Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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