Biomass co-firing options on the emission reduction and electricity generation costs in coal-fired power plants

Basu, Prabir; Butler, J. W.; Leon, M. Augustus

doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.06.039

Cited by 184 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Biomass co-firing in coal based thermal power plants is known to reduce the emission of harmful pollutants such as the oxides of carbon, sulphur and nitrogen as well as the release of toxic substances such as mercury [1][2][3][4]. However, there are a few disadvantages associated with biomass firing and co-firing which include slightly higher plant operating costs, a modest decrease in boiler efficiency (derating) and a potential increase in ash related problems such as slagging, fouling and high temperature corrosion of heat transfer surfaces [5][6][7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of biomass ash fusion behaviour by the use of detailed characterisation methods coupled with thermodynamic analysis

Rizvi

Xing

Pourkashanian

et al. 2015

Fuel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ReuseUnless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. AbstractAsh deposition such as slagging and fouling on boiler tube surfaces is an inevitable, though undesirable consequence of burning solid fuels in boilers. The role of fuel characteristics, in affecting the form and severity of the problem, is significant. In recent years, biomass fuels have gained increasing popularity as an environmentally friendly source of energy in power plants all over the world. This study is based on characterising the fusion behaviour of four biomass fuels (pine wood, peanut shells, sunflower stalk and miscanthus) using ash fusion temperature (AFT) tests, simultaneous thermal analysis (STA) of fuel ashes, calculation of empirical indices and predicting ash melting behaviour with the help of thermodynamic equilibrium calculations. The AFT results failed to show any clear trend between fusion temperature and high alkali content of biomass. STA proved useful in predicting the different changes occurring in the ash. Empirical indices predicted high slagging and fouling hazards for nearly all the biomass samples and this was supported by the possible existence of a melt phase at low temperatures as predicted by thermodynamic calculations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of biomass ash fusion behaviour by the use of detailed characterisation methods coupled with thermodynamic analysis

Rizvi

Xing

Pourkashanian

et al. 2015

Fuel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In total, 398 coal power plants in the contiguous United States are included in our analysis. Basu et al (2011) identifies three co-firing options: direct cofiring, indirect co-firing, and gasification co-firing. We assume that each those co-firing options can be used for all coal-fired power plants.…”

Section: Coal-fired Power Plantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We assume that each those co-firing options can be used for all coal-fired power plants. Approximately 100 co-firing plants are situated in Europe, 40 in the United States, and some in Asia and Australia (Basu et al, 2011). Most of them use direct co-firing which involves pulverizing coal and biomass simultaneously before feeding it into the boiler.…”

Section: Coal-fired Power Plantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For each plant location, we determine the sum of the nameplate capacity of all the generators considered and assume that the heat input of the power plant remains unaffected by the co-firing option used (Basu et al, 2011). We assume a uniform boiler efficiency η of 88% and 8000 hours of yearly operation (De and Assadi, 2009).…”

Section: Coal-fired Power Plantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The renewable energy standards in the cap-and-trade systems or a federal RPS would result in dedicated biomass power plants and co-firing of existing coal power plants (EIA, 2009). Co-firing plants work in conjecture with coal and have the advantage of requiring small and low cost modifications to existing power plants and more flexibility in the short-term input mix, i.e., shortages in biomass supply can be compensated by increasing the coal percentage (Basu et al, 2011). Thus, current and proposed legislation together with low cost of switching to co-firing would affect the market for cellulosic biomass resources such as agricultural residues, energy crops, and forest residues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Co-firing in coal power plants and its impact on biomass feedstock availability

Dumortier¹

2013

Energy Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several states have a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and allow for biomass co-firing to meet the RPS requirements. In addition, a federal renewable fuel standard (RFS) mandates an increase in cellulosic ethanol production over the next decade. This paper quantifies the effects on local biomass supply and demand of different co-firing policies imposed on 398 existing coal-fired power plants. Our model indicates which counties are most likely to be able to sustain cellulosic ethanol plants in addition to co-firing electric utilities. The simulation incorporates the county-level biomass market of corn stover, wheat straw, switchgrass, and forest residues as well as endogenous crop prices. Our scenarios indicate that there is sufficient feedstock availability in Southern Minnesota, Iowa, and Central Illinois. Significant supply shortages are observed in Eastern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, and the tri-state area of Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky which are characterized by a high density of coal-fired power plants with high energy output.

show abstract

Co‐Firing of Biomass with Coal in Thermal Power Plants: Technology Schemes, Impacts, and Future Perspectives

Karampinis¹,

Grammelis²,

Agraniotis³

et al. 2015

Advances in Bioenergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomass co-firing options on the emission reduction and electricity generation costs in coal-fired power plants

Cited by 184 publications

References 1 publication

Prediction of biomass ash fusion behaviour by the use of detailed characterisation methods coupled with thermodynamic analysis

Prediction of biomass ash fusion behaviour by the use of detailed characterisation methods coupled with thermodynamic analysis

Co-firing in coal power plants and its impact on biomass feedstock availability

Co‐Firing of Biomass with Coal in Thermal Power Plants: Technology Schemes, Impacts, and Future Perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About