+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Biomass Inventory and Distributed BioPower Production in...

Biomass Inventory and Distributed BioPower Production in...

Date post: 04-Feb-2021
Category:
Upload: others
View: 1 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
41
Biomass Inventory and Distributed Biomass Inventory and Distributed BioPower Production in Manitoba BioPower Production in Manitoba Gasification Workshop, Gimli, Manitoba, September 30, 2004 Dr. Eric Bibeau Dr. Eric Bibeau Mechanical & Industrial Engineering Dept Mechanical & Industrial Engineering Dept Manitoba Hydro Chair in Alternative Energy Manitoba Hydro Chair in Alternative Energy
Transcript
  • Biomass Inventory and Distributed Biomass Inventory and Distributed BioPower Production in ManitobaBioPower Production in Manitoba

    Gasification Workshop, Gimli, Manitoba, September 30, 2004

    Dr. Eric BibeauDr. Eric BibeauMechanical & Industrial Engineering DeptMechanical & Industrial Engineering Dept

    Manitoba Hydro Chair in Alternative EnergyManitoba Hydro Chair in Alternative Energy

  • OUTLINEOUTLINEBiomass availability in ManitobaBiomass availability & biopower– transportation– feedstock analysis– plant scale– conversion/revenue charts

    Conclusions

  • Biomass Inventory to Support Biomass Inventory to Support Manitoba Biomass EconomyManitoba Biomass Economy

    Bio-Energy– fuels– power – heat

    Industrial chemicalsFibreFeedProducts

    Drivers• GHG• Energy supply• Innovation• Rural development• Air quality

  • Biomass for BioPower in ManitobaBiomass for BioPower in ManitobaForest biomass– wood residues from sawmills

    Agriculture residues– straw from grain

    Energy cropsAnimal wastes– swine, poultry, bovine

    Municipal wastes– organic residues

    Non-mainstream biomass – cattails and peat moss

    Biomass Waste Streams• Forest• Agriculture• Municipal

  • Biomass FeedstocksBiomass FeedstocksMeasurements– BDT– ODT– AR– Wet/Dry

    Ultimate analysisProximate analysisHeating value

    Waste Wood Dry WetCarbon 49.91% 24.96%

    Hydrogen 5.93% 2.97%Nitrogen 0.34% 0.17%

    Sulfur 0.04% 0.02%Chlorine 0.01% 0.01%Oxygen 42.35% 21.18%

    Ash 1.42% 0.71%Moisture (H2O), (AR)

    Biosolids Dry WetCarbon 32.60% 19.56%

    Hydrogen 4.71% 2.83%Nitrogen 5.13% 3.08%

    Sulfur 1.60% 0.96%Chlorine 0.12% 0.07%Oxygen 16.34% 9.80%

    Ash 39.62% 23.77%Moisture (H2O), (AR)

    50.00%

    40.00%

    Volatile (dry) 55.5%Fix carbon (dry) 24.5%

    Ash (dry) 20.0%Moisture (AR) 30.0%

    Waste Wood

    MJ/kgBiomass 19.7 MJ/kg

    Hydrogen 119.5 MJ/kgCoal 25.5 MJ/kg

    LHVBiomass is nature’s way of storing solar energy

  • Forest BiomassForest BiomassTPF: Timber productive forest– region where biomass is available for use

    Merchantable biomass– tree stem

    Non-stem biomass– bark, branches, leaves

    ACC: Annual allowable cut – yearly merchantable tree volume taken from TPF

    Actual harvest– yearly amount actually taken

  • Forest Biomass Forest Biomass Wood residues– actual harvest – merchantable wood = wood residues

    Wood residue applications– secondary manufacturing

    – chips for pulp

    – cogeneration

    – unused wood residues

    Biomass inventory for bio-power– unused wood residues

    mill + harvest site

    Decreasing value proposition

  • Forest Inventory in ManitobaForest Inventory in ManitobaTotal forest area– 65,000,000 ha

    TPF area– 15,300,000 ha

    Annual allowable cut– 15,500 ha/yr

    TPF Volume– 938,000,000 m3 (national 26,159,000,000 m3)

