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 Gasification1

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 km2

Canada– 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 <10% <10% <10%Fuel size Not published Not published 1 – 2 mm 1 – 2 mmEnergy (kW/kg) 2.34 2.34 2.08 2.2Water content bio-oil Not published 21% 23.40% <25%

10% moisture content + sizing to 2 mmdrying heat: 3.72 – 5.1 MJ/kgh20

– 4.0 MJ/kgh20 and obtained from char (ROI)

drying power: 917 – 1262 kWhr/BDtonne– assumed 1050 kWhr/BDtonne; conservative; bound water

sizing power: 150 – 200 kWhr/BDtonne– assumed 170 kWhr/BDtonne

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