Cec 500 2012 060

Publ i c I nter est Ener gy Resear ch ( PI ER) Pr ogr am
FI NAL PROJECT REPORT

UCDAVISTECHNOLOGY
ASSESSMENTFORADVANCED
BIOMASSPOWERGENERATION
MAY 2012
CEC 500 2012 060
Preparedfor: CaliforniaEnergyCommission
Preparedby: UniversityofCalifornia,Davis

Prepared by:

Primary Author:
Robert B. Williams

Department of Biological and Agricultural
Engineering
1 Shields Avenue
University of California
Davis, CA 95616

Contract Number: 500-00-034

Prepared for:

California Energy Commission

Hassan Mohammed
Contract Manager

Linda Spiegel
Office Manager
Energy Generation Research Office

Laurie ten Hope
Deputy Director
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

Robert P. Oglesby
Executive Director

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It
does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of
California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and
subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information
in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon
privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy
Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of
the information in this report.

iii

Acknowledgements
Theauthorwouldliketothankthefollowingforthehelpprovidedwithcomments,
suggestions,andcriticalreview:
SMUD
BruceVincent
RuthMacDougall
MarcoLemes
ArmandoRamirez
CaliforniaEnergyCommission
HassanMohammed
ValTiangco
ZhiqinZhang
PrabSethi
MichaelSokol
UniversityofCalifornia
ProfessorBryanJenkins
Financialsupport,whichisgreatlyappreciated,wasprovidedbytheCaliforniaEnergy
CommissionthroughthePIERRenewablesProgram.Significantcostsharewas
providedthroughacontractwiththeCaliforniaIntegratedWasteManagementBoard
whichinvolvedanevaluationofconversiontechnologiessuitableforMSW.

Pleasecitethisreportasfollows:
Williams,RobertB.2005.UCDavisTechnologyAssessmentforAdvancedBiomassPower
Generation.CaliforniaEnergyCommission,PIERProgram.CEC5002012060.
i

ii

Preface

TheCaliforniaEnergyCommissionsPublicInterestEnergyResearch(PIER)Program
supportspublicinterestenergyresearchanddevelopmentthatwillhelpimprovethe
qualityoflifeinCaliforniabybringingenvironmentallysafe,affordable,andreliable
energyservicesandproductstothemarketplace.
ThePIERProgramconductspublicinterestresearch,development,anddemonstration
(RD&D)projectstobenefitCalifornia.
ThePIERProgramstrivestoconductthemostpromisingpublicinterestenergyresearch
bypartneringwithRD&Dentities,includingindividuals,businesses,utilities,and
publicorprivateresearchinstitutions.
PIERfundingeffortsarefocusedonthefollowingRD&Dprogramareas:
BuildingsEndUseEnergyEfficiency
EnergyInnovationsSmallGrants
EnergyRelatedEnvironmentalResearch
EnergySystemsIntegration
EnvironmentallyPreferredAdvancedGeneration
Industrial/Agricultural/WaterEndUseEnergyEfficiency
RenewableEnergyTechnologies
Transportation
UCDavisTechnologyAssessmentforAdvancedBiomassPowerGenerationisthefinalreport
fortheSMUDReGenproject(ContractNumber50000034),conductedbyUCDavis.
TheinformationfromthisreportcontributestoPIERsRenewableEnergyTechnologies
program.
FormoreinformationaboutthePIERProgram,pleasevisittheEnergyCommissions
websiteatwww.energy.ca.gov/research/orcontacttheEnergyCommissionat
9166544878.

iii

iv

Table of Contents
Preface...........................................................................................................................................iii
Abstract........................................................................................................................................xv
ExecutiveSummary.....................................................................................................................1
1.0BiomassPowerSystems......................................................................................................11
1.1BiomassPowerinCalifornia................................................................................................11
1.2BiomassResourceassessmentfortheSacramentoRegion........................................14
1.3ConversionofBiomass....................................................................................................39
1.4AdvancedBiomassPowerSystems...............................................................................41
1.4.1BiomassCofiringwithFossilFuels........................................................................46
1.4.2BiomassIntegratedGasTurbineCombinedCycleEfforts.................................48
1.4.3SmallScaleandModularBiomass.........................................................................55
1.4.4RiceStrawCombustionSystems............................................................................73
1.4.5SystemsforConversionofMSW............................................................................87
1.5SummaryofBiomassConversion................................................................................139
2.0EnvironmentalImpacts....................................................................................................147
2.1Introduction....................................................................................................................147
2.1.1Organization............................................................................................................148
2.1.2Recommendations..................................................................................................152
2.2EnvironmentalPerformanceofSelectedTechnologies............................................155
2.2.1GasificationEnvironmentalIssues.......................................................................155
2.2.2IGCC.........................................................................................................................157
2.2.3StrawFacility...........................................................................................................160
2.2.4MSW/greenWasteADSystemsandDairyManureDigesterSystems...........166
2.2.5DairyEmissions......................................................................................................175
2.2.6GasEngines.............................................................................................................179
2.3AirPermittingProcess...................................................................................................197
2.3.1AirDistrictAttainmentStatusandEmissionLimits.........................................198
2.4NitrogenOxidesBackgroundandControl................................................................207
2.4.1NOxfromCombustionSources............................................................................207
2.4.2ControllingNOx.....................................................................................................210
2.4.3SulfurandCatalysts...............................................................................................223
2.5LeanEngineswithHighCOintheFuel.....................................................................225
2.5.1NitrogenRemovalfromProducerGas................................................................225
2.6ImprovementsforBiomassBoilers..............................................................................227
2.7OutofStateTransportofSacramentoMSWandPotentialforEmissionsReduction
.................................................................................................................................................229
2.8Recommendations..........................................................................................................232
3.0EngineeringandEconomicAnalysis..............................................................................237
3.1.EconomicAnalysisIntroduction.................................................................................237
3.2.1ThermochemicalBiomassPowerSystems...............................................................238
Gasifiers.............................................................................................................................238
v

vi

Combustion......................................................................................................................243
3.2.2BiochemicalConversiontoPower............................................................................244
AnaerobicdigestionandMSWADsystems................................................................244
3.3.EconomicAnalyses.......................................................................................................248
3.3.1.TaxtreatmentintheModel..................................................................................249
3.3.2GeneralProcedure..................................................................................................250
3.3.3BaseCaseResults....................................................................................................250
3.4.CFBGasifierCarbonaSkive,DenmarkCHP........................................................254
3.6.CarbonaIndiaBIGCC................................................................................................271
3.7.StrawCombustionFacility...........................................................................................282
3.8.MSWADSystems.........................................................................................................289
3.8.1ReviewofCostandPerformanceDataforGreenWasteandMSWDigestion..289
3.8.2EconomicAnalysisofGenericMSWADSystem...................................................293
3.8.3AnaerobicPhasedSolids(APS)Digester.................................................................308
3.9.DairyManurePowerSystems.....................................................................................319
3.9.1DeterminingCosts......................................................................................................319
4.0ConclusionsandRecommendations................................................................................330
Bibliography..............................................................................................................................333
Glossary.....................................................................................................................................344

AppendixA:SupplementalFiguresfromChapter3
AppendixB:BaseCashFlows

List of Figures
FigureES1.COEestimatesforbiomasspowerconversiontechnologies...........................5
Figure11.Mapofcountiesincludedinbiomassresourceassessment..............................16
Figure12.SacramentoCountydisposedsolidwastebyorigin..........................................17
Figure13.SacramentoCountysolidwastedisposalbydestination..................................18
Figure14.SacramentoCountywastestreamcomponentdisposalamountsandgross
potentialpowergeneration..............................................................................................22
Figure15.AcresundercultivationintheSacramentoregionbycropcategory..............24
Figure16.AnnualfieldcropresiduesintheSacramentoregion(drytons).....................27
Figure17.Technicalgenerationcapacityfromfieldcropsintheregion..........................27
Figure18.AnnualorchardandvineyardpruningsintheSacramentoregion(drytons).
..............................................................................................................................................29
Figure19.Technicalgenerationcapacityfromorchardtreeandvinepruningsinthe
region...................................................................................................................................29
Figure110.Schematicofdigestersubsystems......................................................................33
Figure111.Efficiencyversusnetelectricalpoweroutputforseveralprimemovers.....45
Figure112.IndirectCofiringwithsteamsideintegration.................................................46
Figure113.Directcofiringwithupstreamthermalgasification.........................................47
Figure114.Directcofirewithbiogas......................................................................................47
Figure115.SchematicoftheFERCOgasifier........................................................................49
Figure116.SchematicoftheVrnamo,SwedenBIGCCfacility........................................51
Figure118.SchematicofCPCsmallmodularsysteminPhaseIstage.............................57
Figure119.SimplifiedschematicoftheCarbonaSkiveproject..........................................60
Figure120.SchematicofgasifierCHPprojectatNorthCanaan,CT.................................61
Figure121.SchematicofproposedOmnifuelCHPfacility................................................64
Figure122.SchematicofAnkurdowndraftgasifierwithdualfuelpowergeneration
configuration......................................................................................................................65
Figure123.SchematicofaXylowattSAbiomassgasifierCHPfacility............................67
Figure124.SchematicoftheFastInternalCirculatingFluidizedBed(FICFB)gasifier,
Gssing,Austria................................................................................................................69
Figure125.SchematicoftheGssinggasifierandgascleanup........................................70
Figure126.SchematicofnovelgasifierCHPfacilityunderconstructionatKokemki,
Finland.................................................................................................................................72
Figure127.SchematicoffacilityatRudkbing,Denmark..................................................78
Figure128.MasnedBoiler.....................................................................................................79
Figure129.SchematicofAabenraaPowerStation...............................................................80
Figure130.SchematicofMaabjergfacility............................................................................82
Figure131.Avedorefacilityschematic..................................................................................83
Figure132.Bridgecraneunloadingtrailers..........................................................................85
Figure133.Cranemovingbalestostorage............................................................................85
Figure134.Balecranewithmoisturesensing.......................................................................86
Figure135.Conveyancetoboilerhouse................................................................................86
vii

Figure136.Twinecutterremover..........................................................................................86
Figure137.Twinverticalscrewdebaler...............................................................................86
Figure138.DrawingofLahtigasifierandcofueledboiler..............................................100
Figure139.SchematicofVarkaus,Finlandwastepackaginggasifierandaluminum
recoveryfacility................................................................................................................101
Figure140.AnaerobicdigestionpathwaysofpresortedMSW........................................109
Figure141.SchematicofatypicalsinglestageLSdigester..............................................111
Figure142.Highsolidssinglestagedigesterdesigns........................................................113
Figure143.Simpleschematicoftwostageanaerobicdigestionsystem.........................114
Figure144.GrowthofsolidwasteanaerobicdigestercapacityinEurope.....................118
Figure145.InstalledADcapacitybystageinEurope.......................................................119
Figure146.SimpleschematicofBiopercolatprocess.........................................................121
Figure147.SchematicofsinglestagelowsolidsADsystem...........................................123
Figure148.LindeKCAtwostagewetdigestionsystem...................................................124
Figure149.LindeKCAdrydigestionplugflowsystem...................................................124
Figure150.SchematicandmassbalanceoftheDrancoprocess......................................129
Figure151.DrawingoftheDrancoreactor.........................................................................130
Figure152.SchematicoftheArrowBioprocess..................................................................133
Figure153.SchematicofaUASBbioreactor.......................................................................134
Figure154.SchematicofAPSdigestersystemshowingfourhydrolysisvessels..........138
Figure155.SimulatedbiogasproductionrateforlabscaleAPSdigestersystem.........139
Figure21.SchematicofAnkurdowndraftgasifierwithdualfuelpowergeneration
configuration....................................................................................................................155
Figure22.SchematicofaXylowattSAbiomassgasifierCHPfacility............................156
Figure23.SchematicoftheVrnamo,SwedenBIGCCfacility........................................158
Figure24.NOxemissionsshowingfueldependence,VrnamoIGCC...........................159
Figure25.UntreatedNOxemissionsvs.fuelnitrogencontentfortheVrnamoIGCC
facility................................................................................................................................160
Figure26.SchematicofEly,UKPowerStation..................................................................161
Figure27.Permittedandactualemissionsforseveralsolidfuelbiomassplants..........164
Figure28.PCDD/Fcontentofrawhouseholdwastesandseveralcomposttypes........174
Figure29.NOxemissionsvs.efficiencyfor50ppmvexhaustconcentrationwithquoted
uncontrolledemissionsforseveralenginesfueledbynaturalgas...........................184
Figure210.Gasolineengineemissionsvs.Lambda...........................................................185
Figure211.Brakefuelefficiencyandpowervs.,FordVSG411fueledbynaturalgas
andproducergas.............................................................................................................190
Figure212.Generalemissionperformancevs.Lambda,producergasfuel...................191
Figure213.NOxandCOemissionsfromFordVSG411fueledbynaturalgasand
syntheticproducergas....................................................................................................192
Figure214.EffectofammoniainfuelgasonuncontrolledNOxemissionfrom
reciprocatingengines......................................................................................................193
Figure215.UntreatedemissionsfromJenbacherenginesfueledwithproducergas...194
viii

Figure216.NOxemissionratevs.efficiencyforgivenexhaustconcentration
(concentrationsareat15%O2).......................................................................................206
Figure217.MaximumNOxconcentrationvs.efficiencyfor1.9lbs/MWhemissionrate
............................................................................................................................................206
Figure218.NOxvs.FuelNitrogencontent.........................................................................209
Figure219.NOxemissionfactorsforseveralCaliforniasolidbiomassfacilities..........210
Figure220.Stagedaircombustioninatravelinggratestokerboiler..............................212
Note;.2=secondary................................................................................................................212
Figure221.Stagedfuelorreburninginatravelinggratestokerboiler........................213
Figure222.SchematicshowingtailendSCRarrangement............................................216
Figure223.SchematicofBOCgasesLoTOxsystemforNOxreduction.........................217
Figure224.Gasolineengineemissionsvs.Lambda...........................................................219
Figure225.NOxoffsettransactiontonsversuspricepertonforCaliforniain2003.....231
Figure3.21.SchematicofSkiveCHPfacility.......................................................................238
Figure3.22.SchematicofNovelgasifierCHPfacilityunderconstructionatKokemki,
Finland...............................................................................................................................241
Figure3.23.ProcessdiagramoftheCarbonaIndiaIGCCproject....................................242
Figure3.24.SchematicofEly,UK,PowerStation..............................................................244
Figure3.25.SchematicofaTypicalSingleStageDigester................................................245
Figure3.26.ConceptualdrawingofAPSdigesteratCSUChannelIslands..................246
Figure3.27.SchematicofAPSdigestersystemshowingfourhydrolysisvessels.........247
Figure3.28.Schematicofdigestersubsystems(typicaloflowsolidsdairyeffluents). 248
Figure3.31.COEestimatesforbiomasspowerconversiontechnologies.......................252
Figure3.32.Installedcostsofpowergenerationtechnologies.........................................253
Figure3.41.Constant$COEsensitivityanalysis(CarbonaSkive)...............................260
Figure3.42.Current$COEsensitivityanalysis(CarbonaSkive).................................260
Figure3.43.COEversusfuelcost(CarbonaSkive).........................................................261
Figure3.44.COEversusnonfuelO&Mcosts(CarbonaSkive)....................................262
Figure3.5.0FixedBedGasifierCarbonaKokemki,FinlandCHPPlant....................262
Figure3.51.Constant$COEsensitivityanalysis(Kokemki)..........................................269
Figure3.52.Current$COEsensitivityanalysis(Kokemki)............................................269
Figure3.53.COEversusfuelcost(Kokemki)....................................................................270
Figure3.54.COEversusnonfuelO&Mcosts(Kokemki)...............................................270
Figure3.61.SchematicofCarbonaIndiaBIGCCfacility...................................................271
Figure3.62.Constant$COEsensitivityanalysis(CarbonaIndiaIGCC).....................279
Figure3.63.Current$COEsensitivityanalysis(CarbonaIndiaIGCC).......................280
Figure3.64.COEversusfuelcost(CarbonaIndiaIGCC).................................................280
Figure3.65.COEversusO&Mcost(CarbonaIndiaIGCC).............................................281
Figure3.71.Constant$COEsensitivityforaricestrawpowerplant.............................287
Figure3.72.Current$COEsensitivity(ricestrawpowerplant).....................................287
Figure3.73.COEversusFuelCost(ricestrawplant)........................................................288
Figure3.74.COEversusnonfuelO&MCost(ricestrawplant)......................................288
Figure3.81.Capitalcostsvs.capacityforgreenwasteandMSWADsystems.............291
ix

x

Figure3.82.Digesterplantlaborcostsfromseveralsources............................................292
Figure3.83.Requiredtipfeevs.electricitysalespricefordifferentcapitalcostsofMSW
ADsystems.......................................................................................................................299
Figure3.84.Constant$COEsensitivityanalysis(MSWADscenario1)........................301
Figure3.85.Current$COEsensitivityanalysis(MSWADscenario1)..........................301
Figure3.86.COEversusTippingFee(MSWADscenario1)............................................302
Figure3.87.Current$COEversuscapitalcost(MSWADscenario1)...........................302
Figure3.88.COEversuscompostsalesprice(MSWADscenario1)...............................303
Figure3.89.COEandenergycapacityvs.biogasproduction(MSWADscenario1)...303
Figure3.810.COEversuselectricparasiticload(MSWADscenario1)..........................304
Figure3.811.Constant$requiredtippingfeesensitivityanalysis(MSWADscenario2).
............................................................................................................................................305
Figure3.812.Current$requiredtippingfeesensitivityanalysis(MSWADscenario2).
............................................................................................................................................306
Figure3.813.Requiredtippingfeevs.electricityprice(MSWADscenario2)...............306
Figure3.814.Requiredtippingfeevs.capitalcost(MSWADscenario2)......................307
Figure3.815.Requiredtippingfeevs.compostsalesprice(MSWADscenario2).......307
Figure3.816.Requiredtippingfee&electricalcapacityvs.biogasproduction(MSWAD
scenario2).........................................................................................................................308
Figure3.817.Constant$COEsensitivityanalysis(APS,scenario1)...............................312
Figure3.818.Current$COEsensitivityanalysis(APS,scenario1).................................313
Figure3.819.COEversustippingfee(MSWAD,scenario1)...........................................314
Figure3.820.Current$COEversuscapitalcost(MSWAD,scenario1)........................314
Figure3.821.Constant$COEsensitivityanalysis(APS,scenario2)...............................316
Figure3.822.Current$COEsensitivityanalysis(APS,scenario2).................................317
Figure3.823.COEversustippingfee(MSWAD,scenario2)...........................................318
Figure3.824.Current$COEversuscapitalcost(MSWAD,scenario2)........................318
Figure3.91.EstimatedinstalledcostsversuscapacityforCaliforniaandMidWestdairy
digsters..............................................................................................................................322
Figure3.92.Dairydigestercostsversusnumberofanimals.............................................323
Figure3.93.Estimatedtotalcapacityversusnumberofanimalsfordairydigesters....323
Figure3.94.Estimatedcapacityperanimalversusnumberofanimalsfordairy
digesters............................................................................................................................325
Figure3.95.COEvs.capitalcostforseveralloanperiodsoreconomiclifetimesfordairy
digesterpowersystems...................................................................................................328
xi

List of Tables
TableES1.Airemissionsfrombiomassfueledpowersystems............................................4
Table11DispositionofsolidfuelbiomasspowerfacilitiesinCalifornia.........................13
Table12.CurrentCaliforniaLFGTEactivitybytechnologytype......................................14
Table13.Listofcountiesusedforresourceassessmentforsomebiomasstypes............15
Table14.SolidwastefacilitiesinSacramentoCounty.........................................................18
Table15.MSWdisposedinSacramentoCounty;amount,characterization,energyand
grosspotentialelectricalgenerationcapacity................................................................21
Table16.CultivatedAcresbycropcategoryintheSacramentoregion............................24
Table17.Annualfieldcropresidues(tonsdryweightperyear)inSacramentoregion
andgenerationpotential...................................................................................................26
Table18.Annualorchardandvineyardprunings(tonsdryweightperyear)inthe
Sacramentoregionandelectricalgenerationpotential................................................28
Table19.Dairycows,annualmanureandgrosspowerproduction(bydigestion)forthe
Sacramentoregion.............................................................................................................31
Table110.Dairydigesterforpowersystems,underconstructionorproposedin
California.............................................................................................................................32
Table111.Regionalwastewatertreatmentbiosolids(notcurrentlylandfilled)and
electricalgeneratingpotential..........................................................................................35
Table112.Forestandmilloperationsgrosspotentialresidues(tonsdryweightperyear)
intheSacramentoregionandgenerationpotential......................................................37
Table113.ForestbiomassinfourmountaincountiescompletingtheCentralSierras.
38
Table114.Summaryofregionalgenerationpotentialfrombiomass................................39
Table115.DOESmallModularBiomassPhaseIAwards..................................................57
Table117.Approximateproducergasqualityrequirements.............................................65
Table118.Productgastarandparticulatematterconcentration,XylowattBullefacility.
..............................................................................................................................................67
Table119.SelectedsmallscalegasifiersoperatinginEurope............................................68
Table120.ContaminantsinGssingproducergasbeforeandaftercleaning.................69
Table121.NominalenergybalanceforKokemkiCHPplant...........................................71
Table122.Palmdalefuelcellrawandtreatedfuelgasquality..........................................73
Table123.AiremissionsfromthePalmdaleWWTPfuelcell............................................73
Table124.LargestrawfiredpowerfacilitiesdevelopedinDenmark...............................77
Table125.CompaniesusingthermochemicalconversionmethodstoprocessMSW.....90
Table126.CompaniesusingbiochemicalconversionmethodstoprocessMSW............91
Table127.ProcessenergyandnetelectricalenergyproductionpertonofMSW(wet
basis)fromaplasmaarcgasificationfacility.................................................................93
Table128.EbaraTwinRecgasificationfacilities...................................................................95
Table129.EbaraUEPpressurizedgasificationforchemicalrecyclingfacilities.............95
Table130.CompositionofrefusedderivedfuelatLahti..................................................100
Table131.AnnualfeedstockconsumptionbytypeatLahtigasifier...............................100
Table132.Performancedataofsomecommercialandpilotanaerobicdigestion
facilities..............................................................................................................................116
xii

Table133.Valorgaprocessinstallations..............................................................................120
Table134.ListofWaasaprocessADsites...........................................................................123
Table135.OrganicWasteSystemsDrancoReferences....................................................128
Table136.FeedstockandgasproductionforthreeDrancofacilities..............................128
Table137.BTAprocessreferences........................................................................................131
Table138.MassbalanceandpowerproductionforArrowBioprocess.
a
.......................135
Table139.BasicBioconverterprojectinputandoutputcapacities..................................137
Table20.Airemissionsfrombiomassfueledpowersystems..........................................149
Table21.Organiccompoundsinrawandtreatedproducergasscrubberwater..........157
Table22.FuelnitrogenandemissionsfortheVrnamoBIGCCfacility.........................160
Table23.Actualandpermittedairemissionsforstrawfacility,Ely,UK.......................162
Table24.AirpermitlimitsforseveralCaliforniasolidfuelbiomasspowerplantsand
oneUKfacility..................................................................................................................163
Table25.Nitrogencontentofseveralbiomasstypes.........................................................165
Table26.Emissionsfordifferentbiochemicaltreatmentmethods..................................169
Table27.CH4EmissionsfromUSlandfills(.......................................................................170
Table28.CompostanalysisfromtwoDrancofacilitiesinBelgium................................172
Table29.HeavymetalcontentincompostfromsolidwastesinGermany....................173
Table210.SummaryofrecommendedandSJVAPCDdeterminationforVOCemission
factorsfromdairyoperationsintheSJVAPCD...........................................................178
Table211.Classificationschemesforreciprocatingengines............................................180
Table212.Emissionsachievedinpracticefromreciprocatingenginesfueledbybiogas
inCalifornia......................................................................................................................181
Table213.CARBrecommendedBACTemissionsforreciprocatingengines................181
Table214.CARBrecommendedBACTemissionsforgasturbines<3MWe................181
Table215.DGemissionstandardsbeginningJanuary,2007............................................182
Table216.TypicalNOxemissionsforreciprocatingenginesusingfossilfuels.............183
Table217.EmissionsfromWaukeshaenginesfueledbybiogasatIEUA......................186
Table218.ColoradoPorkgasengineemissionsat45kWe...............................................186
Table219.SourcetestresultsforDPPPengineattheCottonwoodDairy......................187
Table220...................................................................................................................................188
Compositionofproducergasfromairblownbiomassgasifiers.......................................188
Table221.Gasqualityrequirementsforengines................................................................189
Table222.Emissionsfromproducerfuelgasenginesfromtwodemonstration
programs...........................................................................................................................195
Table223.Emissionsfroma30kW(gross)microturbineatCalabasasLandfill...........196
Table224.Palmdalefuelcellrawandtreatedfuelgasquality........................................197
Table225.AiremissionsfromthePalmdaleWWTPfuelcell..........................................197
Table226.CriteriapollutantattainmentstatusforairdistrictsintheSacramentoregion.
............................................................................................................................................200
(CAdesignations).....................................................................................................................200
Table227.Emissionlevels(tons/year)requiredfordesignationasamajorsourceand
offsettriggerlimits...........................................................................................................200
Table228.BACTtriggerthresholdsforairdistrictsintheSacramentoregion..............201
Table229.EmissionOffsetTriggerAmountsfordistrictsintheSacramentoregion...202
xiii

Table230.CARBrecommendedBACTemissionsforreciprocatingengines................203
Table231.CARBrecommendedBACTemissionsforgasturbines<3MWe.................203
Table232.Emissionlimits(ppmvat15%O2unlessotherwisenoted)forreciprocating
enginesinairdistrictswithintheSacramentoregion.
............................................205
Table233.NOxreductionpotential(%)bycombustionmanagementtechniques
(adaptedfrom)................................................................................................................221
Table234.NOxreductionpotential(%)usingsecondarycontrols(adaptedfrom).....222
Table235.Gascleanuprecommendations/capabilities,NovelCHPfacilities...............226
Table236.NOxreductionachievedinpilotscaleadvancedreburningexperiments...228
Table237.SelectedNOxoffsettransactiondetailsfor2003inCalifornia.......................230
Table238.SummaryofemissionandcostsassociatedwithtransportingSacramento
MSWtoReno....................................................................................................................232
Table3.21.Design/OperatingdataforCarbonaSkive.....................................................239
Table3.22.NominalenergybalanceforKokemkiCHPplant........................................241
Table3.31.ResultsofBaseCaseAnalyses...........................................................................251
Table3.41.Economicmodelbasecaseparameters,CarbonaSkive................................255
Table3.42.SimpleYear0costsandrevenuesfortheCarbonaSkiveproject.............256
Table3.43.SelectedresultsofeconomicmodelforCarbonaSkiveproject....................259
Table3.51.Economicmodelbasecaseparameters,Kokemki,FinlandCHPPlant.....263
Table3.52.SimpleYear0costsandrevenuesfortheKokemkiCHPproject.............264
Table3.53.SelectedresultsofeconomicanalysisforKokemkiCHPproject...............267
Table3.61.EconomicBaseCaseparametersforaBIGCCprojectinCalifornia.............273
Table3.62.SimpleYear0costsandrevenuesfortheCarbonaIGCCsystem..............274
Table3.63.CostandperformanceparametersusedbyEIA.............................................275
Table3.64.SelectedresultsofeconomicanalysisforCarbonaIndia/CaliforniaBIGCC
project................................................................................................................................277
Table3.71.EconomicBaseCaseparametersforaricestrawpowerplant.....................283
Table3.72.SimpleYear0costsandrevenuesforthericestrawpowerplant..............284
Table3.73.Selectedresultsofeconomicanalysisforthestrawpowerplant.................286
Table3.81.ReportedandprojectedaveragemethaneproductionforMSWADsystems
at34%biogastoelectricityconversionefficiency.......................................................289
Table3.82.CostDatausedtodeterminebasecasemodelinputs....................................290
Table3.83.GenericMSWADsystemeconomicassumptionsandScenarios1&2results.
............................................................................................................................................295
Table3.84.Comparisonofperformanceandeconomicparametersusedinthree
economicanalysesofMSWADsystems......................................................................298
Table3.85.APSdigesterscenario1basecase.....................................................................311
Table3.86.APSdigesterscenario2basecase.....................................................................315
Table3.91.CaliforniaDairyPowerProgramestimatedcostsandcapacities.................320
Table3.92.UpdatedcostandperformanceinformationfromfourDPPPdairies.........321
Table3.93.EstimatedcostsandcapacitiesfordairydigestersystemsintheUSMidWest
............................................................................................................................................321
Table3.94.EconomicparametersforCaliforniaDPPPforhighest,lowest,andmid
pricedproject....................................................................................................................327
Table3.96.Retailpowerrates................................................................................................329
xiv

xv

Abstract
Thisreportexaminesadvancedbiomassconversionprocesses,technologies,economic
performance,andenvironmentalconsiderationsassociatedwiththeuseand
managementofbiomasswithintheSacramentoMunicipalUtilityDistrict(SMUD)
region.
Advancedbiomasspowersystemsincludethermalgasificationsystemsfromsmall
combinedheatandpowersystemstomediumandlargescaleintegratedgasifier
combinedcyclesystems,thermochemicalandbiochemicalsystemssuitablefor
municipalsolidwasteandotherbiomass,andcombustionboilersdesignedforstraw
fuels.Alsoconsideredadvancedisthevarietyofmethodsforbiomasscofiringwith
fossilfuels(solidfuelcofiring,solidbiomasswithnaturalgassuperheat,gasified
biomassandnaturalgas,etc.).
ThoughthereissomedevelopmentofadvancedsystemsinCaliforniaandtheMidwest
andNortheast,mostadvancedbiomasspowersystemsdevelopmentisoccurringin
EuropeandJapan.Thesystemsselectedforanalysisincludethreetypesandscalesof
thermalgasifiers,astrawfueledcombustionboiler,greenwasteandmunicipalsolid
wasteanaerobicdigesters,anddairymanuredigestersystems.
SomeofthesuccessfullydemonstratedoroperatingsystemsinEuropecouldcompetein
Californiawhileotherswillneedsomelevelofsupporttoachievecommercialstatus.
OneofthehurdlesfacingtransferofthetechnologytoCaliforniaisthehighrisk
perceivedbyfinanciersduetoalackofdemonstratedfacilitiespermittedandoperating
inthestate.RecommendationstoaddressthetransferofthesetechnologiestoCalifornia
areprovided.

Keywords:Biomass,combinedheatandpower,municipalsolidwaste,strawfuels,
anaerobicdigesters,dairymanuredigestersystems
xvi

1

Executive Summary
SMUDReGenProgramAnAssessmentofAdvancedBiomassPowerGeneration
Technologies.
TheSacramentoMunicipalUtilityDistrict(SMUD),situatedinthecenterofCaliforniaand
spanningurban,agricultural,andwildlandareas,hasaccesstoadiversesupplyofbiomass
resourcesandiswellpoisedtopursueavarietyoftechnologiestogenerateadditional
amountsofrenewablebiomassenergyforitscustomers.Thisreportexaminesconversion
processes,technologies,economicperformance,andenvironmentalconsiderations
associatedwiththeuseandmanagementofbiomasswithintheSMUDregion.Includedin
Section1isabriefbackgroundofbiomassconversion,biopowergenerationintheUnited
StatesandCalifornia,andanestimateofbiomassresourcesintheSacramentoregion.
BiopowercapacityintheUnitedStatesiscurrentlyabout11gigawatts(GW),ofwhich
about55percentisfueledbyforestproductsandagriculturalresidues,theremaining
basedonmunicipalsolidwaste,includinglandfillgas.Californiasinstalledcapacityis
about1gigawattofelectricity,whichincludes640megawatts(MW)fromcombustionof
forestandagriculturalresidues,210MWfromlandfillgasconversionfacilities,and65MW
frommunicipalsolidwastemassburnfacilities.GrossbiomassresourcesintheSacramento
region(includingthecentralSierraNevadaregion)represent8.8terawatthoursof
electricity(from1GW),thoughonlyabouthalfthatisestimatedtobetechnicallyavailable.
Advancedbiomasspowersystemsinclude:
Avarietyofmethodsforbiomasscofiringwithfossilfuels,suchassolidfuel
cofiring,solidbiomasswithnaturalgassuperheat,gasifiedbiomassandnatural
gas.
Thermalgasificationsystemsfromsmallcombinedheatandpowersystems
usingreciprocatingenginestomediumandlargescaleintegratedgasifier
combinedcyclesystems.
Thermochemicalandbiochemicalsystemssuitableformunicipalsolidwasteand
otherbiomass.
Combustionboilersdesignedforstrawfuels.
ThoughthereissomedevelopmentofadvancedsystemsinCaliforniaandtheNortheast,
mostoftheadvanceddevelopmentalworkonbiomasspowersystemsisoccurringin
EuropeandJapan.Advancedsystemsincludesolidfueldirectcombustionunitscapableof
burningfuelsthatcannotbeconsumedintheexistingfacilitiesinCalifornia,smallto
mediumscaleautomatedgasifiercombinedheatandpowersystems,commercially
operatingfarmscaleandindustrialscaleanaerobicdigestersystems,andmore.Section1
devotessignificantattentiontonewandexistingbiomasspowersystemsoverseasthat
mightserveasmodelsforfutureCaliforniaandSMUDdevelopment.
2

Section2containsdataonenvironmentalimpactsofbiomasspowersystemsand
suggestionsortechniquesforimprovementtomeetincreasinglystringentCalifornia
regulationsandobjectives.Environmentalimpactsofconcernincludeconcentrationsof
heavymetalsinsolidresidues,quality,andamountofliquiddischarges,andairemissions.
BecausemuchofCaliforniaisnotmeetingfederalandstateattainmentstandardsfor
ambientozone,airemissions(especiallynitrousoxides),areamongthemostimportant
environmentalimpacts.TheSacramentoregionisnotinattainmentforozoneand,except
forAmadorCounty,notinattainmentforparticulatematter.TableES1comparesair
emissionsfromoperatinganddevelopmentalbiopowerfacilitiesintheUnitedStatesand
Europe.
Section3containsanengineeringandeconomicanalysisofselectedtechnologiespresented
inSection1.Aneconomicmodelwasusedtoestimaterevenuerequirementsintheformof
levelizedcostofenergyorlevelizedrequiredtippingfee,thelatterappliedwhenusing
municipalsolidwasteinacasestudyofanaerobicdigestion.
TheselectedtechnologiesanalyzedinSection3are:
Gasification
CirculatingFluidizedBed,5.4MWcombinedheatandpowerfacilitybasedona
unitunderdevelopmentinSkive,Denmark.
Fixedbed,1.8MWcombinedheatandpowerfacilityindevelopmentin
Kokemki,Finland.
BIGCCpressurizedCirculatingFluidizedBed12.5MW.
Strawcombustionsystem
Strawfueledvibratinggrateboiler,steamcyclepowerplant,38MW,basedon
thepowerplantinEly,England.
Municipalsolidwaste/greenwasteanaerobicdigestionsystems
Anaerobicdigestionofgreenwasteandtheorganicfractionofmunicipalsolid
wastebasedonagenericsystemusing100,000wettons/yearandgenerating1.2
MWofelectricpower.
Anaerobicphasedsolidsgreen/foodwastedigestersystemusing76,000wet
tons/yearandgenerating1.2MWofelectricpower.
Dairymanuredigestersystems
PreliminarydatafromtheCaliforniaDairyPowerProductionProgram.
Plugflow,coveredlagoon,andmixedtanksystemswithcapacitiesrangingfrom
30kWto1MW.

3

Theresultsforthebasecaseestimatedcostofenergyandtherangeofpotentialvaluesfrom
sensitivityanalysesareshowninFigureES1.Basecaselevelizedcostofelectricityranges
fromalowof$0.037perkilowatthourforfullyamortizedexistingsolidfueleddirect
combustionunits,tomorethan$0.13/kWhfordairyanaerobicdigestionsystemswith
shorttermfinancing.Thecostofelectricityfrommunicipalsolidwastedigestiondepends
heavilyontippingfeesavailableandassumptionsregardinglaborandotheroperatingand
maintenancecosts.LargerscaledemonstrationinCaliforniaofadvancedtechnologieswill
beneededtorefinecostestimates.
Theprojectincludeddevelopingadatabaseofbiomasstechnologydevelopers,
consultants,researchorganizations,resourcemanagers,andotherstakeholders.The
databasecontains120technologysuppliersand265industryandotherstakeholder
contactsandispublishedandavailableasaseparatedocument.
Thisreportexaminesadvancedbiomassconversionprocesses,technologies,economic
performance,andenvironmentalconsiderationsassociatedwiththeuseand
managementofbiomasswithintheSMUDregion.
Table ES-1. Air emissions from biomass fueled power systems

Prime Mover Control Technology Units NOx CO UHC/THC ROGs PM SO
2
Source
California solid fuel
biomass boilers
SNCR, flue gas recirc.,
& PM control
lb/MWh
0.64 -
0.95
0.1 - 1.5 0.01 - 0.09 - 0.09 - 0.55 0.02 - 0.26 1,2
BIGCC, various fuels
(Vrnamo, Sweden)
Gas turbine -Untreated
lb/MWh or
(ppm dry gas)
2.2 - 9.8 (50-450) (<1) - (<1) 0.2-2.0 3
Reciprocating Engines
fueled by gasified biomass
Lean burn (ppm, 15% O
2
) (30 - 300)
(100 -
1,000)
(<10) - 4,5
Rich-burn SI engine w/
3-way catalytic
converter (single test,
CPC)
lb/MWh 0.65 0.03 0.03 - - - 6
Reciprocating Engines
fueled by biogas
(LFG, WWTP, manure
digesters)
Large, lean burn lb/MWh .65-1.9 6.4-10.6 - .36-1.7 - - 7
Rich Burn, 3-way
catalyst (dairy, 300 kW)
lb/MWh 0.95 5.84 - 0.08 - - 8
Rich Burn -no controls
(swine manure -100
kW capacity operating
@ 45 kW)
lb/MWh 12 58 - 112 - 23 9
CARB BACT
Recommendation
lb/MWh 1.9 1.9 - 7.8 - - 10
Gas Turbine 30 kW (LFG) uncontrolled lb/MWh 0.2-0.24 0.6-0.72
2.4 ppm,
(3% O
2
)
- - est. 1.03 11
Gas Turbine (<3 MW)
fueled by biogas
CARB BACT
Recommendation
lb/MWh 1.25 - - - - - 10
Fuel Cell, LFG fuel uncontrolled lb/MWh 0.0017 0.025 0.017 - - nd 11
- = not reported or specified
nd = not detected
Sources; See Table in Section 2
4

0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
S
t
o
k
e
r

(
p
a
i
d

o
f
f
)
U
p
d
r
a
f
t

G
a
s
i
f
i
e
r

(
C
H
P
)
B
I
G
C
C
N
e
w

S
t
o
k
e
r

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
C
F
B

G
a
s
i
f
i
e
r

(
C
H
P
)
M
a
n
u
r
e

d
i
g
e
s
t
.
-
1
0

y
r

l
o
a
n
S
t
r
a
w

S
t
o
k
e
r

B
o
i
l
e
r

-

C
A
U
p
d
r
a
f
t

G
a
s
i
f
i
e
r

(
n
o

C
H
P
)
M
o
r
r
i
s

(
2
0
0
0
)
A
P
S

D
i
g
e
s
t
e
r
G
e
n
e
r
i
c

M
S
W

A
D
C
F
B

G
a
s
i
f
i
e
r

(
n
o

C
H
P
)
M
a
n
u
r
e

d
i
g
e
s
t
.
-
5

y
r

l
o
a
n
C
O
E

(
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)

Figure ES-1. Cost Of Electricity estimates for biomass power conversion technologies.
Source: UC Davis Research Team

Advancedbiomasspowersystemsincludethermalgasificationsystemsfromsmallcombined
heatandpowersystemstomediumandlargescaleintegratedgasifiercombinedcycle
systems,thermochemicalandbiochemicalsystemssuitableformunicipalsolidwasteandother
biomass,andcombustionboilersdesignedforstrawfuels.Alsoconsideredadvancedisthe
varietyofmethodsforbiomasscofiringwithfossilfuels(solidfuelcofiring,solidbiomasswith
naturalgassuperheat,gasifiedbiomassandnaturalgas,etc.).
ThoughthereissomedevelopmentofadvancedsystemsinCaliforniaandtheMidwestand
Northeast,mostadvancedbiomasspowersystemsdevelopmentisoccurringinEuropeand
Japan.Section1devotessignificantattentiontonewandexistingbiomasspowersystems
overseasthatmightserveasmodelsforfutureCaliforniaandSMUDdevelopment.
Section2containsdataonenvironmentalimpactsofbiomasspowersystemsandsuggestions
ortechniquesforimprovementtomeetincreasinglystringentCaliforniaregulationsand
objectives.
EngineeringandeconomicanalysesforselectedsystemsareexaminedinSection3.The
systemsselectedforanalysisincludethreetypesandscalesofthermalgasifiers,astrawfueled
5

combustionboiler,greenwasteandsolidwasteanaerobicdigesters,anddairymanuredigester
systems.Arevenuerequirementsmodelwasusedtoestimatethelevelizedcostofenergyor
levelizedrequiredtippingfee,thelatterappliedwhenusingmunicipalsolidwasteinacase
studyofanaerobicdigestion.
Californiawhileotherswillneedsomelevelofsupporttoachievecommercialstatus.Oneof
thehurdlesfacingtransferofthetechnologytoCaliforniaisthehighriskperceivedby
financiersduetoalackofdemonstratedfacilitiespermittedandoperatinginthestate.
RecommendationstoaddressthetransferofthesetechnologiestoCaliforniaareprovided.
ProjectApproach
Theprojectactivitiesincludedanextensivereviewoftheliterature,discussionswith
technologydevelopers,stateandlocalregulators,consultantsandacademics,attendanceof
regionalconferencesandoneinternationalconference,andnumerousfacilityinspections
withintheUnitedStatesandEurope.
Significantportionsoftheinformationweredevelopedfromrelatedworkfundedbythe
CaliforniaIntegratedWasteManagementBoard.
Economicmodelingtodeterminelevelizedcostofenergy(and/orrequiredtippingfee)was
conductedforselectedtechnologies.
ProjectOutcomes
Theprimaryprojectoutcomeisthisfinalreport.Includedinthereportis:
Abiomassresourceinventoryusingcountylevelresourceinformationdevelopedby
theCaliforniaBiomassCollaborative.
AnextensivereviewofbiomasspowersystemsincludingstatusinCaliforniaandthe
UnitedStatesandcurrentdevelopmentoverseas,especiallyEurope.
AdiscussionofenvironmentalimpactswithparticularemphasisonNOxproduction,
methodsofcontrol,andcurrentemissionslevelsforvarioustechnologies.
Anestimatedcostofenergyorrequiredtippingfeesfromeconomicanalysisand
modeling.
AsetofrecommendationstohelpSMUD(orthestate)developadvancedbiomass
powersystems.
Adatabaseofsuppliers,consultants,andresearchinstitutionsinthebiopowerfieldwasalso
developedwhichwassubmittedseparatelyfromthefinalreport.
6

ConclusionsandRecommendations
EnvironmentalandenergypoliciesinEuropeandJapanhavecreatedavibrantbiomasspower
industryandresearchanddevelopmentsector.Thesepoliciescreatehighfeedintariffsfor
renewableenergywhilesimultaneouslyimposinghighlandfillcoststhatenablesolidwaste
conversiontechnologydevelopmentanddeployment.InCalifornia,nonewsolidfuel
combustionfacilitieshavebeencommissionedsince1992andseveralfacilitieshaveshutdown
orconvertedtonaturalgasfuelasaresultofpooreconomicconditionsincludingcoincident
lossofassociatedindustriessuchassawmillssupplyingfueltocogenerationfacilities.Recent
biomasspowerrelatedactivityinCaliforniahaslargelybeendrivenbyenvironmental
concernsovermanurefromconfinedanimaloperationssuchasdairiesandopportunitiesfor
greateruseoflandfillgasandsewagedigestergas.Californiasrenewableportfoliostandard
nowprovidesoneoftheprimarymechanismsforlongtermcontractingforrenewableenergy,
buthighergenerationcostsassociatedwithmanybiomasstechnologiesincompetitionwith
lowercostwindandgeothermalresourceshavesofarrestrictedbiomassentryintothis
market.Increasinginterestinrenewabletransportationfuelsiscreatingmarketopportunities
forbiomass,butpowergenerationwillremainakeyindustryforfurtherbiomass
development,includinganintegralpartofbiorefineries.
Californiawhileotherswillneedsomelevelofsupportbeforeachievingcommercialstatus.
OneofthehurdlesfacingtransferofthetechnologytotheUnitedStatesisthehighrisk
perceivedbyfinanciersduetothelackofdemonstratedfacilitiesoperatinginCaliforniaand
satisfyingpermitrequirements.Toaddresstheseissuesoftechnologytransfer,SMUDmay
wishtoconsidervariousdevelopmentalternatives,includingthefollowing:
Formapublicprivatepartnershiptodemonstrateadvancedthermochemical
conversion(i.e.,biomassintegratedgasifiercombinedcycle)andothertechnologiesin
Californiausingpilotorcommercialscaledesigns.
Increasethebiomasspowerfacilitieswithintheutilitydistrict.SMUDisalready
involvedinthedevelopmentofbiomasspowerprojectsthatenhancelocalwaste
management(i.e.,greenandfoodwasteandmanure).Thelargeresourceintheregion
composedofforestandagriculturalthinningsandresiduesrepresentanopportunity
forSMUDtosignificantlyincreaseitsbiomasspowerportfolio.Specificproject
recommendationsare:
o Transferexistingbiomasscombinedheatandpowertechnology(500kWto2MW)
toasuitableheatclientintheSacramentoregion(heatclientsincludeabsorption
coolingapplications).
o Exploitthefuelpotentialintheregionsricestrawandothercropresidueswith
transferofexistingtechnology.
7

Increaseresearchanddevelopmentfundingandactivitytoobtainmoredetailedand
morereliableoperating,economic,andenvironmentaldatafornewanaerobicdigestion
andotherfacilitiesandparticipateinormotivaterelatedstateeffortstoenhancethe
overallqualityofinformationavailableonbiomasssystems.
Workwiththestateandfederalgovernmentstoincreaseresearchanddemonstration
activityonconceptstoimprovetechnologyandreduceemissionsfrombiomass
conversion,including:
o Investigateadvancedreburningusingbiomassfuelstoreducenitrogenoxide(NOx)
emissionsforretrofitornewfacilitydesign.
o EvaluateSelectiveCatalyticReductionandregenerativeSelectiveCatalytic
ReductionNOxcontroltechniques.
o InvestigateozoneinjectiontoassessfeasibilityasaNOxcontroltechniqueforsolid
fueledandotherbiomasssystems.
Improveemissionsperformanceofreciprocatingengines,including:
o Improvefuelgascleaning.
o Extracthydrogensulfideandsiloxanefrombiogastoenablegreateruseofcatalytic
aftertreatmentofcombustiongasesandothercontrolmeasures.
o Reducenitrogencompounds(ammonia,hydrogencyanide)inproducergasfrom
thermalgasificationsystems.
Continuedevelopmentofhydrogenenrichedfuelgasforimprovedleanburnengine
performance.
Improveefficiencyofmicroturbines.
Reducecostsofstationaryfuelcellpowersystems.
Ongoingandnewdemonstrationorfirstcommercialbiomassgasificationwithcombined
heatandpowerfacilitiesoverseaspresentatimelyopportunityforobservingandmonitoring
thesefacilities.Furtherdevelopmentofexistingassociationwiththeprojectdevelopersin
ordertofacilitateexchangeofinformationisrecommended.Inaddressingthegreateruseof
biomasswithinitsterritoryandsurroundingregionforrenewablegenerationandimproved
environmentalquality,SMUDwillserveasamodelfordevelopmentintherestofthestate.
SMUDactionscanhelpshiftstatewastemanagementpoliciestomoreappropriateresource
managementstrategies.
CommercializationPotentialandBenefitstoCalifornia
TherehasnotbeenanysubstantialincreaseinbiopowergeneratingcapacityinCaliforniasince
theearly1990s.Inorderforbiomasspowertomakeasignificantcontributiontothesupplyof
renewableelectricityinCalifornia,theagingfleetofbiomassfacilitieswillneedtobere
poweredandlargeamountsofnewcapacitymustbedeveloped.Ifthisistooccur,new
strategiesforutilizationofbiomassresourcewillberequiredincludingincreasingtherangeof
feedstocksused,newerandupdatedconversiontechnologies,andamoreconsistentpolicy
approach.
Becauseofextensiveresearchanddevelopmentoverseas,advancedbiomasspowersystems
thatarebuiltinCaliforniawilllikelybeimportedtechnologiesanddesigns.
Withthehighernaturalgaspricesrecentlyexperienced,automatedbiomasscombinedheat
andpowersystemsarecommerciallyviableifasuitableclientfortheheatisavailable.Without
heatcoproduct,theeconomicsofadvanced(aswellasthestandardstokerorcirculating
fluidizedbedboilers)biopowersystemsaremarginalatcurrentelectricitymarketprices.
DependingonwhichsetofRenewablePortfolioStandardgoalsarepursued(20percent
renewablesby2017,or33percentby2020),newrenewablegenerationcapacitywillbe
requiredattherateof3,200to5,000MWeachyear.Currentbiopowercapacityis
approximately1,000MW,andbiomasscontributesabout2percenttothestatestotalpoweror
25percentofrenewablepowerconsumedinthestate.Ifbiomasspowerweretocontinueto
provideaquarterofnonhydrorenewablegenerationundertheRenewablePortfolioStandard,
thennewbiopowercapacitywouldneedtobeaddedattherateof800tomorethan1,200MW
eachyear.
Thedescriptions,problemidentification,andanalysisinthereport,aswellasthecontact
database,canbeusedtohelpdefineastrategyforbuildingincreasedbiopowercapacityin
California.IncreasingbiopowerproductionbenefitsCaliforniabyincreasingtherenewable
contentintheelectricityportfolio,generatingeconomicactivityinthefuelsupplyandlogistics
sector,providinganumberofstablejobsatthegeneratingfacility,andutilizingsomeofthe
vastbiomassresourceinthestatethatotherwisewouldbeconsumedinprescribedburnsor
wildfires,disposedinlandfillsorleftinfieldorforestforeventualdecay.
Theinformationandanalysisinthisreportaddressesadvancedbiopowertechnologiesand
includesrecommendationsformovingforward.Thisreportcanserveasatechnology
referenceandinformationsourceforthoseinvolvedinmappingastatebiomasspower
strategythatcontributestotheRenewablePortfolioStandard.Usedinthisway,thereport
(andproject)willsavetheEnergyCommission,andpossiblyotherstateagencies,timeand
money.

9

10

11

1.0 Introduction
AccordingtotheEnergyInformationAgency(EIA2003),electricitygeneratedfrom
biomasssourceswas11%ofallrenewableelectricityintheUnitedStatesin2001and
59%ofnonhydrorenewableelectricity.UnitedStatesinstalledbiomasspowercapacity
issubstantial,currentlyatabout11gigawatts(GW).About6.2GWisfueledbyforest
productsandagriculturalresiduesandabout3.5GWismunicipalsolidwaste(MSW)
basedincludinglandfillgas(EIA2003).
ThebiopowerindustrygrewquitesubstantiallyafterenactmentofthePublicUtilities
RegulatoryPolicyAct(PURPA)in1978.PURPArequiredutilitiestooffertopurchase
electricityfromsmall(lessthan80MW)independentgenerators.TheFederalEnergy
RegulatoryCommission(FERC)establishedrulesdefiningqualifyingrequirements.
Manycontractswereinitiallywrittenforapriceofenergyequaltotheutilitiesshort
runavoidedcostbasedonnaturalgasalthoughinCaliforniaStandardOffer4was
developedwitha10yearfirmpricingstructurebasedontheforecastedpriceof
electricityandadditionalpaymentsfordispatchablecapacity.Between1980and1995,
gridconnectedbiopowercapacitytripled(from3.5to10.5GW)(EIA1997)becauseof
PURPA,favorablefederaltaxpoliciesforinvestmentsinrenewableenergy,andstate
incentives(Morris2000).StandardOffer4wassuspendedbytheCaliforniaPublic
UtilitiesCommissionin1986duetoexcessproposedcapacityadditionsandthecollapse
inworldoilprices.Inthemid1990s,thelackofnewcapacitywithStandardOffer4
contractsresultedindecliningbiomassenergycapacitygrowthduetounfavorable
pricingasutilityshortrunavoidedcostdroppedbelowbiomasspowergenerationcosts.
AnygrowthwaslargelyassociatedwiththoseprojectsalreadyhavingStandardOffer4
contractsandlandfillanddigestergasprojectsthathadotherincentives,including
tippingfeesforresources.
TheinstalledbiomasscapacityintheUnitedStatesprimarilyconsistsofdirect
combustionsteamRankinesystemswithanaveragesizeof20MW(thelargestisnear75
MW)(Bainetal.2003).Typicalefficienciesarearound20%,duemostlytothesmall
plantsizebutalsotofuelquality(moisture).
1.1 Biomass Power in California
InCalifornia,totaloperatinggridconnectedelectricalcapacityfrombiomassresources
isapproximately900MW.Thisincludessome640MWfromsolidfuelcombustionin
steamRankinefacilities(Morris2002),210MWfromlandfillgasconversionfacilities
(Simonsetal.2002),and39MWfromdigestergasproducedfromanaerobicdigestionof
sludgeatwastewatertreatmentplants(including24MWfromtwoLosAngeles
treatmentplants)(Zhang2003).
ThedevelopmentofthesolidfuelcombustionbiomasspowerindustryinCalifornia
followedatrendsimilartothatoftherestofthenation.Priorto1978,biomassusefor
energy(otherthanhomeheating)inthestateexistedprimarilyatwoodprocessing
facilitieswhichutilizedwoodresiduestofuelsteamboilersforprocessheatandinsome
12

casescombinedwithpowergenerationwheneconomicallyadvantageous.Between1980
and1984,13biopowerfacilitiesbeganoperation,and23morecameonlineintheperiod
1985through1989.Theyear1990sawthestartupof11facilities.Bytheendof1990,the
operatingbiopowercapacityinthestatefromnonMSWbiomasssourceswasatitspeak
ofapproximately770MW(Morris2000).Thefacilityaveragecapacitywasabout18MW
withtwoat50MW.
Themid1990ssawadeclineinoperatingcapacityofabout25%partlyduetoshutting
downofsomeolderlesseconomicalplants,fuelsupplyandpricingissuesbecauseofthe
declineinwoodproductactivityinthestate,aswellaspoliciesenactedbytheCalifornia
PublicUtilitiesCommissioninlightofthecomingelectricityderegulationwhichcreated
incentivesforelectricutilitiestobuyoutthepowerpurchaseagreementsofbiomass
facilitiesthatwerebeingpaidbasedontheutilitysshortrunavoidedcostorwould
soonbecomesubjecttoshortrunavoidedcostfollowingcompletionofthehigherpriced
10yearfirmcontractperiod(year11pricecliff).Somefacilitiesthatwerenearingthe
endofthetheirStandardOffer4
1
contractsoptedtosellthecontractsandshutdown
becausetheshortrunavoidedcosttheninplacewasmuchlowerthanthefixedprice
portionofthecontract.
ThesubstantialincreaseinwholesaleelectricitypricesthatoccurredwiththeCalifornia
electricitycrisisof2000to2001spurredatleast10shutteredfacilitiestoinvestigate
restarting(Morris2000).Fivefacilitiesrestartedin2001and2002,andtheotherfive
abandonedtheeffort.Thereareapproximately28solidfueledbiomassfacilities
currentlyoperatinginthestatecomprisingatotalof570MWcapacity,notincluding
threeMSWcombustionfacilitiesthattogethergenerateanother70MW.Another31
facilitieswithcombinedcapacityof343MWareidle,dismantled,orhavebeen
convertedtonaturalgasfuel(SeeTable11).
AnothersignificantcomponentofexistingbiomasspowerinCaliforniaistheconversion
oforganicmattertomethane(CH4)throughanaerobicmicrobialactionwithsubsequent
conversionofthemethanetoelectricity.Manywastewatertreatmentplants(WWTP)
utilizeanaerobicdigestionaspartofthestabilizationprocess.Theorganicfractionofin
placeMSWinlandfillsdegradesanaerobicallyaswell.

1.TheInterimStandardOfferNo.4wasfavorablecontractsmadeavailabletoindependent
biomasspowerdevelopersbyPG&EandSCE.Availableforsigningin1984and1985witha5
yearwindowtobringprojectsonline,theSO4guaranteedfirmenergypricesfor10yearsbased
ontherelativelyhighshortrunavoidedcostratesineffectatthattime($.05to$.06perkWh)and
escalatingtomorethan$.12/kWh.Attheendofthe10yearfixedrateportion,generatorswould
receivethecurrentmarketshortrunavoidedcost,whichhadsignificantlydeclinedbythelate
1990s.
Table 1-1 Disposition of solid fuel biomass power facilities in California.

Fuel Disposition
Number of
Facilities
Net Capacity
(MW)
Solid Biomass Currently Operating 28 570
MSW Currently Operating 3 70
Operating Total 31 640
Solid Biomass Idle 15 159
Solid Biomass Dismantled 11 73
Solid Biomass Converted to Natural Gas 5 112
31 343 Not Operating or Converted Total

Source: UC Davis Research Team ; Source: Robert Williams
Therearesome278activelandfillsacceptingMSWinCalifornia(hazardouswasteand
usedtiresaredisposedinfacilitiesseparatefromMSWsites).Therearemorethan2,750
landfillsthatareclosed,inactive,orabandonedinthestate(SWIS2003).Currentlythere
are51landfillsinthestaterecoveringlandfillgasforuseasenergy(LFGTE)witha
combinedgeneratingcapacityof210MW.Theirdistributionoverseveraltechnologiesis
showninTable12.Anadditional70landfillsarerecoveringandflaringgas.Thereare
reportedly26otherlandfillsitesplanningtoinstallLFGTEsystems(Simonsetal.2002).
SomeWWTPsutilizebiogasfromtheanaerobicdigestionofsewagesludgeforpower
generation.Sewageistreatedgenerallyusingcombinationsofaerobicandanaerobic
processes.SeveraltreatmentplantsinCaliforniaproducesufficientmethanetojustify
convertingtoheatand/orpower,whileothersmayflarethemethane.TheSacramento
RegionalWasteWaterTreatmentfacilitygeneratesapproximately2.8MWfrom
treatmentofanaveragewastewaterflowof180milliongallonsperday(gpd).Thereare
10WWTPsinCaliforniawithgridconnectedpowergeneration(combinedgross
capacityof38MW)(Zhang2003).ThetwolargestareinLosAngelesCounty(24MW
from770milliongpdwastewater,combined.)
TherearethreeoperatingdairydigestersproducingelectricityinCaliforniawith
combinedcapacityofapproximately500kilowatts(kW).Thereisoneswinefacilityin
thestatewithanoperatingdigester.
13

14

Table 1-2. Current California LFGTE activity by technology type.*
Technology No. of Landfills
Total Electrical
Capacity (MW)
Reciprocating Engine 32 112
Gas Turbine Combined Cycle 2 57
Steam Turbine 3 31
Gas Turbine 5 10
Direct Use (thermal) 7 -
Upgrade for Pipeline Use 2 -
* Adapted from Simons et al. 2002. Landfill Gas-To-Energy Potential In California, California Energy
Commission Staff Report 500-02-041V1.
1.2 Biomass Resource assessment for the Sacramento Region
AbiomassresourceassessmentfortheSacramentoregionwasconducted.Thebiomass
typesandsourcesconsideredare:
ThebiogenicfractionofMSW.
Residuesfromagriculture.
Fieldandseedcrops.
Orchardandvinecrops.
Vegetablecrops.
Animalmanure.
Biosolidsfromwastewatertreatment.
Forestoperationsresiduesandpotentialthinnings.
ForMSW,onlyamountsdisposedinortransshippedfromSacramentoCountywere
considered.Theareacoveredinassessingtheagriculturalcropresidues,dairymanure,
andwastewatertreatmentfacilitiesincludes16countiesintheregiondefinedas
SacramentoandtheadjacentcountiesaswellasthoseoutlyingintheSacramentoValley
northtoTehamaandtheSanJoaquinValleysouthtoStanislaus.NevadaandCalaveras
countieswereincludedintheoutlyingcountiesregion(seeTable13andFigure11).
Forestbiomassresourceaccountingincludesfouradditionalcountiesinordertoaccount
forallforestbiomassintheCentralSierraNevadaRange(Table13).Thedatacomes
fromarecentlycompletedbiomassresourceinventoryofCalifornia(vonBernathetal.
2004).
2

2.ForestbiomassinformationprovidedtotheCBCinventorybyM.RosenbergandJ.Sperofrom
theCaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection.
15

Table 1-3. List of counties used for resource assessment for some biomass types.
Sub Regions Counties
Sacramento and Adjacent Counties
Sacramento Solano
Placer San Joaquin
Sutter Amador
Yolo El Dorado
Outlying Counties
Butte Nevada
Calaveras Stanislaus
Colusa Tehama
Glenn Yuba
Remaining Central Sierra Nevada Counties
(for regional forest biomass assessment)
Plumas Tuolumne
Sierra Alpine

Thetotalamountbyweightofeachtypeofbiomassgeneratedordisposed(inthecase
ofMSW)wasestimated.Totalprimaryenergywasdeterminedbymultiplyingenergy
contentofeachtypeofmaterialbythetotalmass.Potentialgrossgenerationcapacity
wasthendeterminedbymultiplyingtheprimaryenergyvaluebyanappropriate
conversiontoelectricalpowerfactor(efficiency).Factorsfortechnicalavailability(i.e.,
theamountofresourceestimatedtobepracticallyandeconomicallyobtainable)are
estimatesusedintheCaliforniaBiomassResourcesInventory.Thetechnicalavailability
factorsrangefrom0.34forchaparralto0.70fororchardpruningsandremovals.These
factorsareuncertainanditisrecommendedthatsomeeffortbespenttoreducethe
uncertainty.

(White = Sacramento and adjacent counties; Dark grey = Outlying counties. Contra Costa County was not
considered because of minimal non-MSW biomass resource).
Figure 1-1. Map of counties included in biomass resource assessment.
Source: UC Davis Research Team

MunicipalSolidWaste
AllsolidwastejurisdictionsinSacramentoCountytogetherdisposed1.5milliontonsof
municipalsolidwasteduring2003.Figure12showsthedistributionofdisposedsolid
wastebyjurisdictionoforigin.Sacramento,CitrusHeights,andtheunincorporated
areasofthecountyaccountfor86%ofdisposedwaste.ThemunicipalitiesofElkGrove,
Folsom,RanchoCordova,Galt,andIsletoncontributetheremaining14%.

16

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Sac. Co./
Citrus Hts.
Sacramento Elk Grove Folsom Rancho
Cordova
Galt Isleton
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d

T
o
n
s
51%
35%
7% 4%
1% 1%

Figure 1-2. 2003 Sacramento County disposed solid waste by origin
Photo Credit: CIWMB Disposal reporting system, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/lgcentral/drs/Reports/default.asp
SacramentoCountyjurisdictionsolidwasteisdisposedinavarietyoflocations.For
2003,52%wasdisposedatoneoftwocountylandfills,28%atalandfillnearManteca
(SanJoaquinCounty),13%wasshippedtoNevada
3
withtheremaindergoingtoother
landfillsintheregion(SeeFigure13).

3.Thedraftversionofthisreport(2003)useddisposaldatafrom2001,duringwhichSacramento
Countywastejurisdictionsdisposed1.3milliontons,including20%exporttoNevada.
17

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Sacramento
County Landfill
-Kiefer
(Sacramento)
Forward, Inc.
(Manteca)
Export Out of
State
L-D Landfill
Co.
(Sacramento)
Portrero Hills
(Solano)
Other
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d

T
o
n
s
41%
28%
13%
11%
6%
~1%

Figure 1-3. 2003 Sacramento County solid waste disposal by destination
Source: CIWMB Disposal reporting system.

TheKieferlandfilldisposedabout630,000tonsofSacramentoCountyMSW(total
disposalatKieferwas640,000tons).TheLDLandfillreceivedsome186,000tonsof
solidwaste,ofwhich165,000tonscamefromCountyjurisdictions.The195,000tonsof
wasteoriginatingintheCountythatistransshippedtoNevadafordisposalpasses
throughoneormoreofthesolidwastetransferstationsintheCounty.SeeTable14for
alistofsolidwastefacilitiesinSacramentoCounty.
TheamountofmaterialcurrentlysenttolandfillinSacramentoCounty(andinallof
California)representsasubstantialresource.Table15containsananalysisofthetotal
energyandtheelectricitygenerationpotentialrepresentedbythe2003disposalofMSW
atthetwoSacramentoCountylandfills.ComponentfractionsoftheMSWstreamare
takenfromtheCaliforniaIntegratedWasteManagementBoard(CIWMB)waste
characterizationstudyof1999.
4
Thedistributionofcomponentsindisposedsolidwaste
haslikelychangedsomewhatbutmorerecentcharacterizationdataarenotyetavailable
(anewfourseasonwastecharacterizationstudyiscurrentlybeingconducted).Foreach
componentofthewastestream,thetablelistsamountlandfilled,typicalmoistureand
ashcontents,andhigherheatingvalues(HHV)inbothasreceivedandmoisturefree
basis.Ofthe820,000tonslandfilled,some560,000tonsareofbiologicalorigin,90,000
tonsareplasticsandtextiles(assumedtobeallsynthetictextiles),andtheremaining
170,000tonsaremineralandotherinorganicmaterial(glass,metal,nonwood
construction/demolitionwaste).

4.http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WasteChar/Study1999/OverTabl.htm
18

Table 1-4. Solid waste facilities in Sacramento County.
5

Facility Name Address Activity Status
Permitted
Throughput
(t d
-1
)
Kiefer Landfill 12701 Kiefer Blvd Solid Waste Landfill Active 10815
L and D Landfill Co. 8635 Fruitridge Road Solid Waste Landfill Active 2540
Elder Creek Recovery and
Transfer Stn.
8642 Elder Creek Rd.
Large Volume
Transfer/Processing
Station
Active 2000
North Area Transfer Stn. 4450 Roseville Road
Large Volume Transfer
Station
Active 1800
South Area Transfer Stn. 8550 Fruitridge Road
Large Volume Transfer
Station
Active 348
Florin Perkins LF
Inc.,(Inerts)
Inert Waste Disposal
site
Active 100
Florin Perkins LF Inc.,
MRF&Trans. Stn.
4201 Florin Perkins
Rd.
Large Volume
Transfer/Processing
Station
Active 250
Sacramento Compost
Facility
20 28th Street
Green Waste
Composting
Active
Sacramento Recycling and
Transfer
8191 Fruitridge Road
Large Volume
Transfer/Processing
Facility
Active 2000
Folsom MRF &
Composting
N. of New Prison
Complex off Natoma
Large Volume
Transfer/Processing
Facility,
Composting,MRF
Active 300
Galt Transfer Stn./MRF 104 Industrial Rd.
Large Volume
Transfer/Processing
Facility,
Composting,MRF
Planned 300
Pilot Green Project 9700 Goethe Rd.
Green Waste
Composting
Planned
BLT Transfer Stn.
Raley Blvd& Vinci
Ave.
Large Volume
Transfer/Processing
Facility
Planned

CIWMB SWIS database, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/Search.asp

Potentialprimaryenergyestimatesweremadebysimplymultiplyingtheappropriate
materialenergycontentonaperweightbasis(HHV)bytheamountofthatmaterial
available.Thisisdoneforeachcomponentinthewastestream.

5.CIWMBSWISdatabase,http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/Search.asp
19

20

Forestimatingtheamountofelectricalgenerationcapacitythatcouldbedeveloped
fromthecurrentwastestream,itwasassumedthatthestreamwouldbeseparated
basedonmoisturecontent.Thehighmoisturecomponentsareperhapsmost
appropriatelyconvertedthroughbiochemicalsystems(anaerobicdigestion(AD),for
example).ThoughADissuitableforhighmoisturefeedstocks,amajordisadvantageof
ADisthatconversionisincomplete;some50%oftheorganicmaterialisnotconverted.
Ligninandotherrefractoryorganicsarenotconvertedandremainasresiduefor
compostingorlandfill.Theaerobicprocessingofdigestersludgethroughcomposting
canfurtherreducevolume,butanaerobicconditionsmaintainedinmostlandfillsmay
notreducevolumeexceptoververylongperiodsoftime.Ifonlytheproducedbiogasis
convertedtoelectricity(noenergyproductionfromthedigestate),thisprocesshasan
overallenergyconversionefficiency(electricalenergyout/wastestreamenergyin,based
ondryHHV)ofabout10%.
Thelowermoisturecomponentsareassumedtobeconvertedbythermalmeans
(gasification,pyrolysis,orcombustion).Theenergyand/orheatintheproductgasescan
beusedinaboilertorunasteamcycleorthegases(fromagasifierorpyrolyzer)can
runagasengineorturbineforelectricityproduction.Thesemethodshaveoverall
electricalgenerationefficienciesofabout25%.Biomassintegratedgasificationcombined
cycles(BIGCC)haveprojectedelectricalconversionefficienciesof35%orabove,butare
notyetcommercial.Naturalgasfiredcombinedcycleshaveelectricalefficienciesabove
55%bycomparison,bututilizenonrenewablefuel.Theapplicationofcombinedcycles
tobiogasproducedbyanaerobicdigestionisapossibilitybutdigesterstendtobesmall
forthescalestypicallyemployed,anddigestionofMSWorMSWorganicsisstill
developmentalforthemostpartinNorthAmerica.Biogascofiredwithnaturalgasin
largecombinedcyclepowerplantsisawaytoimprovethenetefficiencyofbiogasto
electricityproductioniftheopportunityexists.Fuelcellsofferanotherhighefficiency
andcleanoptionforbiogasandfuelgasesproducedbythermochemicalmeans,but
thesesystemsarealsodevelopmentalandfuelpurificationisanissue.
Table15includesthegrosselectricalgenerationestimatesfromSacramentoMSW.The
valuesweredeterminedfromthepotentialprimaryenergybyapplyingtheappropriate
thermochemicalorbiochemicalconversionefficiencyandassuminganavailabilityof
100%(meaningtheconversionfacilitiesoperate100%ofthetimeatratedcapacity).
Table15indicatesthat43MWcouldbesupportedbyconversionofthebiogenic
fractionofthecurrentlydisposedwastestreaminSacramentoCounty.Figure14shows
themassandpotentialenergyofthedisposedsolidwastestreambycomponent.
Thoughcaptureandconversionof100%ofthebiogenicfractionoftheMSWisunlikely,
itmaybefeasibletocaptureandconvert50to75%ofthebiomassportionofsolidwaste
withproperlyspecifiedsystems.IfthebiomassfractionofSacramentowastecurrently
beingshippedoutofstatewereaccessibleaswell,thenthetechnicalelectrical
generatingcapacityfromthebiomassfractionofSacramentoCountyMSWisestimated
tobe53MW.
Table 1-5. MSW disposed in Sacramento County; Amount, characterization, energy, and gross potential electrical generation capacity.
Component
Landfilled
a
(1000t y
-1
)
% of
Total
Ash
b
(% wb)
Ash
(1000t y
-1
)
HHV
b
(MJ/kg, ar)
HHV contribution to
composite stream
(MJ kg
-1
as
received)
Moisture
b
(%wb)
Landfilled
(1000t y
-1
dry)
HHV
(MJ/kg, dry)
Paper/Cardboard 249.3 30.2 5.3 13.2 16 4.83 10 224.4 17.8 3.6 3.4 29 251
Food 130.0 15.7 5.0 6.5 4.2 0.66 70 39.0 14.0 0.5 0.5 3 29
Leaves and Grass 65.3 7.9 4.0 2.6 6 0.47 60 26.1 15.0 0.4 0.3 1 10
Other Organics 57.6 7.0 10.0 5.8 8.5 0.59 4 55.3 8.9 0.4 0.4 4 31
C&D Lumber 40.6 4.9 5.0 2.0 17 0.84 12 35.7 19.3 0.6 0.6 5 43
Prunings, trimmings, branches
and stumps
19.8 2.4 3.6 0.7 11.4 0.27 40 11.9 19.0 0.2 0.2 2 14
Biomass Components of MSW
Total
562.6 68.1 30.8 7.7 392.4 5.7 5.4 43.2 379
All non-Film Plastic
41.5 5.0 2.0 0.83 22 1.10 0.2 41.4 22.0 0.8 0.8 7 57
Film Plastic
32.1 3.9 3.0 0.96 45 1.75 0.2 32.0 45.1 1.3 1.2 10 91
Textiles
17.4 2.1 7.0 1.22 17.4 0.37 10 15.7 19.3 0.3 0.3 2 19
Non-Biomass Carbon
Compounds Total
91.0 11.0 3.01 3.22 89 2.4 2.3 19 168
Other C&D
54.3 6.6 100 54.3 - - - 54.3 - - - - -
Metal
50.4 6.1 100 50.4 - - - 50.4 - - - - -
Other Mixed and Mineralized
44.1 5.3 100 44.1 - - - 44.1 - - - - -
Glass
23.6 2.9 100 23.6 - - - 23.6 - - - - -
Mineral Total
172.4 20.9 172.4 - 172.4 0 0
Totals 826 100 206 10.89 653.9 8.2 7.7 62 546
Electricity Potential
d
(MWe) (GWh y
-1
)
Primary Energy by
Component
(PJ)
c
(MMBtu)x10
6

a) Total disposed at Kiefer and L&D Landfills from a query of the CIWMB Disposal Reporting System (July 1, 2003).
California waste stream composite data (http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WasteChar/Study1999/OverTabl.htm), Accessed Sept. 1, 2003.
b) Adapted from Tchobanalglous, G., Theisen, H. and Vigil, S.(1993), Integrated Solid Waste Management, Chapter 4, McGraw-Hill, New York
& Themelis, N. J., Kim, Y. H., and Brady, M. H. (2002). Energy recovery from New York City municipal solid wastes. Waste Management & Research, 20(3),
223-233.
c) PJ = 10^15 J (petajoule).
d) Electricity calculations assume thermal conversion means for low moisture stream (paper/cardboard, other organics, construction and demolition lumber, all
plastics and textiles) and biological means (anaerobic digestion) for the high moisture components (food and green waste). Energy efficiency of conversion of
matter to electricity by thermal means is assumed to be 20%. Biomethane potentials of 0.29 and 0.14 g CH4/g VS for food and leaves/grass mixture respectively
are assumed for biogas production which is converted at 30% thermal efficiency in reciprocating engines. Capacity factor of 1 is used.
21

0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
P
a
p
e
r
/
C
a
r
d
b
o
a
r
d
F
o
o
d
L
e
a
v
e
s

a
n
d

G
r
a
s
s
O
t
h
e
r

O
r
g
a
n
i
c
s
C
&
D

L
u
m
b
e
r
B
r
a
n
c
h
e
s

&

S
t
u
m
p
s
A
l
l

n
o
n
-
F
i
l
m

P
l
a
s
t
i
c
A
n
n
u
a
l

D
i
s
p
o
s
a
l

(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d

w
e
t

t
o
n
s
/

y
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l

G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
M
W
e
)
Annual Disposal (left axis) Gross Potential Generation (right axis)

Figure 1-4. 2003 Sacramento County waste stream component disposal amounts and
gross potential power generation
Photo credit: UC Davis Research Team; Photo credit: Robert Williams
AgriculturalCultivationinRegion
TheSacramentoregionhasalargeanddiverseagriculturalsector.Forthisanalysis,the
SacramentoregionistakentobeSacramentoCountyandtheadjacentcounties
6
aswell
asthoseintheoutlyingregionextendingnorthtoTehamaCountyintheSacramento
Valley,southtoStanislausintheNorthernSanJoaquinValleyandnortheastand
southeastfoothillandseveralmountaincounties
7
Thisisalargeregiongeographically
butwasselectedassuchtoillustratethedepthandbreadthofagriculturalresources
(andresidues)inthearea.Itisrecognizedthattransportationoflowdensityresidue
materials(whichappliestomanyagriculturalresidues)constitutesasignificantportion
offuelprocurementcosts.Thiseffecttypicallymanifestsitselfbydefiningalimitingfuel
procurementradiusfromtheconversionfacilityforeachtypeoffuel.However,itisalso

6.Sacramentoandadjacentcounties:Sacramento,Placer,Sutter,Yolo,Solano,SanJoaquin
Amador,andElDorado.
7.Outlyingregioncounties:Butte,Calaveras,Colusa,Glenn,Nevada,Stanislaus,Tehama,and
Yuba.
22

recognizedthatSMUDcouldhaveinterestinabiomasspowerfacilityoutsideofits
immediateserviceareaasisthecasewithSMUDownedwindgenerationandhydro
powerfacilities.
Table16showsyear2001dataforcultivatedacresintheSacramentoregionbycounty
andmajorcroptype(FieldandSeed,OrchardandVineyard,andVegetablecrops).
Vegetablecropsareincludedinthetableforcompletenessbutarenotconsideredhereas
afeedstockforbiomasspowerbecauseresiduesareeithertoolow,difficulttocollector
highinmoisture.Figure15showsthedistributiongraphically.The2.5million
cultivatedacresintheregionrepresentsfully30%ofallcroplandcurrentlybeingfarmed
inCalifornia.
8
Thefollowingareinventorydataandenergypotentialofresiduesfrom
field&seedcrops,andorchardandvineyard.Residuesfromvegetablecropsarenot
likelytobeusedforconversiontoenergyandarenotincludedinthisinventory.
CropResiduesinFieldandSeedCrops
Table17givestheestimatedresidualbiomassleftinthefieldafterharvestofthefoodor
principalcommoditycomponentofthefieldorseedcrop.Thegrossandtechnical
potentialelectricalgenerationfromeachresiduetypeisalsoshown.Figure16shows
theresidueinformationgraphicallyandFigure17displaystechnicalgeneration
potentialforeachresiduetype.Onehalfoftheestimatedfieldcropresiduesisricestraw
fromtheSacramentoandNorthernSanJoaquinValleys.Severerestrictionsonopen
fieldburningofricestrawareinforce.Manyalternativemanagementmethodsandoff
fieldusesfortheresidualstrawhavebeenattempted.

8.Totalcultivatedlandintheregionis2.5millionacres.Therearesome8.6millionacresunder
cultivationinCalifornia.
23

Table 1-6. Cultivated acres by crop category in the Sacramento region
County Orchard Vineyard Crops Field and Seed Crops Vegetable Crops
Sacramento 32,940 88,351 5,255
Placer 1,350 15,458 -
Sutter 55,437 151,251 13,863
Yolo 26,985 229,822 43,738
Solano 15,189 125,103 14,155
San Joaquin 195,570 298,523 71,680
Amador 4,077 2,221 -
El Dorado 2,996 350 -
Sacramento/adjacent Total 334,544 911,079 148,691
Butte 73,927 110,667 -
Calaveras 1,510 440 -
Colusa 30,410 189,053 20,250
Glenn 52,115 169,911 -
Nevada 348 - -
Stanislaus 147,310 208,919 31,570
Tehama 36,715 18,871 -
Yuba 26,821 42,484 -
Outlying Region Total 369,156 740,345 51,820
Total Sacramento Region 703,700 1,651,424 200,511

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Field and Seed Crops Orchard Vineyard Crops Vegetable Crops
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d

A
c
r
e
s
Sacramento and Adjacent Outlying Region

Figure 1-5. Acres under cultivation in the Sacramento region by crop category
24

25

Beyondlimitedfloodingofricestrawinfieldsforbirdrefugesandhuntingclubs,the
principalcommercialusesforricestrawareinanimalfeedinganderosioncontrol,but
thesedonotsupportsubstantialquantities.Alargeresidualremainsthatpotentiallycan
beharvestedforenergy.
Cornstoverandwheatstrawtogetheraccountfor36%ofthefieldcropresidue.Corn
stoveristypicallychoppedand/orreincorporatedintothesoil.Wheatstrawis
incorporated,baledforfeedandbedding,orfieldburned.Grossgenerationpotential
fromfieldandseedcropsintheSacramentoregionis250MW;technicalgenerationis
estimatedatabouthalfor125MW.
CropResiduesinOrchardsandVineyards
Table18givesrecentdataforresiduesfromorchardandvineyardoperationsinthe
region(includesestimatedelectricalgenerationpotential).Figure18isagraphical
representationofresidueamounts.Figure19showstechnicalgenerationcapacityfor
eachresiduetype.Almond,walnut,plums/prunes,andpeachorchardprunings
togetheraccountfor63%oftheestimated670,000drytonsgeneratedannuallyinthis
category.Someofthismaterialfindsitswayintoexistingbiomassfiredfacilities;other
materialisshreddedandleftintheorchardorpushedtotheedgeoftheorchardand
pileburned.Itisestimatedthatapproximately50MWcouldbesupportedassuming
70%oftheresidueisrecoveredforthispurpose.
Recentlegislation(SB705,Florez)essentiallyeliminatesanyburningofagricultural
residuesintheSanJoaquinValleyUnifiedAirPollutionControlDistrictstartingin2005
andproceedinginphasesthrough2010.ProposedlegislationbyFlorez(SB403California
CleanAirBondAct)wouldputbeforethevotersa$4.5billionbondthat,ifpassed,would
createacleanairfund.Thisfundwouldprovidegrants,loansandothersupport
mechanismsforassisting(amongothers)projectsdirectedatreducingagriculturalair
andwaterimpacts.Orchardandvinecropresiduesanddairymanurearespecific
biomasstypesmentionedintheproposedlegislation.

Table 1-7. Annual field crop residues (tons dry weight per year) in Sacramento region and generation potential*

County Rice Corn Wheat
Field & Grass
Seed Safflower Cotton Sorghum Barley Oats
Total
(BDT/yr)
Sacramento 29,988 99,238 26,374 40 4,172 - 1,607 585 702 162,706
Placer 44,719 - - - - - - - - 44,719
Sutter 272,952 23,380 19,158 3,302 12,635 - 570 - 649 332,646
Yolo 89,817 72,171 72,331 33,580 20,159 4,200 - - - 292,259
Solano - 53,916 65,021 5,274 4,388 - 11,632 5,519 1,125 146,875
San Joaquin 20,643 227,852 78,158 3,173 6,197 - - - - 336,023
Amador - 1,589 - - - - - - - 1,589
El Dorado - - - - - - - - - -
Sacramento & adjacent Total 458,120 478,146 261,042 45,369 47,551 4,200 13,809 6,104 2,476 1,316,816
Butte 277,931 - 5,783 10,431 656 - - - - 294,801
Calaveras - - - 86 - - - - - 86
Colusa 367,877 18,055 37,344 110 7,838 14,885 - 304 - 446,413
Glenn 281,137 87,230 25,985 6,210 678 2,748 757 - - 404,745
Nevada - - - - - - - - - -
Stanislaus 7,100 - 5,288 5,124 - - - 883 - 18,395
Tehama 2,993 3,942 4,957 2,032 142 - - - - 14,066
Yuba 112,043 - - 1,575 - - - - - 113,618
Outlying Region Total 1,049,081 109,227 79,357 25,568 9,314 17,633 757 1,187 - 1,292,124
Total Sacramento Region (BDT) 1,507,201 587,373 340,399 70,937 56,865 21,833 14,566 7,291 2,476 2,608,940
HHV (MJ/kg, dry basis) 16.3 17.7 17.5 18.0 19.2 18.3 15.4 17.3 17.0 -
Gross
Generation Potential (MWe)
141 60 34 7 6 2.3 1.3 0.7 0.2 253
Technical*
71 30 17 4 3 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.1 127

* Generation is based on thermal conversion of identified resource with net efficiency of 20% and facility availability of 100%. Technical generation assumes 50%
of the gross residue material is available.