    Average non-stem wood density– 55 ODT/ha (national 89 ODT/ha)– Total of 836,000,000 ODT

    Forest residue– Available: 20,000 BDT/a – Potential: 140,000 BDT/a

  • Straw in ManitobaStraw in ManitobaLand base– total 65,000,000 ha– farm 7,600,000 ha–crop 4,700,000 ha–others 3,000,000 haCosts (fuel, harvest, store, transport)–$35 to 60 $/dry ton

  • Straw in ManitobaStraw in ManitobaTypes– Wheat– Cereal– Flax (high energy content)– Canola (cannot bale)

    Straw – high silica– year to year variations– Conservation tillage - 750 kg/ha

    – Conventional tillage - 1500 kg/ha

  • Straw in ManitobaStraw in ManitobaEnergy use –NRCan

    available 3,530,000 BDT/yrpotential 6,500,000 BDT/yr

    –Agriculture Canada

    Wheat Oats Barley Flax Total Cattle use

    Alberta 3.06 1 2.82 0.006 6.89 5.41Saskatchewan 4.8 1.07 1.97 0.15 7.99 2.12Manitoba 3.09 0.78 1.07 0.15 5.1 1.34Total 10.95 2.85 5.86 0.306 19.98 8.87Lawrence Townley-Smith, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2004

    Annual straw production: 1/3 conservation tillage and 2/3 conventional tillage

    Mega BDT/yr

  • GIS System for Biomass AvailabilityGIS System for Biomass Availability• brown area will

    supply the required straw

    • background colouris straw yield

    • can select multiple sites to compare

    • gaps in background are either non-cropland or don’t have enough straw to meet conservation requirements

    Source: L. TownleySource: L. Townley--Smith, Agriculture and Smith, Agriculture and AgriAgri--Food CanadaFood Canada

  • Energy Crops in ManitobaEnergy Crops in ManitobaGrow crops exclusively for energyBased on land availability and yieldLarge variation 4 to 35 ODT/ha/yrCosts (fuel, harvest, store, transport)– $35 to 65 $/dry ton

    Resource– land 1,702,000 ha– assume 33% use

    available 5,050,000 BDT/apotential 15,300,000 BDT/a

  • Livestock Wastes in Manitoba Livestock Wastes in Manitoba Manures– soil amendments

    direct application causes problems

    – use for energyanaerobic digestioncombustion/gasification

    AnimalsAverage

    Mass Manure Daily Yearly

    number kg/animal kg/animal TonnesMega

    Tonnes %Mega

    Tonnes/yr

    Diary 95,400 636 52 4,961 1.8 75% 1.4Beef 1,300,000 568 34 44,200 16.1 25% 4.0Poultry 7,085,385 1 0.06 425 0.2 85% 0.1Swine 7,300,000 90 5 36,500 13.3 85% 11.3

    Recoverable manure from Livestock in Manitoba

    Recoverable

    Dairy

  • BSE Disposal in ManitobaBSE Disposal in ManitobaNeed to kill prions– high heat– alkali hydrolysis – plasma– composting (storage)

    Biomass energy source – 1.3 million cattle herd– mortality 28,000 animals per year– hard to get published data for disposal of BSE

    animals – energy intensive

  • Urban Residues in Manitoba Urban Residues in Manitoba Organic wastes– residential, commercial, industrial– disposal issuesLarge quantities in urban areas– MSW, sewage sludge, landfill gas,

    demolition residuesAvailable in Manitoba– 940,000 BDT/yr waste

    358,000 BDT/yr MSW20,600 BDT/yr Biosolids

  • NPK Marsh FilterNPK Marsh Filter2001

    Vegetation Class Area Covered Hectares (ha)

    % of Total Marsh Area

    Bulrush (Scirpus) 317.1 1.2 River Rushes 166.3 0.6 Cattail (Typha) 4533.8 17.6 Giant Reed (Phragmites) 522.6 2.0

