24092009 - MCieplik WS Gliwice 2009

Biomass co-firing
with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands
Mariusz Cieplik; Willem van de Kamp and Jaap Kiel
ECN Biomass, Coal and Environmental research
Clean and Efficient Power Generation from Coal, September 24-25th, 2009, Gliwice (Poland)
Presentation overview
• Brief introduction to ECN
• State-of-the-art biomass co-firing
• Options
• Co-firing activities in the Netherlands
• Biomass co-firing vs total renewables in the Netherlands
• Biomass co-firing in high percentages
• Technical bottlenecks
• R&D needs and exemplified results
• Conclusions
2
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
Energy research Centre of the Netherlands
ECN develops high level knowledge and technology for a
sustainable energy system and transfers it to the market
Independent (non-profit)
research institute
650 employees
Annual turn-over:
90 million Euro
Activities:
• Biomass, Solar, Wind
• Clean fossil fuels
(CCS, fuel cells)
• Energy efficiency
• Policy studies
3
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
Biomass Co-firing – state-of-the-art options
gas cooling/
purification
LCV gas
CFB
gasifier
Indirect co-firing
SCR
ESP
FGD
coal
Biomass
BM BM
stack
• Coal (and gas-fired) power plants
Direct co-firing • Including co-gasification (e.g. IGCC)
• Existing (retrofit) and new installations
4
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
Biomass Co-firing – details of the state-of-the-art options
after W. Livingston, Doosan-Babcock / IEA Task 32 Hamburg 2009 workshop
1
Biomass
pellets
Coal mills
Coal burner
Coal
Coal mills
3
2
Biomass
Boiler
Biomass mills
4
5
Biomass burner
6
Gasifier
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
5
The milling of biomass pellets through modified coal mills
The pre-mixing of the biomass with the coal and the milling and firing of the premixed fuel
through the existing coal firing system
The direct injection of pre-milled biomass into the pulverised coal pipework
The direct injection of pre-milled biomass into modified coal burners
The direct injection of the pre-milled biomass through dedicated biomass burners or
directly into the furnace
The gasification of the biomass, with combustion of the producer gas in the boiler
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
Co-firing activities in the Netherlands
gas cooling/
purification
LCV gas
CFB
gasifier
Indirect co-firing
SCR
ESP
FGD
coal
BM BM
stack
Essent Amer wood gasifier
Direct co-firing
Essent Amer
Electrabel
Gelderland
EPZ Borssele 12
6
E.On BeNeLux
Maasvlakte
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
NUON Buggenum
(IGCC)
Co-firing activities in the Netherlands
Current co-firing status:
• All co-firing options in use, but each producer has clear preferences
• Co-firing % ~20 % w/w, but many trials at ~30-40 % w/w
• Even > 50 % w/w tests scheduled (600+ MWe scale)
• Most producers aim at 20-25 % e/e
• Popular fuels:
– All producers: clean wood
– Essent Amer: certified, sustainable food-processing industry
residues (i.e. coffee-husks in co-operation with Solidaridad fair
trade)
– E.On Maasvlakte: MBM and SRS animal fat, “biomass pellets”
– EPZ Borssele: cocoa residue, palm kernel (PKS), citrus pulp
– Electrabel Gelderland: agro- and food-processing residues
– Nuon Buggenum (IGCC): clean wood
• Niche fuels:
– E.On Maasvlakte and Nuon Buggenum (IGCC): sewage sludge
– Essent: demolition wood (via gasification) and bark pellets
7
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
Direct biomass co-firing at Essent Amer power station
Wood pellets
Citrus pellets
Altogether: ~ 1 Mtonne/y on one site!
Palm kernel chips
Source: Essent
8
Amer 9 (600 MWe + 350 MWth)
: 300 ktonne/y
Second “bio” mill Amer 9
: 300 ktonne/y
Amer 8 (645 MWe + 250 MWth)
: 320 ktonne/y
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
Olive residu
Indirect biomass co-firing at Essent Amer power station
Amer 12 (600 MWe + 350 MWth)
: 60 MWth (~5% e/e)
Source: Essent
9
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
Renewables in the Netherlands – current data vs ambitions
4000
[PJ/y]
3500
4000
3500
gros energy consumption
renewable energy
3000
3000
2500
2500
Ambition 20 (or even 30) % renewables in 2020
2000
1500
2000
1500
Implementation legging behind…
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
1990
10
2007
2008
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
2020
avoided fossil fuel use [PJ/a]
Renewables in the Netherlands – biomass contribution
A p p r o x im a te ly 6 0 % to ta l r e n e w a b le fr o m b io m a s s !