26

-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
R
i
c
e
C
o
r
n
W
h
e
a
t
F
i
e
l
d
/
G
r
a
s
s

S
e
e
d
S
a
f
f
l
o
w
e
r
C
o
t
t
o
n
S
o
r
g
h
u
m
B
a
r
l
e
y
B
D
T
Sacramento and Adjacent Counties Oulying Region
Figure 1-6. Annual field crop residues in the Sacramento region (dry tons)

-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Rice Corn Wheat Field & Grass
Seed
Safflower Cotton
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
M
W
e
)
Figure 1-7. Technical generation capacity from field crops in the region
27

Table 1-8. Annual orchard and vineyard prunings (tons dry weight per year) in the Sacramento region and electrical generation
potential*
County Almonds Grapes Walnuts
Plums &
Prunes Peaches Apples Apricots Pears Olives
Total
(BDT/yr)
Sacramento - 35,076 186 - - 506 - 8,802 - 44,570
Placer - 54 553 151 154 93 - 53 - 1,058
Sutter 4,307 - 10,317 23,471 12,598 324 - 537 - 51,554
Yolo 5,717 13,923 5,257 2,234 - - - - - 27,131
Solano 1,499 5,536 3,500 2,115 401 - 676 1,354 - 15,081
San Joaquin 36,420 115,197 27,399 - 3,900 7,811 3,321 863 - 194,911
Amador - 4,950 288 - - - - - - 5,238
El Dorado - 1,691 143 55 148 1,127 - 589 - 3,753
Sacramento/adjacent Total 47,943 176,427 47,643 28,026 17,201 9,861 3,997 12,198 - 343,296
Butte 32,744 - 12,627 11,653 3,087 302 - - 1,314 61,727
Calaveras - 639 462 - - 189 - - 202 1,492
Colusa 19,763 - 2,945 3,526 - - - - - 26,234
Glenn 23,568 1,834 5,489 9,068 - - - - 4,837 44,796
Nevada - 473 - - - - - - - 473
Stanislaus 79,496 18,760 16,571 - 10,736 2,430 8,872 - - 136,865
Tehama 6,129 - 8,993 10,141 - - - - 5,609 30,872
Yuba 711 321 6,008 10,482 7,234 - - - - 24,756
Outlying Region Total 162,411 22,027 53,095 44,870 21,057 2,921 8,872 - 11,962 327,215
Total Sacramento Region (BDT) 210,354 198,454 100,738 72,896 38,258 12,782 12,869 12,198 11,962 670,511
HHV (MJ/kg, dry basis) 19.5 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 -
Gross
24 22 11 8 4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 74
Technical*
17 15 8 6 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 52

* Generation is based on thermal conversion of identified resource with net efficiency of 20% and facility availability of 100%. Technical generations assumes 70%
of the gross residue material is available

28

-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Almonds Grapes Walnuts Plums &
Prunes
Peaches Apples Apricots Pears Olives
B
D
T
Sacramento and Adjacent Counties Outlying Region

Figure 1-8. Annual orchard and vineyard prunings in the Sacramento region (dry tons)
-
5
10
15
20
Almonds Grapes Walnuts Plums &
Prunes
Peaches Apples Apricots Pears Olives
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

(
M
W
)

Figure 1-9. Technical generation capacity from orchard tree and vine prunings in the
region
29

AnimalResidues(manure)
Thetotalagriculturalanimalpopulationinthestateiscloseto280million,ofwhich230
millionarebroilerchickens.Thetotalstatecattleinventoryisestimatedtobe5.2million
head.
9
Ofthesecattle,1.6millionarelactatingdairycows,760,000arebeefcattle,and2.8
millionareinacategorythatincludesheifers,bulls,steers,vealcalves,andcow
replacements(otherbeefanddairycalvesandnonlactatingdairycowsandheifers).At
thisstageoftheassessment,onlydairycowmanureisincludedasaresourceforthese
reasons:
Dairycowsaretypicallyconfinedandmanureisremovedfromthepensoften
usingwaterflushorscrapedmanurehandlingsystemsthatallowmanuretobe
concentratedforutilization.
Drylotfeedcattlepensarescrapedonanintermittentbasisandmanurehas
thereforeundergonesignificantbiodegradationbythetimeitiscollected.
Drylotfeedcattlemanureistypicallyscrapedintopilesduringwhichitismixed
withsoilandthisleadstodownstreamhandlingproblemsindigestersandother
conversiondevices.
Rangelandcattlemanureistoodispersedforpracticalcollection.
Table19includestheSacramentoregioninventoryofdairycowsandestimatedmanure
productionwithgrossandtechnicalpotentialelectricitygenerationfromthisresource.
Grossandtechnicalgenerationpotentialsfortheregionareestimatedat44MWand22
MW,respectively(forSacramentoCounty,grossandtechnicalgenerationareabout2
and1MW,respectively).Thegenerationpotentialsweredeterminedbasedontypical
digestiblesolidsinpracticalsystems(SeeassumptionsaccompanyingTable19).Sizeof
dairypowersystemsisdependentuponthemanurecollectionefficiencyandprocessas
wellasthenumberofanimalsatthefacility.Averylargedairywith6,000to8,000cows
mightbeexpectedtogenerate1MWgrossifmanurecollectionisveryefficient.The
CaliforniaEnergyCommissionreportsoneoperatinganaerobicdigestionsystemata
dairyintheSacramentoregion(Zhang2003).ThisistheLangerwerfDairyinButte
County(Durham),whichhasbeengeneratingpowerfromdigestermethanesince1982.
Thereareapproximately400lactatingcowsandthefacilityisgeneratingabout40kW
(withsomeexportedtothegrid).

9.CaliforniaAgriculturalStatisticsService,2002.
30

Table 1-9. Dairy cows, annual manure, and gross power production (by digestion) for the
Sacramento region
County
Number of
lactating
cows
Manure
(BDT)
Volatile solids
consumed by
digestion
a
(BDT)
Biogas
Produced
(million ft
3
)
Gross Potential
c
Electrical Capacity
(MWe)
Technical Potential
d
Electrical Capacity
(MWe)
Sacramento 16,700 36,573 13,714 329 2.3 1.2
Placer - - - - - -
Sutter - - - - - -
Yolo 2,000 4,380 1,642 39 0.3 0.1
Solano 3,900 8,541 3,203 77 0.5 0.3
San Joaquin 103,000 225,570 84,585 2,030 14.3 7.1
Amador - - - - - -
El Dorado - - - - - -
Sacramento/
adjacent Total
125,600 275,064 103,145 2,475 17 9
Butte 900 1,971 739 18 0.1 0.1
Calaveras - - - - - -
Colusa - - - - - -
Glenn 17000 37,230 13,961 335 2.4 1.2
Nevada - - - - - -
Stanislaus 164000 359,160 134,680 3,232 22.7 11.4
Tehama 5300 11,607 4,352 104 0.7 0.4
Yuba 3200 7,008 2,628 63 0.4 0.2
Outlying
Region Total
190,400 416,976 156,360 3,753 26 13
Total
Sacramento
Region
316,000 692,040 259,505 6,228 44 22

a.) Assumes volatile solids (VS) are 83% of total solids and 45% of VS are typically consumed in practical
systems. Assumes manure is collected daily with flush systems.
b.) Assumes biogas production is 12 ft
3
/lb VS destroyed and biogas is 60% CH
4
, 40% CO
2
.
c.) Assumes 35% conversion efficiency of biogas to electricity in gas engines.
d.) For technical availability, it is assumed that 50% of gross biomass is recoverable for energy.

Recentlegislation(SenateBill5X)appropriatedmoniesforassistingdairiesinCalifornia
intheinstallationofsystemstocreatepowerfromdairywastes.Thisledtothe
establishmentoftheDairyPowerProductionProgram(DPPP)bytheEnergy
Commission,thepurposeofwhichistoencouragethedevelopmentofbiologically
basedanaerobicdigestionandgasification(biogas)electricitygenerationprojectsin
theState.Objectivesincludedevelopingcommerciallyprovenbiogaselectricitysystems
tohelpCaliforniadairiesoffsetthepurchaseofelectricity,andprovidingenvironmental
benefitsthroughreductionofairandgroundwaterpollutantsassociatedwithstorage
andtreatmentoflivestockwastes.Approximately$10millionwasappropriated
includingprogramadministrationcosts.
WesternUnitedResourceDevelopment,Inc.(WURD)wasselectedbytheEnergy
Commissiontomanagetheprogram.Theprogramcanprovidetwotypesofassistance
forqualifyingdairybiogasprojects:(1)buydowngrantsthatcoverapercentageofthe
capitalcostsoftheproposedbiogassystem,or(2)incentivepaymentsforgenerated
electricity.Ingeneral,buydowngrantscoveramaximumof50%ofthecapitalcostsof
thebiogassystembasedonestimatedpowerproduction,nottoexceed$2,000per
31

installedkW,whicheverisless.Electricitygenerationincentivepaymentsarebasedo
5.7centsperkWhofelectricitygeneratedbythedairybiogassystempaidoutovera
maximumoffiveyears.Thetotalcumulativepaymentsundertheincentivepayme
routeareintended(afterfiveyears)toequaltheamountoffundingthatwouldbe
providedforanequivalentlysizeddigestertoelectricitysystemunderthebuydown
approach.Table110listsdairypowerprojectsproposedorunderco
n
nt
nstructioninthe
. airy digester for power systems, under construction or proposed in
California
10

statethatarereceivingassistancefromincentivesenabledbySB5X.
Table 1-10 D
Location County
Type of
Digester
No. of Milking
Cows
Estimated
Capacity (kW)
Atwater Merced Cov'd Lagoon 4,686 300
Button Willow Kern Cov'd Lagoon 3,600 280
El Mirage San Bernardino Plug Flow 1,900 160
Lodi San Joaquin Cov'd Lagoon 1,600 160
Visalia Tulare Plug Flow 1,500 260
Tulare Tulare Cov'd Lagoon 1,258 150
Strathmore Tulare Cov'd Lagoon 1,050 120
Lakeside San Diego Plug Flow 600 130
Marshall Merced Cov'd Lagoon 237 75
San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Cov'd Lagoon 175 30
TOTALS 16,606 1665

Source: Report on progress of Dairy Power Production System (wurdco.com).
ice
e
or.
ters
of

Threetypesofanaerobicdigestersarecommerciallyavailableforthedigestionofdairy
manure:completemix,plugflow,andambienttemperaturecoveredlagoon.Thecho
ofdigesterisdependentonthetypeofmanurecollectionsystemusedonthedairy.
Dairieswithflushmanurecollectionsystems(2to3%totalsolids)wouldtypicallyus
anambienttemperaturecoveredlagoondigesterwhereasadairywithamechanical
scrapesystemofcollection(10to13%totalsolids)wouldbeacandidateforaplugflow
digester.Completemixanaerobicdigestersoperateonmanurethathas3to10%total
solidsandcanbeusedwithbothflushedandscrapedmanure.Bothcompletemixand
plugflowdigestersareheatedusingheatcapturedfromaboileroranenginegenerat
Thesteadygasoutputthatresultsfromtheheatingofthedigesterallowsforeaseof
cogeneration.AnUpflowAnaerobicSludgeBlanket(UASB)digesterhasalsobeen
successfullydemonstratedbytheUniversityofFloridatodigesttheliquidportionofthe
wastegeneratedataflushdairy.UASBsandotherattachedgrowthanaerobicdiges
are,however,mostsuccessfulatdigestingsolublewasteandtendtoplugupwhen
operatedonmanurewithahighsolidscontentandarethereforenotcommercialfor
manuredigestionatthistime.Theattachedgrowthdesignsdohavetheadvantage
increasingmeancellresidencetimecomparedtocompletemixsystems.
Manuredigestionsystemstypicallyhavefivesubsystems:amixtank,adigester,an
effluenttank,asolidsseparator,andapowerplantorothergasenergyconversion

10.ReportonprogressofDairyPowerProductionSystem(wurdco.com).
32

system(seeFigure110).Manureistypicallyremovedfromthebarnsusingaflush
systemorbymechanicalscraping.Themanureisdirectedtoamixingtankwhereitis
mixedpriortointroductionintothedigester.Theminimumretentiontimewithinthe
digesteristypically20daysalthoughdigesterscanoperateforshorterperiodsoftime,
especiallyattachedgrowthtypes.Fromthedigester,thedigestateissenttoaneffluent
tankforstorageuntilitispumpedtoascreenseparatororascrewpress.Thesolidsare
collectedandusedforbeddingorcompostedandsoldasasoilamendment.Theliquid
issenttolongertermstorage,usuallyalagoon,untilitisneededforirrigationorsol
liquidfertilizer.Gasfromthedigesterissenttoaboilerforgenerationofheatoran
enginegeneratorsetorotherpowerplant(e.g.microturbine)typetogenerateelectric
Inordertomaintainhighlevelsofgasproduction,themanureatthedairiesmust
das
ity.
be
llectedregularlyandforbestresultsshouldnotbegreaterthanthreedaysold.

co

Figure 1-10. Schematic of digester subsystems (typical of low solids dairy effluents).
ated
systemsofvaryingdesignsor
thatoffsetstheuseofpoweronthefarms.
Reductionintheemissionofgreenhousegasessuchasmethane.
(Mattocks 2003)
Source: Mattocks 2003
Anaerobicdigestionofdairymanureiscommerciallyviableandhasbeendemonstr
atnumerousdairiesacrossthecountry(seeKramer2002forexample).Europehas
developedandisoperatingmanyanaerobicdigestion
configurations.Theadvantagesofthisapproachare:
Electricitygeneration
Odorcontrol.
33

Pathogenreduction.
Mineralizationofthenitratesinthemanureallowingforeasieruptakeofthe
nutrientsbyplants.
Eliminationofthepollutionofgroundwater.
Onestrategytobetterutilizeadigestionsystemistocodigestanimalmanureswith
otherorganicwastessuchassourceseparatedfoodandrestaurantwastes.Theincrease
inmethaneproductionduetomore(andhigherstrength)feedstockwouldbean
economictradeoffagainstthehighercostsofcollectingandtransportingtheco
feedstocks.Anotherstrategythatmaybeviableformultipledairieslocatedneareach
otheristosetupacentralizeddigestionfacilitywiththewastestransportedfromthe
satellitegenerationlocations(e.g.,theMEADprojectinTillamookCounty,Oregon).
BiosolidsWaterTreatmentPlants
WWTPsrepresentabiomassresourcewhichcanbeexploitedforenergyandpower.
Sewageistreatedgenerallyusingcombinationsofaerobicandanaerobicprocesses.
Manytreatmentplantsutilizinganaerobicprocessingcreatesufficientmethanetojustify
convertingittoheatand/orpower,whileothersmayflarethemethane.Afterthe
aerobic/anaerobicprimarytreatmentofthewastewater,thereisasolid(biologically
stabilized)residuecommonlyreferredtoasbiosolids.Biosolidscontainthenon
biodegradablecomponentsofthebiomassinthewastewateraswellasthemineral
matter(ash).Table111displaysthebiosolidsinventoryfortheregionincludinggross
andtechnicalelectricalproductionestimatesfromthebiosolids.
TheSacramentoRegionalWWTPgeneratesapproximately2.8MWfromthemethane
generatedbythetreatmentofthewastewater.Theaveragewastewaterflowisestimated
tobe180to190milliongpd(Fondahl2000).Thereare10WWTPsinCaliforniawithgrid
connectedpowergeneration(combinedgrosscapacityof38MW)(Zhang2003).Thetwo
largestareinLosAngelesCounty(24MWfrom770milliongpdwastewater,combined).
Thesolidresidue(biosolid)oftheprocesscontainsalltheinertportionoftheuntreated
sewageaswellasasignificantamountoforganicmaterialthatisnotbiodegradableplus
effluentcellmass.Thenonbiodegradableorganicmaterialcontainsenergythatcanbe
convertedwiththermochemicalsystems.Dependingondegreeofstabilization,some
biosolidmaterialislandappliedasfertilizer.About40%oftheWWTPbiosolidsinthe
statearelandapplied.About3%isburnedinfurnaces(usuallycofiredwithnaturalgas
orlandfillordigestergas),someofwhichrecoverheatforusebytheWWTP.The
remainderiseitherdisposedinlandfillsmaintainedbythetreatmentfacilityorin
city/countylandfills.
Convertedbythermalmethods,thegrossandtechnicalgenerationfromtheregions
biosolidsisabout7and6MW,respectively.

34

Table 1-11. Regional wastewater treatment biosolids (not currently
landfilled) and electrical generating potential*
Biosolids (bdt y
-1
)
Gross
(MWe)
Technical

(MWe)
Sacramento 47,423 4.20 3.36
Placer* - - -
Sutter 1,732 0.15 0.12
Yolo 2,215 0.20 0.16
Solano 5,323 0.47 0.38
San Joaquin 8,594 0.76 0.61
Amador* - - -
El Dorado 2,112 0.19 0.15
Sacramento & adjacent Total 67,398 6 5
Butte* - - -
Calaveras 9 0.00 0.00
Colusa
+
- - -
Glenn 402 0.04 0.03
Nevada 392 0.03 0.03
Stanislaus 13,037 1.15 0.92
Tehama 552 0.05 0.04
Yuba 757 0.07 0.05
Outlying Region Total 15,149 1 1
Total Sacramento Region 82,547 7 6
Electrical Potential

*Data taken from Fondahl (2000) and escalated using 2003 county populations.
Electrical generating potential based on thermal conversion at 20% efficiency and HHV of 15.4. MJ kg
-1
, dry
basis and plant capacity factor of 1.
Technical availability factor was assumed to be 0.8.
Data taken from Fondahl (2000) and escalated using 2003 county populations
ForestBiomass
Biomassfromtheforestincludesmillresidues,mostofwhicharealreadyusedforsteam
orpowergeneration,forestslashfromtimberoperations,andforestthinningscoming
fromtimberstandandotherforestimprovementoperations.Thelatterresourceislikely
toincreasesubstantiallyfollowingpresidentialsigningoftheHealthyForests
RestorationActonDecember3,2003.
RecentdatadevelopedbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection
(Rosenberg,et.al.2004)wereusedforestimatingforestoperationsresidues.Logging
slashandpotentialthinningsarelumpedtogether.Chaparralislistedseparately.
Chaparralrepresentsasignificantamountofresourceandisincludedbecauseitisafuel
thatlikelywillbemanagedinforestfuelreductionprograms,atleastinsomeareas.
Chaparralisnotcurrentlyharvestedorutilizedinappreciablequantities,nordoesit
havemanypotentialusesotherthanasafuelforheatandpowergeneration.Mill
residuesareestimatedfromcurrentstatewideloggingactivityanddistributedto
countiesusingdatainayear2000report(Springsteen2000).
35

Completedocumentationisnotyetavailablebutthetechnicalavailabilityoftheforest
inventoryassumesnodisturbanceofriparian(streamandlake)zonesandother
sensitivehabitats,andthematerialinareaswithslopegreaterthan30%wouldnotbe
accessed.Thetechnicalaccessibleforestbiomassis59%ofgrossthinningsandslash
biomassand34%ofthegrosschaparralbiomass.Allpublicandprivatelandsare
includedintheCaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtectioninventory.
ThegeographicareausedintheforestbiomassanalysisincludesthesameSacramento
regioncountiesusedaboveaswellasfouradditionalmountaincounties(Plumas,Sierra,
Tuolumne,andAlpine).
Table112showsgrossforestresource(dryweightperyear)andpotentialgeneration
(usinggrosspotentialbiomassand20%thermalconversiontoelectricityefficiency).The
amountofforestbiomassinthe16countySacramentoregion(Table112)is
approximately25%morethanthatoftheagriculturalresiduesfortheregion,andthe
generationestimatereflectsthis(grossandtechnicalgenerationfortheregionsforest
biomassisestimatedat451and213MW,respectively).Table113displaystheforest
biomassandgenerationpotentialforthefouradditionalcountiescompletingtheCentral
SierraNevadaRangeforestbiomassresource.
36

Table 1-12. Forest and mill operations gross potential residues (tons dry weight per year)
in the Sacramento region and generation potential

(Rosenberg et al. 2004).
County
Thinnings &
Slash Chaparral
Mill
Residue
Total
Forestry
Sacramento 4,304 17,317 - 21,621
Placer 3,180 8,016 - 11,196
Sutter 27,961 95,574 - 123,535
Yolo 391 180,702 - 181,093
Solano 1,360 2,374 - 3,734
San Joaquin 4,601 17,409 - 22,010
Amador 151,304 213,244 - 364,548
El Dorado 323,932 38,248 104,625 466,805
Sacramento/ adjacent
Total
517,033 572,884 104,625 1,194,542
Butte 287,100 16,870 47,250 351,220
Calaveras 610,412 41,198 - 651,610
Colusa 249,812 105,162 - 354,974
Glenn 137,030 67,386 -
Nevada 41,835 44,974 63,000 149,809
Stanislaus 62,938 275,959 - 338,897
Tehama 45,011 277,175 96,300 418,486
Yuba 35,759 572,458 46,350 654,567
Outlying Region Total 1,469,897 1,401,182 252,900 2,919,563
Total Sacramento
Region (BDT)
1,986,930 1,974,066 357,525 4,114,105
HHV (MJ/kg, dry basis)
21 19 20
Gross Generation
Potential (MWe)
240 211 na* 451
Technical
Generation
Potential (MWe)
142 72 213

Gross BDT (BDT = bone-dry ton equivalent, a unit of measurement used for biomass fuels. A BDT refers to
an amount of material that contains a ton of moisture-free biomass fiber. Generally, one BDT is equivalent to
1.5 2.2 actual or green tons of biomass.) Amounts include public and private lands but exclude biomass
from riparian zones, sensitive habitat, and terrain with slope greater than 30%. Technical generation
potential assumes the forest thinnings and chaparral are (will be) available in the amounts of 59% and 34%
of gross tonnages respectively, thermal conversion efficiency to electricity is 20% and plant availability is
100%.
* Assumes mill residues are already utilized for heat and power at the sawmill.
Adapted from Rosenberg et al. 2004
37

Table 1-13. Forest biomass in four mountain counties completing the Central Sierras

County
Thinnings &
Slash Chaparral
Mill
Residue
Total
Forestry
Plumas 2103 561 144000 146664
Sierra 61121 122412 - 183533
Tuolumne 24472 513385 83475 621332
Alpine 696348 137578 - 833926
Other Sierra Nevada
Counties Total (BDT)
784,044 773,936 227,475 1,785,455
HHV (MJ/kg, dry basis)
21 19 20
Gross Generation
Potential (MWe)
95 83 na* 178
Technical
Generation
Potential (MWe)
56 28 84

Adapted from Rosenberg et al. 2004
Gross BDT amounts include public and private lands but exclude biomass from riparian zones, sensitive
habitat, and terrain with slope greater than 30%. Technical generation potential assumes the forest thinnings
and chaparral are (will be) available in the amounts of 59% and 34% of gross tonnages respectively, thermal
conversion efficiency to electricity is 20% and plant availability is 100%.
* Assumes mill residues are already utilized for heat and power at the sawmill

SummaryofBiomassResourcesintheSacramentoRegion
Table114summarizesthegrossandtechnical
11
generationpotentialoftheregions
biomassinventory.Totalgrossandtechnicalgenerationfromtheresourceisestimated
tobe872and442MW,respectively.IfthecompleteCentralSierraNevadaRangeis
includedintheforestbiomasscategory,anadditional178MW(gross)and84MW
(technical)biomassresourceisidentified.MSWgoingtolandfilldisposalisan
opportunityforbiomasstoelectricityconversionbecauseitisgenerallyavailableat
centrallocations(landfills,transferstations,materialrecyclingfacilities)andusuallyis
availableatnocostornegativecost(withatippingfee).Someofthisisalready
generatingpowerforSMUDbywayoflandfillgastoenergysystems.Thereare
disadvantagesduetotheheterogeneousnatureofthematerialbothinparticlesizeand
moisturecontentofthevariouscomponents.Orchardandcropresiduesareavailablein
substantialamountsforconversiontoenergyandsomeofthismaterialisalsoalready
beingutilized.Someoftheexistingbiomassfacilitiesintheregionuseorchardresidues
andnutshellsandotheragriculturalresiduesbutnewburningrestrictionsarebeing
implementedintheSanJoaquinValleyreducingdisposaloptionsforfarmers.Rice
strawisavailableinlargeamountsandcurrentlyhaslimitedcommercialusesandcould
benefitfromexpandedpowergenerationcapabilityusingimprovedtechnology.Forest
residuesareexpectedtoofferasubstantialamountofresourcewithnewfederal

11.Grossgenerationpotentialisthecapacitythatcouldbesupportedifallthebiomassfromeach
categorywasconvertedtoelectricitybasedonenergycontentsandcurrenttechnology
conversionefficiencies.Technicalgenerationassumesresourceavailabilityfactorsarelessthan
one.
38

legislationenablingmoreforestthinningoperationsandheightenedawarenessand
urgencyduetotherecentfiresinSouthernCalifornia.
Table 1-14. Summary of regional generation potential from biomass
Biomass Source
Gross
Generation
Potential (MW)
Technical
Generation
Potential (MW)
MSW 43
22
Field Crop
Residues
253 127
Orchard and
Vineyard Residues
74 52
Dairy manure 44 22
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Biosolids
7 6
Forest Residues 451 213
Total 872 442
Other Sierra
Nevada Counties
Forest Residues
178 84

1.3 Conversion of Biomass
Conversionofbiomasscanproceedalongthreemainpathwaysthermochemical,
biochemical,andphysicochemical.Currently,allthreepathwaysareutilizedtovarious
extents.
Thermochemicalconversionischaracterizedbyhighertemperatureandconversion
rates.Itisbestsuitedforlowermoisturefeedstocksandisgenerallylessselectivefor
endproductsalthoughadvancesingasificationandpyrolysisprocessesareexpanding
therangeofchemicalsandmaterialsthatcanbeproduced.
Thermochemicalconversionprocessesinclude:
Combustion
Oxidationoffuelforproductionofheatatelevatedtemperatureswithoutgenerating
commerciallyusefulintermediatefuelgases,liquids,orsolids.Flametemperatures
rangetypicallybetween1500and3000Fdependingonfuel,stoichiometry,furnace
design,andsystemheatloss.Particletemperaturesinheterogeneouscombustioncan
differfromgastemperaturesdependingonradiativeconditions.Combustionofsolids
involvesthesimultaneousprocessesofheatandmasstransport,pyrolysis,gasification,
ignition,andburning,withfluidflow.Itnormallyemploysexcessoxidizertoensure
maximumfuelconversion,butalsocanoccurunderfuelrichconditions.Productsof
39

combustionprocessesincludeheat,oxidizedspecies(e.g.carbondioxide[CO2],water
[H2O]),productsofincompletecombustionandotherreactionproducts(mostas
pollutants),andash.Otherprocesses,suchassupercriticalwateroxidationand
electrochemicaloxidationcanproducesimilarendproductsatlowertemperatures.
Gasification
Typicallyreferstoconversionviapartialoxidationusingsubstoichiometricairoroxygen
orbyindirectheatingtoproducefuelgases(synthesisgas,producergas),principally
carbonmonoxide(CO),hydrogen(H2),methane,andlighterhydrocarbonsin
associationwithCO2andnitrogen(N2)dependingontheprocessused.Gasification
processesalsoproduceliquids(tars,oils,andothercondensates)andsolids(char,ash)
fromsolidfeedstocks.Gasificationprocessesaredesignedtogeneratefuelorsynthesis
gasesastheprimaryproduct.Fuelgasescanbeusedininternalandexternal
combustionengines,fuelcells,andotherprimemovers.Gasificationproductscanbe
usedtoproducemethanol,FischerTropsch(FT)liquids,andotherfuelliquidsand
chemicals.Gasificationofsolidsandcombustionofgasificationderivedfuelgases
generatesthesamecategoriesofproductsasdirectcombustionofsolids,butpollution
controlandconversionefficienciesmaybeimproved.
Pyrolysis
Aprocesssimilartogasificationexceptgenerallyoptimizedfortheproductionoffuel
liquids(pyrolysisoils)thatcanbeusedstraight(i.e.asboilerfuel)orrefinedforhigher
qualityusessuchasenginefuels,chemicals,adhesives,andotherproducts.Pyrolysis
alsoproducesgasesandsolidsfromsolidfeedstocks.Usually,processesthatthermally
degradematerialwithouttheadditionofanyairoroxygenareconsideredpyrolysis.
Pyrolysisandcombustionofpyrolysisderivedfuelliquidsandgasesalsoproducethe
samecategoriesofendproductsasdirectcombustionofsolids,butlikegasification,
pollutioncontrolandconversionefficienciesmaybeimproved.Directpyrolysisliquids
maybetoxic,corrosive,oxidativelyunstable,anddifficulttohandle.Generationof
refinedfuelliquidshasadvantagesinfuelhandlinganddistributedormobilepower
generation.
Biochemicalconversionproceedsatlowertemperaturesandlowerreactionratesbut
tendstooffergreaterselectivityinproductsthanthermochemicalconversion.Higher
moisturefeedstocksaregenerallygoodcandidatesforbiochemicalprocesses.
Biochemicalconversionprocessesinclude:
Anaerobicdigestion
Afermentationtechniquetypicallyemployedinsomewastewatertreatmentfacilities
forsludgedegradationandstabilizationbutalsotheprincipalprocessoccurringin
landfills.Anaerobicdigestionoperateswithoutfreeoxygenandresultsinafuelgas
calledbiogascontainingmostlymethaneandcarbondioxidebutfrequentlycarrying
impuritiessuchasmoisture,hydrogensulfide(H2S),siloxane,andparticulatematter.
40

Anaerobicdigestionrequiresattentiontothenutritionaldemandsofthefacultativeand
methanogenicbacteriadegradingthewastesubstrates.Thecarbon/nitrogen(C/N)ratio
ofthefeedstockisespeciallyimportant.Biogascanbeusedasfuelforengines,gas
turbines,fuelcells,boilers,industrialheaters,otherprocesses,andthemanufacturingof
chemicals.
Aerobicconversion
Includes,forexample,compostingandactivatedsludgewastewatertreatment
processes.Aerobicconversionusesairoroxygentosupportthemetabolismofthe
aerobicmicroorganismsdegradingthesubstrate.Nutritionalconsiderationsarealso
importanttotheproperfunctioningofaerobicprocesses.Aerobicprocessesoperateat
muchhigherratesthananaerobicprocesses,butgenerallydonotproduceusefulfuel
gases.
Fermentation
Generallyusedindustriallytoproducefuelliquidssuchasethanolandotherchemicals.
Alsooperateswithoutoxygen.Althoughfermentationandanaerobicdigestionare
commonlyclassifiedseparately,botharefermentationmethodsdesignedtoproduce
differentproducts.Cellulosicfeedstocks,includingthemajorityoftheorganicfractionof
MSW,needpretreatment(acid,enzymatic,orhydrothermalhydrolysis)todepolymerize
celluloseandhemicellulosetomonomersusedbytheyeastandbacteriaemployedinthe
process.Lignininbiomassisrefractorytofermentationandasabyproductistypically
consideredforuseasboilerfuelorasafeedstockforthermochemicalconversionto
otherfuelsandproducts.
Physicochemicalconversion
Involvesthephysicalandchemicalsynthesisofproductsfromfeedstocksandis
primarilyassociatedwiththetransformationoffreshorusedvegetableoils,animalfats,
greases,tallow,andothersuitablefeedstocksintoliquidfuelsorbiodiesel,frequentlyby
transesterification(reactionofglyceridewithalcoholinthepresenceofcatalyst).
1.4 Advanced Biomass Power Systems
Systemsthatimproveuponcost,conversionefficiency,installedcapacity,environmental
performance,publicacceptance,orthatcanincreasetherangeofavailablefeedstocks
andproductscomparedwithexistingcommercialtechnologies,areconsidered
advanced.
Probablytheleastexpensivemeansforincreasinguseofbiomassinpowergenerationis
tocofirewithcoalinexistingboilersbydirectsubstitutionof10to15%ofthetotal
energyinputwithasuitablebiomassfuel.Biomasscofiringdirectlysubstitutes
renewablecarbonforfossilcarbon.Inaddition,cofiringhaslittleornoimpactonthe
overallconversionefficiencyoftheplant.Cofiredbiomassreceivesthebenefitofthe
generallyhigheroverallconversiontoelectricityefficienciesinlargecoalpowerplants
41

(typically33to37%).CofiringbiomasscanalsoreduceNOxandsulfurdioxide(SO2)
emissionsfromcoalfiredpowerplantsdependingontypeofbiomassfired.
Gasification
Systemsforgasificationofbiomassofferimprovementsinoneofseveralways.Close
coupledgasifierandboilersystemscanincreasetherangeofavailablefuelsincertain
cases.Forexample,anexistingcombustionboilermaynotbeabletoeconomically
consumesomefuelsbecauseofdisadvantageousashpropertiesexperiencedat
combustionboilertemperature(slagginginasystemdesignedfordryashorreleaseof
alkalineandchlorinecompoundswhichcondenseandformdepositsonheattransfer
surfaces).Installingadifferentconversiontechnologyalongsideexistingfacilitiescould
increaseusablefuelsupplywithoutincurringthecostofacompletenewplant.Another
reasonforanaddonorclosecoupledsystemmightbeforavoidanceofcontamination
ofashproductininstanceswheretheashfromtheoriginalfuelhaseconomicvalue.A
thirdpossibilityforsuchsystemsispotentialimprovementofenvironmental
performanceincombinationwithincreasingtherangeoffuels.AcurrentPIERfunded
projecttoinvestigateclosecoupledgasificationforpurposesofNOxemissions
reductionwithbiomassboilershascompleteditsfirstphase
12
.Ifapproved,aPhaseII
programwoulddeployafullscaledemonstrationatanexistingbiomassboiler,most
likelyintheSacramentoregion.
13
Gasificationofbiomassfollowedbycofiringtheproductgaswithafossilfueleitherin
steamcyclepowergenerationorinnaturalgasfiredgasturbines(withorwithout
combinedsteambottomingcycle)isacofiringstrategythatcantakeadvantageof
existingboilersandgeneratingequipment,reducingthecostofimplementingabiomass
componentofapowerportfolio.
Gasificationforuseinintegratedgasificationcombinedcyclesystems(IGCC)offersthe
potentialtoincreasetheconversiontoelectricityefficiencycomparedtothatofthe
existingbiomasscombustionboilers.AdvancedbiomassIGCCsystemswillbenefitfrom
substantialinvestmentsmadeincoalgasificationcombinedcyclesystemsintheareasof
hotgasparticulatematterremovalandproducergascombustioningasturbines.The
UnitedStatesDepartmentofEnergy(DOE),aswellasmanyresearchorganizationsin
Europe,hassponsoredmuchdevelopmentwork.Criticalissuesaregascleaningand
solidfuelfeedingintopressurizedreactors.Commercialscaledemonstratorsarein
varyingstagesofcompletion.
Stillearlyindevelopmentalstagesisbiomassgasificationforproductionofrenewable
hydrogenforfuelcells.Thesesystemsholdpromiseforhighefficiencyatavarietyof
scales.Utilizationofmethanefrombiomassinfuelcellsiscurrentlybeingdemonstrated

12.GEEnergyandEnvironmentalResearchCorporation,Irvine,California.CECContractNo.
50098037.
13.ThefacilitiesbeingconsideredarelocatedinWoodland,Williams,andAnderson,California.
42

atseveralsitesintheUnitedStateswithsupportfromtheU.S.DOEandU.S.
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).
Smallmodularbiomasspowersystemsaregaininginterestbecauseofanincreasing
desirefordistributedgenerationandwildfirehazardreductionactivitieswhichare
likelytoprovidelargeamountsofwoodybiomassbutatdispersedlocations.Modular
systemsincludecombustioninsmallsteamboilersforprocessheatorpowergeneration
insteamengines,combustionforheatforStirlingengines,andgasificationforfueling
microturbinesorreciprocatingenginesandgeneratorsets.
Biogasification,orproductionofmethanefromanaerobicmicrobesthatconsume
biomass,istheprocessthattakesplacewithinlandfillscreatingmethanegasandcarbon
dioxide.Advancedlandfillsystemscurrentlybeinginvestigatedanddemonstratedat
fullscaleconditionsincludethebioreactorprojectattheYoloCountylandfill.This
projectisoneofthebiomassrelatedprojectsintheSMUDReGenprogram.Current
technologyfortheconversionoflandfillgastomethaneconsistsofreciprocatingengines
forscalesuptoseveralMW,usuallywithmultipleenginegeneratorsets.TheNOx
emissionscanbehighfromtheseenginesrunningbiogaswhichcanmakeitdifficultto
sitenewgenerationofthistypeinmanyairdistrictsinthestate.Hydrogenenriched
biogasandotherfuelscanbeusedinleanburnenginestoreduceNOxemissionsand
thisisadevelopmentareaforthefuture.ApartoftheYoloCountyinvestigation
includesastudyofalandfillbiofilterthatmaybeabletobiologicallyreactmuchofthe
NOxfromlandfillgasengines.Presently,thispreliminarydraftreportdoesnotaddress
bioreactorlandfills.
Aninnovativeanaerobicdigestionsystemsuitableforhighsolidsgreenwaste,manure,
food,andfoodprocessingwasteshasbeendevelopedbyProfessorR.Zhangat
UniversityofCalifornia,Davis,(UCDavis)andDr.Z.Zhang,currentlyattheCalifornia
EnergyCommission.Theinnovationistheuseofseveralbatchloadedhydrolysistanks
andasinglecontinuousmethanegenerationreactoroperatedinthethermophilicrange.
Thevolatilesolidsdestructionandbiogasproductionisgenerallyincreasedoverthatof
standardhighsolidssinglevesseldigesters.ApilotfacilityontheUCDaviscampus,
fundedbytheCaliforniaEnergyCommissionandindustrypartners,wastobe
operationalearlyin2005.Thepilotfacilitywillhaveafeedstockcapacityofabout3tons
perdayproducingabout25kWfromareciprocatingengine.A250tonperday(wet)
systemusinggreenandotherorganicwastesinthisprocessisproposedforthe
CaliforniaStateUniversityChannelIslandscampusinVenturaCounty.Thissystem
offerspotentiallylowcostelectricityifaveragetippingfeesforreceivingthefeedstock
arecharged.ThecompanythathaslicensedthetechnologyisOnsitePowerSystemsin
Camarillo,California.
Overallelectricalefficiency
Overallthermodynamicefficiencyofelectricalproduction,definedas
43

% 100
in fuel of value heating Higher
out energy electrical Net

variesfromabout30to55%formodernlargescalefossilfueledpowerplants.Coalfired
steamRankinecyclepowerplantsrangebetween30to45%netelectricalefficiency.
Efficiencyimproveswithhighersteamtemperaturesandpressuresandgenerally
improveswithlargercapacityfacilities.
14
Naturalgasfiredgasturbinecombinedcycle
(GTCC)powerplantscanachieveefficienciesashighas55%.
Overallefficiencyofbiomassconversiontoelectricityistypicallylowerthanlarge
centralstationfossilpowerplantsduetosmallerfacilitysizeandlowerfuelquality(i.e.,
comparativelyhighmoistureinsomecases).Efficiencyofconversionforexisting
biomassbasedpowersystemsrangesfromlessthan10%toabout25%.Atthelowerend
oftherangearecombustionboilersteamenginesystems,smallgasifierenginesystems,
andanaerobicdigestionreciprocatingenginesystems.Theupperrangeofefficiencyis
achievedbylargercombustionboilersteamturbinesystemswithmorethan40MW
capacities.
Figure111showsoverallefficiencyversusnetpoweroutputforseveraltechnology
classes.Theefficienciesshownaregenerallyindependentoffuel(liquid,solid,gas,
fossil,orbiomass).AlsoshownareefficienciesoftheexistingCaliforniasolidfuel
combustionbiomasspowerindustry(showninblueandlabeledCaliforniasteamcycle
biomass),andseveraloperatingorplannedcommercialdemonstrations(reddots
labeledbycompanynameorlocation).
TheCaliforniasolidfueledbiomassindustryconsistsoffacilitieswithnetpower
capacityaslowas4MWtothreefacilitieswithcapacitiesbetween47and50MW.The
netefficienciesrangefromabout15to25%.Facilitiesabove50MWnethavenotbeen
installedduetoadditionalregulatoryreviewrequiredatthiscapacityandabove.
Thedotssignifyprojectsorsystemsthatarediscussedbrieflyinfollowingsectionsofthe
report.
15

14.Thehighestefficiencysteamcyclesoperatewithsupercriticalsteamconditions(i.e.,steam
pressureabovethecriticalpointofwater;22.1MPaor3200psi).Thereareseveralhundred
supercriticalsteampowerplantsworldwidewithsteampressuresrangingfrom25MPa(3600
psi)to31MPa(4500psi).Maximumsteamtemperaturesrangebetween540Cand620C(1000
Fto1150F).

15.CPCistheabbreviationforCommunityPowerCorporation(seeSmallScaleandModular
Biomasssection).XylowattandGssingcanbefoundintheSmallMediumScaleGasificationfor
CHP(IndiaandEurope)sectionandCarbonaIGCCisintheCommercializationofBiomassIGCC
section.
44

IGFC Integrated Gasifier Fuel Cell DF-GT Direct Fired Gas
Turbine (simple cycle)
IGCC Integrated Gasifier Combined Cycle

Figure 1-11. Efficiency versus net electrical power output for several prime movers.
Photo Credit: Adapted from R.P. Overend, 1998.
45

1.4.1 Biomass Cofiring with Fossil Fuels
SolidFuelCofiring
In1996,theU.S.DOEandCharitonValleyResourceConservationandDevelopment,
Inc.inCenterville,Iowa,beganastudytolookatthefeasibilityofusingbiomassto
generateelectricityinSoutheasternIowa.Theprojectincludedstudiesofagronomic,
economic,andtechnicalissues,suchasdevelopingafuelsupplyplan,optimizingthe
yieldsofenergycropsonIowafarmland,andexaminingtheeffectsofcofiring
switchgrassinexistingcoalboilers.Infullscaleexperiments,switchgrasshasbeenco
firedinamountsupto25tons/h,contributing5%oftheenergyforthe735MW(gross)
nominallycoalfiredOttumwaplant(Amos2002).
GasifiedBiomassCofiring
Withafuelgasderivedfrombiomass(whetherproducergasfromthermochemical
gasificationorbiogasfrombiogasification),thereisthecapabilitytocofirewithnatural
gasingasturbinecombinedcycle(GTCC)facilities(assumingqualityofthemixedgas
meetstheturbinerequirementsforenergycontent,hydrogengasconcentrationand
cleanliness).
Thereareatleastthreebasicarrangementsforbiomasscofiringwithanaturalgas(NG)
fueledGTCC:(1)biomasscombustionboilerwhichaddssteamtotheGTCC(Figure1
12),(2)Thermalgasificationfollowedbygasconditioningthenmixedwithnaturalgas
beforefiringintheturbine(Figure113),and(3)abiogas(productofanaerobic
digestion)streamthathasbeenconditionedforcofiringinanaturalgasfueledturbine
(Figure114).

Figure 1-12. Indirect Co-firing with steam side integration.
Theindirectcofiringwithsteamsideintegrationispracticalandhaslowerspecific
investmentcoststhanstandalonecombustion.Steamadditionfromthebiomassboiler
isprobablylimitedtoabout10%.Theenergyefficiencyofthebiomasscomponentis
similartothatofconventionalbiomassfueledsteamcycles(Zwart2003).
46

Figure 1-13. Direct cofiring with upstream thermal gasification.
Upstreamthermalgasificationdirectcofiringallowsthethermalefficiencyofthe
biomassportionofthefueltoapproachthatofpurenaturalgascombinedcycle(50to
55%)(Zwart2003).Itisestimatedthatinordertoavoidmajorgasturbinemodifications,
theHHVofthegasmixturewouldneedtoremainaboveabout39megajoule(MJ)per
kilogram(HHVofnaturalgasis50to55MJ/kg)andtheconcentrationofH2needstobe
lessthan5%(volume).Theserequirementswilllimitthebiomassfuelcontributiontothe
rangeof2to8%(thermalbasis).Fora500MWfacility,the2to8%biomassfuel
limitationisequivalentto10to40MWbiopower.

Figure 1-14. Direct cofire with biogas.
Directcofirewithbiogasislimitedtothesamefuelmixturerequirementsmentioned
aboveinordertoavoidmajorgasturbinemodifications.However,biogasisgenerally
easiertocleanthanproducergas(notarandusuallynoparticulatematter),resultingin
47

lowercapitalcosts.ColocatingabiogassourcewithaGTCCfacilityisasimplewayto
boosttheconversionefficiencyofthebiogasfromthe25%to40%levelobtainedin
reciprocatingenginesormicroturbines(simplecycle)tothehigherGTCCefficiencyof
about50%.Thebiogascanbeupgradedtopipelinequality(i.e.likenaturalgas)by
strippingtheCO2andremovingsulfurcompoundsthatmaybepresent.Upgraded
biogascouldbecofiredinanyproportionwithnaturalgas.
NaturalGasCofiringwithBiomass
APIERfundedprojectwasimplementedattwoCaliforniabiomasspowerfacilities
whichusednaturalgascofiringtoimprovetheenvironmentalperformance,reduce
capacityproblemsassociatedwithlowqualityfuels,andincreaseloadfollowing
capabilityforthefacilities.ThelowNOxgasburnerswereretrofittedtotwoexisting
boilerfacilitiesinNorthernCaliforniaanddemonstrationswerecompleted.The
technologypurportstoreducecarbonmonoxideandopacitylevelswhenlowqualityor
highmoisturebiomassfuelisbeingburned.Additionally,thenaturalgasburnersadd
abilitytochangethefuelfeedratemorequicklywhichimprovesloadfollowing.
16
1.4.2 Biomass Integrated Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Efforts

TheU.S.DOEbiomasspowerprogramsupporteddevelopmentworkonbiomass
integratedcombinedcyclesystemsinthe1990s.Therewereatleastthreeprojects
undertakeninthenationthathadvariousdegreesofsuccess.TheEuropeanUnion,
throughtheTHERMIEenergyprogram,hasbeensupportingcommercialscaleIGCC
demonstrationsystemsfueledbybiomass.Atthistime,theonlylargescale
demonstrationthatranforanysignificantlengthoftimewasatVrnamo,Sweden
between1996and1999.ThefollowingaredescriptionsofIGCCcommercialscale
demonstrationeffortsworldwide.ThefirstthreewereU.S.DOEsupportedprojects.
Paia,Hawaii
IncooperationwiththeHawaiiCommercialandSugarCompany,thestateofHawaii,
GasTechnologyInstitute(GTI,amergeroftheformerGasResearchInstitute(GRI)and
theInstituteofGasTechnology[IGT]),WestinghouseElectricandothers,U.S.DOE
providedcostsharedfundingtoscaleupaGTIgasifier(developedbyIGT)toa
demonstrationscalethatwouldconsume100tonsperdayofbagasse(sugarcane
residue).Thedemonstrationwastoincludehotproducergascleanuptechnologythat
couldcreateaproducergassuitablycleanforfiringinagasturbine.Thegasifierwas
designedtooperatewithairoroxygenuptopressuresof300psi.Theunitoperatedfor
shortperiodsatafuelfeedrateofabout50t/day
andapressureof150psibutcreatinga
producergasthatwasflared.Thereweresignificantproblemsfeedingthebiomassto
thepressurizedreactorwhichwerenotsolvedwitharedesignofthefeedsystem.Funds
werenotavailabletocontinuetheprojectafterthesecondfeedingsystemproved
inadequate.

16.CECProjectFactsheet:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/renewable/projects/fact_sheets/GTI_FCTSHT.pdf
48

Burlington,Vermont
ABattelle(commercializedbyFERCO)gasifiersizedfor200t/daywoodchipswas
installednexttotheboilerattheMcNeilGeneratingStationinBurlington,Vermont.The
McNeilfacilityisa50MWRankinesteamcyclebiomassfiredplant.Theproject
consistedofscalinguptheBattelledualfluidizedbedgasifiertoproducegasforco
firingintheMcNeilboilerinitially,followedbystagedimplementationofgascleaning
systemsandagasturbinetobeoperatedontheproducergasasanIGCC.Thegasifier
usessteamandhotsandtogasifythebiomass.Thecharandsandfromthefirst
fluidizedbedisshuttledtoasecondfluidizedbedreactorandthecharcombustedto
heatthesandwhichisrecirculatedtothefirstreactor(SeeFigure115).Steamisusedas
thefluidizingandgasificationagentinthefirstreactor,avoidingdilutionwithnitrogen
inairandproducingahigherqualitygasforuseintheIGCC.Itoperatesatnear
atmosphericpressure.
TheprojectwassuccessfulincreatingandcofiringproducergasintheMcNeilboiler.A
gasturbinehasnotyetbeeninstalled.ItisuncertainifDOEwillsupportdemonstration
withthegasturbineastheemphasisonfederalrenewableenergyresearchisnow
focusingontransportationfuelsbecauseofenergysecurityissues.FERCOisnotableto
financethedemonstrationwithagasturbinebyitself.

Figure 1-15. Schematic of the FERCO gasifier.
Photo Credit: Mark Paisley, FERCO (2004).

GraniteFalls,Minnesota(MnVAP)
Agrowerscooperative(MinnesotaValleyAlfalfaProducersorMnVAP),electricutility,
university,privatepartners,andstateagenciesformedagrouptositeabiomasspower
49

station.U.S.DOEsponsoredtheprogramaswell.Theconceptwastostriptheleaves
fromthegrowerscooperativealfalfaharvest(2,000growers,180,000acres)anduse
themforcreatinghighqualityanimalfeed.Thelowproteinstemsweretobeusedfor
thebiomassfuel.A75to100MWplantbasedontheGTIpressurizedoxygenenriched
airblowngasifier(licensedtoCarbona)supplyinganIGCCsystemwasspecified.
Expectedrequiredfeedrateofalfalfastemswas1,100t/day.TheDOEwasprovidingup
to$44millionofthe$140to$200millioncostforconstructionoftheplantandassociated
facilities.
17
Significantmilestonesaccomplishedby1999included:
Purchaseofexistingalfalfaprocessingplantanddevelopmentofstemandleaf
separationtechnology.
SigningapowerpurchaseagreementwithNorthernStatesPowerCompanyof
Minneapolis,Minnesota,guaranteeingthelongtermsaleofelectricitystarting
December31,2001.
Formulatedagreementswithfarmerstobuysharesinthecooperativeand
makingthemfuturecoownersofthepowerfacility.
Obtainingaloanguaranteeand100acresoflanddonatedbythecityofGranite
Falls,Minnesota,forthepowerfacility.
ReceivingagrantfromtheStateofMinnesotatosupportalfalfaproductionand
processingcapabilities.Thestatealsoapprovedregulatorychangesandtax
exemptionsworthmorethan$3millionperyeartosupportthealfalfaproducers
roleintheproject.
Initiatingenvironmentalimpactstudies.
However,in1999,keyfinancingpartnerswithdrewfromtheprojectbecauseof
uncertaintieswithfuelsupplyandtheunproventechnology(biomassIGCC)atthis
scale.
Vrnamo,Sweden
TheVrnamoplantwastheworldsfirstbiomassfueledIGCCplantthatoperated
successfullyforextendedperiodsoftime.Thisdemonstrationfacilityproducedpower
andheat(6MW,9MWt/hour)andwasdevelopedbySydkraftABandFosterWheeler
International.Thegasifierwasapressurizedairblowncirculatingfluidbedreactorthat
operatedatpressuresof18to22atmospheres.Thefacilityusedfinelyground,dried
woodandbarkfeedstock(10to20%moisturecontent)deliveredtothepower
generationsitefromanadjacentpreparationfacility.Limitedtestswithpelletizedstraw
andrefusederivedfuel(RDF)werealsoperformed(Stevens2001)withsomesuccess.

17.FederalRegisterDocument9924457,filedSept.17,1999.http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA
IMPACT/1999/September/Day20/i24457.htm
50

Thegascleaningsystemconsistedofacycloneseparator,followedbyheatexchangeto
coolthegastoabout350C(fromabout900C)therebycondensingalkalivaporson
particulatematter(Stevens2001).Thepartiallycooledgaswaspassedthroughabarrier
filter(ceramicand/orsinteredmetalcandlefilters).Tarandalkalicontentinthe
filteredgaswerelessthan5g/m
3
,and0.1partspermillion(byweight),respectively
(StahlandNeergaard1998).Thefilteredgaswasthenfiredinagasturbine(European
GasTurbines,Ltd).Thegasturbinegeneratedabout4MW,andthesteambottoming
cycleproducedanadditional2MW(Engstrom1998).
TheVrnamogasificationsystemhasmoreoperationalexperiencethananyother
biomassfiredgasturbinesystem.Figure116showsaschematicoftheVrnamosystem.
Thegasifierwascompletedin1993.Intotal,thegasifieroperatedformorethan7,000
hours.Thegasturbinewasmodifiedforusewiththelowenergygasin1995,andtest
operationsoftheintegratedbiomassfueledpowergenerationsystembeganthatyear.
Bytheendof1999,theintegratedfacilityhadoperatedforatotalofabout3,500hours,
withmostofthoseduring1998and1999.Thefacilitywasbuiltasanearcommercial
demonstrationandwasnotintendedtoprovidelongtermpowergenerationona
commercialbasis.Thedemonstrationofthetechnologywascompletedin1999,andthe
facilitywasclosed(Stevens2001).Anonprofitcompanywithtiestoalocaluniversity
hasbeenestablishedtoutilizethefacilityforresearchwhichincludesdevelopmentof
refusederivedfuelsforuseinanIGCC,productionofhydrogenrichsynthesisgas,and
pilotproductionoftransportationfuelsfromsynthesisgas(Stahletal.2004).

Figure 1-16. Schematic of the Vrnamo, Sweden, BIGCC facility

Photo Credit: Adapted from Stahl and Neergaard 1998.
51

Eggborough,England(ARBRE)
ThisbiomassfiredIGCCprojectwasselectedforcommercialdemonstrationbythe
EuropeanCommissionTHERMIEprograminthemid1990s(Pitcheretal.1998).Itis
calledARBREandwassitednearforestoperationresiduesbutalsoincludesa
componenttotheprojecttogrowshortrotationcoppicedwillowforthemainfuel
source.
Thecapacityoftheplantis8MWandusesaTPS(Sweden)atmosphericairblown
circulatingfluidizedbedgasifier.Gasconditioningisaccomplishedusingsequential
filtrationandscrubbing.Particulatematerialisremovedfromthehotrawgasusinga
cyclone,andtarsarethencrackedwhilethegasisstillhot.Thegasisthenpassed
throughaheatexchangertorecoverheatthatisusedforgeneratingsteam.Thewarm
gasisthenpassedthroughbagfilterstoremoveremainingparticles,andtheproduct
thenpassesthroughawetscrubberforfinalconditioning(Stevens2001).Aportionof
thegasiscombustedinaboilerandtheremainingproducergasiscompressedand
injectedintoaTyphoonindustrialgasturbine.Thegasturbineandthesteamcycleeach
produceabout5MWwithprojectedoverallconversionefficiencyof31%(Stevens2001).
Constructionoftheprojectbeganin1998andithasbeenoperatedintrialruns.The
ownerhassufferedfinancialdifficultiesandthefacilitywasreportedlysoldin
bankruptcyproceedings.Thestatusofthefacilityisnotdeterminedatthistime.
Otherattempts
Therearetwootherprojectsmentionedintheliteratureandonfundingagencywebsites
whosestatusisdifficulttodetermine.OneislocatedinCascina,Italy,andownedby
BioelettricaSpA.ThisisanotherselectionbytheECTHERMIEdemonstrationprogram.
ThedesignincludesaLurgiCFBatmosphericairblowngasifiersizedfor43MWt/hour
fuelinput.Theplantshouldgenerate14MW(33%efficiency).Thefuelistobewood
chips,andoliveandgrapepomaceresidues.Theproducergaswillbepassedthrough
cyclonesforlargeparticulatematterremovalfollowedbycoolingandwetscrubbing.
Thegastheniscompressedforinjectionintothegasturbine.Theplantwassupposedto
beoperationalin2002buthasbeendelayed.Thereasonsforthedelayhavenotbeen
determinedatthistime.
TheotherprojectwasslatedforBrazil.CalledtheBrazilianwoodBiomassIntegrated
GasificationGasTurbineProject(BIGGT),developmentfundswereprovidedbythe
WorldBankandtheUNthroughaprogramcalledGlobalEnvironmentalFacility(GEF).
InUnitedStatescurrency,$8millionwasgrantedtodoallpreliminarydevelopment
workincludingafuelresourcestudy,environmentalimpacts,plantcomponent
specificationandselectionandfinaldesign.TheTPSgasificationprocessandaGeneral
Electric(GE)gasturbinewereselected(Babu1999).
Thedesigncapacitywas32MW.Fuelwouldincludesomewoodresidueandbagasse
butprimarilywouldbefromashortrotationcultivationoperationthatwaspartofthe
52

project.Fromtheplanninganddesignphases,theplantinstallationcostwasestimated
at$113million(CarpentieriandSilva1998),includinglandcostsandshortrotationcrop
operation.Theprojecthasnotproceededbeyondthedesignstage.Apparentlythehigh
costoftheprojectandadownturnintheeconomycontributedtoadecisionnotto
continue.
Commercialization of Biomass IGCC
ThoughthereareseveraloperatingcommercialcoalfueledIGCCfacilities,someof
whichcogasifybiomass/MSWcomponents(Williamsetal.2003),therearenostrictly
biomassfueledIGCCfacilitiescommerciallyoperating.Thismaybechangingas
CarbonaandFERCOEnterprisesreportnewprojectsarebeingdeveloped.
CarbonaIGCC
CarbonaisaFinnishcompanyactiveinbiomassgasificationandcombustionprojects.It
haslicensetomarkettheRENUGASgasifierdevelopedbyGTI(pressurizedair/oxygen
gasifier).ThecompanywascalledTampellaPowerandEnviropowerinthepast.It
maintainsaresearchandpilotfacilityinFinland.Thecompanyhasdeveloped
proprietarygascleaningsystems(basedpartlyonheatedsinteredmetalfiltersand
catalyticcracking)foruseinbiomassIGCCapplications(Patel2003).
CarbonaissupplyingthegasifierandgascleaningsystemforanIGCCprojectinIndia.
Itisproposedtoconsumewoodwasteandcashewandcoconutshells.Fuelfeedrateis
plannedfor200t/dayandshouldnet12MW.Theprojectcostis$22million.Project
initiationisawaitingfinaldecisionfromfinancingpartners.SeeFigure117foraprocess
diagramoftheIndiaproject.
FERCOEnterprises
18
AnenergyfirmintheEngland(PeninsulaPower)isplanningtobuilda23MW(net)
BIGCCfacilityusingtheFERCOgasifierandaSiemensCyclonegasturbine.Fuelwill
comefromaconsortiumofenergycropgrowers(shortrotationwillowcoppiceand
miscanthus)andlocalforestryoperationwastes.Theprojectcostisreportedtobe$70
millionofwhich$20millionisarenewableenergygrantawardfromthegovernment.
Theprojectisinthepermittingstage.

18.InformationgatheredfrompersonalcommunicationwithMarkPaisley,FERCOEnterprises,
in2004.Othersourcesincludehttp://www.peninsulapower.co.uk/and
http://www.biggreenenergy.com,bothaccessedin2004.
53

PARTICULATE

Figure 1-17. Process diagram of the Carbona India IGCC project.
Photo Credit: Carbona USA.

AprojectinForsytheCounty,Georgia,isunderdevelopmentbyBiomassGas&Electric,
LLC.TheprojectwillbelocatedadjacenttoaConstructionandDemolitionDebris
landfill.Mostofthefuelwillbecleanwoodwastessuppliedbythelandfilloperator.
Supplementalfuelwillbesawmillwastesandherbaceouscropresidues.AFERCO
gasifierhasbeenselected.Initially,thegasifierwillprovidefuelforasteamboiler.Later
planscallforinstallationofagasturbineforcombinedcycleoperation.Theplantwill
consume400tonsperdayoffuelandproduceapproximately20MW.Theprojecthas
receivedzoningapprovalsandenvironmentalpermittingisunderway.Power
purchasingagreementsarebeingnegotiated.
AthirdFERCOgasifierprojectisindevelopment.ThisprojectisinthestateofNew
Yorkandwillinitiallyfuelasteamboilerandsteamcyclewithadditionofgasturbines
orreciprocatingengineslater.Theprojectisobtainingzoningapprovals.Thefuelsource
wasnotreported.
BIGCC Conclusion
ThereisageneralviewthattheU.S.DOEsponsoredbiomassIGCCprojectsfailed
becausenoneoftheprojectseveroperatedinIGCCmode.Thisviewisstrengthenedby
therecentemphasisofResearch,Development,Demonstration,andDeployment
(RDDD)programsdirectedatbiofuelsandbioproducts(biorefineries)attheU.S.DOE
BIOMASS WASTE
8 t/h
BED
GASIFIER
CYCLONE
GA
COOLER
WATER
FROM
HRSG
FLY
ASH
AI
GAS TURBINE No.
HEAT
STEAM
STACK
FROM GAS
COOLER
TO
COOLER
STEAM
TURBINE
CONDENSER
BOOSTER
COMPRESSOR
AIR
STEAM
ASH AND
BED
MATERIAL
REMOVAL
STEAM
TO
CLEAN PRODUCT GAS
HRSG
4 MW
e
4 MW
e
BOOSTE
COMPRESSOR
AI
GAS TURBINE No. 2
4 MW
e
54

whichnecessarilyreducesresourcesand,therefore,interestinbiomasspower
development.
ThereasonsthattheBIGCCdemonstrationprojectsintheUnitedStatesnevercameto
fruitionareultimatelyfinancial.TheMnVAPprojectneverreachedtheconstruction
stagebecausebankfinancingbackedout.ThePaia,Hawaii,projectwasperhaps
handicappedfromtheoutsetbyapoorchoiceoffuelandreactorcombination,creating
anobstaclethatcouldnotbeovercomebythebudgetedtimeandmoney.The
Burlington,Vermont(FERCO)project,bymostreports,successfullydemonstratedthe
Battellegasifieratacommercialscale.Lackoffunding,andperhapsinterestinfollow
up,hinderedinstallationofgasconditioningsystemsandthegasturbinetocomplete
theproject.
ThereremainsaneedtodevelopanddemonstratebiomassIGCCintheUnitedStatesin
ordertoprovidefinanciersahomegrowncasestudy.Therearefewtonooptions
availabletodeveloperswhenfacedwithrepoweringafacilitythathasreacheditsuseful
life,orinsitinganewone.Developingimprovedefficiencyofbiomassconversionfor
heatandpowerinCaliforniaandthenationsothattheyareavailablewhentheneed
arises(whichmanyargueisnow)isimportantbecauseoftheopportunitiesfor
increaseddiversityinthepowergenerationfuelsupply,loadandvoltagesupporttothe
gridfromthedistributedgenerationopportunities,improvementstoruraleconomies,
reductionsingreenhousegasemissions,andotherenvironmentalimprovements.
TherecentlyannouncedcommercialprojectsbyCarbonaandFERCOareencouraging,
especiallybecausetwooftheFERCOdevelopmentsareintheUnitedStates.The
announcedprojectsalltargethomogeneousfuelsources(mostlycleanwoodchips).
Continuedinvestigationwhichincludessuitabilityofotherfuelsthatcomprisethe
diverseCaliforniabiomassresourceisnecessary.Increasedavailabilityofcleanwood
fuelsfromforestthinningandrelatedoperationsisnotassuredintheneartermbecause
permittingforestfuelsreductioneffortsonpubliclandsisexpectedtobetiedupinthe
courts.TherearelargeamountsofnonforestbiomasscurrentlyavailableinCalifornia,
includingagriculturalresidues,andMSWbiomass.
1.4.3 Small Scale and Modular Biomass
In1998,theNRELplaced10costsharedcontractstodevelopsmall,modularbiomass
powersystems.ThesewerethefirstphaseoftheSmallModularBioPowerInitiative
(threephasesplanned),whichisaimedatdeterminingthefeasibilityofdeveloping
systemsthatarefuelflexible,efficient,simpletooperate,andwhoseoperationwillhave
minimumnegativeimpactsontheenvironment.PhaseIwastodeterminethefeasibility
ofdevelopingcosteffectivetechnologiesandidentifyingthepotentialmarketsforeach
ofthesystems.
Smallmodularsystemshavepotentialapplicationsinbothdomesticandinternational
markets.Theymayhavecostadvantagesinnichemarketsbecauseoftheirmodularity,
standardizedmanufacture,andtransport.Simpleconnectionswillrequireaminimum
55

offieldengineeringatoperationalsites.Theintendedpowerrangeforthesesystemsis
from5kWto5MW.ThecompaniesandprojectsawardedPhaseIfeasibilitystudiesare
listedinTable115.
DOE Small Modular Biomass Phase II
In1999,PhaseIIawardsweremadetofourofthePhaseIprojectdevelopers
(CommunityPowerCorp.,ExternalPower,FlexEnergy,andCarbona).
CommunityPowerCorporation
CommunityPowerCorp.(CPC)receivescofundingfromtheCaliforniaEnergy
Commission(CaliforniasmallmodularbiomassPIER)onthisandothersmallscale
biopowerprojects.Forthesmallmodularbiomassprogram(U.S.DOE),theCPCsystem
usesafixedbeddowndraftgasifierwhichrunsasparkignition(SI)engineand
generatorset(Biomax).Thesystemusesengineintakevacuumtoprovidedraftforthe
gasifier.Theenginerunsonpropaneduringstartup.Duringsteadystateoperationof
thegasifier,additionalairisinjectedinthebottomofthegasifiertooxidizesomeofthe
charandmaintaintemperature.Someofthetarproductiscrackedorcombustedbythis
actionitisclaimed.Theproducergasiscooledtoabout50Cwheresometaris
condensed(thegasismeanttoremainabovethedewpointsothatwatervaporis
inductedintotheengine).Theheatextractedinthecoolingprocessisusedtodrythe
feedstockintheshortelevatorconveyancethattransfersfuelfromthehoppertothe
gasifier.Thecooledgasisthenpassedthroughabagfiltertoremovemostofthe
particulatematter.Itwasobservedfromoperationalexperiencethatasalayerofcarbon
containingparticulatebuildsuponthefiltersurface,tarconcentrationintheexitgas
decreased.Thematerialonthefiltersurfaceadsorbsand/orcrackssomeofthetar.Tar
concentrationofthegassenttotheengineisconsistentlybelow50partspermillion
(ppm),andlevelsof10ppmcanbeachieved.Aconsiderableadvantageisthatthe
processemitsnoliquideffluent(whichusuallypresentsawastemitigationissue);
howevertheparticulatematerialcapturedinthebagfilterislikelytobehazardousand
willrequireappropriatedisposal(perhapsthismaterialcanbedisposedofbyre
injectingitintothegasifier).ThemarketisforruralapplicationsintheUnitedStatesand
developingnationsinacapacityrangeof2.5to100kW(Figure118).Currently,threeor
four15kWunitsarebeingdeployedforlongtermfieldtesting.Thecurrentdesign
capacityistoosmalltogathermuchinterestintheUnitedStatesmarket.TheUnited
StatesForestService(USFS),NREL,andtheEnergyCommissionaresponsoringCPCto
developalargercapacityunit.A50kWdesignisbeingdiscussedfordemonstrationin
Californiaearlyin2005.
56

Table 1-15. DOE small modular biomass Phase I awards
19

Company Technology
Community Power Corporation,
Aurora, CO
Gasification with spark ignition engine /
generator
Sun Power, Inc. (External Energy)
Athens, OH
Combustion with Stirling engine / generator
Carbona Corporation,
Napa, CA
Up-draft gasification with boiler/steam turbine
Reflective Energies, Inc. (FlexEnergy)
Mission Viejo, CA
Microturbine for biogas applications
Agrielectric Power, Inc.
Lake Charles, LA
Fluidized-bed combustion with steam turbine
Bechtel National Incorporated,
San Francisco, CA
generator, combustion turbine, or fuel cells
Bioten General Partnership,
Knoxville, TN
Direct-fired combustion turbine
Energy and Environmental Research Center
Grand Forks, ND
Fluidized bed combustion, heat exchange
fluid, steam generation, steam turbine
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation,
Syracuse, NY
generator or combustion turbine / generator
STM Corporation
Ann Arbor, MI
Gasification with Stirling engine / generator
See http://www.eere.energy.gov/biopower/projects.ia_tech_sm_exec.htm

Figure 1-18. Schematic of CPC small modular system in Phase I stage
Photo Credit: Adapted from the Small Modular Biomass Phase I executive summary

A12kWsystemhasbeenoperatedattheHoopaIndianReservationinNorthern
Californiaincludingdemonstrationofgridconnectedperformance.InCombinedHeat
andPower(CHP)operation,thesystemhasoverallefficiencyofapproximately60%
20

19.Seehttp://www.eere.energy.gov/biopower/projects.ia_tech_sm_exec.htm
20.CECPIER2002AnnualReport,http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/20030328_50002
076F.pdf
57

althoughtheelectricalefficiencyis15to16%basedonastatedfuelconsumptionof3lbs
perhourperkWatanominalwoodmoistureof15%afterdrying.Fueldryingisoneuse
oftheenginerejectheat.TheobjectivesfortheprojecttobecommercialinCalifornia(for
aCHPsystem)includecapitalcostof$1,000/kW,costofelectricitylessthan15
cents/kilowatthour(kWh),andcostofheatlessthan$1.20/therm.Theunit(s)in
Californiahavebeenoperatedoncleanwoodfueltypicalofforestthinningoperations
andmillresidues.UnitsinthePhilippinesoperateonwoodresiduesandcoconuthusks
andshell.
CPCisalsoreceivingU.S.DOEfundsthroughtheSmallBusinessInnovationResearch
Program(SBIR)tofuelthesystemwithpoultrylitter.Thisprojectiscooperatingwith
FERCO,IowaState,UniversityofArkansas,andothersonthisproject.CPCclaimsto
havebeenthefirstgrouptopowerasolidoxidefuelcellongasifiedbiomass.Thiswasa
small,lessthan3wattfuelcelldevelopedbyAscentPowerSystems.
21
TheCPCdowndraftgasifierisnearlycommercialwhenoperatedoncleanwoodfuels
andmaybeanattractiveoptionfordistributedgenerationwithfuelfromforest
thinnings.CPChasrecentlybeenawardedanothergrantfromtheEnergyCommission
fordevelopmentofa50kWunit.
FlexEnergy
FlexEnergyisdevelopingaLeanFueledcatalyticMicroturbineTechnology.Itisa
microturbinecapableofoperatingonlowenergygas(biogas,airgasifiedbiomass,etc.).
Thefuelgasismixedwithcombustionairpriortocompressionwhichreducesparasitic
lossesfromseparatefuelgascompression.Toeliminateexplosionhazards,thefuelgas
mustbemixedatconcentrationsbelowtheflammabilitylimitandtherebyrequiresa
catalysttoinitiatecombustion.TheturbineisanadaptedCapstoneC30(30kW)turbine.
Ithasbeenrunonsimulatedproducergas(COandH2)andbiogas(naturalgasdiluted
torepresenttheenergycontentofadigestergas)andreportedlydevelopedfull30kW
power.
FlexEnergyiscurrentlyreceivingPIERfundstodemonstratethetechnologyusing
digestergas(CalPoly)andlandfillgasatthePuenteHillslandfillnearLosAngeles.
FuturedevelopmentworkincludesrunningtheFlexEnergymicroturbineongasified
biomass(wood)fromCPCandothergasifiers.TheEnergyandEnvironmentalResearch
CenterattheUniversityofNorthDakotaiscurrentlysettingupthetestgasifiersto
operatethemicroturbine.Thereisalsoapendingdemonstrationprojecttogasifypecan
shellsataprocessingplantinArizona(withsupportfromtheNationalRuralElectric
CooperativeAssociation).
AfurtherproposedandfundedprojectiswiththeSouthCoastAirQualityManagement
District.Thisdemonstrationwillusewastegasesfromanindoorcompostingfacilityin
Chino,California,supplementedwithdigestergasinordertoconsumetheVolatile

21.CPCmediarelease,2002.http://www.gocpc.com/
58

OrganicCompounds(VOC)andammoniaemissionsfromthecompostfacility.Thisis
attractivebecausethelowtemperaturecatalyticcombustionhasextremelylowNOx
emissions.
TheFlexEnergymicroturbineisstilldevelopmentalbutitspotentialadvantagewillbe
theabilitytoproducepowerfromlowenergyfuelgaswithverylowNOxemissions,a
significantinnovationforbiomasssmallmodulartechnology.
SunPower(ExternalEnergy)
Thissmallmodularbiomassconceptusescombustionofbiomasstoprovideheatfora
freepistonStirlingengine(externalcombustionengine)togenerate1kWpowerand
provideheatforspaceandwater.Thisistargetedforresidentialscaleuse.Duringearly
stagesofthePhaseIIportionoftheU.S.DOEprogram,aprototypewasdevelopedand
tested.Thereweretechnologyownershipissuesbeingdisputedandthecostofpre
productionengineswasveryhighsotheprojectwasterminated(Bainetal.2003).
StirlingEnergySystems,Inc.
StirlingEnergySystems(SES)isdevelopingaStirlingenginetooperateondigestergas
andsimilarfuels.SEShasacontractthroughtheHetchHetchyrenewablegeneration
projectfundedthroughtheEnergyCommissionsPIERprogram(acompanionprojectof
theSMUDReGenproject)andisscheduledtodemonstrateaunitatanInlandEmpire
UtilityAgency(IEUA)site.SESisplanningonusingamodifiedKockums(Sweden)
MarkIIengine.
Carbona
TheCarbonasmallmodularbiomassprojectinvolvesbiomassgasificationforcombined
heatandpower.ThesystemisbeingpreparedfordemonstrationinSkive,Denmark.A
fluidizedbedgasifierfedbyairandsteamgasifiespelletizedwoodfuel(seeFigure1
19).Hotproducergaspassesthroughacatalytictarcrackerreducingtaramounts(tar
productionandreductionamountswerenotreported)followedbycoolingbefore
passingthroughbagfiltersforparticulatematter(PM)removal.Theproducergasthen
passesthroughawetscrubber(presumablytocapturesomeacidgasesandremaining
tarsandPM).Thedispositionandqualityofthegasscrubbingwaterwasnotreported.
59

Figure 1-19. Simplified schematic of the Carbona Skive project
Photo Credit: Carbona Corporation
Aportionofthegasstreamisfiredinreciprocatingenginegensets(GEJenbacher
GmbH)producingapproximately5MW.Theremaininggasstreamisburnedinaboiler
andcombinedwithengineheat;about11MWisproducedforthedistrictheating
application.Therelativeamountsofheatandpowerarevariabledependingonseasonal
needs.Thissystemisexpectedtoconsume100tonsperdayofwoodfuel.
Theprojectcostapproximately$24million,ofwhich$5millionisfromEuropean
agenciesandU.S.DOE.Arecentpressreleaseindicatesthatacontracthasbeensigned
fordeliveryandinstallationoftheCHPfacility(Patel2004).
Other Small Biomass Power Systems (United States)
Therearemanypotentialsmallscale(and/ormodular)biomasssystemsbeingmarketed
intheUnitedStates.Mostaresolidfuelcombustioninaboilerforheatandpower
generation.Somearebasedongasifierswithavarietyofprimemovertechnologyfor
powergeneration.FollowingarebriefdescriptionsofaprojectoutsideofCaliforniaand
twocompaniesthatareinvolvedinsmallbiomassgasification.
ConnecticutCleanEnergyFund
TheConnecticutCleanEnergyFundissponsoringtheinstallationofabiomassgasifier
CHPsystem.
22
Theprojectwillconsumesawmillresidueandprovideabout300kWto
thegridandhotwater(asmuchas500kW)tothesawmillatNorthCanaan,
Connecticut.

22.TheCCEFcanbefoundathttp://www.ctcleanenergy.com/
60

Thegasifierisa1MWdowndraftairblownreactorthatwilloperateatabout1.5
atmospherepressure(absolute).Thegasifier,aswellasthegascleaningsystem,is
designedbyPuhdasEnergiaOyofTampere,Finland.
Thegascleaningsystemconsistsofdirectandevaporativecooling(seeFigure120)
followedbyanelectrostaticprecipitator(ESP)forparticulatematterandaerosol
(condensedtars)removal.FollowingtheESP,thegasflowsthroughawaterscrubber
whichcapturessomeoftheremainingcondensablecompounds.Thereispotentialfor
theESPtocreateasmallamountofslurriedresiduewhichreportedlycanbedisposed
bymixingwiththebiomassfuelbeforedrying(apotentialairemissionissuefromthe
dryer)orburnedinanaccompanyingcombustor.
23
ThecleanedproducergaswillfuelaMercedesCIengineusingdieselasapilotfuel.
Thesystemiscurrentlyundergoingpreliminarystartuptesting.Thereareseveral
hundredhoursofgasifieroperationwhichincludessomepowergeneration(Miles
2005).Earlyestimatedinstalledcostwas$1.2million($4,000/kW)(Nadgauda2004).

Figure 1-20. Schematic of gasifier CHP project at North Canaan, Connecticut
Photo Credit: Nadgauda, 2004

23.SeewriteupbySampoTukiainenat
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/pudhas1mw.html
61

AltexTechnologies
AltexTechnologiesisanengineeringservicesfirmwithexpertiseinlowemission
combustionsystemsandheattransferapplications.UnderaU.S.DOEsmallbusiness
innovationresearch(SBIR)grant,Altexdevelopedanddemonstratedasystemtocreate
heatandpower(25kW)fromthecombustionofdairywaste.
Thesystemconsistsofastagedcycloniccombustor,hightemperaturegastogasheat
exchanger,andagasturbinepoweredbyhotgasfromtheheatexchanger.Ancillary
equipmentincludedinitialmechanicaldewateringsystem(manurewasobtainedfrom
thedairywastesluicingsystemwithinitial95%moisturecontent),arotarydrumdryer
utilizingwasteheattoforfinalfuelmoistureconditioning,solidfuelstorageand
handling,andashextractionsystems.
Resourcesdidnotallowforselectionofoptimalsystemcomponents(e.g.,thegas
turbineusedwasasurplusaircraftauxiliarypowerunit)andinitialexperimentsshowed
thatthefuelneededtobedryerthanoriginallyplanned.JohnKelley(PresidentofAltex
Technologies)indicatedthatwiththesuboptimalgasturbineusedinthedemonstration
system,electricalproductionefficiencywaslessthan10%.Withoptimizedcomponents,
thistypeofsystemburningdairymanuretopoweranexternalcombustiongasturbine
cyclecouldprovidesmallscaleelectricityproductionefficienciesofperhaps20%
includingfueldrying.Inorderforthecombustionsystemtooperatewiththeintended
lowemissions,thefuelwasdriedbelowthatfortheoriginaldesignwhichresultedin
highercombustiontemperaturesandcausingtheashtobecomemolten.Thedryash
extractionsystemwouldbecomeblockedwhenmoltenashsolidifieduponcooling.The
systemcouldoperateforperhaps20to30hoursbeforetheashremovalsystembecame
inoperable.Slaggingashremovalsystemsareexistingtechnologyusedonwetbottom
coalboilersandhightemperatureslagginggasifiers.Aminimalmodificationtothe
combustorbottomandashsystemwouldallowthesystemtooperateforlongperiods
withmoltenashproduct.
Thecombustorburnsfuelatanominalenergyinputrateof700,000Btu/hour(205kW)
whichforricestrawwithaHHVof15MJ/kgrequiresabout50kg/hour.Table116gives
somecurrentlyavailableemissionsdatafromtestsonthreebiomassfuels.
Table 1-16. Emissions from the Altex combustor.
Fuel Type NOx (ppm) CO (ppm)
Dairy manure 150 (@3% O
2
, dry gas) 200 (@3% O
2
, dry gas)
Rice straw 150 (basis not reported) nr
Yard waste 100 (basis not reported) nr
nr = not reported
Source: UC Davis Research Team ; Source: Robert Williams ; Source: Altex Technologies

Anadvantageofthestagedcycloniccombustoristhatitsphysicalsizeissmallerthana
grateorsuspensionfiredburnerorboilerforagivensolidfuelfeedratebecauselikea
fluidizedbedsystem(bubblingorcirculating),solidfuelparticlesremaininthehigh
temperaturereactionzoneanduntilsmallenoughtopassthroughthecyclone
62

separatorswiththecombustiongases.Downstreamashfoulingmaybereducedbecause
offewerandsmallerparticles(whichcanserveasalkalivaporcondensationsites)
carriedinthehotexhaustgasestoheattransfersurfaces.
AreportontheEnergyCommissionsEISGprojectisbeingpreparedsomoredetailed
informationwillbeforthcoming.Theexecutivesummaryforthepowerfromdairy
waste(SBIRPhaseII)indicatesthatacommercializedsystemof250kWcouldhavean
internalrateofreturn(IRR)of33%oreven40%(economicanalysisconductedbyAltex).
Theeconomicanalysisusedaretailpriceforelectricitycreditedtotheproject(equalto
thepriceofelectricitythefarmhadtopay)of$0.10/kWhandreliedonsellingwasteheat
at$6.70/MMBtuandclaimedafertilizervalueof$1.61/toneffluentfromthedewatered
manure.
MuchofthedetailfromAltexsU.S.DOESBIRworkisproprietaryatthistime,soa
moreindepthevaluationisnotpossible.
Itshouldbenotedthatexternallyfiredgasturbinecycles(indirectBraytoncycles),a
possiblepathwaytoimproveconversionefficiencyoflowqualityordifficultsolidfuels,
isconsideredexperimentalwithsubstantialtechnicalissuesstilltoovercome.These
issuesincludeheatexchangermaterialsanddesignforusewithhightemperature
alkalineandchlorinevaporsinthecombustiongasaswellaseconomicalgasturbines
forthissizeandapplication.
24
Omnifuel
Omnifuelbuildsandmarketsfluidizedbedgasifiersforbiomassandrefusederivedfuel
(RDF).ThecompanyhasofficesinOntario,CanadaandFolsom,California.Theprocess
originatedfromworkinCanadainthelate1970swhichinvolvedRDFpreparationand
gasification.TwodemonstrationunitswerebuiltinCanada(160and500tonsperday
capacity)andoneinFrenchGuyana.Allunitsoperatedsuccessfullybutdidnot
continuepastthedemonstrationperiodbecauseofeconomics.Thecompanyandits
partnersarerespondingtoseveralRequestforProposals(RFP)forrenewableenergy
systemsinthewesternUnitedStates.
OmnifuelisrespondingtotheSMUDrenewablepowergenerationRFPunderthe
emergingrenewablescategory.TheproposedsystemwillbeaCHPfacilitylocated
adjacenttotheFolsomPrisonandutilizeanexisting(butidle)wastereceivingand
sortingfacility.Twoairblownfluidizedbedgasifiersareproposedtoconvert14tons
perhourofshreddedwoodandgreenwastetoproducergas.Thegaswillbefiredina
steamboilertorunasteamturbineandsupplyprocesssteamforsaletotheprison.The
netelectricalcapacityisestimatedtobeabout3.5MW(Figure121).