    Vegetation maps Netley-

    Libau Marsh 2001

    Netley 1979 Area Moisture HHVPlant Available kJ/kgSpecies (ha) min max (%) min max DryCattail 4987 8,528 118,267 17.1 7,070 98,043 18,229Bulrush 3247 3,215 32,584 18.2 2,629 26,653 17,447Reed Grass 650 1,112 1,170 12.8 969 1,020 17,285Rushes, Sedges.. 922 954 6,638 12.4 836 5,819 15,838Sum 9,806 13,808 158,659 11,505 131,535Weighted average 16.7 18,024

    Harvest Biomass(Wet tonne) (Dry tonne)

    From: Evaluation of a wetland-biopower concept for nutrient removal and value recovery from the Netley-Libeau marsh at Lake WinnipegN. Cicek1, S. Lambert, H.D. Venema, K.R. Snelgrove, and E.L. Bibeau

  • Value PropositionValue Proposition

    Small

    Condensing Steam

    Small steam with

    cogeneration

    Organic Rankine

    Cycle

    Air Brayton

    cycle

    Entropic cycle Gasification

    1

    Heat recovery loss (MW)

    8.0 8.0 7.8 12.3 5.3 11.0

    Cycle loss (MW)

    15.2 16.5 15.3 12.1 7.2 10.5

    Power generated (MWe)

    3.03 1.75 3.13 1.83 3.68 4.71

    Cogeneration heat (MWth)

    0.0 15.0 14.5 0.0 16.4 0.0

    1Assumes Producer gas has heat value of 5.5 MJ/m3 and cooled down to room temperature

    Nutrient from Red River to Lake Winnipeg– average 32,765 ton/yr of N; 4,905 ton/yr of P

    Biomass harvesting – 3.1-4.2% of N; 3.8-4.7% of P

    Nutrient removal City of Winnipeg– reduce N by 2,200 ton and P 260 ton in Red River – estimated cost $181 million or $80,000 per ton of N

    Energy production

  • Peat in ManitobaPeat in Manitoba1.1 million km2Canada– more than any

    country– Manitoba 19% – 1 billion tonnes

    proven – 300+ billion tonnes (indicated or inferred)– not used for energy– horticultural only

  • Biomass InventoryBiomass InventoryHow to relate? – biomass availability– BioPower potentialEffects of– conversion technology– plant scale– transportation– feedstock analysis

    Starting point •feedstock analysis•modeling

    •conversion CHP chart•revenue CHP chart

  • BioPower and BioPower and FeedstockFeedstock

    Volume

    (dry) (wet) FractionCarbon, C 50.0% 25.0% 29.50%

    Hydrogen, H2 6.0% 3.0% 21.20%Oxygen, O2 42.0% 21.0% 9.30%

    Nitrogen, N2 2.0% 1.0% 0.60%Water, H2O 0.0% 50.0% 39.40%

    Feed Analysis

    Mass Fraction

    HHV = 20.5 MJ/BDkgfuel & 50% MC

  • Bio-oil GasificationSyngas

    AirBrayton

    Best Large Steam

    Overall Power Efficiency 6.6% 7.8% 7.4% 29.2%Electricity (kWhr/BDtonne) 363 440 420 1659Heat (kWhr/Bdtonne) - - - -Overall Energy Efficiency 6.4% 7.8% 7.4% 29.2%

    SmallSteam

    SmallSteam CHP

    OrganicRankine

    Entropic Rankine

    Overall Power Efficiency 9.9% 5.7% 10.2% 12.0%Electricity (kWhr/Bdtonne) 563 324 580 682Heat (kWhr/Bdtonne) - 2,936 2,713 3,066Overall Energy Efficiency 9.9% 53.9% 54.5% 67.5%

    1

    Distributed BioPowerDistributed BioPowerCHP CHP 50% moisture content Conversion ChartConversion Chart

    http://www.cec.org/files/pdf/economy/biomass-stageii-final.pdf

  • $0.038 per kWhr$0.016 per kWhr

    USDPower Heat (60% use) Total

    Bio-Oil $13.9 n/a $13.9Gasification $16.8 n/a $16.8Air Brayton $16.0 n/a $16.0

    Best Large Steam $63.3 n/a $63.3Small Steam $21.5 n/a $21.5

    Small Steam CHP $12.4 $29.0 $41.4ORC $22.1 $26.8 $49.0ERC $26.0 $30.3 $56.4

    Revenue (per BDtonne)

