., 2005). [3] Baxter L, Koppejan J. Co-combustion of biomass and coal. Euroheat and Power (English Edition) 2004;1:34–9. [4] Hein KRG, Bemtgen JM. EU clean coal technology–co-combustion of coal and biomass. Fuel Process Technol 1998;54:159–69. [5] Sami M, Annamalai K, Wooldridge M. Co-firing of coal and biomass fuel blends. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2001;27:171–214. [6] Pedersen LS, Nielsen HP, Kiil S, Hansen LA, Dam-Johansen K, Kildsig F, et al. Full scale co-firing of straw and coal. Fuel 1996;75:1584–90. [7] Hansson J, Berndes G, Johnsson F, Kjarstad J. Cofiring biomass with coal for electricity generation – an assessment of the potential in EU27. Energy Policy 2009;37(4):1444–55. [8] De S, Assadi M. Impact of Cofiring biomass with coal in power plants – A techno-economic assessment. Biomass and Bioenergy 2009;33:283–93. [9] McIlveen-Wright DR, Huang Y, Rezvani S, Wang Y. A technical and environmental analysis of co-combustion of coal and biomass in fluidised bed technologies. Fuel 2007;86:2032–42. [10] Fouquet D, Johansson TB. European renewable energy policy at crossroads – focus on electricity support mechanisms. Energy policy 2008;36(11):4079–92. [11] Toke D. The EU Renewables Directive – what is the fuss about trading. Energy Policy 2008;36(8):3001–8. [12] Jacobsson S, Bergek A, Finon D, Lauber V, Mitchell C, Toke D, et al. EU renewable energy support policy: faith or facts? Energy Policy 2009;37(6):2143–6. [13] Bertoldi P, Huld T. Tradable certificates for renewable electricity and energy savings. Energy Policy 2006;34(2):212–22. [14] Willams BC, McMullan JT. Development of computer models for the simultion of coal liquefaction processes. In: Imariso G, Bemtgen JM, editors. Progress in Synthetic Fuels. London: Graham and Trotman; 1988. p. 183–9. [15] McIlveen-Wright DR, Williams BC, McMullan JT. A reappraisal of wood-fired combustion. Bioresour Technol 2000;76(3):183–90. [16] McIlveen-Wright DR, Guiney DJ. Wood-fired fuel cells in an isolated community. J Power Sources 2002;106(1–2):93–101. [17] McIlveen-Wright et al., (2007), op. cit. [18] BP (2008), ‘‘BP Statistical Review of World Energy”, http://www.bp.com/ sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9023787&contentId=7044845 (accessed on 1st May 2009). [19] DOE/NETL, (2007) ‘‘cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants”, DOE/NETL-2007/1281, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/Bituminous%20 Baseline_Final%20Report.pdf, (accessed 4th May 2009). [20] EPZ Reports. ‘‘The 600 MW Supercritical Monotube Steam Generator Amer 9” and ‘‘Amercentrale Eenheid 9, Technische Gegevens”. c1988. [21] Gramelt S,Deutsche Babcock Anlagen GMBH. ‘‘FGD System for 600 MWe Coal Fired Power Plant – Process Description, PFD, Mass and Energy Balance, Equipment Specifications”. Private Communication 1994. [22] Breihofer D, Mielenz A, Rentz O. ‘‘Emission Control of SO2, NOx and VOC at Stationary Sources in the Federal Republic of Germany” Karlsruhe, 1991. [23] EPZ Reports, (1998), op.cit. and McIlveen-Wright et al., (2007), op. cit. [24] Rudiger H, Kicherer A, Graul U, Spliethoff H, Klein K. Investigations in combined combustion of biomass and coal in power plant technology. Energy and Fuels 1996;10:789–96. [25] Kicherer A, Spliethoff H, Maier H, Hein K. The Effect of different reburning fuels on NOx reduction. Fuel 1994;73(9):1443–7. [26] Asai A, Azaki K, et al. System outline and operational status of Karita Power Station New Unit 1 (PFBC). JSME Int J, Ser B: Fluids and Thermal Engineering 2004;47:193–9. [27] Operational Problems, Trace Emissions and By-Product Management for Industrial Biomass Co-Combustion. Contract No. JOR3-CT95-0057 – OPTEB, Joule-Thermie programme of the European Commission, (1998), op.cit. and McIlveen-Wright et al., (2007), op. cit. [28] Rajaram S. Next generation CFBC. Chemical Engineering Science 1999;54:5565–71. [29] Jacquet L, Jaud J, Ratti G, Klinger JP. Scaling up of CFB boilers the 250 MWe GARDANNE CFB project. Proceedings of the American Power Conference 1994;56:930–6. [30] McIlveen-Wright DR, Huang Y, Rezvani S, Wang Y. A technical and environmental analysis of co-combustion of coal and biomass in fluidised bed technologies. Fuel 2007;86:2032–42. [31] McIlveen-Wright et al., (2007), op.cit. [32] Baxter (2005), op.cit. [33] ‘‘Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants”, DOE/NETL-2007/ 1281 Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, Final Report (Original Issue Date, May 2007), Revision 1, August 2007. National Energy Technology Laboratory www.netl.doe.gov. [34] Heller MC, Keoleian GA, Mann MK, Volk TA. Life cycle energy and environmental benefits of generating electricity from willow biomass. Renewable Energy 2004;29(7):1023–42. [35] Hughes E. Biomass cofiring: economics, policy and opportunities. Biomass and Bioenergy 2000;19:457–65. [36] Hughes, 2000, op. cit.