24.AdevelopmentprojectispendingwiththeCaliforniaDivisionofForestryandFireProtection,
UCDavis,andotherparticipantstodevelopandtestaCHPsystemusinganindirectfiredgas
turbineconsumingforestthinnings.
63

Prison Food
Waste 2 tpd
Compost
318 tpd
SMUD
3.35 MW
Power
Wood
Mixed Waste
Clean Woody
11 tpd
Trash
Sort
Recyclables
22 tpd
Shred
Fuel Storage
Fuel Bin
Gasification Boiler Power Gen
14 tph
24x7
20,000 #/h Steam
Prison
60 tpd
Ash 15 tpd
10 tpd
Existing System
Figure 1-21. Schematic of proposed Omnifuel CHP facility
Photo credit: UC Davis Research Team; Photo credit: Robert Williams ; Photo courtesy of Omnifuel
Small-Medium Scale Gasification for CHP (India and Europe)
India
Indiahaslargeanddiversebiomassresources.Increasingpopulationcombinedwitha
modernizingeconomyisresultinginarapidlyincreasingenergydemand.TheMinistry
ofNonconventionalEnergySources(MNES)inIndiaissettingpolicyandgathering
resourceandenergystatisticsinordertoincreaseuseofnonfossilenergyandincrease
ruralelectrification.TheMNESreportsthatinIndiatherearepresently1,840biomass
gasifiersforacombinedcapacityof58MW(30kWaverage)(Girdhar2004).
AnkurScientific
AnkurScientificinGujarat,India,buildsandmarketsdowndraftgasifiersforheatand
powerproduction.Therearemanyunitsemployed,mostlyinAsiainvarioussizesless
than500kW.Manyoftheinstallationsareusedtoreplaceaportionofdieselfuelin
dieselenginegeneratorsets(Ankurindicatesthatdieselfuelflowisreducedbyabout
70%whenrunninginthedualfuelmode).TheEnergy&EnvironmentalResearch
Center(EERC)atUniversityofNorthDakotaisoperatinganAnkurWBG200gasifierto
supplyfuelgasforFlexMicroturbinetesting.
64

Coarse and Fine
fabric filters
Wet Scrubber

Figure 1-22. Schematic of Ankur downdraft gasifier with dual-fuel power generation
configuration
Photo credit: UC Davis Research Team; Photo credit: Robert Williams ; Photo courtesy of Ankur Scientific

Gascleanupforuseinreciprocatingenginesiscomposedofawetscrubberandcoarse
andfinefabricfilters(seeFigure122).PMandtarconcentrationsweremeasuredafter
gascleaningforaBG400Ankurgasifier,presumablyfueledbywoodchips(Wenetal.
1999).WenreportsPMandtarconcentrationstobe0.30and1.34mg/Nm
3
,respectively.
Table117listsapproximatePMandtarlimitsforproducergasusedtofuel
reciprocatingorgasturbineengines.Thesearepostulatedorruleofthumbvalues,
thoughapistonengineoperatedformorethan1,500hoursonaproducergaswithtar
contentof300mg/Nm
3
withnooperationalproblems,suggestingthattheupperlimiton
tarneedsfurtherinvestigation(Hasleretal.1998).Nevertheless,thereportedPMand
tarcontentsoftheAnkursystemdescribedbyWenetal.(1999)arewellbelowthe
requirementsforgasturbinefuel.
Table 1-17. Approximate producer gas quality requirements (Stassen 1993).
Reciprocating
Engine
Gas Turbine
Particulate Matter mg/Nm
3
< 50 <30
Tar mg/Nm
3
<100 <5
Alkali metals mg/Nm
3
- <0.24

Incompletetestsweredoneonthewetscrubbereffluentwhichindicatespresenceof
hydrocarboncontamination(asexpectedwithscrubberwaterusedinproducergas
cleaning).TheAnkurrelatedliteraturedoesnotdiscusstheamountofscrubbereffluent
65

norwhatdegreeofprocessingisrequiredtotreattheeffluentbeforedisposing.
Hydrocarboncontaminatedwastewaterfromproducergascleaningremainsan
importantenvironmentaland/oreconomicalissue.
OverallelectricalefficienciesoftheAnkurgasifierandreciprocatingenginegenerator
systemsareabout15to20%basedonreportedwoodfuelconsumptionof1to1.3
kg/kWh.
IndianInstituteofScience,Bangalore
TheIndianInstituteofScience(IISc)hasbeendevelopinganopentopdowndraft
gasifier(modifiedfromanopentopChinesedesign)formanyyears.Professor
Mukundahasbeentheleadinvestigator.
Therearesome37systemsbasedontheIIScopentopdowndraftgasifierinstalled(31
areinIndiaofwhicheighthaveelectricitygenerationusingdualfueledcompression
ignitionorgasonlyfueledsparkignitionengines).IIScisinvolvedinUnitedNations
developmentprogramsforruralelectrificationinIndia.Additionally,anIIScCHP
systemhasbeeninvestigatedandtestedbytheSwissFederalOfficeforEducationand
SciencesandtheSwissFederalOfficeofEnergy(Hasleretal.1998;Haslerand
Nussbaumer1999;HaslerandNussbaumer2000).TheBrazilianReferenceCenteron
Biomass(CENBIO)atSoPauloUniversityisinvestigatingtheIIScsystemforpossible
applicationinisolatedcommunitiesintheAmazonregion(Coelhoetal.2004).
FollowingtheinterestoftheSwissgovernment,acompany(XylowattSA)formedto
marketthesystemsinEurope.AfacilitywascommissionedbyXylowattin2002atasaw
millinBulle,Switzerland.ThefacilityisaCHPoperationconsumingabout55kg/hour
ofwoodresiduesfromthesawmill(1.4t/daybasedon24houroperation).Thefacility
generates50kWand108kWth.Theelectricalgenerationandusefulheatefficienciesare
22%and48%,respectively(Giordano2003).
Figure123showsaschematicoftheXylowattfacility.Gasiscleanedusingacyclone,
followedbycooling,wetscrubbing,andfinallyfiltering(fabricfilter).Gasqualitybefore
andaftercleaningisreportedinTable118.Thegascleaningsystememitswaterand
sludgeatarateof14kg/hand0.2kg/h,respectively(Giordano2003).Analysisofwaste
waterindicateditisacceptablefordischargeunderSwissregulations.Analysisofthe
sludgedischargeandwhetherthewaterwastreatedbeforedischargewasnotreported.
66

Table 1-18. Product gas tar and particulate matter concentration, Xylowatt Bulle facility
(Giordano 2003)
Component Raw Gas Cleaned Gas Units
Tar 250 106 mg/Nm
3

Particulate Matter 200 42 mg/Nm
3

Figure 1-23. Schematic of a Xylowatt SA biomass gasifier CHP facility
Photo Credit: P. Giordano
Small Biomass CHP in Europe
Thereismuchcontinuingdevelopmentandimplementationofbiomasspowerandfuels
productionsystemsinEuropewhichincludesmanysmallwoodgasifiersforheatand
powerinthepilot,commercialdemonstration,ordemonstrationstatus(seeTable119
forapartiallisting).Thereareanumberoffacilitiesbeingpermittedorunder
construction.Aresearchanddemonstrationunitandanewcommercialfacilityin
Europearediscussedhere.TheSkive,Denmark,CHPfacilityisdiscussedintheU.S.
DOEsmallmodularbiomasssectionabove(becauseitisreceivingsomeofitsfunding
throughtheU.S.DOEprogram).
67

Table 1-19. Selected small scale gasifiers operating in Europe (Knoef 2003; Rauch et al.
2004; Buffinga and Knoef 2001).
Supplier System* Fuel
Power
(kWe)
Year
Commissioned
Rossano Italy PRM Updraft Olive residue 4000 2003?
Gssing Austria Repotec
Dual Fluidized Bed
a
Wood chips 2000 2002
Harboore Denmark
Babcock & Wilcox,
Volund
Updraft Wood chips 1500 2000
Neustadt Austria AHT (modified) 2- stage Dowdraft Wood chips 500 2003
Tervola Finland Entimos Oy
Combined
Updraft/Downdraft
Wood chips 450 2003
Hogild Denmark Hollensen Downdraft Wood chips 400 1998
Regal Belgium Xylowatt-Beigium Downdraft Mill residue 300 2002
Armaugh
(Blackwater Valley II)
N Ireland
Exus Energy (b9
Biomass)
Downdraft Wood chips 200 2000
Spiez Switzerland Pyroforce Downdraft Wood chips 200 2002
Bulle Switzerland
Xylowatt-Swiss (IISc
design)
Open top Downdraft Wood chips 200 2002
Hengelo Netherlands HoSt Downdraft Wood chips 200 2001
Gazel Belgium Xylowatt-Beigium Downdraft Mill residue 150 2000
London
(Beddington Zero
Energy)
UK
Exus Energy (b9
Biomass)
Londonderry N Ireland Rural Generation Ltd. Downdraft Wood chips 100 2000
Armaugh
(Blackwater Valley I)
N Ireland
Exus Energy (b9
Biomass)
Bladel Netherlands BTG
Bubbling Fluidized Bed
b
Chicken Manure 60 2002
Lyngby Denmark
Technical University,
Denmark (DTU)
Viking' 2-stage DTU Wood chips 20 2002
Stubenberg Austria Grubl Downdraft Wood chips 15 1998
Location

*Except where noted, systems are fixed bed air-blown, atmospheric gasifiers. Reciprocating engines are used for power
generation (multiple engines in some cases)
a.) Steam Gasification with air fed char combustion (dual fluidized bed)
b.) Fluidized bed
Knoef 2003; Rauch et al. 2004; Buffinga and Knoef 2001

AnovelgasifierCHPprojectisoperatinginGssing,Austria.Thefacilitycanbe
describedasacommercialscaledemonstration.Thesystemconsumeswoodchips
producing2MWand4.5MWth.Thegasifierisadualfluidizedbedreactor.The
biomassisgasifiedwithsteamandheatfrombedmediainabubblingbedreactor
configuration.Thecharandbedmediaaretransferredtoaparallelreactorwhich
operatesinrecirculatingfluidizedbedmodewhereairisintroducedtocombustthechar
whichheatsthebedmedia.Theheatedbedmediaistransferredtothebiomassgasifier
(SeeFigure124).TheconceptisessentiallythesameasthatemployedintheFERCO
SilvaGasunits.

68

Steam

Figure 1-24. Schematic of the Fast Internal Circulating Fluidized Bed (FICFB) gasifier,
Gssing, Austria
Photo Credit: Bolhar-Nordenkampf and Hofbauer 2004
Oneadvantageofgasifyingwithsteamisthattheproducergasisnotdilutedwith
nitrogenasisthecasewithairblowngasification.TheproducergasfromtheGssing
CHPfacilityiscooledandthencleanedintwostages.Thefirststagegascleaning
consistsofafabricfilterwhichseparatesmostPMandsometar.Thematerialcollected
bythefilterisrecycledtothecombustionreactor.Thesecondgascleaningstageisawet
scrubber.Table120showslevelsofcomponentsintheproducergasthatmustbe
controlledbeforeintroductiontoareciprocatingengine(beforeandafterthegasclean
upsystem).
Table 1-20. Contaminants in Gssing producer gas before and after cleaning (Bolhar-
Nordenkampf and Hofbauer 2004)
Component Raw Gas Cleaned Gas Units
Tar 1,500 4,500 10-40 mg/Nm
3

Particulate Matter 5,000 10,000 < 5 mg/Nm
3

Ammonia 1,000 2,000 <400 ppm
Hydrogen Sulfide not measured 20-40 ppm
Bolhar-Nordenkampf and Hofbauer 2004

Spentscrubberliquidcontainingtarandcondensedmaterialisevaporatedanddisposed
inthecombustionreactor.Cleanedproducergasissenttoagasengineandboilerfor
heat.Therelativedistributionofgastotheengineorboilerdependsonheatandpower
needs.Figure125showsaschematicofgasflowattheGssingfacility.Thefacilityhas
anelectricalefficiencyandoverallCHPefficiencyof25%and81%,respectively(Rauch
etal.2004).

69

Figure 1-25. Schematic of the Gssing gasifier and gas clean-up
Photo Credit: Rauch et al. 2004

Kokemki,FinlandCHP
AnupdraftbiomassgasifierforCHPisundergoingshakedown/commissioningtrialsat
Kokemki,Finland.ThisprojectisbeingmanagedbyCarbonawithcooperationfrom
VTT.
25
NovelGasifierBackground
TheNovelgasifierwasdevelopedbyVTTandCondensOYtoovercomesomeofthe
technicalproblemsexperiencedwiththecommerciallysuccessfulBioneergasification
systemsoperatinginFinland.TheBioneerdesignusesanupdraft,atmosphericpressure,
airblownreactor.Theproducergasisconveyedtoanearbycombustorwhereitis
burnedwithoutanytreatmentofthefuelgas.Theprimarytechnicallimitationsofthe
Bioneersystemsare;(1)notsuitableforlowbulkdensitywoodresidues(sawdust,bark,
forestslash),(2)operatespoorlywhenfuelmoistureisabove45%,(3)tarbuildupin
productgaspiperequiresfrequentshutdownandcleaning,and(4)fuelfeedingsystems
leakproducergasduetobackpressure(Kurkelaetal.2000).TheBioneergasifiersare
appliedmainlyindistrictheatingsystemsandbeganoperationinthemid1980s.
ApproximatelynineBioneerfacilitieshavebeenconstructed.In2002,onewasstillin
continuousoperationandtheotherswerefiredasneeded(IEA2002).TheBioneer
facilitiesareautomatedrequiringminimalattention.
TheNovelCondensOYreactorisessentiallythesameastheBioneer.Thefuelfeeding
systemhasbeenimprovedtoeliminatebackflowofproducergas.Thefeedsystemalso
allowsabroaderrangeoffuelparticlesizeanddensitiestobeutilizedsuchassawdust
andotherfinematerial.Airforgasificationishumidifiedinawaterspraytankinorder
toreducereactortemperature.Secondaryairisaddedabovethemainreactionzonein
ordertocracksomeoftheproducedtars.Theproducedgascanbeburneddirectlyfor

25.VTTisalargetechnicalresearchcontractorganizationinFinland.
70

heatapplicationsorthegascanbeconditionedforuseinreciprocatingorgasturbine
engines.
Kokemki,FinlandCHPPlant
The NovelCondens OY CHP plant at Kokemki, Finland, is undergoing shakedown
trials(summer/fall2005).Theanticipatedfuelisurbanand/orsawmillwastewood.The
design includes gas cleanup and conditioning (e.g., tar reforming, gas cooling, and
filtering and final scrubbing) before being fed to three 600 kW Jenbacher reciprocating
engines(seeFigure126).Notshownisanauxiliaryboilerusedforperiodsofhighheat
demand; otherwise recovered engine heat satisfies the district heat and fuel drying
requirements.Thedesigncapacityis1.8MWand3.1MWthwithoutauxiliaryboilerand
4.3MWthwithfiringtheauxiliaryboiler.Electricalandoverallefficienciesare30%and
80%,respectively,fornormaloperationand26%and85%,respectively,whenusingthe
auxiliaryboiler(seeTable121).

Table 1-21. Nominal energy balance for
Kokemki CHP plant (Patel 2004)
Normal
Operation
With Auxiliary
Boiler
Fuel input kW 6200 7200
Electricity Production kW 1836 1836
Heat Production kW 3100 4300
Fuel Drying
(from existing separate
heat plant)
kW 429 429
e
* % 29.6 25.5
th
% 50.0 59.7
overall
% 79.6 85.2

* = efficiency (useful energy or work output divided by
energy input)
71

Figure 1-26. Schematic of novel gasifier CHP facility under construction at Kokemki,
Finland
Photo Credit: VTT Processes
26

InvestmentcostforaNovelgasifierforheatonlyapplicationsissimilartothatofthe
Bioneerfacilities(350to420Euro/kWthin2000)(Kurkelaetal.2000).
Fuel Cell from Biogas Demonstration
TheSouthWasteWaterTreatmentplantinKingCounty,Washington(PugetSound
area)willdemonstrateoperationofa1MWmoltencarbonatefuelcellusingdigester
gas.TheU.S.EPAisprovidingfinancialsupport.ThefuelcellwasdevelopedbyFuel
CellEnergy,Inc.(Danbury,Connecticut).Athreeyeardemonstrationperiodisplanned.
Thepotentialadvantageoffuelcellconversionofdigestermethaneisimproved
conversionefficiencyandessentiallyzeroNOxemissions.Systemsofthisscalefor
operationonmethanearedevelopmentalandveryexpensive.Designand
construction/installationcostsoftheKingCountysystemwere$22million.Estimated
annualoperationsandmaintenancecostsare$80,000(Bush2003).Phosphoricacidfuel
cellshavealreadybeentestedbyEPAonlandfillgasatseveralsites.
TheLosAngelesCountySanitationDistrictsinstalledamoltencarbonatefuelcellatthe
PalmdaleWaterReclamationPlant.ThePalmdalefacilitytreatsapproximately9.5
milliongallonsperdayofwastewater.Theanaerobicdigestersatthefacilitygenerate
about80scfm
27
ofbiogascontainingapproximately55%methane(McDannel2005).
Thefuelcell,providedbyFuelCellEnergyisamoltencarbonatetypewithinternal
reforminghavingagrosscapacityof250kW(modelDFC300A).

26.SmallscalegasificationprocessesforCHP.Technicalnote:http://www.vtt.fi.pro
27.Standardcubicfeetperminute,whichisameasureofairflowatastandardtemperatureand
astandardpressureof1atmosphere.
72

Forfuelgastreatment,thebiogasispassedthroughaPMfilter,arefrigerationunit,and
activatedcarbon.Thegascleaningsystemconsumesabout25kW.Table122displays
gasqualitybeforeandafterthegascleaningsystem.
Table 1-22. Palmdale fuel cell raw and treated fuel-gas quality
Contaminant Raw Digester Gas After Gas Clean-up
H2S, ppm 23 ND<0.5
Chlorobenzene ppb 180 0.7
P-dichlorobenzene, ppb 30 ND <1.0
D4 siloxane, ppm 0.40 ND<0.03
Source: UC Davis Research Team ; Source: Robert Williams ; Source: McDannel 2005

Thenetelectricalefficiencyofthefuelcellisestimatedat41%(HHV).Emissions,
reportedbyLACountySanitationDistricts,areshowninTable123.
Table 1-23. Air emissions from the Palmdale WWTP fuel cell
Pollutant ppm @15% O
2
lb/MWh
NOx 0.05 0.0017
CO 1.2 0.025
HC 1.3 0.017
SO
2
ND<0.02 -
Source: UC Davis Research Team ; Source: Robert Williams ; Source: McDannel 2005

Installedcostwas$1.9million($8,400/netkW),ofwhich50%waspaidwithagrantfrom
theCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission.AfterOperationandMaintenance(O&M)
costsarepaid($0.037/kWhwhichincludesareserveforfuelcellstackreplacement),the
powersavestheDistrictabout$0.09/kWhdelivered(assuminga$0.12/kWhretail
purchaseprice).Simplepaybackofthissystemisabout12years.
1.4.4 Rice Straw Combustion Systems
RiceStrawintheSacramentoValley
RicecultivationinCaliforniaoccursprimarilyintheSacramentoValley(morethan95%
ofCaliforniariceacreage).
28
Itisanannualcropplantedinspringandusuallyharvested
beginninginlateAugustandcontinuingthroughearlyNovemberdependingonwhen
rainsbegin.Riceisharvestedwithcombineharvestersthatemployeitheracuttingor
strippingtypeheaderdevicewithathresherandgraincleaningsystemallinamobile
machine.Separatedgrainistransferredtoauxiliaryvehicles(bankoutwagons)for
deliverytoroadtrucksattheedgeofthefieldwhilestrawandstubbleareleftinthe
field.Newlyintroducedstripperheadersdonotcutthestembutinsteadpullthegrain
fromthepanicle.Thematerialotherthangrainpassingthroughthecombineistherefore
greatlyreduced,buttheseheaderscanonlybeemployedwherethereislittleorno
lodgingofthecrop(collapseofthestem).Grainyieldis4to5tons/acreofroughrice
(withhull,14%moisturecontentwetbasis).Theharvestablestrawandstubblebiomass

28.FromtheCaliforniaDepartmentofFoodandAgriculture2001AnnualCropReport.
73

leftinthefieldvariesfrom2to4tons/acredryweight.Approximately1.5milliondry
tonsofricestrawisproducedannuallyinCalifornia.
Historically,thestrawandstubblewereburnedinthefieldinthefallandspringbefore
planting.Thiswasprimarilyduetocostandconvenience,thoughsomeamountof
diseasecontroltookplacebyburning.Nowapparentistheadvantagethatburninghad
onweedcontrolaswellcomparedwithincorporationofstrawintothesoil.In1991,AB
1378mandatedreductionsofpermittedopenfieldburningofricestraw.Allowable
burnableacresdecreasedtoamaximumof25%ofplantedacresandonlyifburningis
requiredfordiseasecontrol.Thereductioninopenburninghascreatedaneedforoff
fieldutilizationofstrawalternativesfortheindustry.Strawharvestingforofffield
utilizationalsohasadvantagesoversoilincorporationindiseaseandweedcontrol
(similartoopenburning),andinreducinggreenhousegas(methane,nitrousoxide
[N2O])emissionsfromricefields.
Marketsforstrawarecurrentlylimited,andalthoughanumberofindustrialusesfor
strawhaveattemptedtodevelop(e.g.,fiberboard,ethanolandotherchemicals,refined
animalfeeds),economicsremainchallenging.Limitedquantities(20,000to30,000tons
peryear)arebeingusedforanimalfeedinganderosioncontrolproducts(bales,plastic
netwrappedwattles).
StrawFuelIssues
Strawfuelshaveprovedtobeextremelydifficulttoburninmostcombustionfurnaces,
especiallythosedesignedforpowergeneration.Noneofthebiomasspowerplantsbuilt
todateinCaliforniacaneconomicallyfirestraw,eventhoughsomewerebuiltwithair
permitsrequiringthemtodoso.
Issuesconcerningtheuseofricestrawandotherherbaceousbiomassforpower
generationhavebeenwidelydiscussedintheliterature,andhavebeenthefocusofa
numberofresearchinvestigations.Fromatechnicalperspective,themostsignificant
problemintheuseofstrawincombustionorotherthermalconversionsystemsisthatof
managingashfouling,slagging,and,influidizedbeds,agglomerationresultingfrom
inorganictransformationsandvapor/liquidformationatthetemperaturesoccurringin
biomassfurnaces(Baxter1993;Salouretal.1993;Jenkins1993;Jenkins1998).The
combustionofstrawinpowerboilersleadstotherapidformationofunmanageable
depositsonheattransfersurfaces(especiallycrossflowscreentubesandsuperheaters).
Thesedeposits,comprisedofalkaliandalkalineearthchlorides,sulfates,carbonates,
andcomplexsilicates,retardheattransferandareassociatedwithacceleratedcorrosion
oftubemetal(Jenkins1996).Depositscanbridgeacrosstubebundles,reducingfurnace
gasfloworincreasingfanworkrequiredtomaintainflow.Highashcontentandlow
ashfusiontemperatureofricestrawresultinslagformationinthefurnaceandgrates,
hinderingfuelfeeding,combustion,ashremovalandhandling.
74

Theadditionofricestrawtowoodwasshown
29
toreducethealkalivolatilizationfrom
wood,suchthatfuelblendingmaybeusefulasafoulingcontroltechniquewhen
properlyapplied.Furtherinvestigationintothisaspectofstrawcombustioniscurrently
ongoing,andtherelativeadvantagesoftheseveralapproachesneedtobeestablished.
Leachingofalkalielementsandchlorinefromstrawbyrainwashingorotherwater
washingmethodshasbeendemonstratedtosubstantiallyimprovethefuelvalueof
strawandotherhighalkalibiomass.Fullscaletestshavedemonstratedthetechnical
feasibilityofusingleachedricestrawinexistinggrate,suspension,andfluidizedbed
boilersinCalifornia(Jenkins1997;JenkinsandWilliamsetal.1999).However,handling
coststofeedstrawintoexistingboilersremainhighandgrindingandotherprocessing
requirementsleadtotheemissionoffugitivedust,acceleratedwearratesonfuelyard
equipment,increasedparasiticloads,andpossiblereductionsinnetpowerplant
capacity(JenkinsandBakkeretal.2000).Rainwashingbyleavingthestrawinthefield
overthewinterispossiblebutleadstoschedulingandtimelinessdifficultiesforplanting
thenextricecropduetothelimitedpredictabilityoftheweather.Problemswithstraw
useinwhatareessentiallywoodbasedcombustiondesignconceptshassofarexcluded
thisresourcefromcontributingtorenewablepowergenerationinCalifornia.
StrawFueledPowerGenerationinEurope
Europe,andinparticular,Denmark,currentlyhasthegreatestexperiencewithstraw
firedpowerandCHPplants.In1990,Denmarkembarkedonanewenergypolicywitha
goaltodoubletheuseofrenewableenergybytheyear2005(Nikolaisenetal.1992).A
largecomponentoftheDanisheffortisdirectedatutilizingsurpluscerealstrawforheat
andpower.By1995,therewere61strawfiredplantswithatotalcapacityof230MW
(includingCHP)consuming286,000metrictonsofstrawannually(LarsenandEvald
1996).In1998,some400,000metrictonsofstrawwereconsumedforenergyheatand
power.By2001,750,000metrictonsperyearwerebeingconsumedinpowerplants(in
additiontostrawconsumedinmorethan60districtheatingplantsinthecountry)
(Schultz2001).Technologydevelopedincludescombustionfurnacesandboilers
purportedlycapableofoperatingwithhighalkalifuelsandhavinghandlingsystems
whichminimizefuelpreparation.Muchofthisdevelopmenthasoccurredwithsupport
ofgovernmentpoliciesonCO2emissionreductionstohelpmeetKyotoagreements.
Table124listspowerplantsdevelopedinDenmarkforfiringstraw.Somearepartof
CHPsystemsandothersgeneratepoweronly.RecentlycompletedfacilitiesinEngland
andSpainweredesignedandbuiltbythecompaniesthatdevelopedthesystemsin
Denmark.
TheplantsatHaslev,Slagelse,andRudkbingweredevelopedinthelate1980sandare
amongthefirstmodernplantsintheworldtofirestrawonagrate.Strawwas
historicallyusedasafuelforstationarythreshersbutwasabandonedwiththeadventof
liquidfueledenginestowardsthebeginningofthepreviouscentury.TheDanishboilers

29.Thyetal.2000.
75

76

applyaclassicalsuperheaterdesign(superheatertubesorientedperpendicularto
furnacegasflow,generallypendantdesignsinexistingCaliforniafacilities),where
depositionandproblemsrelatedtocorrosionwasexperienced.Theyarestillrunning
andstillexperienceproblemswithdepositionandcorrosionincasethesteam
temperatureisraisedabove520C.Operationalexperiencehasdeterminedthatthe
maximumallowablesteamtemperatureis480Cforavoidingcorrosion(Frandsen2003).
Haslev
Haslevburnswholebaleswhicharepushedintoboilerbyotherbalesonthefeed
conveyors(cigarburner).Combustiontakesplaceonthesurfaceofthefrontbales
withhighvelocityairinjectedintheregiontoencouragestablecombustion.Fullload
fuelinputis5,500kg/hcorrespondingto23MWth(15.05MJ/kg)(Jensenetal.1997).
Slagelse
Slagelseburnsstrawonamovinggrate.Thebalesarebrokenandloosestrawis
conveyedbyninescrewsintotheboiler(Jensenetal.1997).
Rudkbing
RudkbingisalsoaFirstGenerationstrawplant.Itemploysawatercooledvibrating
gratestrawfiringsystem.Balesarestoredandrecalledautomaticallytoabaleshredder.
Fuelispushedbyhydraulicramintotheboiler.Thefuelinjectionchamberiswater
cooledtopreventfuelburningwhileininjectionmode.Thesuperheatersareplaced
horizontallyperpendiculartofurnacegasflow.Depositionandcorrosionstudies
conductedatthisplantweredonetounderstandthesteamtemperatureand
deposit/corrosionrelationships(Michelsenetal.1998;Montgomeryetal.2002).Figure1
27isaschematicoftheRukbingfacility.

Table 1-24. Large straw-fired power facilities developed in Denmark
Location Country
Boiler
Company Fuel Type
Straw
Consumption
(metric t/h)
Wood Fuel
Consumption
(metric t/h)
Power
(net
MWe)
Thermal
output
(MWth)
Reported or
Calculated
(0.6 capacity
factor) Straw
Consumption
(tonne y
-1
)
Steam
Pressure
(bar) 92
bar ~
1300 psi
Steam
Temperature
(C)
Start
Date
Haslev Denmark
Volund (Cigar
Burner) Straw 5 13 25,000 67 450 1989
Rudkbing Denmark
FLS milj
(Bioener Aps) Wheat Straw 3 2.3 7 12,500 60 450 1990
Slagelse Denmark
Volund,
Aalborg
Ciserv, BWE
Straw (2/3) and
waste(1/3)
11.7
(x2/3) 28 (x2/3) 25,000 67 450 1990
Gren Denmark
Straw/Coal
(~50% each by
energy) 10
18.6
(2) 60(2) 55,000 92 505 1992
Maabjerg Denmark
Volund /
Ansaldo
Volund (Cigar
Burner)
Straw and/or
wood any
combination of
the two types 9.5 13 35,000 67 410 /520 1993
Masned Denmark
FLS milj
(Bioener Aps)
Wheat Straw/
with wood chip
back-up 8.3 3.3 8.3 20.8 40,000 92 522 1995
Aabenraa
(Ensted EV
3) Denmark
FLS milj
(Bioener Aps)
Wheat
Straw/wood
superheat 20 5.6 37.5 104,000
180 or
210 542 1997
Maribo-
Sakskbing Denmark
FLS milj
(Bioener Aps) Wheat Straw 8.1 9.7 20 40,000 92 542 2002
Ely
(Cambridge) UK
FLS milj
(Bioener Aps) Straw 26.3 38
Dedicated
power 136,760 92 522 2002
Sangesa Spain
FLS milj
(Bioener Aps) Straw 20 25 104,000 92 542 2002
Avedore Denmark Straw/wood 25 45 130,000 300 ? 2002

77

Figure 1-27. Schematic of facility at Rudkbing, Denmark

Masned
TheMasnedCombinedHeatandPowerPlantCHPisa33MWthunit(fuelfeedrate)
producing8MWelectricityand21MWthfordistrictheating.Theboilerisstokerfiredwitha
watercooledvibrationgrate(Figure128).Strawistheprimaryfuel,butwoodchipsare
occasionallyburned.Thestrawisconveyedintotheboilerbytwoscrewfeeders,whichreceive
strawfromtwoseparatestrawshredders.Thestrawfirstlandsonaprimary(stationary)grate,
wherethefuelbeginstopyrolyzeandflamingoccurs.Theburningstrawispushedandfallsoff
theprimarygrateontothewatercooledvibratinggratewhereitburnsoutasitmovesacross
thebottomofthefurnaceandisremovedbytheashhandlingsystem.Thefluegasmovesup
throughthefurnacechambertothesuperheatersandintotheconvectionpass.Thefacilitywas
builtwitha2,000balecoveredstorage(aboutthreedayscapacity)andthebalesarereclaimed
fromstorageandfedtotheboilerautomatically.Theplantisdesignedsuchthatitcanbe
operatedunmannedfor16hoursperday.
Becauseofexperiencefromtheearlierstrawfiredplantsandahighersteamtemperature(520C
comparedto450Cintheearlierdesigns),corrosionproblemswereexpected.Theboilerand
superheatersectionsweredesignedsothatthesuperheaterscanbeeasilyreplacedintheevent
ofcorrosion.Thesuperheatertubesareorientedparalleltogasflow,andamorecorrosion
tolerantalloyisused.Thefacilityisnotequippedwithsootblowers.Theparallelheat
exchangerconfigurationreducesfouling,butalsoreducesconvectiveheattransfercoefficientso
requiresgreatersurfaceareacomparedwithcrossflowheatexchangers.Forhighalkalifuels
likestrawthereductioninfoulinghasbeenofadvantage.

78

Figure 1-28. Masned Boiler
Photo Credit: Adapted from L.A. Hansen et al. 2000

Oncetheplanthadbeeninoperationforawhile,measuredcorrosionratesweremuchlessthan
anticipated.Thereasonsforthiswereinvestigated(Hansenetal.2000)bytheTechnical
UniversityofDenmark,whichresultedinsomeinterestingfindingsandanewhypothesis.
Previousworkhadshownthathighsuperheatercorrosionratesexperiencedinstrawboilers
wasduetochlorinewhichisdepositedonsuperheatersurfacesbycondensationofgaseous
potassiumchloride(KCl)
30
(Sander1997).However,atMasned,itwasfoundthatmature
deposits(lessthanoneyearold)didnothavethecharacteristicpotassiumchloride(KCl)layer
againstthemetalsurface,ratherathinnonporouslayerofpotassiumsulfatewasobservedas
theinnermostlayerofthedeposit.OntopoftheinnerlayerwastypicalKClandK,Casilicate
materialwithsinteredflyashparticlesdepositedlast.Shortterm(8to100hours)deposit
probes,however,didshowthebeginningsofthemoretypicalKClinnerdepositlayer.Hansen
postulatesthatgaseoussulfitereactswithliquidKCl(knowntobepresentandliquidatthe
superheatermetaltemperature)formingpotassiumsulfate,whichisthermodynamically
favoredatthetubesurfacetemperature.Thesulfatedpotassiumlayerwasfoundtobenon
porousanddisfavorschlorinediffusiontothemetalsurface.Sulfationofsurfacedepositsisalso
knowntoleadtohighertenacityduetothegreatercompactionandbondinginthedeposit.
OneofHansenscoauthorsindicatesthattheresultsoftheinvestigationchangedoperational
proceduresattheMasnedandtheMariboSakskbingplantssuchthatwhennew

30.PotassiumandchlorinearetypicallypresentinDanishstrawinamountsof1%and0.4%,respectively,
dryweightbasis.
79

superheatersareinstalled,thestrawiscofiredforatimewithaheavyoiltoinsurethesulfation
ofKClincontactwiththefreshtubemetaltopotassiumsulfate(Frandsen2003).Thereafter,a
thickdepositisencouraged.Althoughthistechniquemayreducecorrosion,thedesignneeds
toincorporatealargersurfaceareaofheatexchangeduetothereducedthermalconductivity
fromthedeposit.
Aabenraa(EnstedEV3)
Aabenraahasabiomassboilerwhichraisessteamforsupplementingthesteamproducedbyan
existingcoalheatandpowerstation.Woodandstrawarefiredintwodifferentsectionsofthe
biomassportionofthefacility(sometimesreferredtoasacombinationboiler).SeeFigure1
29.Thestrawboilerproduces470Csteamwhichisthenheatedto542Cbyheatfromthewood
firedboiler.Thecombustionproductsfromthestrawsectionarenotallowedtocontactthefinal
superheaterinthiscombinationarrangement.Thisdesignallowsthealkaliandchlorine
containingstrawfueltobefiredwithminordepositandcorrosionproblems(Montgomeryetal.
2002)becauseofthelowersteamtemperatureinthestrawboiler.Thesteamraisedbythe
biomassfuelscombineswiththatfromthecoalboilerandthenexpandsthroughtheturbine.
Theelectricalconversionefficiencyofthebiomassportionisessentiallyequivalenttotheoverall
plant.Theefficiencyisclaimedtobe40%(LowerHeatingValue[LHV]).

Figure 1-29. Schematic of Aabenraa Power Station
Photo Credit: Adapted from CADDET Technical Brochure No. 139, http://www.caddet-re.org/assets/no139.pdf

Maabjerg
Thisfacilityhasthreeboilers,twofiredbyMSW,andonefiredwithstrawandwoodchips.
Eachoftheboilersproduces410Csteam(Figure130).Naturalgasisfiredforthefinal
superheater(52Csteamtemperature),whichislocatedinaseparatechamberwhereitdoesnot
80

81

receivethebiomasscombustionproducts.Sixcigarburnersarrangedthreeeachonopposing
sidesoftheboiler,allowforsixbalestobeburnedsimultaneously.
Maximumstrawconsumptionis9,500kg/h,orabout19bales/hr,butaveragessomethingless
becauseofcofiringwithwood.
31

31.FromH.H.JakobsensCofiringofBiomassEvaluationofFuelProcurementandHandlinginSelected
ExistingPlantsandExchangeofInformation,MaabjergPlant(CofiringPart2),dkTEKNIKEnergy&
Environment.

Figure 1-30. Schematic of Maabjerg facility
82

Avedore,Denmark
AvedoreUnit2isarecentlycommissionedlargecombinedheatandpowerplant.Its
maximumcapacityis570MW(whensupplyingnodistrictheat)or485MWand570
MWthinCHPmode.Ithasalargecombustionboilerfuelledwithnaturalgasandfuel
oil,asetofgasturbines(incombinedcyclewiththesteamcycle)andabiomassboiler
thatfiresstrawandwood.Thebiomassboilercontributes47MWtotheplantoutput.
Theplantraisesultrasupercriticalsteam(300bar,600C)andhasveryhighoverall
efficiency(reportedly45to50%basedonLHV).Thesteamtemperatureinthebiomass
boilerdoesnotreachthefinalsuperheatedvalue(againbecauseoffoulingissues).The
biomassboilersteamcontinuestothefossilfuelboilerforfinalheating.SeeFigure131.

Figure 1-31. Avedore facility schematic.
Photo Credit: Adapted from Manczyk and Leach 2001.

Ely(Cambridge),England,andSangesa,Spain
TherearetwostrawfiredfacilitiesrecentlycommissionedoutsideofDenmark.Located
intheEnglandandSpain,theyweredesignedandbuiltbytheDanishcompany
(formerlyFLSmilj).TheEnglandElyplantisthelargeststrawfiredfacilityinthe
world(accordingtoBioener,ApS)consumingontheorderof150,000to200,000metric
tonsperyear.Thefacilityusesnaturalgasasastabilizationfuelintheamountupto10%
totalenergyinput.Itproducesonlypower(doesnotoperateinCHPmode)reportedly
withacapacityof36to38MWatanavailabilityestimatedatabout80%.
83

Therearefourseparatewholebalefuelfeedlinesrunningintothesinglefurnace.Bales
areshreddedbeforebeinginjectedintotheboiler.TheboilerusesaFLSmiljvibrating
grate.
OthersinvestigatedthebaleandstrawhandlingandfeedingsystemsatElyforpotential
applicationtocofireswitchgrasswithcoalattheOttumwageneratingstationin
Chillicothe,Iowa(MilesandGanz2002).TheirdiscussionsatElyyieldedthefollowing
information:
Thecapitalcostwasapproximately$88million(about$2,300/kWgross
installed).
Thefacilityispaid$0.0855/kWh.
TheplantisoperatedbytheDanishbuilder,whichguarantees96%availability
over350days.
Thecompanypays$31to$42/tonfordeliveredstraw,80%withinaradiusof55
milesfromtheplant,and20%comesfromaradiusof55to150miles.
Thecompanywasconsideringgrowingdedicatedenergycrops(switchgrassor
miscanthus)toincreasefuelsupply.
Theplanthasbeenoperatingsince2000consumingabout22tons/hrlocalcereal
straw.
TheMilesandGanz(2002)reportcontainsthefollowing;
Bioener says its largest straw fired plant in world (at commissioning date).
Miles trip report discusses this plant and includes some contact info. Plant cost
$88 M US to build (~$2,300/kWgross installed) and can sell power for
$.0855/kWh). At 93% availability for 350 days, corresponds to ~$24.8 M receipts
fromelectricity.EleanPowerstation
The Sangesa, Spain facility is a 25 MWe dedicated power facility. A
decentralizedfuelstorageconceptwaschoseninwhichstrawisdeliveredfroma
setofregionalstoragesites.Thereisonsitestoragesufficienttoruntheplantfor
approximately three days. The capital cost was approximately $59 million
(~$2,360/kW).
BothElyandSangesahavehighsteamtemperatures(520to540C).TheElyboilerdoes
notutilizeaseparatefuelforfinalsuperheat(combinationboilermentionedabove).
SpecificboilerdetailscouldnotbeconfirmedforSangesa,soitisnotknownwhetherit
isacombinationboiler.
GrenandStudstrupvrket,Denmark
Bothofthesefacilitiescofirestrawwithpulverizedcoal.Grenisacirculatingfluidized
bed(CFB)boilerandStudstrupvrketisawallfiredsuspensionboiler.Frandsen
84

indicatesthatfoulingandcorrosionatthesefacilitiesisnoworsethanthatexperienced
at100%coalfiredfacilities(Frandsen2003).
Strawhandlingandpreparationforboiler
AvarietyofmethodsareemployedbytheDanishplants(andthetwonewestfacilities
inEnglandandSpain)
32
topreparestrawforcombustion.Mostuseautomatedtruck
unloadingbridgecranesthatclampupto12balesatatime(Hesstontype4x4x8feet)
andstackthemfourtofivebaleshighincoveredstorage(seeFigures132and133).The
samebridgecraneisusedtoreclaimbalesfromthestackandplacethemonconveying
chainsorcartswhichcarrythebalesoutofthestoragebarntotheboilerhouse(Figures
134to137showvariousimagesofbalehandlingsystems).Balemoistureismeasured
byamicrowavebasedsystemintegraltothebaleclampmechanism(Figure134).Fuel
suppliersarepaidbasedpartlyonthemoisturecontentofthebaledstrawandbalesthat
arereceivedwithtoomuchmoisturecannotbestackedorstoredinthebalehouse
becauseofpotentialforheatingfrommicrobialactionleadingtospontaneousbaleand
stackfires.

Figure 1-32. Bridge crane unloading trailers
Photo Credit: Miles and Ganz, 2002
Figure 1-33. Crane moving bales to storage

Somesystemsfeedwholebalesintotheboiler.Probablythebestknownwholebale
feederistheVlundcigarfeedingconcept,originallyappliedbyVlund(now
BabcockandWilcoxVlund)(Koch1997).
Wholebalesarepushedintothecombustion
chamberandthestrawburnedoffthefaceofthebale.Someefforthasgoneinto
understandingtheburningbehaviorofstrawinbales,andimprovingthepowerdensity
(BechandWolff1995;WolffandBech1995;Bechetal.1996).
However,thenewer

32.AutomaticstrawbalehandlingsystemsareprovidedbySeelenA/S,http://www.seelen.dk/,a
Danishautomaticlogisticsandconveyorcompany.Theyhaveinstalledastrawhandlingsystem
atastrawparticleboardfactoryinManitoba,Canada.
85

Danishplantshavemovedawayfromwholebalesystemstoshreddedstrawfeedfor
higherefficiency.Balefeedersstillhaveadvantagesinreducingoverallhandling.

Figure 1-34. Bale crane with moisture sensing Figure 1-35. Conveyance to boiler house

Figure 1-36. Twine cutter-remover* Figure 1-37. Twin vertical screw de-baler
Photo Credit: Miles and Ganz 2002

Otherfeedsystemsremovebaletwineandshredorscarifythebaleswithloosestraw
beingconveyedintotheboilerbyaugersorcounterrotatingscrews.Lowspeed
hydraulicramsarealsoemployedtopushloosestrawwhichhasfilledtheexposed
chamberwhentheramisretracted.Manyofthesefeedersystemsemploywatercooled
sectionssothatheatfromtheboilerdoesnottransferintothestrawloadingchambers
andbeginpyrolysisorignitethefuel.
Forpulverizedcoalcofiring,thestrawusuallyneedstobegroundorcuttosmallsizes
inordertoburncompletelywithinrelativelyshortresidencetimes(suspensionfired
systems)ortofeedandmixuponinjectionwithbedmediainfluidizedbedsystems.
86

1.4.5 Systems for Conversion of MSW
AlargeandconcentratedsourceofbiomassisintheMSWstream.Advantagesofthis
sourcearethatitcurrentlyisdeliveredtocentrallocationsanditusuallycomeswitha
tippingfeeorachargethereceivingfacilityimposesonthesenderofthematerial.MSW
isnotwithoutdisadvantages.Itistypicallyveryheterogeneous,cominginalargerange
ofparticlesizes,moisture,andcomponentcharacteristics.MSWandvariousfractions
areburnedincombustionfacilitiesforconversiontoenergyinallpartsoftheworld.Itis
estimatedthat130milliontonsannuallyareconvertedtoenergyinover600facilities
worldwide.Thereareapproximately90facilitiesintheUnitedStatescurrentlyburning
MSWforenergyrecovery(abouttwothirdsofthemontheEastCoast)consuming29
milliontonsofMSWannually(Themelis2003).InCaliforniatherearethreeoperating
powerplantsthatconsumeMSWastheprimaryfuelwithacombinedgenerating
capacityofapproximately65MW(onefacilityisinStanislausCountyandtwoareinthe
LosAngelesarea).
Chlorinatedorganiccompounds,especiallypolychlorinateddibenzopdioxinsand
dibenzofurans(PCDD/F)havebeenlinkedtocombustionofMSW.Inthelate1980s,
combustionofMSWwaslistedastheleadingsourceofdioxinemissionsinthecountry
(about60%oftotal)Maximumavailablecontroltechnology(MACT)regulations
promulgatedbytheU.S.EPAin1995forcedtheindustrytoretrofitwithbetteremission
controltechnologieswherepossibleandshutdownfacilitiesthatcouldnotbeimproved.
Today,thelevelofdioxinairemissionsfromcombustionofMSWintheUnitedStates
hasdecreasedfrom8,900gramstoxicequivalent(TEQ)peryearin1987to12gTEQper
yearby2000,adecreaseof99.9%.
33
DioxinemissionsintheUnitedStatesfromall
sourcesarenownearlyanorderofmagnitudeless(from14,000gtoxicequivalent(TEQ)
to2,000gTEQ)andsolidwastecombustionisresponsibleforlessthan1%ofthetotal.
34
Thoughpolychlorinateddibenzodioxinanddibenzofuran(PCDD/F)emissionshave
declinedconsiderablyduetoimprovedcombustionandairpollutioncontrolsystems,
publicperceptionsthatunacceptabledioxinemissionsarelinkedtosolidwaste
combustionremainsstrong.Opponentsofburningsolidwastehaveinfluencewith
policyanddecisionmakersandthepublicsothatsitingnewfacilitiescanbedifficult.In
California,currentlaw(AB2770)discouragessolidwastecombustionbynotallowing
materialsenttonewcombustionfacilitiestobecountedasdiversionfromlandfill.The
legislationalsodirectsCIWMBtoinvestigateandevaluatenoncombustionconversion
technologiessuitableforpostrecycledMSW.UCDavis(DepartmentofBiologicaland
AgriculturalEngineering)conductedapreliminaryinvestigation(PhaseI)toidentify
(Williamsetal.2003)existingandneartermcommercialtechnologiesthatmaybe
suitablefortheMSWstream.Recently,UCDavisandUCRiversidehavecompleteda

33.U.S.EPADocketA9045,VIII.B.11andUSEPADioxinSourceInventory2002.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20797
34.USEPADioxinSourceInventory2002.
87

moredetailedanalysisandevaluationoftheidentifiedtechnologiesandsystems.Much
oftheinformationinthissectionwasdevelopedinthePhaseIstudy.
EuropeandJapanbyfaroutrankNorthAmericaintermsofnumbersofinstallations
usingnoncombustionthermalorbiologicalMSWconversion.Europeseffortshave
beenmotivatedbyhigherlandfillcostsrelatedtolessavailablelandandrestrictionson
materialsenttolandfill,greenhousegasreductiongoals,andproducerresponsibility
requirementstorecycleorreuseproductwaste.InGermanyforexample,carbonand
energylimitshavebeensetondisposedmaterial.Materialgoingtolandfillisrestricted
tototalorganiccarbon(TOC)oflessthanorequalto18%,andenergycontentlessthan
orequalto6,000kJ/kg(Ludwig2003).
35
Inordertoreducegreenhousegasemissionsin
attemptstocomplywiththeKyotoProtocol,theEuropeanUnionisimplementing
strategieswhichincludeincreaseduseofenergyproducedfromrenewablesources.The
EuropeanCommunityDirective2001/77/EC(September27,2001)containsdefinitions
forrenewableelectricalenergysources.Biomassis,ofcourse,arenewablesource.The
ECDirectiveincludesinthedefinitionofbiomass:thebiodegradablefractionof
industrialandmunicipalwaste
36
(althoughthisdefinitionappearsoverlyrestrictive
dependinginturnonthedefinitionofbiodegradablethatmaydiscountsomefraction
ofbiomass).TheDirectivealsoadvisesthatoftheelectricityproducedbyfacilitiesthat
consumebothrenewableandnonrenewablefeedstocks,onlythatportionattributableto
therenewableenergysourceisconsideredrenewableelectricity.
37
Electricityandheat
fromtheorganicportionofMSWisconsideredrenewableintheNetherlands(Junginger
2004)andSwitzerland.Currently,thatfractioninSwitzerlandis50%,basedonarecent
feedstockcharacterizationforMSWcombustionfacilities(Ludwig2003a).By
comparison,theSacramentoresourceisabout60to70%biomass(Table15)ifthe
characterizationstudiesareaccurate.
InJapanthereareadditionalmotivesforimprovinguponalternativestolandfill.Japans
lackofsignificantdomestic(traditionalfossil)energyresourcesincombinationwith
verylimitedspaceforlandfillshasledtothedevelopmentofalargesolidwaste
combustionforenergyindustry.Approximately75%ofthesolidwasteinJapanis
convertedincombustionfacilities(Heermannetal.2001).Environmentalissuesrelated
toemissionsfromthewastecombustionfacilitiesandleachingproblemsfromthe
generatedashcausedtheJapanesegovernmenttoinvestigateandinvestinbetterair
pollutioncontroltechnologiesandmethodstostabilizetheash.TheJapanese
EnvironmentalAgencyestimatesthatdioxinemissionsin1998werereducedby70%
from1997levels,andlegislationrequired2002emissionstobeonly10%ofthe1997
levels.ArangeofprocesseshavebeendevelopedthroughthiseffortinJapanincluding
hightemperaturegasification(oxygenblownorplasmaarc)withashmeltingand
specificplasmaarcsystemsformeltingashfromMSWcombustionfacilities.Europeis

35.CaliforniaaveragedisposedMSWstreamhasHHVabout10,800kJ/kg(Williamsetal.2003).
36.Directive2001/77/EC,September27,2001.Article2(b),http://europa.eu.int/eur
lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/I_283/I_28320011027en00330040.pdf
37.Directive2001/77/EC,September27,2001.Article2(c).
88

beginningtoemployarangeofthermochemicalconversionmethods(Table125),and
hasmadegreatprogresswithlargebiochemicalconversionfacilities(Table126).
MSWConversionTechnologyDatabase
AlargepartoftheeffortofthePhaseICaliforniaMSWprojectmentionedabovewasthe
compilationofacurrentdatabaseofcompanies,institutions,andorganizationswith
activityorinterestinconversiontechnologysuitableforMSW.Entitiesinvolvedinany
typeofconversionwiththeexceptionofincinerationandusingeitherthewholeor
separatedfractionsofMSWwereactivelysearched.Incineration(massburn)processes
werespecificallyexcludedinthecontractduetoexistinglegislativeconstraints.Someof
thecombustiontechnologysuppliersaswellassomefirmsnotcurrentlyinvolvedin
MSWconversion(e.g.,biomassconversioncompanies)areincludedbecausethereis
potentialtoapplytheirtechnologiestoconversionofMSWbynoncombustionmeans.
Also,someancillarytechnologycompaniesorinstitutions,suchasMRF,handlingand
separation,IEABioenergyandMSWtaskforces,andindustrialorganizationsare
includedbecauseofrelevance.Thedatabaseisavailablethroughtheinternetat
http://cbc1.engr.ucdavis.edu/conv/home.htm
Thedatabasecontainsacomprehensivelistofcompanies,institutions,andrelated
organizationswithrecentinterestandactivityinMSWconversion.Therecordsthat
formthedatabasecontainvaryingamountsofinformation,fromperhapsjustanameof
acompanyorpersontofullydevelopednotesandprocessdescriptions,contact
information,andsomeassessmentofstatus.
Verificationofstatusanddetailedprocessdescriptionsand/orexplanatorynotesare
missingformanyoftherecordsduetoinsufficientorunqualifiedinformationfrom
suppliers.Validationwillrequiresubstantialadditionaleffort.Thecurrentongoing
PhaseIIeffortincludesanindustrysurveyusingtherecordsfromthedatabase.The
surveyresultsandaportionoftheevaluationcomponentwillsupportfurtherdatabase
development.
Tables125and126listcompaniesinthedatabasethatwereidentifiedashavingMSW
conversionfacilitiesthatare(1)currentlyoperatingcommercially,(2)commercialscale
demonstrations,(3)reportedlyincommissioning,or(4)underconstruction.Table125
lists16thermochemicalconversionprocessorswhileTable126lists12biochemical
processcompanies.Followingthesetwotablesarebriefdescriptionsoftheprocesses
listedincludingsomeinformationonfacilitylocations,history,andscale.The
thermochemicalprocessesarelistedfirstfollowedbythebiochemicalprocesses.Allof
thethermochemicalprocessesandamajorityofthebiologicalprocesseshavethe
capabilitytoproducepower,somebetterthanothers.
89

Table 1-25. Companies using thermochemical conversion methods to process MSW

Company Name Corp. Headquarters Process
Name
Process Type
Hitachi Metals
Environmental Systems
Yoshii, Japan -
Gasification (plasma
arc)
Ebara/Alstom France-Switzld-Japan
TwinRec &
EUP
Gasification
Brightstar Environmental
Queensland,
Australia
SWERF
Pyrolysis w/ Char
gasification
Eco-Waste Solutions Burlington Ontario EWOX Gasification
Enerkem Sherbrooke, Quebec BIOSYN Gasification
Environmental Waste
International
Ajax, Ontario -
Pyrolysis (microwave
heat)
Foster Wheeler Energia Oy Finland - Gasification
Nippon Steel Tokyo, Japan
Waste
Melting
Gasification
PKA Aalen, Germany -
Pyrolysis w/ char
gasification
SVZ
Schwarze Pumpe,
Germany
- Gasification
Thermoselect Locarno, Switzerland HTR Gasification/pyrolysis
Thide Environmental Bretonneux, France Arthelyze Pyrolysis
TPS Nykping, Sweden - Gasification
WasteGen UK UK - Pyrolysis
IES Romoland, CA - Pyrolysis
Plastic Energy LLC Roseville, CA -
Pyrolysis w/catalytic
cracking

90

Table 1-26. Companies using biochemical conversion methods to process MSW
Company Name Corp. Headquarters Process Name Process Type
Valorga Montpellier, France Valorga Anaerobic Digestion
(OS HS)
Wehrle Werk AG Emmendingen,
Germany
Biopercolat Anaerobic Digestion
(MS-HS)
Wright Environmental
Management
Ontario, Canada In vessel Composting
CiTec Finland/Sweden Waasa Anaerobic Digestion
(OS LS)
Linde-KCA-Dresden Dresden, Germany Anaerobic Digestion &
composting (MBT)
Kompogas Glattbrugg, Switzerland Kompogas Anaerobic Digestion
(OS HS)
U-plus Umweltservice Ettlingen, Germany ISKA MBT followed by
Anaerobic Digestion
Eco Tec Finland WABIO Anaerobic Digestion
(OS LS)
Organic Waste Systems Gent, Belgium Dranco Anaerobic Digestion
(OS HS)
BTA Munich, Germany BTA Anaerobic Digestion
(OS or MS LS)
Arrow Ecology Haifa, Israel Arrow Bio Anaerobic Digestion
(MS lS)
Masada Resource Group Birmingham, Alabama CES Oxynol Acid Hydrolysis for
ethanol production
OS= One Stage MBT= Mechanical-Biological Treatment
MS = Multi Stage
HS = High Solids
LS= Low Solids

Thermochemical MSW Conversion Systems
HitachiMetalsEnvironmentalSystemsCompany(Yoshii,Japan):PlasmaArc
Gasification/meltingofMSW(commercial/commercialscaledemonstration)
AfterdemonstrationofthegasificationtechnologyforMSWatthepilotplantinYoshii,
Japanduring1999and2000,theJapanesegovernmentcertifiedthetechnologyfor
constructionofacommercialsizeplant.AconsortiumcalledEcoValleyUtashinai,was
formedbyHitachiLtd.,HitachiMetalsLtd.,HokaidoPrefecture,andtheUtashinaiCity.
TheplantwascompletedinJuly2002.Thisnewplantusesprimarilyautomobile
shredderresidue(ASR)asfuelwithapproximately165t/daycapacitybuthasbeen
designedtorunwitha50%mixtureofMSW.Itcanalsoprocessapproximately300
ton/dof100%MSW.Aftercommissioning,theplantwasreleasedtothecustomerfor
commercialoperationinApril2003.InDecember2002,thetwincitiesofMihamaand
Mikata,JapancommissionedaMSWandsewagesludgetreatmentplant.HitachiMetals
Ltd.designedandinstalledthisplant.Itprocesses24t/dayofMSWand4t/dayof
sewagesludge.
91

TheR.W.BeckreportforHonolulu(R.W.Beck2003)indicatesHitachiand
WestinghousePlasmawerecodevelopersofaMSWconversionplantinYoshii,Japan.
Thisranatascaleof166ton/dsoitcanbeconsideredcommercialscaledemonstration.
ElectricityPotentialFromPlasmaArcGasificationofMSW
Plasmagasificationfacilitiesrequirealargeamountelectricitytooperatetheplasma
torch.TheResorptionCanadaLtd.(RCL)Plasmawebsite
38
discussesmaterialand
energyflowsfortheplasmagasificationprocess.RCLindicatesthat704kWh(about
2500MJ)ofelectricalenergyisrequiredtoprocess1metricton(wetbasis)ofMSW.The
RCLprocessanalysisassumestheenergycontentofwastematerialusedintheirprocess
is10,900MJ/ton.
The2500MJrequiredtogasifyorpyrolyzeMSWinaplasmasystemisforthemostpart
energythatwouldberequiredtogasify/pyrolyzethematerialbyothertechnologies(up
ordowndraftorCirculatingFluidizedBed(CFB)gasifiers,orindirectlyheated
pyrolyzersorexample).Whiletheseprocessesusepartoftheproductgastoprovide
thermalenergybyburning(internallyforgasifiers,externallyforpyrolyzers),the
plasmaarcsystemuseshighqualityelectricalenergytocreatetheheatforthe
reaction.Efficiencyofelectricalgenerationisabout30%forfuelburnedinagasengine
(orlargesteamcycle,orCaliforniagridaverageelectricity).Thiselectricalenergyused
bytheplasmatorchrequiresaboutthreetimesthatamountinprimaryenergy.
FromenergyflowdatafromtheRCLPlasmawebsite,netelectricalproduction(or
efficiency)fromaplasmagasificationfacility(consumingMSW),isonlyabout7to10%
basedontheenergyintheincomingfeedandassumingRankinesteamcycleor
reciprocatinggasengineforpowerproduction(withproducergastoelectricity
conversionefficienciesofabout30%).SeeTable127below.
AreportonnewwastedisposalsystemsfortheCityandCountyofHonoluluthat
reviewedplasmagasificationofsolidwastestatesthat900kWhelectricity(3240MJ)can
beproducedpertonofrefuseprocessed,butonly300kWh(1080MJ)wouldbeavailable
forexporttothegrid.ThesefigurescorrespondwiththosefromRCLasdisplayedin
Table127.
Incomparison,theHPowerMSWcombustionfacilityonOahu,Hawaii,reportedly
produces534kWh(1900MJ)pertonofwasteconsumed(R.W.Beck2003).R.W.Beck
doesnotindicateifthisisgrossornetelectricalenergyproduction.AnotherMSW
combustionfacilityexportstogrid610kWh(2200MJ)electricitypertonMSW
consumed(overallefficiencyof18%basedon12MJ/kgHHVofMSWusedinfacility)
(Themelis2003).

38.ResorptionCanadaLtd.(RCL)isacompanymarketingplasmaMSWgasificationfacilities.
http://www.rclplasma.com/overview.htm
92

Table 1-27. Process energy and net electrical energy production per ton of MSW (wet
basis) from a plasma arc gasification facility
39

Input MSW 10900
Electricity to torch 2204
Out puts Torch loss 362
Slag losses 89
Vessel losses 60
Other losses 1278
Non Recoverable losses Total (1789)
Gas Sensible Energy 1291
Producer Gas Chemical Energy (based on HHV) 10020
Electricity Conversion Efficiency 0.3
Recover sensible
energy to Electricity
(@ 20% eff.)
Recover Gas Sensible Energy 0 258.2
Electrical Energy Generated 3006 3264.2
Less Electricity to Torch 2204 2204
Net Electricity (MJ) 802 1060.2
Net Conversion Efficiency (%)
[Net Elect./MSW energy in]
7.4 9.7
Energy per ton MSW (MJ)
Adapted from RCL website, http://www.rcl-plasma.com, September 2, 2003

Alstom/Ebara(France,SwitzerlandandJapan):TwinRecandEUPprocesses
AlstomPower(MeudonlaForet,France)acquiredABBEnertechin1999whichhad
exclusivelicenseofEbaras(Japan)fluidizedbedtechnologythathasseveralcommercial
facilitiesinJapan(Heermannetal.2001).EbarabuildsandoperatesfullMSW
combustionfacilitiesinJapanandsomeotherAsiancountries.Ebaraalsohasdeveloped
theTwinRecandEUPgasificationprocessesthroughtheJapaneseinitiativetodevelop
moresustainablewastedisposaltechnologies.
TwinRecProcess
Ebarahaslongexperiencewithfluidizedbedcombustionsystemsforwastematerials.
Theyadaptedtheirbubblingfluidizedbedreactortooperateasagasifierandcoupledit

39.AdaptedfromRCLwebsite,http://www.rclplasma.com,September2,2003.
93

withasecondarycombustionchamberwheretheproducergasisburnedwiththe
additionofsecondaryair.Thisisanatmosphericpressure,airblownprocess.Thelarger
ashparticlesalongwithmetalandglasspiecesleavethegasifierbedasbottomashfrom
whichthemetalscanbeseparated.Smallerashandcharparticlesarecarriedoverwith
theproducergasandenterthecombustionchamberwhichoperatesathighenough
temperaturetomelttheinorganicmaterialcarriedover.Thisslagiswaterquenched
whichyieldsvitrifiedgranules.Itispossibletogrindthebottomashfromthegasifier
portionandinjectitintothemeltingcombustor(athigherprocessingandenergy
expense)toslagessentiallyalloftheinorganicmaterialpresentintheoriginalfeedstock
Thisistheashmeltingprocessusedtomeetthelowleachabilityrequirementsforash
fromconversionprocessesinJapan.Table128showsexistingfacilitiesusingthe
TwinRecprocess.
ThefollowingisexcerptedfromEbarawebsiteengineeringabstracts:
40
Japans first municipal waste, fluidizedbed, gasificationmelting furnace

system,equippedwithapowerrecoverysteamturbine,hasstartedoperationat
SakataCity,Japan.Thedioxinconcentrationintheexhaustgasofthissystemis
being controlled to be below the allowable standard and the produced slag is
effectively encapsulated and used as pavement material (interlocking blocks).
The exhaust gas from the furnace is used for driving a power recovery turbine
(max.output1990kW)andexcesselectricityproducedisbeingsoldtothelocal
electricitycompany.
UEPProcess
EbaraandtheUbeIndustriesLtd.(aplasticsandchemicalcompany)developedthis
UEPprocessforrecyclingthechemicalsinwasteplastic.BasedontheTwinRecprocess,
theUEPsystemusestwopressurizedgasifiersinseries.Theprocessoperatesupto10
atmospheresandisoxygenblown.Thefirstgasifierisessentiallythesamebubbling
fluidizedbedasusedinTwinRecandrunsatarelativelylowtemperature.The
producedgasflowstothesecondchamberwhich,asintheTwinRecsecondreactor,
receivessecondaryoxygenallowinghighertemperaturestobereachedandslagging
inertmaterial.Thereisstillinsufficientoxygenforcompleteconversionoftheproducer
gas.Thecompletematerialflowthroughthesecondhightemperaturegasifier(gasand
slag)isforcedthroughawatertrapwhichsolidifiesandcapturestheinertmaterial.The
remaininggascanbeusedforenergyproduction,liquidfuelsproduction,orchemical
feedstocks.Table129showsexistingfacilitiesusingtheUEPprocess.
Alstomreportedly(Heermannetal.2001)marketstheEbarareactormodifiedtooperate
asagasifierandistargetedforhigherenergycontainingfuels(automobileshredder
residue,plastics,electronicscrap,tires),butcanprocessotherdomesticandurban
residues.ButEbara(EnvironmentalEngineeringGroup)alsohasaZurich,Switzerland,

40.ReviewNo.197,2002,http://www.ebara.co.jp/en/
94

officeplainlystatingitistherepresentativefortheEbaraTwinRecandUEPprocessesin
Europe.
NoAlstom/EbaraEuropeaninstallationswereidentified,butthereareseveralofthe
EbaraTwinRecandUEPfacilitiesoperatinginJapan(SeeTables128,129).

Table 1-28. Ebara TwinRec gasification facilities
41

Location
Commissioning
Date Feedstock Mass (%)
Scale
(t/y)
LHV
(MJ/kg)
Thermal
Capacity
(MW)
Output
Elect.
(MWe)
Automotive Shredder
Waste 41
Waste Plastics 13
copper slag + sorbents 46
Minami-Shinshu Mar, 2003 MSW 100 34,000 8.4 2x4.5
Dry Sludge 68
Waste Plastic 32
Chuno Union Mar, 2003 MSW 100 61,000 11.3 3x7.3
Sakata Area Mar, 2002 MSW 100 72,000 10.9 2x12.3 2
Ube City Nov, 2002 MSW 100 72,000 12.5 3x9.5
Nagareyama City Feb, 2004 MSW 100 75,000 11.7 3x9.3
Kawaguchi Nov, 2002 MSW 100 153,000 13 3x21.0 12
Automotive Shredder
Waste
70
Sewage Sludge 30
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia May, 2006 MSW 100 548,000 9.6 5x33.3
57,000 12.3 2.2
10.2 7.4 22,000
160,000 17 14.3 2x40
Kurobe Dec, 2000
Joetsu City Mar, 2000
Aomori Feb, 2000
Adapted from Ebara Reference List: http://www.ebara.ch/downloads/ebara_Referencelist_TwinRec_100203.pdf

Table 1-29. Ebara UEP pressurized gasification for chemical recycling facilities
42

41.AdaptedfromEbaraReferenceList:
http://www.ebara.ch/downloads/ebara_Referencelist_TwinRec_100203.pdf
42.AdaptedfromEbaraReferenceList:
http://www.ebara.ch/downloads/ebara_Referencelist_EUP_0103.pdf
95

Location
Commissioning
Date Feedstock Scale (t/y)
Product
Ube City 1999 Waste Plastic 11,000
Fuel gas or
feedstock for
ammonia production
Ube City 2002 Waste Plastic 24,000
Feedstock for
ammonia production
Kawasaki Expected 2003 Waste Plastic 107,000
Feedstock for
ammonia production

Adapted from Ebara Reference List: http://www.ebara.ch/downloads/ebara_Referencelist_EUP_0103.pdf

SolidWasteandEnergyRecyclingFacility(SWERF)Process
BrightstarEnvironmental(Queensland,Australia)
EnergyDevelopmentsLimited(Australia)isthemajorityownercompanyofBrightstar
Environmental.BrightstarSynfuels(Texas)isaminorityholder.
TheSWERFprocessacceptsunsortedMSW.Thematerialisfirsttreatedinanautoclave
(steamandpressure)tocreateamanageablepulpandreduceodorsandpathogens,after
whichstandardmaterialhandling/separationequipmentremovesmetalsandrigid
plasticsforrecyclingordisposal.Theremainingpulpiswashedtoremovesandand
glassfollowedbypulpdryingandstorage.Energyfordryingisprovidedbyexhaust
heat.
Thecoreconversiontechnologyconsistsoftwosteps,pyrolysisfollowedbycharsteam
gasification.Thesynthesisgasisrunthroughreciprocatinginternalcombustionengines
forprocessheatandpowerforexport.
Thereisacommercialscale(50,000t/year)demonstrationinWollongong,NSW,
Australia,whichhasbeenundergoingcommissioningsinceearly2001.Therewere
problemswiththechargasificationcomponentoftheprocesswhichcausedtheparent
companyEnergyDevelopmentsLtd.toceasefundingfurtherdevelopmentandsearch
forabuyerofitsportionoftheBrightstarEnvironmentalstock(about88%).The
WollongongCityCouncilannouncedthattheSWERFfacilityhasceasedoperationin
March2004becauseEDLcouldnotfindaninternationalpartnertohelpsharetherisk.
Thefacilitywillbeusedasamunicipalrecoveryfacility(MRF)andtransferstation.
43
It
isnotknownwhetherSWERFtechnologyproposalsinEnglandandtheUnitedStates
areproceeding.
EcoWasteOxidizer(EWOX)

43.http://www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/yourcouncil/mediareleases/index_106.htm,accessed
October17,2004.
96

EcoWasteSolutions(BurlingtonOntario)
Thesearerelativelysmallscalesystems,sizedfor1to25t/day.Theprocessconsistsofa
gasifierfollowedbyburningtheproducergasinacontrolledcombustionchamber.
Unitstypicallyoperateona24hourbatchcycle.Thematerialisenclosedinthe
gasificationchamberandthenheated(presumablywithnaturalgasorpropane)until
enoughenergyisreleasedbythegasificationreactionstosustainitself.
Systemsaremarketedtosmallscaleand/orremotewasteproducers.Unitsareinstalled
inCanada,Alaska,Belize,andHawaii.
CanadasEnvironmentalTechnologyVerification(ETV)programhasverifiedEcoWaste
Solutionsperformanceclaimsforbothmunicipalandbiomedicalwaste.
BIOSYNprocess
Enerkem,UniversitdeSherbrooke,andKemestrieInc.(Sherbrooke,Quebec)
EnerkemTechnlogiesInc.isasubsidiaryoftheKemestrieInc.Group,aspinoff
companyoftheUniversitdeSherbrooke,foundedin1992.Itisthesoleownerofa
technologyportfolioresultingfrominvestmentsbegunin1981bytheCanadianFederal
GovernmentaspartofitsNationalEnergyPlan,andcontinuedinpartnershipwith
theMinistredesResourcesNaturellesduQubec,theCentreQubcoisdeValorisation
delaBiomasse(CQVB),theUniversitdeSherbrookeandKemestrieInc.Aprincipal
memberofthecompanyisDr.EstebenChornet,amemberofthestaffatNREL
44
anda
professorChemicalEngineeringatUniversitdeSherbrooke.
45
KnownastheBIOSYNprocess,itutilizesabubblingfluidizedbed(BFB)gasifier,with
airoroxygenoperatingatpressuresupto16atmospheres.Theprocessincludes
proprietarycatalystsforcrackingtarandothercomponentsintheproducergas.The
processiscapableofoperatingonbiomass,sortedMSW,andplastics.Enerkemwill
provideperformanceguaranteesofminimumenergyconversionefficiency(solidsto
conditionedsynthesisgas)of70%
46
aswellascompositionofthesynthesisgasbasedon
thecompositionofthefeedstock
ThePoligsplantinRibesalbes(Castelln),ownedbyPoligsAmbiente,S.L.,andbuilt
byEnvironmentalInternationalEngineering,S.L.(EIE)hasrecentlygoneintooperation.
SpainsInstituteofEnergyDiversificationandEfficiency(IDAE),andthewaste
managementcompanyRevimaparticipatedintheproject.Financingwasprovidedby
regionalgovernment(Valencia)andEuropeanUnionfunds.Theplantisfuelledwith
discardedplasticswrappingsfromtheceramicsindustry.Thisplantreportedly

44.http://www.nrel.gov/chemistry_bioenergy/staff_alpha.html#c
45.http://www.usherbrooke.ca/gchimique/personnel/profs/chornet/
46.Note:Energyconversionefficiencyforoverallprocess(throughtoelectricalgeneration)
wouldbeabout20%(steamturbine)uptoabout30%(largereciprocatinginternalcombustion).
97

(Enerkemwebsite
47
)isgenerating7MW(80mmBtu/hourofsynthesisgas)from
approximately25,000metrict/year
wasteplastic.
In2002,EnerkembeganworkingwiththeCityofSherbrooketoconvertwasteinto
synthesisgas(BioSyngazEstrieproject).Federal,provincial,andcorporatemonies
financedtheproject.Thepilotunitwasdesignedandconstructedwiththecapacityto
convert2.5tonsofsortedmunicipalwasteresidueperday.
MSWPilotPlantinSherbrooke(BioSyngasEstrieProject)
Enerkem,theCityofSherbrooke,andprovincialandfederalagencieshavepartneredto
buildandoperateapilotplantbasedontheBIOSYNprocessforsortedMSW.
Apparently,thesystemranatcapacityof2.5metrict/dayformuchof2002with
technicalreportsandfeasibilitystudiesthatshouldbecompleteatthistime.
EnvironmentalWasteInternational(Ajax,Ontario)
EWImanufacturesandmarketssystemsthatusemicrowaveheatingtopyrolyzethe
feedstockinaninertorlowoxygenatmosphere.Thebasicprocessispyrolysiswith
standardvolatilegases,tars,andcharastheproducts(relativeamountsand
compositionsarefeedstockdependant).Existinginstallationsareusedindestructionof
medicalwastes.
ThecompanydoesnotforeseeamarketforthistechnologyinnonseparatedMSW
conversion.Theyareinvestigatingtheprocesswithfeedstockssuchassludge,non
recyclableplastics,automobileshredderresidue,diseasedanimalcarcasses,andused
tires.Infact,thecompanybelievesthedestructionofusedtireswillbeimportantto
futureoperationsduetothepotentiallyvaluablepyrolyticproductsincludingcarbon
black,steel,liquidandgaseoushydrocarbons.
CompanypressreleasesindicateithasanagreementwithaprivatefirminEnglandto
designandbuilditsfirstfacilitytopyrolyzewastetireswiththemicrowaveheating
process.Itwouldbecapableofconverting3,000tiresperday.
Amaterialandenergyflowdiagramonthecompanywebsiteclaimsthatatire
conversionfacilitythatconsumes6,000tires/daycanprovidesufficientenergytodrivea
6MWsteamturbine(ifallpyrolysisoilsandgasesareburnedinaboiler).The
magnetronsandbalanceofplantwillconsume3MWofelectricalpowerleaving3MW
availableforexport.
FosterWheelerEnergiaOy(Lahti,Finland)
FosterWheeler,incooperationwithKymijrviPowerStationatLahti,Finlandhas
installedanatmospheric(airblown)circulatingfluidizedbed(ACFB)gasifiernexttothe
coal/fossilfuelfiredutilityboiler(seeFigure138).Thermalcapacityofthegasifieris40
to70MWthdependingonthemoisturecontentofthefuel(whichcanbeupto60%).

47.http://www.enerkem.com/2002/pages_en/main_en1_ns.html
98

Theproducergasfromthegasifieriscofiredintheboiler.TheACFBissizedtoprovide
upto15%oftheenergyinputtotheboiler(replacingupto30%ofthecoalfeed).The
lackofgascleaninglimitsthefuelstowoodybiomassandlow/nochlorinecontaining
wastederivedfuels(someamountofseparationofresidentialormunicipalwastesto
removechlorinatedplastics).SeeTable130forcompositionoftherefusederivedfuel
andTable131forfuelconsumptionbytypefortheyears1998to2002.Theproject
demonstratescommercialscalefeasibilityofclosecoupledgasificationoflowquality
opportunityfuelswhichotherwisecouldnotbeutilizedinthecombustionboiler.
Amunicipallyowned,wastemanagementcompany(PijtHmeenJtehuoltoOy)
startedtheprocessingofrefusederivedfuelin1997.Inthefirstyearofoperation,1998,
morethan17,000tonsofresidentialrefusefuelwasgasifiedaccountingfor22%ofthe
energythroughthegasifier(thebulkofthegasifierenergycamefromwoodresidues
71%).
99

Figure 1-38. Drawing of Lahti gasifier and co-fueled boiler
Photo Credit: Foster Wheeler.

Table 1-30. Composition of refused derived fuel at Lahti
48

Component % by weight
Plastic 5-15
Paper 20-40
Cardboard 10-30
Wood 30-60
http://www.fosterwheeler.com/publications/tech_papers/powgen/bagasse3.cfm
Table 1-31. Annual feedstock consumption by type at Lahti gasifier (Foster Wheeler)
Units 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Cumulative
Fraction (%)
Biomass (tons) 56729 60534 57834 71092 58128 61
RDF (tons) 17578 24426 26622 30457 32178 26
Plastics (tons) - 13806 6885 14203 11418 9
Paper (tons) - 6372 184 348 2076 1.8
Railway Sleepers (tons) 4395 106 275 - - 1.0
Shredded Tires (tons) 1199 956 - - - 0.4
Total 79900 106200 91800 116100 103800 100
Hours of Operation (hours) 4730 5460 4727 7089 nr

nr = not reported

48.http://www.fosterwheeler.com/publications/tech_papers/powgen/bagasse3.cfm
100

VarkausFinland
FosterWheelerinstalledaBFBaspartofanintegratedrecyclingprocessattheCorenso
UnitedOy,alargepaperandcardboard/packagingmaterialmanufacturer.Used
multilayerpackagingmaterial(whichincludesplasticfilmandaluminumfoillayers,for
example,Tetrapakasepticdrinkcontainers)isrecycledbyseparatingasmuchofthe
cellulosematerialfromtheplasticandaluminumaspossibleandthengasifyingthe
remainingplasticandaluminumcontainingportionintheFosterWheelerBFB.
Aluminumisrecoveredfrombottomashandtheproductgas(presumablycondensed
fromvaporform(seeFigure139).Thealuminumissolidifiedintoingotsandreused.
Theenergyfromthegasreplacessomeofthefossilfuelusedtoraiseprocesssteam.The
gasifieris40MWthincapacityandrecoversabout3,000t/yearofaluminumandgasifies
27,000t/yearofpolyethylene.Thefacilityhasaccumulatedover12,500hoursof
operationbetweencommissioninginspringof2001andMay2004(Nieminen2004).

Figure 1-39. Schematic of Varkaus, Finland waste packaging gasifier and aluminum
recovery facility
Photo Credit: Foster Wheeler
NipponSteel(Tokyo,Japan)
Japangeneratesover100milliont/yearofMSWbuthaslimitedavailablelandfor
disposal.Consequently,muchofthewaste(75%)(Heermannetal.2001)isburnedin
combustionfacilities.ConcernoverhighlevelsofdioxinemissionsledtheJapanese
governmenttoinstituteprogramstoaddresstheissue.Theseprogramsincludedtighter
emissionslimits,investmentinmoreefficientfacilitieswithbetteremissionscontrol
technologiesandRDDDofalternativestoMSWcombustion.
Resultssofarappearsuccessful.TheJapaneseEnvironmentAgencyestimatesthat
dioxinemissionsin1998werereducedby70%comparedtothoseof1997.Legislation
101

wasinplacetorequire2002emissionstobeonly10%ofthe1997levels(Heermannetal.
2001).
OneoftheRDDDinitiativeslaunchedbytheJapanesegovernmentwasthe
Technologiesforthe21
st
centurywhichfocusedondevelopinggasification/pyrolysis
systemsanddirectmeltingofwaste.Thenoncombustionthermaltechnologythrustis
toaddressthedioxinissuewhilewastemeltingprogramsaddressashrecyclingand
disposalproblems.
AfurthermotivatorforJapanisitslackofsignificantdomesticenergyresources.Any
energythatcanberecoveredfromconversionofMSWandothersolidwastesdirectly
displacesimportedcoalorpetroleumfuels.
WasteMeltingProcess
TheNipponSteelWasteMeltingProcessevolvedfrommetallurgicalprocessing
technology.TheprocessacceptsunsortedMSWthathasbeenprocessedtorequired
particlesize.Heermannetal.(2001)reportthattheNipponSteelprocessusesafixed
bedgasifier(notclearifpressurized),withenrichedoxygenairinjectioninthemelting
section.CokeisaddedtotheMSW(about50kg/tonMSWor5%byweight)inputfeed
whichreactswiththeoxygenandpyrolyticgasesattheairinjectionandmeltingregion.
Thisisapparentlydonetohelpprovideenergyforfullashmelting.Limestoneisalso
added(about5%byweightofinput)toprovidesomepHbufferingofthemelt.The
producergasisburnedinconventionalsteamboilersfromwhichheatandpowercanbe
generated.Outputmaterialsincludegranulatedslag(90kg/toninput),recyclableiron
(10kg/toninput)andflyash(approximately30kg/toninput)whichissenttolandfill.
Mercuryandheavymetalspresentinthewastearefoundintheflyashandproducer
gas,requiringthatthesestreamsbemanagedappropriatelybeforedischarge.
Thereareperhapsadozenplants(operationalorbeingcommissioned)inJapanutilizing
theNipponSteelwastemeltingprocess.Thecapacitiesrangefrom100to450t/day.
NipponSteelisamarketleaderinlargescaleMSWconversionapplications.
PKAUmwelttecnik(Aalen,Germany)
Thisisapyrolysisprocessfollowedbygasconverter(cracker).MSWfeedstockis
preprocessedtoremoveglass,metals,andothermarketablerecyclables.Theremaining
materialthengoesthroughasizereductionprocess.Dryingtobelow15%moistureis
recommended,butnotmandatory.Otherfeedstocksthatcanbeutilizedwiththesystem
includeautomobileshredderresidue(ASR),tires,industrialandplasticwasteand
contaminatedsoil.
Thepreprocessedmaterialisconveyedintoarotarypyrolysisdrumthatisexternally
heatedto930to1020
Fbyhotcombustiongas(fromburningnaturalgasduringstart
up,orfromburningaportionofthepyrolyticgasthatcanberecycledifavailablein
sufficientquantityandquality).Thefeedstockmaterialtakesuptoonehourtoadvance
102

throughthedrum.Thepyrolyticproductgasesandvaporsarethentransferredtoa
gasificationchamberwheretheyarecrackedtoaproducergasattemperaturesof1830
F,
cooled,andcleanedaccordingtotherequirementsforfinaluse.
Thepyrolyticcharcanbeconditionedbygrindingandseparatingouttheferrousand
nonferrousmetals.Usingaseparatesmeltingreactor,thecharfinescanbegasifiedwith
addedoxygenatatemperaturebetween2550to2730
Ftoyieldadditionalsyngasfor
combustionandproductionofavitrifiedslag.
APKAfacilityinAalen,Germany,hasbeenoperatingonablendofMSW,commercial
waste,andsewagesludgesince2001.Thisunithasacapacityof28,000t/year.The
facilityincludesachar/ashmelter.PKAhasa31,000t/yearunitinstalledin
Freiberg/Saxony,Germany,wherehighaluminiumcontentindustrialwasteis
pyrolyzedforrecoveryofthealuminium.Thealuminiumissenttoanadjacentmelting
plant.Pyrolysisgasisusedtosupplyheatforthemeltingplant.Thisfacilityhasbeen
operatingcontinuouslysincethesummerof2001.A9,000t/yearsewagedryingplant
hasbeenoperatingsince1993inBopfingen,Germany.Asmaller0.4t/yearfacilityhas
alsobeenusedfortestingsince1994.
ThePKAprocesstechnologyisalsolicensedtoToshibaCorp.ofJapanandismarketed
underthenameProductenEnergieCentrale(PEC)intheNetherlands.PECreportedly
hasreceivedapprovalfora150,000t/yearfacilityinDefile,Netherlands,thatwillhave
threelineseachof4t/yearcapacity.ECNhasalsooperatedasimilar25kWpilotplant
since1997fortestingofvariousbiomasswastes.
SVZ(SekundrrohstoffVerwertungszentrum)SchwarzePumpe,Germany
Waste/Biomass
Thisfacility,builttogasifypetroleumresiduesandcoalinthemid1960snowprocesses
MSWandhouseholdwastewithlesseramountsofpetroleumrefineryresiduesandcoal.
Thecapacityofthefacilityis495,000ton/yearand55,000ton/yofsolidwasteandliquid
water/oilresiduesrespectively.
49
Arecentsurvey
50
ofgasifiersutilizedprimarilyinthe
fossilenergysectorindicatesannualfeedstockflowsatSVZare1.3ton/yand190,000
t/yearforsolidandliquidwastesrespectively.Thereasonforthisdiscrepancyhasnot
beenpursued,butmaterialflowratesthroughthisfacilityaresubstantial.
Theproductsoftheprocessareelectricity(75MW)and300t/daymethanol(fromall
gasifiersandfeedstocks).
SVZclaimstoprocessplastics,wastewood,sewagesludge,domesticgarbage
(combinedorsourceseparated),andothersolidwastes.Liquidandslurrywasteoils,
solvents,paintsludges,etc.areprocessedaswell.

49.http://www.svzgmbh.de/GB/Seiten/rahmen.html
50.SFAPacificforU.S.DOENationalEnergyTechnologiesLaboratory(NETL):
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/gasification/models/models.html
103

Thereare10separategasifiersinthefacility.SevenareLurgiDryAshgasifiers,and
oneeachofLurgimultipurpose,BritishGasLurgi,andNoellKRCgasifiers.
TheLurgi(LurgiEnergie,Germany)
51
dryashgasifierisapressurizedoxygenand
steamblownmovingbedgasifier.Dryashreferstotheconditionthatashmaterial
doesnotreachitsmeltingtemperaturewhichwouldproducealiquidslag.Solid
feedstockentersthereactorthroughalockhopperatthetopandmovesdownthrough
thebed,whileoxygenandsteamareinjectedinthebottomandmoveupcounter
currentlytothesolidfuel.TheLurgimultipurposeisapressurized,oxygenblown
gasifierandconfig
uredforliquidfeedstocks.

BritishGasLurgifixedbedgasifierispressurizedandoxygen/steamblownsimilarto
theLurgidryash.Thedifferenceisthefuelispresentasasubstantialpiledmassinthe
reactorandslowlymovesdownasthematerialinthebottomofthepilereactsand
gasifies.Oxygenandsteamareinjectedintothefuelmasswithlancesandreaction
temperaturesareallowedtobehighenoughtomelt(orslag)theash,whichdrainsand
isremovedfromthebottom.Synthesisgasleavesnearthetopofthereactor.
TheNoellKRCgasifierisanentrainedflowgasifier(alsopressurizedandoxygen
blown).Theliquidorsmallparticlefuelisinjectedatthetopofthereactorwithoxygen.
Thefallingfuelparticlesreactwiththeoxygenandheat.Ashslagsandrunsdownthe
reactorwall.Synthesisgasandslagexitthereactionchambertogetherthroughanorifice
andarequenchedwithwatercondensingsomeofthetarsandcreatingvitrifiedash
granuleswhicheventuallyexitthepressurizedvesselthroughlockhoppers.
Thermoselect(Locarno,Switzerland)
TheThermoselectHighTemperatureRecycling(HTR)processwascommercially
demonstratedbeginninginFondotoce,Italy,in1989.Theprocessusesslowpyrolysis
followedbyfixedbedoxygenblown(atmosphericpressure)gasificationandash
melting(Calaminusetal.1998).Someinformationindicatesnaturalgasisburnedalong
withaportionoftheproducergastothegasifierforsupplementalenergyfor
gasification.Thismaybeduetovariabilityoffeedstockcharacter(e.g.moisture,
energeticvalue).
TheprocessacceptsunsortedMSW.Wasteisloadedintoachamberwhichispushed
andcompactedbyhydraulicpressandmoved(inplugflowfashion)througha
cylindricalheatingchamberwheredryingandsomepyrolysisoccurs.Attheendofthis
horizontalheating/pyrolysistube,thesolidmaterialfallsintoahightemperatureoxygen
blowngasifier.Organicmaterialisgasified,andashismeltedandallowedtoseparate
bydensitybeforebeingcooled.Producergasiscleanedandutilizedappropriately.
Recyclablemetalsandvitrifiedmineralsareuseableoutputs.Gascleaningcreatesa
sludgecontainingheavymetals.Heermannetal.(2001)indicatethat23kg/tonMSWof
naturalgasisaninput.Thisrepresentsabout12%oftheenergycontainedin1metric

51.SeeConversionTechnologydatabaseforLurgiEnergie.
104

tonofMSW.
52
Thesynthesisgascanbeusedforenergyproductionorpossible
chemicalsorliquidfuels.

