Co‐firing of biomass with coal in thermal power plants: technology schemes, impacts, and future perspectives

Karampinis, Emmanouil; Grammelis, Panagiotis; Agraniotis, Michalis; Violidakis, Ioannis; Kakaras, Emmanuel

doi:10.1002/wene.100

Cited by 37 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…After a quick burnout of such unevenly distributed materials, locations with little or no fuel can form on the grate, which can subsequently lead to uneven combustion air distribution and, eventually, to grate damage. Fuel pretreatment via pelletization or torrefaction can increase the density and improve the burnout characteristics of bulk fuels, but it requires additional investment and operation costs [10].…”

Section: Biomass and Fossil Fuel Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Available technologies offer several routes for biomass or waste and fossil fuel coutilization for heat and power production, while the application of each depends on many technical, economic, and environmental aspects [32,36]. They are altogether referred to as co-combustion [10,36,74]:…”

Section: Direct Parallel and Indirect (Gasification) Co-combustionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Parallel co-combustion employs separate combustors and the following heat transfer equipment for fossil fuel and biomass or waste [10]. Such a layout can be recommended for feedstock with low slagging and fouling propensity [103].…”

Section: Direct Parallel and Indirect (Gasification) Co-combustionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Biomass and various wastes are perceived as promising materials to produce energy, fuels, and chemicals [3][4][5][6]. Technologies facilitating production of electric energy in a more efficient way compared to biomass-and waste-based steam and power plants [7] include co-combustion in fossil fuel power plants [8,9], gasification, and pyrolysis [10][11][12]. While the latter two still represent a substantial challenge regarding the feed properties [13,14], key equipment design, and operation, co-firing offers a less costly and simpler option for fossil fuel consumption reduction in the heat and power production sector [15,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Advances in Biomass Co-Combustion with Fossil Fuels in the European Context: A Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co-combustion of biomass-based fuels and fossil fuels in power plant boilers, utility boilers, and process furnaces is a widely acknowledged means of efficient heat and power production, offering higher power production than comparable systems with sole biomass combustion. This, in combination with CO2 and other greenhouse gases abatement and low specific cost of system retrofit to co-combustion, counts among the tangible advantages of co-combustion application. Technical and operational issues regarding the accelerated fouling, slagging, and corrosion risk, as well as optimal combustion air distribution impact on produced greenhouse gases emissions and ash properties, belong to intensely researched topics nowadays in parallel with the combustion aggregates design optimization, the advanced feed pretreatment techniques, and the co-combustion life cycle assessment. This review addresses the said topics in a systematic manner, starting with feed availability, its pretreatment, fuel properties and combustor types, followed by operational issues, greenhouse gases, and other harmful emissions trends, as well as ash properties and utilization. The body of relevant literature sources is table-wise classified according to numerous criteria pertaining to individual paper sections, providing a concise and complex insight into the research methods, analyzed systems, and obtained results. Recent advances achieved in individual studies and the discovered synergies between co-combusted fuels types and their shares in blended fuel are summed up and discussed. Actual research challenges and prospects are briefly touched on as well.

show abstract

Section: Biomass and Fossil Fuel Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Direct Parallel and Indirect (Gasification) Co-combustionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Direct Parallel and Indirect (Gasification) Co-combustionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Advances in Biomass Co-Combustion with Fossil Fuels in the European Context: A Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More than 100 successful field demonstrations in 16 different countries have taken place for co-firing that use major type of biomass (wood, animal waste, herbaceous waste) combined with various types of coal in a pulverized fuel boiler (tangential, wall, and cyclone fired) [48,49]. The estimates for SO 2 emissions reduction were 3.84% for 5% co-firing ratio (energy basis) and 6.89% for 10% co-firing (energy basis) at Albright Generating Station and Michigan City Generation Station, respectively, by using PRB coal and woody biomass [11,50].…”

Section: Biomass Transportation and Chippingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life Cycle Environmental Impact of Biomass Co-Firing with Coal at a Power Plant in the Greater Houston Area

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electricity generation from coal is one of the leading contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and has adverse effects on the environment. Biomass from forest residue can be co-fired with coal to reduce the impact of fossil-fuel power plants on the environment. W. A. Parish power plant (WAP, Richmond, TX, USA) located in the greater Houston area is the largest coal and natural gas-based power generation facility in Texas and is the subject of the current study. A life cycle assessment (LCA) study was performed with SimaPro ® and IMPACT 2002+ method, for the replacement of 5%, 10%, and 15% coal (energy-basis) with forest residue at the WAP power plant in Texas. Results from the LCA study indicate that life cycle air emissions of CO 2 , CO, SO 2 , PM 2.5 , NO X , and VOC could reduce by 13.5%, 6.4%, 9.5%, 9.2%, 11.6%, and 7.7% respectively when 15% of coal is replaced with forest residue. Potential life cycle impact decreased across 9 mid-point impact categories of, human/aquatic toxicity, respiratory organics/inorganics, global warming, non-renewable energy, mineral extraction, aquatic acidification, and terrestrial acidification/nitrification. The potential impact across damage/end-point categories of human health, ecosystem quality, climate change, and resources reduced by 8.7%, 3.8%, 13.2%, and 14.8% respectively for 15% co-firing ratio.

show abstract

Experimental study on combustion of torrefied palm kernel shell (PKS) in oxy‐fuel environment

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Oxy‐combustion of biomass can be a major candidate to achieve negative emission of CO2 from a pulverized fuel (pf)‐firing power generation plants. Understanding combustion behavior of biomass fuels in oxy‐firing conditions is a key for design of oxy‐combustion retrofit of pulverized fuel power plant. This study aims to investigate a lab‐scale combustion behavior of torrefied palm kernel shell (PKS) in oxy‐combustion environments in comparison with the reference bituminous coal. A 20 kWth‐scale, down‐firing furnace was used to conduct the experiments using both air (conventional) and O2/CO2 (30 vol% for O2) as an oxidant. A bituminous coal (Sebuku coal) was also combusted in both air‐ and oxy‐firing condition with the same conditions of oxidizers and thermal heat inputs. Distributions of gas temperature, unburned carbon, and NOx concentration were measured through sampling of gases and particles along axial directions. Moreover, the concentrations of SOx and HCl were measured at the exit of the furnace. Experimental results showed that burnout rate was enhanced during oxy‐fuel combustion. The unburnt carbon in the flue gas was reduced considerably (~75%) during combustion of torrefied PKS in oxy‐fuel environment as compared with air‐firing condition. In addition, NO emission was reduced by 16.5% during combustion of PKS in oxy‐fuel environment as compared with air‐firing condition.

show abstract

Co‐firing of biomass with coal in thermal power plants: technology schemes, impacts, and future perspectives

Cited by 37 publications

References 73 publications

Advances in Biomass Co-Combustion with Fossil Fuels in the European Context: A Review

Advances in Biomass Co-Combustion with Fossil Fuels in the European Context: A Review

Life Cycle Environmental Impact of Biomass Co-Firing with Coal at a Power Plant in the Greater Houston Area

Experimental study on combustion of torrefied palm kernel shell (PKS) in oxy‐fuel environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About