    Electrical Power (USD)Natural gas (USD)

    1

    Distributed BioPowerDistributed BioPowerCHP Revenue ChartCHP Revenue Chart

    Note: Results are for 50% moisture content

  • Manitoba Hydro: Chair in Alternative EnergyNatural Resources CanadaCommission for Environmental CooperationNational Research CouncilPreto F., “State-of-technology of electrical power generation from biomass,” Advanced Combustion Technologies CANMET Energy technology Center, 2004 Wood S. and Layzell D., “A Canadian biomass inventory: feedstocks for a bio-based economy,” BIOCAP Canada Foundation, Kingston, June 27, 2003(Many phone calls)

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTACKNOWLEDGEMENT

  • Modeling ApproachModeling ApproachRealistic small size systems – limit cycle improvement opportunities

    cost effective for technology for small size– limit external heat/power to system– adapt component efficiencies to scale

    Model system as if building system today– model actual conversion energy system – ignore parasitic power for bio-oil & gasifier– mass and energy balances

    Account for every step in conversionExclude use of specialized materials

  • BioBio--OilOilLiquid: condense pyrolysis gases – add heat; no oxygen – organic vapour + pyrolysis gases + charcoal

    Advantages for distributed BioPower– increases HHV – lessens cost of energy transport – produces “value-added” chemicals

    Disadvantages for distributed BioPower– energy left in the char– fuel: dry + sized– sophisticated operators

  • BioBio--OilOil

    Rotating Cone (fast pyrolysis)

    Travelling Bed (fast pyrolysis)

    Bubbling Bed (fast pyrolysis)

    Slow pyrolysis

  • BioBio--OilOilJF Bioenergy ROI Dynamotive Ensyn

    Bio-oil (% by weight) 25% 60% 60% – 75% 60% – 80%Non-cond. gas (% by weight) 42% 15% 10% – 20% 8% – 17%Char (% by weight) 33% 25% 15% – 25% 12% – 28%Fuel feed moisture Not published

  • BioBio--oil Overall Energy Balanceoil Overall Energy Balance

    Biomass Feed 50% moisture

    Drying/Sizing to 10% / 2 mm Pyrolysis

    21.5% energy loss 32% energy

    Char 45.6%

    energy loss

    Engine/ Generator

    6.4% Electricity

    60% energy Bio-oil

    8% energy loss

    18.5%

    3%

    3%

    5%

    N2 Sand

    Electricity: 363 kWhr/BDtonne

    Pyrolysis heat: non-condensable gas + some char (no NG)Pyrolysis power: 220 – 450 kWhr/BDtonne (335 or 5%)Use ICE: efficiency 28% (lower HHV fuel; larger engine; water in oil lowers LHV)Other parasitic power neglected (conservative)Limited use cogeneration product (char)

    PowerPower

  • GasifierGasifierSub-stoichiometric combustion – syngas: CO, CH4, H2, H2O– contains particles, ash, tars

    Advantages for distributed BioPower– engines and turbines (Brayton Cycle)– less particulate emission

    Disadvantages for distributed BioPower– flue gas cleaning– cooling syngas, remove water vapor, filter tars– fuel: dry + sized – quality of gas fluctuates with feed

  • GasifierGasifier

    Assume require 25% MC and no sizing requirements (conservative)Ignore parasitic loads: dryer, gas cooler, gas cleaning, tar removal, fans (conservative)Heat to dry fuel comes from process (3.8 MJ/BDkgfuel)100% conversion of char to gas (conservative)HHV of syngas = 5.5 MJ/m3 dry gas

    Syngas Vol Dry vol Dry wgtfraction fraction kg/kgfeed

    CO 0.1907 0.2994 0.461CO2 0.0365 0.0573 0.139CH4 0.0143 0.0224 0.02H2O 0.363 0 0

    H2 0.1043 0.1638 0.018N2 0.2911 0.457 0.703

    5.5 MJ/m3 dry gasHHV (dry gas)

  • Gasification Overall Energy BalanceGasification Overall Energy Balance

    Biomass Feed 50% moisture

    Drying to 25%

    40% energy Producer Gas

    7.75% Electricity

    Engine/ Generator Gasification

    15%

    15% energy loss

    60% energy loss

    17.25% energy loss

    Electricity: 440 kWhr/BDtonne

    Low HHV of gas affects efficiency of engineAssume ICE operates at 75% of design efficiency15% heat from producer gas dries fuelNo heat loss across gasifier boundaryLimited useable cogeneration heat