ThereisoneclientownedfacilityinEurope(Karlsruhe,Germany)andtwoinJapan.The
Karlsruhefacilityhasbeenplaguedbycommissioningproblemscausingdelaysin
licensinganddesigningotherfacilitiesinGermany.Thisledtocancellationofsomeof
theEuropeanorders.Recentinformationindicatesthatthefacilityishavingfinancial
problemsandmayclose(Vehlow2004).TheJapanesefacilitiesseemedtoproceed
throughcommissioningmoreeasily,perhapsduetodifferentorbetterairpollution
controlsystems.
Theprocessisattractivebecauseofminimalorzerofeedstockpreparation/processing.
ThereasonsforthecommissionproblemsinKarlsruheneedtobelearned.
AUnitedStatesCompany,InterstateWasteTechnologies,ismarketingtheThermoselect
processinNorthAmericaandtheCaribbean.Thewebsiteindicatespotentialprojectsin
CostaRica,U.S.VirginIslands,andPuertoRico(lettersofintent,artistconceptual
drawingsoffacilities,etc.)
ThideEnvironmental(VoisinsLeBretonneux,France)
TheThideArthelyseprocessisarotatingdrumpyrolysisscheme(similarto
WasteGenUK,andPKA).Followingmaterialssortinganddrying,thematerialis
conveyedintotherotatingpyrolysisdrum.Residencetimeisapproximately30minutes.
Thesynthesisgasisburnedtoprovidetheheatforthepyrolyzerandprocesssteamfor
drying.
Thideseemstobetryingtomarketthesolidresiduecharasasolidfuelforuseoffsite.
Thecompanyclaimsthecharcanbewashedandseparatedfromthemetals,otherinerts,
andsolublesalts.Evenifcharwashingiseffective,itseemsthatitwouldbecostlyand
energyintensivepossiblymakingitunattractiveasanoffsitesolidfuel.
Thidereportsthatofthesolidsoutput(in%ofinputmaterialmass),4%isrecyclable
metal,10%isash,and23%isthewashedchar.
HitachihasthelicensefortheprocessinJapanandthereisasmallplantlocatedin
Nakaminatooperatingsince1999(capacityisabout10,000tony
1
).Alargerfacility
(50,000tony
1
)isunderconstructioninthetownofArrasandwasscheduledtodebutin
2004.
TPSTermiskaProcesserAB(Nykping,Sweden)
TPSisanemployeeownedcompanyinSwedenwithafairlylonghistoryingasification
andcombustionforheatandpowerfueledbybiomassandcoal.Alargeamountof
researchanddevelopmentisundertakenbythecompanyfromfundsprovidedbythe
SwedishNationalEnergyAdministration,theEuropeanCommunity(variousenergy

52.AssumesnaturalgasHigherHeatingValueof55MJ/kgandMSWHHVof10MJ/kg.
105

agencies),aswellasprivatecompanies.TPSspecializesinfluidizedbed,bothcirculating
(CFB)andbubbling(BFB)types,operatingincombustionorgasificationmodes.Gasifier
attributesincludeatmosphericorpressurized,usingair,oxygen,orsteaminjection.
TheirCFBdesignsarelicensed(underthenameofStudsvik)toseverallargeboiler
manufacturesthroughouttheworldincludingBabcockandWilcox(UnitedStates),
Kvaerner(Sweden),AustrianEnergy(Austria),andSERConsortium(Brazil).
TPSisalsoinvolvedinIGCCsystemsfueledbybiomass.Ademonstrationplantofthis
typehasbeenbuiltinEngland(ARBREproject)andhasbeenoperated.Itwasintended
tobewoodfueledwithadesigncapacityof8MWbuttheprojecthasterminated(see
sectiononBiomassIGCC).TPSwasalsoinvestigatinganddesigningtwoprojectsin
BrazilwhichwoulduseIGCCplants.Onewouldbefueledbybagasseandsugarcane
trash,andtheotherfromeucalyptustrees.Theprojectsarepurportedlyonholddueto
lackoffinancing(seesectiononBiomassIGCC).
Greve,Italy
Inthelate1980s,TPSlicensedtheCFBprocesstoAnsaldoofItalyandprovidedthe
designoftwogasifierstobefueledbypelletizedrefusederivedfuel(RDF).Theplant
wasbuiltbyAnsaldoandbeganoperationin1991.
Thetwo15MWthCFBgasifiersconsume100t/day(each)ofpelletizedRDFfromnearby
Florence.Thegasifiersareairblownandoperateslightlyaboveatmosphericpressure
near850C(belowashmeltingpoint).Rawgasleavingthecycloneparticleseparatoris
combustedinaboiler.Theboilerraisessteamwhichisexpandedthroughacondensing
turbine.Systemdesignisfor6.7MW.Thefacilitycanfeedgastoanearbycementplant
ifelectricityeconomicsareunfavorable.
ArecentcasestudyoftheGrevefacilitywaspublishedbytheIEATask36
53
(Energy
fromSolidWasteManagementSystems).Operationalproblemswiththeplanthave
beenexperienced.Thegasifiersthemselvesreportedlyoperateflawlesslybuttheboiler
foulswithflyashandcondensedtar.Steamproductionhasbeenlow.Atwophase
remediationprogramwasundertakenlatein1997withplannedcompletionin2000.The
modificationstothesystemincludeanewRDFplantwithbetterqualitycontroland
betterparticulateremovalfromthegasbeforeitenterstheboiler.Itwasunknownatthe
timeofGranatsteinspublicationwhethertheoperationalproblemswerefixedasthe
plantownershavenotreturnedrequestsforinformation.Thecasestudyincludesmass
andenergydiagramsandemissionsinformationaswellaseconomicdata.
WasteGenUK
54
WasteGenismarketingfacilitiestheyarecallingMaterialsandEnergyRecoveryPlants
(MERPS).ThiscompanyseemstobetheinheritorofthetechnologydevelopedbyPLEQ,

53.http://www.ieabioenergy.com/ourwork.php?t=36#36
54.http://www.wastegen.com/template.htm
106

adefunctEastGermancompanythatdevelopedarotarykilnpyrolyzertoconvert
municipalsolidwaste.FranzEickevonChristenisthetechnicaldirectorforthe
company.HewasafounderanddirectoroftheoriginalPLEQcompany.
AfullscaleunithasbeenoperatinginBurgau,Germany,since1987.Reportedly,the
plantisownedbythemunicipality.Itconsistsoftworotarykilns,20meterslongby2.2
metersindiameter.Eachprocessinglineiscapableof3t/hour.TheBurgauplantis
reviewedinbyHeermannetal.(2001).Some36,000t/hourofwastematerialis
pyrolyzedatthefacility.AmixtureofMSW,commercialwaste,bulkywastes,and
sewagesludgearemixedtogetherfromseparatestoragepits.Particlesizeisreducedto
lessthan4inchesandthenconveyedtotherotarykilns.Thekilnsareheatedby
combustionofaportionofthepyrolyticgas.Theremainingenergyinthepyrolysisgas
isrecoveredfromcombustinginaboilerproducingsteamfora2.2MW
turbine/generator.Itappearsthereisnosortingofthewasterequired.Ferrousmetalsare
recoveredafterpyrolysis.Thecharproductisnotusedandissenttolandfill.Dustand
flyashrecoveredinabaghousegascleaningsystemisconsideredhazardousbecauseof
heavymetalscontaminationandmustbedisposedofproperly.
Energyrecoveryisclaimedtobe470kWh/tonofinputmaterialwhichcorrespondsto
4.7t/hourofinputfeed.Thisfeedrateonanannualbasis(90%capacityfactor)wouldbe
37,000t/year,whichisessentiallyequivalenttothereportedannualinput.Onamass
basis,12%isrecoveredasrecyclablemetaland21%(pyrolysischarandflyash)issentto
landfill.
Heermannetal.(2001)giveaveryfavorablereviewoftheprocesswithhighmarksfor
reliability,minimalpreprocessing(nosorting),anddecentenergyrecovery.Thereport
concludesthattheprocessshouldberegardedasaleaderformediumtolargescale
pyrolysismixedwasteprocessing.
Biochemical MSW Conversion Systems
AnaerobicDigestionOverview
Biodegradationoforganicmaterialoccursinnaturethroughtheactionofbothaerobic
andanaerobicmicroorganisms.Inaerobicsystems,partialoxidationoftheingested
organicmaterialistheresultyieldingcarbondioxideandwaterandundigestedresidue.
Anaerobicbacteriawillalsodegradeorganicmatter,includingsomeabiogenicforms,in
theabsenceofoxygenwithultimateproductsbeingnonreactiveresidues,carbon
dioxide,andmethane.Thesebacterianaturallyoccurintheenvironmentinanaerobic
nichessuchasmarshes,sediments,wetlands,andthedigestivetractsofruminants
andcertainspeciesofinsects.Facultativeorganismsarecapableofpersistingineither
environment.
Anaerobicdigestionisafermentationtechniquetypicallyemployedinmanywastewater
treatmentfacilitiesforsludgedegradationandstabilizationbutalsotheprincipal
processoccurringinlandfills.LargedairiesandswinefarmsintheUnitedStatesare
turningtotheuseofADprimarilyasameanstomitigatetheenvironmentalimpactsof
107

manurelagoonswithsomecaptureofmethaneforenergyproduction.Manyhousehold
scaledigestersareemployedinruralChinaandIndiaandelsewherearoundthe
developingworldforwastetreatmentandgasproduction.Approximately5million
householdsinChinauseanaerobicdigesters.Thedigestersproducebiogasthatisused
asanenergysourcebythehouseholds,andproducefertilizerthatisusedinagricultural
production(Henderson2001).Europe,especiallyDenmark,hasdevelopedlargescale
centralizedsystemsforsolidwastestabilizationandenergygenerationasabyproduct.
AnaerobicDigestionProcessDescription
Anaerobicdigestionoflignocellulosicwasteoccursinathreestepprocess.Thesesteps
arehydrolysis,acetogenesis,andmethanogenesis.Themolecularstructureofthe
biodegradableportionofthewastethatcontainsproteinsandcarbohydratesisfirst
brokendownthroughhydrolysis.Thelipidsareconvertedtovolatilefattyacidsand
aminoacids.Carbohydratesandproteinsarehydrolyzedtosugarsandaminoacids.In
acetogenesis,acidformingbacteriausethesebyproductstogenerateintermediary
productssuchaspropionateandbutyrate.Furthermicrobialactionresultsinthe
degradationoftheseintermediaryproductsintohydrogenandacetate.Methanogenic
bacteriaconsumethehydrogenandacetatetoproducemethaneandcarbondioxide.A
schematicofthesepathwaysisgiveninFigure140.
108

Particulate Organic Material
Carbohydrates
(including cellulose
and hemicellulose)

Proteins
Amino acids, Sugars
Fatty acids
Acetate Hydrogen
METHANOGENESIS
(hydrogenotrophic)
METHANOGENESIS
(aceticlastic)
ACETOGENESI
S
HYDROLYSI
Methane
CO
2

Lipids
Major
Minor pathway

Figure 1-40. Anaerobic digestion pathways of presorted MSW

Photo Credit: Adapted from Gujer and Zehnder 1983

Anaerobicdigestionoperateswithoutfreeoxygenandproducesbiogas.Biogasconsists
principallyofmethaneandcarbondioxidebutalsohasimpuritiessuchasmoisture,
hydrogensulfide,andparticulatematter.Anaerobicdigestionrequiresattentiontothe
109

nutritionaldemandsofthebacteriadegradingthewastesubstrates.Thecarbon/nitrogen
ratioofthefeedstockisespeciallyimportant.Biogascanbeusedasfuelforengines,gas
turbines,fuelcells,boilers,industrialheaters,otherprocesses,andthemanufacturingof
chemicals(withemissionsandimpactscommensuratewiththosefromnaturalgas
feedstocks).
Anaerobicdigestersystemscanbecategorizedaccordingtowhetherthesystemusesa
singlereactorstageormultiplereactors.Insinglestagesystems,theessentialreactions
(hydrolysis/acidification,acetogenesis,andmethanogenesisFigure140)occur
simultaneouslyinasinglevessel.Withtwoormultistagereactors,thereactionstake
placesequentiallyinatleasttworeactors.
Singlestagesystemsaregenerallysimplertooperate,havefewercomponentsfor
maintenanceorfailure,andhavesmallercapitalcosts.Multistagesystemsofferthe
potentialtoincreasetherateofmethaneproductionandtheamountofoverall
biodegradationofthefeedstockbyseparatingandoptimizingthedifferentstepsofthe
biochemicalprocess.Multistagereactorsseparatethehydrolysis/acidificationfromthe
acetogenesisandmethanogenesisstages.
Anotherimportantclassificationordesignparameterissolidsconcentrationinthe
reactor.Solids(ortotalsolids,TS)areusuallyexpressedasafractionofthetotalmassof
thepreparedreactorfeedstock(typicallyasapercentagebyweight)andconstitutethe
drymatterfractionofthesubstrate.Theclassificationschemeforsolidscontentis
usuallydescribedasbeingeitherhighsolids(HS)orlowsolids(LS).HSsystemsarealso
calleddrysystemsandLSmaybereferredtoaswet.Apreparedfeedstockstreamwith
TSlessthan15%isconsideredlowsolids(wet)andfeedstockswithTSgreaterthan15%
areconsideredhighsolids(dry).InHSsystems,solidscontentisusuallykeptinthe
rangeof20to40%TS.Dilutionwithprocesswatertodesirablesolidscontentistypically
doneinfeedstockpreparationstages.
SingleStageSystems(LowSolids)
Singlestagewet(LS)anaerobicdigestionsystemsareattractivebecauseoftheir
similaritytoanaerobicstabilizationofWWTPs.Thesolidwastesarepulpedandslurried
tolessthan15%TSwithwatertoaconsistencynotunlikethatofbiosolidsbefore
stabilizationinWWTPs.Thoughconceptuallysimple,therearecertaindrawbacksto
singlestagewetsystemsincludingextensivepretreatment,higherwaterconsumption
andpotentiallyhighenergyrequirementstooperatethesystem.
AnearlyfullscalesinglestageLSplantfortreatingMSWwasbuiltinWaasa,Finland,
in1989(Figure141)(MataAlvarez2003).Thefeedstockishomogenizedanddiluted
usingwatertoobtaintherequiredsolidscontentinapulpingstep.Hydrolysisofthe
carbohydratesubstratewillbegininthepulpingoperation,althoughthemajorityofthe
hydrolysisphasetakesplaceinthereactortank.

110

METHANIZATION
Pre-chamber
Inoculation
loop
Heavies
PULPING
Biogenic
fraction of
MSW
Heat
addition
Compostin
DEWATERING
10-15%
Bioga
Recycle process water
Make-up
water
Water
treatment

Figure 1-41. Schematic of a typical single-stage LS digester
Photo Credit: Adapted from Mata-Alvarez 2003

Theslurryispumpedintoalargecompletemixreactor(alsocalledacontinuously
stirredtankreactor[CSTR])whereactivemixingkeepssolidsinsuspension.
PompanoBeach,Florida(Chynoweth2002)
Inthemid1970s,U.S.DOEfundedWasteManagementtodesign,construct,and
operate/demonstratetheseparationsandADconversiontechnologyforMSWata50to
100t/dayscale.Otheragencies,includingtheNationalScienceFoundationandtheGas
ResearchInstitutecontributedfunding.TheprojectwascalledRefCoM(Refuse
ConversiontoMethane).
Extensiveproblemswiththedesignandoperationwereexperiencedduringa2year
period.Eventually,experimentalrunslastingupto70dayswereperformedforraw
wastefeedrates,upto40t/day.
Thesystemconsistedofextensiveupfrontpreparation,includingamaterialsrecovery
facility(MRF),andshreddingandseparatingoperations.Thedigesterportion
incorporatedtwo1300m
3
CSTRreactorsoperatedatthermophilictemperatureswithTS
concentrationof3to7%.Chynoweth(2002)reportsthatbiogasproductionaveraged7.5
ft
3
(0.212m
3
)oftotalgasperpoundofvolatilesolids(methaneconcentrationwasabout
55%).
Aneconomicevaluationconductedin1990indicatedthata400t/dayfacilitybasedon
thePompanoBeachRefCoMdesignwouldrequireatippingfeefrom$36.50pertonup
to$53pertondependingonwhetherthefacilityispubliclyorprivatelyownedand
energyprices(Chynoweth2002).
111

TheADportionofthedesignwasconsideredtobetechnicallyfeasiblebytheRefCoM
demonstration.ThechoiceofawetdigestionsystemformixedMSW,whichrequired
extensiveupfrontpretreatment/separationoperations,isregardedasaflawwiththe
PompanoBeachproject(R.W.Beck2004).
AtrueCSTRsystemwhichhascontinuousinflowandoutflowwillexperience
somethingcalledshortcircuitingwhichisthepassageofaportionofthefeedthrough
thereactorwithashorterretentiontimethanthatfortheaveragebulkmaterial.Short
circuitingdiminishesbiogasyieldandemitsalessbiologicallystabilizedeffluent.To
counteractshortcircuitingincompletemixreactors,somesystemsuseaprechamber
wherethefeedstockisinoculatedwithorganismsfromthereactorvessel(Figure141).
Thematerialintheprechambermovesinplugorpistonflow,whichtakesseveral
daystogofromthepointofinjectiontowhereitjoinsthecompletemixportionofthe
reactor,thusensuringallmaterialenteringtheprocesshasaguaranteedminimum
retentiontime.Theprocesscanbeoperatedatboththermophilic(approximately130F)
andmesophilic(approximately95F)temperatures.TheplantinWaasa,Finland,has
bothtypesrunninginparallelwiththethermophilicprocesshavingaretentiontimeof
10daysandthemesophilicprocesshavingaretentiontimeof20days.
Thepretreatmentrequiredtoobtainadequateslurryqualitywhileremovingcoarseor
heavycontaminantsiscomplexandinevitablyincura15to25%lossofvolatilesolids
(Farneti1999).Mechanicalmixingand/orinjectionofaportionofthebiogasintothe
bottomofthereactortankisusedtokeepthematerialcontinuouslystirredand
homogenousaspossible.However,energyforvigorousmixingissubstantial,so
practicalsystemsrequiremeanstoremoveheavymaterialthatdoesntremain
suspendedaswellasafloatingscumlayerwhichcanbuilduptoseveralfeetthick.
SingleStageSystems(HighSolids)
Indry,orHS,systems,thefermentingmassiskeptatasolidscontentof20to40%TS
(equivalentto60to80%moisture).Thephysicalcharacteristicsofmaterialatthehigher
solidscontentrequiredifferentapproachestohandlingandpretreatment(i.e.,conveyor
belts,screws,andspecialpumpsforthehighlyviscousstreams).Assinglestagewet
systemswerebasedonthewellestablishedanaerobicdigestionofwastewaters,
researchinthe1980sindicatedthebiogasyieldandproductionratewereashighor
greaterinsystemsthatkeptthewastefeedstocksintheiroriginalsolidstate(i.e.,not
slurriedwithwater)(Farneti1999).Thechallengeofthesesystemsishandling,mixing,
andpumpingofthehighsolidsstreamsratherthanmaintainingthebiochemical
reactions.
Althoughsomeofthehandlingsystemsmaybemoreexpensivethanthoseforwet
systems(suchashighsolidspumps),theHSsystemsaregenerallymorerobustand
flexibleregardingacceptanceofrocks,glass,metals,plastics,andwoodpiecesinthe
reactor.Thesematerialsarenotbiodegradableanddonotcontributetobiogas
productionbuttheygenerallycanpassthroughthereactorwithoutaffectingconversion
112

ofthebiomasscomponents.Theonlypretreatmentrequiredisremovalofthelarger
pieces(greaterthan2inches),andminimaldilutionwithwatertokeepsolidscontentin
thedesiredrange.
Becauseoftheirhighviscosity,materialinHSreactorsmovesviaplugflowwithlittle
mixing.Thispresentstheproblemofinoculatingnewlyinjectedfeedstockwithaportion
ofthefermentingmass.Atleastthreecommercialscaledesignshavebeendeveloped
whichadequatelyinoculatesthefeedstockbymixingaportionofthedigestedmaterial
orrecirculatingbiogas(Figure142).

Feed
Digeste
d paste
A
Feed
Digeste
d paste
Inoculum loop
B
Feed
Biogas
Biogas
Bioga
C
Digeste
d paste
Biogas recirculation
provides inoculant
Figure 1-42. High solids single stage digester designs, A Dranco, B Kompogas, C
Valorga

TheDrancoprocess,diagrammedinFigure142(A),mixessomedigestedpastewiththe
incomingfeedandpumpsthemixturetothetopofthereactorvessel.Fermenting
materialflowsdownward,eventuallyexitingatthebottomwithbiogasbeingrecovered
throughthetop.TheKompogasreactoralsomixesaportionofthedigestatewiththe
incomingfeed.Thisprocessisahorizontalplugflowreactorwiththematerialmoving
fromtheinputendtotheoppositeend.Thehorizontalreactorhasasetofinternal
impellersthatslowlymovethematerialalong(someamountofmixingisprovidedas
well).TheKompogassystemrequiresacarefuladjustmentofTStoabout23%(Mata
Alvarez2003).IfTSistoolow,heavymaterialstendtoaccumulateonthebottomanddo
notexitthesystem,whilehigherTSvaluesbecometoodifficulttomove.Thethird
113

conceptinFigure142wasadoptedbytheValorgaprocess.Thisreactorconsistsofa
verticalcylinderwithaverticalinnerwallmountedalongadiameterofthereactorbut
onlyextendingabout2/3ofthewayacrosstotheoppositeside.Materialentersatthe
bottomononesideoftheinnerwallandmustflowacircularpathtopasstotheother
sidewallbeforeitexits(DeLaclos1997).Biogasisperiodicallyreinjectedinthebaseof
thereactoroneithersideofthedividingwalleffectingsomeverticalmixingandsolids
suspensionwithnomechanicalmixingdevicesinsidethedigester.Thegasmixingand
solidscirculationresultininoculumtransfertoinfluentfeed.
MultiStageSystems
Multistagesystemsaredesignedtotakeadvantageofthefactthatdifferentportionsof
theoverallbiochemicalprocesshavedifferentoptimalconditions.Byseparately
optimizingprimaryandsecondaryconditions,theoverallratecanbeincreased.
Typically,twostageprocessesattempttooptimizethehydrolysisandacidification
reactionsinthefirststagewheretherateislimitedbyhydrolysisofcellulose.The
secondstageisoptimizedforacetogenesisandmethanogenesiswheretherateinthis
stageislimitedbymicrobialgrowthrate.Withmultistaging,itispossibletoincrease
hydrolysisratebyapplyingamicroaerophilicprocess.Thisprocessusesminimalairto
allowsomeaerobicorganismstobreakdownsomeoftheligninthatmakesmore
celluloseavailableforhydrolysis.Theairwouldinhibitthemethanogenicorganismsif
theywerepresentastheywouldbeinasinglestagereactor.Figure143depictsabasic
twostageADsystemwithhydrolysisoccurringinthehighsolidsfirststageand
methanogenesisoccurringinthelowsolidssecondstage.

Composting
Make-up
water
Waste and Water
Treatment
(and/ or compost
and liquid fertilizer)
Biogas
Dewaterin
Note: 2
nd
Stage could be:
CSTR,
UASB,
Fixed Film, (among others)
STAGE 2
(methanogenesis
Solid
Feed
STAGE 1
(hydrolysis)
Liquid Recycle
Liquid

Figure 1-43. Simple schematic of two-stage anaerobic digestion system (high solids first
stage, low solids second stage)

114

115

Asmentionedearlier,inEuropethereareapproximately7ADplantsusingtwostage
designsand79singlestageplants.Itwasexpectedthatmoreofthemultistagesystems
wouldbeinoperationbynow,butthedegreeofincreasedyieldandratesdemonstrated
inlabscalemultistagesystemshavenotbeenachievedincommercialunits.
PerformanceofSomeCommercialandPracticalPilotScaleFacilities
Table132listssomemethaneproductionvaluesreportedonaperVSbasisforsome
commercialfacilitiesinEuropeandsomepilotscaleexperiments.Someofthefeedstocks
arecharacterized.
Thesefacilitiesarenominallyoperatedatthermophilictemperature(around130F)and
retentiontimesofabout15days.
TheSEBACexperimentswereconductedfor21and42dayswithbatchreactorsat120F.
Thistemperaturewasusedbecauseitrepresentedthenaturaltemperatureexpectedto
resultfrommetabolicheatasdeterminedbysystemscalculations(Okeefeetal.1993).
MethaneproductionfromtheDrancoplantscitedintheliteratureseemsrespectableand
reflectsthefactthefeedstocksaregenerallysourceseparatedandthefoodandgreen
wastesaretargetedfortheAD.

Table 1-32. Performance data of some commercial and pilot AD facilities
Plant (or reference) Feedstock TS (%)
VS/TS
(%)
VS
(g/g input)
VS
reduction
(%)
CH
4
production
(l/g VS)
CH
4
production
(g /g VS)
CH
4
Energy
(MJ/kg VS)
CH
4
Energy
(MJ/kg Input)
Dranco, Salzberg (De Baere, 2000)
80%Kitchen
20% Garden wastes
31 70 0.217 70 0.34 0.24 13.6 2.9
Dranco, Bassum (De Baere, 2000) "Grey" waste 57 51 0.2907 60 0.28 0.20 11.0 3.2
Dranco, Brecht (De Baere, 2000)
15% Kitchen
75% Garden
10% Paper wastes
40 55 0.22 52 0.26 0.18 10.2 2.2
Venice (Cecchi et al., 1989) 0.25 0.18 10.1
France/Valorga (begouen et al., 1988) 0.22 0.16 8.7
Marseille (Marty et al., 1986) 35 0.20 0.15 8.1
SEBAC pilot 42 days (O'Keefe et al., 1993)
60% paper,
6% yard waste
71 81 0.5751 49.7 0.19 0.14 7.5 4.3
95% paper,
2% yard waste
65.6 92.5 0.6068 40.6 0.19 0.14 7.5 4.6
60% paper,
6% yard waste
71 81 0.5751 36.0 0.16 0.11 6.3 3.6
Venice (Cecchi et al., 1989) 0.16 0.11 6.3

116

StatusofMSWAnaerobicDigestioninEurope
Anaerobicdigestionsystemsusingsolidwastefeedstocksaremorewidelyutilizedin
Europe.EuropeanCommunitypolicieshavedevelopedtominimizetheamountof
materialbeinglandfilled.Thesepoliciesaredrivenbyseveralfactorsincludinglimited
spacefornewlandfills,andtheneedsformethaneemissionreductionsandincreased
renewableenergyproductionbecauseofKyotoProtocolrequirements.Examplesof
policiesimplementedtoreducematerialflowtolandfillinEuropeincludeGermanys
ExtendedProducerResponsibility(EPR)approachthatrequiresmanufacturerstobe
responsibleforrecoveryofpackagingmaterial,andrestrictionsontheamountof
biodegradablematerialthatcanbedisposedinlandfills
ADandaerobiccompostingofkitchen,foodprocessor,andgardenwastesiswell
establishedinEurope.ToimprovethequalityoffeedstocksusedinADandcomposting
operations,sourceseparationofhouseholdandcommercialfoodandgardenwastesis
utilizedextensively.Atleast11EuropeanUnioncountrieshaveimplementedorare
abouttoimplementsourceseparationforfoodandgreenwastes.
55
InSwitzerlandfor
example,approximately220lbperpersonperyearofsourceseparatedfoodandgreen
wasteiscollected.About12%ofthematerialisstabilizedbyADfacilities,andthe
balanceiscomposted(Ludwig2003).Germanyhasmorethan500facilitiesthattreat
morethan8milliont/yearofgreenandfoodwastesinbiochemicaltreatmentfacilities,
withthemajoritybeingaerobiccompostfacilities(Kubleretal.2000).
AreviewofADintheorganicwasteindustryinEuropewasdonein2000andupdated
in2003(DeBaere2000;DeBaere2003).Inthe2003update,86ADfacilitieswere
identifiedaseitheroperatingortobeunderconstructionby2004withcapacitygreater
than3,000metrict/year,andwithatleast10%ofthetreatedfeedstockfrommunicipalor
commercialorganicwaste.Manyofthesefacilitieswillcodigestanimalwastesand
municipalwastewatersludges.InSpain,the13largecapacityplants,whichaverage
70,000t/year,willbeanaerobicallytreatingnearly7%ofthebiodegradableMSWbythe
endof2004(DeBaere2003).ForallofEurope,theinstalledcapacityin2000was1.1
milliont/yearandwasprojectedtoincreaseto2.8milliont/yearin2004,anincreaseof
approximately250%infouryears.Figure144showsinstalledcapacityofMSWAD
facilitiesbetween1990and2004.Figure145showshowthecapacityisdistributed
betweensingleandtwostagesystems.Singlestageanaerobicdigestersaccountfor
approximately92%oftheinstalledADcapacityinEurope.

55.EuropeanCompostNetwork,http://www.compostnetwork.info/biowaste/index.htm
117

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
s
/
y
)
*

*Data projected for 2004
Figure 1-44. Growth of solid waste anaerobic digester capacity in Europe

Photo Credit: Adapted from De Baere 2000 and 2003
118

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
s
/
y
)
Single Stage Two Stages
*

*Data projected for 2004
Figure 1-45. Installed AD capacity by stage in Europe
Photo Credit: De Baere, 2000 and 2003
Biochemical MSW conversion Facilities and Companies
Valorga(Montpellier,France)
TheValorgaprocesswasdesignedtotreatorganicsolidwaste.Itisananaerobic
digestionprocessandacceptsMSWafterappropriateseparationofrecalcitrantfraction.
Theprocessdilutesandpulpstheorganicfractiontoabout30%solidscontent.Thisis
consideredahighsolidsprocess.Steamisusedforheating/maintainingtemperaturein
thereactorsasnecessary.Mesophilicorthermophilicsystemsareuseddependingon
feedstockandeconomics.
Thereactorisacontinuousonestepplugflowprocess.Thereactorconsistsofavertical
outercylinderwithaninnerwallaboutthe2/3ofthediameteroftheouterone.Material
entersatthebottomononesideofinnerwallandmustflowuponesideanddownthe
othersidebeforeitcanexit(deLaclosetal.1997).Theretentiontimeisontheorderof
threeweeks.Biogasisinjectedinthebaseofthereactorandthebubblesserveasa
meansformixingandkeepingsolidssuspended(gasmixed).Thedigestateisdewatered
andcanbecomposted.Table133listsexistingfacilities.
119

Table 1-33. Valorga process installations
56

Material
Capacity
(ktonnes/y)
Start-up
Date
Bottrop Germany Kitchen waste 6.5 1995
Geneva Switzerland Kitchen/Green waste 10 2000
Engelskirchen Germany Kitchen/Green waste 35 1998
Freiburg Germany Kitchen/Green waste 36 1999
Tilberg The Netherlands Kitchen waste 52 1994
Bassono Italy Sorted MSW/sludge 55 2003
Mons Belgium Sorted MSW 59 2002
Amiens France Sorted MSW 85 1988
Varennes-Jarcy France Sorted MSW 100 2002
Cadiz Spain Sorted MSW 115 2002
Barcelona Spain Sorted MSW 120 2004
Hanover Germany Sorted MSW/sludge 125 2002
La Coruna Spain Sorted MSW 142 2001
Location
Adapted from corporate webpage, http://www.steinmuller-valorga.fr/index_en.php, and Velma 2002.

WehrleWerkAG(Emmendingen,Germany)
BiopercolatProcess
WerleWerkAGisalargecompanyactiveinthermalconversionofbiomassandMSW
withseveralcombustionfacilities.Thecompanyisalsoactiveinwastewatertreatment
whichhasledtoitsinvolvementwiththesolidwastedigestionfacilityatKahlenberg
(2000t/year).ThefacilityusestheBiopercolatprocess.
TheBiopercolatprocessisamultistagehighsolidsprocess(Verma2002),Figure146.
Thefirsthydrolysisstageiscarriedoutunderpartialaerobicconditions.Processwateris
continuallypercolatedthroughthemechanicallyagitated(andslightlyaerated)
hydrolysischamber(ahorizontaltunnelmuchliketheWrightMBTsystem).The
leachatehydrolysiswaterisfedtoananaerobicplugflowfilterfilledwithsupport
materialoperatingasanupflowanaerobicblanketsludgereactor.Theprocesshasa
retentiontimeofonlysevendays.

56.Adaptedfromcorporatewebpage,http://www.steinmullervalorga.fr/index_en.php,and
Velma2002.
120

Composting
Make-up
water
Note: 2
nd
Stage
operates in plug flow
through fixed film
support media)
Waste and Water
Treatment
(and/ or compost
and liquid fertilizer)
Biogas
Dewaterin
Liquid
Solid
Feed
STAGE 1
(microaerobic
hydrolysis)
STAGE 2
(methanogenesis
Liquid Recycle

Figure 1-46. Simple schematic of Biopercolat process (high solids first stage, low solids
second stage)
Photo Credit: Adapted from Mata-Alvarez 2003.

WrightEnvironmentalManagement(Ontario,Canada)
WrightEnvironmentalManagementsuppliesinvesselcompostingsystems.Theseare
managedandacceleratedaerobicconversionprocesses.Thematerialisloadedintoa
tunnellikeenclosureandmovesslowlyinplugflow.Anyleachateisrecirculatedand
airisactivelypumpedthroughthematerialthroughoutthelengthoftheenclosure.In
situmixingandmoisturemanagementresultsina10to14dayretentiontimefor
material.Excessairandgaseousproductscanbefedthroughabiofilterforodorcontrol
beforereleasetotheenvironment.Thesystemismodularandcapacitiescanbescaled
from600lbs.to30tonsperdaythroughoneenclosuretube.
MSWcanbeprocessedafterappropriateseparationofnoncompostablematerial.
Thecompanylistsseveralreferenceplants,whichinclude:
Aberdeenshire,Scotland 32,000t/yMSW
IsleofWright,England 22,000t/ymixedfood/greenwaste
Dept.ofCorrections,Powhatan,Va. 730t/yfoodwaste
Dept.ofCorrections,Ogendburg,N.Y. 730t/yfoodwaste
AlleghenyCollege,Pa. 365t/yfoodwaste
Albany,N.Y. 18,250t/yorganicfractionMSW
121

CiTec(Finland/Sweden)
CiTecisagroupofFinnishandSwedishcompanieswiththemajorityofoperations
originatingfromtheVaasa,Finland,office.TheWaasaprocesswasdevelopedbyCiTec.
TheWaasaProcess
Thisisasinglestagewet(totalsolidslessthan15%)ADsystem.Fortheorganic
fractionofMSWtobeusedinthissystem,itmustundergopretreatmentinapulper
whichshreds,homogenizes,anddilutesthematerialtothedesiredconcentrationoftotal
solids(10to15%TS).Recycledprocesswaterandsomefreshmakeupwaterareusedin
thedilution.Theslurryisthendigestedinlargecompletemix(completelystirred)
reactors.Thepretreatmentrequiredtoobtainadequateslurryqualitywhileremoving
coarseorheavycontaminantsiscomplexandinevitablyincura15to25%lossofvolatile
solidsfromtheportionreachingthedigester(Farneti1999).Mechanicalimpellersand
injectionofaportionofthebiogasintothebottomofthereactortankareusedtokeep
thematerialcontinuouslystirredandashomogenousaspossible.Toreduceshort
circuitingofthefeed(i.e.,passageofaportionofthefeedthroughthereactorwitha
shorterretentiontimethanthatfortheaveragebulkmaterial),aprechamberwithinthe
mainreactortankisused.Freshmaterialfromthepulperenterstheprechamberalong
withsomeofthebiomassfromthemaintankforinoculation.Figure147showsa
schematicoftheWaasadigesterprocess.Theprechamberoperatesinplugflowtakinga
dayortwobeforethematerialmakesitswayintothemainreactor,thusensuringall
materialenteringtheprocesshasaguaranteedfewdaysretentiontime.Evenwiththe
prechamberarrangement,enoughshortcircuitingoccursthatallpathogensarenot
eliminatedrequiringapasteurizationstepinthepretreatment.Steamisinjectedinthe
pulpertomaintainfeedat70Cforonehour.
Theprocesscanbeoperatedatboththermophilicandmesophilictemperaturesandthe
plantatVaasahasbothtypesrunninginparallel(thethermophilicprocesshasa
retentiontimeof10dayswhile20daysisrequiredinthemesophilicdesign).The
operationalperformance(manufacturerssummarydata)indicatesthatgasproduction
isintherange100to150m
3
/tonofbiowasteadded,volumereductionof60%,weight
reduction50to60%,anda20to30%internalconsumption(heat)ofbiogas.The
digestatecanbefurthertreatedbyaerobiccomposting,butthisdependsonthewaste
quality.
SeveralplantsareoperationalinEuropeandJapanbasedontheWaasaprocess.
Capacitiesrangefrom3,000to90,000tonsperyear(seeTable134).
122

Table 1-34. List of Waasa process AD sites
57

Feedstock
Scale
(t/yr)
Temp
. (C)
Year
began
Operation
Status
Output
Elect.
(kWe)
Output
heat
(kWth)
Kil Sweeden Biowaste 3000 55 1998 Operational 0 228
Vaasa Finland MSW 15000 55 1994 Operational 300 620
Pinerolo Italy MSW /Sludge 30000* 55 2003 Completion 1200 1880
Groningen The NetherlandsMSW 85000* 55 1999 Operational 1920 3000
Friesland The NetherlandsMSW 90000* 55 2002 Start-up 2000 3140
Tokyo Japan (Ebara) Biowaste/Sludge 500 55 1997 unknown
Ikoma Japan (Ebara) Biowaste/Sludge 3000 55 2001 unknown
Shimoina Japan (Ebara) Biowaste/Sludge 5000 37 2001 unknown
Jouetsu Japan (Ebara) Biowaste/Sludge 12000 55 2001 In operation
* From pretreatment
Waasa (CiTec) System
Locations
Adapted from CiTec Waasa Reference List

Pre-chamber
Inoculation
loop
Heavies
Biogenic fraction
of MSW
Composting
Heat
addition
Make-up
water
Water
treatment
Biogas
PULPING
METHANIZATION
DEWATERING
10-15% TS

Figure 1-47. Schematic of single-stage low solids AD system, Vaasa, Finland

LindeKCADresdenGmbH(Dresden,Germany)
LindeKCAisalargeengineeringdesign/buildfirmactiveinpharmaceuticals,chemical
andwastewaterandsolidwastetreatment.
Thecompanyisactiveinbothlowandhighsolids(wetanddry)digestionsystems(see
Figures148and149),andmechanicalbiologicaltreatmentsystems(MBT)for
separatedMSW.MBTsystemsincludeaerobiccompostingsystemswithmechanical

57.AdaptedfromCiTecWaasaReferenceList,
http://www.citec.fi/ang/eng/enviroment/Wassa_process/Ref_biogas.pdf
123

manipulationofthefeedstockandintensiveaeration.Somesystemsincludeintensive
aerobicdigestionasapreprocessforafeedstockthatislateranaerobicallydigested.The
companyreportsitwasthedesignerbuilderoftheworldslargestcompostfacilityin
Bangkok,Thailandwithanoutputof1200t/day.

Figure 1-48. Linde-KCA two stage wet digestion system

Figure 1-49. Linde-KCA dry digestion plug flow system
Photo Credit: Linde-KCA

Lindehasdesigned,built,andoperatedafacilityinRadeberg,Germany,which
codigestssourceseparatedbiogenicwastesfromhouseholdandindustrialsourcesalong
withsewagesludgefromwastewatertreatment.Thecompanyreportsthatthisco
digestionconceptenhancesdegradationofthesewagesludgecomponentofthe
feedstock(increasesbiogasproductionfromthesewagesludge)anddecreasedcapital
andoperatingcostscomparedtothosefortwoseparatefacilities.
124

AnothercodigestionfacilitydesignedandbuiltbyLindeislocatedonadairyfarmin
Behringen,Germany.Theplanttakesthelowsolidsmanureandcodigests,withgrease
fromrestaurantgreasetraps,solidsfrompigmanure,andarangeofotherfood
processingwasteincludingbrewerysludge,rapeseedpresscake,andlowgradeseed
potatoes.Thefacilityprocessesabout100t/day(wet)ofwhich75%isdairycowmanure.
Thefacilityproducesabout650kWfromtwoJenbacher450kWgensets.Thirtypercent
ofthepowerproductionisusedonsiteforoperatingtheplantandthedairywiththe
balancesoldtothegrid.
Recentordersforcompanyprojectsincludeamechanicalbiologicalintegratedwaste
treatmentplanttobelocatedatthelandfillinLeipzigCrobern.Thefacilitywillinclude
materialseparationandrecovery.Thecapacitywillbe300,000t/year.Onethirdofthe
materialwillberecycled,onethirdthermallyconverted,andonethirdtreated
biologically.Residuesfromthethermalandbiologicaltreatmentswillbelandfilled.
AnothermechanicalbiologicalwastetreatmentplanthasbeenorderedforFridhaff,
Luxemburg.
Projectscurrentlyunderconstructioninclude:
MunicipalSolidWasteTreatmentPlantECOARCIinBarcelona,Spain:wet
pretreatment,AD,andcompostingofMSW.
MunicipalSolidWasteTreatmentPlantPINTOinPinto/Madrid,Spain:wet
pretreatment,AD,andcompositingforMSW.
BiowasteTreatmentPlant,Lisbon,Portugal:organicfractionofMSW.
Kompogas(Glattbrugg,Switzerland)
KompogashasseveraloperatingorplannedunitsthroughoutEurope.Kompogasplants
arealsoinJapanandafacilityinMartiniqueisunderconstruction(totalof
approximately25operatingorplannedplants).
Theprocessisoptimizedongreenwasteandkitchenwasteforfermentationtobiogas.
Thebiogaswillrunsmallenginesforheatandpoweror,insomecases,itisupgradedto
naturalgasstandards(removeCO2andH2Oandotherdilutents)andgoesinto
Switzerlandswelldevelopednaturalgasvehiclefuelingsystems,thusconverting
householdorganicwastesintoatransportationfuel.
TheKompogassystemisahighsolids,thermophilicsinglestagedigestionsystem
(Verma2002).ItcanbeclassifiedasanMBT.Thereactionvesselisahorizontalcylinder
intowhichfeedisintroduceddaily.Movementofmaterialthroughthedigesterisina
horizontalplugflowmannerwithdigestedmaterialbeingremovedfromthefarendof
thereactorafterapproximately20days.Anagitatorwithinthereactionvesselmixesthe
materialintermittently.Thedigestateisdewatered,withsomeofthepresswaterbeing
125

usedasaninoculumsourceandtheremainderbeingsenttoananaerobicwastewater
treatmentfacilitywhichalsoproducesbiogas.
ISKA(UplusUmweltserviceAG,Ettlingen,Germany)
TheISKApercolationprocessisusedfortheputresciblefractionofthewastestream.It
involvesahighdegreeofmechanicalsorting/separatinginthepreprocessingstepsas
wellasinthehydrolysisanddigestionportionsoftheprocessfinishingwiththe
dewateringofthedigestate.ThisisclassifiedasMBTofMSW.
Biodegradablematerialisfirstseparatedfromthestreamandthenissubjectedtoa
hybridaerobic/anaerobicdegradationprocess.TheISKAprocessusesaerobicmeansfor
hydrolysisofinsolubleorganicmaterialtoreducetheoverallprocess(retention)time.
Afterthispercolationstep,thematerialpassestostandardanaerobicmethodsfor
productionofbiogasandreductionofmass.Thedigestateisthendewateredandsentto
aerobiccompostingorconversionbythermalmeanstoenergyorotherproducts.ISKA
literature
58
indicatesthattheenergyavailablefromthebiogasproductionisroughly
sufficienttopowertheprocess.Tocreateexportableenergy,thedewatereddigestate
andthenondigestedstreammustbeconverted(thermally).TheISKAcompany
informationalsoindicatesitispretreatingMSWandsendingtheresidualsolidtoSVS
SchwarzePumpegasificationfacilitywhichmakesmethanolandpower.
ThecommercialscaledemonstrationplantatBuchen,Germany,willbeexpanded(to
150,000metrictons/year)toacceptMSWfromtheLudwigsburgarea.TheISKAprocess
waschosenforanewfacilitynearSydney,Australia.Thecapacitywillbe170,000metric
tons/yearatfullbuildout.TheconstructionbrokegroundinJuly2003.
EcoTec(Finland):WABIOProcess
ThisADprocessistargetedfortheMSWstream.Thesystemincludesreceiving,sorting,
mechanicalpreconditioning,digestion,anddewateringofthedigestateforpossible
furthercompostingprocessing.
Thedigestionprocessoccursinasinglestagelowsolidsreactor.Itoperatesinthe
mesophilictemperatureregion.
ThreeplantsinEuropearelistedinapartnercompanywebsite.
59
Theirlocationsare
VaasaandForssa,Finland,andBottrop,Germany(6500t/yearsourceseparatedwaste).
AUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramwebsite
60
discussesaproposedWabioAD
facilityforthecityofKalyan,India.Thescalewouldbe55,000t/year.Noscheduleis
givenfortheprojectandfurthersearchingcouldnotdeterminetheexistenceorstatusof
theproject.

58.http://www.iskagmbh.de/allgemeine%20grafiken/iska_engl.pdf
59.http://www.casa2000.net/wsludgewabioplants.htm
60.http://www.undp.org.in/programme/GEF/september/page1620.htm
126

OrganicWasteSystems(Gent,Belgium):DrancoProcessandSordisepSystem
OrganicWasteSystems(OWS)wasestablishedin1988andmaintainsbiodegradability
labsinBelgiumandOhio.OWSalsohasanexclusivepartnerinJapanforproposed
facilitiesthere.Thecompanydesigns,builds,andoperatesADplantsforMSW.The
companyalsoconsultsonbiodegradationandwastemanagement.
OWShasdevelopedtheDranco(DryAnaerobicComposting)processaswellasthe
Soridsep(SortingDigestionSeparation)integratedwastesystem.Thetechnologyis
patentedunderinternationalpatentnumberWO02102966.
TheDrancoprocesswasdevelopedinthelate1980s.Itisahighsolids(15to40%TS),
singlestageADsystemthatoperatesatthermophilictemperatures(Verma2002).Feedis
introducedintothetopofthereactor,andmovesverticallyasplugflow.Aportionof
thedigestateisrecycledasinoculationmaterial,whiletherestisdewateredtoproduce
anorganiccompostmaterial.Thereisnomixingwithinthereactor,otherthanthat
broughtaboutbythedownward,plugflowmovementofthewasteandsomegas
bubblingupwards.Sourceseparatedhouseholdandindustrialwastesarepreferred.
Existingcommercialsystems(seeTable135)arereportedtohavebiogasproduction
ratesintherangeof6to10m
3
biogasperm
3
reactorvolumeperday(orabout120m
3
biogasperwettonoffeedstock,Table136).TheDrancoprocessproducesacompost
productandheatorelectricityfromthebiogas.Thecompanyreportselectricity
productioncanrangefrom0.1to0.3MWh/tonfeedstock.
Figure150showsaschematicwithamassbalanceforanoperatingDRANCOsystem.
Figure151showssomeofthereactordetail.

127

Table 1-35. Organic Waste Systems Dranco References
61

Scale
(ktonne/y)
Year Began
Operation
Brecht I Belgium 20 1992
Salzburg Austria 20 1993
Bassum Germany 13.5 1997
Aarberg Switzerland 11 1998
Villeneuve Switzerland 10 1999
Kaiserslautern Germany 20 1999
Brecht II Belgium 50 2000
Alicante Spain 30 2002
Rome Italy 40 2003
Laeonberg Germany 30 2004
Hille Germany 38 2005
Mnster Germany 24 2005
Terrassa Spain 25 2005
Pusan South Korea 75 2005
Victoria Spain 20 2006
Dranco Process Locations

http://www.ows.be/

Table 1-36. Feedstock and gas production for three Dranco facilities (De Baere 2000)

(l/g VS) (g/g VS) (MJ/kg VS) (MJ/kg Input)
Salzberg
80%Kitchen
20% Garden wastes
31 70 0.22 70 0.34 0.24 13.6 2.9
Bassum "Grey" waste 57 51 0.29 60 0.28 0.20 11.0 3.2
Brecht
15% Kitchen
75% Garden
10% Paper wastes
40 55 0.22 52 0.26 0.18 10.2 2.2
CH
4
Production
Feedstock
TS
(%)
VS/TS
(%)
VS
(g/g Input)
VS reduction
(%)
Plant

61.http://www.ows.be/
128

1 2 3 4 5 6
tons / year 22 500 7 500 1 200 6 900 7 050 31 050
FEEDING
PUMP
FLARE
GAS STORAGE
STEAM
GENERATOR
GAS ENGINES
GENERATORS
Electricity
Biogas
DRANCO
DIGESTER
2 550 m
Steam
Residue to
Post-treatment
1. Biowaste
2. Other organics
DOSING UNIT
6
3
5
1
2
Process Water
4
SHREDDER < 40 mm

Figure 1-50. Schematic and mass balance of the Dranco process
Photo Credit: OWS

129

Reactor Tank
Reactor Feed
Tubes
Mixing and
digestate
recirculation pump
Figure 1-51. Drawing of the Dranco reactor
Photo Credit: OWS

BTA(Munich,Germany)(CanadaComposting,NorthAmericanLicensee)
BTAfacilitiescanbesingleormultistageADprocessfortheorganicfractionofMSW.
Methaneandcompostablesolidresidueareproducedaswellasaliquidresiduewhich
canbemarketedasliquidfertilizer.Theprocessusesalowsolidsconcentrationslurry
andcanbeoperatedinmesoorthermophilictemperatureranges.
Theprocessincludesequipmenttoseparateinorganicandsomenondigestibleorganic
(plastics)fromtheincomingwastematerial.Aftersorting,theorganicfractionisdiluted
toabout10%(lowsolidsconcentration)anddigestedinsingleormultiplestages
dependingonfacilityandwastestreamrequirements.BTAhaslicensedtheProcessto
MATMllundAbfalltechnikforWesternEuropetoBiotecSistemi,Genua,forItalyand
NiigataEngineering,Tokyo,forJapan.AnexclusivelicenseforCanadaandNorth
AmericawasgiventoCanadaComposting,Newmarket/Ontario(CCI).Several
cooperationagreementsweremadewithnonEuropeanpartners.Table137lists
facilitiesusingtheBTAprocess.
TheCanadaCompostingNewmarketPlantwasoperatingforaperiod.Itproduceda
grosspowerof5MWfromburningthebiogasinreciprocatinginternalcombustion
engines.Theplantparasiticloadwas2MWwithanetoutputof3MW.Capacitywas
150,000metrictonsperyearona5.4acresite.AccordingtoJeffFlewellingatYork
Region(Canada),CCINewmarketwentintoreceivershipduetoodorproblemsand
130

inadequatefinancialabilitytoremediate.TheNewmarketplant,nowoperating,has
beensoldtoHaltonRecyclingLimited(HRL)ofBurlington,Ontario.Canada
Compostinghasbuilta25kt/yearpilotfacilityinToronto.

Table 1-37. BTA process references (BTA)
Scale
(ktonne/y)
Year began
Operation
Ko-Sung Korea 3 2003
Karlsruhe Germany 8 1996
Mertingen Germany 11 2001
Erkheim Germany 11.5 1997
Dietrichsdorf Germany 17 1995
Waden-Lockweiler Germany 20 1998
Kirchstockach Germany 20 1997
Elsinore Denmark 20 1991
Mlheim Germany 22 2003
Toronto Canada 25 2002
Villacidro Italy 45 2002
Ieper Belgium 50 2003
Newmarket Canada 150 2000
Alghoba Libya 11 ?
Krosno Poland 30 ~ 2005
Pamplona Spain 100 ~2005
BTA Process Locations
Planned or under construction

ArrowEcologyLtd.(ArrowBioprocess)(Haifa,Israel)
TheArrowBioADprocessisdesignedtoacceptunsortedMSW.Inherentintheprocess
isafullyintegratedwatervatsortingandcleaningfacility,whichyieldssorted
recyclablesmuchlikeatypicalMRF(theexceptionbeingthatallbiomasscomponents,
includingpaperandcardboard,areeventuallycarriedintothelowsolidsbiochemical
treatmentsystem;ifpaperrecoveryisdesired,papermustbeseparatedupstreamofthe
watervatstage).Thesortingprocessalsoseparatesmostofthenonrecyclableinert
materialfromthebiodegradablematter.
Thebiochemicalprocessingconceptutilizesupflowanaerobicsludgeblanket
technologycommonlyusedbyWWTPs.Thecompanyhasexperiencewithdesigning
andbuildingwastewatertreatmentfacilities.
Theprocessoutputsaresorted:ferrousandnonferrousmetals,glass,andothermineral
matter,plastics,biogas,nondigestibleresidue,andlowstrength(lowchemicaloxygen
demand(COD)orbiochemicaloxygendemand(BOD)wastewater.Thebiogascanbe
burnedingasenginesonsiteforheatandpowerorupgradedtopipelinequalitygas,or
processedtoaliquefiednaturalgas(LNG)foruseastransportationfuel.Theemissions
fromthebiogasutilization,therefore,dependontheenduseofthegas,butwouldbe
similartothosefromexistingbiogasandnaturalgasapplications.Thelowgrade
131

wastewatercanbeusedforirrigation(asisdoneatthefacilityinIsraelfortheonsite
landscaping),orcanbetreatedinthelocalmunicipalwastewatertreatmentplant.
Manyofthecompanyclaimsaredifficulttocorroborateasnoindependentreview,data,
ortestresultsweremadeavailable.Thereisoneexistingcommercialscalefacilitybuilt
andoperatedbyArrowEcology.Thisisa70,000t/yearfacilityattheTelAvivtransfer
stationthatpresentlyhandlesapproximately1milliont/yearfortransporttoadistant
landfill.ArrowEcologyindicatesthata220t/yearfacility(60,000to70,000t/year
dependingonnumberofoperatingdays)requiresafootprintofapproximatelythree
acres.
CurrentlytheoperatingplantinIsraelreceives$24.50pertonofmaterialprocessed,and
anewlandfilltaxwillbringthistippingfeeto$33.30perton.Thefacilitywasfinanced
withcompanyfundsandabankloan.Additionalinformationmadeavailablebythe
company
62
givesestimatedcapitalcosts(foraUnitedStatesinstallation)of
approximately$12millionfora220tpdplant.Therequiredbreakeventippingfeeis
approximately$50perton.ReportedproducttypesandvaluefortheTelAvivfacility
arelistedbelow:
Product
$/unit
Electricity$50/MWh($.05/kWh)
Plastic$72/ton
Metal$63.5/ton
GlassGivenaway
OrganicsoilamendmentGivenaway
LiquidwaterUsedinternallyasmakeupprocesswater,withthe
excessusedforlandscapemaintenance
QuantitiesoftheseproductsandTelAvivwastecharacterizationwerenotreported.
63
ArrowEcologyholdsUnitedStatespatent6,368,500(Asa2002)forawastetreatment
system.Thoughelaborate,theprocessutilizesacleverwatervatprimaryseparator
(notedabove)creatingthreematerialfeeds:(1)theheaviermaterial(sinkers),mostly
nonbiodegradablematerialcomposedofmetals,glass,plasticwithspecificgravity(SG)
lessthan1,mineralmatter,etc.;(2)thelightermaterial(floaters),composedoffloating
plastics,containers,woodybiomass,somefooditems,etc.;and(3)theneutrallybuoyant
materialwhichismuchofthebiomass.

62.2003WTERTFallmeetingatColumbiaUniversity,
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/meet2003/wtert2003_finstein.pdf
63.Thecompanywebsiteindicatesthefacilityisexpectedtoexport2to3MWonceinfull
operation.http://www.arrowecology.com/mainpage/index2.htm
132

Thefloatingmaterialisskimmedoffthewaterpitandreunitedwiththeheavysinkers
fractionthatisdredgedfromthebottomofthewaterpit.Thisstreampassesthrough
standardMRFtypeseparationandsortingmechanisms(SeeFigure152).

Figure 1-52. Schematic of the ArrowBio process
Photo Credit: http://www.arrowecology.com

Solublebiomassbeginstodissolvewithagitationinthewatervat.Dissolvedandwater
logged/soggybiomassiscarriedoutofthevatwithliquidflow.Particlesizereduction
anddissolutionofbiodegradablescontinueswithdownstreamtravel.Sizereductionis
aidedbypassagethroughaslowspeedrotaryshear,followedbyaspecialHydro
Crusherdevice(whichisanaspectofthepatent).Oversizeparticlesarescreenedand
returnedtothevat.
Thebiomassmaterialreceivedinvarioussolidforms(foodpreparationandplatewaste
fromhomesandrestaurants,foodtaintedpaper,vegetativetrash,yardwastenot
divertedforcomposting,etc.)istransformedintoastrongwastewater.Assuch,itis
possibletoapplylowsolidsUASBwastewatertreatmenttechnologytothe
biodegradablefractionofMSW.
Biologicalprocessing
Thepreparedbiomassrichwaterysolutionflowsfromthewatervatseparatorto
acidogenicbioreactors(anaerobic),whereintermediatedorganicacidsareformed.
Effluentfromtheacetogenicreactorisscreenedandthelargeparticlesreturnedtothis
firstreactor.Theliquidwithsmallerparticlesisheatedtoabout40Cbeforeenteringthe
133

UASBreactor,wherethemethaneisproduced(seeFigure153).Presumably,theUASB
reactoroperatesinthemesophilictemperaturerange.

Effluent
Biogas
Gas collector
Periodic non-
biodegradable
removal
Sludge
Figure 1-53. Schematic of a UASB bioreactor
Photo Credit: Grady et al. 1999

IntheUASB,theinflowingorganicacidsandsolidscomeincontactwiththe
methanogenicmicrobialcommunityresidinginthereactor.Themicrobesselectively
formthemselvesintodiscretegranulesthat,collectively,haveveryhighsurfacearea
andmasstransportcapability.Themicrobegranulestakeintheorganicacidsand
producemethaneasametabolicproduct.Thegranulesandbiomasssolidsarrivingas
influentaresuspendedandmixinthesludgeblanketbymovementofbiogasbubbles
thatfloatupward.AnadvantageofUASBisthatsolidsretentiontime(SRT)and
hydraulicretentiontime(HRT)aredecoupled.IntheArrowBioprocess,onceinthe
UASBreactor,SRTisontheorderof75dayswhileHRTisaboutoneday.ThelowHRT
translatestorelativelysmallreactorvolumes,whilelongSRTgenerallyprovidesfor
morecompletebiodegradationandhighratesofmethaneproduction.
Table138showstheprojectedmassbalanceandelectricityproductionfromaCalifornia
wastestreamasprovidedinthesurveyresponse.Moisturecontentofthebiodegradable
portionofthewastestreamwasadjustedfromthatusedinthesurveyresponse(from
40%to30%).Inaddition,whileUASBreactorscanproducebiogaswithrelativelyhigh
methaneconcentration,the75%(volume)valueclaimedbyArrowBioseemshigh.
Independentevaluationortestresultsareneededtocorroboratethis.Forthematerial
balance,methaneconcentrationwasadjustedto65%.Thesurveyindicatesthat
approximately80%ofthebiomass(drymatterorTS)isconsumedinthebiological
reactors,whichalsoisratherhigh.Approximately7to15%ofTSisinertashand
another10to15%isnonbiodegradablelignin(dependingonwastestream).Thisleaves
70to83%ofthebiomassdrymatterthatisbiodegradable(representingupperlimitsfor
134

aperfectsystem).Finally,thematerialbalancecouldnotbeclosedusingtheprovided
information(i.e.,about15%ofthemasscouldnotbeaccountedforintheproducts).

Table 1-38. Mass balance and power production for ArrowBio
process.
a

Tons
per
year
% of
Input
Waste Input
200,00
0 100

O
u
t
p
u
t
s

Recovered (Non-
Biodegradable for
recycling)
35,330 17.7
Soil Amendment (50%
water)
40,890 20.4
Biogas
CH
4
(26.6 Mm
3
, 65% of
total biogas volume)
20,943
CO
2
31,012
Biogas Total 51,956 26.0
Water 23,340 11.7
To Landfill 18,720 9.4

Total Outputs
170,23
5 85.1
Unaccounted 29,765 14.9

Electrical Production Gross Net
MWe 10.3 8.8
kWh/ton (unsorted) 451 385

kWh/ton (material to
digester) 618 528
a) Based on ArrowBio survey response using Santa Barbara RFQ waste stream and 35%
efficiency for electricity generation.

Theprocesscanacceptanyadditionalanaerobicbiodegradablefeedstocksthatare
collectedseparatelyorareoutsidethestandardMSWstreamincludingfoodprocessing
andrestaurantwastes,raworpartiallytreatedsewer,andbiodegradableindustrial
wastewaters.Moreinformationincludingrealoperatingdatafromtheexistingfacility
inIsraelwouldbehelpfulforassessingtheprocess.Certainclaimsmustbemetwith
skepticismuntilprovenwithrealdata.Theseincludethemethaneproductionandits
highconcentrationinthebiogas,thehighextentofbiodegradationclaimed(80%oftotal
solids),andtheamountofinertmaterialsseparatedinthewatervatprocess.
135

Bioconverter(SantaMonica,California)
ThecompanyispartofMcElvaneyAssociatesCorporation.McElvaneyhasdeveloped
andpatented(PatentNo.6,254,775)anADsystemthatcanbecharacterizedasasingle
stagelowsolidsfixed(immobilized)filmanaerobicdigester.Recentannouncements
indicatethecompanyhasnegotiateda20yearagreementtoprovidetheLosAngeles
DepartmentofWaterandPowerwithelectricityfromthebioconversionofgreenwastes
at$16millionperyear($48/MWh).Thefacilitywillbeginoperationin2008and
consume3,000t/dayofLosAngelesgreenwasteandgenerate40MWofelectricity.Itis
notclearwhethertherewillbeothercoststothecityfortheproject(presumably,a
tippingfeewillalsobepaidtoBioconverterfordisposalofthefeedstock).
Approximately1,000t/dayofdigesterresiduewillbecreated,whichpotentiallycanbe
usedincompostoperationsorassoiladditives.Ifnomarketexistsforthematerial,it
willlikelybedisposedinlandfills.
AnotherannouncedprojectiswiththeCityofLancaster,California.A$16million
facilityisproposedtoconvert200t/dayoflocalgreenwasteandproduce5,000gallons
perdayofcompressednaturalgas(CNG)thatcanbeusedasatransportationfuel.Press
releasesclaimthatdigesterresiduewillbeusedinpoultryfeedingoperations.The
projectwillpursuealternativefuelandairpollutionreductionrelatedgrantsthrough
thelocalairpollutioncontroldistrict,butotherwisethefacilityisexpectedtobefunded
privately.
Thefeedmaterialisprimarilygreenwastesandsourceseparatedfoodwastes.Itcanalso
acceptwastepaper(magazinesandjunkmail,mixedresidential,etc.),fats,oils,and
grease,andhighstrengthwastewaters.Feediscomminutedasnecessaryandliquid
addedtoobtainaslurrywithTSofabout10%.Gasandliquidarerecirculatedinthe
digestertopromotemixing.
Thesinglestagedigesterreliesonafixedsupportmatrixofpolyethyleneforgrowing
andimmobilizingmethanogenicmicroorganisms.Reactorliquidandbiogasare
recirculatedthroughthemediumtomaintainsolidssuspension.Thesystemisprobably
operatedinthemesophilictemperaturerangeabout95F)becauseofasolidretention
timeontheorderof30days.ProductsaretypicalforADsystemsandincludemethane
andsolidandliquidsoilamendments/fertilizers.Table139showsbasicinformationfor
thetwoannouncedBioconverterprojects(LADWPandCityofLancaster).Thetable
showssimpleenergyconversionefficiency(energyinproduct/energyinfeedstock)
usingahighandlowestimateforfeedstockenergycontent.Theestimatedefficiencies
rangefromabout10to20%(dependingonfeedstockcharacteristics)thatarereasonable
thoughperhapstendingtowardtheoptimisticendoftherangethatcanbeexpected
fromADsystems.
SystemshavebeeninstalledintheCaribbean
64
andHawaii.InHawaii,a2t/daysystem
operatedonfoodandgreenwasteforfouryearswithsomesaleofliquidfertilizer.The

64.Seehttp://www.dwacaribbean.com/articles.html
136

companycooperatedwiththeUNISYNsysteminWaimanalo,Hawaii,whichused
feedstockofmanurefrom2,000cows,250,000poultrylayers(egglayinghens),and
wastefromaUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)fruitflyrearingfacility.
Thesystemwascolocatedwiththeanimaloperationsaswellasagreenhouse.Residue
fromthedigesterswasusedasproteinsupplementinthepoultryoperationand
aquaculture.Thefacilitytransitionedtoprocessingfoodandgreasewastesandwas
closedin1999.
Table 1-39. Basic Bioconverter project input and output capacities.
High
b
Low
c
Electricity
MWe
CNG
(gallons/day)
d Low
c
High
b
LADWP 3000 ? 16 30395 15997 40 - 3456 11.4 21.6
Lancaster 200 44 ? 2026 1066 - 5000 198 9.8 18.6
Project
Energy in feedstock
(GJ / day)
Product
Efficiency of
Conversion (%)
Green
waste feed
rate
(Tons/day)
Capital
cost
($M)
Payment from
Agency
($million/year)
a
Energy in
Product
(GJ/ day)

a) $48 /MWh
b) 11.4 MJ/kg assuming all prunings, trimmings, branches (@ 40% moisture)
c) 6 MJ/kg assuming all leaves and grass (@ 60% moisture)
d) Assumes compressed to ~ 3600 PSI, with volumetric energy density equal to 30% that of gasoline

UCDavisAnaerobicPhasedSolids(APS)Digester
ThissystemwasdevelopedandpatentedbyProfessorRuihongZhangandDr.Zhiqin
ZhangfromUCDavis(ZhiqinZhangiscurrentlyattheCaliforniaEnergyCommission)
(ZhangandZhang2002).ThesystemislicensedtoOnsitePowerSystemsfor
commercialization.LaboratoryandpilotscalereactorsarelocatedatUCDavis.
ApilotfacilityontheUCDaviscampus,fundedbytheEnergyCommissionand
industrypartners,willbeoperationalearlyin2005.Thepilotfacilitywillhavea
feedstockcapacityofabout3t/day,producingabout25kWfromareciprocatingengine.
AninstallationtobelocatedonapproximatelytwoacresontheCaliforniaState
UniversityChannelIslandscampushasbeenproposed.Thefacilitywouldprocess250
t/dayofgreenwastedivertedfromVenturaCountylandfillsandpresumablysome
wastefromthecampus.Itisestimatedthatsufficientbiogasforgenerating2MWof
powerwillbeproduced.Abyproductwouldbe25to50t/dayoffertilizer.Thecapital
costoftheprojectisreportedtobe$12million($6,000/kWinstalled).Revenuesfromthe
projectincludethepriceoftheenergydisplacedbythefacility,fertilizersales,and
tippingfeesfromwastehauledinfromoffcampus.
Thefacilitywouldoperateatthermophilictemperature(135F)andhaveasolids
retentiontimeof12days.
Theanaerobicphasedsolids(APS)digesterdecouplessolidstatehydrolysisand
acetogenicfermentationfromthemethaneproducingfermentation,allowingfor
separateoptimizationofthetwoprocesses.Thetworeactorsareconnectedthrougha
closedliquidrecirculationloopthattransfersthesolublesreleasedinthehydrolysis
137

reactortothebiogasproducer(methanogenesis)(Figure154).Thebiogasreactorcanbe
designedforrelativelyshortliquidretentiontimebyusingsuspendedgrowth,attached
growth,anaerobicmovingbedreactor(AMBR),orUASBreactortypes(Zhangand
Zhang1999).
Thehydrolysisreactorcanaccepthighsolidsfeedstockthat,dependingonits
characteristics,mayneedsomekindofpretreatmentsuchasshreddingtoincrease
hydrolysisrate.Thehydrolysisreactoroperatesinbatchmode.Becauseofthisbatch
operation,thestrengthofthesolublecompoundsintheliquidbeingtransportedtothe
biogasreactorwillvaryfromnearzeroimmediatelyafteraddingafreshbatchoffeedto
thehydrolysisvessel,toamaximumwhentherateofhydrolysisishighest,
subsequentlytaperingoffastheremainingsolublebiomassdeclines.Correspondingly,
thebiogasproductionratewillvaryfromlowtohightolowagainbecauseitdepends
onthestrengthandrateoftheinflowliquidarrivingfromthehydrolysisstage.
Byusingseveralbatchloadedhydrolysisreactors,theloadingofeachbeingtimed(or
phased)oneafteranothersuchthatthestrengthofthemixedsubstrateflowingfromall
hydrolysisreactorsismorestable(Figure155).

Figure 1-54. Schematic of APS digester system showing four hydrolysis vessels
Photo Credit: Courtesy of Ruihong Zhang

Thisrelativelystableaveragestrengthliquidallowsforsuitablesizeanddesignofthe
singlebiogasreactorinordertooptimizethemethanogenicportionoftheprocess.
138

0
2
4
6
8
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Time (Days)
M
e
t
h
a
n
e

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
L
/
d
a
y
)
H-I
H-II
H-III
H-IV
Total

Figure 1-55. Simulated biogas production rate for lab-scale APS digester system
Photo Credit: Karl Hartman, UCD

1.5 Summary of Biomass Conversion
PowergeneratedfromcombustionofbiomassintheUnitedStatesincreasedrapidly
between1980and1995afterenactmentofPURPAin1978.Favorablefederaltaxpolicies
forinvestmentsinrenewableenergyandstateincentives(e.g.,theStandardOffer4
contractthatwasavailableinCalifornia)contributedtothefinancialviabilityof
biopowerfacilities.FortheUnitedStates,installedbiomasspowercapacityis
substantial,currentlyatabout11GW.About6.2GWisfueledbyforestproductsand
agriculturalresiduesandabout3.5GWisMSWbasedincludinglandfillgas.TheUnited
StatescapacityprimarilyconsistsofdirectcombustionsteamRankinesystemswithan
averagesizeof20MW.Efficiencyistypicallyabout20%duemostlytothesmallplant
sizebutalsotofuelquality(moisture).
ThegeneratingcapacityofbiomasspowerfacilitiesinCaliforniafollowedasimilar
trendasthatfortherestofthenation.Installedsolidbiomassdirectcombustionsteam
cyclepowercapacityinCaliforniapeakedatabout770MWin1990.Today,thereare
approximately28solidfueledbiomassfacilitiescurrentlyoperatinginthestate
comprisingatotalof570MWcapacitynotincludingthreeMSWcombustionfacilities
thatcombinedgenerateanother70MW.Another31facilitieswithcombinedcapacityof
340MWareidle,dismantled,orhavebeenconvertedtonaturalgasfuel.
139

SystemsthatproducepowerfrombiogasinCaliforniaincludesome50landfillgasesto
energyfacilities,10gridconnectedwastewatertreatmentplants,andseveraldairyor
foodprocessingwastedigesters.Thecombinedgeneratingcapacityfrombiogasin
Californiaisapproximately250MW(210MWfromlandfillfacilities).
Thetypeandscaleofbiomassconversionfacilitiesdependtoalargeextentonthe
biomassresourcetypeandamountthatistechnicallyandeconomicallyavailableforthe
expectedlifeofthefacility.Characteristicsofthefuelareimportantindetermining
suitableconversiontechnology.Ingeneral,dryerbiomassfeedstocksaremoresuitedfor
thermochemicalconversion(combustion,pyrolysis,gasification)andthemorewet
feedstocks(e.g.,wastewater,foodwastes,someMSWgreenwaste,someanimal
manures)aremoresuitableforbiochemicalconversionmethods(anaerobicdigestion).
Thesearenotabsoluterules,soinvestigatingarangeofconversionmethodsis
worthwhile.
AbiomassresourceinventoryfortheSacramentoregionindicatesthatthereisa
technicalgenerationpotentialofsome520MWfromanarrayofbiomassresidues.These
includethebiogenicfractionofMSW,agriculturalcropresidues,animalwastes,and
forestbiomass.
AdvancedSystems
Systemsthatimproveuponcost,conversionefficiency,installedcapacity,environmental
performance,publicacceptance,orthatcanincreasetherangeofavailablefeedstocks
andproductscomparedwithexistingcommercialtechnologiesareconsidered
advanced.
Overallefficiencyofbiomassconversiontoelectricityistypicallylowerthanlarge
centralstationfossilpowerplantsduetosmallerfacilitysizeandlowerfuelquality.
Efficiencyofconversionforexistingbiomassbasedpowersystemsrangesfromlessthan
10%toabout25%.Atthelowerendoftherangearecombustionboilersteamengine
systems,smallgasifierenginesystems,andADreciprocatingenginesystems.Theupper
rangeofefficiencyisachievedbylargercombustionboilersteamturbinesystems(more
than40MW).
TheCaliforniasolidfueledbiomassindustryconsistsoffacilitieswithnetpower
capacityaslowas4MWtothreefacilitieswithcapacitiesbetween47and50MW.The
netefficienciesrangefromabout15to25%.Maximumcapacityhassofarbeen
constrainedbyadditionalregulatoryandpermittingrequirementsforfacilitiesof50
MWandabove,andnotbyspecifictechnicalorfuelsupplylimitations.Deliveredcosts
ofbiomassinfluencetheoptimalsizeoffacilities,buteconomicandtechnicalrisk
limitationstofacilitysizehavenotsofarbeentestedinCalifornia.
SolidFuelCofiring
Probablytheleastexpensivemeansforincreasinguseofbiomassinpowergenerationis
tocofirewithcoalinexistingboilersbydirectsubstitutionof10to15%ofthetotal
140

energyinputwithasuitablebiomassfuel.Biomasscofiringdirectlysubstitutes
renewablecarbonforfossilcarbon.Inaddition,cofiringatlowfuelratioshaslittleorno
impactontheoverallconversionefficiencyoftheplant.Cofiredbiomassreceivesthe
benefitofthegenerallyhigheroverallconversiontoelectricityefficienciesinlargecoal
powerplants(typically33to37%).CofiringbiomasscanalsoreduceNOxandsulfur
dioxideemissionsfromcoalfiredpowerplantsdependingontypeofbiomassfired.
OpportunitiesforcofiringincoalfacilitiesarelimitedinCaliforniaduetothelimited
amountofcoalgeneration.
GasifiedBiomassCofiring
Withafuelgasderivedfrombiomass(whetherproducergasfromthermochemical
gasificationorbiogasfrombiogasification),thereistheopportunitytocofirewith
naturalgasinboilersorGTCCfacilities(assumingqualityofthemixedgasmeetsthe
turbinerequirementsforenergycontent,hydrogengasconcentrationandcleanliness.)
Thereareatleastthreebasicarrangementsforbiomasscofiringwithanaturalgasfueled
GTCC:
IndirectCofiringwithSteamSideIntegration
Thismodeispracticalandhaslowerspecificinvestmentcoststhanstandalone
combustion.Steamadditionfromthebiomassboilerisprobablylimitedtoabout10%.
Energyefficiencyofthebiomasscomponentissimilartothatofconventionalbiomass
fueledsteamcycles.
DirectCofiringwithUpstreamThermalGasification
Thismethodofcofiringallowsthebiomasscontributionoffuelinputtoenjoyessentially
thesameconversionefficiencyasthenaturalgas.InaGTCCplant,theefficiencycan
approach55%.Fuelqualityrequirementsofthegasturbine(calorificvalueand
hydrogenconcentration)limitthecontributionofthebiomassfuelto2to8%(thermal
basis).
DirectCofirewithBiogas
Thebiogasandnaturalgasfuelmixtureinthiscofiremodehasthesamerequirements
asaboveinordertoavoidmajorgasturbinemodifications.However,biogasisgenerally
easiertocleanthanproducergas.ColocatingabiogassourcewithaGTCCfacilityor
upgradingbiogastopipelinequalityaresimplewaystoboosttheconversionefficiency
ofthebiogasfromthe25to40%levelobtainedinreciprocatingenginesormicroturbines
(simplecycle)tothehigherGTCCefficiencyofabout50%.Upgradedbiogascouldbe
cofiredinanyproportionwithnaturalgas.
ThermalGasification
BiomassIntegratedGasifierCombinedCycle
141

UnitedStatesBIGCCdemonstrationshavenotsofarprogressedtofullsystem
operation.UnitedStatesfederaldevelopmentofbioenergyshiftedawayfrombiopower
tobioproductsandbiofuelswiththe2001changeinadministrationinWashingtonD.C.,
alongwiththegoalofaddressingthenationsrelianceonimportedpetroleum.Federal
researchanddevelopmentsupportforbiomasspowergenerationhastherefore
diminished.
BIGCCistechnicallyviableasdemonstratedatVrnamo,Sweden.Thereasonsthatthe
BIGCCdemonstrationprojectsintheUnitedStatesnevercametofruitionareultimately
financial.TheMnVAPprojectinMinnesotawasnotconstructedduetolossoffinancing
underperceivedhighrisk.AprojectinPaia,Hawaii,wasnotcontinuedtofullsystem
testinglargelyasaresultofinadequatedevelopmentofafuelfeedingsystemforthe
pressurizedreactor.Adualfluidizedbed(BattelleFERCO)projectinBurlington,
Vermont,bymostreports,successfullydemonstratedtheBattellegasifierata
commercialscale.FederalfundinginsupportoffullIGCCimplementationdidnotoccur
andtestingbeyondgascofiringtothesolidfuelboilerwasnotconducted.
CommercialprojectsbyCarbonaandFERCOhavebeenrecentlyannounced.These
projectstargethomogeneousfuelsources(mostlycleanwoodchips).Continued
investigationwhichincludessuitabilityofotherfuelsthatcomprisethediverse
Californiabiomassresourceisnecessaryifthesetechnologiesaretobeconsideredfora
rangeoffeedstocks.Increasedavailabilityofcleanwoodfuelsfromforestthinningand
relatedoperationsisuncertainintheneartermbecausepermittingforestfuelsreduction
effortsonpubliclandsmaybesubjecttolitigation.Therearelargeamountsofnonforest
biomasscurrentlyavailableinCalifornia,includingagriculturalresiduesandMSW
biomass.
ThereremainsaneedtofullydemonstratebiomassIGCCintheUnitedStatesinorderto
providefinanciersahomegrowncasestudy.Therearegenerallyfewoptionsavailable
todeveloperswhenfacedwithrepoweringafacilitythathasreacheditsusefullife,or
whensitinganewone.Thereareopportunitiesforadvancedsystemdevelopment
includingincreaseddiversityinthepowergenerationfuelsupply,loadandvoltage
supporttothegridfromdistributedgenerationopportunities,improvementstorural
economies,reductionsingreenhousegasemissionsandotherenvironmental
improvements.
SmallScaleandModularBiomass
Mostrecentdevelopmentworkinsmallscaleand/ormodularbiomasspowersystems
hasbeendirectedatatmosphericairblowngasifierscoupledwithreciprocatingengine
generators.TheU.S.DOEsmallmodularbiomassprogram(PhaseI,1998)selectedfour
projectsforaPhaseIIin1999.Thesolicitationconsideredsystemswithelectrical
generationcapacitiesintherangeof5kWto5MW.TwoofthefourPhaseIIprojectsare
basedonthermalgasifiersystems.Asmallscalesystemof15kW(CommunityPower
CorporationorCPC)wasawardeddevelopmentfundingandseveralunitsareorhave
142

beentestedinthewesternUnitedStates.ThelargergasifiersystemtobeawardedPhase
IIfunding(developedbyCarbona)is,unfortunatelyformanyUnitedStatesand
Californiainterests,beingconstructedinDenmark.
EuropeandIndiahavedevelopedseveralindependentgasifierbasedpowersystems
under8MW.Therehasbeenprogressaddressingthegasqualityandwatereffluent
(dependingonuseofgas)issuesthathaveimpededsafeandreliablesystemsinthepast.
TheMinistryofNonconventionalEnergySourcesinIndiareportsthatmorethan1,800
gasifierpowersystemsaredeployedinthecountryforacombinedcapacityof58MW.
SystemsdevelopedfordeploymentinEuropetendtobeconfiguredforCHPandmany
aredesignedforlowcostoflaborintheoperation(e.g.,automaticwithsafety
shutdowns).SystemsdevelopedinIndiagenerallyareforruralanddevelopingareas.
Cheaperlaborandthehigherneedforemploymentintheseregionshasledtosystems
thatarenotasautomatedasthoseinEurope.TheSwissFederalOfficeofEnergy
evaluatedtheIIScgasifierdesignbothinIndiaandataresearchfacilityinSwitzerland.
TheSoPauloUniversityinBraziliscurrentlyevaluatinganIIScgasifierforrural
electrificationintheAmazonregion.
Withlargeamountsofforestbiomasspotentiallyavailableinthenextfewyearsfrom
forestfuelreductionmeasures(permitlitigationnotwithstanding),Californiaand
federalagenciesareinterestedintechnologiesthatcreatesomeproductorvaluefrom
theresource.Thealternativeisprescriptionorpileburningorsomeotherformof
disposal.TheCPCgasifierisbeinginvestigatedasapossibletechnologyfortheresource
buttheprototypesystemsaresmall(15to50kW).Itisunclearhowthoroughlyoverseas
developmentshavebeeninvestigatedforapplicationintheUnitedStates.
RiceStrawasaFuel
Morethan95%ofCalifornias500,000acresofricecropisgrownintheSacramento
Valley.Therearesome1.5milliondrytonsofresiduericestrawafterharvestingricein
thefall.Historically,thestrawandstubblewereburnedinthefieldinthefallandspring
beforeplanting.Legislationenactedinthe1990srestrictedopenfieldburningofrice
strawtoamaximumof25%ofplantedacresandonlyifburningisrequiredfordisease
control.Plowingthestrawbackintothegroundisexpensiveandpromotesgermination
andspreadofweeds.Marketsforstrawarelimitedandonlyabout30,000tonsareused
annuallymostlyforanimalfeedinganderosioncontrolproducts(bales,plasticnet
wrappedwattles).Currently,lessthan15%oftheacreageisburned.
Strawfuelshaveprovedtobeextremelydifficulttoburninmostcombustionfurnaces,
especiallythosedesignedforpowergeneration.Theprimaryissueconcerningtheuseof
ricestrawandotherherbaceousbiomassforpowergenerationisfouling,slagging,and
corrosionoftheboilerduetoalkalineandchlorinecomponentsintheash.Noneofthe
biomasspowerplantsbuilttodateinCaliforniacaneconomicallyfirestraw,even
thoughsomewerebuiltwithairpermitsrequiringthemtodoso.
143

Europe,and,inparticular,Denmark,currentlyhasthegreatestexperiencewithstraw
firedpowerandCHPplants.In1990,Denmarkembarkedonanewenergypolicywitha
goaltodoubletheuseofrenewableenergyby2005.Becauseofthelargeamountof
cerealgrains(wheatandoats)growninDenmark,thesurplusstrawplaysalargerolein
thecountrysrenewableenergystrategy.In2001,750,000metrictonsperyearwasbeing
consumedinDanishpowerplants(inadditiontostrawconsumedinmorethan60
districtheatingplants).RecentlycompletedfacilitiesinEnglandandSpainwere
designedandbuiltbythecompaniesthatdevelopedthesystemsinDenmark.The
facilitieseachhavethecapacitytoconsumemorethan100,000tonsperyearofstraw
fuel.
Technologydevelopedincludescombustionfurnaces,boilers,andsuperheatconcepts
purportedlycapableofoperatingwithhighalkalifuelsandhavinghandlingsystems
whichminimizefuelpreparation.Muchofthisdevelopmenthasoccurredwithsupport
ofgovernmentpoliciesonCO2emissionsreductionstohelpmeetKyotoagreements.
OpportunitiesaffordedbyachievementsinEuropetodeveloppowersystemscapableof
usingstraw,includingjointCaliforniaEuropeanprojects,shouldbeinvestigated.
SystemsforConversionofMSW
TheamountofmunicipalsolidwastefromSacramentoCountyjurisdictionsdisposedin
landfillswas1.5milliontonsin2003.Biomasscomprisesanestimated70%ofthe
disposedmixedwastestream(weightbasis).Ifallthebiomassmaterialinthewaste
streamwasconvertedtoelectricity,about40MWpowerwouldresult.Forallof
California,about40millionwettonsofMSWarelandfilledannually.Some27million
wettonsarebiomass.ConversionofallCalifornialandfilledMSWbiomasstoelectricity
wouldgenerateapproximately2,000MW(Williamsetal.2003).
Someadvantagesofthissourceofbiomassarethatitcurrentlyisdeliveredtocentral
locationsandissubjecttodisposalortippingfeesthataddeconomicsupport.MSWis
notwithoutdisadvantages.Itistypicallyveryheterogeneouscominginalargerangeof
particlesizes,moisture,andcomponentcharacteristics.
CIWMBiscurrentlyinvestigatingconversiontechnologiesasalternativestolandfill.
SeveraljurisdictionsintheStateareinterestedaswell.Combustionbasedsystems
(incineration)arelikelytofacestrongoppositionfromsomemembersofthepublic.
ProposedregulationsdisadvantagethermalconversionofMSWbynotallowingthe
materialprocessedtoreceivefulldiversioncredit.OnlyADconversionsystemswill
receivesuchcredit.Thisisalreadyinfluencingtheselectionofsystemsforwaste
jurisdictionsintheStatethatarecontemplatingMSWconversionsystems.
Duetotheheterogeneousnatureofmixedwaste,extensivepreparationandsorting
wouldlikelyberequiredbeforeintroducingthefeedstocktoaconversionprocess.
Gasifierdesignsandgascleaningsystemssuitableforcleanwoodchips,forexample,
144

willneedtobemodifiediffueledwithMSWcomponents(unlesssourceseparatedwood
orpaperisavailable).
ThermochemicalSystems
EuropeandJapanhavedevelopedseveralnoncombustionconversiontechnologies
forthepurposeoftreatingorreducingwaste.ThermochemicalandbiochemicalMSW
conversionsystemsarebothoperatingoverseas.PoliciesandenergypricesinEurope
andJapanhelpcreatemarketconditionsthatmakesomeofthesesystemseconomically
feasible.Highertippingfees,wastemanagementpolicies,and/orinternalizing
environmentalbenefitsforavoidinglandfillsinCaliforniaareprobablyneededbefore
significantnumbersofMSWconversiontechnologiesarebuiltinthestate.
NoncombustionconversiontechnologiesforMSWcomponentsareemerging
technologiesintheUnitedStates.Greaterinstateexperienceisneededwithintegrated
wastemanagementsystemsthatincludeconversiontechnologiesforenergyandother
products.FundamentalunderstandingoffuelsderivedfromMSWandtheirbehaviorin
avarietyofconversionprocessesisnecessaryinordertooptimizeperformance
includingmeetingenvironmentalrequirements.
BioconversionSystems
ADisafermentationtechniquetypicallyemployedinmanywastewatertreatment
facilitiesforsludgedegradationandstabilizationbutalsotheprincipalprocess
occurringinlandfills.LargedairiesandswinefarmsintheUnitedStatesareturningto
theuseofADprimarilyasameanstomitigatetheenvironmentalimpactsofmanure
lagoonswithsomecaptureofmethaneforenergyproduction.TheUnitedStateshas
approximatelyadozendigestersystemsoperatingonanimalwastesandproducing
power.ProjectsrecentlycommissionedandunderconstructioninCaliforniawilladd
aboutadozenmoretothenumber.Manyhouseholdscaledigestersareemployedin
ruralChinaandIndiaandelsewherearoundthedevelopingworldforwastetreatment
andgasproduction.Approximately5millionhouseholdsinChinauseanaerobic
digesters.Thedigestersproducebiogasthatisusedasanenergysourcebythe
households,andproducefertilizerthatisusedinagriculturalproduction.Europe,
especiallyDenmark,hasdevelopedlargescalecentralizedsystemsforsolidwaste
stabilizationandenergygenerationasabyproduct.
ToimprovethequalityoffeedstocksusedinADandcompostingoperations,source
separationofhouseholdandcommercialfoodandgardenwastesisutilizedextensively
inEurope.Atleast11EuropeanUnioncountrieshaveimplementedorareaboutto
implementsourceseparationforfoodandgreenwastes.InSwitzerlandforexample,
approximately220lbperpersonperyearofsourceseparatedfoodandgreenwasteis
145