PY - 2011/1

Y1 - 2011/1

N2 - Using sustainably-grown biomass as the sole fuel, or co-fired with coal, is an effective way of reducing thenet CO2 emissions from a combustion power plant. There may be a reduction in efficiency from the use ofbiomass, mainly as a result of its relatively high moisture content, and the system economics may also beadversely affected.The economic cost of reducing CO2 emissions through the replacement of coal with biomass can beidentified by analysing the system when fuelled solely by biomass, solely by coal and when a coal-biomassmixture is used.The technical feasibility of burning biomass or certain wastes with pulverised coal in utility boilers hasbeen well established. Cofiring had also been found to have little effect on efficiency or flame stability,and pilot plant studies had shown that cofiring could reduce NOx and SOx emissions.Several technologies could be applied to the co-combustion of biomass or waste and coal. The assessmentstudies here examine the potential for co-combustion of (a) a 600 MWe pulverised fuel (PF) powerplant, (i) cofiring coal with straw and sewage sludge and (ii) using straw derived fuel gas as return fuel;(b) a 350 MWe pressurised fluidised bed combustion (PFBC) system cofiring coal with sewage sludge; (c)250 and 125 MWe circulating fluidised bed combustion (CFBC) plants cofiring coal with straw and sewagesludge; (d) 25 MWe CFBC systems cofiring low and high sulphur content coal with straw, wood andwoody matter pressed from olive stones (WPOS); and (e) 12 MWe CFBC cofiring low and high sulphurcontent coal with straw.The technical, environmental and economic analysis of such technologies, using the ECLIPSE suite of processsimulation software, is the subject of this study. System efficiencies for generating electricity are evaluatedand compared for the different technologies and system scales. The capital costs of systems areestimated for coal-firing and also any additional costs introduced when biomass is used. The Break-evenelectricity selling price is calculated for each technology, taking into account the system scale and fuel used.Since net CO2 emissions are reduced when biomass is used, the effect of the use of biomass on the electricityselling price can be found and the premium required for emissions reduction assessed. Considerationis also given to the level of subvention required, either as a Carbon dioxide Credit or as a Renewable Credit,to make the systems using biomass competitive with those fuelled only with coal.It would appear that a Renewable Credit (RC) is a more transparent and cost-effective mechanism to supportthe use of biomass in such power plants than a Carbon dioxide Credit (CC).

AB - Using sustainably-grown biomass as the sole fuel, or co-fired with coal, is an effective way of reducing thenet CO2 emissions from a combustion power plant. There may be a reduction in efficiency from the use ofbiomass, mainly as a result of its relatively high moisture content, and the system economics may also beadversely affected.The economic cost of reducing CO2 emissions through the replacement of coal with biomass can beidentified by analysing the system when fuelled solely by biomass, solely by coal and when a coal-biomassmixture is used.The technical feasibility of burning biomass or certain wastes with pulverised coal in utility boilers hasbeen well established. Cofiring had also been found to have little effect on efficiency or flame stability,and pilot plant studies had shown that cofiring could reduce NOx and SOx emissions.Several technologies could be applied to the co-combustion of biomass or waste and coal. The assessmentstudies here examine the potential for co-combustion of (a) a 600 MWe pulverised fuel (PF) powerplant, (i) cofiring coal with straw and sewage sludge and (ii) using straw derived fuel gas as return fuel;(b) a 350 MWe pressurised fluidised bed combustion (PFBC) system cofiring coal with sewage sludge; (c)250 and 125 MWe circulating fluidised bed combustion (CFBC) plants cofiring coal with straw and sewagesludge; (d) 25 MWe CFBC systems cofiring low and high sulphur content coal with straw, wood andwoody matter pressed from olive stones (WPOS); and (e) 12 MWe CFBC cofiring low and high sulphurcontent coal with straw.The technical, environmental and economic analysis of such technologies, using the ECLIPSE suite of processsimulation software, is the subject of this study. System efficiencies for generating electricity are evaluatedand compared for the different technologies and system scales. The capital costs of systems areestimated for coal-firing and also any additional costs introduced when biomass is used. The Break-evenelectricity selling price is calculated for each technology, taking into account the system scale and fuel used.Since net CO2 emissions are reduced when biomass is used, the effect of the use of biomass on the electricityselling price can be found and the premium required for emissions reduction assessed. Considerationis also given to the level of subvention required, either as a Carbon dioxide Credit or as a Renewable Credit,to make the systems using biomass competitive with those fuelled only with coal.It would appear that a Renewable Credit (RC) is a more transparent and cost-effective mechanism to supportthe use of biomass in such power plants than a Carbon dioxide Credit (CC).

KW - Biomass Co-combustion

KW - Fluidised bed

KW - Economic analysis

KW - Environmental credits

U2 - 10.1016/j.fuel.2010.08.022

DO - 10.1016/j.fuel.2010.08.022

M3 - Article

VL - 90

SP - 11

EP - 18

JO - Fuel

T2 - Fuel

JF - Fuel

SN - 0016-2361

IS - 1

ER -