Co-firing biomass with coal for electricity generation—An assessment of the potential in EU27

Hansson, Julia; Berndes, Göran; Johnsson, Filip; Kjärstad, Jan

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.007

Cited by 124 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, large amounts of alkali and chlorine in biomass fuels, which are greater than in fossil fuels, result in severe problems of slagging, fouling, and corrosion in heat exchangers of biomass-fired furnaces (Michelsen et al 1998;Demirbas 2005;Davidsson et al 2008;Hansson et al 2009;Kazagic and Smajevic 2009). This is a serious hazard in furnace operations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

NO Emissions and Combustion Efficiency during Biomass Co-firing and Air-staging

Wang¹,

Wang²,

Hu³

et al. 2015

BioResources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments were carried out in a drop tube furnace to investigate the effects of biomass/coal co-firing and air staging on NO emission and combustion efficiency. NO and CO emissions along the height of the furnace were monitored by a gas analyzer, and the content of unburned carbon (UBC) in fly ash was also tested. Results showed that NO emission from straw or wood combustion only account for 1/3 or 1/2 that from coal combustion, respectively. Under the conditions of biomass co-firing, the increase in blending ratio had a positive effect on the reduction of NO emission and combustion efficiency. Moreover, results of air-staging combustion showed that for coal combustion, air staging notably reduced NO emission and combustion efficiency. For biomass combustion, the effect was slight. Synergetic analysis indicated that there was an optimum biomass co-firing ratio around 0.4, when the positive synergetic effects on reducing NO emission and UBC were the most significant. When the cofiring ratio exceeded this optimum value, further increasing the co-firing ratio had little influence on NO emission and combustion efficiency. After air staging was adopted, the degree of synergetic effect on NO emissions was reduced while that of UBC was increased.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

NO Emissions and Combustion Efficiency during Biomass Co-firing and Air-staging

Wang¹,

Wang²,

Hu³

et al. 2015

BioResources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With moderate additional investment, lignocellulosic biomass co-firing in modern, large-scale coal-based power plants can be more efficient and cost-effective. The co-firing technology has been applied in North Europe, the United States, Australia, and some Asian countries, using different feedstocks, such as forestry wood or residues, agricultural residues, and fast-growing crops [32,[35][36][37]. The combustion efficiency of 35%-45% in large-scale plants is higher than that of biomass direct combustion plants, although it is lower than that in pure coal-based plants [38].…”

Section: The Role Of Power Generation Methods In the Lcamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Power Generation from Lignocellulosic Biomass

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In order to solve the energy crisis and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), renewable energy resources are exploited for power generation. Because lignocellulosic biomass resources are abundant and renewable, various technologies are applied to using lignocellulosic biomass to derive biofuel and electricity. This paper focuses on power generation from lignocellulosic biomass and comparison of the effects of different feedstocks, transportation, and power generation technologies evaluated through life cycle assessment (LCA). The inputs and boundaries of LCA vary with different feedstocks, such as forestry wood, agricultural residues, and fast-growing grass. For agricultural residues and fast-growing grass, the transportation cost from field to power plant is more critical. Three technologies for power generation are analyzed both with and without pelletization of lignocellulosic biomass. The GHG emissions also vary with different feedstocks and depend on burning technologies at different plant scales. The daily criteria pollutant emissions of power generation from different lignocellulosic biomass were evaluated with a life cycle assessment model of GREET.net 2014. It is concluded that bio-power generation is critical with the urgency of greenhouse effects. OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2015, 7 12975

show abstract

“…stage at AGS and is employed in many jurisdictions as a shorter term low-cost option to reduce GHG emissions [44].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From coal to wood thermoelectric energy production: a review and discussion of potential socio-economic impacts with implications for Northwestern Ontario, Canada

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The province of Ontario in Canada is the first North American jurisdiction with legislation in place to eliminate coalfired thermoelectric production by the end of 2014. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) operates coal-fired stations in Ontario, with Atikokan Generating Station being the only facility slated to switch to 100% woody biomass. It is anticipated that this coal phase out policy will have socio-economic impacts. Because of these anticipated changes, in this paper, we review the current state of peer-reviewed literature relating to three burning scenarios (biomass, coal and co-firing) in order to explore the knowledge gaps with regard to socio-economic impacts and identify research needs which should elucidate the anticipated changes on a community level. We reviewed over 150 sources, which included peer-reviewed articles and non-peer-reviewed grey literature such as government documents, non-governmental organization reports and news publications. We found very few peer-reviewed articles related to Canadian studies (even fewer for Ontario) which look at woody biomass burning for thermoelectric production. We identify a number of socio-economic impact assessment tools readily available and present potential criteria required in selecting an appropriate tool for the Ontario context. For any tool to provide meaningful results, we propose that appropriate and robust local data must be collected and analyzed.

show abstract

Co-firing biomass with coal for electricity generation—An assessment of the potential in EU27

Cited by 124 publications

References 11 publications

NO Emissions and Combustion Efficiency during Biomass Co-firing and Air-staging

NO Emissions and Combustion Efficiency during Biomass Co-firing and Air-staging

The Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Power Generation from Lignocellulosic Biomass

From coal to wood thermoelectric energy production: a review and discussion of potential socio-economic impacts with implications for Northwestern Ontario, Canada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About