146

collected.About12%ofthematerialisstabilizedbyADfacilities,andthebalanceis
composted.
Therearesome86ADfacilitiesinEuropeeitheroperatingorunderconstructionwith
capacitygreaterthan3,000tonsperyearandwithatleast10%ofthetreatedfeedstock
frommunicipalorcommercialorganicwaste.Manyofthesefacilitieswillcodigest
animalwastesandmunicipalwastewatersludges.TotalMSWandotherorganicwaste
ADcapacityinEuropeisabout2.8milliont/year.InSpain,the13largecapacityplants,
whichaverage70,000t/year,wereanaerobicallytreatingnearly7%ofthebiodegradable
MSWbytheendof2004.
Theprimarydriversforthesetechnologieshavebeenenvironmentalprotectionand
wastemanagement,withenergyrecoverysecondary.Morerecentvaluingofthe
renewableanddistributedenergyattributesofADincreasesprojectdesirability.Co
digestingmultiplefeedstockscanincreasemethaneproductionandreducecapitalcosts
comparedtoseparatelytreatingwastestreams.OpportunitiesforapplicationsofAD
shouldcontinuetobeinvestigatedforcertainbiomassresourcesintheSMUDregionas
wellastherestofthestate.
Improvementsinbiogasconversiontoelectricityshouldcontinuetobeaddressedas
well.Thisincludesgascleaningandupgradingtopipelinestandardsinordertomix
withandfireinnaturalgaspowerplantsandimprovementstoreciprocatingengineand
microturbineperformancewhenfuelledbybiogas.Forexample,coproductionof
hydrogengaseitherinADsystemsorbyreformingaportionofthemethaneinthe
biogascanlowerNOxemissionsfromreciprocatingenginegeneratorswhichwould
improvetheenvironmentalperformanceofelectricityproduction.
2.0 Environmental Impacts
2.1 Introduction
Environmentalimpactsfrombiomasspowergenerationincludethoseduetogaseous,
liquid,andsolidprocessemissionsorbyproducts,noise,nuisanceandaestheticfactors,
andindirectorlifecycleimpacts.Indirectemissionscanincludefugitiveemissionsfrom
fuelyardandfeedstockoperationssuchasdust,volatileorganiccompoundsandodors
fromhandlingandfuelstorage,andvehicleandequipmentemissionsfromfuel,
feedstock,residue,andothermaterialtransportandprocessing.
Oneofthemostimportantenvironmentalimpactsrelatedtobiomassconversion
technologiesareairemissions,especiallyNOx,duetothefactthatsuchalargeportion
oftheStatefailstomeetfederalandstateambientairqualitystandardsforozone.
Groundlevel,ortropospheric,ozoneisrarelyemittedbyhumanactivitybutisformed
whennaturalandanthropogenicozoneprecursors,primarilyNOxandVOCs,reactin
thepresenceofsunlight,hencethenamephotochemicalsmog.Troposphericozoneis
controlledbymanagingprecursoremissions.
Oxidesofnitrogenarecreatedbyhightemperaturereactionsofoxygenandnitrogen.
Thesourceofnitrogenforthesereactionsisprimarilythecombustionairbutfuelborne
nitrogencanbesignificant.ThoughNOxisacriteriapollutant,itisnotemittedatlevels
highenoughtoraisetheambientconcentrationabovestateorfederallimits.Ofthe
ozoneprecursors,thecontrol,orreductionofNOxemissionsarethemoredifficultand
expensive.Forthesamefuelandpoweroutput,intermittentcombustionsystemssuch
asreciprocatingengineshavehigheruncontrolledNOxemissionsthancontinuous
combustiondevicessuchasflares,boilers,andgasturbines.
Theotherimportantozoneprecursors,VOCs,areusuallyemittedfromcombustion
sourcesasproductsofincompletecombustion.Theycanbecontrolledwithwell
designedandoperatedcombustionsystemsforalltypesoffuels.Noncombustion
anthropogenicVOCsourcesincludeevaporatedhydrocarbonfuels,fugitiveemissions
fromoilrefineriesandpetrochemicalplants,fermentedbeveragemanufacturing,large
animalfeedingoperationsandfeedensiling.Carbonmonoxideemissionsarealso
controlledbyfollowinggoodcombustiontechniques.
Particulatematteriscurrentlycontrolledbystandardmethodsthatincludecyclone
separators,filtering,andelectrostaticprecipitators,oftenwithmultipleparticlecontrol
devicesusedincombination.Controlofsulfurandammoniaemissionsareimportant
foratmosphericPMreductionaswellbecauseofsecondaryreactionsleadingtothe
formationofsulfatesandnitrates.Bothsulfuroxides(SOx)andNOxalsocontributeto
aciddepositionintheenvironment(acidrain).
Liquidemissionsfromgasifiersystems(condensedtarsand/orspentscrubberliquids)
maybetoxicandshouldnotbereleaseduntreated.Thereareavarietyofmeanstotreat
theseliquidsthataregenerallytechnicallyviableandarecommerciallyappliedin
147

148

handlingindustrialwasteliquids.Whetherthetechniquescanbeeconomicallyapplied
tobiomassfueledgasificationsystemsinCaliforniaremainsuncertainasfewlarge
commercialscaletestshavebeenconducted,andnonehaveoccurredinCaliforniausing
biomassalthoughresearchprojectshavebeencompleted.Dependingonthetreatment,
theremaybetoxicsolidsremainingwhichwillrequiredisposalashazardouswaste.The
latterispotentiallytrueforanybiomassconversiontechnologyhandlingunseparated
municipalwastes.
Solidfuelcombustionfacilitiessuchasbiomassfiredstokerorfluidizedbedcombustors
generallyhaveloworzeroliquidemissions.Usually,liquidemissionsfromthese
systemsareassociatedwithboilerblowdownorcoolingtowerdischarges.Thesetypes
ofdischargesareintermittentand/orofsmallvolumeandcanbedisposedthrough
municipalsewersystemsorkeptonsiteinretentionpondswherethewatereventually
evaporates.
LiquidemissionsfromADsystemscanbesubstantialandmayneedtreatment
dependingonthesourceoffeedstock.
2.1.1 Organization
EnvironmentalPerformanceSection
ThefirstpartofSection2containsresultsfromareviewofemissionsandenvironmental
impactsofselectedbiomassconversionsystems(essentiallytheTask1.1.2.1report).
Emissionsandimpactsfromsmall/modulargasifiersaswellasamediumBIGCCunit
arediscussed.SolidfuelbiomassboileremissionsinCaliforniaarecomparedtothe
strawfiredfacilityinEly,England.Reciprocatingenginesare(orwillbe)theprime
moverofchoiceforsmall/modularbiomassgasifiersbecauseofcostandefficiency.
Severalsourceswereconsultedforrecentemissionsandoperationsexperiencefrom
enginesfueledbygasifiedbiomass.
Informationonsolidwasteenvironmentalimpactsispresentedaswellasinformation
fordairymanuredigestersystems.Themostusedprimemoverforelectricityfrom
biogasispresentlythereciprocatingengineduetolowcostandrelativelyhigh
efficiency.Mucheffortwasspentinvestigatingreciprocatingengineandemissions
issues;recentsourcetestresultsfrombiogasfueledenginesareincluded.Gasturbines
fueledbybiogasofferimprovedemissionsandaregainingafootholdinthemarket.
SomeemissionstestresultsfromtheLosAngelesCountySanitationDistrictsare
presented.Fuelcellsthatusereformedmethanefrombiogasarebeingdemonstratedin
severallocationsintheUnitedStates.Thoughpresentlyveryexpensive,theyofferthe
advantageofextremelylowemissions.
AiremissionsfromprimemoversfueledbybiomassarepresentedinTable20.
Table 2-0. Air emissions from biomass fueled power systems.
Prime Mover Control Technology units NOx CO UHC/THC ROGs PM SO
2
Source
California solid fuel biomass
boilers
SNCR, flue gas recirc., &
PM control
lb/MWh 0.64 - 0.95 0.1 - 1.5 0.01 - 0.09 0.09 - 0.55 0.02 - 0.26 1,2
BIGCC, various fuels
(Vrnamo, Sweden)
Gas turbine -Untreated
lb/MWh or
(ppm dry gas)
2.2 - 9.8 (50-450) (<1) (<1) 0.2-2.0 3
Reciprocating Engines fueled
by gasified biomass
Lean burn (ppm, 15% O2) (30 - 300) (100 - 1000) (<10) 4,5
Rich-burn SI engine w/ 3-
way catalytic converter
(single test, CPC)
lb/MWh 0.65 0.03 0.03 6
Reciprocating Engines fueled
by biogas
(LFG. WWTP, manure
digesters)
Large, lean burn lb/MWh .65-1.9 6.4-10.6 .36-1.7 7
Rich Burn, 3-way catalyst
(dairy, 300 kW)
lb/MWh 0.95 5.84 0.08 8
Rich Burn -no controls
(swine manure, 100 kW
capacity operating @ 45
kW
lb/MWh 12 58 112 23 9
CARB BACT
Recommendation
lb/MWh 1.9 1.9 7.8 10
Gas Turbine 30 kW (LFG) uncontrolled lb/MWh 0.2-0.24 0.6-0.72
2.4 ppm,
(3% O
2
)
est. 1.03 11
Gas Turbine (<3 MW) fueled
by biogas
CARB BACT
Recommendation
lb/MWh 1.25 10
Fuel Cell, LFG fuel uncontrolled lb/MWh 0.0017 0.025 0.017 nd 11
Sources:
1) Yolo-Solano APCD. (2003) Woodland Biomass source test results.
2) Wiltsee, G. (2000). Lessons learned from existing biomass power plants. NREL/SR-570-26946, Appel Consultants, Inc/NREL, Valencia, Calif.
3) Stahl, K. (2001). Varnamo - The Demonstration Program, Berlings Skogs, Trelleborg.
4)Ahrenfeldt, J., Pedersen, T., Henriksen, U., and Schramm, J. (2000). Ford VSG 411 fueled by producer gas from two-stage gasifier.
5) Herdin, G., Robitschko, R., Klausner, J., and Wagner, M. (2004). GE Jenbacher experience with wood gas plants. IEA Task 33, Fall meeting, Copenhagen.
6) Bain, R. NREL. 2004 IEA Task 33 Gasification Workshop, Copenhagen. 7) Clifton, N. (2004). Inland Empire Utility Agency. Engine source test results.
8) SJVAPCD (2005). Cottonwood Dairy manure digester engine source test results.
9) (2004). Environmental Technology Verification Report - Swine waste electric power and heat production - Martin Machinery internal combustion engine. SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-22,
Southern Research Institute and US EPA.
10) (2002). Guidance for the permitting of electrical generation technologies. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/energy/dg/dg.htm
11) McDannel, M., Wheless, E., and Stahl, J. (2005). Installation and startup of a digester gas-fired microturbine and fuel cell at two water reclamation plants. Power-Gen Renewable
Energy Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
149

EmissionControlsandRecommendationsSection
ThelatterpartofSection2containsdetaileddiscussionofemissioncontroltechnologies
astheyapplytobiomassconversionsystems(primarilyfromtheTask1.1.2.2report).
Earlierportionsofthisstudyexaminedbiomassconversiontechnologiesforapplication
withintheSMUDregionandidentifiedfourprincipaltypesforfurtheranalysis.These
aregasification,combustionofstrawandotheragriculturalbiomass,ADofseparated
municipalwastesandgreenwastes,andADofdairymanure.Environmentalreviewsof
eachofthesetechnologieswerecompleted(Williamsetal.2003).Thisreportaddresses
environmentallimitationsfortheuseofthesetechnologiesinCaliforniaanddescribes
potentialimprovementsorremediationmeasurestoallowimplementationbySMUDor
SMUDpartners.Themainenvironmentalareasaddressedareoutlinedbelow:

Conversion technology Environmental Improvement Discussed
Gasification
Fixed bed small to medium scale
BIGCC medium scale
Engine or gas turbine NOx and CO, waste
water or tar disposal, char utilization or
disposal

Straw combustion system (solid fuel boiler)

Boiler NOx, PM emissions (esp. silica), ash
disposal, emission offset credits

MSW/green waste AD systems

Gas engine NOx, biogas cleaning
Emissions offsets from reduced transport of
waste

Dairy manure digester systems

Gas engine NOx, biogas cleaning and
sulfur removal for engine, turbine, CNG or
pipeline upgrading, and fuel cell
applications

ThecriteriapollutantstatusoftheairqualitydistrictsintheSacramentoregionis
discussedandareviewoftheregionsAirPollutionControlDistricts(APCD)permit
requirementsforstationaryenginesispresented.Thisisfollowedbyadiscussionof
NOxsourcesandNOxformation.Controlstrategiesandtechnologiesarepresented
followedbysuggestionsforimprovedNOxperformanceforboilersandreciprocating
engines.
Environmentalimpactsfrombiomasspowersystemsincludepositiveandnegative
impacts.Thepositiveimpactsoflocalbiomassutilizationforpoweraretouchedononly
brieflyhere(e.g.,calculationshowingemissionsreductionduetohaltingMSWtransport
fromSacramentotoReno),butthereisalargebodyofinformationdocumenting
benefits.Morris(2000)isarecentexample.
Solidandliquidemissionsfrombiomassconversionsystemsaswellasnoise,nuisance,
andaestheticfactorsmaybeshowstoppersforanewfacilitydependingonproposed
locationandprocessbuttheyarenotpreciselytechnicalproblems.
Liquidemissionsfromsomegasificationcleaningsystemsaretoxicandrequire
treatmentbeforedisposal.Thisisanaddedcostforthefacilitybut,generally,canbe
150

accomplishedwithestablishedmethods.Improvementstosystemsinordertoreduceor
eliminateliquidemissionsfromgasificationprocessesexist(tarcrackingand/orhotgas
cleaningandfiredtogasturbine),orarebeingdeveloped(forexampletheCPC
downdraftgasifier,warmgasfiredtoengine).
Solidemissions(ashorchar)cantypicallybedisposedinconventionallandfillorland
applied.Somegascleaningsystemsforgasifiedbiomassrelyoncondensationofa
portionofthetarsinthegasontochar/ashparticleswhicharethenremovedfromthe
gas.Insomecases,thesesolids(withcondensedtar)presentahandlingandtoxicwaste
disposalissue(thesolidsfromtheCPCsystemareanexample).Whetherthesolidsare
toxicdependsonthegasifierconditions,thegascleaningsystem,andthefuel.Some
systemsmayallowatleastsomeofthesesolidstoberecycledtothegasifier.Eventually,
fuelashmustberemovedandifitcontainscondensedtarcompoundsitispotentially
toxic.Forthesetypesoftarandsolidsremoval,gasifierstartup,turndown,upsets,or
sustainedoperationatoffdesignconditionscanincreasethechanceofcontaminating
thesolidresidue.
Airemissionsandtechnicalissuesforemissionsreductionsarethehighesttechnical
hurdlefacingwidespreaduseandacceptanceofnewbiomassenergyfacilitiesin
California.ControlofNOx,VOC,andPMemissionsareofhighestimportanceinmost
Californiaairbasins.
Forsolidfuelbiomasspowerplants,theBestAvailableControlTechnology(BACT)is
CFBboilersandSNCR(forNOxreduction).CurrentNOxemissionsrangefromabout
0.6to1lb/MWh.Forthisclassoftechnology,NOxemissionscanbeimprovedwithfuel
stagingandreburningtechnologyand/orSCRNOxreduction,bothofwhichare
developmentalforsolidfuelbiomassboilers.
BiomassIGCCairemissionsareexpectedtobecontrollabletoacceptablelimitsusing
demonstratedfuelgascleaningtechnologiesandexistingcontrolsystems.Thehurdles
forBIGCCarepredominantlyeconomic,accountingforthelackofoperatingcommercial
facilitieseventhoughthetechnologyhasbeenlargelydemonstratedinEurope.
Acceptableairemissionsfromgasenginesfueledbybiomass(biogasorproducergas)
presentatechnicalhurdleforinstallationinmuchofCalifornia.Providingthefuelgasis
sufficientlyclean,reciprocatingenginesfueledbybiogasorproducergasshouldrealize
similarorimprovedemissionsascomparedtoenginesfueledbynaturalgas.Richburn
enginesgenerallywillneedathreewaycatalystforcontrolofNOx,CO,and
hydrocarbons.Thefuelgasmustbecleanedofsulfur,potassium,chlorine,andmetalsin
orderforthecatalyticconvertertohaveanacceptableservicelife.
Leanburnenginetechnologyispreferredbyoperatorsbecausereductioncatalystsare
notcurrentlyrequiredand,therefore,thefuelgasqualityrequirementislessstringent.
Leanburnenginesarecurrentlynotavailableunderabout180kW.
151

Increasedmarketinterestmayenticeenginemanufacturerstodevelopleanburnengines
inthesmallercapacitiesrequiredformanydairyscaledigestersandsomeofthesmaller
scaleMSWADsystemsthatmightdevelop.Amarketstudywasnotperformed,but
SMUDisencouragedtoconsiderinvestigatingenginemanufacturestoassessleanburn
forsmallengines.
Hydrogenmixed(orincluded)withtheproducergasorbiogasextendstheleanburn
flammabilityrange.Investigatinghydrogenassistedleanburntechnologyshouldbe
pursuedforsmallenginebasedbiopowersystems(thisiscurrentlybeinginvestigated
forLFGTE).ImprovedhydrogencoproductionmethodsfromADandgasificationof
biomassshouldbelinkedwithemissionsimprovementforconventionalpowersystems
(engines)aswellasforitsfuelvalue.Fullhydrogenproductioncanalsobeinvestigated
forthelongerterm,includinguseinstationaryfuelcellsaswellasvehicles.Molten
carbonatefuelcellsarealreadyoperatingonlandfillgas.
Sulfurremovaltechniquescanbeimprovedtoreducecosts.Biofiltermethodsthat
removesulfurmayofferbenefitsandshouldbeexplored.Biogasupgradingbystripping
carbondioxidealsoresultsinloweredsulfurcontent.Forstationarypowerusing
digestergas,simplewaterscrubbingforsulfurandpartialCO2removalwouldallowfor
easiercatalyticconversionforemissionscontrolandoffersthepotentialforpipelining.
2.1.2 Recommendations
SolidFuelBoilersandStrawCombustionPowerPlants
BecauseofthelargebiomassresourceinCalifornia,theaggressiveRPS,theagingsolid
fuelbiomassfleet,andthepoorairqualityinmanyCaliforniaairbasins,thestateshould
continueandexpandactiveparticipationinNOxreductionresearchfornewand
existingsolidfuelbiomassfacilities.
Fornewsolidfuelcombustionofbiomass,advancedreburningshouldbeconsideredas
partoftheoriginalplantdesignusinggasifiedbiomassforthereburnfuelorother
reburningtechniquessuchasdirectbiomassinjection.Forexistingfacilities,there
remainunansweredquestionsregardingtheviabilityofretrofitreburnsystemsusing
biomassgasification.Thosequestionslikelywontbeansweredwithoutafullscale
commercialdemonstrationofaretrofitsystem.
Foraricestrawfiredpowerplant(basedonrecentEuropeandesigns),uncontrolled
NOxemissionsareexpectedtobehigherthanthatfromawoodfiredfacilitybecauseof
higherfuelNOxresultingfromthehighernitrogencontentofstrawcomparedtowood.
Selectivecatalyticoxidation(SCR)technologyforNOxreductioninbiomassfueled
boilersisdifficulttoimplement(becauseofcatalystdeactivationissues)andis
considereddevelopmental.ResearchisongoingbothintheUnitedStatesandEurope.
Californiashouldmonitor,oractivelypursueSCRbiomassresearch.
SocalledregenerativeSCR(RSCR)mayofferanimprovementoverthecurrentlyused
nonselectivecatalyticoxidation(NSCR)methodforNOxreduction.RSCRtreatsflue
152

gasafterPMremovalbyreheatingthegastoalevelrequiredforthecatalystto
function.Duetotheexpenseandenergyrequiredforreheat,RSCRsystemsdonot
necessarilyoperateattheoptimaltemperatureforthecatalyst.Therefore,NOx
reductionfromRSCRisexpectedtobenotasgoodasstandardSCR.Performance
informationfromthetwobiomassfacilitiesintheNortheastrecentlyretrofittedwith
RSCRshouldbepursued.WhetherRSCRissuitable(andsufficient)forCalifornias
needsshouldbedetermined.
Lowtemperatureozoneinjection(alsocalledlowtemperatureoxidation)isintriguing,
butadetailedreviewwasnotcompletedduringthisproject.Thetechniqueshouldbe
investigatedasacandidateforinstallationatnewbiomasscombustionfacilitiesaswell
asforretrofitcases.
PowerfromADofMSW
Improvedgasengineemissions(NOx)and/orincreasedefficiencyofgasturbinesystems
areneededtoincreasethedesirabilityofeachprimemovertypeinADinMSWpower
applications.
DivertingtheorganicfractionofMSWtoADandlandfillingthetreateddigestate(or
completelybypassingthelandfillbyupgradingthedigestatetovalueaddedproducts)
willhavepositivelongtermenvironmentalimpact(comparedtosimplelandfillingof
untreatedwastestreams).Thesebenefitsshouldbeusedtohelpoffsetcostsorimpacts
ofMSWconversiontoenergy.
Policystrategies,suchaslandfilltaxes,extendedproducerresponsibility(packagingand
producttakebackrequirements),banningbiodegradablematerialsinthelandfill,and/or
assigninglifecyclecostsofwastemanagement/disposaltothepriceoftheproductor
serviceshouldbepursued.Theemissionsproducedfromtrucktrafficrequiredtohaul
Sacramentowasteoutofstatearecalculatedasanexampleofdirectemissionoffsetsthat
mightbeavailableifthepracticewascurtailedandthematerialwasusedlocallyin
energyproduction.
DairyDigesterPowerSystems
Managingdairymanuretodecreasegroundandsurfacewatercontaminationand
reduceuncontrolledairemissionsmaycreateopportunitiesforpowerproductionasa
byproductofimprovedenvironmentalperformanceofthedairyindustry.Ifpoweris
producedfromdairydigestergas,thefacilityshouldbecreditedwithemissionoffsets
foremissionsthatwouldhaveoccurredhadthegasbeenflared.
GasEngines
NOxemissionsfromenginescanbereducedviacatalyticaftertreatmentofexhaustgas,
and,insomecases,treatment,orremovalofnitrogencompoundsinthefuelgas.
However,catalystdeactivationcanoccurwhensulfur,alkalis,andmetalsarepresentin
thefuelgas.
153

Forreciprocatingenginespoweredbygasifiedbiomass,thefuelgasisusuallycooled
beforeinductiontotheenginewhichshouldcondensealkaliandmetalvaporsonto
particlesoraerosols(sulfurisgenerallynotanissuewithproducergasbecauseoflow
sulfurcontentinmostbiomass).ProvidingPMissufficientlycleanedfromthefuel,there
maybefewerproblemsusingcatalyticemissioncontrolwithreciprocatingenginesthan
withgasturbinesandhotgascleanupsystems.
ThepotentiallyhighconcentrationofH2Sinbiogaspresentsaproblemforemissions,
bothasasourceofSO2emissionsaswellastheroleitplaysindeactivatingcatalysts.
Nitrogen,amacronutrientrequiredforplantgrowth,ispresentinbiomassatvariable
concentrationdependingonspeciesandcultivationpractice.Fuelboundnitrogenwill
bereleasedpredominantlyasammoniaandhydrogencyanide(HCN)inthefuelgas
createdbythermalgasification.Whenthefuelgasiscombusted(inaboiler,gasengine,
orgasturbine),thesenitrogencompoundsprimarilytransformtoNOx(fuelNOx).Itis
difficulttoremoveammoniabycondensationinhotgascleaningsystems.Catalytic
meanstoreduceammoniatonitrogengasarebeinginvestigated.
Fuelgascleaninginassociationwithcatalyticemissionscontrolshouldbeinvestigated
inmoredetail.Fuelgascleaninghasotherbenefitsaswell,includingreducedcorrosion
ratesingashandlingandpowergenerationequipmentandasatechniquetopermituse
ascleanvehiclefuelorforadditiontonaturalgasdistributionpipelines.
flammabilityrange.Investigatingtheeffectofincreasedhydrogeninthefuelgasshould
bepursuedforsmallenginebasedbiopowersystems.Improvedhydrogenco
productionmethodsfromADandgasificationofbiomassshouldbelinkedwith
emissionsimprovementforconventionalpowersystems(engines)aswellasforitsfuel
value.
OngoingandnewdemonstrationorfirstcommercialbiomassgasificationwithCHP
facilitiespresentatimelyopportunityforobservingandmonitoringthesefacilities.
Furtherdevelopmentofexistingassociationwiththeprojectdevelopersinorderto
facilitateexchangeofinformationisrecommended.
65

65.Thesefacilitiesinclude:UnitedStatesatleasttwoCPC50kWorlesssmallmodularpower
systems,aCHP(1MW)facilityinConnecticut;EnglandSkive,Kokemki,andmanymore.A
listofindustrycontactsandpotentialprojectparticipantsisincludedinTask4.
154

2.2 Environmental Performance of Selected Technologies
2.2.1 Gasification Environmental Issues
Airemissionsfrompowersystemsthatcombustbiomassproducergasesdependonthe
choiceofprimemover.Manybiomassfuelscontainnitrogenwhichcanformammonia,
orHCN,inthegasphase.Thesenitrogencompounds,inmostcircumstances,will
completelyoxidizetoNOxwhentheproducergasisburned.
ThenextsectiononIGCCincludesdiscussiononairemissionsfromagasturbinefiring
producergasfromavarietyoftypesofbiomass.Formoredetailonreciprocating
enginesfueledbyproducergas,seethesectiononreciprocatingengines.
Liquidandsolidresidues
Gasifiersthatcoolthegasforcleanupand/oremploywetscrubberswillhave
significantlevelsoforganiccompoundsinliquidorsludgeform,someofthemtoxic.
Systemsthatusehotgascleanupbeforefiringagasturbinewillhaveverylittletono
liquidresiduesfortreatmentordisposal(i.e.,theVrnamoBIGCCfacility).
Twosimilargasifiersystemsavailablecommerciallyusewetscrubbing(sometimeswith
chilledwater)forgascleaningbeforefiringinanengine(seeFigures21and22).These
systemsarebasedontheAnkurandtheIIScgasifiers,bothdevelopedinIndia.

Coarse and Fine
fabric filters
Wet Scrubber

Diesel
pilot fuel
Figure 2-1. Schematic of Ankur downdraft gasifier with dual-fuel power generation
configuration
Photo Credit: Wen 1999
155

Figure 2-2. Schematic of a Xylowatt SA biomass gasifier CHP facility
Photo Credit: Giordano 2003

Table21displaysanalysisofsomewastewaterfrombiomassproducergaswet
cleaningsystems.Thetableshowsrepresentativecompoundtypesandconcentrations
forbothtreatedandrawwastewater.Thewastewatercannotbedisposedwithout
treatment.Watertreatmentcanbeaccomplishedbyavarietyofabsorptionand
separationmethodsaswellasbiologicalremediation.Thoughtechnicallyachievable,the
addedcomplexityandexpenseofwastewatertreatmentsystemscanmakeaproject
economicallyinfeasible.
Drygascleanupsystemscanoffersomeadvantage,therefore.CommunityPower
Corporationhaspursuedthispathforgascleanup.Thisleavesonlysolidresidueinthe
fabricfilterandtheashandcharinthegasifierthatneeddisposal.Thereisapotential
forthefiltersolidstocontaintoxiccompoundswhichshouldbeaconsiderationwhen
specifyingasystem.

156

Table 2-1. Organic compounds in raw and treated producer gas scrubber water (Hasler et
al. 1998)

Photo Credit: Wen 1999
2.2.2 IGCC
TheVrnamo,Swedenplantwastheworldsfirst(andsofar,only)biomassfueled
IGCCplantthatoperatedsuccessfullyforextendedperiodsoftime.Thisdemonstration
facilityproducedpowerandheat(6MW,9MWth)andwasdevelopedbySydkraftAB
andFosterWheelerInternational.Thegasifierwasapressurizedairblowncirculating
fluidbedreactorthatoperatedatpressuresof18to22atmospheres.Thefacilityused
finelyground,driedwoodandbarkfeedstock(10to20%moisturecontent)deliveredto
thepowergenerationsitefromanadjacentpreparationfacility.Limitedtestswith
pelletizedstrawandrefusederivedfuelwerealsoperformed(Stevens2001)withsome
success.
Thegascleaningsystemconsistedofacycloneseparator,followedbyheatexchangeto
coolthegastoabout350C(fromabout900C)therebycondensingalkalivaporson
particulatematter(Stevens2001).Thepartiallycooledgaswaspassedthroughabarrier
filter(ceramicand/orsinteredmetalcandlefilters).Tarandalkalicontentinthe
filteredgaswerelessthan5g/m
3
,and0.1ppm(byweight),respectively(Stahland
Neergaard1998).Thefilteredgaswasthenfiredinagasturbine(EuropeanGas
Turbines,Ltd).Thegasturbinegeneratedabout4MW,andthesteambottomingcycle
produced2MWadditional(Engstrom1998).
157

TheVrnamogasificationsystemhasmoreoperationalexperiencethananyother
biomassfiredgasturbinesystem.Figure23showsaschematicoftheVrnamosystem.
Thegasifierwascompletedin1993.Intotal,thegasifieroperatedformorethan7,000
hours.Thegasturbinewasmodifiedforusewiththelowenergygasin1995,andtest
operationsoftheintegratedbiomassfueledpowergenerationsystembeganthatyear.
Bytheendof1999,theintegratedfacilityhadoperatedforatotalofabout3,500hours,
withmostofthoseduring1998and1999.Thefacilitywasbuiltasanearcommercial
demonstrationandwasnotintendedtoprovidelongtermpowergenerationona
commercialbasis.Thedemonstrationofthetechnologywascompletedin1999,andthe
facilitywasclosed(Stevens2001).
Anonprofitcompanywithtiestoalocaluniversityhasbeenestablishedtoutilizethe
facilityforresearchwhichincludesdevelopmentofrefusederivedfuelsforuseinIGCC,
productionofhydrogenrichsynthesisgas,andpilotproductionoftransportationfuels
fromsynthesisgas(Stahletal.2004).

Figure 2-3. Schematic of the Vrnamo, Sweden BIGCC facility
Photo Credit: Adapted from Stahl and Neergaard 1998

EmissionsandResidues
Becausethefacilityusedahotgasceramicfilterforgascleaning,condensedtarsand
othermaterialwerenotformedandtherewasnoliquidtodispose.Solidresiduesare
typicalbiomassashsimilartothatfromcombustionsystems.
158

Themainissueswithemissionsfromagasturbinefiredbybiomassproducergasare
NOxandCO.UnburnedhydrocarbonsandPMemissionsarequitelowbecausethe
cleanedproducergascontainsonlysmallamountsofeach.
Becauseofcomparativelylowcombustiontemperaturesexperiencedbythemodified
gasturbineoperatingonproducergas,thermalNOxwaslow(Stahletal.2004).Fuel
derivedNOxwasquitehighinsomecasesanddependentonfuelnitrogencontent.See
Table22andFigures24and25.
However,thefacilitydidnotutilizeanyfluegasemissioncontrolsforNOxorCO.A
commercialfacilitywouldincludestandardemissioncontrolequipmentasrequired
(suchasSCRandCOoxidationcatalystfortheexhaustaswellasselectivecatalytic
oxidation[SCO]ofammoniaandHCNinthefuelgas.)

N
O
x

(
p
p
m
)

Figure 2-4. NOx emissions showing fuel dependence, Vrnamo IGCC
Photo Credit: Stahl et al. 2004

159

Table 2-2. Fuel nitrogen and emissions for the Vrnamo BIGCC facility (approx. 3% O
2
)
(Stahl 2001)
Fuel
Fuel LHV
(MJ/kg, dry basis)
Gas Turbine
Load
(MW)
Fuel Nitrogen
(% dry basis)
NOx
(mg/MJ fuel)
CO (ppm,
dry gas)
SO
2
(mg/MJ
fuel)
Forest Slash
and Bark
18.9 3.6 0.2 - 0.4 265 100-170 30
Wood Chips 18.7 3.8 0.1 95 50 10
Bark 20 4.15 0.55 290 80 30
Salix 18.3 3 0.55 390 180 50
Straw 17.1 2.9 0.9-1.7 430 300-450 90
RDF 20.6 3 0.2-0.8 110-210 150-250 30

y = 9.4x
0.61
R
2
= 0.72
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Fuel Nitrogen (wt. % dry basis)
U
n
t
r
e
a
t
e
d

N
O
x

(
l
b
/
M
W
h
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
(
p
p
m
)

Figure 2-5. Untreated NOx emissions vs. fuel nitrogen content for the Vrnamo IGCC
facility
Photo Credit: Stahl 2001.
2.2.3 Straw Facility
inEnglandandSpain,theyweredesignedandbuiltbytheDanishcompanyFLSmilj,
nowBioenerApS.TheEly,England,plant,operatedbyEnergyPowerResources,is
purportedlythelargeststrawfiredfacilityintheworldconsumingontheorderof
150,000to200,000metrictonsperyear.Thefacilityusesnaturalgasasastabilization
160

fuelintheamountupto10%totalenergyinput.Itproducesonlypower(doesnot
operateinCHPmode)withacapacityofabout34MW(net)and36to38MW(gross)at
anavailabilityestimatedatabout80%.Grossefficiencyisabout33%(HHVbasis).
BothElyandtheSangesafacilityinSpainhavehighsteamtemperatures(520to540C),
andthesteampressureatElyis92bar.TheElyboilerdoesnotutilizeaseparatefuelfor
finalsuperheat(combinationboilermentionedabove).Specificboilerdetailscouldnot
beconfirmedforSangesa,soitisnotknownwhetheritisacombinationboiler.
FortheEly,England,plant,therearefourseparatewholebalefuelfeedlinesrunning
intoasinglefurnace.Balesareshreddedbeforebeinginjectedintotheboiler.Theboiler
usesaFLSmiljvibratinggrate(seeFigure26).

Figure 2-6. Schematic of Ely, England, Power Station
Photo Credit: Newman 2003
AirEmissionControlEquipment
ThefacilityatEly,England,usesstagedaircombustiontechniquesandfurnace
temperaturemodulationisusedforcontrolofbothNOxandCO(noammoniaorurea
injectionsystemisused).Fuelmoistureislimitedtoamaximumof26%(wetbasis)and
naturalgasiscofired(uptoabout10%oftotalenergyinput),bothofwhichaidin
maintaininggoodconditionsforstrawcombustion(theunburnedcomponentsinthe
ashaccountforabout0.6%oftheoriginalbiomassenergy).
SulfurdioxideandHClareremovedfromthecooledfluegasinagassuspension
absorber(GSA)usingfinedrylime(CaO)mixedwithrecirculatedflyash,astandard
161

162

acidgascontrolsystem.Thelimereacts,producingsolidcalciumchloride(CaCl2)and
calciumsulfates.Thelimeisaddedasneededbyacontrolsystemusingcontinuous
measurementofHClandSO2inthestack.Limeinjectionratevariesfromabout25to130
lbs/hr(100500t/year).Theflyashandcalciumcompounds(PM)areremovedfromthe
fluegasbyafabricfiltersystem.Theexhauststackisnearly47metershigh(153feet)
andissizedsuchthatthemeanstackgasvelocityisgreaterthan15meterspersecond
duringnormaloperatingconditions.
AirEmissionsandComparisons
Table23showstheactualandpermittedairemissionsforthefacility.Thevaluesin
mg/Nm
3
aretakenfromarecentreportdescribingperformancetestsusingseveralfuel
types(Newman2003).Emissionvaluesinlbs/MWhandtons/yearwerecalculatedfrom
furnaceoperatingparameters.Actualemissionsareabout50%ofthepermittedlevelfor
NOxandHCl.Carbonmonoxideemissionsareabout30%ofpermitlevelandSO2and
PMemissionsareabout20%orlessofthepermittedamount.
Table 2-3. Actual and permitted air emissions for straw facility, Ely, England (Newman
2003).
mg/Nm
3
(11% O
2
) lbs/MWh tons/y
Actual Permitted Actual Permitted Actual Permitted
PM 4 25 0.05 0.32 6.1 37.8
SO
2
56 300 0.73 3.90 84.8 454.1
CO 79 250 1.03 3.25 119.6 378.4
NOx 149 300 1.94 3.90 225.6 454.1
HCl 15 30 0.19 0.39 22.7 45.4

Table24showspermittedairemissionlevelsforseveralCaliforniasolidbiomasspower
facilitiesandtheEly,England,strawfiredpowerplant.Theemissionlimitsare
presentedbothinpoundspernetMWhaswellastonsperyear(basedon85%capacity
factor).
Table 2-4. Air permit limits for several California solid fuel biomass power plants and one UK facility.
Plant Name
S
t
a
t
u
s
*

Town/City County
Net
MW
Net
Energy
GWh/y
@85%
capacit
y factor
Permit Limits
S
o
u
r
c
e

(lbs/(net MWh)) (tons/year)
PM SO
2
NOx CO
VOC,
total
HC,
NMHC
PM SO
2
NOx CO
VOC,
total
HC,
NMHC
AES Delano O Delano Kern 50 372.3 0.28 0.42 1.01 1.76 0.16 52.1 77.4 187.6 328.4 29.8 1
Wheelabrator
Shasta
O Anderson Shasta 50 372.3 0.80 0.28 3.05 15.86 1.78 148.9 52.40 568.1 2952 331.3 1
Ely Straw O Ely, UK 34 253.2 0.32 3.90 3.90 3.25 - 37.8 454.1 454.1 378.4 - 3
Burney
Forest Power
O Burney Shasta 31 230.8 1.29 0.71 1.85 8.66 1.54 148.9 81.9 213.7 1,000 178.0 1
Rio Bravo O Fresno Fresno 25 186.2 0.23 0.40 1.18 0.49 0.42 21.6 37.2 110.0 46.0 38.7 1
AES
Mendota
O Mendota Fresno 25 186.2 0.57 0.41 1.11 1.55 0.39 52.8 38.3 103.5 144.1 36.1 1
Woodland
Biomass
O Woodland Yolo 25 186.2 0.29 0.53 1.06 47.52 0.70 26.8 49.50 98.60 4423 65.2 1
Madera
Biomass
O Madera Madera 25 186.2 0.40 1.16 2.00 2.40 0.96 37.2 108.0 186.2 223.4 89.4 2
Pacific
Lumber
O Scotia Humboldt 19 141.5 1.48 - 5.58 22.26 - 105.0 - 394.6 1575 - 1
Tracy
Biomass
O Tracy
San
Joaquin
18.5 137.8 0.47 0.34 1.47 2.94 0.69 32.6 23.3 101.3 202.5 47.7 1
Covanta
Oroville
O Oroville Butte 18 134.0 0.59 - 2.41 36.87 1.24 39.2 - 161.2 2471 83.1 1
Fairhaven
Power
O Eureka Humboldt 17.5 130.3 0.72 - 2.71 10.86 - 46.9 - 176.5 707.4 - 1
Covanta
Burney
O Burney Shasta 10 74.5 0.89 0.59 3.30 21.22 2.93 33.0 22.0 122.9 790 109.0 1
Chowchilla II C Madera Madera 10 74.5 0.62 1.04 1.04 2.29 1.04 23.1 38.7 38.7 85.3 38.7 2
El Nido C Merced 10 74.5 0.60 0.80 1.04 2.29 1.0 22.3 29.8 38.7 85.3 37.2 2
SPI Burney O Burney Shasta 9.5 70,.7 1.13 0.28 5.26 43.82 3.39 40.0 10.0 186.2 1550 120.0 1
* Status; O= Operating C= Closed
Sources; 1). Title V airpermits available on-line at; http://www.arb.ca.gov/fcaa/tv/tvinfo/permits/permits.htm

2) Wiltsee, G. (2000). Lessons learned from existing biomass power plants. NREL/SR-570-26946, Appel Consultants, Inc/NREL, Valencia, Calif.
3) Newman, R. (2003).
163

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
CO NOx SO2 PM THC
(
l
b
s
/
M
W
h
)
Chowchilla-Permit Chowchilla-Actual
El Nido-Permit El Nido-Actual
Madera-Permit Madera-Actual
Woodland-Permit Woodland-Actual
Ely,UK-Permit Ely,UK-Actual

Figure 2-7. Permitted and actual emissions for several solid fuel biomass plants

Figure27displaysthepermittedandactualemissionsfromfourbiomasspowerplants
inCaliforniaaswellastheEly,England,strawcombustionpowerplant.TheElNido
andChowchillafacilitiesarecurrentlyidle,whileWoodland,Madera,andElyare
operating.NotethatfortheCaliforniafacilitiesshown,NOxemissionsaregenerally
runningnearthepermittedlevels(exceptforMaderawhichhasthelowestNOx
emissionsoftheplantsshownbuthasahighNOxpermitlevel).CostofNOxcontrol
suchaspurchaseofammoniaforSNCRandavoidanceofammoniasliptypicallyresults
inoperationsnearpermitlevelsforNOx.Particulatematteremissionsarenear
permittedlevelsfortheCaliforniafacilitiesexceptforElNidowhichemittedwellbelow
itsPMpermitlimit.EmissionsfromtheEly,England,strawfacilityarewellbelow
permittedlevels.Infact,exceptforSO2andNOx,Elyemissionsarebelowtheaverage
permittedlevelsfortheCaliforniafacilitieslistedinTable24.
Sulfurdioxideemissionsderivefromfuelbornesulfur.Sulfurcontentinthecereal
straws(wheatandbarley)firedattheElyfacilityrangefromabout0.1to0.4%(by
weight,drybasis).SulfurcontentofSacramentoValleyricestrawtypicallyrangesfrom
0.06to0.09%(drybasis)(Jenkins1996;Jenkins1989).Sulfurdioxideemissionsfroma
facilityfiredbyricestrawinCaliforniaarenotanticipatedtobeacontrolissueand
164

fluidizedbedsusinglimestoneordolomiteinjectiontohelpcontrolfoulingwillalso
assistinremovingsulfurfromthefluegas.
NOxemissionsfromtheElystrawfacilityarelowconsideringthatthereissignificant
fuelnitrogenpresent(seeTable25)andnopostcombustionNOxcontroldevicesare
used.NOxattheElyfacilityiscontrolledsolelybymanagingthecombustion
parameters.Ingeneral,CaliforniasolidfueledbiomassfacilitiesuseSNCRand/orflue
gasrecirculationandcombustionmanagementforNOxcontrol.Reburninghasnotso
farbeendeployedforNOxreductioninCaliforniafacilities,althoughinvestigatedona
pilotorresearchlevel.
Table 2-5. Nitrogen content of several biomass types
Biomass
Nitrogen Content
(% by weight, dry basis)
Sources*
Rice Straw 0.47 - 0.93 1,2,6
Wheat Straw
(typical Ely, UK fuel)
0.44 - 0.91 1,4,5
Orchard Prunings
(English and Black
Walnut, Almond)
0.22 - 0.66 1,5,6
Fir / Pine / Spruce 0.05 - 0.30 3,5,6
*Table Sources:
1) Jenkins, B. M. (1989). Physical Properties of Biomass. Biomass Handbook, O. Kitani and C.
W. Hall, eds., Gordon and Breach, New York, 860-891.
2) Jenkins, B. M., Bakker, R. R., and Wei, J. B. (1996). On the properties of washed straw.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 10(4), 177-200.
3) Jenkins, B. M., Kayhanian, M., Baxter, L. L., and Salour, D. (1997). Combustion of residual
biosolids from a high solids anaerobic digestion/aerobic composting process. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 12(5), 367-381.
4) Newman, R. (2003). A trial burn of rape straw and whole crops harvested for energy use to
assess efficiency implications. B/U1/00768/00/00 URN 03/1569, New & Renewable Energy
Programme, ETSU/DTI (UK).
5) Phyllis, database for biomass and waste, Energy research Centre of the Netherlands,
http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis
6) Rizeq, G., and Zamansky, V. (2004). Utilization of waste renewable fuels in boilers with
minimization of pollutant emissions. California Energy Commission contract no. 500-98-037,
GE Global Research, Irvine.

Ricestrawcontainsaboutthesameamountofnitrogenaswheatstraw(Table25).
Therefore,afacilityinCaliforniaburningricestrawwouldhavesimilarNOxproduction
(i.e.,expectsimilarcontributionstototalNOxproductionfromfuelbornenitrogenand
thermalNOx).UncontrolledNOxemissionswhenburningricestrawwithwoodhave
previouslybeenshowntoincreaseabout30%fora20%blend(Jenkins1994;Jenkinsand
Bakkeretal.2000).
Whenfiredasablendincommercialpowerboilers,ricestraw
requiredincreasedammoniainjectiontomaintainNOxwithinpermitlevelsadding
about$0.08/MWhtothecostofgeneration(JenkinsandWilliamsetal.1999).
BottomandFlyAsh
TheElyfacilityconsumesstrawthathasanashcontentofabout6%(wetbasis).Fora
strawconsumptionrateof200,000Mgperyear,totalsolidresidueisapproximately
12,000Mgor13,230shorttons.Thisisequivalenttoapproximately40tonsperdayor
165

abouttwotruckloadsperday.TheElyfacilityreturnsmostofthesolidresiduetoarea
farmsforlandapplication.Californiaricestrawhasanashcontentofabout15%(wet
basis).Solidresidueforasimilarlysizedfacilityburningricestrawwillbe
approximately2.5timesmoreorabout33,000tonsperyearor100tonsperday(four
truckloads/day).Ofsomeconcernrelativetowheatstrawisthehighersilicacontentof
ricestraw,leadingpotentiallytotheneedforgreaterprecautionsinashhandlingto
avoidinhalationhazards.
LiquidResidues
Ifwetscrubbingsystemsarenotusedinemissionscontrol,thenliquidemissionsfrom
thefacilitywouldbeverylow,limitedtoboilerwaterblowdownanddischargesludge
fromcoolingtowers.Aproperlylinedandsizedholdingpondshouldbesufficientto
receiveandevaporateallliquidsfromthefacility.AnumberoffacilitiesinCaliforniaare
alreadyzerodischargeforwastewater.
2.2.4 MSW/green Waste AD Systems and Dairy Manure Digester Systems
TreatmentofMSWandanimalmanuresbyADsystemsareusuallyviewedasawaste
managementoptionwithfewernegativeenvironmentalimpactsthanconventional
disposalmethods.
ForMSW,conventionaldisposalisbylandfillwithsomecaptureofthegenerated
methane.Olderlandfillsdidnotemployengineeredlowpermeabilitylinersfor
reducingleachatetransport.Newerlandfillsaredesignedtorestrictleachateleakage
bothduringfillingandafterthelandfillhasreachedcapacityandceasedreceiving
material,butitisgenerallyacceptedthatthesesystemswilleventuallyfailwithleachate
intrusionintogroundwater.Shortofmonitoringleachatefromclosedlandfillsandthen
miningthemtorecoverandtreatorstabilizethematerialbeforegroundwater
contaminationoccurs,theonlyothermeansofensuringstablewastedisposalistotreat
thematerialbeforelandfillingoravoidlandfillingaltogether.Burningorbiochemically
stabilizing(compostingoranaerobicdigestion)wastesaretreatmentoptionsthatare
nowrequiredinEurope,andonlyMSWresiduescanbelandfilled.
TraditionalanimalmanuredisposalintheUnitedStatesconsistedofscrapingpensand
spreadingmanureonsurroundingfields.Feedingoperationsusedtobemuchsmaller
andruminantanimalsusedtospendalargerfractionoftheirlifetimesinpastures
comparedtoconfinedanimalfeedingoperations.Liquidwasteswereallowedtobe
flushedintostreamsorsimplyheldinlagoonswithseepagecontrolledonlybylocalsoil
conditions.Airandwateremissionsandodorsweretoleratedbecauseoflowanimal
andhumanpopulationdensities.Propermanagementtoavoidoverloadingsoilswith
saltswasrequiredtoreducesalinizationoffarmlands.Thisremainsacriticalissuewith
landapplicationofmanuresanddigesterresiduestoday.
AgriculturaloperationsinCaliforniaarenowsubjecttostrictairandwateremission
regulations.Airpermitsarerequiredforallagriculturaloperationswithairpollution
emissionsthatexceedonehalfofthemajorsourcethresholdofanycriteriapollutant.
166

Nutrientlimitationsinwatershedsalsodeterminesolidshandlingdisposaltosome
extent.
Energyproductionfromthebiogascreatedindigestersystemsisanenvironmental
benefitwhencomparedtosimpleflaringwithnoenergyrecovery,orthefugitive
methaneandVOCemissionsthatwouldhaveoccurredusingthetraditionaloptions.As
discussedinTask1.1.3.3(EconomicAssessments),energyproductionfromthese
systemsisexpensiveandpossiblyuncompetitiveifenergyrevenuesaloneareneededto
financetheentiretreatmentsystem.
MSWADEmissions
EmissionsfromMSWADsystemsincludeairemissionsfromtheuseofbiogas(usually
stationaryreciprocatingengine,vehicle,gasboiler,gasturbine,orflare),airemissions
fromposttreatmentofsolids/digestate(compostand/orlandapplication),liquid
emissionsfromexcessprocesswateranddewateringoperations,andlandemissions
dependingonhowthesoliddigestatesareusedordisposed.
Inaddition,therecanbefugitivegasanddustemissionsthatdependoncontrol
strategies,operationalpractices,andlevelofmaintenanceataparticularfacility(e.g.,
enclosedreceivingbuildingswhichmayhaveexhaustairtreatmenttominimizeVOC
anddustemissionsfromunloadingandfeedstockstorage).
AirEmissionsfromUseofBiogas
Emissionsfromtheuseofbiogasaretypicalofcombustionprocessesburningmethane
withtheexceptionofsulfur.GaseousemissionsincludeNOx,SOx,CO,unburned
hydrocarbons,andparticulatematter.Ifthebiogasisconsumedinapplicationsother
thansimpleflaring,theemissionsshouldreceiveanoffsetcreditbytheamountthat
wouldhavebeencreatedfromthedisplacedfuel.
Verylargelandfillsandwastewatertreatmentfacilitiescanproduceenoughbiogasto
justifyrelativelyhighcapitalcostprimemoverssuchasgasturbineswithheatrecovery
(combinedcycle),orsteamboilersforlargescalecombinedheatandpower.Forthe
scalesbeingconsideredforinvesselMSWADanddairymanuretopowersystemsin
California,reciprocatinginternalcombustionenginesarethemostlikelychoice.Incases
whereNOxemissionlimitsareverylow,microormidsizedgasturbinesmaybe
attractive.Theconversionefficiencyofturbinesatthesescales(lessthan2MW)arenot
ashighasreciprocatingengineefficiencies.Turbinesgenerallyaremoreexpensiveas
well,buttendtohavesuperioremissionscontrolperformancebecauseofthegreater
controlachievablewithcontinuouscombustionenginesascontrastedwithintermittent
reciprocatingtypeenginesandhigherexcessair.Thechoiceofprimemovertype
dependsonthevalueofpower,heat,emissionreductions,etc.
DependingonSOxemissionlimitsand/orconcentrationofH2Sinthebiogas,gas
cleaningtolowersulfurandmoisturecontentpriortouseinreciprocatingenginesmay
benecessary.Wetscrubbingistypicalandironcatalyzedoxidationandbiologicalfixed
167

filmreactorgasscrubbingmethodsarealsousedforsulfurremoval.Insomecases,
simplecompressionandcoolingofthegas,acommonmoistureremovaltechnique,is
sufficienttolowersulfurcontenttoasuitablelevel(Pierce1997).Elementalsulfuris
eventuallydepositedandcanbesafelydisposed.
NOxisalwaysproducedtosomedegreewhenfuelisburnedwithairandcanbe
emittedathighlevelsfromuncontrolledreciprocatinggasengines.InCalifornia,NOx
emissionsareusuallythelimitingfactorforstationarypowergenerationusing
reciprocatingengines.Becauseofimpuritiesinbiogassuchassulfur,andinsomecases
siloxanes(principallyassociatedwithlandfillgasandsewagedigestergas),catalytic
convertersforcontrolofNOxandunburnedhydrocarbonsarenotoftenused.Flaring
biogasgenerallyemitslowerNOxbecausetemperatureswithhighexcessairarelower
thanthoseencounteredincombustionchambers,butthereisnorecoverableenergy.
Leanburn,prestratifiedcharge,andexhaustgasrecirculationtechnologiesareusedfor
reducingNOxemissionsfromthisclassofengine,butarecurrentlynotavailablefor
powersetsbelowabout500kW.
Carbonmonoxideemissionscanbecomeanissueespeciallywhenimplementingsome
NOxcontrolstrategiesforreciprocatingengines.Forexample,veryleanburnconditions
canleadtoincompletecombustionormisfiringwhichwillincreaseCOandunburned
hydrocarbonsintheexhaust.
TheadditionalimpactsofwastetreatmentbyADduetoenergyproductionarealmost
entirelyduetoproductsofcombustionofthebiogasanddisposaloruseofdigester
residues(digestates).Amoredetaileddiscussionofemissionlimitsandbehaviorof
reciprocatinggasenginescanbefoundbelow.
VOCEmissionsfromCompostingofDigestate
Volatileorganiccompoundsarealargegroupofanthropogenicorbiogenicorganic
compoundswithrelativelyhighvaporpressures.VOCscanbepotentialairpollutants,
duetotheirmalodorousandhazardouspropertiesandcontributiontotropospheric
ozone.Inaddition,VOCscancontributetoglobalwarmingandstratosphericozone
depletion.VOCsareusuallydefinedastheorganiccompounds(exceptmethane)with
boilingpointslessthan175F,whilesemivolatilecompoundsaretheorganic
compoundswithboilingpointsbetween175Fand350F(Komilisetal.2004). Methane
alsoparticipateswithNOxintheformationofozone,buttheratesareslowerandthe
effectismoreimportantonaglobalatmosphericscalethanonalocalscaleofdiurnal
variation.
VOCsareemittedfromdecomposingbiogenicmaterialincludingMSWandgreenwaste
compostfacilitiesaswellasposttreatmentofdigestatefromMSWADsystems.The
amountofVOCemissionsaresignificantandneedtobeconsideredforinstallationsin
ozonenonattainmentortransportairbasins.
168

Smetetal.(1999)comparedVOCandammoniaemissionsfromtwodifferentmethods
forbiochemicaltreatmentofbiodegradablewastes.Sourceseparatedhouseholdand
gardenwastes(70%garden,20%kitchen,and10%paperwastes)weretreatedby(1)
standardaerobiccompostingwithupflowaeration,and(2)acombinationofAD
followedbyaerobicstabilizationofdigestate.VOCandammoniaemissionswere
measuredfromeachprocess.AssumingthebiogasproducedintheADstageof
treatmentmethod(2)isflaredorcombustedinanengine,thenthetotalvolatile
emissionsfortreatment(2)wouldcomeonlyfromtheaerobicstabilizationportionofthe
treatmentor6%ofthosefromtreatmentmethod(1)(i.e.,44mg/tonfromtreatment(2)
versus742mg/tonfromtreatment(1),seeTable26).Additionally,thepartially
stabilizeddigestatefromtheADportionofthecombinedtreatmentrequiresabout1/10
theamountofairduringtheaerobicphasecomparedtothefullaerobictreatment
method(1),whichrequiresaproportionatelysmallerfanandbiofilterforfinalcontrol.
However,mostofthevolatileemissionfromtreatment(2)wascomposedofammonia
(NH3)(morethan500mgpercubicmeter)requiringammoniascrubbingifthegasisto
bepassedthroughabiofilterpriortoexhaust.
Table 2-6. Emissions for different biochemical treatment methods
Emission
Compound
Treatment (a)
Aerobic
Composting
Emission (mg/ton)
Treatment (b)
Anaerobic
Digestion
Emission
(mg/ton)
Aerobic
Stabilization
Emission
(mg/ton)
Total VOC 590 217 3
NH
3
152 1.8 41
H
2
S nd 17 nd
Total Volatiles 742 236 44

Komilisetal.(2004)foundgaseousVOCemissionsfromallprincipalbiogenic
componentsofMSWcompost.TotalVOCemissionsmeasuredrangedfrom570gper
drykgforfoodwasteandyardwastes(mixedat22%and78%bydryweight
respectively)to6,060gperdrykgformixedpaper.Amixturetorepresentthebiogenic
fractionofMSW(mixedpaper,foodwastesandyardwastes)producedVOCemissions
attherateof1,200gperdrykg.TheVOCemissionsarenotproportionalto,or
additivewith,theratiooforganicmaterialsinthewastemixtureimplyinginteractions
occuramongthedifferentsubstrates.TheonlychlorinatedVOCdetectedwas1,4
dichlorobenzene,andemissionsvarieddependingonthesubstrate.Komilisetal.(2004)
containsagoodreviewofVOCemissionsfromMSWandcompostingoperations.
LandfillGasEmissions
Anevaluationoftheemissionsimpactsofconversiontechnologieswouldnotbe
completewithoutadiscussionoflandfillgasemissions,whichrepresentthecurrent
stateofwastedisposal.TheconversionofbiodegradablematerialinADsystemswill
reduceeventuallandfillgasproductionandemissionandshouldreceiveemission
creditsthatcanbeappliedtooffsetemissionsfromthepowerproductioncomponent.
169

Asdiscussedabove,thebacterialdecompositionofbiogeniclandfilledmaterial
producessignificantquantitiesoflandfillgas,whichiscomposedofapproximately50%
methaneand50%carbondioxide.Themethaneemissionsfromlandfillsareparticularly
important,sincemethaneisamorepotentgreenhousegasthancarbondioxideandsince
landfillsrepresentthesecondlargestsourcecategoryofanthropogenicmethane
emissionsbehindtheenergyindustry(seeTable27).
MethaneemissionsfromUnitedStateslandfillsfor1990to2002arepresentedonatotal
massbasisinTable27.Totallandfillmethaneproductionincreasedovertheperiod,but
correspondingincreasesinlandfillgasrecoveryledtoabouta10%reductioninnet
methaneemissionstotheatmosphere.Amajorityofthelandfillgasproducedbyactive
landfillsinthestateisconvertedtoelectricity,andcomparisonsofelectricalcapacities
provideagoodcomparisonofthelevelofcontrolofmethaneemissionsfromlandfillsin
thestate.Forthestate,landfillgasthatiseithercurrentlyusedforelectricityproduction,
isplannedforelectricityuse,orisflared,representsapproximately305MW,while
uncontrolledorventedlandfillshaveacapacityof31MW(Hackett2004).

Table 2-7. CH
4
emissions from United States landfills (Gg)
66

Activity 1990 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
MSW Landfills 11,599 13,520 13,802 14,047 14,385 14,659 14,954 15,221
Industrial Landfills 812 946 966 983 1,007 1,026 1,047 1,065
Recovered
Gas-to-Energy (824) (1,360) (1,618) (1,938) (2,177) (2,376) (2,630) (2,748)
Flared (478) (2,059) (2,390) (2,692) (2,750) (2,764) (3,146) (3,325)
Oxidized
(1,111) (1,105) (1,076) (1,040) (1,047) (1,055) (1,022) (1,021)

Total 9,998 9,942 9,685 9,360 9,419 9,491 9,202 9,192
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. oxidized in soil covering

SolidResidues
Lignincomponentsofbiomasscannotbedegradedanaerobically.WithpracticalAD
systems,size,capital,andtimeconstraintslimittheportionofbiodegradablematerial
thatisactuallyconvertedtosomethinglessthantheoretical.Thisportion,combined
withthelignincomponents,microbialcellbiomass,andtheinorganic(ash)components,
resultinsubstantialsolidresiduethatmayormaynothavecommercialuse.
ApotentialproductfromADofMSWisacompostorsoilamendmentresultingfrom
aerobicstabilizationofthesolidresidueordigestate.Ifacompostmarketdoesnotexist
oradequatequalitycannotbeachieved,thenthesolidresidualmaybeusedin
thermochemicalconversionorsenttolandfill.
Compostqualityconsistsofatleastfouraspects:

66.UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,2004.InventoryofU.S.Greenhousegas
EmissionsandSinks:19902002.EPAreportNo.EPA430R04003.
170

Contentoftoxiccompoundssuchasheavymetals.
Absenceofpathogens.
Contentofundesirablegoodssuchasplastic,metal,glassetc.
Plantnutritionalvalue,i.e.inorganicnutrientsaswellascontentoforganic
compoundsforimprovingthestructureandhumuscontentofthesoil.
CompostQualityHeavyMetals
Thequalityofcomposteddigestatedependsheavilyonthequalityorcompositionofthe
digesterfeedstock.OperatorsandregulationsinEuropestronglyencouragesource
separationofhouseholdandyardbiogenicwastesfromthegrayorrestfractionfor
useinbiochemicaltreatmentforbothimproveddigesterperformanceandhighquality
oruseablecompostfromthesolidresidue.
Heavymetalsandothercontaminantspresentindigesterfeedstockpredominatelyend
upinthesoliddigestate.Kubleretal.(2000)reportedthat80%oftheheavymetals
introducedintothedigester(afterpulpingandseparationofheavyandlightfraction)
weredischargedtothesoliddigestate.Thebalancewasnotreportedbutpresumably
mostoftheremainingheavymetalswereinsolutionintheprocesswater.Metals
concentrationisgenerallyhigherinthedigestatecomparedtothatofthefeedstock
becauseofbiomassconversiontobiogas.Edelmannetal.(2004)indicatethatresults
frommorethan1,000analysesofcompostfromanaerobicdigestionwithaerobic
stabilizationorjustaerobictreatmentofsourceseparatedbiogenicfractionofMSW
showedheavymetalconcentrationswerelessthanhalfoftheSwisslimitsforcompost
(inppmdrymatter:Pb:120,Cr:100,Ni:30,Zn:400,Cu:100,Hg:1,Cd:1).
Composteddigestatequalityandheavymetalconcentrationfromoperatingcommercial
facilitiesinBelgiumusingtheDrancoADprocessisreportedontheOrganicWaste
SystemscompanywebsiteandcontainedinareportbyDeBaereandBoelens(1999).
Table28displayssomeofthesedata.Itincludesdetailedanalysesoffinishedcompost
fromtheBrecht,Belgiumplant,whichfeedssourceseparatedhouseholdbiogenicand
yardwastestoathermophilichighsolidsdigester.Thedigestateisdewateredand
compostedinacoveredfacilitywithforcedaeration.Thefinishedcompostmeetsthe
compostqualityrequirementsfortheFlandersregioninBelgium(Table28).Datafor
heavymetalscontentforcomposteddigestatefromtheBassumplantisalsoshownin
Table28.
171

Table 2-8. Compost analysis from two Dranco facilities in Belgium
Units
Flemish
Compost
Standard
s
Average of
Brecht
Plant
(source
separated)
Bassum Plant (grey waste digestion)
Fiber material Sludge Fraction
Untreate
d
Treate
d
Untreate
d
Treate
d
Lead (Pb) (ppm TS) <120 97 80 60 220 90
Nickel (Ni) (ppm TS) <20 8 25 18 30 18
Zinc (Zn) (ppm TS) <300 180 350 180 900 250
Copper (Cu) (ppm TS) <90 32 100 55 240 80
Cadmium (Cd) (ppm TS) <1.5 1 0.9 0.5 1.9 1.4
Chromium (Cr) (ppm TS) <70 23 60 40 40 36
TS = total solids
Source: Organic Waste Systems website and De Baere and Boelens 1999.

Thefeedstockusedfordigestionisthebiogenicportionobtainedfromseparationofthe
socalledgrayorrestfractionofthewastestream.Graywasteistheremainderafter
recyclables,packaging,hazardous,andhouseholdbiogenicwastefractionsaresource
separated.About60%ofthegraywastestreambecomesfeedstockfortheBassumplant.
Heavymetalscontentofthefiberandsludgefractionsfromcomposteddigestateofa
portionofthegraywastefractionishigherthanthatforsourceseparatedfeedstocks.
ThecompostfromBassumcannotmeettheFlemishstandardswithoutfirstremoving
someoftheheavymetals,especiallyzincandcopper,fromthefeedstock(DeBaere
2003).
KrausandGrammel(1992)examinedcompostinseveralregionswithinGermanyand
observedthatheavymetalscontentincompostofsourceseparatedbiogenicfraction
averaged25%thatofmixedMSWcompost(Table29).Most,ifnotall,ofthesecompost
sampleswerefromrawornonADtreatedfeedstock.
172

Table 2-9. Heavy metal content in compost from solid
wastes in Germany (Kraus and Grammel 1992)
Element Mixed MSW
Compost (ppm)
Source-
separated
Compost (ppm)
Lead (Pb) 420 83
Nickel (Ni) 84 26
Zinc (Zn) 919 224
Copper (Cu) 222 41
Cadmium (Cd) 2.8 0.4
Chromium (Cr) 107 61
Mercury (Hg) 1.9 <0.2

DioxininTrashandCompost
Acommonmisconceptioninmanagementofsolidwasteisthatemissions(gas,liquid,
solid)frombiochemicalprocessingofMSW,incontrasttothermochemicalprocessing,
arecompletelybenign.Bothprocessingstrategiesinvolvepotentiallyhazardous
emissionsandexposureroutesneedcarefulinspection.Dibenzopdioxinand
dibenzofuran(PCDD/Fordioxin/furans)compoundsaregeneratedbymanyindustrial
processes.Operatingwastetoenergy(WTEorincineration)facilitiesintheUnited
StateshavebeenretrofittedtoMACTstandardsandasaresult,theindustryemits
approximately12gTEQofPCDD/Fperyearconstitutingadecreaseof99.9%from1987
emissions.
67
Amongalldioxinsources,MSWcombustionaccountsforlessthan1%of
totalairemissionsintheUnitedStates.
68
Dioxin/furansarepresentindetectableamountsintheenvironment.Thecompounds
arepersistentandfatsolubleandthereforetendtobioaccumulate.Becauseofthe
backgroundaccumulationofPCDD/Fcompoundsinfoodandfiber,MSWintheUnited
Statesislikelytocontaindetectibleamountswhichmayneedtobeconsideredinoverall
environmentalimpacts.
FurtherdiscussioninthedetailedreportbyBrinton(2000)oftheKrausandGrammel
(1992)resultsrevealsdatafromdioxinanalysisofseveraltypesofcompostandraw
householdsolidwastefromGermany(Figure28).Averagesfromseveralsamplesof
eachcategoryshowedPCDD/Finrawhouseholdmixedwastewaspresentinthe
amountof57ng/kgToxicEquivalent.CompostedmixedMSWhadPCDD/Flevelsof38
ng/kgTEQ,followedbycompostofsourceseparatedhouseholdwastewith14ng/kg
TEQandabout10ng/kgTEQingreenandgardenwastecompost.Brinton(2000)did
notindicatewhetherthecompostedmixedhouseholdwastewasfromthesamesource
astherawmixedhouseholdwasteorwhythePCDD/Fconcentrationwaslowerinthe
compostedmixedhousewaste.

67.U.S.EPADocketNo.A9045,VIII.B11andU.S.EPADioxinSourceInventory2002.
68.U.S.EPAPCDD/FEmissionsDatabase,
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20797

173

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
T
e
q

(
n
g
/
k
g
)
Household
Trash
Household
Trash Compost
Source-separated Household
Biogenic Waste Compost
Green Waste Compost
Garden Waste
Compost

Note: Each column represents an individual sample.

Figure 2-8. PCDD/F content of raw household wastes and several compost types
Photo Credit: Source Kraus and Grammel, 1992, as reported in Brinton (2000).

PesticidesandHerbicidesinCompostandCompostedDigestate
Certainsyntheticpesticidesorherbicidesareknownorsuspectedtopersistinthe
environmentafterapplication.Clopyralidisapersistentherbicideusedtocontrol
broadleafweedssuchasdandelions,clover,andthistle.Itisharmlesstohumansor
animalsbutsurvivesanimaldigestionandcompostprocesses.
69
Clopyralidhasbeen
bannedfromcertainusesinWashingtonafteritwassuspectedofdamagingtomato
cropsfertilizedwithcompost.Thechemicalhasbeendetectedinsomecompostin
Californiabutnocropdamagehasbeenconfirmed.Inanattempttolimituse,AB2356,
Statutesof2002requiresclopyralidbesoldonlytoqualifiedapplicators.
70
ThereispotentialfordetectableamountsofpesticidesandherbicidesinMSWAD
feedstocksinCaliforniabasedoninvestigationsdoneinEurope.Thesestudieshave
shownpresenceofchemicalsandpesticidesinhouseholdorganicorbiowaste(Taubeet
al.2002;Vorkampetal.2002;Vorkampetal.2003).Taubeetal.(2002)examinedsamples
ofbiogenicwastecomponentsofMSWcropprotectionproducts(CPP).Typical

69.http://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/Pesticides/docs/Clopyralid/ClopyralidFactSheet.pdf
70.http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Organics/Threats/Clopyralid/Background.htm
174

householdandyardwastesinGermanyoverafourseasonperioddistributedbetween
ruralandurbansourceswereexaminedformorethan50pesticide/herbicidechemicals.
AllsamplescontainedCPPresidues.Tropicalfruitpeelsandresidueshadsignificant
concentrationofthiabendazoleandmethidathion,whicharetypicallyappliedpost
harvestforprotectionintransportandstorage.Dimethoat,dodemorph,endosulfan,and
otherfungicideswerefoundinvegetableandgardenwastes.LaboratoryADwas
carriedoutonrawsamplesandshowedthatsomeCPPscouldbemetabolized,
modified,orotherwisestabilizedtovaryingdegrees.However,manyarepersistent
(suchasdodemorph)andcannegativelyaffectplantsandcropsifthecompostcontains
highenoughlevels.
2.2.5 Dairy Emissions
Emissionsduetodairypowersystemsareinfluencedheavilybytheprimemover.As
indicatedabove,biogasproductionfromevenlargedairiesisnotlargeenoughto
warrantmediumtolargegasturbinesorevenlargereciprocatingengines.Seeelsewhere
inthisreportfordiscussiononreciprocatingenginesfueledbybiogasand/orproducer
gas.Theoverallbenefitsofreductionsindairyandagriculturalemissionswhichmaybe
obtainedwiththeutilizationofdigestionsystemsandmanuresolidshandlingshouldbe
assessedwhenpermitlevelsforstationaryengineoperationarebeingdetermined.
Energyproductionwhencombinedwithdairyemissionreductionsshouldbe
encouraged(andappropriateairpermitlevelsgranted)sothatgasflaringisnotthe
automaticdefaultforbiogasdestruction.
Statelaw(SB700,2002)requiresagriculturaloperationstoobtainairpermitsif
emissionsexceedgreaterthanonehalfthethresholdforamajorsourceofcriteria
pollutants.
71
FortheSanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict,dairies(andotherconfined
animalfeedingoperations)thatemitmorethan12.5t/yearofVOCwillrequireair
permits.Thesizeofthedairy(innumberofanimals)thatwilltriggertherequirement
foranairpermitiscurrentlybeingdecided.Theprimaryissueremainingisthe
determinationofaccurateVOCemissionsfromafacility.Methaneemissionsdatafrom
anearlystudywasmisappliedandtakenasVOCemissionsandwrittenintothe
emissioninventory.
72
On23June2005,theCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard(CARB)approveddefinitionsfor
largeconfinedanimalfeedingoperations(CAFO).
73
Fordairiesinozoneattainment
areas,alargeCAFOisafacilitywith2,000ormorelactatingcows(supportstockisnot

71.http://www.valleyair.org/farmpermits/updates/draft_dairy_bact.pdf
72.BenedictandRitzman(1938)determinedmethaneemissionfactortobe160lbs/cow/year,
whichwaslatermisinterpretedtobeTOGemissionfactor.A1980U.S.EPAstudydetermined
that8%oflivestockTOGisreactive,orROG.Taking8%of160givesthe12.8emissionfactor.
73.AirBoardsetsstageforlargedairyrules,2005.CARBnewsrelease,availableat:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr062305.htm
175

countedforpurposesofthedefinition,butemissionsfromsupportstockmustbe
accountedforinthepermittooperate).Fordairiesinozonenonattainmentairbasins,
1,000lactatingcowsdefinealargeCAFO.TheVOCemissionfactorusedbyCARBfor
CAFOdefinitionisstillthedisputed12.6lbs/cowyearfiguresoCAFOdefinitionis
subjecttochange.
TheSanJoaquinValleyandtheSouthCoastairbasinsarebothdesignatednon
attainmentforthefederal1hourozonestandard.Usingthe1,000lactatingcownumber
forCAFOdeterminant,29%ofdairiesand73%ofanimalsintheSanJoaquinValleywill
beconsideredCAFsaswellas50%ofdairiesand75%ofanimalsintheSouthCoastair
basin.
74
IndividualairdistrictsarefreetousemorestringentCAFOdefinitions.
CARBandtheSanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrictarefundingongoing
investigationstodetermineairemissionsfromCaliforniadairies.Researchersfromthe
UniversityofCalifornia,CaliforniaStateUniversity,TexasA&M,IowaState,state
agencies,andprivateconsultantsareengagedinseveralparallelmeasurementand
modelingstudies.
Preliminaryresultswererecentlypresented.
75
Preliminaryfindingsincludethoseof
Mitloehner(UCCooperativeExtension)whoreportsabout3.8lbs/cow/yearofVOC
comedirectlyfromtheanimalmostlyfromrumination.Another2.6lbs/cow/yearwas
measuredfromthefreshmanure(uptothreedaysoldleftinpen).Schmidt,an
independentconsultant,conductedanextensivesuiteoffluxchambermeasurementsof
thefollowing11typesofemittingsurfacesataflushedlanedairyinMercedCounty:
Flushedlanes:preandpostflushed
Solidsstoragepiles
Lagoon(inletandoutletoflagoon)
SolidsinSolidsseparator
Beddinginpileforfreestall
Freestallarea
Barnturnoutandcorralarea
Manurepilesinturnout
Heiferpens(drycowarea)
Openfeedstorage(inbarnfeedlanes)

74.Initialstatementofreasonsfortheconfinedanimalfacilitydefinition,2005.CARBstaff
report,availableat:http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/lcaf05/isor.pdf
75.LivestockEmissionsResearchSymposium,January26,2005,Fresno,California.Proceedings
availableat:http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/agadvisory/lersymp.htm
176

Milkparlor(wastewatereffluentstream)
Morethan40fluxchambermeasurementsweremadewithanalysisforspeciated
reactiveorganicgases(ROGsorVOCs),ammonia/amines,totalorganiccompounds,and
methane.SchmidtspreliminaryresultsindicatetheVOCemissionfactorfromdairy
operationsurfacesonly(nocowbelching,ruminating,etc.)rangesfrom3.6to19
lbs/cow/year.ThedominantROGspeciesisethanolemittedfromensiledfeed.
Emissionsfromthewastewaterlagoonwererelativelylow.
76
Hobbsetal.(2004)measurednonmethaneVOCemissionsfromslurriedmanureina
chamberandestimatestotalemissionsforlivestockinEngland.Resultsforcattle
manure(whichincludesthatfromdairyanimals)managedwithflushedstallsandwet
storageindicatesnonmethaneVOCemissionsare9kg/cow/year(19.8lbs/cow/year).
UsingthepreliminarydatafromMiltloenerfordirectanimalemissionsandresultsfrom
SchmidtandHobbsforVOCemissionsderivedfrommanure,totalemissionfactor
potentiallyrangesfrom7.4to23.6lbs/cow/year.
Bylaw,theAirPollutionControlOfficer(APCO)fortheSanJoaquinValleyAir
PollutionControlDistrictwastoadoptadairyemissionfactorbyJuly1,2005(since
extendedtoAugust1,2005).
77
AreportfromtheAPCOwiththedeterminationofdairy
VOCemissionfactorswasrecentlyreleasedpriortoapublicworkshoponJuly11,2005
(Crow2005).ThedairyVOCemissiondeterminedbytheAPCOintheDraftReportwas
20.6lbs/cow/yearandreviseddownwardto19.3lbs/cow/yearintheFinalReport
releasedAugust1,2005(Crow2005).Thisissignificantlylargerthanthevaluecurrently
usedbyCARB(12.8lbs/cow/year).Thereportdiscussestheprocessusedtoarriveatthe
determinationandweighstheargumentsbehindthethreedifferentemissionfactor
recommendationsmadebytheDairyPermittingAdvisoryGroup(DPAG).TheDPAG
couldnotarriveataconsensusopinionbeforeissuingitsreport.Thethreeopinionsin
theDPAGreportderivefromeachofthreefactionsamongthestakeholders:thedairy
industry,theUniversityofCalifornia,andtheenvironmentalcommunity.
78
TheDPAG
recommends5.6,13.3,and38.2lbs./cow/yearfordairyfacilityVOCemissionfactor(see
Table210).

76.SeepresentationbySchmidtinproceedingsat:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/agadvisory/lersymp.htm
77.SettlementAgreement.WesternUnitedDairymen,AllianceofWesternMilkProducersv.San
JoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict.FresnoSuperiorCourt,2004.
78.DairyEmissionsFactorsforVolatileOrganicCompoundsRecommendationstotheSan
JoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlOfficer.Finalreport,May6,2005,DairyPermitting
AdvisoryGroup.Availableat:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/dpag/DPA_%20EF_Report_Final.pdf
177

Table 2-10. Summary of recommended and SJVAPCD determination for VOC emission
factors from dairy operations in the SJVAPCD.
Dairy
Industry*
University of
California*
NRDC*
SJVAPCD
Determination
1
Emissions from cows and feed in
environmental chamber
2.7 3.4 4.3
1.4

(2.7)
Underestimate and further

research is recommended
2 Amines from dairy processes 0.2 0.2 11.0 0.2 "
3
VOCs
(except VFAs and Amines) from
miscellaneous dairy processes
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
Clearly understimate of
actual emissions, further
work recommended
4
VOCs
(except VFAs and Amines) from
lagoons and storage ponds
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Underestimate and further
research is recommended
5 VFAs from dairy processes 0.5 7.5 17.0 15.5
Most probably represents
an underestimate of VFA
emissions. Futher research
is needed
6 Phenols from dairy processes 0 0 2.6 TBD, >0
Insufficient data available
but emissions are known to
be greater than zero
7 Land application NA NA 1.0 TBD, >0 "
8
Feed storage, settling basins,
composting, & manure
disturbance
Included
above or
insignificant
NA 0.1 TBD, >0 "
Totals 5.6 13.3 38.2 19.3
Emissions (lb/hd-yr)
Constituent or process SJVAPCD Comments

* Viewpoints 1, 2, and 3, from; (2005). Dairy Emissions Factors for Volatile Organic Compounds -
Recommendations to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Officer. Final Report, May 6, 2005,
Dairy Permitting Advisory Group.
Crow, D. L. (2005). Air Pollution Control Officer's Determination of VOC Emission Factors for Dairies.
Final Report. August 1, 2005, SJVAPCD.
Crow, D. L. (2005). Draft Air Pollution Control Officer's Determination of VOC Emission Factors for
Dairies. June 27, 2005, SJVAPCD.

Thedairyindustryrecommendsthelowestemissionfactorwhiletheenvironmental
communityrecommendsthehighest.ThevaluedeterminedbytheAPCOfromaline
itemexaminationofthedataandthevariousargumentssetforthintheDPAGreportis
slightlyhigherthanasimpleaverageoftheDPAGrecommendations(DPAGaverage=
19.0).
NotableinthediscussionbytheAPCOinhisreportarethecommentsgivenintheline
itemevaluation(thelineitemsaretheeightVOCconstituentsordairyprocesseslisted
inTable210).TheAPCOstatesthatthebestavailabledataunderestimatetheemissions
foreachoftheeightlineitems.Theexpectationthenisthatasbetterdatabecome
available,theVOCemissionfactorwillincreaseabovethecurrent19.3lbs/cow/year.
Thisisanevolvingissue.BesidesthemagnitudeofthedairyVOCemissionfactor,there
isdiscussionanddisagreementoverwhatcompoundsshouldbeincludedintheVOC
category(Capareda2005).Ifthe19.3lbs/cow/yearemissionfactorisaccepted,then
CARBwillneedtochangethelargeCAFOdefinitioninnonattainmentareasfrom1,000
178

lactatingcowstoaround600(CAFOinattainmentareaswouldchangefrom2,000
lactatingcowstoaround1,200).Asvolatilefattyacids(VFA)constitutethelargest
sourceofVOCandthegreatestuncertaintyintheestimate,increasingattentionwillbe
focusedonemissionandreactivityofVFA.
Onehalfto80%oftheVOCemissionsappeartobefrommanurewhichindicatesdairy
practicesandmanuremanagementcanplayalargeroleinreducingdairyVOC
emissions.TheSanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrictsdraftdairyBest
AvailableControlTechnology(BACT)recommendscoveredlagoonsasacomponentof
BACT.Coveredlagoonsareonetypeofdigesternowbeingoperatedfordairypower
systemsdeployingmostlyinternalcombustionenginesforbiogasfueledpower
generation.Theotherprincipaltypeistheplugflowdigester.Otherdesigntypes,
includingattachedgrowthdigestersarealsobeingconsidered.
OtherAirEmissions
Ammoniaisabyproductofmicrobialdecompositionoforganicnitrogencompoundsin
manureproducedbybothanaerobicandaerobicfermentation.Ammoniaaccumulates
intheliquidcomponentsofmanureandvolatizesupondrying.Ammoniadoesnot
participateingasreactionsproducingphotochemicalsmog,butreadilyreactswithSO2
andNOxtofromammoniumsulfateandammoniumnitrateasaerosolsinthe
atmosphere(Seinfeld1986).
Hydrogensulfideandotherreducedsulfurcompoundsarebyproductsofanaerobic
manuredecomposition.Sulfurispresentinaminoacidsinanimalfeedandinmineral
feedadditivessuchascopperandzincsulfate.HydrogensulfidewilloxidizetoSO2
contributingtoammoniumsulfateproductionand/oracidprecipitation(Seinfeld1986).
Particulatematter(PM)canbeemittedinsubstantialamountsfromalargedairy.
Sourcesincludestandingdrymanureandmanurestorageandhandlingaswellasdust
fromunpavedroadsandsurfaces.
2.2.6 Gas Engines
Internalcombustionenginesareaclassofheatenginesinwhichthecombustion
productsaretheworkingfluidasopposedtoexternalcombustiontypesrequiringheat
exchangetotransferenergytotheworkingfluid.Theenergyinthecombustionproducts
isconvertedtoworkbyexpansionandmovementofapistonorrotor.Internal
combustionenginesincludereciprocating(piston),rotary(Wankel),andgasturbine
engines.
Gasturbineenginesarecontinuouscombustionmachineswhoseoperationis
approximatedbytheidealBraytonthermodynamiccycle,differingfromtheOttoand
DieselcyclesofthereciprocatingandWankelengines.Comparedtoreciprocating
engines,gasturbineshavehigherpowertoweightratiosandareusedforpropulsionin
mostcommercialandmilitaryaircraft(i.e.,jetengines).Becausefuelisburned
continuouslyinagasturbine,thecombustionchambercanbeoptimizedforlower
179

emissionsincludingNOxandproductsofcombustion.Mostlargestationarypower
applicationsdeployaeroderivativegasturbines.Moreexpansionorturbinestagesare
usedtoconvertasmuchofthefuelenergyintomechanicalenergyaspossible(higher
efficiency).Gasturbinepowerenginesgenerateenoughmechanicalenergytodrivethe
compressor,auxiliaryequipment,andtheelectricalgenerator.
Reciprocatingenginesincludesparkignition(SI)andcompressionignition(CI)Diesel
engines(Table211).Sparkignitionanddieselenginescanbeeitherfourstrokeortwo
stroke.Thefourstrokeenginerequirestworevolutionsofthecrankshaftforeachpower
strokeofthepiston(thus,thepistonmovesthroughfourstrokesforeachpowerstroke:
intake,compression,expansion,exhaust).Inatwostrokeengine,eachpistonhasa
powerstrokeforeachrevolutionofthecrankshaft.Twostrokeengineshavehigher
powertoweightratiosthanfourstrokeenginesbutgenerallyhavelowerefficiencyand
higheremissions.CIenginesoperateathighercompressionratioandgenerallyhave
higherefficienciesthanSIengines.CIenginesoperateonheavyoils,dieselfuel,
vegetableoil,biodiesel,andotherbiofuels.CIenginescanbeoperatedinadualfuel
modeusingagaseousfuel(naturalgas,biogas,producergas)withsomeamount
(typically10to30%)ofdieselpilotfueltocontrolignitiontimingandcombustion
stability.SIenginesarerequiredtoreliablyfiregaseousfuelsandlighterliquidfuels
suchasgasoline.