  • Small Steam CycleSmall Steam Cycle(no CHP)(no CHP)

    Steam Rankine Cycle– common approach – water boiled, superheated, expanded, condensed and

    compressed Advantages distributed BioPower– well known technology – commercially available equipment

    Disadvantages distributed BioPower – costly in small power sizes – large equipment and particulate removal from flue gas– requires sophisticated and registered operator

    Superheater

    Economizer

    Boiler

    Feed Pump

    Deaerator

    Attemporator

    Condenser

    8%steam

    Ejector

    Turbine

    2%blowdown makeup

    10

    9

    76

    4

    3

    2

    1

    8

  • Small Steam Overall Energy BalanceSmall Steam Overall Energy Balance

    Biomass Feed 50% moisture Heat Recovery Steam Cycle

    9.9% Electricity

    40.5% energy loss

    49.6% energy loss

    Electricity: 563 kWhr/BDtonne

    Limit steam to 4.6 MPa and 400oC (enable use of carbon steel)Use available turbines for that size: low efficiency (50%)No air pre-heater4% parasitic load included in analysisFlue gas temperature limited to 1000oC (NOx and material considerations)All major heat losses and parasitic loads accounted

  • ORCORCAdvantages distributed BioPower– smaller condenser and turbine as high

    turbine exhaust pressure– higher conversion efficiency than

    small steam– no chemical treatment or vacuum– no government certified operators– CHP – dry air cooling can reject unused heat

    Disadvantage for distributed BioPower– organic fluid ¼ of water enthalpy– binary system, flammable thermal oil– systems are expensive – particulate removal from flue gas

  • ORC ORC Overall Energy BalanceOverall Energy Balance

    Biomass Feed50% moisture Turboden CycleHeat Recovery

    80°C liquidcogeneration

    10.2% Electricity

    40.1%energy loss

    49.7%energy loss

    Electricity: 580 kWhr/BDtonneHeat: 2713 kWhr/BDtonne

    Flue gas temperature limited to 1000oC (NOx and material considerations)Cool flue gas down to 310oCCHP heat at 80oCAll major heat losses and parasitic loads accounted for

  • ERCERCAdvantages for small BioPower– pre-vapourized non-steam fluid – small turbine and equipment – no chemical treatment, de-aeration or vacuums – no government certified operators– ideal for CHP: 90°C to 115°C; return 60°C to 90°C– dry air cooling can reject unused heat

    Disadvantages for small BioPower– restricted to small power sizes (< 5 MW)– system has not been demonstrated commercially– special design of turbine– particulate removal from flue gas

  • ERC ERC Overall Energy BalanceOverall Energy Balance

    Biomass Feed 50% moisture Entropic CycleHeat Recovery

    90°C liquidcogeneration

    12.0% Electricity

    56.2%energy loss

    31.8%energy loss

    Electricity: 682 kWhr/BDtonneHeat: 3066 kWhr/BDtonne

    Flue gas temperature limited to 1000oC (NOx and material considerations)

    Cool flue gas down to 215°CCHP heat at 90oC; return 60oCAll major heat losses and parasitic loads accounted for

  • NonNon--Steam Based SystemsSteam Based SystemsORC & ERCORC & ERC

    Thermal Oil Heat Transfer

    TURBODEN srl

    synthetic oil ORC

    Conversion

    1000°C 310°C

    250°C 300°C

    60°C

    80°C Liquid Coolant

    Air heat dump

    17%

    Input Heater 59.9% recovery

    Entropic Fluid Heat

    Transfer

    ENTROPICpower cycleConversion

    1000°C 215°C

    170°C400°C

    60°C

    90°C Liquid Coolant

    Air heat dump

    17.6%

    Input Heater 68.2% recovery


Recommended