Biomass co-firing technology with policies, challenges, and opportunities: A global review

Roni, Mohammad; Chowdhury, Sudipta; Mamun, Saleh; Marufuzzaman, Mohammad; Lein, William; Johnson, Samuel

doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.023

Cited by 201 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…• Feedstock quality constraints: Feedstock carbohydrate quality constraint (6) requires that the delivered feedstock, after accounting for compositional changes due to dry-matter loss in the supply chain, meets a minimum specified carbohydrate content requirement (c -). Feedstock ash quality constraint (7) requires that the delivered feedstock, after accounting for compositional changes due to dry-matter loss in the supply chain, does not exceed maximum specified ash content (a -) requirement:…”

Section: Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal blending management of biomass resources used for biochemical conversion

Roni

Thompson

Hartley

et al. 2018

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research develops an optimization model to describe the tradeoff among blend components in the least‐cost biomass blend, based on resource availability, quality requirements, and logistics cost for a biochemical conversion. A mixed‐integer linear programming model is developed to determine the least‐cost blend from a set of candidate feedstocks. A case study – based on a biorefinery located in western Kansas that uses three‐pass corn stover, two‐pass corn stover, switchgrass, miscanthus, and municipal solid waste fractions to meet biochemical conversion specifications and feedstock demand – shows that the delivered cost of an optimal blend that meets carbohydrate and ash specifications is 12.12% higher than the delivered cost of optimal blend that meets a carbohydrate specification only. The results indicate that a least‐cost blend that meets both carbohydrate and ash specifications consists of miscanthus (48.2%) and switchgrass (29.4%) whereas the least‐cost blend meeting carbohydrate specification only comprises three‐pass corn stover (55.4%) and two‐pass corn stover (20.4%). An optimal blend uses a low‐cost municipal solid waste fraction in all cases, implying that blending could be a potential strategy to reduce delivered feedstock cost. Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining published by Society of Industrial Chemistry and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal blending management of biomass resources used for biochemical conversion

Roni

Thompson

Hartley

et al. 2018

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One promising strategy to mitigate CO 2 emissions from coal-fired power plants is the partial substitution of coal with biogenic fuel surrogates, here named "co-firing". Co-firing is considered a highly cost-effective and short-term method of reducing CO 2 emissions from coal-fired power plants since existing plants can be used with low retrofitting efforts [3,4]. The mitigation potential of co-firing is estimated as 950-1100 g CO2 /kWh el if local biomass is co-fired in lignite-fired power plants and as 900-1000 g CO2 /kWh el if it is co-fired in hard coal-fired power plants [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mitigation potential of co-firing is estimated as 950-1100 g CO2 /kWh el if local biomass is co-fired in lignite-fired power plants and as 900-1000 g CO2 /kWh el if it is co-fired in hard coal-fired power plants [5]. Worldwide, approximately 150 power plants have either been tested for co-firing or have permanently transformed their operations to co-firing [3]. In European countries such as the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands, co-firing has already been implemented as a CO 2 mitigation strategy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Denmark and the Netherlands implemented subsidies as co-firing incentives in the range of 2.0-6.5 ct/kWh. Additionally, the Danish policies intend to transfer the cofired plants gradually to 100% biomass plants [3]. This strategy has the advantages of providing, on the one hand, a near-term implementable CO 2 mitigation strategy for the energy sector and a gradual phase-out of coal-fired power plants and, on the other hand, the gradual development of the biomass supply infrastructure that is needed for the implementation of 100% biomass plants and other biomass technologies under development [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of co-firing as a cost-effective short-term sustainable CO2 mitigation strategy in Germany

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In order to achieve the German greenhouse gas reduction targets, in particular, CO 2 emissions of coalfired power plants must be reduced. The co-incineration of biomass-based substitutes, here referred to as co-firing, is regarded as a highly cost-effective and short-term method of reducing CO 2 emissions in the electricity sector. Another advantage of co-firing is its ability to meet base load demands and offer controllability. In this paper, we, therefore, evaluate the effectiveness of co-firing as a CO 2 mitigation strategy in the German electricity sector by 2020. Methods: We consider the co-firing of three different substitutes: wood chips, industry pellets and torrefied biomass. Likewise, a comparison with three alternative mitigation strategies is part of the evaluation. We use seven sustainability indicators covering social, ecological and economic aspects as the basis for the evaluation. These sustainability indicators are determined by means of a merit order model, which enables us to simulate the electricity market in 2020 on an hourly basis and adjust it based on the assumption of widespread implementation of co-firing or one of the alternative mitigation strategies. Results: Our results show that all mitigation strategies have a significant potential to reduce the CO 2 emissions of the electricity sector. Compared with the alternative mitigation strategies, co-firing is characterised on the one hand by rather low mitigation potentials and on the other hand by low CO 2 mitigation costs. The co-firing of industry pellets appears to have the most advantageous combination of mitigation potential and mitigation costs. Conclusions:The widespread implementation of co-firing with industry pellets until 2020 would have led to 21% reduction in CO 2 emissions on average. Nevertheless, it cannot be implemented immediately because time is needed for political decisions to be taken and, afterwards, for the technical retrofitting of power plants. Co-firing will, therefore, not be available to contribute to the achievement of the greenhouse gas reduction targets for the year 2020. However, our approach can be used to assess the contribution of the various CO 2 mitigation strategies to the ambitious mitigation targets for the year 2030.

show abstract

“…If carbon capture and storage (CCS) becomes widely available, biomass co‐firing may represent an attractive long‐term option and may even provide power electricity generation with negative CO 2 emissions, especially if it becomes possible to reach high biomass shares in the fuel mix. One example of a transition from coal to 100% biomass is seen in the UK, where three coal power plants were converted to biomass‐dedicated plants, employing co‐firing during a transition period …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A techno‐economic assessment of biomass co‐firing in Czech Republic, France, Germany and Poland

Cutz

Berndes

Johnsson

2019

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomass co-firing with coal can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and can act as a low-cost stepping-stone for developing biomass supply infrastructures. This paper presents a technoeconomic assessment of the biomass co-firing potential in coal-fired boilers in Czech Republic, France, Germany and Poland. The current coal power plant infrastructure is characterized by means of geographic location of the coal power plants, installed boiler capacity, type of boiler technology and year of commissioning, as extracted from the Chalmers Power Plant Database. The assessment considers type of boiler technology, type of biomass, co-firing fraction, implementation costs, breakeven prices for co-firing and an alkali index to determine the risk of high-temperature corrosion. The main factors affecting the co-firing potential are the biomass price, carbon price and alkali index. Results indicate that the total co-firing potential in the four countries is around 16 TWh year −1 , with the largest potential from a conversion perspective in Germany, followed by Poland. Biomass co-firing with coal is estimated to be competitive at biomass prices below 13 € MWh input −1 when the carbon price is 20 € t −1 CO 2 . On average, 1 TWh of electricity from biomass co-firing substitutes 0.9 Mt of fossil CO 2 emissions.

show abstract

Biomass co-firing technology with policies, challenges, and opportunities: A global review

Cited by 201 publications

References 29 publications

Optimal blending management of biomass resources used for biochemical conversion

Optimal blending management of biomass resources used for biochemical conversion

Evaluation of co-firing as a cost-effective short-term sustainable CO2 mitigation strategy in Germany

A techno‐economic assessment of biomass co‐firing in Czech Republic, France, Germany and Poland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About