Table 2-11. Classification schemes for reciprocating engines.
Classification Parameter Label
Ignition method SI or CI
Operating Cycle 2 or 4 Stroke
Air:Fuel Ratio Rich or Lean Burn
Fuel State Liquid, Gas, or Dual-Fuel
Method of fuel addition
Carbureted or metered injection (throttle-body,
port, or direct cylinder)
Air Induction method Naturally Aspirated , Turbo- or Supercharged

MostenginesusedforpowergenerationfromgaseousbiomassderivedfuelsintheUS
arefourstrokeSItype.Enginegeneratorefficienciesrangefromabout25%forthe
smallersizes(lessthan100kW)uptoabout45%forthelargestsizes(morethan3MW).
Incombinedheatandpower(CHP)applications,overallefficienciesapproach85%.
EmissionLimits
Table212displaystherangeofemissionsachievedinpracticeforreciprocatingengines
operatingonbiogasinCalifornia.Theemissionsarefromactualmeasurementof
enginesfueledbylandfillgasorWWTPdigestergas.Theenginesareallsparkignition
andemployedleanburnorprestratifiedchargetechnology(forNOxreduction).The
smallestengineinthedatasetwas260brakehorsepower(bhp)withacapacityof195
kW.Thelargestwas4,235bhpwithacapacityof3.1MW.

180

Table 2-12. Emissions achieved in practice from
reciprocating engines fueled by biogas in California
79

(g/bhp-hr) (lb/MW-hr)
NO
x
0.31 - 0.6 1 - 1.9
VOC 0.05 - 0.54 0.16 - 1.7
CO 1.5 - 3.9 4.7 - 12.1
PM NA NA

Tables213and214showCARBrecommendedBACTforreciprocatingengineandgas
turbine(lessthan3MW)distributedgenerationapplicationsrespectively.BACT
emissionsdependonthefueltype(wastegasorfossilfuel)andclassofprimemover
(turbineorreciprocating).Thehigheremissionsallowedforbiogasapplicationsmainly
reflectthefactthatuseofcatalyticconverterswithbiogasfuelisdifficultandisnotin
routinepractice.Theachievedinpracticeemissions(Table212)fallbelowthe
recommendedBACTlevelsexceptforCO.

Table 2-13. CARB recommended BACT emissions for reciprocating engines (see footnote
79)
Waste gas fired Fossil fuel fired
(g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd)
(lb/MW-hr) (g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd) (lb/MW-hr)

NO
x
0.6 50 1.9 0.15 9 0.5
VOC 0.6 130 1.9 0.15 25 0.5
CO 2.5 300 7.8 0.6 56 1.9
PM NA NA NA 0.02 - 0.06
ppmvd parts per million by volume dry - values are approximate for reciprocating engines

Table 2-14. CARB recommended BACT emissions for gas turbines less than 3 MW
'Waste gas' fired (any capacity) Fossil fuel fired
(g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd) (lb/MW-hr) (g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd) (lb/MW-hr)
NO
x
25 1.25 9 0.5
VOC - - 5 0.1
CO - - 10 0.4
PM - -

DistributedGenerationDefinitionandEmissionRequirements
SenateBill1298(chapteredSeptember2000)
80
setairemissionsstandardsfordistributed
generation(DG)unitswithinCaliforniathatareotherwiseexemptfromexistinglocalair
districtrules.TheBilldefinedDGsimplyaselectricgenerationlocatedneartheplaceof
use.Thereisnosizeortechnologyspecifiedinthedefinition.Apracticaldefinition
mightbethatDGisgenerationthatisintendedforconsumptionatthegenerationsite

79.Guidanceforthepermittingofelectricalgenerationtechnologies,CARB2002.Availableat:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/energy/dg/dg.htm
80.Thechapteredversionisavailableat:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/energy/dg/sb1298bill20000927chaptered.htm
181

and/orgenerationthatisconnectedtothelocaldistributionsystemandnotconnectedto
thetransmissionsystem.
ThebilldirectedCARBtoissueelectricalgeneratingtechnologyBACTguidelinesforthe
localairdistricts.TheCARBissuedaregulationdefiningaDGcertificationprocedure
andsettingatimelineforemissionsrequirements.
81
Essentially,theemissions
requirementsforDGarethattheymeetBACTlevelsforcentralstationpowerplantsin
California(Table215).
Table 2-15. DG emission standards beginning January 2007
Pollutant
Emission Standard
(lb/MWh)
NOx 0.07
CO 0.10
VOCs 0.02
PM
Corresponding to natural
gas with fuel sulfur content
no more than 1 grain/100
scf

SenateBill1298andtheresultingCARBregulationapplyonlytoelectricalgeneration
systemsthatarenotalreadycoveredbyexistinglocalairdistrictrules.Ingeneral,local
airdistrictshaveexistingstandardsforreciprocatingengines(usuallymorethan50
bhp),smallergasturbinesfueledbywastegas,andsolid/liquid/gaseousfuelledboilers
(whichincludesmostbiomassboilers).TheDGemissionlimitsgenerallyapplytofuel
cells,microturbines,andreciprocatingenginesbelow50bhp.UnlessSenateBill1298is
changed,orindividuallocalairdistrictsenactmorestringentBACTrequirementsfor
nonexemptdevices,small(butmorethan50bhp)biomassfueledfacilitiesthatuse
reciprocatingenginesorsolidfuelcombustionboilerswillnotneedtomeetthecentral
powerplantemissionlevelsorthelimitsinTable215.Itisunclearatthistimeifgas
turbinesfueledbybiogasorsynthesisgaswillberequiredtomeetthesecentralstation
emissions.
82
Emissions from Reciprocating Engines

Reciprocatingenginescombustfuelintermittently(asopposedtogasturbineswhichare
continuouscombustiondevices),andassuchtheyencounterhigherpeaktemperatures
andhigherthermalNOxproductioninthecombustionchamberandrapidlyfreezethe
compositionuponexhaustwhichincreasesthefinalNOxemission.Table216shows
typicalNOxemissionsforgeneralstationaryreciprocatingengines.

81.CARBFinalRegulationOrderEstablishaDistributedGenerationCertificationProgram,
availableat:http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/dg01/finreg.pdf
82.Note:CARBwassupposedtocompleteanelectricalgenerationtechnologyreviewbyJuly
2005todeterminewhattechnologieswilllikelynotmeetthecentralstationemissionlevels.Asof
earlyAugust2005,thisreviewhadnotbeenissued.
182

CarbonmonoxideandPMemissionrequirementsaregenerallymetwithbiogasfueled
enginesorturbines.BiomassproducergasfueledenginesmayhavehighCOemissions.
ThisispartlyduetothehighlevelofCOintheproducergasandthetradeoffbetween
adjustingairtofuelratioandcombustiontemperatureforNOxmitigation(lower
temperaturestoreduceNOxformationreduceoxidationratesforCO).
Table 2-16. Typical NOx emissions for reciprocating engines using fossil fuels
83

Engine
Type
Fuel Eff (%)
NOx Emissions (Uncontrolled)
(ppmv) (g/kWh) (lb/MWh)
CI Distillate 37-44 450 - 1350 7 - 18 15.4 - 39.7
CI Heavy Oil 42-48 900 - 1800 12 - 20 26.5 - 44.1
SI Natural Gas 35-42 45 - 150 0.7 - 2.5 1.5 - 5.5

Figure29illustratestheeffectofengineefficiencyonNOxmassemissionratefora
constantconcentrationof50ppmvintheexhaustgas.Emissionperformanceforseveral
individualsystemsisplottedaspointsonthefigureaswell.

83.TechnologyCharacterization:ReciprocatingEngines,EnergyNexusGroup,2002.Available
at:http://www.epa.gov/chp/pdf/EPA_RecipEngines_final_5_16_02.pdf
183

1
2
3
4
5
6
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Engine-Generator Efficiency (%)
N
O
x

(
l
b
/
M
W
h
)
System (a)
150 ppm
System (b) 80
ppm
System (c) 44 ppm
System (d) 46 ppm
50 ppm NOx (@ 15% O
2
)

System Descriptions (fueled by natural gas) (See footnote 83)
(a) 300 kW - Cummins GSK19G
(b) 800 kW - Caterpillar G3516 LE
(c) 1,000 kW - Caterpillar G3616 LE
(d) 3,000 kW Wartsila 5238 LN
Figure 2-9. NOx emissions vs. efficiency for 50 ppmv exhaust concentration with quoted
uncontrolled emissions for several engines fueled by natural gas

AirtoFuelRatioEffects
EnginesoperatedinfuelleanconfigurationscanresultinsignificantlylowerNOx
emissions.Largeramountsofairresultincoolercombustiontemperaturesthereby
reducingthermalNOxproduction.Forextremelyleanconditions(highairtofuelratios
[AF]),partiallyburnedfuelisemittedintheexhaustascombustionisquenchedbefore
completionand/ormisfiringoccurs.
AconvenientdimensionlessparameterfordescribingAFinthecylinderchargeofan
engineis(Greeklambda).LambdaistheratioAFactual:AFstoich,or

stoich.
actual
AF
AF
=
where<1denotesafuelrichcombustion.ThisistheconditionwhereAFactualis
substoichiometric.>1isfuellean,denotingexcessaircomparedtostoichiometric
requirements.
184

Figure210showsemissionsversusforagasolinefueledSIengine.Notehydrocarbon
andCOemissionsincreasefortheleanestconditions.Maximumpowertypicallyoccurs
underfuelrichconditionswithelevatedCOandhydrocarbonemissions.Maximum
efficiencytypicallyoccursunderfuelleanconditionswithelevatedNOxemissions
unlessenginedesignpermitssufficientlyhighlevelsofexcessairtobeutilizedwithout
enginemisfiring.

Figure 2-10. Gasoline engine emissions vs. Lambda


ActualEmissionsfromBiogasFueledReciprocatingEngines
Actualemissionsfromrecentsourcetestingforseveralenginegeneratorfacilities
operatingonmanurederivedbiogasarepresented.Sourcetestresultsfromenginesat
theInlandEmpireUtilityAgency(IEUA),theJosephGalloCottonwoodDairy,andthe
ColoradoPorkswinefacilitywereobtained.
EmissionsfromthreetypesofWaukeshaleanburnenginesoperatingonbiogasatIEUA
arepresentedinTable217.NOxemissionsvariedfromabout0.8lbs/MWhforthe1400
kWgensetsto1.9lbs/MWhforthe864kWunit.NOxconcentrationsvariedfrom17to
34ppmv(drygas,15%O2).Thepermitvalueswerenotavailablebuttheemissions
levelsgenerallymettheSouthCoastAQMDRule1110.2(emissionsfromgaseous/liquid
fueledengines).
185

Table 2-17. Emissions from Waukesha engines fueled by biogas at IEUA (Im 2004)*
Factory
Specs.
(natural gas)
Factory
Specs.
(natural gas)
(g/bhp-hr) (lb/MW-hr) (lb/MW-hr) (g/bhp-hr) (lb/MW-hr) (lb/MW-hr) (g/bhp-hr) (lb/MW-hr)
NO
x 0.23 / 0.28 0.7 / 0.8 1.9 0.57 1.7 2.7 0.65 1.9
CO 3.3 / 2.2 9.8 / 6.4 6.7 3.58 10.6 8.0 4.667 13.8
VOC 0.16 / 0.12 0.47 / 0.36 2.1 0.4 1.2 3.0 0.57 1.7
Waukesha L7042GL
1050 kW
IEUA Actual
Waukesha L5790GL
864 kW
IEUA Actual
IEUA Actual
Unit1 / Unit 2
Waukesha 8L-AT27GL
1400 kW

* South Coast AQMD Rule 1110.2 stipulates that NOx limits for these engines are approximately 45 50
ppmv (15% O
2
) or about 1.7 1.9 lb/MWh

Resultsfromrecentperformanceandemissionstestingofabiogasfueledengineata
swinewastefacilityinColoradoareshowninTable218.TheengineisaCaterpillar
33066cylinder,4strokeSIengine.Theenginegeneratorsetisratedfor100kWbutgas
productionatthetimeoftestingwasonlysufficientfor45kWpowerproduction.No
emissioncontrolequipmentwasinstalledwiththeengine.Notethatallemissionsare
quitehigh.Theenginewasbeingoperatedbelowtheminimumrecommendedpower
settingandisnotnecessarilyrepresentativeofbiogasfueledenginesatthisscale.
Table 2-18. Colorado Pork gas engine emissions at 45 kW
84

(ppmv, 15% O
2
) (lb/MWh)
NO
x
255 12
CO 1966 58
VOC 6724 112
SO
2
352 23

SourcetestresultsandpermittedlevelsfortheCaterpillar300kWenginegenerator
sitedattheJosephGalloCottonwoodDairy(aparticipantoftheCaliforniaDairyPower
ProductionProgramfundedthroughtheCaliforniaEnergyCommissionthroughSB5X)
arepresentedinTable219.
Thefacilityutilizesanironsponge(ironoxideimpregnatedwoodchips)andchillerfor
H2Sandmoistureremoval.Theengineoperatesnearthestoichiometricairfuelratio
(richburn)andemployeesathreeway(automotivetype)catalyticconverterfor
emissionscontrol.
Permitlimitsforthecriteriapollutantsaregivening/bhph,whichisanoutputbased
emissionlimit.Theunitmetthepermitrequirementforthemeasuredcriteriapollutants

84.EnvironmentalTechnologyVerificationReportSwineWasteElectricPowerandHeat
ProductionMartinMachineryInternalCombustionEngine,SouthernResearchInstituteand
U.S.EPA.SRI/USEPAGHGVR22,2004.
186

atthetimeofthesourcetest(December2004).Sincethattime,theironspongeand
moistureremovalunitwereresizedandrelocatedadjacenttotheflarenearthelagoon.
Apparently,theoriginalsulfurremovalsystemwasundersizedandrequiredfrequent
changingofthemedia(Morris2002).Theairpermitincludesarequirementfor
maximumH2Slevelintheenginefuel(orminimumH2Sremovalefficiency).Duringthe
test,H2Slevelsintheuntreatedbiogasaveraged1,500ppm.Removalefficiencyatthe
timeofthetestwasbetterthan97%butH2Scontentofthefuelgaswas41ppm.
Apparently,theunitpassedbasedontheremovalefficiencyrequirement.

Table 2-19. Source test results for DPPP engine at the Cottonwood Dairy*
1 2 3
Std. T F 60 60 60 60
Engine Load MMBtu/hr 4.1 3.5 4 3.9
Engine Load % 74 74 74 74
Flow Rate (M2) DSCFM 568 584 574 575
Flow Rate (M19) DSCFM 611 525 598 578
Generator Out kW 250 250 250 250
Brake Hp hp 335 335 335 335
Fuel F-factor DSCF/MMBtu 9030.6 9027.1 9026.6 9028.1
O2 % 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.03
CO2 % 14.8 14.7 14.7 14.7
H2O % 16 16.9 17.2 16.7
NOx ppm 54.79 58.02 60.68 57.83
NOx (@15% O2) ppm 15.5 16.4 17.2 16.4
NOx lbs/hr 0.22 0.24 0.25 0.24
NOx lbs/day 5.4 5.8 6 5.7
NOx g/bhp-hr 0.302 0.329 0.338 0.323 0.6
NOx lbs/MMBtu 0.059 0.0625 0.0623 0.0613
CO ppm 607.5 579.9 560.3 582.6
CO ppm 171.8 163.9 158.4 164.7
CO lbs/hr 1.5 1.48 1.4 1.46
CO lbs/day 36.1 35.5 33.7 35.1
CO g/bhp-hr 2.036 2 1.9 1.979 2.65
CO lbs/MMBtu 0.3984 0.3801 0.3673 0.382
THC (EPA 25C) ppm 5889 5714 5344 5649
CH4 ppm 5875 5700 5330 5635
TNMHC ppm 14 14 14 14
TNMHC (@15% O2) ppm 4 4 4 4
TNMHC lbs/hr 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
TNMHC lbs/day 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
TNMHC g/bhp-hr 0.027 0.028 0.027 0.027333 0.25
TNMHC lbs/MMBtu 0.0052 0.0052 0.0052 0.0052
Fuel Scrubber
H2S Scrubber Inlet ppm 1300 1600 1600 1500
H2S Scrubber Outlet ppm 40 41 42 41 23
H2S Removal Eff. % 96.9 97.4 97.4 97.2 80
Parameter
Permit
Limit
Test Number Average
of tests
Unit

* SJAPCD Source Test ATC #N-1660-7-0 (12/17/2004)
187

ProducerGasandReciprocatingEngines
Reciprocatingenginesfueledbyproducergasaretheprimemoverofchoicefor
capacitiesrangingfrom15kWtoabout5MWbecausetheyareproven,relatively
inexpensive,offerhighefficiencies,andcanbeusedinCHPapplications.Themain
disadvantagesarethepotentialforhighuncontrolledNOxandCOemissionsandthe
needforextensivegascleaning.
ProducerGasCharacteristics
Producergasfromairblownbiomassgasificationiscomposedprimarilyofdiluent
nitrogengasfromtheairusedingasification,CO2,CO,H2,CH4,andsmallamountsof
higherhydrocarbons(seeTable220),thelatterfourcategoriescomprisingtheprimary
fuelspecies.RawproducergasalsocontainsPM,tars,nitrogencompounds(e.g.,NH3,
HCN),volatilealkalinemetals,sulfurasH2S,andchlorineinamountsthatdependon
thebiomassandthegasificationprocessused.

Table 2-20. Composition of producer gas from
air blown biomass gasifiers (Hasler and
Nussbaumer 1999)
Component
Vol. %,
dry gas
CO 10-22
H
2
10-30
CH
4
1-6
C
x
H
y
0-2
CO
2
8-15
N
2
35-50
HHV 4-7 MJ/Nm
3

Therearegasqualityrequirementsforthesustainedoperationofreciprocatingandgas
turbineenginesfueledbyproducergas.Table221displaystypicalgasquality
requirementsfoundintheliterature.Generally,gasturbinesaremoresusceptibleto
operationalproblemsfromPMandalkaliinthegasduetobladeerosionanddeposition
issues,butdonotneedgascooling.ReciprocatingenginesrequirePMremovalaswell
buttoalesserdegree.Tarinthegasismostproblematicwithreciprocatingengines
becauseoftheneedtocoolthegaspriortointakeinordertomaintainhighvolumetric
efficiency.Coolingthefuelgastobelowtardewpointswillcondensetarmaterialwhich
candepositonthecoolintakesurfacesoftheengine.Gasturbinescanaccepttarinthe
fuelgasaslongasthetemperatureremainsabovethetardewpointbecausetarremains
inthegasphaseuntilburned.Acidformingcompounds(sulfurandchlorine)inthe
producergasareaconsiderationforreciprocatingengines.Acidscandepositoncool
intakesurfacesaswellascylinderwallswheretheyaresweptintothecrankcasebythe
pistonoilringscausingtheengineoilpHtodecreaseovertime.Acidicengineoilcauses
corrosionofbearingsurfacesandshortensenginelife.Acidformingcompoundsmust
eitherberemovedfromthefuelgasormorefrequentengineoilchangesarerequired.
188

Table 2-21. Gas quality requirements for engines (Hasler and Nussbaumer
1999)
Component Unit
Engine type
Reciprocating Gas turbine
PM mg/Nm
3
<50 <30
Particle size m <10 <5
Tar mg/Nm
3
<100 -
Alkali metals mg/Nm
3
- < 0.24

Impuritiesintheproducergasthatmaynoteffectengineoperationorservicelifebut
candegradeemissionsperformanceincludenitrogencompounds(NH3,HCN),alkali
metals,sulfur,andchlorine.ThenitrogencompoundswillprimarilyconverttoNOxand
sulfurcompoundswillbeemittedasSO2.Thealkalis,sulfur,andchlorinecandegrade
emissionscatalystsiftheyarebeingused.Dependingonthelocalemissionslimitsand
thefuelcharacteristics,propergascleaning,fuels,andemissionscontrolstrategiesmust
becompatible.
PerformanceandEmissionsofEnginesFueledbyProducerGas
Producergashasimprovedleanflammabilitycomparedtonaturalgas.Producergas
alsohashighoctaneratingmakingitacceptableforhighcompressionratioSIengines
withincreasedefficiency.AFordindustrialnaturallyaspiratedSIenginefueledby
producergasfromtheDTU2stageVikinggasifier(woodfuel)isabletooperateunder
veryleanfuelconditions,to>3).Thesameenginefueledonnaturalgasmisfiredand
quitat~1.7(Ahrenfeldtetal.2001).Figure211showsthebrakefuelefficiencyand
powervs.fortheFord1.1literSIenginefueledwithnaturalgasandgasifiedwood
(Ahrenfeldtetal.2000).
189

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 1.5 2 2.5

P
o
w
e
r

(
k
W
)

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

(
%
)
[-]
3
Power (kW) - Natural gas
Power (kW)- Producer gas
Efficiency (%) - Natural gas
Efficiency (%)- Producer gas

Figure 2-11. Brake fuel efficiency and power vs. , Ford VSG 411 fueled by natural gas and
producer gas
Photo Credit: Ahrenfeldt et al. 2000.

Forreciprocatingenginesfueledbyproducergas,theprimarydifferenceexperiencedat
highair:fuelratiosisthemuchhigherCOemissionorslipthatoccurs.Thisisdueto
COpassingthroughtheengineunburned.Figure212showstheeffectofvaryingAFon
NOxandCOforthegeneralcaseofSIenginesfueledbygasifiedbiomass(notethescale
forCOis10xthatforNOx).
190

0
2
4
6
8
10
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6
N
O
x

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
n

(
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
C
O

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
)
[ - ]
NOx
CO

Figure 2-12. General emission performance vs. Lambda, producer gas fuel Note: the parabolic fit
of the NOx curve would not be expected to trend upwards at high lambda.
Photo Credit: Ahrenfeldt et al. 2001; Jensen et al. 1997; Ahrenfeldt et al. 2000.

DTUExperience
Figure213displaysNOxandCOemissionsvs.fortheFordVSG411discussedby
Ahrenfeldtetal.(2000and2001).Untreatedemissionsfromnaturalgasfuelanda
syntheticproducergas(amixturecreatedfrombottledgases)areshown.Thesynthetic
producergasdidnotcontainammoniaorHCNwhichwouldbepresentinrawor
partiallycleanedproducergas,butprovidesgoodcontrolovergascompositionfor
testing.
NOxemissionsforbothfuelspassthroughamaximumaround=1.4andthensteeply
declineasincreasesuntilreachingtheleanflammabilitylimitforeachfueltype.The
untreatedNOxemissionsfromthesyntheticgasarelowerthanwhatwouldbeexpected
fromarealproducergascontainingammoniaorHCN.
TheCOemissionsforbothfuelsincreaserapidlyfor>1.4duetoincomplete
combustioninthecaseofnaturalgasandbulkflamequenchinthecaseoftheproducer
gas.Forveryleancombustionwithproducergas,thecombustionflamefrontinthe
191

cylinderextinguishesbeforepropagatingthroughthecylindervolume,allowing
unburnedfuelwhichhashighCOcontenttopassthroughtheengine(partialfiringof
thefuelcharge).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1 1.5 2 2.5
p
p
m
v

(
1
5
%

O
2
)

3
[-]
NOx- Synthetic producer gas
CO- Synthetic producer gas
NOx- Natural gas
CO- Natural gas

Figure 2-13. NOx and CO emissions from Ford VSG 411 fueled by natural gas and
synthetic producer gas
Photo Credit: Ahrenfeldt et al. 2000

JenbacherEngineCompanyExperience
GEJenbacherofAustriahasextensiveexperiencewithlargereciprocatingengines
fueledbyproducergas(aswellasbiogas).ThereportbyJenbachertoIEATask33
(ThermalGasificationofBiomass)describessomeoftheexperiencegainedfrom
supplyingenginesforandworkingwithbiomassgasificationCHP
developers/researchers(Herdinetal.2004).
Jenbacherenginesareusedinatleastfourexistingbiomassgasificationdemonstration
projects(Gssing,Austria;Harbore,Denmark;Spiez,Switzerland;WienerNeustadt
[CVNova],Austria)andarespecifiedinatleasttwofacilitiesunderconstruction(Skive,
Denmark,andKokemki,Finland).Enginesizesusedinthisapplicationrangefrom180
kWto2MW.
TheGEJenbacherreport(Herdinetal.2004)alsocommentsonthefuelnitrogento
ammoniatoNOxpathway.Figure214illustratestheeffectammoniainthefuelgashas
192

onNOxproduction.EmissionsfromleanburnJenbacherengines,onepoweredwith
fuelgascontainingverylittleammonia(aThermoselectMSWgasifier/pyrolyzerin
Chiba,Japan),andagasrichinammonia(about580ppmvNH3inputgasifiedwood
fromGssing,Austria).TheAFoftheengineatGssingwasadjustedtomeettheNOx
emissionlimitof500mg/Nm
3
(at5%O2)(about90ppmv,15%O2).Inthisinstance,
ammoniainthefuelgasisresponsiblefor85%oftheNOxemission.

0
20
40
60
80
100
Gasified MSW - Chiba 'Wood gas'-Gssing
N
O
x

(
p
p
m
,

1
5
%

O
2
)
~ no NH
3
in
fuel gas
~580 ppmv NH
3
in
fuel gas
NH
3
contribution
Thermal NOx

Figure 2-14. Effect of ammonia in fuel gas on uncontrolled NOx emission from
reciprocating engines
The GE Jenbacher report, Herdin et al. 2004

TheJenbacherreportalsodescribeshighCOemissionsfromleanburnenginesfueledby
producergas(explanationissimilartothatbyAhrenfeldtabove).Also,theCONOx
tradeofffromvaryingAFisconfirmedbyHerdinetal.(2004).Figure215showsNOx
andCOemissionlevelsintheuntreatedengineexhaustforseveralJenbacherengines
fueledbygasifiedbiomassorMSW.Theengineshavebeenoptimizedforeach
installationdependingonrequirementorlocallimitations(capacity,efficiency,
emissions,etc.).
193

0
100
200
300
400
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
CO (ppmv, 15% O2)
N
O
x

(
p
p
m
v
,

1
5
%

O
2
)
12.9% CO in
28% CO in
13% CO in
17% CO in
34% CO in Solid curves show effect
of changing AF ratio
Note: % CO in = CO concentration in the fuel gas. Engines optimized for individual conditions

Figure 2-15. Untreated emissions from Jenbacher engines fueled with producer gas
Herdin et al. 2004
ThehighCOemissionsfromleanburnlowNOxoptimizedenginesfueledbyproducer
gasareanissuethatneedsaddressing.Someofthedevelopmentprojectsdiscussedin
theJenbacherexperiencereporthavetriedoxidationcatalystontheengineexhaustto
reduceCOemissions.Theyhavemetwithmixedresults.Acceptableoxidationcatalyst
lifetimeispossiblewithsufficientgascleaningafterthegasifierandorselectionoffuel
lowincatalystpoisons(metals,alkalis,sulfur,andchlorine).TheHarbore,Gssing,
andSpiezdemonstrationfacilitieshaveeachsuccessfullyusedCOoxidationcatalyst
technology.COconversionratesvariedfrom70to90%withonefacilityreporting2,000
operationalhoursonthecatalystandtworeporting3,000hours.
JenbacheralsoreportsfacilitiesthatchoosetocontrolengineCObycombustionafter
treatment.Atleastonefacilitytakesadvantageofcolocationwithabiomassboiler
whereitsengineexhaustisfedintotheboilerwhichoxidizestheCO.Otherinstallations
usecommercialthermaloxidizertreatmentunitswhichcomewithenergyandcost
penalties.
OtherProducerGasEngineEmissions
Informationonemissionsfromenginesfueledbyproducergasisdifficulttofind.Table
222displaysemissionsfromtwodemonstrationprograms,oneinEngland,andthe
otherintheUnitedStates.Theinformationwasobtainedfrompresentationspostedon
194

theIEATask33ThermalGasificationofBiomasswebsite.
85
Actualtestconditionsand
methods,fuelgasquality,andwhetherornotemissionscontroldeviceswereinplace
(andtheirlongevity)werenotavailableinthepresentationmaterial.
Table 2-22. Emissions from producer fuel gas engines from two demonstration programs.

Capstone C-330
microturbine
(30kW)*
SI-Recip
Perkins
Model 2006*
CPC Biomax 15 kW
(automotive SI engine)

ppm (15% O2) ppm (?% O2) (lb/MWh)
CO 26 1039 2 0.65
NOx 5 18 30 0.03
UHC 11 1 4 0.03
Source A A B
* Not stated whether emissions control devices are used. Gas quality (or ammonia content) not stated
3- way catalyst used. Gas quality (and ammonia content) not reported. Durability of catalytic converter not
reported.
Sources;
A) Conner and Peacocke, Biomass Engineering Ltd. Warrington, England, 2004 IEA Task 33 Gasification
Workshop, Copenhagen
B) R. Bain, NREL. 2004 IEA Task 33 Gasification Workshop, Copenhagen

TheCPCBiomax15kWsystemthatyieldedtheemissionsinTable222wasusinga
threewaycatalyticconverter(Sethi2005).OtherCPCsystemsareplannedtobe
deployedfortestinginCaliforniainlate2005orearly2006.Emissionstestingare
anticipatedbutitisnotknownifemissionswillbeassessedthroughoutthe
demonstrationprogramorjustonceafterinitialcommissioning.
Microturbine and Fuel Cell Emissions Fueled by Biogas
TheLosAngelesCountySanitationDistrictsaregeneratingheatandpowerfromLFG,
digestergasfromwatertreatment,andcombustionofsolidwaste.Totalelectrical
generatingcapacityfromtwelvefacilitiesis127MW.Amongthesearemicroturbines(30
kWeunitsattheCalabasaslandfillanda250kWunitattheLancasterWRP)anda
moltencarbonatefuelcellatthePalmdaleWaterReclamationPlant.
30kWMicroturbineFueledbyLFG
AttheCalabasaslandfill,tenCapstone30kW(nominalgross)microtubinesarefueled
byLFG.Thefuelgasispretreatedusingacompressor,chiller,andtwosorbentvesselsin
seriesfilledwithsilicagel.Table223displaysNOxandCOemissionsfroma30kW
(grossat63Finletairtemperature)CapstoneturbinefueledbyLFG.Itisnotknownif
theseareresultsfromthesameunit.Netoutputisapproximately25kWdueinletair
temperaturemorethan63Fandparasiticlossesinthegascleanupsystem.NOx
emissionsrangefrom0.2to0.24lb/MWh.COemissionsrangefrom0.6to0.72lb/MWh.
SO2emissionsareestimatedatabout1lb/MWh(assumesallH2Sinthefuelgaswas
convertedtoSO2).

85.SeepresentationsfromtheOctober2004meeting:
http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=iea/taskminutes.xml
195

Table 223. Emissions from a 30 kW (gross) microturbine at Calabasas Landfill
Parameter Unit
Source Test Date
Limit
SCAQM
D Rule
2003

November, 2004

Inlet
Exhau
st
Inlet
Exhau
st
O
2
% - - 0.5 17.89
CO
2
% - - 35.8 2.7
N
2
% - - 23.7 79.4
H
2
O % - - - 3.7
H
2
S ppm - -
130-
160
-
CH
4
% 41 - 40 -
NMHC ppm 297 - - -
Stack Flow
Rate
dscfm - - - 532
LFG Flow
Rate
dscfm - - 17.5 -
LFG Flow
Rate
dscfh - - 1052 - 1200
Temperature F - - - 514
LFG Btu/scf - - 403 -
NOX:
ppm - - - 1.3

ppm @
15% O2
- 3 - 2.5 25 1134

lb/hr
(as NO2)
- 0.006 - 0.005 0.017

lb/MM Btu
(as NO2)
- 0.2 - 0.012
lb/MWh - 0.24 - 0.20
CO:
ppm - - 9.26 7.5 2,000 407

ppm @
15% O2
- 12 - 14.7
lb/hr - 0.015 - 0.018 0.057
lb/MWh - 0.6 - 0.72
SO
2
(estimated)*:
lb/hr - - - 0.026
lb/MWh - - - 1.03
NMHC

ppm
(3% O2)
- 2.4 - -
Formaldehyde ppb - 15 - -
* H2
S
in inlet fuel is assumed to convert to SO2 and emitted in exhaust. 145 ppm H2S in fuel is ~ 0.014 lb/hr at inlet
McDannel, M., Wheless, E., Maguin, S., and Stahl, J. (2005). Operating experience at two biogas-fired microturbine
facilities. SWANA 2005.
Wheless, E. (2005). LA County Sanitation Districts. Personal communication.

196

250kWFuelCellFueledbyDigesterGas
AfuelcellisoperatingonwastewatertreatmentdigestergasatthePalmdaleWRP.The
Palmdalefacilitytreatsapproximately9.5milliongallonsperdayofwastewater.The
anaerobicdigestersatthefacilitygenerateabout80scfmofbiogascontaining
approximately55%methane(McDannel2005).
Thefuelcell,providedbyFuelCellEnergy,isamoltencarbonatetypewithinternal
reforming,havingagrosscapacityof250kW(modelDFC300A).
Forfuelgastreatment,thebiogasispassedthroughaPMfilter,arefrigerationunit,and
activatedcarbon.Thegascleaningsystemconsumesabout25kW.Table224displays
gasqualitybeforeandafterthegascleaningsystem.
Table 2-24. Palmdale fuel cell raw and treated fuel-gas quality
Contaminant Raw Digester Gas After Gas Clean-up
H2S, ppm 23 ND<0.5
Chlorobenzene ppb 180 0.7
P-dichlorobenzene, ppb 30 ND <1.0
Source: McDannel 2005

Thenetelectricalefficiencyofthefuelcellisestimatedat41%(HHV).Emissions,
reportedbyLosAngelesCountySanitationDistricts,areshowninTable225.NOxand
COemissionsfromfuelcellsareextremelylow.
Table 2-25. Air emissions from the Palmdale WWTP fuel cell.
Pollutant ppm @15% O
2
lb/MWh
NOx 0.05 0.0017
CO 1.2 0.025
HC 1.3 0.017
SO
2
ND<0.02 -
Source: McDannel 2005

2.3 Air Permitting Process
LocalairdistrictsinCaliforniahavetheresponsibilityandauthorityforregulating
stationarysourceswhiletheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard(CARB)hasauthorityover
mobilesources.AirdistrictrulesandregulationsderivefromtheCaliforniaandFederal
CleanAirActs.
86
Whensitingnewsourcesinfederalcriteriapollutantnonattainment
areas,rulesaredesignedtoachievenonetemissionsincreaseofnonattainment

86.TheFederalCleanAirActwasfirstenactedin1963andamendedin1977and1990.The
CaliforniaCleanAirActwasenactedin1988.SeeCaliforniaairqualitytimelineat:
http://www.sparetheair.org/teachers/bigpicture/IIIc3.html
197

pollutantsortheirprecursors.Forareasthathavegoodairquality,thedistrictisobliged
topreventsignificantdeteriorationormaintaingoodairquality.
87
InmostCaliforniaairdistricts,apermittoconstructisrequiredbeforeworkcanbegin
fornewormodifiednonexemptstationarysources.Forpowerplants50MWandover,
theCaliforniaEnergyCommissionhasultimatelicensingauthorityforthefacility.A
permittooperateisrequiredbeforeoperationscancommence.
Toreceiveapermittoconstruct,theprojectmustundergoanewsourcereview(NSR)
bythelocalairdistrictwhichmayentailanengineeringevaluationbydistrictengineers.
Eachdistrictdetermineswhatclassorsizeofsourcesisexemptfromairpermits(for
example,mostdistrictsexemptenginessmallerthan50bhp).Forprojectswherethereis
uncertaintyregardingtheneedforpermitting,theNSRprocesswilldeterminewhether
itisexemptornotfromairpermitrequirements.
Dependingontheareadesignationandthepotentiallevelofemissions,thefacilitymay
berequiredtouseBACT.Althoughthereisacodifieddefinition
88
forBACT,itis
determinedatthedistrictlevelwhichconsidersemissionlevelsthatareachievableon
technicalandcosteffectivebasesaswellasthosethathavebeenachievedinpractice.
InadditiontousingBACT,newormodifiedsourcesinnonattainmentareasmaybe
requiredtoprovideemissionoffsetstomitigatethenewsourceemissions.Mostdistricts
specifytheemissionslevelabovewhichoffsetsarerequiredbytheproject(thesocalled
offsettrigger).Offsetsareobtainedbyretiringorreducingemissionsfromother
sources.Tobeeligible,emissionreductionoffsetsorcreditsmustbesurplustoany
federal,state,orlocallawsorregulation,andmustbeenforceable,quantifiable,and
permanent.Emissionoffsetsorcreditsmaybebankedwiththedistrictforfutureuseby
thesourcethatgeneratedthem,usedconcurrentlytooffsetnewsources,orsoldto
othersforuseasmitigation.
89
Eachdistrictsetsrulesforhowcreditsarecertifiedand
banked.Individualairdistrictsarerequiredtocollectandpublishspecificinformation
onemissionoffsettransactionsincludingpricepaidpertonofoffset,theamountofeach
pollutanttraded,andtheyearoftransaction.CARBpublishesanannualreport
summarizingemissionoffsettransactionswithinthestate.
90
2.3.1 Air District Attainment Status and Emission Limits

AirqualitycontroldistrictsintheSacramentoregionincludetheSacramento
MetropolitanAirQualityManagementDistrict(AQMD),theYoloSolanoAQMD,the

87.SeeCARBdiscussionofnewsourcereviewpermittingprogramsat:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/nsr/nsr.htm
88.CaliforniaHealthandSafetyCode,section40405.
89.CaliforniaHealthandSafetyCode,sections4070940713,Emissionreductioncreditsystems
andbanking.
90.Transactionsummaryreportsdatingto1993areavailableat:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/nsr/erco/erco.htm
198

SanJoaquinValleyAPCD,theFeatherRiverAQMD,andthesinglecountydistrictsofEl
Dorado,Placer,Amador,andColusacounties.
91
ThesedistrictsarealldesignatedNonAttainment
92
bytheStatesstandardsforozone
andPM10(seeTable226),withtheexceptionsoftheColusaCountyAPCD,whichis
transitioningtononattainmentforozoneandtheAmadorCountyAPCDwhichis
unclassifiedforPM10(i.e.,dataisinsufficientorinconclusivetodeterminedesignation).
TheSanJoaquinAPCDisratedseverenonattainmentforozone.TheSacramento
MetropolitanandYoloSolanoAQMDsandportionsoftheFeatherRiverAQMD,Placer
andElDoradoCountiesareratedasseriousnonattainmentforozone.
TheSacramentoMetropolitan,SanJoaquinValleyandthesouthernportionofthe
FeatherRiverairdistrictsarenonattainmentforPM2.5,withtheotherdistrictsinthe
regioncurrentlyunclassified.TheregionsdistrictsareinattainmentforNOxandSOx
andinattainmentorunclassifiedforCO.
Fordistrictsthatarenonattainmentforacriteriapollutant,tougheremissionstandards
orlimitsareplacedonsourceswithinthedistrictaswellasfornewsourcesinupwind
districts.Ozoneisnotemittedinappreciableamountsdirectlybymobileorstationary
sources,butgroundlevelconcentrationsdependheavilyonthesesources.Tropospheric
ozoneisformedbyreactionsofprecursorsinthepresenceofsunlight(photochemical
smog).Inordertominimizetheformationofgroundlevelozone,strategies,regulations,
andtechnologieshavedevelopedtocontroltheprecursorcompounds.
NOxandVOC(alsoknownasreactiveorganicgases,orROGs)areozoneprecursors
andareemittedinsignificantamountsfromanthropogenicsources.Thoughtheentire
stateisinattainmentforNOxasacriteriapollutant,andVOCsarenotcriteria
pollutants,bothareheavilyregulatedbecauseoftheircontributionstoozoneformation.
Majorstationarysourcesareclassifiedbyemissionofaregulatedpollutantinamounts
greaterthanthethresholdsetbytheairdistrict.Majorsourcesaresubjecttogreater
controlandscrutinyunderthepermitprocess.Table227listsmajorsourcethresholds
forseveralpollutantsfortheSacramentoregionairdistricts.

91.AmapofCaliforniasairdistrictsisavailablehere:http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/dismap.htm
92.Attainmentrequiredthatthestandardhasnotbeenviolatedforthreeyearsanywhereinthe
airdistrict.Seedesignationdefinitionsat:http://arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/Define.htm
199

Table 2-26. Criteria pollutant attainment status for air districts in the Sacramento region
(California designations)
93

Pollutant
Sacramento
Metropolitan
AQMD
Yolo-Solano
AQMD
San Joaquin
Valley
APCD
El Dorado
County
APCD
Placer
County
APCD
Feather
River
AQMD
Colusa
County
APCD
Amador
County
APCD
Ozone

NOx

CO

UC UC
/UC*
UC UC
SOx

PM
10
UC
PM
2.5
UC

UC UC
/UC*
UC UC

Key; -Non-Attainment
-Attainment (standard not violated for three years)
-Transitioning to Non-Attainment
UC-Unclassified (insufficient or inconclusive data to determine designation)
* The Yuba County portion of the Feather River AQMD remains unclassified

Table 2-27. Emission levels (tons/year) required for designation as a major source and
offset trigger limits
94

SFNA*
Portion
North
Portion
Rule 202,
section 220
Rule 3.4,
section 222
Rule 2201,
section
3.25.1
Rule 523,
section
523.2-X
Rule 502,
section
225
Rule 3.17
section
b.20
Rule 102
ROG 25 25 25 25 50 25 100 100 100
NOx 25 25 25 25 50 25 100 100 100
SOx 100 100 70 100 100 - - 100 100
PM10 100 100 70 100 100 100 100 100 100
CO 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Amador
County
APCD
Pollutant
(Tons/
year)
Feather River
AQMD* Colusa
APCD
Rule 10.1
section D.20
Sacramento
Metropolitan
AQMD
Yolo-Solano
AQMD
San Joaquin
Valley
APCD
El Dorado
County
APCD
Placer
County
APCD

*SFNA means severe federal non-attainment. The SFNA portion of the Feather River AQMD is south of a line
connecting the northern border of Yolo County to the SW tip of Yuba County and continuing along the southern Yuba
County border to Placer County.
95

EmissionthresholdsabovewhichBACTisrequired(BACTtriggers)fornewor
modifiedsourcesintheSacramentoregionarelistedinTable228.BACTtriggersfor
ROGandNOxaregenerally10lb/dayexceptforportionsoftheFeatherRiverAQMD
andtheColusaAPCDwhichare25lb/dayandtheSanJoaquinValleyAPCDwhichis
muchlowerat2lb/day.BACTtriggersforoxidesofsulfurandPM10rangefrom2to80
lb/day.CarbonmonoxideBACTthresholdsrangefrom250to550lb/dayandthelead
BACTtriggeris3.23.3lb/day.TheBACTthresholdsreflectthegeneralairqualityinthe
district.

93.Attainmentareamapsareavailableat:http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm#state
94.CARBdatabaseofairdistrictrulescanbefoundat:http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdb/htm
95.40CFRSection81.305fortheSacramentometroarea.
200

Table 2-28. BACT trigger thresholds for air districts in the Sacramento region

SFNA*
Portion
North
Portion
Rule 202,
section 301
Rule 3.4,
section 301
Rule 2201,
section 4
Rule 523,
section 523.3A1
Rule 502,
section 301
Rule 3.6
section c.1
ROG 10 10 2 10 10 10 25 25
NOx 10 10 2 10 10 10 25 25
SOx 10 80 2 80 80 80 80 80
PM10 10 80 2 80 80 80 80 80
CO 550 250 100 ton/y 550 550 500 500 500
Lead 3.3 3.3 - 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2
Asbestos - - - - - - - 0.03
Beryllium - - - - - - - 0.002
Mercury - - - - - - - 0.5
Vinyl chloride - - - 5.5 5.5 - - 5
Fluorides - - - - - - - 15
Sulfuric acid - - - 38 38 - - 3
Hydrogen
sulfide
- - - 55 55 - - 5
Reduced
sulfur
- - - 55 55 - - 5
Rule 10.1
section E.1
El Dorado
County APCD
Placer
County
APCD
Feather River
AQMD* Colusa
APCD
Pollutant
(lb/day
- unless noted
otherwise)
Sacramento
Metropolitan
AQMD
Yolo-Solano
AQMD
San Joaquin
Valley APCD
5
0
0

* See note for Table 2-27
Amador County APCD requires air quality modeling to determine potential impacts of the new source on ambient
concentrations in the air district. BACT and offset requirements are based on the modeling results. See Amador County
Regulation IV- Authority to Construct Regulations.

EmissionreductionoffsettriggeramountsareshowninTable229.Sourcesthatemit
abovetheoffsetthresholdlevelsmustprovideemissionreductionoffsetstomitigate
emissionsabovethethresholds.Generally,sourcesemittingabovetheoffsettriggersare
subjecttoBACTsincetheBACTthresholdsareusuallymuchlower(thereseemstobe
anexceptiontothisfortheCOoffsettriggeramountforElDoradoandPlacerCounty
APCDswhichislowerthantheBACTthreshold).
Becauseofpollutanttransportbetweenairbasins,strictcontrolofnewNOxandVOC
emissionsindistrictsupwindofozonenonattainmentareashasbeenrecentlyenacted.
FortheSacramentoMetropolitanandYoloSolanoairdistricts,portionsofwhichare
generallyupwindoftheSanJoaquinValleyairbasin,theVOCandNOxoffsettrigger
limitsfornewormodifiedsourceshavebeenloweredto5,000lb/quarterand20,000
lb/year,respectively(Table229).Whennewemissionsexceedtheseamounts,thesource
isrequiredtooffsetthoseemissionssothatregionalairqualityisnotdegraded.
201

Table 2-29. Emission Offset Trigger Amounts for districts in the Sacramento region

SFNA*
Portion
North
Portion
Rule 202,
section 301
Rules 3.20,
3.4 sections
Rule 2201,
section 4.5
Rule 523,
section 523.3B1
Rule 502,
section 302
Rule 3.6
section c.2
ROG 5,000 lb/qtr 10 ton/y 10 ton/y 5,000 lb/qtr 7,500 lb/qtr 10 ton/y 25 ton/y 25 ton/y
NOx 5,000 lb/qtr 10 ton/y 10 ton/y 5,000 lb/qtr 7,500 lb/qtr 10 ton/y 25 ton/y 25 ton/y
SOx 13,650 lb/qtr13,650 lb/qtr 27.4 ton/y 12,500 lb/qtr 12,500 lb/qtr - - -
PM10 7,500 lb/qtr 13,650 lb/qtr 14.6 ton/y 7,500 lb/qtr 7,500 lb/qtr 10 ton/y 25 ton/y 25 ton/y
CO 49,500 lb/qtr49,500 lb/qtr 100 ton/y 7,500 lb/qtr 7,500 lb/qtr - - -
Colusa
APCD Pollutant
(Note Units)
Rule 10.1
section E.2
Sacramento
Metropolitan
AQMD
Yolo-Solano
AQMD
San Joaquin
Valley APCD
El Dorado
County APCD
Placer
County
APCD
Feather River
AQMD*

* See note for Table 2-27
Amador County APCD requires air quality modeling to determine potential impacts of the new source on ambient
concentrations in the air district. BACT and offset requirements are based on the modeling results. See Amador County
Regulations IV- Authority to Construct Regulations.

LimitsforReciprocatingEngines
FortheairdistrictsintheSacramentoregion,emissionsfromreciprocatingenginesare
regulatedbylimitingmaximumconcentrationofapollutantintheexhaustgas.CARB
recommendsoutputbasedemissionlimitsforengines(i.e.,limitpollutantmassperunit
ofenergyproduced.SeeTables230and31).Emissionlimitsbasedonexhaustgas
concentrationallowlowefficiencysystemstohaveincreasedemissionsperoutputkWh.
Ingeneral,stationaryenginesbelow50bhp(38kW)areexemptfromairpermitsto
operate.
CARBBACTRecommendations
Tables230and231showCARBrecommendedbestavailablecontroltechnology
requirementsforreciprocatingengineandgasturbine(lessthan3MW)distributed
generationapplicationsrespectively.BACTemissionsdependonthefueltype(waste
gasorfossilfuel)andclassofprimemover(turbineorreciprocatingengine).Thehigher
emissionsallowedforwastegasincludingbiogasapplicationsmainlyreflectthefact
thatuseofcatalyticconverterswithbiogasfuelisdifficultandisnotinroutinepractice.
CARBlimitsincludebothoutputbasedaswellastheapproximateequivalent
concentrationbasedemission.
96

96.Foragivenoutputbasedemissionlevel,theequivalentconcentrationbasedemissionlevel
dependsontheoverallthermodynamicefficiencyofthesystem.
202

Table 2-30. CARB recommended BACT emissions for reciprocating engines.
'Waste gas' fired Fossil fuel fired
(g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd)
(lb/MW-hr) (g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd) (lb/MW-hr)

NO
x
0.6 50 1.9 0.15 9 0.5
VOC 0.6 130 1.9 0.15 25 0.5
CO 2.5 300 7.8 0.6 56 1.9
PM NA NA NA 0.02 - 0.06

ppmvd parts per million by volume dry - values are approximate for reciprocating engines
Source: CARB

Table 2-31. CARB recommended BACT emissions for gas turbines less than 3MW.
97

Waste gas fired (any capacity) Fossil fuel fired
(g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd) (lb/MW-hr) (g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd) (lb/MW-hr)
NO
x
25 1.25 9 0.5
VOC - - 5 0.1
CO - - 10 0.4
PM - -

SacramentoRegionStationaryEngineEmissionsRules
Table232displayscurrentorproposedemissionlimitsforNOx,CO,andVOCsfrom
stationaryreciprocatingenginesfortheeightairdistrictsintheSacramentoregion(note
thatexceptfortheFeatherRiverAQMD,theyareallconcentrationbasedlimits).The
limitsaretypicallydifferentiatedforsparkignited(SI)leanorrichburnand
compressionignited(CIordiesel)enginetypes.NOxlimitsforreciprocatingenginesin
theregionvaryfrom25ppmvat15%O2inElDoradoCountyforarichburnengine
greaterthan50bhpto740ppmvinColusaCountyforaleanburnenginelessthan300
bhp.
ThedefinitionusedtodeterminewhetheranSIengineoperatesasfuelrichorfuellean
(richorleanburnrespectively)variesslightlyamongtheregionsairdistricts.
98
For
example,theSacramento,ElDoradoCounty,andPlacerCountyairdistrictsdefinerich
burnenginesashaving1.1.
99
TheYoloSolanoAQMDdefinesleanburnashaving
exhaustgasO2concentrationmorethan2%byvolume.TheSanJoaquinValley
(SJVAPCD)andtheColusaAPCDsuseexhaustgasO2concentrationofmorethan2%to
definealeanburnengine.
OnlytherulesfromSanJoaquinValleyAPCDandtheFeatherRiverAQMDspecify
differentlimitsforSIenginesfueledwithwastegas.Inaddition,therecentlyamended
SanJoaquinValleyAPCDRule4702createdanewengineclassforstationarySIengines

97.CARBdatabaseofairdistrictrules:http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdb/htm
98.CIordieselenginesoperateinfuelleanconditionsbutduetofundamentaldifferencesin
operationandfuels,CIenginesareclassifiedseparately.
99.TheGreekletterlambda()istheratioAFactual:AFstoich,whereAFisairfuelratio.
203

204

UsedExclusivelyinAgriculturalOperationsinthedistrict.TheruleallowsNOx
emissionsfromAOenginestobe90and150ppmv(15%O2)forrichandleanburn
enginesrespectively.TheAOdesignationwascreatedinthenewruleinordertoallow
continuedoperationofnaturalgasenginesthathadreplaceddieselenginesinstationary
applicationsonfarms.However,theruleappearstoeaserequirementsforpower
generationfrombiogasfueledenginesthatareownedandoperatedbyagricultural
operations.Enginesusedinpowerproductionfueledbybiogasatdigesterfacilitiessited
atfoodprocessingfacilitieswillneedtomeetthemorestrictrequirements.
EfficiencyEffectsonOutputBasedNOxEmissions
Inpowersystems,emissionlimitsbasedonlyonconcentrationignoretheeffectthat
conversionefficiencyhasonpollutantemissionperunitofoutputenergy(e.g.kWhor
MWh).Foragivenconcentrationlimit,lessefficientconversionsystemswillhave
significantlylargeremissionrates(onanequalenergyoutputbasis)thanmoreefficient
devices(forreciprocatingenginegeneratingsets,thesmallercapacitiesaretypicallyless
efficient).
Figure216showsreciprocatingenginegensetNOxemissionratevs.conversion
efficiencyforagivenexhaustconcentration.Forasystemwith45%conversionefficiency
and65ppmNOxintheexhaust,theNOxemissionrateisabout1.9lb/MWhof
electricityproduced(thiswouldbealargeenginegenerator,leanburnwithperhaps2to
3MWcapacity).
100
Asystemoperatingat25%conversionefficiencywith65ppmNOx
concentrationintheexhaustgaswillemitattherateofabout3.5lb/MWh.The25%
efficientunitwouldneedtohaveaNOxexhaustconcentrationof35ppminorderto
emitatthesameCARBrecommendedoutputbasedrateasthe45%efficientdevice
emittingat65ppm(seeFigure217).
Inthelongterm,theconcentrationonlybasedemissionlimitswillbeadisincentiveto
improvedconversionefficiency.TheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoardaswellastheU.S.
EPAandtheRegulatorAssistanceProjectrecommendoutputbasedemissions
regulationsforpowergenerationsystems.
101

100.TheCARBBACTrecommendationis1.9lbNOx/MWhforwastegasfueledreciprocating
engines.
101.InformationfromCARBsGuidanceforthepermittingofelectricalgeneration
technologies,availableat:http://www.arb.ca.gov/energy/dg/dg.htmandTheRegulatory
AssistanceProjectsModelregulationsfortheoutputofspecifiedairemissionsfromsmaller
scaleelectricgenerationresources,availableat:
http://www.raponline.org/Pages/Feature.asp?select=8.Seealso
http://www.epa.gov/chp/chp_support_tools.htm
Table 2-32. Emission limits (ppmv at 15% O2- unless otherwise noted) for reciprocating engines in air districts within the Sacramento region

Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD
Yolo-Solano
AQMD
El Dorado
County APCD
Feather River
AQMD
Placer County
APCD
Rule 412, RACT &
located at major NOx
source (25 t/y)
Rule 2.32 Rule 233
Likely use Bay
Area AQMD
BACT guidelines
Rule 242
> 50 hp
(38 kW)
> 50 hp
(38 kW)
AO
> 50 hp
(38 kW)
> 50 hp
(38 kW)
> 50 hp
(38 kW)
> 50 hp-Rich
(38 kW)
> 250 hp-Lean
(187 kW)
>50 & 300
hp
(>38 & 225
kW)
> 300 hp
(225 kW)
> 50 hp
(38 kW)
Definition 1.1 not lean 1.1 - 1.1
Fuel Type Not specified Not specified Not specified Waste gas Not specified Natural gas Not specified
NOx
50
(or 90%)
90
AO
; 90
(or 80%)
50
(or 90%)
25
(or 96%)
0.15 g/bhp-hr
(~ 9ppmv)
640 90 90
CO
4000
(or 90%)
2000 2000
0.6 g/bhp-hr
(~55 ppmv)
4500 4500 2000
VOC /
NMHC
250
(or 90%)
- -
0.15 g/bhp-hr
(~ 25ppmv)
- - -
Definition not rich >2% exh. O
2
not rich - > 1.1
Fuel Type Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Waste gas Not specified
NOx 125 150
AO
; 150
(or 75%)
65
(or 90%)
65
(or 90%)
1.25 g/bhp-hr
(~100 ppmv)
740 150 150
CO 4000 2000 2000
2.65 g/bhp-hr
(~330 ppmv)
4500 4500 2000
VOC /
NMHC
750 - -
1.0 g/bhp-hr
(~215 ppmv)
- - -
NOx 700 600 600
6.9 g/bhp-hr
(~500ppmv)
600
CO 4000 2000 2000
2.75 g/bhp-hr
(~320 ppmv)
2000
VOC /
NMHC
750 - -
1.5 g/bhp-hr
(~310 ppmv)
-
Engine Size
CI
(Diesel)
Lean
SI
Rich
District
Rule Citation

Rule 2.36
Colusa APCD San Joaquin Valley APCD
Rule 4702
-
700
4500
>4% exh. O
2
>4% exh. O
2
not lean not lean
*
*
*
Gaseous fuels
Gaseous fuels
2000
250
2000
750

District Rules Database maintained by CARB; http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdb.htm
SJVAPCD Rule 4702, amended 16 June, 2005 Available at; http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/Rule_4702_0605.pdf
= reduction of untreated amount by
AO means 'Used Exclusively in Agricultural Operations'
* EPA Tier 2,3, or 4 depending on size (See Table 2 in Rule 4702).
(2005) Personal communication with Matt Baldwin, FRAQMD. See; http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/bactworkbook/default.htm
Amador County APCD has not promulgated specific rules for stationary engines.
205

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
N
O
x

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
l
b
/
M
W
h
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
50 ppm NOx
65 ppm NOx

SJVAPCD 'AO'
150 ppm NOx
35 ppm NOx
SJVAPCD 'AO'
90 ppm NOx
CARB Recommended BACT
for Waste gas fueled Engines (1.9 lb/MWh)

Figure 2-16. NOx emission rate vs. efficiency for given exhaust concentration
(concentrations are at 15% O
2
)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
N
O
x

(
p
p
m
v
-
@

1
5
%

O
2

d
r
y

g
a
s
)

Figure 2-17. Maximum NOx concentration vs. efficiency for 1.9 lbs/MWh emission rate
206

2.4 Nitrogen Oxides Background and Control
NOxemissionscompriseprimarilynitricoxide(NO)andnitrogendioxide(NO2).Fossil
fuelcombustionaccountsforabout40%oftheglobalproductionofNOxandisthe
primaryanthropogenicsource(Seinfeld1986).Nitrogenoxidesareemittedfrom
combustionsourcesprincipallyasNO,althoughdirectemissionsofNO2aresignificant,
especiallyfrommobilesources(AQEG2004).NitricoxideisquicklyconvertedtoNO2in
theatmosphere,hencethestandardreportingbasisforNOxasNO2.Biomassburningin
naturalandhumancausedforestandrangelandfirescontributesabout25%ofthe
worldsNOx.Lightningandmicrobialsoilactivityareresponsiblefortheremaining
35%.TotalglobalNOxemissions(asNO2)areabout165Tgperyear(180milliontons
peryear)(Logan1983).
TheUnitedStatesNOxemissionsareabout23milliontonsperyearandhavedecreased
by15%since1983.
102
InCalifornia,theestimatedanthropogenicNOxemissionsare1.2
milliontonsperyearwithabout84%frommobilesourcesand16%fromstationary
sources(Katoetal.2004).
Inadditiontotheroleinozoneformation,atmosphericNOxisassociatedwithacid
deposition(acidrain)andacidificationofaquaticsystems,formationofaerosols,and
degradationofvisibility(Priceetal.1997).Ozoneexposureislinkedtoanumberof
healtheffects,includingsignificantdecreasesinlungfunctionandaggravationoflung
diseasessuchasasthma,leadingtoincreasedhospitaladmissionsandmortality.
103
ThoughVOC,NOx,andappropriateatmosphericanddaylightconditionscombineto
formozone,theNationalResearchCouncilsuggeststhatinthegrossaverage,after
mixing,transportofozoneprecursors,etc.,NOxisthelimitingfactorinphotochemical
ozoneproduction.Therefore,NOxcontrolstrategiesaregenerallymoreeffectivethan
VOCcontrolstrategiesforpreventionoftroposphericozone(NRC1991).
2.4.1 NOx from Combustion Sources
TherearetwopossiblesourcesofNOxfromfuelcombustion(nitrogenincombustionair
andnitrogeninfuel)andthreemechanismsorpathwaysforNOxformation(thermal,
fuel,andpromptNOx)(MillerandBowman1989).
ReactionsbetweenN2andO2inairathightemperatureleadtothermalNOxformation.
ActivationenergiesoftheseveralformationreactionsinvolvedinthermalNOxarehigh
andthustherateofthermalNOxproductionisstronglytemperaturedependent(the
rateofNOxformationincreasesexponentiallywithtemperature)andkineticlimited.
ThermalNOxisformedincombustionnearregionsofpeakflametemperature.InSI

102
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
2002. From More details on nitrogen dioxide based on data through 2002, available at
http://www.epa.gov/aortremds/nitrogen2.html
103
U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. From The Ozone Report
Measuring Progress through 2003, available at: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ozone/html
207

reciprocatingengines,forexample,thisoccursinthepacketoffuelandairnearthe
sparkplugwhichisthefirsttoignite.Thefirstelementsthatburnalsohavethelongest
timeathightemperaturesenablingNOxformationtoproceednearlytoequilibriumin
thisregion.TheratesofformationanddissolutionofthermalNOxaresuchthatrapid
coolingofcombustiongasesoccurringinreciprocatingenginesduringexpansionofthe
gasesinthepowerstrokeimmediatelyafterignition,effectivelyfreezesNOxinthe
gasbecausethedissociationreactionsaremuchsloweratthecoldertemperatures
(Seinfeld1986).
Thenitrogencompoundscontainedinthefuelarethesecondsourceofcombustion
NOx.Biomassandcoaldifferintheformofnitrogeninthefuel.Nitrogeninsolidfuel
biomassispresentmainlyinaminecompounds.Whenconvertedtosyngas,producer
gas,orbiogas,nitrogenisprincipallyavailableasammoniaorhydrogencyanide(HCN).
ReductionsduringcombustionleadtotheformationofradicalssuchasHCN,N,CN,
andNH.Becausethenitrogencarbonandnitrogenhydrogenbondshavemuchlower
activationenergythanthenitrogennitrogenbondsinthemolecularnitrogeninair,fuel
nitrogenismorereadilyconvertedtoNOxanddoesnotdependstronglyonflame
temperature(asisthecasewiththermalNOxformation).Fiftyto90%ofNOxformedin
coalorheavyoilcombustioninboilersisduetofuelnitrogendependingonsourceand
composition(someportionofthefuelNwindsupinNOx,theremainderismostlyN2or
nitrousoxide,N2O)(Seinfeld1986).Emissionfractionsforbiomassaregenerallyatthe
higherendduetothetypicallylowerflametemperaturescomparedwithcoal,gas,oroil
firing.ThehighNcontentsinstrawcomparedwithmostwoodsleadstohigher
uncontrolledNOxemissionlevels.Figure218showsdependenceofuncontrolledNOx
onnitrogencontentofthefuelforaBIGCCandcoal/fueloilfacilities.VrnamoBIGCC
dataarefrommeasurementsinthecombustionturbineexhaustattheVrnamobiomass
IGCCdemonstrationfacilityinSweden(mgNOx/MJfuel).Coalandheavyoildata
(ppmNOx)arefromSeinfeld(1986)forutilityboilersupstreamofanyNOxcontrol
devices.
208

0
100
200
300
400
500
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Fuel Nitrogen (wt. % dry basis)
N
O
x

(
m
g
/
M
J

f
u
e
l
)
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
N
O
x

(
p
p
m
)
Heavy Oil or
Coal
Vrnamo
BIGCC

Figure 2-18. NOx vs. Fuel Nitrogen content (uncontrolled emissions)
Photo Credit: Stahl (2001), Seinfeld (1986)

ThethirdNOxpathwayistermedpromptNOx.PromptNOxisformedfromN2from
combustionairreactingwithCHradicalsformingHCNandCNcompoundsand
monatomicN.TheCNcompoundsandNquicklyreactwithoxygenformingNO.
PromptNOxformationissmallcomparedtothermalandfuelNOxforleanandslightly
leancombustionbecausetherearerelativelyfewCHradicalsavailable.PromptNOx
becomesimportantandcanbethedominantNOxmechanisminfuelrichmixtures(
<1),especiallywithhydrocarbonfuelswhenrateofformationisfasterthanthermal
NOx(MillerandBowman1989).Biomassfueledboilerscanhaveregionsoffuelrich
combustionwhichmaysupportpromptNOxformation,whichisoftenoverlookedin
biomassemissionsinvestigations(GrassandJenkins1994).Figure219displaysNOx
emissionfactorsforseveralCaliforniasolidfueledbiomassfacilities.PermittedNOx
emissionsrangefromabout1to2lb/MWh.Emissionsfromsourcetestsrangefrom
about0.6to1.2lb/MWh.Actualemissionsaverage70%ofthepermittedlevels.

209

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
M
a
d
e
r
a
G
r
a
s
s
&
J
e
n
k
i
n
s

1
G
r
a
s
s
&
J
e
n
k
i
n
s

2
G
r
a
s
s
&
J
e
n
k
i
n
s

3
G
r
a
s
s
&
J
e
n
k
i
n
s

4
W
o
o
d
l
a
n
d

B
i
o
m
a
s
s
C
h
o
w
c
h
i
l
l
a

I
I
E
l

N
i
d
o
N
O
x

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r

(
l
b
/
M
W
h
)
Permit Level Source Test Results

Figure 2-19. NOx emission factors for several California solid biomass facilities
Photo Credit: Figure Straw 2 Task 1.1.2.1 Report and Grass and Jenkins 1994

2.4.2 Controlling NOx
StrategiestocontrolNOxemissionsfromcombustionsourcesgenerallyfallintooneof
twocategories:(1)minimizeNOxformationbymanagingcombustionzoneparameters
and/orminimizefuelnitrogen(sometimesreferredtoasprimarycontroltechniques)
or(2)reduceNOxinfluegasbeforereleasetotheatmosphere(alsoknownassecondary
controltechniquesoraddoncontroltechnologies).
PrimaryControlTechniquesBoilers
StagingofCombustion
Stagedcombustionisacombustionmanagementtechniquetocontrolorminimizethe
productionofNOx.Thetechniqueiscommonlyemployedinthedesignofliquidand
gasburners(lowNOxburners)andcanbeusedwithgratefiredboilers.Staged
combustioncanbeaccomplishedbystagingtheair,stagingthefuel,oracombinationof
theair/fuelstaging.Combustionstagingherereferstotechniquesforburners,boiler,
furnaces,etc.Forreciprocatingengines,prestratifiedchargeandprecombustion
chambersareformsofstagedcombustionprimarycontrol.
210

AirStaging
Airstagedcombustionstartswithburningthefuelinaslightlyfuelrichzone.The
mixtureischosentopromoteconversionoffuelnitrogentoN2.Flametemperatureis
relativelylowunderfuelrichconditionssothermalNOxproductionislow.
Downstream,additionalairisaddedtocompletecombustion.Thegastemperaturesin
theburnoutzonealsoremainlowenoughthatthermalNOxproductionisminimized.
Figure220displaysaschematicofatypicaltravelinggratestokerboilershowingair
injectionlocationsandcombustionzonesusingairstagingforNOxcontrol.
FuelStaging
Fuelstagingorreburningisathreestepprocessinwhichthemajorityofthefueland
airchargearecombustedundernormalleanconditionswithNOxbeingformed(from
boththermalandfuelNOxpathways).Thisstageisfollowedbyinjectionofadditional
fuel(withminimumair)creatingafuelrichreburnzonewhereNOxisreducedtoN2.
Finally,overfireairisaddedtooxidizeremainingunburnedfuel.Asinstagedair,this
burnoutzoneisatalowenoughtemperaturetokeepthermalNOxproductiontoa
minimum.Figure221showsthetravelinggratestokerboilerconfiguredforstagedfuel
NOxcontrol.Thereburnfuelneednotbethesameastheprimaryfuel.Intheboiler
arrangementshown,thereburnfuelshouldbecapableofquicklyvolatilizingorburning
insuspensionmodeifnotagaseousfuel(i.e.,iffuelparticlesordropletsaresized
incorrectly,theywilleitherfallorflyoutofthereburnzoneandbelesseffective).The
techniqueisemployedinsomecoalfiredfacilitiesusingnaturalgasorpulverizedcoal
asthereburnfuel.NOxreductionsof50to60%areachieved(HardingandAdams
2000).Pilotscaleexperimentsusingsolidand/orgasifiedbiomassasthereburnfuel
showpromisingresults(Malyetal.1999;HardingandAdams2000;Vilasetal.2004;
RizeqandZamansky2004;Rudigeretal.1996;DagautandLecomte2003;Arumugamet
al.2005).

211

Fuel
Primary (1) Air
1 Air
1 Air
Fuel-rich
Zone
2 or Over-fire Air
2 Air
Burn-out
Zone

Figure 2-20. Staged air combustion in a traveling grate stoker boiler
Note: 2 = secondary

212

Primary
Fuel
Primary (1) Air
1 Air
1 Air
~Stoichiometric
Combustion
(production of NO)

Staged or
Reburn fuel
Staged
Fuel
Fuel-Rich Reburn
Zone
(NO reduced to N2)
Burnout
Zone
(tertiary
combustion zone)
Overfire
Air
Overfire
Air

Figure 2-21. Staged fuel or reburning in a traveling grate stoker boiler

SecondaryControlTechniquesBoilers
SecondarycontrolsareusedtolowerNOxafterinitialformationduringcombustion.
ThemajorityoftechniquesaccomplishthisbyselectivelyreducingtheNOxtomolecular
nitrogen(selectivecontrol).LowtemperatureNOxoxidationisanemergingtechnology
withpotentialapplicationstoengineorboilerexhauststreams.
Selectivenoncatalyticreduction(SNCR)
SNCRutilizesammonia,urea,orothersuitableaminebasedcompoundsthatreact
selectivelywithNOxinthepresenceofoxygen.TheSNCRtechniquereducesoxidesof
nitrogentoN2.Thereactionsproceedatfairlyhightemperatureandthetemperature
rangeforthereactionstooccurisrathernarrowat1600to2100F(900to1150C)which
iswhythetechniqueisalsoknownasthermaldeNOx(Srivastavaetal.2005).Ator
belowthelowerendofthisrange,reactionsareslowandrequirelongresidencetimes
213

whicharelimitedbythefurnacesize.Temperatureshigherthantherangecausethe
nitrogenintheaminecompoundstooxidizeincreasingNOx.Typically,morethan
stoichiometricamountsofammoniaorureaareinjectedinordertosufficientlydrivethe
NOxreductionreactionswhichleadtocertainamountsofammoniapassingunreacted
throughthesystem(socalledammoniaslip).Insufficientreactiontime,lowgas
temperature,ortoomuchammoniainjectionleadtounacceptableammoniaslipwhich
contributestoparticulatematteremissionandvisibleplumes.
SNCRisusedextensivelyinindustrialandutilityboilersandfurnaces,including
biomassboilers.SNCRisacomponentofBACTforbiomassboilersinCalifornia.SNCR
performanceisspecifictoeachuniqueapplication.NOxreductionlevelsfromSNCR
systemsrangefrom30%toover75%,withthemajorityofinstallationsachievingmore
than50%NOxreduction(Srivastavaetal.2005).
SelectiveCatalyticReduction(SCR)
SCRreducesNOxthroughthesameprinciplereactionsasoccurintheSNCRprocess
bututilizesacatalystthatallowsthesystemtooperateatlowertemperature.Typical
SCRoperatingtemperaturerangeis650to750F(350to400C).Typicalcatalystsinclude
preciousmetaloxides(e.g.,oxidesofvanadium,platinum,palladium,etc.).
SCRsystemscanbehighlyeffectiveatreducingNOxintheexhauststreamwith
reportedNOxreductionexceeding90%.Thecatalystissusceptibletodeactivationby
poisoningordepositscoveringactivesurfaceareabutcatalystservicelifetimesincoal
firedfacilitiesroutinelyreach14,000to32,000hoursofoperation.Therearenoknown
commercialbiomassfacilitiesusingtraditionalSCRsystemsforNOxreduction.There
areatleasttwofacilitiesintheUSNortheastthathavebeenretrofittedwitha
regenerativeSCRortailendSCR(seeRSCRbelow).
BiomassFuelsandSCRDeactivation
AtwoyearprogramwascarriedoutinDenmarkduringwhichstrawwascofiredwith
coalina150MWpulverizedcoalboiler(WieckHansenetal.2000).SCRcatalyst
exposedtofluegasfrom20%straw,80%coalcofiringshowedmuchfastercatalyst
deactivationthannormallyexperiencedwithcoalonlyfiring.Forcatalystmaterial
exposedtofluegasbeforeparticulatematterremoval,deactivationratesof
approximately8%/1,000hoursexposurewereobservedovera2,900hourtest.Catalyst
exposedtofluegasafterPMremovalbyanESPandbaghousefiltershowed
deactivationratesofabout6%/1,000hoursexposurefora2,350hourtest.
InSweden,SCRtestshavebeencarriedoutina125MWcirculatingfluidizedbedplant
firingforestresiduesanda75MWplantfiringpulverizedwood.Whenusinga
conventionalhoneycombcatalyst,80%oftheoriginalactivityremainedinthecaseofthe
circulatingfluidizedbedboilerafter2,100hours,butonly20%remainedinthe
pulverizedwoodboiler.Thedeactivationratewasreducedbyabout66%usinga
catalystwithincreasedvanadiumcontentcomparedtoaconventionalcatalystusedin
214

coalfiredboilers(Khodayarietal.2000).Increasedvanadiuminthecatalystorhigher
catalystoperatingtemperaturesdonotnecessarilyimprovecatalystlifetime(Zhenget
al.2004).
Theexactmechanismsforcatalystdeactivationfrombiomassfiredsystemsarenot
definedbutalkaliandalkalineearthmetalsarepoisonstovanadiumcatalysts(which
includesallcommercialSCRsystems).Mostbiomassfuelscontainsignificantamounts
ofalkaliand/oralkalineearthmetals.ItispostulatedthatSCRdeactivationfrom
biomassfuelsissomecombinationofdirectvanadiumcatalystpoisoningand
fouling/depositionfromthevolatileinorganicsinthefuel(Baxter2005).
Atsomepointinthefuture,increasedlevelsofNOxcontrolmayberequiredfornew
biomassfacilitiesinCaliforniawhichmayonlybeachievableusingSCRsystems.The
increasedrateofvanadiumcatalystpoisoningassociatedwithbiomassfuelswillbean
importantproblemtosolve.
RegenerativeSCR(RSCR)
TailendorRegenerativeSCR(RSCR)isanSCRtechniquethathasbeenappliedto
solidwastecombustors,somecoalfiredfacilities,andretrofittedtotwosolidfuel
biomassunitsintheNortheastUnitedStates.RSCRistypicallylocatedbetweenthe
induceddraftfanthepowerplantexhauststack,hencethenametailend.
RSCRmayofferanimprovementovertheSNCRmethodforNOxreductioncurrently
usedinmanybiomassfiredfacilitiesinCalifornia.RSCRsystemsarearetrofitoptionfor
largecoalpowerplantswhenspacedoesnotallowforinstallationupstreamofPMand
sulfurcontrol.BecauseRSCRtreatsfluegasaftercoolingbygascleaningsystems,itis
necessarytoreheatthegastoalevelrequiredforthecatalysttofunction.Inlargecoal
facilitieswithRSCR,theenergypenaltyforreheatingthefluegasto300C(570F)is
about3%ofplantoutput.Babcockindicatesthemainadvantagefortailendorlow
dustSCRarrangementsistheextendedworkinglifeofthecatalystbecausemanyofthe
catalystpoisons(arsenic,alkaliandalkalineearthmetals)havebeenremovedupstream
(Beckmann2000).
Figure222depictstheRSCRarrangementforacoalfiredpowerplant.Notethat
additionalfuelisdirectlyfiredinthefluegasafteragasgasrecuperatingheat
exchanger.Ammoniaisinjectedintothereheatedfluegaswhereitscarriedintothe
catalystwhereitreactswithNOx.
215

Figure 2-22. Schematic showing tail-end SCR arrangement
Photo Credit: EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, 6
th
edition (EPA/452/B-02-001)

ThetwobiomassfacilitiesretrofittedwithRSCRaretheWhitefield,NewHampshire,16
MW(net)BabcockWilcoxwoodfiredboilerandtheMcNeilGeneratingStation50MW
(net)stokerboilerinBurlington,Vermont.BothfacilitiesaddedRSCRforNOx
reductioninordertoqualifyfortheConnecticutRenewableEnergyCertificate(REC)
program.
TheConnecticutRPSrequiresbiomassfacilityNOxemissionstobelessthan0.075lb
NOx/MMBtufuelinput.ConnecticutRECsareworthabout$0.035/kWh(Pletka2005).
ThedraftoperatingpermitfortheWhitefield,NewHampshire,facilitylimitsNOx
emissionsto0.075lb/MMBtu.Basedontheboilermaximumfuelinputof220MMBtu/h
andthenetpoweroutputof16MW,themaximumNOxemissionsareapproximately1
lb/MWh.ThislevelofNOxcontroliscurrentlybeingachievedbyseveralCalifornia
biomassfacilitiesusingSNCRintheSanJoaquinandlowerSacramentoValleys.
ThereareatleasttwocompaniesofferingtailendSCRforbiomasspowerplants;BD
HeatRecoveryDivision,Inc.(Seminole,Florida)whichisassociatedwithaGermanheat
exchangermanufacturerandBabcockPowerEnvironmental(Worcester,Massachusetts).
Duetotheexpenseandenergyrequiredforreheat,RSCRsystemsdonotnecessarily
operateattheoptimaltemperatureforthecatalyst.Therefore,NOxreductionfrom
RSCRisexpectedtobenotasgoodaswithstandardSCRbutstillmaybean
improvementoverSNCR.
PerformanceinformationfromthetwobiomassfacilitiesintheNortheastrecently
retrofittedwithRSCRshouldbepursued.WhetherRSCRissuitable(andsufficient)for
Californiasneedsshouldbedetermined.
216

LowTemperatureOxidationUsingOzone
OzoneoxidationofNOxisconsideredanemergingtechnologyinwhichozoneis
injectedintothelowtemperaturefluegas,whichreactswithNOxproducingN2O5.
Nitrogenpentoxidereactsquicklywithmoistureinthegasstreamformingnitricacid
(HNO3)whichiseasilyremovedfromthegasbyawaterscrubber(removalefficiencies
are96to98%).Theeffectivetemperaturerangeis150to250F(65to120C).The
technologyrequiresanozonegenerator(whichusuallyrequiresindustrialgradeoxygen
tobeonsite)andawetscrubber,andincreasesparasiticpowerdemand.Thewet
scrubbercouldbeintegratedtoremovePMandSO2aswell.Figure223providesa
schematic.

Figure 2-23. Schematic of BOC gases LoTOx system for NOx reduction
Photo Credit: CARB Innovative Clean Air Technology Grant Program, Low temperature oxidation system demonstration
at RSR Quemetco, Inc. Progress Report (2000)
104

Thesystemhasbeendemonstratedinseveralcommercialboilers(naturalgasandcoal
fired)andprocessingplants.ReportedNOxremovalefficiencyis80to95%depending
oninitialNOxconcentrationandotherparameters.TreatedNOxconcentrationswereas

104.Availableat:http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/projects/boc.htm
217

lowas5ppm.AleadbatteryrecyclingfacilityinCaliforniaservedasademonstration
sitewhereNOxwasreducedby80%.
105
PrimaryControlTechniquesReciprocatingEngines
CombustionorprimaryNOxcontroltechniquesforreciprocatingenginesareaimedat
reducingthepeaktemperaturewithinthecylinder.Methodsincludeair:fuelratio(AF)
adjustment,ignitiontimingretard,prestratifiedcharge,precombustionchamber,water
injectionorwater/fuelemulsions,exhaustgasrecirculation(EGR),andchargeair
cooling(e.g.,turbochargercompressoraftercooling)(Obert1973).
Air:Fuelratio(AF)management
AFisdefinedasthemassofairpermassoffuelinacombustionreaction.Lean
combustionoccurswhentheactualAF(AFactual)ismorethanthestoichiometric
requirement(hence,fuelleanconditions).Fuelrichcombustionreferstocaseswhere
AFactualislessthanthestoichiometricrequirement.
AconvenientdimensionlessparameterfordescribingAFinthecylinderchargeofan
engineis(Greeklambda).LambdaistheratioAFactual:AFstoich,or:

stoich.
actual
AF
AF
=
ThermalNOxisstronglydependentontemperature.Forareciprocatingengine,the
maximumflametemperatureoccursfor1.1,orslightlyfuellean.Thisiswhere
maximumNOxproductionisexpected(foragasolinefueledengine,seeFigure224).
Forlowemissionoperation,enginesareoperatedeitherslightlyrich(=1orslightly
lower)orleanburnconditionswherethevalueofdependsonthefuel.Itturnsout
thatbestfuelefficiencyoccurswithAFthatachievespeakflametemperature.AF
adjustmentstolowerNOxalsodecreasefuelefficiency(overallefficiencydecreasesby
about2to3%).
Richburnconditionshavelimitedoxygenavailableinthecylinderandflame
temperatureisrelativelylowbecausefuelisnotcompletelyburned.Unburned
hydrocarbons(HC)andCOemissionscanbehighwithrichburnengines(dependingon
thefueland).

105.InformationfromCARBInnovativeCleanAirTechnologyGrantProgram,Lowtemperature
oxidationsystemdemonstrationatRSRQuemetco,Inc.ProgressReport(2000)andtheHoustonAdvanced
ResearchCenter,TheWoodlands,Texas,Evaluationofpotentialcontroltechnologiesforoxidesofnitrogen
frompointsourcesinEllisCounty,Texas(2004).
218

Figure 2-24. Gasoline engine emissions vs. Lambda


Leanburnconditionsreducepeakflametemperaturebywayofprovidingexcessair
effectivelydilutingthecombustiongases.Tominimizepowerderatinginleanburn
engines,thechargeairisoftencompressedbyturboorsupercharger(toallowmoreair
andthusfuelintotheengine).Aftercoolingofthecompressedchargeairbefore
inductiontothecylinderisrecommendedforpeakflametemperaturecontrol.Lambda
valuesforleanburnenginesoperatedonnaturalgascanbefrom1.5to2.4(excessairof
50to140%).Maximumislimitedbytheonsetofmisfiringattheleanlimit.Unburned
HCandCOemissionsincreaseattheonsetofmisfiring.Insomeinstances,highenergy
ignitionsystems(HEIS)canbeusedtoreducethechanceofmisfiring(andhigh
emissions)whenoperatingatveryleanconditions.
Hydrogenenrichmentoffuelgascanbeusedtoextendtheflammabilitylimittoallow
operationataleanerAF,reducingpeakflametemperatureand,thus,reducingthermal
NOxproduction.TIAXLLCiscurrentlyworkingonahydrogenenrichmentofLFG
powersystemproject.Thesystem,calledhydrogenassistedleanoperation(HALO)
intendstouseaportionofanLFGgasstreaminareformertomakehydrogen,whichis
thenmixedwiththeremainingportionoftheLFGandusedasfuelinareciprocating
engine.TIAXexpectstoachieve95%reductionofNOxemission(comparedto
uncontrolled,LFGfueledengine)toalevelof0.6lb/MWh(TIAX2002).Theproject
couldbeundergoingfieldtrialsataCalifornialandfillbyearly2006.Theprojectis
supportedbyPIERfundsthroughtheCaliforniaEnergyCommission.
Prestratifiedcharge
Thisisamethodofinjectingfuelintotheintakemanifoldindistinctslugswhichends
upcreatingstratifiedlayersofrichandleanfuelmixturesinthecylinders.Therich
packetsaremeanttoimproveignitionwhiletheoverallmixtureislean(SOTA2003).
Precombustionchamber
219

Thisisanothertechniquewhereoverallleanburnconditionsaremetusingarich
mixtureforignition.Aprechamberinwhichthesparkplugislocatedreceivesarich
mixtureensuringignition.Theprechamberisventedtothemaincombustionchamber
whichhasafuelleanmixture.Asitexpandsintothemainchamber,theignitedcharge
intheprechamberignitestheleanmixture.
Ignitiontimingretard
Peakflametemperaturescanbeloweredbymovingtheignitioneventtolaterinthe
compressionortothebeginningofthepowerstroke(ignitionretard).Inthelattercase,
byignitingthechargewhenthepistonisaftertopdeadcenteronthepowerstroke,the
chargeburnsentirelywhilethechambervolumeisincreasing,ratherthanadecreasing
volumefirstencounteredbytheburningmixturewithearlyignitiontime(beforetop
deadcenter),althoughintherockpositionneartopdeadcenterthevolumechangeis
small.
EGRandCooledEGR
Recirculatingexhaustgasesintotheintakeoftheengineservestolowerpeak
combustiontemperaturebyactingasadiluentorheatsink.Effectively,thisisamixture
leaningtechnique.
WaterInjectionandWater/FuelEmulsions
Injectingwaterorincludingwaterinthefuellowerspeaktemperaturebyvirtueofthe
latentheatofevaporationofthewater.Flamespeedandtemperaturearelowered.This
isacommonmethodofNOxandengineknock(detonation)controlforlargeslowspeed
CIengines.
Table233summarizesexpectedNOxreductionbyemployingcombustionflame
temperaturemanagementtechniquesusingreciprocatingengines.