• L a r g e d e c r e a s e in c o - fir in g in 2 0 0 7 :
- c a n c e lle d fe e d - in ta r iffs fo r ( p a lm ) o il
and indirect co-firing
- t i g h t MSWI
c l e a n w o o d p e l l e t s m a r k e t direct
wood stoves - industrial
wood stoves - residential
70 - d e l a other
y i n biomass
d e v e combustion
l o p m e n t o f n e w s u landfill
b s i d gasy s y s t e m
biogas - sewage sludge
biogas - aggricultural residues
• 2 600 0 8 : c l e biogas
a r s - iother
g n s o f r e c o v e r y , d e s p ite lo w e r e d s u b s id ie s
50
40
30
20
10
0
1990
11
2005
2006
2007
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
2008
Technical bottlenecks in biomass co-firing
catalyst
deactivation
Many bottlenecks
grindability and/or
ash-related
NOx emissions
ToMe emissions
fouling & corrosion
ESP
performance
SCR
ESP
FGD
coal
BM
stack
fly ash quality
direct co-firing
12
burner stability
milling/pneumatic boiler performance
near-burner slagging
transport
burnout
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
gypsum quality
R&D needs - biomass co-firing in high percentages
• Biomass upgrading technology to reduce the cost of biomass logistics and
improve the compatibility of biomass as a fuel
• Better mechanistic understanding of combustion/gasification-related
technical bottlenecks and translation into fuel mixing recipes, design
specifications and operating guidelines
• Predictive tools for assessing the co-firing potential of biomass streams
and optimising boiler design and operation for co-firing (low-cost
screening, modelling)
• Biomass co-firing and future boiler designs (i.e. USC)
• Advanced techniques for (on-line) process monitoring and control
• (Ash recycling strategies and) utilisation options
13
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
De-bottlenecking – R&D approach
Design rules
Lab-scale experiments
Validation
Full-scale measurement
campaigns
Evaluation / interpretation
Operator guidelines
Fuel specifications
Validation
Modelling
(thermodynamics, CFD)
Predictive tools
Lab-scale experiments and modelling allow investigations beyond current full-scale
practice (higher co-firing percentages, higher steam conditions, oxy-fuel combustion)
14
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
De-bottlenecking – torrefaction for improved fuel specs
Woody biomass
Mixed
waste
Agricultural residues
Torre
fac
pulve tion and
risatio
n
Superior fuel properties:
− Transport, handling, storage
− Milling, feeding
− Gasification, combustion
− Feedstock range
− Standardisation
tonne-scale batches of materials available
from the ECN torrefaction pilot-scale plant
Tenacious and fibrous
10 - 17 MJ/kg (LHV, ar)
Hydrophilic
Vulnerable to biodegradation
Heterogeneous
15
Friable and less fibrous
19 - 22 MJ/kg (LHV, ar)
Hydrophobic
Preserved
Homogeneous
Fuel powder
Pelle
tisatio
n
Bulk density 700-800 kg/m3
Bulk energy density 13-17 GJ/m3
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
Fuel pellets
De-bottlenecking - example of fuel interactions
KCl (l/s), KOH (g), K2SO4 (s)
Ca/Si based
aerosols (s/l)
KCl (g), KOH (g), K2SO4 (l)
KCl (g), KOH (g), K2SO4 (g)
KCl (g), KOH (g)
biomass
16
SO2 (g)
coal
clay minerals (l/s)
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
De-bottlenecking tools - Lab-scale Combustion Simulator
high
oxygen
high
temperature
Temperature [°C]
1000
0
1200
1400
20
90
0,1
gas
1600
Burner area
0,2
210
gas
+
particles
Residence time [ms]
Distance [m]
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
1300
0,8
oxygen
high
high
temperature
Furnace exit
0,9
1
Sampling location
Realistic gas temperature and gas composition profiles, sampling 5-2500 ms
17
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
De-bottlenecking - ash/minerals release for various fuels
Release per kg dry fuel [mg/kg]
30000
55%
25000
36%
40%
20000
15000
8%
10000
30%
51%
5000
49%
0
Bark (BM1)
Wood chips
(BM2)
Waste wood
(BM3)
Ca
Mg
Na
Olive residue
(BM5)
K
Ti
P
S
Straw (BM6)
Cl
Mn
Zn
Polish coal (C1)
Pb
Release biomass very different from coal:
– total release biomass 30-55% (incl. S and Cl)
– total release coal 0.3-2.6% (excl. S and Cl) or 8-36% (incl. S and Cl)
18
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
UK coal (C2)
De-bottlenecking tools – lab-scale Horizontal Deposit Probe
Developed in co-operation with Hukseflux (subsidiary of Clyde Bergemann)
Functionalities:
•Deposit composition
•Deposit influence on heat transfer
• 700 < Tgas< 1300 °C
• 300 < Tsurface< 750 °C
19
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
De-bottlenecking tools - full-scale mobile deposition probe
20
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
De-bottlenecking – Full/lab-scale slagging/fouling tests
flo w
Approach also proven for:
- USC conditions (full/lab-scale)
- oxyfuel BM combustion (lab)
50
45
Lab-scale
40
Full-scale
% w/w d.a.b.
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SiO2
21
Al2O3
Fe2O3
Na2O
K2O
CaO
MgO
TiO2
P2O5
MnO
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
Conclusions
•
•
Biomass co-firing is an established technology for co-firing percentages up to 10-20% (e/e)
Biomass co-firing at high percentages (30-50% e/e) is feasible, but needs/highly benefits
from:
−
−
−
−
Innovative biomass upgrading technologies
Better mechanistic understanding of technical bottlenecks
Better predictive and diagnostic tools
On-line monitoring and control (e.g. fouling, corrosion)
•
Torrefaction allows for a cost-effective, high-efficiency production of commodity biomass
fuels with superior grindability and conversion properties.
•
Many technical bottlenecks in biomass co-firing are ash related. Main mechanisms of ash
formation and ash behaviour have been mapped. R&D focus now on quantification and
incorporation of mechanistic knowledge in predictive tools.
•
Combination of predictive tools and on-line monitoring is key to successful management of
ash behaviour, particularly for new boiler designs.
•
New challenges in biomass co-firing include sustainability, heat utilisation, lower quality
(“salty”) biomass, wet biomass.
22
Biomass co-firing with the focus on the experience in the Netherlands – M.K. Cieplik et al.
Thank you for your attention!
M.K. Cieplik
ECN BCE
P.O. Box 1
1755LE Petten
The Netherlands
cieplik@ecn.nl
Tel: +31 224 564700