220

Table 2-33. NOx reduction potential (%) by combustion management techniques (adapted
from SOTA 2003
Peak flame temperature
management technique
SI
(natural gas
or propane)
CI
(diesel fuel)
Dual-Fuel CI
(natural gas,
diesel pilot)
Adjustment
Rich-Burn 10 - 40 na na
Lean- Burn 85 na 85
Pre-stratified Charge/
Precombustion
Chamber
75-90 na na
Ignition Timing 20-40 20 - 30 20 - 30
EGR - - 50-80 - -
Water Injection / Water
in Fuel Emulsion
25 - 30 25 - 30 25 - 30

SecondaryControlTechniquesReciprocatingEngines
NonselectiveCatalyticReductionNSCR
Thisistheprincipleemployedinautomotivecatalyticconverters.Typically,thecatalyst
sequentiallyreducesNOxcompoundsandoxidizesCOandunburnedHC.Itoperatesin
averynarrowoxygenconcentrationrangerequiringanexhaustoxygensensorand
air/fuelcontroller.Itisonlyapplicabletorichburnenginesbecausethecatalystrequires
verylowoxygenamounts(lessthan1%)inorderforNOxreductiontotakeplace.NSCR
catalyststypicallyrequireexhausttemperatureinthe800to1200Frange.Thecatalystis
subjecttodamagebysulfurcompoundsintheexhaust.
SelectiveCatalyticReductionSCR
Asdescribedaboveinthesectionaddressingboilersandfurnaces,SCRselectively
reducesNOxbytheinjectionofammoniaorureareagentupstreamofapreciousmetal
oxidecatalyst.Thisrequiressomeoxygenintheexhauststreamandthereforeisonly
applicabletoleanburnSI,CI,anddualfuelCIengines.Thecatalystisalsosusceptible
tosulfuradsorptionrenderingsitesinactive.Acertainamountofammoniapasses
throughunreactedwhichrequiremonitoringinordertomeetammoniasliplimits.An
SCRsystemconsistsofreagentstorage,feedandinjectionsystem,catalyst,and
monitoringequipmentforuseincontrollingammoniaslip.Predictivemappingand
monitoringofengineparameterscanbeusedforreagentflowcontrolinsteadofexhaust
monitoring.
221

SelectiveNonCatalyticReduction(SNCR)
TheprincipleofSNCRwasdescribedabove(boilerfurnacesection).Thetechnique
requireshightemperature(1400to1500F)whichmayrequireadditionalfuelinjected
intotheexhausttoraiseexhausttemperaturetosuitablelevel.Acertainamountof
ammoniaslipistypical.Dependingonexhaustgasheatrecoveryrequirements,SNCR
maynotbethebestchoiceforNOxcontrol(i.e.,ifexhaustheathasbeenextracteditmay
betoocostlyorimpracticaltoburnfuelintheexhausttoincreaseitstemperaturetothat
requiredforSNCR).
LeanNOxCatalystTechnology
LeanNOxcatalystisapplicabletoleanburnengines,suchasCI.Itisapotential
technologyfordieselfueledvehiclesorstationaryapplications.Thetechniquerequires
injectionofahydrocarbonintheexhauststreamwhichservesasareductant.The
literaturedescribestestsusingdieselfuelasthehydrocarbonsource,achievingNOx
reductionsuptoabout45%.Adecreaseinfueleconomyofupto5%wasestimated
(Heimrich1997).Therecurrentlyisnodemonstratedcatalysttechnologythatcan
satisfactorilyreduceNOxinleanburnautomotiveapplications(CIdiesel)(Tonkynetal.
2003).OtherresearchinvestigatedaleanNOxcatalystthatdoesnotrequire
hydrocarbonadditionandcanoperateincoolexhaustgases(Pauletal.1998).LeanNOx
catalysttechnologyfordieselandleanburnSIenginesisdevelopmental.Thereismuch
recentandongoingdevelopmentwork(Traaetal.1999;Pasquiers2004;Leeetal.2004).
Thetechnologycurrentlyhasdifficultywiththevariableloadconditionsthat
transportationenginesaresubjectedto.Theremaybeopportunitiestoapplythe
technologytostationaryenginesthatmorecommonlyoperateatconstantloadand
speed.
LowTemperatureOxidationUsingOzone
OzoneinjectionintocooledengineexhaustwillfurtheroxidizeNOx.Theresulting
nitrogencompoundsarehighlysolubleinwaterandcanberemovedfromthegas
streamusingliquidscrubbingtechniques(seesectiononboilers/furnacesabove).
Table234summarizesreciprocatingengineNOxreductionpotentialsfortheseveral
controltechniques.
Table 2-34. NOx reduction potential (%) using secondary controls (adapted from

SOTA
2003)
222

Secondary NOx
Control Technique
SI Rich-Burn
(natural gas
or propane)
SI Lean-Burn
(natural gas
or propane)
CI
(diesel
fuel)
Dual-Fuel CI
(natural gas,
diesel pilot)
NSCR 80 - 90 na na na
SCR na >90 90 - 98 90 - 98
SNCR 50 - 95 50 - 95 50 - 95 50 - 95
Lean-NOx Catalyst na ?>90 ?>90 ?>90
Ozone Injection 85 - 95 85 - 95 85 - 95 85 - 95

2.4.3 Sulfur and Catalysts
Sulfurinenginefuel(asH2Sinmostuntreatedbiogas)oxidizestoSO2andiscarried
alongintheexhaust.Preciousmetalcatalystsusedincatalyticconvertersforreduction
ofHC,CO,andNOxaresusceptibletodeactivationbysulfurdioxide.TheSO2is
adsorbedontoacatalystsiteandcanbeoxidizedtoSO3orsulfate(SO4compounds)
suchassulfuricacid.Thecatalystloseseffectivenessassulfurcompoundscontinueto
build.
DigesteroperatorsthathaveengineswithcatalyticconvertersandnoH2Sremovalhave
reportedcloggingand/orfiresinthecatalyticconverterduetosulfurdeposits.
106
Automotiveemissionsliteraturereportsthatitispossibletoregeneratecatalyststhat
havebeendegradedbysulfurcompounds.Essentially,runningtheenginewithlower
sulfurcontentthanusedpreviously,orzero,willcausesulfurcompoundstodesorb
fromcatalystsitesandexitwiththeexhaust.Thecatalystsusuallydonotrecoverfully
bythismethod.Sulfurpurgecycleshavebeenshowntobeeffectiveinautomotive
systems.Essentially,thisinvolvesoperatingtheengineinafuelrichmodeforaperiod,
followedbyfuellean.Fuelrichoperationprovidesunburnedfuelcompoundstothe
catalystwhichareoxidizedduringtheleanportionofthepurgecyclereleasingheat
whichpromotessulfurcompoundstooxidizefurtherandleavethecatalyst.The
literatureindicatesthatthecatalyticconvertermustbeatsufficientlyhightemperature
inordertoeffectivelypurgesulfur,soseveralpurgecyclesmayberequired.
107
SulfurandMoistureRemoval
Sulfurwillneedtoberemovedfrombiogasorproducergasbeforefiringinanengine
thatusescatalyticconversionforNOx,CO,and/orhydrocarbonreductionintheexhaust
gas.Informationdescribingbiogassulfurcontentforacceptableexhaustcatalystlife
couldnotbefound(thereiscopiousliteraturedetailingcatalystlifeversussulfurcontent

106.FromDaraSalour,RCMDigesters.
107.InformationfromEffectsoffuelsulfuronlowemissionvehiclecriteriapollutants,
AmericanAutomobileManufacturersAssociation&AssociationofInternationalAutomobile
Manufacturers,1997;CRCSulfurLowemissionVehicleProgram,CoordinatingResearch
CouncilInc.,CECProjectNo.E42,1997.
223

inliquidfuels).Informationregardingsulfurlimitsingaseousfuelswillbeveryhelpful
fordesigningbiogaspowersystemsthatwillbesitedinozonenonattainmentareas.
Removalofmoistureishelpfulaswellbecauseitreduceschanceofformingsulfuricacid
whichishighlycorrosiveandmayshortenenginelife.Enginesusingbiogaswithno
catalyticexhaustcontrolcanoperatewithhighlevelsofH2Sinthegas(upto1,000ppm
thoughlowerispreferred)
108
(Cockrell2005).Thisisageneralguidelinebutenginelifeis
shortenedwithhighersulfurcontentinthefuelgas.Morefrequentoilchangesare
requiredascorrosivesulfurcompoundscollectintheoilfromblowbygasesandfrom
depositsremovedbypistonringsfromthecylinderwalls.
Moisturecanberemovedbyoneoracombinationofseveraltechniques.Forentrained
dropletsandaerosols,mechanicalseparationsuchascycloneseparatorsand/orsettling
chamberscanbeused.Misteliminationscreensandfilterscanbeusedaswell.
Adsorptiveliquidsandsolidssuchasglycols,silicagel,molecularsieves,etc.,are
techniquesforwatervaporremoval.Themediarequiresregenerationperiodicallyby
heatingorexposingtolowhumidityairstreams.Probablythemostusedmoisture
removaltechniqueforbiogasissimplegascompressionandcooling(orjustcooling)
whichdecreasesthedewpointtemperaturecausingwater(withsomeH2S)tocondense.
SulfurRemoval
Hydrogensulfideremovalfromnaturalgasorbiogasisstraightforwardandcanbe
accomplishedbyanumberoftechniques.Perhapsthemostwidelyusedisthesocalled
ironspongemethod.Bypassingsulfurcontaininggasthroughamediumcontaining
ironoxide(Fe2O3),H2Swillreactwiththeironoxideformingironsulfide.Steelwoolcan
serveastheironoxidemedium,butmorecommonlywoodchipsimpregnatedwith
Fe2O3orFe2O3pelletsareused(muchimprovedsurfaceareacomparedtosteelwool).
Theironspongemustbeperiodicallyregeneratedbyoxidationwithair,anexothermic
reactionrequiringcautionespeciallywithFe2O3impregnatedwoodchips.Ironsponge
systemscanremoveH2Stobelow5ppm.
SelectivesolventscanbeusedinscrubberoperationsforH2Sremoval.Water,NaOH
solution,alkanolamine,andethyleneglycolarealleffectivesolventsforhydrogen
sulfideremovalaswellasCO2.
Biofilters
Thiobacillusisanaturallyoccurring,ubiquitous,sulfuroxidizingbacteriathatconverts
H2Stosulfite(SO3
2
).Avarietyofbiofiltermethodshavebeendevelopedthatuse
ThiobacillusandotherbacteriaforodorcontrolwhichincludestheremovalofH2S.
Hydrogensulfideremovalefficienciesfrombiogasofgreaterthan99%bybiofiltration
havebeenreportedfromlaboratoryandpilotscaleexperimentsandcommercial
demonstrations.Recentworkreports80%removalefficiencyusingcowmanureas

108.BiogasupgradereferenceEU.
224

biofiltermedia(Zicari2003).Commercialbiofiltersystemsusedinodorcontrol(which
oxidizeH2S)exist(e.g.,BiopuricandThiopaq).Arecentreportdocumentsthe
performanceoftheThiopaqsystemtreatingbiogasfromanindustrialwastewater
treatmentplantreducedbiogasH2Scontentby99.9%(from19,300to28ppm).Because
ofawaterscrubbingstepintheprocess,thegaswasslightlyupgradedbyremovalof
someCO2(methanecontentwentfrom62to69%,drygasbasis).
109
Investigationsinto
sulfurremovalbybiofiltrationforwasteandwatermanagementsystemsarecurrently
ongoing(Chungetal.2004;Ngetal.2004;Lietal.2003;NicolaiandJanni2001;Dinget
al.2000;Chitwoodetal.1999;KongandAllen1997).
InsituMethods
Insitusulfideabatementtechniquesincludeadditionofironchlorides,phosphates,or
oxidesintothedigester(ironchloridesareaddedtomunicipalwastewatertreatment
digestersforodorcontrol).ThismethodcanachievereductionsinbiogasH2Sdownto
about100to200ppmwithcarefulattentionbeingpaidtodigesterpH.Solublesulfide
levelswillincreaseinthedigesterwhichwillinhibitmethaneproductionifnot
managed.Theinsolubleironsulfidesaddtosolidsbuildupinthedigesterwhichisa
concernformixedsystems.Additionalsulfurremovaltechniqueswillberequiredif
verylowlevelsofH2Sinthebiogasareneeded(Zicari2003).
2.5 Lean Engines with High CO in the Fuel
Goodqualityproducergasfromairblownbiomassgasificationcancontain10to25%
(volume)carbonmonoxide.AleanburnengineoptimizedforlowNOxcanemitlarge
amountsofunburnedCO.Thisisexperiencedinsomeofthedemonstrationfacilitiesin
Europe.OxidationcatalystsforCOreductionintheengineexhausthavebeenemployed
withsomesuccess,thoughspecificsarenotreported(Herdinetal.2004).Additional
aftertreatmentincludesthermaloxidationbyairinjectioninto(withorwithoutusingan
oxidationcatalyst)theengineexhausttoconvertunburnedfuelcomponents.
2.5.1 Nitrogen Removal from Producer Gas
Nitrogeninbiomassprimarilyappearsasammonia(NH3)withsmalleramountsof
hydrogencyanide(HCN)intheproducergas(orsynthesisgas).Ammonia
concentrationintheuntreatedproducergascanrangefrom400to5,000ppm(drygas)
dependingonthefuelnitrogencontentandthegasificationprocess(Mojtahedietal.
1995;Prolletal.2005;Turnetal.1998;Stahl2001).Whencombusted,essentiallyallof
theNH3canbeexpectedtoconverttoNOx.Somegascleaningsystemswillremove
muchofthesenitrogencompounds(e.g.,waterscrubbing)beforefiringtheproducergas
inthegasturbine.However,hotgascleanupispreferredforsomepowergasifier
systemsbecausetarsandothercondensablesremaininthevaporphaseandthermal
efficiencyisimprovedbynotcoolingthegas.

109.U.S.EPA,TechnologyVerificationStatement;PaquesTHIOPAQ.Availableat:
http://www.srirtp.com/Thiopaq%20Verification%20Report%20Statement.pdf
225

Selectivecatalyticoxidation(SCO)technologyforconversionofammoniainhot
producergasisbeingdevelopedandmayproveeffectiveinammoniareductionbefore
combustingtheproducergas(Simell2002).Thecatalystissusceptibletodeactivationby
poisoningfromalkalimetalsandsulfuraswellasdepositionfromashand/ortar
constituents.AbriefliteraturereviewofSCOforNH3treatmentfollows.
Inlabtestsusingsyntheticproducergas,nickelandchromiumcatalystsshowedhighest
reactivityinthe700to900Ctemperaturerange(Darvelletal.2003).Usingnickelbased
monolithiccatalystsonlabscalebiomass(pinewoodchips)producergas,Corellaetal.
(2005)achievedNH3reductionsthatrangedfrom44to96.5%(volume).Thegasifierwas
anatmosphericbubblingbedreactorwhichusedsilicabedmaterialwithdolomiteand
laterolivinetoreducetarproduction.Theproducergas,exceptforsomePMremovalin
acycloneseparator,wasnototherwisetreatedbeforebeingsenttothecatalyst.The
catalystwasnotlonglivedbecauseofashdepositionandsitepoisoning(Corellaatal.
2005).
Wangetal.usedhotgasfromapressurizedfluidizedbedgasifierwhichhadpassed
throughaceramichotfilterforparticulatematterremoval.Thefilteredgaswaspassed
throughahighpressurefixedbednickelcatalystforNH3andlighttardestruction.
Ammoniaremovalsof35to95%wereobserved,resultsthatwereratherlowcompared
withthoseobtainedforsyntheticgas.Ammoniaconcentrationsleavingthecatalyst
sectiontrendedtoward200ppm.Lighttardestructionwas90to95%.Theproducergas
containedabout150ppmofH2Swhichdidnotcausemeasurablecatalystdeactivation
duringtestsofsixhours.Catalyticreactortemperatureof900Cresultedinmaximum
ammoniaconversion.Hydrocarbonsintheproducergasaremorecompetitivethan
ammoniaforreactionsites,thussufficientsurfaceareaandresidencetimeisrequiredfor
theammoniatoreact.ModelingshowedthatthehighertheconcentrationofH2inthe
producergas,thelowertheconversionofNH3inthecatalyticreactor(Wang2000;Wang
1999;Wang2002).
Asanexampleofagascleaningcommercialdesign,Table235belowpresentsfuelgas
cleaningperformanceachieved(orexpectedtobe)bytheNovel/CondensOygasifierfor
engineandcombinedheatfacilitiestheyaredesigning(seeinformationonKokemaki
CHPfacilityelsewhereinthisreport).ForPM,tar,andnitrogencompoundsinthefuel
gas,greaterthan95%removalefficienciesareclaimed.

Table 2-35. Gas cleanup recommendations/capabilities, Novel CHP facilities (Simell 2004)
Impurity Control Method
Concentration, [mg/Nm^3]
(removal efficiency %)
PM Bag filters < 10 (>99%)
Tars Catalytic reformer < 100 (>95%)
Nitrogen compounds
(NH
3
, HCN)
Catalytic reformer and gas
scrubbing
< 10 (> 95-99 %)
Sulfur
Low sulfur feedstock and gas
scrubbing
< 10
226

Chlorine
Low chlorine feedstock and
gas scrubbing
<10

Some,orall,ofthesesystemsareinplaceattheKokemki,Finland,CHPfacility.This
facilitywillbeundergoingcommissioningsoonpresentinganopportunityfor
monitoringitsprogressandtolearnhowitmayapplytoinstallationsinCalifornia.
2.6 Improvements for Biomass Boilers
Solidfuelbiomasscombustionfacilitiesinthestateutilizeacombinationofcombustion
parametermanagement,SNCR,andadherencetolownitrogeninthefuelblendsfor
NOxcontrol.Inexistingbiomassboilers,SNCRisestimatedtoremoveuptoabout50%
ofthefluegasNOxcontent(RizeqandZamansky2004).Improvementsarelimitedbut
mightincludereburningtechniquesusinggaseousfuels(eitherfossilorrenewablere
burnfuelsseebelow).Forbiomassgasification,theeffectoffuelnitrogencanbe
largelyneutralizedbywaterscrubbingtheammoniafromtheproducergasbeforefiring
inenginesorturbines.
AdvancedReburningforBiomassNOxEmissionsControl
AdvancedreburningtestswereconductedbyEnergyandEnvironmentalResearch
Corporation(nowpartofGEGlobalResearch)inIrvine,California(Malyetal.1999).
Thefacilityusedisa300kWboilersimulator.Advancedreburningreferstotheuseof
nitrogenagentsand/orpromotersinjectedeitherwiththereburnfuelorintheoverfire
air.Intheexperiments,coalornaturalgaswasusedasthemajorityfuel.Ammoniawas
addedtotheflameasnecessarytocreateNOxconcentrationsbetween200and1300
ppminthegasbeforeenteringthereburnzone.Severalreburnfuelswereused(See
Table236).Basicreburningachieved70%NOxreductionswhichissimilartousing
naturalgasasareburningfuel.Advancedreburningusingureanitrogenagentand
sodiumpromoter(Na2CO3)achievedNOxreductionsof85to95%withreburnheat
inputof10%andincomingNOxconcentrationof600ppm.Woodparticlesasreburn
fuelandureaandsodiuminjectedachieved95%NOxreduction,yieldingafinal
concentrationoflessthan30ppm.
227

Table 2-36. NOx reduction achieved in pilot scale advanced reburning experiments (Maly
et al. 1999)

NOx Reduction for Type of Reburn Process
Reburn Fuel
Basic
Advanced
(urea as N- agent)
Advanced
w/ Na
2
CO
3
promoter
(30 ppm in gas)
Natural gas 47% 81% 91%
Biomass
(fir mill waste)
50% 90% 96%
Carbonized RDF 50% 75% 94%
Coal fines 44% 70% 78%

ThefactthatbiomassandRDFachievedgoodresultsledGEGlobalResearchtopursue
furtherinvestigationsofadvancedreburningusingbiomassfuels(seeMalyetal.1999).
TheEnergyCommissionfundedaprojectwithGEGlobalResearchthatincluded
researchersatStanford,UCDavis,andaprivateconsultantassubcontractors.Thegoal
oftheeffortwastoinvestigatethefeasibilityofusinglowgrade,generallyunused,
biomassasagasifierfuel,withproducergasusedasagaseousreburnfuelinexisting
solidfueledbiomasspowerplants.Thepotentialwouldbetohelpcreateamarketfor
thelowgradebiomassaswellasreducingNOxemissionsfromexistingornew
facilities.
Theinvestigationincludedasurveyofbiomassresourcesinthestate(amorerecent
efforthasbeendonebytheCaliforniaBiomassCollaborative
110
),laboratory
characterizationsofsixselectedfuels,pilotscaletesting,andeconomicanalysisfor
eventualscaleupofanaddongasifiertooneofthreeexistingbiomassfueledpower
stationsintheSacramentoValley.
Resultsfrompilotscaleexperimentsusinggasifiedbiomassasthereburningfuelwere
variableasfaraseffectivenessoftreatmentanddependedheavilyonfuelnitrogen
content.Sewagesludge,withanitrogencontentof3to5%(drybasis)isnotsuitableasa
gasifiedreburningfuel(useofthisfuelresultedinanincreaseofNOxratherthana
decreaseduetotheveryhighammoniaproduction).Resultsfromtheotherfuels
(orchardprunings,wholetreewoodwaste,ricestraw,nonrecyclablepaper,and
almondshells)showedthateffectivenessasareburnfuelisdirectlyproportionaltofuel
nitrogencontent.Dependingonthecombinationoffueltypeandreburningprocess
(basic,advanced,advancedwithalkalipromoter),effectsonNOxrangedfrom
increasingformationtoreducingNOxupto65%.

110.Seehttp://biomass.ucdavis.edu/pages/assessment.html
228

Usingthepilotscaleresultsandmodeling,theprojectedNOxreductionsusingbiomass
producergasasareburningfuelinretrofittedbiomasspowerplantsinCaliforniawere
20to65%ofuncontrolledNOxemissions(RizeqandZamansky2004).
Theoverallcostsoftheseveralretrofitsanalyzeddependstronglyonreburnfuelprice.
RizeqandZamansky(2004)concludedthatatleastforretrofitreburningsystemsusing
gasifiedbiomass,theopportunityfuelusedinthegasifierwillneedtobepricedbelow
themajorityfuelbyatleast$12/ton.Theirstudydidnotaddressthecostsof
incorporatingthiskindofNOxcontrolintoanewfacility.ItslikelythatthecostofNOx
reductionusingsuchasystemthathadbeenpartoftheplantsoriginaldesignwouldbe
lowerthanforaretrofitsystem.Gasifiedbiomassreburningshouldbeconsideredfor
NOxreductiononnewsolidbiomasscombustionfacilities.
HardingandAdams(2000)experimentedwithwoodasreburnfuelforpurposesofNOx
reductionsatcoalfiredfacilities(HardingandAdams2000).Pilotscaleexperimentsat
theUniversityofUtahthatwereconductedina3kWcombustionfacilityfiredwith
naturalgasdopedwithammonia(inordertocreatethedesiredNOxconcentrationin
thegasenteringthereburnzone)achieved60to70%NOxreduction(from500ppmto
about175ppm).
Usingresultsfromthepilotscaleexperiments,simulationsofbiomassfueledreburning
weredonewithamodelofanoperating265MWcoalfiredboiler.EstimatesofNOx
reductionfromthemodelingeffortvariedfrom40to55%whichissimilartoreal
systemsusingnaturalgasasthereburnfuel.Amajorfactorinthedesirabilityof
advancedreburningisitseconomics.RizeqandZamansky(2004)estimatethecostof
NOxreductionsusingstandardSNCRtechniquesisbetween$550to$700/tonofNOx
reduced.Theysuggestthatthereburnfuelwillneedtobesignificantlycheaperthanthe
majorityfuelforthetechniquetobeeconomic.Thisisnotoutofthequestion,assome
opportunityfuelshavelowcostduetotheircurrentlowdesirability.
2.7 Out of State Transport of Sacramento MSW and Potential for
Emissions Reduction
SacramentotransportsasubstantialamountofsolidwastetoalandfillnearReno,
Nevada,becausethetippingfeesintheRenoareaareabout$5to$10perton,whichis
significantlylowerthanthe$26pertonpublishedvalueforKieferlandfill.In2003,
about195,000tonsofMSWfromSacramentoCountyweretruckedtotheRenoarea.
111
At25tonspertruckload,thisrepresentsabout7,800tripsperyearor26tripsperday(6
daysperweek,50weeksperyear).RoundtripdistancebetweenSacramentoandRenois
about260miles.MSWtransportationtoRenoresultsin2milliontruckmiles,which
consumes338,000gallonsoffuel(using6mpgaveragefueleconomy).Totalfuelcosts
are$574,600peryear($1.70/gallonor$2.95/tonofMSWtransported).

111.Task1.1.1Report.
229

DisposingorconvertingthisMSWlocallyinsteadofhaulingtoRenowouldreduce
heavytrucktraffic,fuelconsumption,andemissionsassociatedwithMSW
transportation.Inadditiontofuelsavingsandvehiclewearandtear,theremaybea
monetaryvaluetoNOxreductionsthatwouldresultfromreducingoreliminatingMSW
transportation.
ThefollowingdiscussesthepotentialvalueofNOxreductioncreditsassociatedwith
reducingoreliminatingthetransportationofSacramentoMSWtoReno.
NOxOffsetTransactionsinCalifornia
In2003,some650tonsofNOxemissioncreditsweretradedresultingintotaltransaction
valueofmorethan$15million(averagepricepertonofNOxwas$23,574)(Marquisand
Werner2004).Table237showsselectedNOxoffsettransactiondetails(Figure225
chartsNOxoffsettonspertransactionagainstpriceperton).IntheSacramentoregion,
about21tonsofNOxoffsetcreditsweresoldformorethan$30,000perton.Thesingle
largesttransactioninthestateoccurredintheMojaveDesertAPCDwhere175tonswere
tradedforanamountof$2.275million.
HeavyDutyDieselNOxEmissions
Cockeretal.measuredNOxemissionswithamobilelaboratorythatservesasthesemi
trailerforaheavydutydieseltrucktractor.Withagrossvehicleweight(GVW)of60,000
lbs,NOxemissionsaveraged20g/mileforthe106mileroundtripbetweenRiverside
andVictorville,California(withanaltitudechangeof3,000feetbetweenthetwocities).
Table 2-37. Selected NOx offset transaction details for 2003 in California
Region Relevance
Transaction details
Tons Price ($/ton)
Total
Transaction
($)
Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD
Local 20.5 $32,500 $666,250
Placer County APCD Local 0.97 $30,041 $29,140
Mojave Desert APCD
Largest
transaction in
State
175 $13,000 $2,275,000
San Diego APCD
Highest price per
ton in state
3.73 $140,000 $522,200
State of California
Overall totals and
$/ton average
647.6 $23,574 $15,266,056

230

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000
Price per Ton of Nox (2003)
T
r
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n

T
o
n
s
0
80
160
240
320
400
480
560
640
720
800
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

T
o
n
s
Cumulative

Figure 2-25. NOx offset transaction tons versus price per ton for California in 2003.

CARBEMFAC(CARBsonroadmotorvehicleemissionsmodel)givesNOxemissions
from13.4to23g/mileforvehiclesmanufacturedbetween1984and2002.
112
SacramentotoRenoroundtripdistanceisapproximately260miles.NOxemissionsfora
heavydutydieseltruck(Class8)makingthisroundtripwillbeapproximately5.2kg
(usinganemissionfactorof20gNOx/mile).Payloadisapproximately25tons(50,000
lbs.)
113
EstimatedNOxemissionsfortransportingsolidwastefromSacramentotoReno
are,therefore,0.46lb/ton(0.208kg/ton).The195,000tonsofSacramentoMSWtruckedto
Renoareresponsibleforapproximately45tonsofNOxemissionsdistributedalong
Interstate80.
Usingthestatewideaverageof$23,500/tonofNOxoffsetcreditprice,reducingNOx
emissionsfromSacramentoMSWtransporttoRenohasapotentialvalueof$1million
(iftheregionaverageNOxoffsetcreditvalueof$32,400isused,MSWtransportNOx
reductionsrepresent$1.5million).OnapertonofMSWbasis,transportNOxoffset
creditswouldbe$5to$7.50.IfSacramento(orthewastehauler)wasabletostop
transportingMSWtoRenoandinsteadselltheforgoneNOxemissionsasoffsetcredits,

112.http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/downloads/tsd/HDT_Emissions_New.pdf
113.Maximumgrossvehicleweight(GVW)is80,000lbs.
231

theresultingrevenuecouldbecreditedagainstthecostoftreatingordisposingthe
Therefore,emissionsofdieselenginePMandCO2dueto
e
Table 2-38. Summar sio co wi rtin
MSW no
Savin Un ) T
materiallocally.
PMandCO2Emissions
FromCARBEMFAC,approximateemissionfactorsforPMandCO2are0.4g/mileand
2,000g/milerespectively.
MSWtransportfromSacramentotoRenoareabout0.9and4,400tonsrespectively(se
Table238).
y of emis n and sts associated th transpo g Sacramento
to Re
gs Unit it price ($ otal ($)
Per ton MSW
Transported
Fuel 33 s 1.70 574,600 8,000 gallon $2.95
NOx
23,500 -
32,400
1 - 1.5
million
$5.40 - $7.40
45 lb
2

PM
Vehicle
s ? ? ?
45 Tons
CO
2
4400 Tons - - s CO
0.9 Tons - - 4 g
miles
2,028,000 mile
Emission factors used are 2,000, 0.4, and 20 g/mile for CO , PM, and NOx, respectively.
2
costis$2.95pertonofMSWhauledandpotentialvalueofNOxcredits
ues
rulespecificallystatesthatreductionofvehicletripscanbeusedasabasis
mentionstelecommutingasameansforvehicletrip
solid
alityinmanyCaliforniaairbasins,thestateshould
2

MSWTransportationSummary
Sacramentodisposesabout195,000tonsofMSWperyearinalandfillnearReno,
Nevada.Thisrepresentsabout7800truckloadsperyear.Theroundtripdistanceis
about260miles,whichmeansmorethat2milliontruckmilesareneededtohaulMSW
toReno.Approximately338,000gallonsofdieselfuelareconsumedperyearwith
annualtotalemissionsof45,4,400,and0.9tonsofNOx,CO ,andPM,respectively.
Associatedfuel
is$5to$7.70pertonofMSWusingstateandregionaverageNOxoffsetcreditval
from2003.
Thereisprecedentforreceivingemissionsoffsetsduetoreducedvehicletrips.
SacramentoMetropolitanAQMDRule2056addressesreductioncreditsfrommobile
sources.The
foremissionreductions(therule
reduction).
2.8 Recommendations
ImprovementsforSolidFuelBoilersincludingStrawCombustionPowerPlants
BecauseofthelargebiomassresourceinCalifornia,theaggressiveRPS,theageing
fuelbiomassfleet,andthepoorairqu
continueandexpandactiveparticipationinNOxreductionresearchfornewand
existingsolidfuelbiomassfacilities.
232

Fornewsolidfuelcombustionofbiomass,advancedreburningshouldbeconsider
partoftheoriginalplantdesignusinggasifiedbiomassforthereburnfuelorother
reburningtechniquessuchasdirectbiomassinjection.Forexistingfacilities,there
remainunansweredquestionsregardingthevia
edas
bilityofretrofitreburnsystemsusing
es)andisconsidered
obiomassfacilitiesintheNortheastrecently
wasnotcompletedduringthisproject.Thetechniqueshouldbe
atnewbiomasscombustionfacilitiesaswell
engineemissions(NOx)and/orincreasedefficiencyofgasturbinesystems
upgradingthedigestatetovalueaddedproducts)
e
ertotheTask1.1.2.1Report(Summaryreviewonenvironmental
biomassgasification.Thosequestionslikelywontbeansweredwithoutafullscale
commercialdemonstrationofaretrofitsystem.
Foraricestrawfiredpowerplant(basedonrecentEuropeandesigns),uncontrolled
NOxemissionsareexpectedtobehigherthanthatfromawoodfiredfacilitybecauseof
higherfuelNOxresultingfromthehighernitrogencontentofstrawcomparedtowood
SelectivecatalyticoxidationtechnologyforNOxreductioninbiomassfueledboilersis
difficulttoimplement(becauseofcatalystdeactivationissu
developmental.ResearchisongoingbothintheUnitedStatesandEurope.California
shouldmonitor,oractivelypursueSCRbiomassresearch.
SocalledregenerativeSCRmayofferanimprovementoverthecurrentlyusedNSCR
methodforNOxreduction.RSCRtreatsfluegasafterPMremovalbyreheatingthegas
toalevelrequiredforthecatalysttofunction.Duetotheexpenseandenergyrequired
forreheat,RSCRsystemsdonotnecessarilyoperateattheoptimaltemperatureforthe
catalyst.Therefore,NOxreductionfromRSCRisexpectedtobenotasgoodasstandard
SCR.Performanceinformationfromthetw
retrofittedwithRSCRshouldbepursued.WhetherRSCRissuitable(andsufficient)for
Californiasneedsshouldbedetermined.
Lowtemperatureozoneinjection(alsocalledlowtemperatureoxidation)isintriguing,
butadetailedreview
investigatedasacandidateforinstallation
asforretrofitcases.
ImprovementsinMSWRelatedPower
Improvedgas
areneededtoincreasethedesirabilityofeachprimemovertypeinADofMSWpower
applications.
DivertingtheorganicfractionofMSWtoADandlandfillingthetreateddigestate(or
completelybypassingthelandfillby
willhavepositivelongtermenvironmentalimpact(i.e.,futuremethaneandleachat
releasesfromlandfillsarereduced.)
MostofEuropeisnowrequiringallbiodegradablewastetobestabilizedbefore
landfilling.Digestion,composting,orthermalconversionwithenergyrecoveryare
preferredmethods.Ref
assessment).ThesebenefitsshouldbeusedtohelpoffsetcostsorimpactsofMSW
conversiontoenergy.
233

Policystrategies,suchaslandfilltaxes,extendedproducerresponsibility(packagingan
producttakebackrequirements),banningbiodegradablematerialsinthelandfill,an
assigninglifecyclecostsofwastemanagement/disposaltothepriceoftheproductor
serviceshouldbepursuedtorealizethis.Theemissionsproducedfromtrucktraffic
requiredtohaulSacramentowasteoutofst
d
d/or
atearecalculatedasanexampleofdirect
ifthepracticewascurtailedandthematerial
oduction.
industry.Ifpoweris
shouldbecreditedwithemissionsoffsets
thegasbeenflared.
mentforLFGpower
ddue
aslowas180kW(ThemodelTCG2015V6is
cases,treatment,orremovalofnitrogencompoundsinthefuelgas.
in
sufficientlycleanedfromthefuel,there
e
ll
,
(fuelNOx).Itisdifficultto
emissionoffsetsthatmightbeavailable
insteadusedlocallyinenergypr
DairyDigesterPowerSystems
Managingdairymanuretodecreasegroundandsurfacewatercontaminationand
reduceuncontrolledairemissionsmaycreateopportunitiesforpowerproductionasa
byproductofimprovedenvironmentalperformanceofthedairy
producedfromdairydigestergas,thefacility
foremissionsthatwouldhaveoccurredhad
ImprovementsforReciprocatingEngines
Gasengineemissionreductionsrepresentthenearesttermimprove
systemsandbiogasutilizationADsystems.Reciprocatingenginesarestillpreferre
tocostandhighefficiencycomparedtosimplecyclegasturbines.
Anincreasedmarketwilllikelyenticeenginemanufacturerstodevelopleanburn
enginesinthesmallercapacitiesrequiredformanydairyscaledigestersandsomeofthe
smallerscaleMSWADsystemsthatmightdevelop.Deutzmarketsaleanburnengine
generatorfordigesterandLFGatcapacities
availableatleastinEurope)andWaukeshasellsa280kWleanburngensetfordigester
andLFG(modelfamilyVGF280).
NOxemissionsfromenginescanbereducedviacatalyticaftertreatmentofexhaustgas,
and,insome
However,catalystdeactivationcanoccurwhensulfur,alkalis,andmetalsarepresent
thefuelgas.
Forreciprocatingenginespoweredbygasifiedbiomass,thefuelgasisusuallycooled
beforeinductiontotheenginewhichshouldcondensealkaliandmetalvaporsonto
particlesoraerosols(sulfurisgenerallynotanissuewithproducergasbecauseoflow
sulfurcontentinmostbiomass).ProvidingPMis
maybefewerproblemsusingcatalyticemissioncontrolwithreciprocatingenginesthan
withgasturbinesandhotgascleanupsystems.
Nitrogen,amacronutrientrequiredforplantgrowth,ispresentinbiomassatvariabl
concentrationdependingonspeciesandcultivationpractice.Fuelboundnitrogenwi
bereleasedpredominantlyasammoniaandHCNinthefuelgascreatedbythermal
gasification.Whenthefuelgasiscombusted(inaboiler,gasengine,orgasturbine)
thesenitrogencompoundsprimarilytransformtoNOx
234

removeammoniabycondensationinhotgascleaningsystems.Catalyticmeansto
reduceammoniatoN2gasarebeinginvestigated.
Fuelgascleaninginassociationwithcatalyticemissionscontrolshouldbeinvestigated
inmoredetail.Fuelgascleaninghasotherbenefitsaswell,includingreducedcorrosion
use
CO2removalwouldallowfor
methodsfromADandgasificationofbiomassshouldbelinkedwith
andmonitoringthesefacilities.
Furtherdevelopmentofexistingassociationwiththeprojectdevelopersinorderto
facilitateexchangeofinformationisrecommended.
114

ratesingashandlingandpowergenerationequipmentandasatechniquetopermit
ascleanvehiclefuelorforadditiontonaturalgasdistributionpipelines.
Sulfurremovaltechniquescanbeimprovedtoreducecosts.Biofiltermethodsthat
removesulfurmayofferbenefitsandshouldbeexplored.Biogasupgradingbystripping
carbondioxidealsoresultsinloweredsulfurcontent.Forstationarypowerusing
digestergas,simplewaterscrubbingforsulfurandpartial
easiercatalyticconversionforemissionscontrolbutcouldalsoallowforasmaller
enginebecausethegashasahigherenergycontent.
flammabilityrange.Investigatingtheeffectofincreasedhydrogeninthefuelgasshould
bepursuedforsmallenginebasedbiopowersystems.Improvedhydrogenco
production
emissionsimprovementforconventionalpowersystems(engines)aswellasforitsfuel
value.
facilitiespresentatimelyopportunityforobserving

114.Thesefacilitiesinclude:UnitedStatesatleasttwoCPC50kWorlesssmallmodularpower
systems,aCHP(1MW)facilityinConnecticut;EnglandSkive,Kokemki,andmanymore.A
listofindustrycontactsandpotentialprojectparticipantsisincludedinTask4.
235

236

3.0 Engineering and Economic Analysis
3.1. Economic Analysis Introduction
AsubsetofthetechnologiespresentedinTask1.1.1,TechnologyAssessmentfor
BiomassPowerGeneration,wereanalyzedusingamodeltoestimaterevenue
requirementsintheformoflevelizedcostofenergylevelizedrequiredtippingfeefora
scenarioofMSWanaerobicdigestion.
Thetechnologiesanalyzedinthistaskare:
Gasification
CirculatingFluidizedBed(CFB),reciprocatingenginegenerators,mediumscale;
Carbona/GTIgasifierCHPfacilityunderconstructioninSkive,Denmark,5.4
MW.
Fixedbed,reciprocatingenginegenerators,smalltomediumscale;
Novel/CarbonaCHPfacilityunderconstructioninKokemki,Finland,1.8MW.
BIGCCmediumscale;Carbona/GTIpressurizedgasifier,waitingfinancingin
India,12.5MW.
Strawcombustionsystem
Strawfueledinclinedvibratinggrateboiler,steamcyclepowerplant,largescale;
Ely,England,facilitydesignedandbuiltbyFLSmiljofDenmark,38MW.
MSW/greenwasteADsystems
GenericgreenwasteandorganicfractionofMSWsystembasedonreviewof
industry;100,000wettonsperyearfeedstockcapacity,1.2MW.
APSgreen/foodwastedigestersystembasedonCSUChannelIslandsproposal
configuredforelectricityproduction;76,000wettonsperyearfeedstockcapacity,
1.2MW.
Dairymanuredigestersystems
ReviewofpreliminarycostinformationforprojectsintheCaliforniaDairy
PowerProductionProgram(DPPP);Plugflow,coveredlagoon,mixedtank
systemswithestimatedcapacitiesrangingfrom30kWto1MW.
237

3.2 Selected Technologies
3.2.1 Thermochemical Biomass Power Systems
Gasifiers
CarbonaSkive,DenmarkCHP
OneofthethermalsystemsselectedforanalysisistheSkive,Denmark,smallmodular
biomassCHPprojectbeingdevelopedbyCarbona.TheprojectconsistsofaCarbona
licensedcirculatingfluidizedbedgasifierandanickelcatalysttarcrackercombined
withJenbachergasenginegeneratorsforCHPgeneration.Thedesignoutputcapacityis
5.4MWand11.5MWth.Nominalfuelfeedrateis3.7Mg/hofhighqualitywoodpellets.
Theplantnetelectricalandoverall(electricplusthermal)efficienciesare25.7%and
80.2%,respectively(basedonHHVoffuel).Table3.21listsdesignandperformance
characteristics.
115
Figure3.21showsaschematicofthemajorunitoperationsforthefacility.Table3.21
showsbasicdesignandoperationaldataforthefacility.

GASIFIER
PRODUCT GAS FILTER
GAS COOLER
PRODUCT GAS COOLING
(Heat Recovery)
GAS ENGINES
TAR CRACKER
BIOMASS
AIR
ASH
FLY ASH
BOILER
TO STACK
WATER TREATMENT
PRODUCT GAS SCRUBBING
(Heat Recovery)
PRODUCT GAS
BUFFER TANK
STEAM
DISTRICT HEATING
11.5 MW
th
FLUE GAS
HEAT RECOVERY
POWER
5.4 MW
e
GASIFIER
PRODUCT GAS FILTER
GAS COOLER
PRODUCT GAS COOLING
(Heat Recovery)
GAS ENGINES
TAR CRACKER
BIOMASS
AIR
ASH
FLY ASH
BOILER
TO STACK
WATER TREATMENT
PRODUCT GAS SCRUBBING
(Heat Recovery)
PRODUCT GAS
BUFFER TANK
STEAM
DISTRICT HEATING
11.5 MW
th
FLUE GAS
HEAT RECOVERY
POWER
5.4 MW
e

Figure 3.2-1. Schematic of Skive CHP facility

115.TheprojectisfinancedinpartbytheU.S.DOE.Moreinformationregardingthisfacilitycan
befoundintheTask1.1.1Report.)
238

Table 3.2-1. Design/Operating data for Carbona-Skive
116

Load base base
Gas engine BEMP bar 13 psi 189
GASIFICATI ON PLANT
Fuel type - wood pellet wood pellet
Fuel moist ure content AF %w 9.5 %w 9.5
Fuel LHV (db) kJ/kg 18986 Btu/lb 8163
Fuel HHV (db) kJ/kg 20260 Btu/lb 8710
Fuel feed rate kg/s 1.149 lb/h 9119
Fuel thermal input (LHV) kJ/s 19488 MMBtu/h 66.5
Fuel thermal input (HHV) kJ/s 21067 MMBtu/h 71.88
Dolomite f eed rate kg/s 0.012 lb/h 95
Gasifier ash flow rate kg/s 0.006 lb/h 48
Filter ash flow rate kg/s 0.016 lb/h 127
Process condensate flow rat e kg/s 0.150 lb/h 1190
Gasifier operation pressure bara 2.00 psia 29
Gasifier operation temperature C 850 F 1562
Product gas LHV (to GE) kJ/kg 5214 Btu/lb 2242
kJ/m3n 5530 Btu/scf 141
Product gas HHV (to GE) kJ/kg 5633 Btu/lb 2422
kJ/m3n 5973 Btu/scf 152
Product gas from gasifier kg/s 3.146 lb/h 24968
Product gas flow rate (to GE) kg/s 2.995 lb/h 23770
Total product gas after treatment kg/s 2.995 lb/h 23770
Total PG chemical heat LHV kJ/s 15616 MMBtu/h 53.3
Total PG chemical heat HHV kJ/s 16871 MMBtu/h 57.6
DH generation in GP (net) kJ/s 3451 MMBtu/h 11.77
Aux. electricity consumption in GP kW 427 kW 427
Cold gas efficiency % 80.1 % 80.1

GAS ENGINE PLANT
Gas engines in operation pcs 3 pcs 3
GE eff iciency % 37.80 % 37.8
Fuel gas thermal input (LHV) kJ/s 15620 MMBtu/h 53.3
Fuel gas thermal input (HHV) kJ/s 16875 MMBtu/h 57.6
Electricity generation kW 5904 kW 5904
DH generation in GE (net) kJ/s 8031 MMBtu/h 27.4
BGGE PLANT PERFORMANCE
Fuel thermal input (LHV) kJ/s 19488 MMBtu/h 66.5
Fuel thermal input (HHV) kJ/s 21067 MMBtu/h 71.88
Gross elect ricity generation kW 5904 kW 5904
Auxiliary consumption kW 483 kW 483
Net electricity generation kW 5421 kW 5421
District heat production kJ/s 11482 MMBtu/h 39.2
Gross elect rical ef ficiency (LHV) % 30.3 % 30.3
Net electrical efficiency (LHV) % 27.8 % 27.8
Overall gross eff iciency (LHV) % 89.3 % 89.3
Overall net ef ficiency (LHV) % 86.7 % 86.7
Gross elect rical ef ficiency (HHV) % 28.0 % 28.0
Net electrical efficiency (HHV) % 25.7 % 25.7
Overall gross eff iciency (HHV) % 82.5 % 82.5
Overall net ef ficiency (HHV) % 80.2 % 80.2

116.CourtesyofJimPatel,CarbonaUSA.
239

CondensOyKokemki,FinlandCHP
AnothergasificationconceptthatwasselectedismodeledaftertheKokemki,Finland
biomassCHPfacilitycurrentlynearingcompletionofconstruction.Thisprojectisbeing
managedbyCarbonawithcooperationfromVTT.
117
TheNovelCondensOYgasifierhas
beenspecified(atmospheric,fixedbed,updraft).Initialshakedownoperationis
expectedtobeginearlyin2005.Thediscussionandresultsoftheeconomicanalysis
appearbelow.
NovelGasifierBackground
TheNovelgasifierwasdevelopedbyVTTandCondensOYtoovercomesomeofthe
technicalproblemsexperiencedwiththecommerciallysuccessfulBioneergasification
systemsoperatinginFinland.TheBioneerdesignusesanupdraft,atmosphericpressure,
airblownreactor.Theproducergasisconveyedtoanearbycombustorwhereitis
burnedwithoutanytreatmentofthefuelgas.Theprimarytechnicallimitationsofthe
Bioneersystemsare:(1)notsuitableforlowbulkdensitywoodresidues(sawdust,bark,
forestslash);(2)operatepoorlywhenfuelmoistureisabove45%;(3)tarbuildupin
productgaspiperequiresfrequentshutdownandcleaning;and(4)fuelfeedingsystems
leakproducergasduetobackpressure(Kurkelaetal.2000).TheBioneergasifiersare
appliedmainlyindistrictheatingsystemsandbeganoperationinthemid1980s.
ApproximatelynineBioneerfacilitieshavebeenconstructed.In2002,onewasstillin
continuousoperationandtheotherswerefiredasneeded(IEA2002).TheBioneer
facilitiesareautomatedrequiringminimalattention.
TheNovelCondensOYreactorisessentiallythesameastheBioneer.Thefuelfeeding
systemhasbeenimprovedtoeliminatebackflowofproducergas.Thefeedsystemalso
allowsabroaderrangeoffuelparticlesizeanddensitiestobeutilizedsuchassawdust
andotherfinematerial.Airforgasificationishumidifiedinawaterspraytankinorder
toreducereactortemperature.Secondaryairisaddedabovethemainreactionzonein
ordertocracksomeoftheproducedtars.Theproducedgascanbeburneddirectlyfor
heatapplicationsorthegascanbeconditionedforuseinreciprocatingorgasturbine
engines.
Kokemki,FinlandCHPPlant
TheNovelCondensOYCHPplantiscurrentlyunderconstructionatKokemki,
Finland.Theanticipatedfuelisurbanand/orsawmillwastewood.Thedesignincludes
gascleanupandconditioning(e.g.,tarreforming,gascoolingandfilteringandfinal
scrubbing)beforebeingfedtothree600kWJenbacherreciprocatingengines(seeFigure
3.22).Notshownisanauxiliaryboilerusedforperiodsofhighheatdemand,otherwise
recoveredengineheatsatisfiesthedistrictheatandfueldryingrequirements.The
designcapacityis1.8MWand3.1MWthwithoutauxiliaryboilerand4.3MWthwith
firingtheauxiliaryboiler.Electricalandoverallefficienciesare30%and80%,

117.VTTisalargetechnicalresearchcontractorganizationinFinland.
240

respectively,fornormaloperationand26%and85%,respectively,whenusingthe
auxiliaryboiler(seeTable3.22).
Table 3.2-2. Nominal energy balance for Kokemki CHP plant (Patel
2004)
Normal
Operation
With Auxiliary
Boiler
Fuel input kW 6200 7200
Electricity Production kW 1836 1836
Heat Production kW 3100 4300
Fuel Drying
(from existing separate
heat plant)
kW 429 429
e
* % 29.6 25.5
th
% 50.0 59.7
overall
% 79.6 85.2

* = efficiency (useful energy or work output divided by energy
input)

Figure 3.2-2. Schematic of Novel gasifier CHP facility under construction at Kokemki,
Finland.
Photo Credit: VTT Processes

InvestmentcostforaNovelgasifierforheatonlyapplicationsissimilartothatofthe
Bioneerfacilities(350to420Euro/kWthin2000)(Kurkelaetal.2000).
241

CarbonaIndiaBIGCC
Athirdgasifierbasedsystemwasselectedforanalysis,theBIGCCconceptwhichoffers
higheroverallconversionefficiency.AproposedanddesignedfacilityforIndiawas
analyzedusingCaliforniabasedcostparameters.
Carbonaissupplyingthegasifier(RENUGASgasifierlicensedfromGTI)andgas
cleaningsystemforanIGCCprojectinIndia.Itisproposedtoconsumewoodwasteand
cashewandcoconutshells.Thefacilityincludesthepressurizedair/oxygenblown
RENUGASgasifier,catalytictarcrackerdevelopedwithVTT,gascoolingandgas
filtering.Twogasturbinegenerators,about4MWeach,arespecified.Gasturbine
exhaustraisessteaminarecoveryboilerwhichpowersasinglesteamturbineforabout
4.5MWadditional.Fuelfeedrateisplannedforapproximately210t/dayandshouldnet
12.5MW(theTask1.1.1reporthasmoreinformation).
Nominalfuelcharacteristicsusedforenergyandefficiencycalculationsare20%
moisturecontentand18.7MJ/kg(HHV,dry).
118
Overallplantefficiencyisestimatedto
be34.3%.Theprojectcostis$22million(Patel2004).Projectinitiationisawaitingfinal
decisionfromfinancingpartners.SeeFigure3.23foraprocessdiagramoftheIndia
project.

Figure 3.2-3. Process diagram of the Carbona India IGCC project
BIOMASS WASTE
8 t/h
CONDENSER
BED
GASIFIER
CYCLONE
GA
COOLER
WATER
FROM
HRSG
FLY
ASH
AI
GAS TURBINE No.
HEAT
STEAM
STACK
FROM GAS
COOLER
TO
COOLER
STEAM
TURBINE
BOOSTER
COMPRESSOR
AIR
STEAM
ASH AND
BED
MATERIAL
4 MW
e
4 MW
e
BOOSTE
COMPRESSOR
4 MW
e
AI
CLEAN PRODUCT GAS
PARTICULATE
REMOVAL
STEAM
TO
HRSG

118.Basedonreportedfuellowerheatingvalue(LHV)of17.5MJ/kg(drybasis).
242

Combustion
StrawFiredCombustionFacility
Thefinalthermochemicalbiomassconversionsystemselectedforanalysisisastoker
gratefiredsystemdesignedforstrawfuel.Denmarkhasbeenfiringstrawforheatand
powerasamatterofpolicyforthelastdecade.Consequently,governmentandindustry
haveinvestedsubstantialeffortstodesignstrawcombustionsystemsincludingfuel
logistics,handling,andstorage.TheDanishdesignhasnowbeenexported(refertoTask
1.1.1Reportformoreinformation).
inEnglandandSpain,theyweredesignedandbuiltbytheDanishcompany(formerly
FLSmilj).TheElyPowerStationinEnglandisthelargeststrawfiredfacilityinthe
world(accordingtoBioener,ApS),consuminganywherefrom150,000to200,000metric
tonsperyear.Thefacilityusesnaturalgasasastabilizationfuelintheamountupto10%
totalenergyinput.Itproducesonlypower(doesnotoperateinCHPmode)witha
capacityof36to38MWatanavailabilityestimatedatabout80%.
BothElyandSangesahavehighsteamtemperatures(520to540C),andthesteam
pressureatElyis92bar.TheElyboilerdoesnotutilizeaseparatefuelforfinal
superheat(socalledcombinationboilerusedinEuropewithproblematicbiomassfuels).
SpecificboilerdetailscouldnotbeconfirmedforSangesa,soitisnotknownwhetherit
isacombinationboiler.
Therearefourseparatewholebalefuelfeedlinesrunningintothesinglefurnace.Bales
areshreddedbeforebeinginjectedintotheboiler.TheboilerusesaFLSmiljvibrating
grate(seeFigure3.24).
OthersinvestigatedthebaleandstrawhandlingandfeedingsystemsatElyforpotential
applicationtocofireswitchgrasswithcoalattheOttumwageneratingstationin
Chillicothe,Iowa(MilesandGanz2002).TheirdiscussionsatElyyieldedthefollowing
information:
Capitalcostwasapproximately$88million(about$2,300/kWgrossinstalled).
Thefacilityispaid$0.0855/kWh.
TheplantisoperatedbytheDanishbuilder,whichguarantees96%availability
over350days.
Thecompanypays$31to$42/tonfordeliveredstraw,80%withinaradiusof55
milesfromtheplant,and20%comesfromaradiusof55to150miles.
Thecompanywasconsideringgrowingdedicatedenergycrops(switchgrassor
miscanthus)toincreasefuelsupply.
Planthasbeenoperatingsince2000consumingabout22tons/hrlocalcereal
straw.
243

Figure 3.2-4. Schematic of the Ely Power Station
Photo Credit: Newman 2003.

3.2.2 Biochemical Conversion to Power
Anaerobic digestion and MSW AD systems
GenericMSWAD
TwoADsystemsusingMSWcomponentsasfeedstockanddairymanuredigesterswere
theselectedtechnologies.OneoftheMSWsystemsanalyzedwasagenericdesignthat
wasmodeledusingarangeofperformanceandcostvaluesfoundintheliteratureand
frompersonalcontacts.Figure3.25showsaschematicofatypicalsinglestagedigester
systemfororganicwastes(includingportionsoftheMSWstream).
244

METHANIZATION
Pre-
chamber
Inoculation
loop
Heavies
PULPING
Biogenic
fraction of
MSW
Composting
10-15%
Biogas
Heat
addition
Make-up
water
Water
treatment
DEWATERING

Figure 3.2-5. Schematic of a Typical Single-Stage Digester

UCDavisAnaerobicPhasedSolids(APS)Digester
TheothersysteminvestigatedwastheAPS(UCDavis)designusingcostand
performanceparameterssuppliedbyanindependentconsultantaswellasfromthe
systemdesigners.
Background
ThissystemwasdevelopedandpatentedbyProfessorRuihongZhangandDr.Zhiqin
ZhangfromUCDavis(ZhiqinZhangiscurrentlyattheCaliforniaEnergyCommission)
(ZhangandZhang2002).ThesystemislicensedtoOnsitePowerSystemsfor
commercialization.LaboratoryandpilotscalereactorsarelocatedatUCDavis.
A3t/daypilotfacilityontheUCDaviscampus,fundedbytheEnergyCommissionand
industrypartners,willbeoperationalearlyin2005.Thepilotfacilitywillacceptfood
andgreenwastesandisexpectedtogenerateabout25kWfromareciprocatingengine.
OnsitePowerSystemshasproposedagreenwasteprocessingfacilityusingtheAPS
digesterfortheCaliforniaStateUniversityChannelIslandscampusinVenturaCounty
(Figure3.26).Thefacilitywouldprocess250t/dayofgreenwaste(orabout76,000
t/year)divertedfromVenturaCountylandfillsandpresumablysomewastefromthe
campus.
Thefacilitywouldoperateatthermophilictemperature(135F)andhaveasolids
retentiontimeof12days.Biogaswouldbepipedtoanearbycogenerationfacilitywhere
itwouldbeusedtodisplacesomeofthenaturalgasfuel.Revenuesourcesincludea
tippingfee(netofprocessingcosts),gassales,compostablematerialsales,andsome
valueforusingexcessprocesswatertodisplacecampusirrigationwater.
245

Figure 3.2-6. Conceptual drawing of APS digester at CSU-Channel Islands
Photo Credit: Karl Hartman

Theanaerobicphasedsolids(APS)digesterdecouplessolidstatehydrolysisand
acetogenicfermentationfromthemethaneproducingfermentation,allowingfor
separateoptimizationofthetwoprocesses.Thetworeactorsareconnectedthrougha
closedliquidrecirculationloopthattransfersthesolublesreleasedinthehydrolysis
reactortothebiogasproducer(methanogenesis).Thebiogasreactorcanbedesignedfor
relativelyshortliquidretentiontimebyusingsuspendedgrowth,attachedgrowth,
anaerobicmovingbedreactor(AMBR),orupflowanaerobicsludgeblanket(UASB)
reactortypes(ZhangandZhang1999).
Thehydrolysisreactorcanaccepthighsolidsfeedstockthat,dependingonits
characteristics,mayneedsomekindofpretreatmentsuchasshreddingtoincrease
hydrolysisrate.Thehydrolysisreactoroperatesinbatchmode.Becauseofthisbatch
operation,thestrengthofthesolublecompoundsintheliquidbeingtransportedtothe
biogasreactorwillvaryfromnearzeroimmediatelyafteraddingafreshbatchoffeedto
thehydrolysisvessel,toamaximumwhentherateofhydrolysisishighest,
subsequentlytaperingoffastheremainingsolublebiomassdeclines.Correspondingly,
thebiogasproductionratewillvaryfromlowtohightolowagainbecauseitdepends
onthestrengthandrateoftheinflowliquidarrivingfromthehydrolysisstage.
Byusingseveralbatchloadedhydrolysisreactors,theloadingofeachbeingtimed(or
phased)oneafteranothersuchthatthestrengthofthemixedsubstrateflowingfromall
hydrolysisreactorstothebiogasificationreactorismorestable,shouldleadtorelatively
246

stablegasproduction(Figure3.27).Thisphasedsolidsloadingapproachisusedinboth
theUCDpilotplantandtheChannelIslandsdesigns.

Figure 3.2-7. Schematic of APS digester system showing four hydrolysis vessels
Photo Credit: Courtesy of Ruihong Zhang

DairyManureDigesters
Threetypesofanaerobicdigestersarecommerciallyavailableforthedigestionofdairy
manure:completemix,plugflow,andambienttemperaturecoveredlagoon.Thechoice
ofdigesterisdependentonthetypeofmanurecollectionsystemusedonthedairy.
Dairieswithflushmanurecollectionsystems(2to3%totalsolids)wouldtypicallyuse
anambienttemperaturecoveredlagoondigesterwhereasadairywithamechanical
scrapesystemofcollection(10to13%totalsolids)wouldbeacandidateforaplugflow
digester.Completemixanaerobicdigestersoperateonmanurethathas3to10%total
solidsandcanbeusedwitheitherflushedorscrapedmanure.Bothcompletemixand
plugflowdigesterscanbeheatedusingheatcapturedfromaboileroranengine
generator.
Manuredigestionsystemstypicallyhavefivesubsystems:amixtank,adigester,an
effluenttank,asolidsseparatorandapowerplantorothergasenergyconversion
system(seeFigure3.28).
Recentlegislation(SB5X)appropriatedmoniesforassistingdairiesinCaliforniainthe
installationofsystemstocreatepowerfromdairywastes.Thisledtotheestablishment
oftheDairyPowerProductionProgrambytheCaliforniaEnergyCommissioninorder
toencouragethedevelopmentofbiologicallybasedanaerobicdigestionandgasification
(biogas)electricitygenerationprojectsinthestate.Objectivesincludedeveloping
commerciallyprovenbiogaselectricitysystemstohelpCaliforniadairiesoffsetthe
247

purchaseofelectricity,andprovidingenvironmentalbenefitsthroughreductionofair
andgroundwaterpollutantsassociatedwithstorageandtreatmentoflivestockwastes.
Approximately$10millionwasavailableincludingprogramadministrationcosts.

Figure 3.2-8. Schematic of digester subsystems (typical of low solids dairy effluents)

Photo Credit: Mattocks 2003

Approximately14dairiesinCaliforniahavebeenawardedgrantmoniesfor
constructionofdigestersundertheDPPP.Thisincludessevencoveredlagoonsystems,
sixplugflowdesigns,andacompletemixreactordesign.Performanceandcost
estimatesarediscussedbelow(alsorefertoTask1.1.1Reportformoreinformation).
3.3. Economic Analyses
Astandardrequiredrevenuemodelwasusedtocomputelevelizedcostofenergyor
requiredtipfeeforasetofbasecaseassumptions.
119
Thecostofenergycalculatoremploysastandardrevenuerequirementsmethodto
calculatetheenergyrevenue($/kWh)requiredtoearnthedesiredrateofreturn.The

119.Themodelutilizedwasamodifiedversionofthecostofenergycalculatoravailableat
http://faculty.engineering.ucdavis.edu/jenkins/CBC/Calculator/cal.html
248

modelcomputeslevelannualcostofenergyincurrentdollars(whichdoesnotinclude
theeffectofinflationintheanalysis),andconstantorinflationadjusteddollars.
120
Valuesforcapitalcost,fixedandvariableoperatingcosts,fuel/feedstockprice(or
tippingfee;negativeprice),andsystem(plant)performancecharacteristicsareneeded
forcomputingtheprojectrevenuerequirements.Inaddition,financingdetails(suchas
ratioofdebttoequityandinterestrateassociatedwitheach),inflation/escalationrates,
taxratesandcredits,anddepreciationschedulesareusedintherequiredrevenueor
costcalculator.
3.3.1. Tax treatment in the Model
Becausetherevenuerequirementmethodspecifiesarateofreturn(orinterestondebt
thatmustbemet),taxesmustbecomputedindirectlybecausetheyareimplicitinthe
revenuesrequired.
Acombinedtaxratecanbecomputed,
t=tF(1tS)+tS
wheretFandtSarefederalandstatetaxrates,respectively.Thetaxesrequiredforeach
yearoftheanalysiscanbedeterminedfrom
) (
1
i r t r
D I D C
t
t
T +
=
where
Cr=capitalrecovery(principal)payment
Dt=depreciation(depreciationamountsarecalculatedusingthemodifiedaccelerated
costrecoverysystem(MACRS)forthefiveortenyearpropertyclass)
Ir=returnoninvestment.
Di=interestondebt
Becauseofaccelerateddepreciation,thetaxfortheprojectinthefirstyearsoftheproject
maybenegative.Forlargeprofitablecompanies(i.e.,companieswithtaxableprofits
fromotherenterprises),negativetaxescanbetakenasataxcredittotheproject
againstotherincome.Acompanythatdoesnotgenerateenoughtaxableincome
elsewheretobeoffsetbythesenegativetaxes,orforwhichtheprojectconstitutesthe
wholeofthecorporateactivity,cannotcreditthesenegativetaxestotheprojectand
insteadsimplyreducestaxtozero.Moresophisticatedtreatmentsallowingfor
forwardingoftaxbenefitsorcostsarenothandledwithinthemodelusedhere.Thebase
caseandmostsensitivityanalysestreatnegativetaxesascredittotheproject.

120.Abackgroundandmodeldescriptioncanbeaccessedat
http://faculty.engineering.ucdavis.edu/jenkins/CBC/Calculator/CalculatorBackground.pdf
249

250

Productiontaxcredits(PTCs)areassumedtobeavailablefortheseprojects,atleastfor
thefirstfiveyears.
121
Foropenloopbiomassfuel(biomassnotspecificallygrownfor
energy),thePTCis0.9cents/kWh.
3.3.2 General Procedure
ABaseCasecomposedofexpectedcosts,revenues,inflation,taxandfinancerates
wascreatedforeachtechnologyandinputtothemodelwhichyieldedtheBaseCase
revenuerequirementintotaldollarsperyearandperenergyunit(kWh),orpertonof
feedstockforthecaseswhenarequiredtippingfeewasofinterest.Then,thesensitivity
oftherequiredrevenuewasinvestigatedbymakingchangestotheinputassumptions.
Thiswasdonebychangingasingleinputvariableatatimewhileholdingallothers
constantattheirbasecasevalues.Plotsshowingthechangeinrevenuerequirements
overthespanofinputvariableweregeneratedandappearintheindividualsystem
resultssection.
3.3.3 Base Case Results
Thebasecaseresultsaretabulatedbelow(Table3.31)andshowninFigure3.31.The
tableshowsthelevelizedCOE(constant$/kWh)requiredfortheprojecttomeet
expensesandprofitdefinedintheassumptionsforeachbasecase(SeeFigure3.32fora
comparisonofcapitalcostforbiomassandotherpowergenerationtechnologies).Akey
toheadings(projectnames)inTable3.31isimmediatelybelowthetable.
TheupperandlowerCOEextremesdeterminedbyasensitivityanalysisareshownas
well.ThelowerendoftheCOErangepresentedisduetochangesinfuelpriceor
tippingfeeforalltechnologiesexceptthedairydigestercategory(DPPP)ofwhichits
COErangeisduetoalargespreadincapitalcosts.Thefuelortippingfeeusedinthe
basecaseaswellasthevaluenecessarytoreachthelowerendoftheCOErangeare
showninthetable.Changesinotherparameters(suchascapitaloroperatingcosts)can
resultinCOEsoutsidetherangeshownbutitisnotlikelythesewillvarybythe50to
100%fromthebasecaseassumptionthatwouldbenecessarytoproduceaCOEoutside
therangeshown.Fuelandtippingfeescaneasilyvarybysuchlargemagnitudesover
timeorbylocation.

121.TheSection45taxcredits(PTC)wereextendedwhenHR4520(AmericanJobsCreationAct)
wasenactedonOctober22,2004.Geothermal,solar,wind,andclosedloopbiomassareeligible
forthe1.5cents/kWhcreditindexedforinflation(nowat1.8cents/kWh).Openloopbiomass,
municipalsolidwaste,andsmallirrigationhydroelectricareeligibleforonlyhalfofthat,hence
thecurrent0.9cents/kWhcreditforthosecategories.Refinedcoal(essentiallysynfuels)getsa
creditof$4.375/ton.Wind,closedloopbiomass,andrefinedcoalcanreceivePTCfor10years,
andtheothersaregoodforfiveyears.Note:Anewenergybillhasrecentlybeensignedinto
law.Thenewbillhasnotyetbeenconsultedforrelevantchangestothisfootnote.

Table 3.3-1. Results of Base Case Analyses
CA
(paid off)
C-K
(w/CHP)
C-I CA
C-S
(w/CHP)
DPPP
Straw
Facility
Morris
(2000)
C-K
(noCHP)
APS MSW AD
C-S
(noCHP)
DPPP
(5 yrs)
Capital Cost ($/kW) 0 2451 2800 2000 3700
1500 -
6000
2300 2000 2451 13,500 20,000 3700
1500 -
6000
Cost ($/ton capacity) - - - - - - - - - 222 250 - -
Fuel/Feedstock Price
(Base Case)
$20/bdt $30/bdt $30/bdt $20/bdt $45/bdt - $34/bdt
$20-
30/bdt
$30/bdt
-$27/wet
ton
-$26/wet
ton
$45/bdt -
Fuel/Feedstock Price
(Lower limit)
$10/bdt -$10/bdt -$10/bdt $10/bdt -$10/bdt - $17/bdt - -$10/bdt
-$40/wet
ton
-$33/wet
ton
-$10/bdt -
Low End 0.015 0.048 0.052 0.035 0.045 0.018 0.053 0.044 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.073 0.046
Base Case 0.037 0.056 0.060 0.061 0.062 0.066 0.067 0.076 0.076 0.080 0.084 0.101 0.133
High End 0.048 0.087 0.088 0.073 0.101 0.100 0.092 0.108 0.099 0.200 0.250 0.129 0.212
Levelized COE (Constant $/kWh)

Key to Table Headings
Data collected by Robert Williams
CA (paid off) Existing California steam cycle biomass plants with capital fully amortized
C-K Fixed Bed Novel Gasifier being installed in Kokemki, Finland (Carbona)
C-I Carbona BIGCC project specified for India
CA Existing California steam cycle biomass plants still paying capital loans or new facility
C-S
CFB Carbona (GTI) Circulating Fluidized Bed Gasifier being installed in Skive, Denmark

Straw Facility Concept using Danish design installed in California and firing rice straw
DPPP
California Dairy Power Production Program Capital cost used for base-case is $3600/kW, (15 yr. economic life, 10yr loan repayment)
DPPP (5 yrs) means loan repayment in 5 years, productive life remains 15 years
Morris (2000) Estimates for California solid fuel biomass industry
APS Advanced Phased-Solids digester using Channel Islands proposal as basis
MSW AD Generic digestion facility using of MSW as feedstock
W/ CHP
Sales of co-generated heat are credited to the project (C-K and C-S are evaluated both with and without heat sales)

noCHP
Effect of no combined heat generation from C-S and Kokemaki (capital costs were not reduced for the no CHP cases)

5 yrs Effect on COE of requiring all investment and borrowed money to be recovered in 5 years (similar to a 5 year payback period)
251

0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
C
A

(
p
a
i
d

o
f
f
)
C
-
K

(
w
/

C
H
P
)
C
-
I
C
A

C
-
S

(
w
/

C
H
P
)
D
P
P
P
S
t
r
a
w

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
C
-
K

(
n
o

C
H
P
)
M
o
r
r
i
s

(
2
0
0
0
)
A
P
S
M
S
W

A
D
C
-
S

(
n
o

C
H
P
)
D
P
P
P

(
5

y
r
s
)
C
O
E

(
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)

Figure 3.3-1. COE estimates for biomass power conversion technologies
Photo credit: UC Davis Research Team; Photo credit: Robert Williams; Photo Credit: Jenkins 2004

ThebasecaseCOEsvaryupwardfrom$0.037/kWhforexistingsolidfuelbiomasspower
plantsinCaliforniathathavepaidofftheoriginalcapitalloan(Jenkins2004).Itisnot
knownexplicitlywhetheranyoperatingsolidfuelbiomasspowerplantsinCalifornia
havepaidofftheircapitaldebtbutthebulkofoperatingcapacitybeganoperations
between1985and1990(33facilitieswithcombined650MWcameonlineduringthis
period)(Morris2000)andanecdotalinformationsuggestsmostcapitalhasbeenrepaid
formanyoftheexistingfleet.Newfacilitiesorthosestillmakingpaymentsbasedon
installedcostsof$2,000/kWandfuelcostof$10to$20/bonedrytonhaveestimated
COEsthatrangefrom$0.035to$0.073/kWh(Jenkins2004)and$0.044to$0.108/kWh
(Morris2000).
252

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
MSW AD
Photovoltaic
CA DPPP (prelim.+ updated average)
CFB Gasifier (Carbona-Skive)*
Solar Thermal
BIGCC (Carbona India)
Fixed Bed Gasifer (Kokemaki)*
Stoker Boiler - Danish Straw Design
Geothermal
Fuel Cells
Biomass Stoker Boiler
Coal IGCC with Carbon Sequestration
Advanced Nuclear
Biomass IGCC (nth plant)
MSW - Landfill Gas
Coal IGCC
Scrubbed Coal New
ADV CC with Carbon Sequestration
Wind
Distributed Generation - Peak
Distributed Generation -Base
Adv Gas/Oil Comb Cycle (CC)
Conv Gas/Oil Comb Cycle
Capital Cost ($/kWe)
MSW AD is
10-20 k$/kW

*Kokemki and Skive are CHP facilities-heat recovery equipment costs included
Textured bars are technologies in this report, Solid bars are adapted from EIA 2004.

Figure 3.3-2. Installed costs of power generation technologies
Photo Credit: Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2004, DOE/EIA-0554

Thesecondlowestbasecasepowercostestimateis$0.056/kWhfortheFixedBedNovel
GasifierCHPprojectbeinginstalledinKokemki,Finland(byCarbona).BasecaseCOEs
inthisanalysisrangeupwardtotheestimated$0.133/kWhrepresentinganaveragefor
theCaliforniaDairyPowerProductionProgramprojects(14proposedoroperating
facilities)withafiveyearloanrepaymentperiod.TheCarbonaKokemkiandDPPP
estimatesarediscussedindetailinthisreport.
Thetwoprojectsthatincludecombinedheatproduction/salesareprojectsbeing
constructedinEuropebyCarbona.ThesearetheCK(w/CHP)andtheCS(w/CHP)
circulatingfluidizedbedgasifierfuelingreciprocatingengines.Whenheatsalesareset
tozero,theCOErisessubstantiallyforeach;COEincreases0.02and0.039$/kWhforthe
CKandCSprojects,respectively.Clearly,therearesignificantcostandenergy
efficiencyadvantagestoCHPatthesescales.
TheestimateforCOEofabiomassintegratedgasificationcombinedcycleis$0.060/kWh
(projectCIinTable3.31).ThisisforaninstallationproposedinIndiabyCarbona.This
253

estimatecompareswellwithanenergycostestimatethatcanbedeterminedusingthe
assumptionspublishedbytheEnergyInformationAgencyforadvancedbiomasspower
plantintheAnnualEnergyOutlook(costof$1,731/kW,andalowoperationand
maintenanceof$0.0094/kWh).
122
UsingtheEIAassumptions,aCOEfromBIGCCis$0.03
to$0.045/kWh.CraigandMann(1996)estimatedCOEvaluesfrom$0.051to$0.063/kWh
forseveralBIGCCsystemdesigns(nocapacitypayments).
ThestrawcombustionfacilityisestimatedtocostsimilartotheexistingCaliforniasolid
fuelbiomasscombustionindustry(foranewfacility).Thetechnologyissimilarand
specialfuelhandlingsystemsneededforstrawhavebeendevelopedoverseas.The
mostvariableorvolatileparameterisstrawfuelcostanddeliveryinfrastructure.
MSWanddairymanuredigestersarecostlyandrequirehighenergypricesiffinanced
solelybyelectricitysales.EnergyproductioniscomparativelysmallfromADsystems
(capitalcostsinthisreportforADvaryfrom$1,500to$20,000/kW).Tippingfeesand/or
compostablematerialsalesrevenuesareusuallyrelieduponforfinancialviability.There
arelikelycaseswherethesystemsarefinanciallyviableonenergyrevenueifthefacility
isalargeelectricityconsumerandtheonsitegenerationcanoffsetretailelectricity
prices.Heatrecoveryforbeneficialuseisalmostalwaysfinanciallyattractiveifthereisa
convenientheatclient,suchasnearbyfoodprocessingoperation.
3.4. CFB Gasifier- Carbona Skive, Denmark CHP
Assumptions(basecase)
Table3.41showsthebasicinputparameterstothemodelforthebasecase(someofthe
valuesarecalculatedfromtheinputs).Capitalcostisapproximately$20million,or
nearly$3,700/kWinstalled(thisishighbutincludesheatrecoveryequipment)(Patel
2004).Capacityfactor(heretakenasavailability)is91%andstationelectricalefficiency
is25.7%(fromtheoperatingparametersinTable3.21).Fuelenergycontent,net
efficiency,andcapacityfactorareusedtocalculatefuelconsumptionrate.Thetechnical
andeconomiclifeofthefacilityisassumedtobe15years.
Costs
Basecasefuelcostisassumedtobe$45/dryshortton(about$30/drytonmaterialplus
$15/drytonforpelletizing;fuelpriceinthemodelis$49.50perdrymetricton).
123
Fuel
costintermsofnetelectricalenergyis3.4cents/kWh.Nonfueloperatingand
maintenancecostsareassumedtobeabout3cents/kWh.Thenonfueloperating
expensesaredefaultvaluesappropriatefortypicalcombustionboilerbiomassfacilities
currentlyinoperationinCaliforniaandmaybedifferentforthiskindoffacilityusing
differenttechnology(Morris2000).

122.AssumptionstotheAnnualEnergyOutlook2004,availableat:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/index.html
123.FuelpriceinDenmarkisapproximately$75/ton(unclearifshorttonormetricton).
254

Table3.42showsindividualexpensecategoriesinboth$/kWhnetelectricalenergyand
annualamounts.Totaloperatingcostsusedinthebasecaseamountto6.4cents/kWhof
electricitydelivered.Dependingonthelevelofautomationthatcanbeincorporatedinto
thistypeoffacilityandmaintenancerequirements,operatingcostsmaybelowerthan
usedinthisanalysis.
Table 3.4-1. Economic model base case parameters, Carbona-Skive
Total Capital cost ($) 20,000,000 Capacity Payment ($/kW-y) 0
Capital Cost ($/kW) 3,689 Interest Rate on Debt Reserve (%/y) 7
Net Plant Capacity (kW)e 5,421 Price heat energy ($/kWh)th 0.01877
Net District Heat Production (kW)th 11,482 Annual Capacity Payment ($/y) 0
Capacity Factor (%) 91 Annual Debt Reserve Interest ($/y) 0
Net Station Electrical Efficiency (%) 25.7 Annual heat sales ($) 1,718,138
Fuel Heating Value (kJ/kg, dry basis) 20,260 Annual heat sales ($/kWh)electricity 0.03976
Fuel Consumption Rate (dry Mg/h) 3.748 Price for Ash ($/Mg) 5
Fuel Ash Concentration (%) 2 Revenue from Ash sales ($/y) 2988
Annual Production (kWh)e 43,214,044 Revenue from Ash ($/kWh)e 0.00007
Annual Production (kWh)th 91,529,911
Annual Fuel Consumption (dry Mg/y) 29,878
Annual Ash Disposal (Mg/y) 598 Debt ratio (%) 85.00
Annual Hours 7972 Equity ratio (%) 15
Interest Rate on Debt (%/y) 6
Fuel Cost ($/dry Mg) 49.5 Life of Loan (y) 15
Fuel Cost ($/kWh)e 0.0342 Cost of equity (%/y) 15
Labor Cost ($/kWh) 0.0104 Cost of Money (%/y) 7
Maintenance Cost ($/kWh) 0.0078 Total Cost of Plant ($) 20,000,000
Insurance/Property Tax ($/kWh) 0.0073 Total Equity Cost ($) 3,000,000
Utilities ($/kWh) 0.0010 Total Debt Cost ($) 17,000,000
Ash Disposal ($/kWh) 0.0000 Capital Recovery Factor (Equity) 0.17102
Management/Administration ($/kWh) 0.0010 Capital Recovery Factor (Debt) 0.10296
Other Operating Expenses ($/kWh) 0.0021 Annual Equity Recovery ($/y) 513,051
Total Non-Fuel Expenses ($/kWh) 0.0296 Annual Debt Payment ($/y) 1,750,367
Debt Reserve ($) 0
Federal Tax Rate (%) 34
State Tax Rate (%) 9.6
Combined Tax Rate (%) 40.3
Production Tax Credit ($/kWh) 0.009
Production Tax Credit ($yr) 388,926
General Inflation (%/y) 2.80
Escalation--Fuel (%/y) 2.80 Current $ Levelized COE ($/kWh) 0.075
Escalation--Other (%/y) 2.80 Constant $ Levelized COE ($/kWh) 0.062
5 Year MACRS
Level Annual Cost (LAC)
Cost and Performance Assumptions Income other than from electricity
Financing
Expenses
Taxes
Depreciation Schedule
Escalation/Inflation

Data collected by Robert Williams (insert contract dates); Source: Patel 2004

255

Table 3.4-2. Simple Year 0 costs and
revenues for the Carbona-Skive project
($/kWh) ($/y)
Fuel Cost ($49.5/Mg) 0.0342 1,478,972
Labor 0.0104 448,562
Maintenance 0.0078 336,205
Insurance/Property Tax 0.0073 313,734
Utilities 0.0010 44,943
Ash Disposal 0.0000 0
Management/Admin 0.0010 44,943
Other Operating Exp. 0.0021 89,885
Total non Fuel Expenses 0.0296 1,278,271
Total Operating Expenses 0.0638 2,757,244
Debt & Equity Payment 0.0524 2,263,418
Heat Sales 0.0398 1,718,138
Revenue Requirement
(simple calculation)*
0.0764 3,302,524

*Does not include effects of taxes, and inflation
Data collected by Robert Williams (insert contract dates);
Source: Patel 2004

Revenues(otherthanfromelectricity)
Incomefromotherthanelectricitysalesincludeanominalamount($5/Mgorlessthan
$3,000peryear)forsalesofashforlandapplicationandrevenuefromsaleofheat(or
offsettingpurchaseofheatthatwouldotherwiseberequired).Therevenueforheatis
conservativeandbasedondirectreplacementofnaturalgaspricedat$5.50/MMBtu
($0.55pertherm).Thecapacityfactorforheatproductionisassumedthesameasfor
powerproduction(91%).
Revenuefromheatsalesinthebasecaseanalysisissignificant.Itamountstonearly4
cents/kWhofnetelectricity,essentiallyoffsettingmorethan60%ofthefuelandO&M
costs.
Financing
Thebasecaseassumesthat85%oftheprojectisfinancedat6%nominalannualinterest
withequityorinvestorfinancingfortheremaining15%offirstcosts.Rateofreturn
(ROR)onequityis15%/year.Nodebtreserveisheldinescrow.Thesensitivityanalysis
exploreseffectsofchangesindebtratioandinterestrate.
256

Taxtreatment
Theanalysisassumesfederalandstatetaxratesare34%and9.6%,respectively.Because
therevenuerequirementsmethodspecifiesarateofreturn(orinterestondebtthatmust
bemet),taxesmustbecomputedindirectlybecauserevenuesarenotdeterminedatthis
stageoftheanalysis.ThefiveyearMACRSdepreciationscheduleisused,which
typicallycreditstheprojectwithnegativetaxesinearlyyears.Inordertotake
advantageofthiscredit,thecompanymustbeearningprofitsfromotherenterprises.
Thisisassumedinthebasecaseandallofthesensitivityanalysesexceptforonecase
whichdoesnotallownegativetaxestocredittheproject.
Productiontaxcredits(PTCs)shouldbeavailableforthisproject,atleastforfive
years.
124
Forclosedloopbiomassfuel(biomassnotspecificallygrownforenergy),the
PTCis0.9cents/kWh.Thebasecaseanalysisincludesa$0.009/kWhPTCforthefirstfive
years.TheabsenceofaPTCistreatedinthesensitivityanalysis.
ResultsandSensitivity
Forthebasecase,theCOEorsalespriceneededinordertomeetallexpenses,paydebt
andmeettherequiredROR,is6.2cents/kWh(constantdollars),or7.5cents/kWh
(currentdollars).The7.5cents/kWhistheamountthatwouldhavetobechargedfor
electricityineachyearoftheproject(withnoescalationintheenergypricefortheentire
15years)inordertopayalldebtsandexpensesbytheendoftheprojectlife(assuming
basecaseconditionsandescalationsforallcosts).The6.2cents/kWhCOEinconstant
dollarsisthepriceofenergyrequiredforthefirstyearbutmustescalatewithinflation
eachyear.Theconstantdollaramountcanbeusedtocomparetootheralternativesin
yearzerodollars.
Table3.43showsselectedresultsfromthesensitivityanalysis.Asmentionedbefore,
salesofheatcontributesignificantlytorevenue.Ifnovalueforcombinedheatiscredited
totheproject,theCOEismorethan10cents/kWh(arealprojectwithnoheat
componentwouldnotneedasmuchcapitalequipmentandwouldhavelowerfirst
costs).Lowercapital,orfuelcosts,withheatsalescanyieldaveryattractiveenergy
priceofaround4cents/kWh(seetablebelow).
GraphsshowingsensitivityofCOEtochangesindifferentvariablesappearbelow.Alist
offiguresassociatedwiththesensitivityanalysisisprovidedhereforconvenience:

124.Seefootnote121onSection45.
257

258

Figure
(in text)
Description
3.4-1 Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis
3.4-2 Current $ COE sensitivity analysis
3.3-3 COE versus Fuel Cost
3.4-4 COE versus non-Fuel O&M Costs

Figure
(in
appendix)
Description
3.4-5 COE versus Debt Interest Rate
3.4-6 COE versus Equity Ratio
3.4-7 COE versus Electrical Efficiency
3.4-8
Company size and PTC effects on
COE

TheCOEisaboutequallysensitivetorelativechangesfromthebasecaseoffuel,O&M,
andcapitalcost.Changesinanyofthesethreefactorsby10%willaffectCOEbyabout
6%.Relativechangesininterestrateontheloan(orROR)influencetheCOEtoalesser
extentthanothercosts.COEisequallyalthoughinverselysensitivetoheatprice
changes.

Table 3.4-3. Selected results of economic model for Carbona-Skive project (bold type indicates change from base case)
Parameter Units Base Case
Low Fuel
Price
High Fuel
Price
w/o Heat
Sales
Low
Capital Cost
High
Capital Cost
High
Interest Rate
Loan
Low
Conversion
Efficiency
Equity Ratio
(30% with
15% ROI)
w/o PTC,
Large Firm
Small Firm
(no 'neg. tax')
Moderate Case
(includes PTC-
Large Firm)
Net District Heat
Production (kW)th
(kWth) 11,482 11,482 11,482 0 11,482 11,482 11,482 11,482 11,482 11,482 11,482 11,482
Total Capital cost ($) 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 12,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 16,264,000
Capital Cost ($/kW) 3689 3689 3689 3689 2214 5534 3689 3689 3689 3689 3689 3000
Capacity Factor (%) 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 80
Net Station Electrical
Efficiency
(%) 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 12.9 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7
Fuel Consumption Rate (Mg/h) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 7.5 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Annual Fuel Consumption (Mg/y) 29,878 29,878 29,878 29,878 29,878 29,878 29,878 59,756 29,878 29,878 29,878 26,267
Fuel Cost ($/Mg) 49.5 24.8 74.3 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 39.6
Labor Cost ($/kWh) 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104
Other O&M ($/kWh) 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0118
Price heat energy ($/kWh-th) 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.000 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.009
Price heat energy ($/therm) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.28
Interest Rate on Debt (%) 6 6 6 6 6 6 15 6 6 6 6 6
Current $ Level Annual
Revenue Requirements
(current $) 3,248,063 2,376,582 4,119,545 5,272,882 2,366,337 4,350,221 3,730,042 4,987,505 3,686,585 3,425,375 4,209,437 2,962,620
Constant $ Level Annual
(constant $) 2,681,040 1,961,695 3,400,384 4,352,381 1,953,239 3,590,791 3,179,783 4,116,822 3,061,797 2,827,398 3,474,584 2,445,427
Current $ LAC of Energy
(current
$/kWh)
0.075 0.055 0.095 0.122 0.055 0.101 0.086 0.115 0.085 0.079 0.097 0.078
Constant $ LAC of Energy
(constant
$/kWh)
0.062 0.045 0.079 0.101 0.045 0.083 0.074 0.095 0.071 0.065 0.080 0.064

Life of Project (loan/financing
period)
(y) 15
Financed amount (%) 85
General inflation/Escalation (%) 2.8

Fuel Heating Value 20,260
Net Plant Capacity (kWe) 5421
Combined Tax Rate (34 Fed, 9.6
State)
(%) 40.34
Data collected by Robert Williams (insert contract dates)
259

0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0 0.5 1 1.5
Factor relative to Base Case
C
O
E

(
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)
2
Fuel Price Heat Price Capacity Factor
Efficiency Capital Cost O&M (non-fuel)
Equity Ratio

Figure 3.4-1. Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis (Carbona Skive)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
C
O
E

(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)
Efficiency Interest Rate Capital Cost
O&M (non-fuel)

Figure 3.4-2. Current $ COE sensitivity analysis (Carbona Skive)
260

0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105
Fuel Cost ($/ton)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
Constant $ Current $
Base Case (49.5 $/Mg)

Figure 3.4-3. COE versus fuel cost (Carbona Skive)

0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
O&M [non-fuel] ($/kWh)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
Current $ Constant $

Base Case
261

Figure 3.4-4. COE versus non-fuel O&M costs (Carbona Skive)
3.5. Fixed-Bed Gasifier- Carbona Kokemki, Finland CHP Plant
Table3.51showsthebasicinputparameterstothemodelforthebasecase(someofthe
valuesarecalculatedfromtheinputs).Capitalcostisapproximately$5.5million,or
nearly$3,000/kWinstalledincludingheatrecoveryequipment(Patel2004).
125
Electric
systemcapacityfactor(heretakenasavailability)is91%andstationelectricalefficiency
is30%(fromtheenergybalanceinTable3.22).Fuelenergycontent,netefficiency,and
capacityfactorareusedtocalculatefuelconsumptionrate.Thetechnicalandeconomic
lifeofthefacilityisassumedtobe15years.
Costs
Basecasefuelcostisassumedtobe$30/dryshortton($33/drymetrictonusedinthe
model).
126
Fuelcostintermsofnetelectricalenergyis2cents/kWh.Nonfueloperating
andmaintenancecostsareassumedtobeabout3cents/kWh.Thenonfueloperating
expensesaredefaultvaluesappropriatefortypicalcombustionboilerbiomassfacilities
currentlyinoperationinCalifornia.Table3.52showsfirstyearcostsandrevenue
requirementoftheproject.Totaloperatingcostsusedinthebasecaseamounttoabout
4.9cents/kWhofelectricitydelivered.Dependingonthelevelofautomationthatcanbe
incorporatedintothistypeoffacilityandmaintenancerequirements,operatingcosts
maybelowerthanusedinthisanalysis.
Incomefromotherthanelectricitysalesincludeanominalamount($5/t,orlessthan
$900peryear)forsalesofashforlandapplicationandrevenuefromsaleofheat(or
offsettingpurchaseofheatthatwouldotherwiseberequired).Therevenueforheatis
conservativeandbasedonnaturalgaspriceof$0.55pertherm($5.50/MMBtu)and
thermalenergycapacityfactorof60%.ThoughtheKokemkifacilityissizedtoutilize
allrecoverableheatthroughouttheyear(highheatutilizationfactor),thebasecase
analysishereassumesathermalenergycapacityfactorof60%.
Revenuefromheatsalesinthebasecaseanalysisissignificant.Itamountstoabout2.1
cents/kWhofnetelectricity,offsettingmorethan40%ofthefuelandO&Mcosts.

125.Note:Capitalcostwasgivenas4.5millionEuros.
126.FuelforthisreactordoesnotrequirepelletizingasisthecasefortheCFBreactorspecifiedin
theSkive,Denmark,project.Fuelcost,therefore,doesnotincludecostsforpelletizing.
262

Table 3.5-1. Economic model base case parameters, Kokemki, Finland, CHP Plant
Capital Cost ($/kW) 2,996 Interest Rate on Debt Reserve (%/y) 7.00
Net Plant Capacity (kW)e 1,836 Price heat energy ($/kWh)th 0.0188
Net District Heat Production (kW)th 3,100 Annual Capacity Payment ($/y) 0
Capacity Factor-Power (%) 91 Annual Debt Reserve Interest ($/y) 0
Capacity Factor-Heat (%) 60 Annual heat sales ($) 305,853
Net Station Electrical Efficiency (%) 30.0 Annual heat sales ($/kWh)electricity 0.0209
Fuel Heating Value (kJ/kg, dry basis) 20,260 Price for Ash ($/Mg) 5
Fuel Consumption Rate (dry Mg/h) 1.09 Revenue from Ash sales ($/y) 867
Fuel Ash Concentration (%) 2 Revenue from Ash ($/kWh)e 0.0001
Annual Production (kWh)e 14,635,858
Annual Production (kWh)th 16,293,600
Annual Ash Disposal (Mg/y) 173 Debt ratio (%) 85
Annual Hours 7,972 Equity ratio (%) 15
Fuel Cost ($/dry Mg) 33 Life of Loan (y) 15
Fuel Cost ($/kWh)e 0.0195 Cost of equity (%/y) 15
Labor Cost ($/kWh) 0.0104 Cost of Money (%/y) 7.35
Maintenance Cost ($/kWh) 0.0078 Total Cost of Plant ($) 5,500,000
Insurance/Property Tax ($/kWh) 0.0073 Total Equity Cost ($) 825,000
Utilities ($/kWh) 0.0010 Total Debt Cost ($) 4,675,000
Ash Disposal ($/kWh) 0 Capital Recovery Factor (Equity) 0.17102
Management/Administration ($/kWh) 0.00104 Capital Recovery Factor (Debt) 0.10296
Other Operating Expenses ($/kWh) 0.00208 Annual Equity Recovery ($/y) 141,089
Total Non-Fuel Expenses ($/kWh) 0.02958 Annual Debt Payment ($/y) 481,351
Debt Reserve ($) 0
Escalation--Other (%/y) 2.8 Constant $ Levelized COE ($/kWh) 0.056
Income other than energy
Financing
Cost and Performance Assumptions
Expenses
Taxes
5 Year MACRS

263

Table 3.5-2. Simple Year 0 costs and
revenues for the Kokemki CHP project
($/kWh) ($/y)
Fuel Cost ($33/Mg) 0.0195 286,071
Labor 0.0104 151,920
Utilities 0.0010 15,221
Total non Fuel Expenses 0.0296 432,929
Total Operating Expenses 0.0491 719,000
Debt & Equity Payment 0.0425 622,440
Heat Sales 0.0209 305,853
Revenue Requirement
0.0708 1,035,587

* does not include effects of taxes, and inflation

Financing
AswasdoneintheCarbonaSkiveanalysis,thebasecaseassumesthat85%ofthe
projectisfinancedat6%nominalannualinterestwithequityorinvestorfinancingfor
theremaining15%ofcost.RORonequityis15%peryear.Nodebtreserveisheldin
escrow.Thesensitivityanalysisexploreseffectsofchangesindebtratioandinterestrate.
TaxTreatment
Theanalysisassumesfederalandstatetaxratesare34%and9.6%,respectively.Taxes
arecomputedindirectlybytherevenuerequirementsmethodusedhere(seemore
explanationintheintroductionofthissection).ThefiveyearMACRSdepreciation
scheduleisused,whichtypicallycreditstheprojectwithnegativetaxesinearlyyears.
Inordertotakeadvantageofthiscredit,thecompanymustbeearningprofitsfrom
otherenterprises.Thisisassumedinthebasecaseandallofthesensitivityanalyses
exceptforonecasewhichdoesnotallownegativetaxestocredittheproject.
Productiontaxcreditsshouldbeavailableforthisproject,atleastforfiveyears.For
openloopbiomassfuel(biomassnotspecificallygrownforenergy),thePTCis0.9
cents/kWh.ThebasecaseanalysisincludestheopenloopPTC.TheabsenceofaPTCis
treatedinthesensitivityanalysis.
264

Results
Forthebasecase,theCOEorsalespriceneededinordertomeetallexpenses,debt
payments,andtherequiredRORforequityinvestment,is7.1cents/kWh(current
dollars),or5.8cents/kWh(constantdollars).The7.1cents/kWhistheamountthat
wouldhavetobechargedforelectricityineachyearoftheproject(withnoescalationin
theenergypricefortheentire15years)inordertopayalldebtsandexpensesbytheend
oftheprojectlife(assumingbasecaseconditionsandescalationsforallcosts).The5.8
cents/kWhCOEinconstantdollarsisthepriceofenergyrequiredforthefirstyearbut
mustescalatewithinflationeachyear.Theconstantdollaramountcanbeusedto
comparetootheralternativesintodays(yearzero)dollars.Theresultingconstantdollar
COE($0.058/kWh)isattractiveforasmallgeneratorandcanbeimprovedifmatched
withacompatibleheatclientthatcanusemoreoftheavailableheatthanassumedinthe
basecase.
Sensitivity
Table3.53showsselectedresultsfromthesensitivityanalysis.Asmentionedbefore,
salesofheatcontributesignificantlytorevenue.Withnorevenuefromheatsales,the
COEisabout7.9cents/kWh.Withimprovedheatcapacityfactor(tomatchelectrical
capacityfactor),lowercapital,orlowerfuelcosts(oracombinationoffactors),aCOE
below5cents/kWhcanbeachieved(seeTable3.53below).
Figures3.51through3.58showrelativesensitivityofCOEtochangesindifferent
variables.ThefollowingisalistofthefiguresassociatedwiththeKokemkisensitivity
analysis:
Figure Description
3.5-3 COE versus fuel cost
3.5-4 COE versus non-fuel O&M costs

Figure
(in appendix)
Description
3.5-5 COE versus interest rate
3.5-7 COE versus net electric power efficiency
3.5-8 Variation of COE with tax consequences

TheCOEismostsensitivetochangesinpriceofheatcomparedtochangesinother
factors(nearthebasecase).Thisisillustratedbythesteepslopeofheatpricecurvesin
Figures3.51and3.52,forexample.COEisnextmostaffectedbyrelativechangesin
O&Mcosts.RelativechangesinfuelpriceorcapitalcostsaffectCOEaboutequallybut
toalesserdegreethanheatpriceorO&Mcosts.Relativechangesininterestrateonthe
loan(orROR)influencetheCOEleastcomparedtootherfactors.Forexample,RORof
15%(insteadof6%)raisescurrentdollarsCOEfrom2.9to4cents/kWh.
265

266

Table3.53alsoincludesacaselabeledModerate.Thiscasegivesresultsformoderate
changesfromthebasecaseforseveralfactorstogetherincluding:
Capacityfactorreducedfrom91%to85%.
Heatsalespricereducedbyhalf;from0.68to0.34$/therm.
Smalldecreaseinlaborcost;from0.0104to0.0100$/kWh.
PTCeffectsforalargeorprofitablefirm.
TheconstantdollarCOEresultingfromtheModeratecaseis5.5cents/kWh,which
maybeacceptableforcertainrenewableenergymarkets.Reducingcapacityfactorand
heatsalesrevenuewillincreasetheelectricalenergyrevenuerequirements,while
decreasinglaborcostsandincludingaPTCtendtodecreasetherequiredrevenue.

Table 3.5-3. Selected results of economic analysis for Kokemki CHP project (bold type indicates change from base case)
Low Fuel
Price
High Fuel
Price
w/o Heat
Sales
Improved Heat
Capacity Factor
(91%)
Low Capital
Cost
High Capital
Cost
High Interest
Rate on Loan
Low
Conversion
Efficiency
Equity Ratio
(25% with
15% ROI)
w/o PTC
Small Firm
(no 'neg. tax')
Moderate Case
(includes PTC-
Large Firm)
Net Electrical Energy
Production
(kWh)e 14,635,900 14,635,900 14,635,900 14,635,900 14,635,900 14,635,900 14,635,900 14,635,900 14,635,900 14,635,900 14,635,900 14,635,900 12,866,688
Net District Heat
Production
(kWh)th 16,293,600 16,293,600 16,293,600 0 24,711,960 16,293,600 16,293,600 16,293,600 16,293,600 16,293,600 16,293,600 16,293,600 16,293,600
Total Capital cost ($) 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 4,125,000 8,250,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000
Capital Cost ($/kW) 2996 2996 2996 2996 2,996 2247 4493 2996 2996 2996 2996 2996 2996
Capacity Factor (%) 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 80
Efficiency
(%) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 12 30 30 30 30
Fuel Consumption Rate
(metric
ton/h)
1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1 1.09 1.09 1.09 2.72 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09
Annual Fuel Consumption
(metric
ton/y)
8,669 8,669 8,669 8,669 8,669 8,669 8,669 8,669 21,672 8,669 8,669 8,669 7,621
Fuel Cost ($/t) 33 16.5 66 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 26
Labor Cost ($/kWh) 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104
Other O&M ($/kWh) 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0100
Price heat energy
($/kWh-
thermal)
0.019 0.019 0.019 0.000 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.009
Price heat energy ($/therm) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.28
Interest Rate on Debt (%) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 15 6 6 6 6 6
(current $) 1,037,111 868,544 1,374,245 1,392,451 845,774 885,564 1,340,204 1,161,823 1,541,279 1,117,323 1,097,164 1,312,780 918,406
(constant
$)
856,060 716,920 1,134,339 1,149,367 698,125 730,969 1,106,241 990,430 1,272,214 926,080 905,629 1,083,605 758,077
(current
$/kWh)
0.071 0.059 0.094 0.095 0.058 0.061 0.092 0.079 0.105 0.076 0.075 0.090 0.071
(constant
$/kWh)
0.058 0.049 0.078 0.079 0.048 0.050 0.076 0.068 0.087 0.063 0.062 0.074 0.059

267

268

(y)
period)
15
Financed amount (%) Nominally 85

Fuel Heating Value (kJ/kg) 20,260
State)
(%) 40.34

0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
C
O
E

(
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)
Equity Ratio

Figure 3.5-1. Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis (Kokemki)
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
C
O
E

(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)
Interest Rate

Figure 3.5-2. Current $ COE sensitivity analysis (Kokemki)
269

0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0 15 30 45 60
Fuel Cost ($/ton)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
75

Figure 3.5-3. COE versus fuel cost (Kokemki)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)

Figure 3.5-4. COE versus non-fuel O&M costs (Kokemki)
270

3.6. Carbona India BIGCC
AneconomicanalysiswasperformedonaBIGCCprojectinCalifornia,similartothe
CarbonaIndiaproject(i.e.,12.5MW).Figure3.61showsaschematicofthefacilityand
Table310givesthebasicparametersinputtothemodelforthebasecase(someofthe
valuesarecalculatedfromtheinputs).ThedesignspecifiesaCarbonaGTIpressurized
circulatingfluidizedbed(CFB)reactor,warmgascleaning,twogasturbines(4.2MW
each),aheatrecoveryboiler,andsteamturbine(about4.2MW).Fuelconsumptionis
assumedtobe6.5dryMg/h,andnetgeneratingcapacityof12.5MW.Electrical
efficiency(HHV)isestimatedat34.3%.
ForthefirstfewinstallationsinCalifornia,capitalcostisassumedtobe$2,800/kW
installed($35milliontotalinstalledcost).Capacityfactor(heretakenasavailability)is
90%andstationelectricalefficiencyis34.3%(HHVbasis).Fuelenergycontent,net
efficiency,andcapacityfactorareusedtocalculatefuelconsumptionrate.Thetechnical
andeconomiclifeofthefacilityisassumedtobe20yearswithprofit,taxes,and
productiontaxcreditsconsideredintheanalysis.

BIOMASS WASTE
8 t/h
BED
GASIFIER
CYCLONE
GA
COOLER
WATER
FROM
HRSG
FLY
ASH
AI
GAS TURBINE No.
HEAT
STEAM
STACK
FROM GAS
COOLER
TO
COOLER
STEAM
TURBINE
CONDENSER
BOOSTER
COMPRESSOR
AIR
STEAM
ASH AND
BED
MATERIAL
STEAM
TO
HRSG
CLEAN PRODUCT GAS
PARTICULATE
REMOVAL
4 MWe
4 MWe
BOOSTE
COMPRESSOR
4 MWe
AI

Figure 3.6-1. Schematic of Carbona-India BIGCC facility
Photo credit: Carbona Corporation
271

Costs
Basecasefuelcostisassumedtobe$30/dryshortton(assumesshreddedorchippedfuel
isacceptable;fuelpriceinthemodelisforametricton).Fuelcostintermsofnet
electricalenergyisabout1.8cents/kWh.Nonfueloperatingandmaintenancecostsare
assumedtobeabout3cents/kWh.Thenonfueloperatingexpensesaredefaultvalues
appropriatefortypicalcombustionboilerbiomassfacilitiescurrentlyinoperationin
California(Morris2000).Tables3.61and3.62showexpensesinboth$/kWhofnet
electricalenergyandannualamounts.Totaloperatingcostsusedinthebasecase
amountto4.8cents/kWhofelectricitydelivered.
Incomeotherthanfromelectricitysalesincludeanominalamount($5/Mgorlessthan
$6,000peryear)forsalesofashforlandapplication.Thereisnocombinedheat
production.
Thebasecaseassumesacapacitypaymentof$100/kWy($1,250,000annually).The
currentsolidfuelcombustionindustryinCaliforniaisreceivinganaverageof$166/kWy
(about$0.02/kWh)incapacitypayment.Whetheranewfacilityisabletoobtaincapacity
paymentswilldependonhowthepowerpurchaseagreementisstructured.
Financing
Thebasecaseassumesthat85%oftheprojectisbankfinancedat6%nominalannual
interestwithequityorinvestorfinancingfortheremaining15%offirstcosts.Rateof
returnonequityis15%/year.Thetechnicalandeconomiclifeofthefacilityisassumedto
be20years.Adebtreserveequaltooneannualdebtpayment($2.6million)isheldin
escrowwithearnedsimpleinterestreturnedtotheprojecteachyearandthedebt
reserveeffectivelyusedasthefinal(year20)debtpayment.
TaxTreatment
Theanalysisassumesfederalandstatetaxratesare34%and9.6%,respectively.Taxes
arecomputedindirectlybytherevenuerequirementsmethodusedhere(seemore
explanationintheCarbonaSkivesection).The10yearMACRSdepreciationscheduleis
used,whichtypicallycreditstheprojectwithnegativetaxesinearlyyears.Inorderto
takeadvantageofthiscredit,thecompanymustbeearningprofitsfromother
enterprises.Thisisassumedinthebasecaseandallofthesensitivityanalysesexceptfor
onedealingwithPTCeffects.
Productiontaxcreditsshouldbeavailableforthisproject,atleastforfiveyears.For
openloopbiomassfuel(biomassnotspecificallygrownforenergy),thePTCis0.9
cents/kWh.PTCisincludedinthebasecaseanalysis.AcasewithoutPTCiscalculated
toshowtheeffectonlevelizedCOE(smallbecausecreditisassumedtoonlybeavailable
forthefirstfiveyears).SmallfirmsthatcannottakeadvantageofthePTCbecause
depreciationalreadyreducestaxliabilitytozero(withnegativetaxes)arenotallowed.
272

Results
Table3.62showstheresultsofthefirstyearCOE.TheresultinTable3.62doesnot
accountforeffectsofinflation,othercostescalations,andtaxcredits.
Usingtherevenuerequirementmodel,
127
thebasecaseCOEis7.6cents/kWh(current
dollars),or6.0cents/kWh(constantdollars).The7.6cents/kWhistheamountthat
wouldhavetobechargedforelectricityineachyearoftheprojectinordertopayall
debtsandexpensesbytheendoftheprojectlife.The6.0cents/kWhCOEinconstant
dollarscanbeusedtocomparetootheralternativesinyearzerodollars.
Table 3.6-1. Economic Base Case parameters for a BIGCC project in California
Capital Cost ($/kW) 2800 Interest Rate on Debt Reserve (%/y) 3
Net Plant Capacity (kW)e 12,500 Price heat energy ($/kWh)th 0
Net District Heat Production (kW)th 0 Annual Capacity Payment ($/y) 1,125,000
Capacity Factor (%) 90 Annual Debt Reserve Interest ($/y) 77,812
Net Station Electrical Efficiency (%) 34.3 Annual heat sales ($) 0
Fuel Heating Value (kJ/kg-dry basis) 20,260 Annual heat sales ($/kWh)electricity 0
Fuel Ash Concentration (%) 2 Revenue from Ash sales ($/y) 5,105
Annual Production (kWh)e 98,550,000 Revenue from Ash ($/kWh)e 5.181E-05
Annual Production (kWh)th 0
Annual Ash Disposal (Mg/y) 1021 Debt ratio (%) 85
Life of Loan (y) 20
Fuel Cost ($/dry Mg) 33 Cost of equity (%/y) 15
Fuel Cost ($/kWh)e 0.017096 Cost of Money (%/y) 7.35
Labor Cost ($/kWh) 0.01038 Total Cost of Plant ($) 35,000,000
Maintenance Cost ($/kWh) 0.00778 Total Equity Cost ($) 5,250,000
Insurance/Property Tax ($/kWh) 0.00726 Total Debt Cost ($) 29,750,000
Utilities ($/kWh) 0.00104 Capital Recovery Factor (Equity) 0.1598
Ash Disposal ($/kWh) 0 Capital Recovery Factor (Debt) 0.0872
Management/Administration ($/kWh) 0.00104 Annual Equity Recovery ($/y) 838,748
Other Operating Expenses ($/kWh) 0.00208 Annual Debt Payment ($/y) 2,593,741
Total Non-Fuel Expenses ($/kWh) 0.02958 Debt Reserve ($) 2,593,741
Escalation--Other (%/y) 2.8 Constant $ Levelized COE($/kWh) 0.060
Income other than energy
Financing
Cost and Performance Assumptions
10 year MACRS
Expenses
Taxes

127.Seehttp://faculty.enigineering.ucdavis.edu/jenkins/CBC/Calculator/cal.html
273

Table 3.6-2. Simple Year 0 costs and revenues
for the Carbona IGCC system
($/kWh) ($/y)
Fuel Cost ($33/Mg) 0.0171 1,684,810
Labor 0.0104 1,022,949
Utilities 0.0010 102,492
Debt & Equity Payment 0.0348 3,432,488
Capacity Payment 0.0114 1,125,000
Revenue Requirement
0.0701 6,907,407

* does not account for depreciation and tax affects, inflation
and other cost escalations

ComparisontoOtherEstimates
TheEnergyInformationAdministration(EIA)publishestheAnnualEnergyOutlook,
whichincludesprojectionsofenergyproductionandmarketpenetrationoftechnologies
andenergysources.Table3.63showssomeofthecostandperformanceassumptions
usedtopreparetheEIAAnnualEnergyOutlook.
Formodelingcostandperformanceofbiomass,EIAassumesthatanewbiomassIGCC
facility,firstonlinein2010willhaveinstalledcostof$1,731/kWforacapacityof80
MW.Overallconversionefficiencyisassumedtobe38.2%.NonfuelO&Mcostsare0.94
cents/kWh.
128
LevelizedCOEusingthesecostandperformanceassumptionsis3.3
cents/kWh(constantdollars).
129
Ifnocapacitypaymentsareassumed,thenCOEwould
be4.2cents/kWh.ThisislowerthantheBIGCCinCaliforniaprojectreviewedinthis
reportwhichhasestimatedCOEof6.0and6.9cents/kWhwithandwithout$100/kWy

128.AssumptionstotheAnnualEnergyOutlook2004(U.S.DOE/EIA).
129.Assumesfuelcostsof$30/bdt,25%equityratio(15%ROR)and6%interestondebt,
$100/kWycapacitypayment,PTCof$0.009/kWhforfiveyears,10yearMACRSdepreciation,
and20yeartechnicalandeconomiclife.
274

capacitypayments.NonfueloperatingcostsassumedforCarbonaIndiafacilityadapted
toCaliforniaareabout3cents/kWhcomparedtothe0.94cents/kWhassumedbyEIA.
CraigandMann(1996)comparedprojectedlevelizedCOEvaluesforseveralBIGCC
systemdesigns.TheconstantdollarCOEvariedfrom5.1to6.3cents/kWhdependingon
thegasifiertypeandgasturbine.ThelowCOEcorrespondedtoaplantdesign
specifyingalowpressureindirectlyheatedgasifierwithanadvancedutilitygasturbine
withaninstalledcostof$1,108/kWandcapacityof122MW.ThehighCOEfigurewas
foraplantutilizingahighpressuredirectfiredairblowngasifierandanaeroderivative
gasturbine.Theinstalledcostwas$1,696/kWandcapacitywas56MW.Thefuelcostin
thestudywas$42perdrytonandnocapacitypaymentswereassumed.Thesetwo
differencesaccountforthehigherCOEintheCraigandMann(1996)studycomparedto
thatestimatedinthisreportfortheCarbonaIndiaBIGCCprojectadjustedfor
California.

Table 3.6-3. Cost and performance parameters used by EIA (Adapted from U.S. DOE/EIA)
Technology
Size
(MW)
Lead
Time
(y)
Contingency
Factor
Optimism
Factor
1
Installed Cost
2
(2004 $/kWh)
Conversion
Efficiency
(%)
Adv Combustion Turbine 230 2 1.05 1 489 36.7
Conv Gas/Oil Comb Cycle 250 3 1.05 1 569 45.8
Adv Gas/Oil Comb Cycle (CC) 400 3 1.08 1 646 49.2
Distributed Generation -Base 2 3 1.05 1 854 36.3
Distributed Generation - Peak 1 2 1.05 1 1026 32.8
Wind 50 3 1.07 1 1066 33.2
ADV CC with Carbon Sequestration 400 3 1.08 1.04 1142 39.5
Scrubbed Coal New 600 4 1.07 1 1226 37.9
Coal IGCC 550 4 1.07 1 1452 42.7
MSW - Landfill Gas 30 3 1.07 1 1551 25.0
Biomass IGCC 80 4 1.07 1.02 1818 38.3
Advanced Nuclear 1000 6 1.1 1.05 2024 32.8
Coal IGCC with Carbon Sequestration 380 4 1.07 1.03 2192 35.5
Fuel Cells 10 3 1.05 1.1 2270 45.8
Geothermal
3
50 4 1.05 1 2313 9.2
Solar Thermal 100 3 1.07 1.1 3062 33.2
Photovoltaic 5 2 1.05 1.1 4621 33.2

(1) The technological optimism factor is applied to the first four units of a new, unproven design. It reflects the
demonstrated tendency to underestimate actual costs for a first-of-a-kind unit.
(2) Includes contingency and technical optimism factors. Does not include effect of investment tax credits
(3) Estimate for least expensive plant that could be built in the Northwest Power Pool region.

Sensitivity
Energycostsensitivitywasinvestigatedbymakingchangestoasinglemodelinput
whileholdingallothervariablesattheirbasecasevalues.Table3.64showsselected
275

276

resultsfromthesensitivityanalysis.Fortheseconditionsshown,theconstantdollar
COEfallsbetween5.2and8.8cents/kWh.
TheModerateCaseinTable3.64hasthreevariablesthathavebeenchangedfromthe
BaseCase.Theseare:
CapacityFactor(availability)decreasedfrom90%to70%.
Equityratioincreasedfrom15to25%.
FuelPricedecreasedfrom$30to$26perton($33to$28.6permetricton).
ThefirsttwochangesaboveacttoincreasetheCOEwhilethelowerfuelpricereduces
theCOE.
Figures3.61through3.69showthesensitivityofCOEtochangesinmodelinputs(see
listbelowandrefertoTable3.62forBaseCaseparameters).
Figure Description
3.6-4 COE versus Fuel Cost
3.6-5 COE versus O&M Cost
Figure
(in Appendix) Description
3.6-6 COE versus Debt Interest Rate
3.6-8 COE versus Capacity Payment
3.6-9 COE versus Efficiency of Plant
3.6-10 Variation of COE with tax consequences

Figures3.62and3.63displaychangesinCOEagainstrelativechangesfromtheBase
Caseforfuelprice,capacityfactor,plantefficiency,capitalcoast,nonfuelO&Mcosts,
capacitypayment,andequityratio.Ofthese,relativechangesincapacitypaymentand
equityratiohavetheleasteffectonCOE;doublingthecapacitypaymentreducesCOE
byabout15%,whileeliminatingthepaymentwillincreaseCOEby15%.COEismost
sensitivetorelativechangesinnonfuelO&Mcostsfollowedcloselybycapitalcost
sensitivity.AdoublingofnonfuelO&MwillincreaseCOEbynearly50%.Doublingthe
capitalcostincreasesCOEbyapproximately40%.Fortheremainingvariables,arelative
changeof50%ineachwillinfluencetheCOEbylessthan30%fromtheBaseCase
value.

Table 3.6-4. Selected results of economic analysis for CarbonaIndia/California BIGCC project (bold type indicates change from base case).
Low Fuel
Price
High Fuel
Price
Low Capital
Cost
High Capital
Cost
High Interest
Rate on
Loan
Low
Conversion
Efficiency
Zero Capacity
Payment
High Capacity
Payment
Equity Ratio
(25% with
15% ROI)
w/o PTC,
Large Firm
Small Firm
(no negative
taxes)
Moderate Case
(also includes
25% equity
ratio)
Production
(kWh)e 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 76,650,000
Total Capital cost ($) 35,000,000 35,000,000 35,000,000 26,250,000 70,000,000 35,000,000 35,000,000 35,000,000 35,000,000 35,000,000 35,000,000 35,000,000 35,000,000
Capital Cost ($/kW) 2800 2800 2800 2100 5600 2,800 2800 2,800 2800 2,800 2800 2800 2800
Capacity Factor (%) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 70
Capacity Payment ($/kW-y) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 166 100 100 100 100
Efficiency
(%) 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34 13.7 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3
Fuel Consumption
Rate
(metric
ton/h)
6 6 6 6 6 6 16.2 6 6 6 6 6 6
Annual Fuel
Consumption
(metric
ton/y)
51,055 51,055 51,055 51,055 51,055 51,055 127,637 51,055 51,055 51,055 51,055 51,055 39,709
Fuel Cost ($/t) 33 16.5 66 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 28.6
Labor Cost ($/kWh) 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104
Other O&M ($/kWh) 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192
Interest Rate on Debt (%) 6 6 6 6 6 15 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Current $ Level
Annual Revenue
Requirements
(current $) 7,511,740 6,471,372 9,592,475 6,683,853 10,823,288 8,877,573 10,623,385 8,636,740 6,769,240 7,924,783 7,861,129 8,641,445 6,362,590
Constant $ Level
Annual Revenue
Requirements
(constant $) 5,916,727 5,097,267 7,555,647 5,264,630 8,525,114 7,377,726 8,367,658 6,802,849 5,331,887 6,286,630 6,191,928 6,806,555 5,011,583
Current $ LAC of
Energy
(current
$/kWh)
0.076 0.066 0.097 0.068 0.110 0.090 0.108 0.088 0.069 0.080 0.080 0.088 0.083
Constant $ LAC of
Energy
(constant
$/kWh)
0.060 0.052 0.077 0.053 0.087 0.075 0.085 0.069 0.054 0.064 0.063 0.069 0.065

Life of Project
(loan/financing period)
(y) 20
Fuel Heating Value (kJ/kg) 20,260

Combined Tax Rate
(34 Fed, 9.6 State)
(%) 40.34
277

FuelcostandnonfuelO&McosteffectsareillustratedinFigures3.64and3.65,
respectively.
130
TheeffectofchangesindebtinterestrateisshowninFigure3.66.Interestondebthas
almostnoeffectonthecurrentdollarCOEandaveryweakeffectontheconstantdollar
COE.
Figure3.67depictsthechangeinCOEduetochangesintheequityratio.
131
Increasing
investmentequityincreasesCOEviatwomechanisms,(1)theRORforequityishigher
thaninterestrateondebt(15%comparedto6%inthemodel)and(2)increased
investmentreducestaxdeductionsbecauseofsmallerloaninterestpayments.Forthis
project,switchingfromborrowing85%ofthecapitaltofinancingwith100%equity
(investmentwith15%ROR)increasestheCOEbyabout3.3cents/kWh(orabout0.4
cents/kWhforeach10%incrementofequityinvestment).
TheeffectofcapacitypaymentonCOEisillustratedinFigure3.68.Asmentioned
earlier,changesincapacitypaymenthaveafairlymildeffectonCOE(thoughstronger
thaninterestondebt).
ChangesinoverallplantefficiencyhaveanonlineareffectontheCOE(seeFigure3.6
9).Increasesinoverallplantefficiency(allelsebeingequal)obviouslyimprovethe
economicsofthefacilitybutbecausethebehaviorisnonlinear,continuedincreasesin
efficiencyyieldsmallerimprovementsinCOE.Conversely,acontinuingdeclinein
efficiencyresultsindisproportionalCOEincreases.
TheeffectsofproductiontaxcreditsandtaxliabilityontheBaseCaseenergypriceare
showninFigure3.610.RecallthattheBaseCaseassumesthebusinesshasprofitsfrom
otheroperationswhichallowsthenegativetaxes(thatresultfromtheaccelerated
depreciationintheearlyyearsoftheproject)tobecreditedtotheproject.PTCsarealso
abletobecreditedinfulltotheprojectforthesesocalledlargefirms.Smallfirms
maynotbeabletotakenegativetaxesasacredittotheprojectandthereforedonot
enjoythebenefitsofPTCswhenthereisnotaxliability(suchaswhenaccelerated
depreciationreducestaxliabilitytozero).InFigure3.610,theleftmostsetofbars
correspondstotheBaseCase.PTCandsmallfirmsizeeachaffecttheCOEbylessthan
15%.

130.Note:Figures3.66through3.610appearintheappendix.
131.Equityratioisthefractionofcapitalcostscoveredbyinvestmentmonies.EquityRatio(%)=
100DebtRatio(%),whereDebtRatioisthefractionofcapitalcostscoveredbyborrowedfunds.
278

0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0 0.5 1 1.5
C
O
E

(
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)
2
Fuel Price Capacity Factor Efficiency
Capital Cost O&M (non-fuel) Capacity Payment
Equity Ratio

Figure 3.6-2. Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis (Carbona India IGCC)

0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
C
O
E

(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)
Equity Ratio

279

Figure 3.6-3. Current $ COE sensitivity analysis (Carbona India IGCC)
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0 15 30 45 60
Fuel Cost ($/ton)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
75

Figure 3.6-4. COE versus fuel cost (CarbonaIndia IGCC)

280

0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)

Figure 3.6-5. COE versus O&M cost (CarbonaIndia IGCC)
281

3.7. Straw Combustion Facility
AneconomicanalysiswasdonefortheElypowerstationdesignusingricestrawfuelat
deliveredpricesinCalifornia.Thebasicpowerplantenergyrevenuerequirement
calculatormodulewasused.Table3.71displaysthecompletelistofbasecase
parametersusedaswellaslevelizedCOE(modeloutput).Someofthemoresignificant
basecaseassumptionsaresummarizedhere:
$88Millioncapitalcost(usingEly,England,2000figures).
Netcapacityis38MW.
Nocogeneratedheatsales.
Capacityfactoris83%basedonreportedannualenergyproductionatEly
(Newman2003).
Efficiencyis31.7%basedoncalculationusingElyreportedenergyproduction
andfuelusage(ElyreportusesHHV[drybasis]forwheatstrawwhichisabout
17%greaterthanforricestraw,18.2MJ/kgforwheatstraw,and15.5MJ/kgfor
ricestraw)(Newman2003).
Deliveredfuelpriceis$34/shorttonandincludesfuelprocessing.Pricefor
Californiaricestrawisdiscussedelsewhere(BakkerDhaliwaletal.1999;Jenkins
andBakkerDhaliwaletal.2000;Haase2003).
Themodelstandardforotheroperatingcostsisusedexceptforashdisposal
whichissettozero.Thisassumesdisposalandhandlingcostsareoffsetbysales
ofashbacktogrowers.
Capacitypaymentof$100/kWyisused.
Ashsalesarezero,butassumessmallincometooffsethandlingmentioned
above.
Escalationandgeneralinflationare4%,exceptforPTCescalation,whichis3%.
Equityratiois20%.
Debtinterestis6%,equityreturnis15%.
Debtreserveofoneannualpaymentisassumed,whichearnsinterestat4%/year.
Analysisperiodis20years.
MACRSdepreciationscheduleis10years
PTCavailabilityisfiveyears.
282

Abletotakefullcreditfromtaxdeductions(depreciationandPTCcreating
negativetaxes,impliesfirmwithprofitsinotherareas).
Table 3.7-1. Economic Base Case parameters for a rice straw power plant
Capital Cost ($/kW) 2316 Interest Rate on Debt Reserve (%/y) 4
Net Plant Capacity (kW)e 38,000 Price heat energy ($/kWh)th 0
Net District Heat Production (kW)th 0 Annual Capacity Payment ($/y) 3,154,000
Capacity Factor (%) 83 Annual Debt Reserve Interest ($/y) 245,512
Net Station Electrical Efficiency (%) 31.7 Annual heat sales ($) 0
Fuel Higher Heating Value (kJ/dry kg) 15,500 Annual heat sales ($/kWh)electricity 0
Fuel Ash Concentration (%) 18 Revenue from Ash sales ($/y) 0
Annual Production (kWh)e 276,290,400 Revenue from Ash ($/kWh)e 0
Annual Heat Production (kWh)th 0
Annual Ash Disposal (Mg/y) 36,428 Debt ratio (%) 80
Life of Loan (y) 20
Fuel Cost ($/dry Mg) 37.4 Cost of equity (%/y) 15
Fuel Cost ($/kWh)e 0.0274 Cost of Money (%/y) 7.8
Labor Cost ($/kWh) 0.01038 Total Cost of Plant ($) 88,000,000
Maintenance Cost ($/kWh) 0.00778 Total Equity Cost ($) 17,600,000
Insurance/Property Tax ($/kWh) 0.00726 Total Debt Cost ($) 70,400,000
Utilities ($/kWh) 0.00104 Capital Recovery Factor (Equity) 0.1598
Ash Disposal ($/kWh) 0 Capital Recovery Factor (Debt) 0.0872
Management/Administration ($/kWh) 0.00104 Annual Equity Recovery ($/y) 2,811,802
Other Operating Expenses ($/kWh) 0.00208 Annual Debt Payment ($/y) 6,137,793
Total Non-Fuel Expenses ($/kWh) 0.02958 Debt Reserve ($) 6,137,793
General Inflation (%/y) 4
Escalation--Fuel (%/y) 4
Escalation--Other (%/y) 4
PTC escalation (%.y) 3
Combined Tax Rate (%) 40.3 Current $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh) 0.094
Production Tax Credit ($yr) 2,486,614
Constant $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh)
0.067
Income other than energy Capital Cost and Performance Assumptions
10 year MACRS used
Financing
Taxes
Expenses


283

Results
Table3.72showstheresultsforthefirstyear.Thisresultdoesnotaccountforeffectsof
inflation,othercostescalations,andtaxcredits.
Table 3.7-2. Simple Year 0 costs and revenues
for the rice straw power plant
($/kWh) ($/y)
Fuel Cost ($37.4/Mg) 0.0274 7,568,964
Labor 0.0104 2,867,894
Maintenance 0.0078 2,149,539
Insurance/Property Tax 0.0073 2,005,868
Utilities 0.0010 287,342
Debt Payment 0.0222 6,137,793
Equity Recovery 0.0102 2,811,802
Capacity Payment (0.0114) (3,154,000)
Revenue Requirement
0.0780 21,537,228

* does not account for depreciation and tax affects, inflation and
other cost escalations

Forthebasecase,thecalculatoryieldsaCOEof6.7cents/kWh(constantdollar)or9.4
cents/kWh(currentdollars).Themoderatelyhighcapitalandfuelcostscombinefora
fairlyhighCOE.HalvingthefuelpricereducestheCOEtonear5cents/kWh(constant
dollar).Increasingcapacitypaymenttothecurrentindustryaverage($166/kWy)will
reduceCOEfrom6.7to6.0cents/kWh.
Sensitivity
ThesensitivityoflevelizedCOEwasinvestigatedbymakingchangestoasinglemodel
inputatatime(holdingallothervariablestotheirbasecasevaluesTable3.73shows
selectedresultsfromthesensitivityanalysis.Fortheconditionsshown,theconstant
dollarCOEfallsbetween5.3and9.2cents/kWh.
284

285

Figures3.71through3.79showsensitivityofCOEtochangesinseveralofthemodel
inputs(refertoTable3.71forBaseCaseparameters).
Figure Description
3.7-1 Constant $ COE sensitivity for a rice straw power plant
3.7-2 Current $ COE sensitivity for a rice straw power plant
3.7-3 COE versus Fuel Cost (rice straw plant)
3.7-4 COE versus non-fuel O&M Cost (rice straw plant)

Figure
(in appendix) Description
3.7-5 COE versus Debt Interest Rate (rice straw plant)
3.7-6 COE versus Equity Ratio (rice straw plant)
3.7-7 COE versus Capacity Payment (rice straw plant)
3.7-8 COE versus Efficiency of Plant (rice straw plant)
3.7-9 Effect of tax consequences on COE (rice straw plant)

Figures3.71and3.72showabsolutechangesinCOEagainstrelativechangesfromthe
BaseCaseforfuelprice,capacityfactor,plantefficiency,capitalcoast,nonfuelO&M
costs,capacitypayment,equityratio,anddebtinterestrate.Ofthese,relativechangesin
capacitypaymentorequityratiohavetheleasteffectonCOE.Doublingthecapacity
paymentreducesCOEbyabout11%(or0.7cents/kWh),whileeliminatingthepayment
willincreaseCOEby14%.Adoublingoftheequityratiofrom20%to40%increases
COEbyabout0.6cents/kWh(orsome9%).
COEisaboutequallysensitivetorelativechangesinnonfuelO&Mcosts,fuelprice,and
capitalcost.Adoublingofanyofthesethreevariablesincreasesrevenuerequirements
byabout40%.A20%decreaseinbasecaseplantefficiency(to25.4%netstation
efficiency)willincreaseCOEby10%,allelsebeingequal,whilea20%boostinbasecase
efficiency(38%net)lowersCOEby6.7%.
Theeffectoffullydepreciatingcapitalandapplyingproductiontaxcreditsisdisplayed
inFigure3.79.Aprofitablefirmthathastaxliabilitiesfromotherenterprisescanuse
thesedeductionstooffsettaxesfromallofthecompanysbusinesses.Asmallerfirm
withnoothercurrentbusinesswillnotbeabletocredittheprojectwithnegativetaxes
andcanusedepreciationandtaxcreditsupuntiltaxliabilityreacheszero.Thiseffective
smallfirmpenaltyincreasestheprojectCOEbynearly1cent/kWh(levelizedforthe
lengthoftheanalysis,Figure3.79).

Table 3.7-3. Selected results of economic analysis for the straw power plant (bold type indicates change from base case)
Low Fuel
Price
High Fuel
Price
Low Capital
Cost
High Capital
Cost
High Interest
Rate on Loan
Low
Conversion
Efficiency
Zero Capacity
Payment
High Capacity
Payment
100% Debt
Ratio
Small Firm
Production
(kWh)e 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000 98,550,000
Total Capital cost ($) 88,000,000 88,000,000 88,000,000 66,000,000 176,000,000 88,000,000 88,000,000 88,000,000 88,000,000 88,000,000 88,000,000
Capital Cost ($/kW) 2316 2316 2316 1737 4632 2316 2316 2,316 2316 2,316 2316
Capacity Factor (%) 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83
Capacity Payment ($/kW-y) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 166 100 100
Efficiency
(%) 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 22.0 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7
Fuel Consumption Rate
(metric
ton/h)
28 28 28 28 28 28 40.1 28 28 28 28
Annual Fuel Consumption
(metric
ton/y)
202,379 202,379 202,379 202,379 202,379 202,379 291,612 202,379 202,379 202,379 202,379
Fuel Cost ($/t) 37.4 17.0 68.0 37.4 37.4 37.4 37.4 37 37 37 37.4
Labor Cost ($/kWh) 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104
Other O&M ($/kWh) 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192
Interest Rate on Debt (%) 6 6 6 6 6 15 6 6 6 6 6
(current $) 25,929,671 20,461,306 35,815,069 23,365,658 34,433,501 27,928,412 30,092,437 29,083,671 23,848,031 23,749,220 28,402,265
(constant $) 18,436,416 14,548,320 25,465,094 16,613,361 24,482,777 21,347,872 21,396,210 20,678,961 16,956,336 16,535,783 20,194,470
(current
$/kWh)
0.094 0.074 0.130 0.085 0.125 0.101 0.109 0.105 0.086 0.086 0.103
(constant
$/kWh)
0.067 0.053 0.092 0.060 0.089 0.077 0.077 0.075 0.061 0.060 0.073

period)
(y) 20
General inflation/Escalation (%) 4
Fuel Heating Value (kj/kg) 15,500

State)
(%) 40.34

286

0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0 0.5 1 1.5
C
O
E

(
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)
2
Equity Ratio

Figure 3.7-1. Constant $ COE sensitivity for a rice straw power plant
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
C
O
E

(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)
Interest on Debt Equity Ratio

Figure 3.7-2. Current $ COE sensitivity (rice straw power plant)
287

0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0 15 30 45 60 75
Fuel Cost ($/ton)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
Figure 3.7-3. COE versus Fuel Cost (rice straw plant)
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
Figure 3.7-4. COE versus non-fuel O&M Cost (rice straw plant)
288

3.8. MSW AD Systems
3.8.1 Review of Cost and Performance Data for Green Waste and MSW
Digestion
Recentliteratureandreportswerereviewedforcostandperformancedataofseveral
MSWandgreenwasteADsystems.SummariesofthisinformationappearinTables3.8
1and3.82.Thisinformationwasusedtoestimatesomeoftheinputstotheeconomic
model.
Theeconomicmodelrequiresafactorformethaneproductionpermassofinput
feedstock.Table3.81listssomerecentliteraturevaluesformethaneproduction
achievedinoperatingsystems(i.e.,theDrancolistingsandtheRWBeckreportwhich
containsareviewofEuropeanfacilities).ProjectedvaluesfortheAPSUCDdigesterand
genericfacilitiesaretakenfromrecentreports,andanengineeringthesis.
Table 3.8-1. Reported and projected average methane production for MSW-AD systems at
34% biogas to electricity conversion efficiency

Facility or Report Source
Biogas
Production
(ft^3/ton
input)
CH4
Productio
n (m
3
/Mg)
Biogas Energy per Ton
Input (Gross)
(MMBtu) (MJ) (kWh)*
R. W. Beck-Iowa Report average R. W. Beck (2004)
2208
42.1 1.31 1387 131
RIS Intl. Report to SMUD-Option 1 Kelleher (2005)
2900
49.8 1.56 1643 155
DRANCO - Brecht I De Baere (2000)
3299
56.7 1.77 1869 176
APS - Channel Islands projections
McOuat and Gill
(2004) 3081
57.7 1.80 1904 180
RIS Intl, Report to SMUD-Option 7 Kelleher (2005)
3544
60.9 1.90 2008 190
DRANCO Brecht II De Baere, (2000)
4003
68.8 2.15 2268 214
APS - UCD projections Hartmann (2004)
3306
73.4 2.29 2418 228
DRANCO -Salzberg De Baere, (2000)
4323
74.3 2.32 2449 231
DRANCO - Bassum De Baere, (2000) 4708 80.9 2.53 2667 252
DRANCO - Kaiserslautern De Baere, (2000) 5444 93.6 2.92 3084 291
Averages 3697 66.8 2.10 2200 208
CapitalCosts
Capital,labor,andotheroperatingcostsforMSWdigestersystemsgatheredfromthe
literaturearepresentedinTable3.82.Capitalcostestimatesvarywidely.Someofthe
differencesareduetotechnology.Differencesmayalsodependonhowfaralongthe
technologicallearningcurvetheprocessdeveloperwaswhenthefacilitywasbuilt.A
thirdexplanationforcapitalcostdifferencesreportedintheliteratureisduetofeedstock
characteristics,degreeofpretreatmentrequired,andwhatportionofhandlingandpost
digestionstabilizationinfrastructureisattributedtotheproject.Thislastfactorprobably
contributesmosttocapitalcostdifferencesamongthecomparisons.
289

Table 3.8-2. Cost Data used to determine base case model inputs.

Facility or Report
Capacity
(kt/y)
Capital Cost
Labor
($/ton)
Digester
O&M
Proportion of
Installed Cost
Engine
O&M
($/kWh)
Total
(M $)
($/ton
capacity
)
($/Mg
capacity
)
(% of
installed
cost)
Digeste
r Plant
(%)
Gen-
set
(%)
Whyte & Perry (2001) 10 6.9 690* 761*
Whyte & Perry (2001) 100 24.5 245 270
Kompogas- Volketswil,
Switzerland (2000)
(Kelleher 2005)
5.5 2.1 382 421
Kompogas (1998)
(Edelmann et al. 2000)
10 5.5 550 607
APS- UCD 11.5 2.3 200 221
in
O&M
4.00 81.0 19.0 0.0150
APS- Channel Islands

76 15.0 197 217 6.53 3.00 100 - -
APS- Channel Islands
w/power production
76 16.9 221* 244* 6.53* 3.00* 90.2* 9.8* 0.0150*
R. W. Beck small 36 7.4 206 227 3.55 2.25 87.7 12.3 0.0125
R. W. Beck large 69 12.8 186 205 2.88 2.25 87.5 12.5 0.0125

DRANCO-Bassum (1996) 15 3.9 260 287
DRANCO-Kaiserslautern
(1997)
22 11.3 514 567
DRANCO - Rome (1999) 44 4.6 104* 115*
DRANCO-Brecht II (1998) 55 16.8 305 336

RIS - small 100 31.0 310 342 8.63 2.70 84.7 15.3
RIS - large 200 55.0 275 303 6.12 2.70 83.3 16.7
Averages 307 339 5.57 2.83 85.23 14.8 0.0138
* Not used to calculate average
Cost does not include power production
Capitalcostsforthesefacilitiesdoenjoyeconomiesofscale,mostnotablybetween10
and100,000t/yearcapacities.Ingeneral,facilitiesbelow20to25thousandt/year
capacityhaveinstalledcostsbetween$400and$700pertonofcapacityaccordingto
thesedata.TheexceptionsinthisdatasetaretheUCDAPSproposalfortheUCD
campuswhichhasanestimatedcostof$200/toncapacityandtheDrancoBassumfacility
whichwasinstalledforabout$260/toncapacity(escalatedto2004dollars).Thevaluefor
theDrancoRomefacilityseemsverylowandprobablydoesnotincludeallassociated
costs.Facilitieswithcapacitylargerthan75,000t/yearareprojectedtohavecapitalcosts
betweenabout$200and$300pertonofcapacity.RISInternationalLtd.estimatescapital
costsofabout$300and$275pertonofcapacityfor100,000and200,000t/yearfacilities
anddependingonwhetherthefacilityisbuiltasanisolatedunitorcolocatedwithan
existingwastehandlingfacility(Kelleher2005).
InterestingistheprojectedcostfortheAPSChannelIslandsdesign(capacity76,000
t/year)atabout$200tonofcapacity.ThesmallerAPSproposalforUCDisalso
290

estimatedat$200pertonofcapacity.Thisisnotanexhaustivereviewofcostdataand
furtherinvestigationisrecommended.Figure3.81presentssomeofthecapitalcost
information.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 50 100 150 200 250
Capacity (kt/y)
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t

(
$
/
t
o
n

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
)
Whyte&Perry (2001) Kompogas APS
RWBeck Iowa Report Dranco (post 1995) RIS Report to SMUD

Figure 3.8-1. Capital costs vs. capacity for green waste and MSW AD systems

OperatingandMaintenanceCosts
O&Mcostsincludelabor,buildingandplantmaintenanceandconsumables,insurance
andpropertytaxes,andenginegeneratoroperationscosts.Laborcostestimatesvary
fromabout$3tomorethan$8.50pertonprocessed.Differencesdependonhowsupport
andadministrationcostsareallocatedandotherassumptionsusedtoderivethenumber
ofemployeesrequiredtooperateandmanagethefacility.
Forexample,intheeconomicevaluationsectionoftheR.W.BeckIowareport,one
managerandthreelaborersareassumedtooperatealargefacility(69,000t/year),anda
managerwithtwolaborersforthesmallerfacility(36,000t/year).ThenumbersintheR.
W.Beckreportworkouttoaboutoneshiftof9or10hoursperdayandsixdaysper
week(11,200personhoursperyearorabout5.6fulltimeemployees(FTE)forthe69,000
tonfacility).Theyear1laborvaluesusedintheR.W.Beckanalysisisapproximately
$200,000,orabout$3/tonprocessed.R.W.Beckbasedthesenumbersforunitsoflabor
onsimilarlysizedfacilitiesoperatinginEurope.
291

TheHMHanalysisoftheAPSChannelIslandsproposaluses12FTEforoperationsand
2FTEforgeneralservicesandadministration.Itisunclearhowmanyshiftsperdayare
assumed(itappearstobetwoorthree),butmostlyfivedayweeksareusedintheir
analysis(laborcostsworkouttobeabout$6.60/tonprocessed).
TheRISconsultantreporttoSMUDestimateslaborcostsfrom$6to$9pertonprocessed
dependingonfacilitysizeandwhethercertainfunctionsaresharedwithacolocated
wastefacility.The$6/tonprocessedlaborcostcorrespondstoa200,000t/yearfacility
with27FTEemployed(24tooperate,basedonthreeshifts,and3FTEadministration).
The100,000t/yearfacilityuses16FTEtooperatewith3FTEinadministration(19FTE
total)andhasalaborcostof$8.63/tonprocessed.A50,000t/year
facilityisestimatedto
require9FTE(sevenoperational,twoadministration)basedontwoshiftsperday
costing$9/tonprocessedinlabor.Figure3.82plotspertonlaborcostestimates.
ManyofthefacilitiesinEuropeoperateusingasingleshiftof8to12hoursperday
duringasixdayweek.Materialreceivingandprocessingatthesefacilitiesis
accomplishedduringthesingledailyshift,muchlikeatanMRForlandfill.Thedigester
itselfdoesnotneedconstanthumanattentionandgasenginescanoperateunattended.
Processmonitoringatnightisautomated.Duringoffhours,atechnicianisoncalland
canbepagedautomaticallybytheprocesscontrolandmonitoringsystemifhuman
interventionisrequired.
Withthatinmind,thenumberofFTErequiredintheAPSChannelIslandsandtheRIS
analysescanlikelybereducedoncereliableoperationisachieved.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 50 100 150 200 250
Annual Capacity (kt/y)
L
a
b
o
r

C
o
s
t
s

(
$
/
t
o
n
)
RWBeck Report APS - Channel Islands RIS Analysis This Report

Figure 3.8-2. Digester plant labor costs from several sources
292

EngineandPlantO&M
Reciprocatinggasenginegeneratorsetstypicallyhaveoperatingcostsbetween$0.01
and$0.015perkWhofelectricitygenerated.Thedigesterandbalanceofplanthavebeen
assignedannualO&Mcostsbetween2.3%and4%ofthedigesterinstalledcost(thus
enginegeneratoranddigester/balanceofplantO&Mcostsareseparatedintheanalysis).
Table3.82(above)showsthesplitoftotalcapitalcostsbetweentheenginegeneratorset
andthedigesterplant.Thedigesterplantaccountsforbetween81%and88%oftotal
capital(theaverageis85%withtheremainingallocatedtotheenginegenerator).
Balanceofplant,buildingmaintenance,utilities,taxes,etc.togetherhasannualcostsof
between3and5%oftotalinstalledcapital(lessenginegeneratorcapitalcost).
3.8.2 Economic Analysis of Generic MSW AD System
AgenericMSWADprocesswasmodeledtodetermineannualrevenuerequiredto
meetalldebt,operatingexpense,andprofitobligations.Twobasecasescenarioswere
considered:(1)atippingfeewasassumedandthelevelannualenergyrevenue(costof
energyorCOE)wasdetermined;and(2)anenergysalespricewassetandtherequired
revenuefromtippingfeeswasdetermined.ResultsofScenarios1and2appearbelow.
ParametersforthebasecaseofScenarios1and2arefoundinTable3.83.Thefacilityis
assumedtoprocess100,000tonsperyearofmostlygreenwastematerial.Capitalcostis
assumedtobe$275/toncapacity.Methaneproductionis0.056m
3/
kgoffeedstock(wet
basis)and10%oftheproducedbiogasisconsumedintheprocessforheatingpurposes
andtheremainderisconvertedtoelectricityat34%efficiency(HHVbasis).Thirtyper
centofthegeneratedelectricityisconsumedbytheplantleaving70%availablefor
energysales.
Basecaseexpensesamountto$16.70perwettonofinput.Thisincludeslaborcostsof
$5.50/ton,digesterO&Mof$6.90/ton,aswellasenginegeneratorO&M,insurance,
propertytax,etc.ThedigesterO&Mis2.9%ofdigesterplantcapital(excludescapitalfor
engine).EnginegeneratorO&Mare$0.0138/kWhofgrossgeneration.Insurance,
propertytax,andprofessionalservicesare0.5%oftotalcapital.A5%contingencyis
addedtoexpenses.
Thebasecasescenariosassume85%ofthecapitalcost($23.4million)isborrowedatan
annualinterestrateof6%foratermof20years.Theremaining15%($4.1million)is
financedbyequityinvestmentwitharequiredRORof15%.Thisresultsinaneffective
costofmoney(oreffectiveinterestrate)of7.35%/year.Theinterestontheequitythatis
returnedrepresentstheprofitforthefacility.Annualdebtandequitypaymentstotal
$2.7millionperyear,or$27/t.Nodebtreserveisusedintheanalysis.
Combinedfederalandstatetaxrateis40.3%basedonfederalandstatetaxratesof34%
and9%,respectively.A0.9cent/kWhPTCisappliedtoelectricitysalesforthefirstfive
years.The10yearmodifiedacceleratedcostrecoverysystem(MACRS)depreciation
293

scheduleisused.ThePTCanddepreciationtypicallyremoveallincometaxliabilitydue
totheprojectinearlyyearsandcanreducethecompanystaxliabilityfurtherifthe
companyhasotherprofitable(taxable)enterprises.Theeconomicanalysesassumethe
businessisprofitableinotherareaswhichallownegativetaxestobecreditedtothe
project(thereforereducingrevenuerequirements).
Generalinflationandpriceescalationratesaresetat2.1%peryear.Allexpenses,the
PTC,compostsales,tippingfee(inthecaseofCOEdetermination),andelectricitysales
price(inthecaseofrequiredtippingfeedetermination)escalateatthisrate.
Thesolidresiduesaredewateredto50%moisturecontentandsoldfor$5/Mg
($5.50/ton)ascompostorsoilamendment.Otherincomeincludestippingfeerevenue
forthematerialreceivedforprocessingandelectricitysales.Thevalueforeachinthe
basecasedependsontheScenario(1or2)andarediscussedbelow(basecaseeconomic
modelingassumptionsandresultsareshowninTable3.83below).
Scenario 1-Generic MSW AD: COE Determination Given a Tipping Fee
ForalevelizedCOEdeterminationforthegenericMSWADsystem,asettippingfeefor
thematerialprocessedisassumed.Thetippingfeeusedis$26/tonofmaterial,whichis
basedonthepublishedfeeforselfhaulmaterialtotheKieferlandfill.
132
Thefulltipping
feeiscreditedtotheprojectandanypreparationorprocessingcostsareassumedtobe
accountedforintheplantO&Mcharge.
TheresultinglevelizedCOEforScenario1is10.1cents/kWhand8.4cents/kWh(current
dollarandconstantdollarvaluesrespectively).SeetheScenario1ResultsinTable3.83.
Scenario 2-Generic MSW AD: Determination of Required Tipping Fee Given an
Electricity Sales Price
ForadeterminationofthelevelizedtippingfeerequiredforthegenericMSWAD
system,anelectricitysalespriceof5.3cents/kWh
133
wasassumed(andallowedto
escalateat2.1%peryear).
TherequiredtippingfeeforScenario2is$34.7/tand$29.0/t(currentdollarandconstant
dollarvaluesrespectively).SeetheScenario2ResultsinTable3.83.

132.http://www.sacgreenteam.com/facilities/kieferrates.htm
133.Thispriceapproximatestheeffectivepriceofelectricityreceivedbyprojectsparticipatingin
theCaliforniaDairyPowerProductionProgramthatchosesetenergypriceratherthancapital
costbuydown.
294

Table 3.8-3. Generic MSW AD system economic assumptions and Scenario 1 & 2 results
Annual Wet Feedstock
Consumption
(ton/y) 100,000 Capital Cost
($/ton
annual
capacity)
275
Methane Production
(m3/kg Wet
Feedstock)
0.056 Total Facility Capital Cost ($) 27,511,578
Fraction of biogas used for heat
or steam
(%) 10
Gross Efficiency--Biogas to
Electricity
(%) 34 Labor Cost ($/y) 550,000
Gross Electrical Capacity (kWe) 1792
Digester Plant Op &
Maintenance Cost
($/y) 686,139
Fraction of Electricity consumed
on site
(%) 30
Insurance/Property
Tax/utilities/professional
($/y) 137,558
Net Electrical Capacity (kWe) 1254 Engine Operating Expenses ($/y) 216,605
Capacity Factor (%) 100 Contingency (@5%) 79,515
Annual Gross Electricity
Generation
(kWh) 15,696,049 Total O&M Expenses ($/y) 1,669,817
Net Electricity available for sale
(kWh/yr)
(kWh/yr) 10,987,234 Total O&M Expenses
($/ton
input)
16.7
Annual Sludge production
(t/y -50%
moisture)
43,203
Liquid water, waste or re-use in
process
(t/y) 43,818 Debt ratio (%) 85
Equity ratio (%) 15
General Inflation (%/y) 2.1 Interest Rate on Debt (%/y) 6
Escalation for Production Tax
Credit
(%/y) 2.1 Economic Life (y) 20
Escalation--Sludge sales (%/y) 2.1 Cost of equity (%/y) 15
Escalation--Other (%/y) 2.1 Cost of Money (%/y) 7.35
Total Equity Cost ($) 4,126,737
Federal Tax Rate (%) 34 Total Debt Cost ($) 23,384,841
State Tax Rate (%) 9.6 Capital Recovery Factor (Equity) 0.1598
Production Tax Credit ($/kWh) 0.009 Capital Recovery Factor (Debt) 0.0872
Combined Tax Rate (%) 40.34 Annual Equity Recovery ($/y) 659,294
Annual Debt Payment ($/y) 2,038,797
Sales price for Compostable
Stream
($/t) 5 Debt Reserve ($) 0
Annual Income from Compost
Sales
($/y) 238,166
Debt Payment and Equity
Recovery
($/y) 2,698,091
Tipping fee ($/t) TBD
Debt Payment and Equity
Recovery
($/t) 27
Annual Income from Tipping fee ($/y) TBD
Energy Price ($/kWh) TBD
Electricity sales ($/y) TBD 10 year MACRS used
If Tip Fee is set at: ($/t) 26
(Current
$/kWh)
0.101
Then Tip Fee Income
Generated is:
($/y) 2,600,000
(Constant
$/kWh)
0.084
If Electricity Sales Price is set
at:
($/kWh) 0.053
(Current
$/ton)
34.70
Then Energy Income
Generated is:
($/y) 582,323
(Constant
$/ton)
29.00
Required Electricity Sales
Price (Levelized COE)
Scenario 1 Results
Scenario 2 Results
Capital and Operating Costs
Taxes
Financing
Performance Assumptions
Income
Required Levelized Tip Fee

295

Comparison with Other Studies
R.W.Beckestimatedrequiredtipfeesforrevenueneutraloperationofa70,000t/year
MSWADfacilitytobeonlyabout$16/ton(noprofitortaximplicationsintheanalysis).
Theanalysisassumedcapitalcostsofabout$200/toncapacity,$3/inputtoninlabor,and
$7.20/inputtonforotherO&Mexpenses.RevenueintheR.W.Beckanalysisincluded
$241,000forelectricitysales($0.031/kWhor$3.50/inputton)and$485,000forsludgeor
digestatesales(32,350tonsat$15/ton).Thesludgesalesamountto$7/tonofinputto
digester.R.W.Beckuseda20yeareconomiclife,3%annualinflation,anda5%discount
rate(orinterestrateondebt)intheiranalysis.R.W.Beckassumedmethaneproduction
ofapproximately1,350ft
3
/inputton(orabout2,200ft
3
/inputtonofbiogas).Grossand
netelectricitygenerationwas9,000and7,770MWh/year,respectively.Thisimpliesa
facilityparasiticloadofonly14%whichislowerthanreportedbyothers(SeeTable3.8
4).
ThelowercapitalandO&Mcostsandthehighervalueassumedfortheresidueanda
possiblyinflatednetelectricityvaluelikelyaccountforthelowrequiredtippingfee
determinedbyR.W.Beck(Table3.84).
TheRISInternationalreporttoSMUDinvestigatedseveraloptionsthatessentiallydiffer
incapitalcosts(highforgreenfieldsiteormoderateforcolocationwithexistingwaste
handlingfacility),andwhetherthedigestateischargedafeefordisposal(inthecaseof
notcolocatedwithandowningacompostfacility)orzerofee/revenue(inthecaseofco
locationwithcompostfacilityandcompostprocessingequalsitsrevenue).
Option1intheRISestimatesamuchhigherrequiredtippingfee($68/ton)foreconomic
viabilityofADofprimarilygreenwastefeedstock(at100,000tonsperyear)thanthe
genericcaseanalyzedinthisreport.Itappearstheanalysisisbeforetaxand
depreciationconsequencesareconsideredanddoesnotincludeownerprofit.TheRIS
analysisassumescapitalcostis$310/toncapacityanduses$24.60/tonforO&Mofwhich
$8.60/tonislaborcost.Electricityissoldfor$0.065/kWhandsludgeordigestateis
disposedatacostof$25/ton.Theeconomiclifeis15yearsusing6.4%interestoncapital
anda2%rateofinflation.
TheRISOption7isananalysisofanADsystemcofedbygreenwasteandfoodwaste
andcollocatedwithanexistingwastehandlingfacilitywhichallowscapitalandsome
operatingcoststobeshared.Inaddition,Option7doesnotchargedigestatedisposal
feestotheprojectbecausecompostingoccursonsiteasanaftertreatment.Theratioof
greentofoodwastewasnotgivenbutgasproductionperinputmasswasincreasedby
22%.TheOption7capitalcostis$275/toncapacity(amortizedamountisequivalentto
$29/toninput).Theoperatingcostsare$19/ton(ofwhich$6.15/tonislabor).The
requiredtippingfee(beforetaxconsequencesandownerprofit)is$41whichassumes
electricityissoldat$0.065/kWh.RISOption7ismoreinlinewiththegenericMSW
ADanalysisinthisreportwhichhadabeforetaxandprofitrequiredtipfeeof$35/ton.
296

ThetwomostsignificantassumptiondifferencesintheRISanalysiscomparedtothat
doneinthisreportaretheO&Mcostsandthevaluefortreateddigestate(seeTable3.8
4).TotalO&MintheRISanalysisis47%greaterthanthatusedinthisreport($24.60/ton
comparedto$16.70/ton).TheRISanalysisassumesthedigestateandresidualmaterial
incursadisposalfeewhilethisreportandtheR.W.Beckanalysisassumethematerial
hasvalueandgeneratesastreamofincome.
O&Miscomposedoflaborcostsandequipmentmaintenanceandconsumablescosts.
ThelaborcostsassumedbyRIStendtobehigh(Option1isabout55%/tongreaterthan
thoseusedinthisreport:$8.60/toncomparedto$5.50/ton).TheRISanalysisassumes
aroundtheclockstaffingforsevendaysperweekwhichmaynotbenecessary.Waste
pickupanddeliveriesusuallyoccurduringdaytimehoursonly.Feedstockpreparation
anddigesterloadingcanalsobedoneusuallyinasingleshiftperday.Thedigesterand
engineoperationcanbeautomated(alarmconditionscannotifyoncallstaffincaseof
emergencies).FacilitystaffingisalsoaddressedaboveinthegeneralO&Msection.
Theequipment,consumables,propertytax,andinsuranceportionoftheannualO&M
chargeis5.2%oftotalcapitalintheRISanalysiswhile4.2%isusedinthisreport.This
differenceonapercentbasisismagnifiedsomewhatbecauseofthehighercapitalcost
assumedbyRIS(TheR.W.Beckanalysisuses3.6%ofcapitalfornonlaborO&M,which,
whencombinedwiththemuchlowercapitalcost,resultsinarelativelysmallO&M
charge).
TheRISanalysis(Option1)assumedtheADfacilitywaslocatedandownedseparately
fromacompostorlandfilloperation.Therefore,theresidue/digestateismodeledasa
wasteproductthatreenterstheMSW/greenwastemarketandissubjecttoa$25/ton
tipping/hauling/processingcharge.Theanalysisassumed65%(massbasis)oftheinput
feedstockwindsupaseitherdigestateoruntreatedresidue.Effectively,thedisposal
costsareequivalenttoanaddedfeeof$16.25/tonofinputmaterial(65%multipliedby
$25/residueton).TheRSIOption7ismoreviablebecauseitiscollocatedwithawaste
andcompostfacilitywhichreducescapitalandlaborcosts.Thebiggestcontributionto
theviabilityofOption7(comparedtoOption1)comesfromtheabilitytodirectlyuse
(ordispose)thedigestateinthecollocatedcompost(orlandfill)facilitywithnofee
attached.Thisdirectlyreducestheprojectrequiredtipfeefortheprojectbymorethan
$16/ton.
ThisreportassumedtheADfacilityislocatedwithacompostfacilityownedand
operatedbythesameorganization.Therefore,thedigestate/residuefractionhadavalue
of$5/ton(representingtheprofitafterundergoingaerobicstabilization).Theincome
generatedfromsaleofcompostedresidueinthisanalysisamountstoabout$2.40/tonof
inputfeedstock.
297

Table 3.8-4. Comparison of performance and economic parameters used in three
economic analyses of MSW AD systems
Option 1-
Mod. Capital cost,
Residue Disposal fee
Option 7-
Ave. Capital cost,
No Disposal fee
Capacity (tons per year) 100,000 69,000 100,000 100,000
Capital Cost ($/ton-capacity) 275 200 310 275
Analysis Period (years) 20 20 15 15
Effective Interest Rate or Cost of
Money
(%) 7.35 5.00 6.40 6.40
Annual Capital and Equity
Payments
($ 000) 2,698 1,029 3,272 2,925
Capital and Equity Payment per
input ton
($/ton) 26.98 14.91 32.72 29.25
Labor ($/ton) 5.50 3.00 8.60 6.15
Non - Labor O&M ($/ton) 11.20 7.20 16.00 12.90
Total O&M ($/ton) 16.70 10.20 24.60 19.05
Digestate or Residue (tons) 52,504 32,364 65,000 70,000
Ratio of Digestate:Input ( - ) 0.53 0.47 0.65 0.70
Digestate sales or disposal
(negative)
($/ton) 4.54 15.00 (25.00) 0
Digestate Revenue (Disposal
Cost) per ton input
($/ton) 2.38 7.04 (16.25) 0
Methane Production (ft^3/ton) 1,793 1,347 1,595 1,950
Gross Electricity Generation (MWh) 15,696 9,038 13,923 17,017
Parasitic Load (%) 30 14 38 31
Net Electricity for Sale (MWh) 10,987 7,767 8,588 11,700
Net Electricity per ton input (kWh/ton) 110 113 86 117
Electricity Price ($/kWh) 0.053 0.031 0.065 0.065
Electricity Income ($/ton) 5.82 3.49 5.58 7.61
Pre-Tax Required Tip Fee ($/ton) 35 15 68 41
After Tax Required Tip Fee (constant $/ton) 29 ? ? ?
Parameter
RIS Intl. Report to SMUD
RWBeck
This Report
(Generic system)
Units

Sensitivity Analysis
SensitivityanalysesoftheScenario1and2resultsweredonebyvaryingasingleinput
parameterwhilekeepingallotherinputsatthebasecasevalue.Theseresultsare
discussedanddisplayedinasetofgraphswhichfollow.
Figure3.83displaysrequiredtipfeeversuselectricitysalespriceforfourdifferent
facilitycapitalcosts($250,$275,$300,and$350/tofannualcapacity).Thesecurveswere
generatedfromtheeconomicmodelusingbasecaseparametersdiscussedaboveand
showninTable3.83(basecasecapitalcostis$275/tannualcapacity).
298

10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Electricity Price ($/kWh)
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

T
i
p

F
e
e

(
$
/
t
o
n
)
250 275 300 350
Capital Cost ($/ton capacity)
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
350 $/t capital cost
250 $/t capital cost

Figure 3.8-3. Required tip fee vs. electricity sales price for different capital costs of MSW
AD systems

Scenario1SensitivityAnalysisDiscussion
Forconvenience,alistofthegraphsdisplayingScenario1costofenergy(COE)
sensitivityresultsisprovided:
Figure Description
3.8-4 Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis (MSW AD Scenario 1)
3.8-5 Current $ COE sensitivity analysis (MSW AD Scenario 1)
3.8-6 COE versus Tipping Fee (MSW AD Scenario 1)
3.8-7 Current $ COE versus capital cost (MSW AD Scenario 1)
3.8-8 COE versus compost sales price (MSW AD Scenario 1)
3.8-9 COE and energy capacity vs. biogas production (MSW Scenario 1)
3.8-10 COE versus electric parasitic load (MSW AD Scenario 1)

Figure
(in appendix)
Description
3.8-11 COE versus equity ratio (MSW AD Scenario 1)
3.8-12 COE versus interest rate on debt (MSW AD Scenario 1)
3.8-13 COE versus O&M costs (MSW AD Scenario 1)

TheCOEcalculationisexceptionallysensitivetonettippingfee.The$26/tontippingfee
usedinthecalculationisthepublishedvalueforselfhaulratestothepublic.
Commercialwastehaulershavelikelynegotiatedlowertippingfees.Alowertippingfee
299

orafeedstockprocessingcostwillsignificantlyimpacttheCOE.Forexample,witha
$20/ttippingfee(insteadofthe$26/tusedinthebasecase),theCOEincreasesto13.8
cents/kWh(constantdollar).Thisisanincreaseofmorethan60%inCOEfora23%
decreaseintippingfee.Notethatatatippingfeeofapproximately$35.50/t,theCOEis
zero(Figure3.84).
COEisalsoquitesensitivetosmallrelativechangesincapitalcost.A10%changein
capitalcostwillimpactCOEby32%.
134
Sensitivityofrequiredrevenuetochangesin
O&Mcostislowerthanfortippingfeeandcapitalcosts,yetstillsignificant.For
example,a10%changeinO&MaffectsCOEbyabout18%.AreductioninO&Mcosts
fromthe$16.70/tbasecasetoabout$7/twillreduceenergyrevenuerequirementsto
zero(meaningtippingfeeandcompostsalesaresufficienttomeetfinancialobligations).
TheCOEismuchlesssensitivetochangesintheotherparametersusedinthemodel.
Refertothefiguresbelow.

134.ChangesinCapitalCostalsoaffecttheO&Mchargeinthemodel.TheO&Mchargeis
composedoftwocomponentsthatscalewithcapitalcost(about3%ofdigesterplantcapital)and
electricalgeneration.O&Mcostsalsoincludecomponentsthatdonotvaryinthesensitivity
analysis(e.g.,wages,insurance,utilities,andpropertytaxes).Thelargestsinglecomponentof
O&MisthedigesterplantO&M,whichaccountsformorethan40%ofBaseCaseO&M.
300

-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 0.5 1 1.5
C
O
E

(
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)
2
Tipping Fee Biogas/ton input Elect. Parasitic
Capital Cost O&M Compost Sales
Equity Ratio Labor Cost
Figure 3.8-4. Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis (MSW AD Scenario 1)
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
C
O
E

(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)
Tipping Fee Biogas/ton input Elect. Parasitic
Figure 3.8-5. Current $ COE sensitivity analysis (MSW AD Scenario 1)
301

-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 10 20 30 40 5
Tipping Fee ($/short ton)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
0
Base Case is $26/t
Figure 3.8-6. COE versus Tipping Fee (MSW AD Scenario 1)
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Capital Cost ($/ton-annual capacity)
C
O
E

(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

$
)
$13/ton $26/ton $39/ton
Tipping Fee:
Figure 3.8-7. Current $ COE versus capital cost (MSW AD Scenario 1)
302

0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 3 6 9 12 15
Compost Sales Price ($/short ton)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
Figure 3.8-8. COE versus compost sales price (MSW AD Scenario 1)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 30 60 90 120
Biogas Production (m^3/Mg Feedstock)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
k
W
)
Current $ Constant $ Net Capacity
Figure 3.8-9. COE and energy capacity vs. biogas production (MSW AD Scenario 1)
303

0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 15 30 45 60 75
Internal Electricity Consumption (% of gross generation)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
90

Figure 3.8-10. COE versus electric parasitic load (MSW AD scenario 1)

Scenario2SensitivityAnalysisDiscussion
AswithScenario1,asensitivityanalysisofrequiredrevenuewasdonebyvaryinga
singleinputparameterwhilekeepingallotherinputsatthebasecasevalue.Theresults
arediscussedanddisplayedinasetofgraphswhichfollow.Forconvenience,alistof
thegraphsisprovided:
Figure Description
3.8-14 Constant $ Required Tip Fee sensitivity analysis (MSW AD scenario 2)
3.8-15 Current $ Required Tip Fee sensitivity analysis (MSW AD scenario 2)
3.8-16 Required Tip Fee vs. Electricity Price (MSW AD scenario 2)
3.8-17 Required Tip Fee vs. Capital Cost (MSW AD scenario 2)
3.8-18 Required Tip Fee vs. Compost Sales Price (MSW AD scenario 2)
3.8-19 Required Tip Fee & electrical capacity vs. biogas production (MSW AD scenario 2)
Figure
(in Appendix)
Description
3.8-20 Required Tip Fee vs. Electrical Parasitic Load (MSW AD scenario 2)
3.8-21 Required Tip Fee vs. Equity Ratio (MSW AD scenario 2)
3.8-22 Required Tip Fee vs. Debt Interest Rate (MSW AD scenario 2)
3.8-23 Required Tip Fee vs. O&M Costs (MSW AD scenario 2)

Therequiredtippingfee(givenasetelectricitypriceof5.3cents/kWh)ismostsensitive
torelativechangesincapitalcost.Thisisnotsurprisingsincecapitalrepaymentisthe
largestexpense(thedebtandequityYear1paymentamountto$27.00/tandenergyand
304

compostsalesamounttoonly$8.20/tinthefirstyear).Arelativechangeincapitalcosts
affectsrequiredtippingfeebythesamerelativeamount(i.e.,a1%changeincapital
costschangesrequiredtippingfeeby1%aswell).
ThesecondmostsignificantfactoraffectingrequiredrevenueareO&Mcostswhich
amountto$16.70/tforthefirstyear(seeFigures3.814and3.815).Arelativechangein
O&Mcostsof1%affectsrequiredtippingfeebyabout0.6%.
Therequiredtippingfeeisfairlyinsensitivetothesalespriceofelectricity.Forexample,
doublingthesalespriceofelectricityto10.6cents/kWhreducesrequiredtippingfeeby
about20%(to$23.30/tfromthebasecase$29.00/t).
Tippingfeeisevenlesssensitivetorelativechangesintheothervariablesinvestigated
(equityratio,biogasproduction,compostsalesprice,anddebtinterestrate)(seefigures
3.814and3.815).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

T
i
p
p
i
n
g

F
e
e

(
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

$
/
t
o
n
)
Electricity Price Biogas/ton input Elect. Parasitic
Equity Ratio Labor Cost

Figure 3.8-11. Constant $ required tipping fee sensitivity analysis (MSW AD Scenario 2)
305

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

T
i
p
p
i
n
g

F
e
e

(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

$
/
t
o
n
)
Electricity Price Biogas/ton input Elect. Parasitic
Figure 3.8-12. Current $ required tipping fee sensitivity analysis (MSW AD Scenario 2)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Electricity Sales Price ($/kWh)
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

T
i
p
p
i
n
g

F
e
e

(
$
/
t
o
n
)
Figure 3.8-13. Required tipping fee vs. electricity price (MSW AD Scenario 2)
306

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

T
i
p
p
i
n
g

F
e
e

(
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

$
/

t
o
n
)
8 16 32
O&M ($/ton):
Figure 3.8-14. Required tipping fee vs. capital cost (MSW AD Scenario 2)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 3 6 9 12 15
Compost Sales Price ($/short ton)
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

T
i
p
p
i
n
g

F
e
e

(
$
/
t
o
n
)
Figure 3.8-15. Required tipping fee vs. compost sales price (MSW AD Scenario 2)
307

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 30 60 90 120
Biogas Production (m^3/Mg Feedstock)
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

T
i
p
p
i
n
g

F
e
e

(
$
/
t
o
n
)
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
k
W
)
Current $ Constant $ Net Capacity

Figure 3.8-16. Required tipping fee & electrical capacity vs. biogas production (MSW AD
Scenario 2)
3.8.3 Anaerobic Phased Solids (APS) Digester
Assumptions
ApreliminaryeconomicanalysisandriskassessmentfortheproposedCSUChannel
IslandsAPSdigesterfacilitywasevaluatedbyHMHEnergyResources,Inc.(Larkspur,
California)(McOuatandGill2004).Theanalysisconcludedtheprojecthasarateof
returnabovetheminimumrequiredbuttheeconomicsareverysensitivetochangesin
theassumptions(forexample,tippingfee,capitalcosts,gasproduction).The
recommendationbyHMHwasthatCSUChannelIslandsshouldnotpursuetheproject
untilsatisfiedwiththeperformanceofthe3ton/daypilotplantnearingcompletionat
theUCDcampus.
BecausetheChannelIslandsfacilitywouldsellbiogastoanotherfacility,economicsof
electricitygenerationwerenotincludedintheHMHreview.Forthemostpart,the
analysisinthisreportusesthesameeconomicandoperationalassumptionsusedinthe
HMHanalysis,butinstead,thebiogasisusedforfuelinreciprocatingengine
generators.
AdjustmentsandadditionstotheeconomicassumptionsfoundintheHMHreviewin
ordertocomputeCOEaregivenhere:
Thecapitalandoperatingcostofgenerationequipmentwasaddedtotheother
costsdetailedintheHMHreview.
308

Salariesandwageswerereducedby20%.
Inflationandgeneralescalationchangedfrom3%to2.1%.
A20eartechnicalandeconomiclifeisused(insteadof15).
Adebtratioof85%(6%interestrateondebtand15%RORonequity).
Nowatersalesintheproject.
Theseadjustments/additionsareapplicabletoamoregeneralsituationratherthanthe
specificconditionsfoundatCSUChannelIslands.
Usingthesamemethaneproductionpermassoffeedstock(asintheHMHanalysis),this
facilityshouldbeabletogenerateabout1,560kW(gross,capacityfactor=100%).The
costofgenerationequipmentaddedtothe$15.25milliondigesterplantis$1.66million
(basedonarecentquoteof$1.060/kWwith$0.015/kWhO&MbyCaterpillarEngine
Company)(Zughbi2005).
Itwasassumedthat80%ofthegrossgenerationisavailableforsaleoruseoutsideofthe
digesterfacility(i.e.,20%parasiticload).
Twoscenarioswereinvestigated:(1)thecompanyisprofitablewithtaxableincomefrom
otherenterpriseswhichallowthenegativetaxesgeneratedinearlyyearsby
depreciationanda$0.009/kWhPTCforfiveyearstobecreditedtotheproject;and(2)
thecompanyissmall,withperhapsthisprojectbeingitsonlyventure,andcannotutilize
deductionsandcreditsoncetaxliabilityreacheszeroforanygivenyear.
Results
Tables3.85and3.86showtheassumptionsandoperationalparametersforScenarios1
and2,respectively.ForScenario1,thelevelizedCOEis$0.080/kWh(constantdollars).
Scenario2hasalevelizedCOEof$0.102/kWh(constantdollars).Theabilitytomakefull
useoftaxcreditsandcapitaldepreciation(typicallyforlargerfirms),reduceselectricity
costby$0.02/kWh.However,theCOEforbothscenariosareprobablytoohighto
competeontheopenmarket,butmayallowaprojecttobeeconomicalifthepoweris
usedonsitetooffsethighretailelectricity.
Basecasecashflowsappearintheappendix.
Sensitivity
SensitivityanalysesweredoneandtheresultsarepresentedinFigures3.824through
3.827forScenario1andFigures3.828through3.831forScenario2.
AswithotherMSWADsystems,theCOEisextremelysensitivetochangesintipping
fee.A10%changeintippingfeeinverselychangestheCOEbymorethan20%.Inother
words,anincreaseintippingfeefromthebasecase$27/tonto$30/tonwilldecreasethe
Scenario1COEfrom$0.08to0.062/kWh.Similarly,areductionintippingfeefrom$27
to24/tincreasesCOEfrom$0.08to0.098/kWh.
309

TheCOEisalsoquitesensitivetothecapitalcosts.A10%reductionincapitalcostswill
reduceCOEbymorethan20%.SensitivityofCOEtoO&Mcostsisabout1.5:1,ora10%
moveinO&McostschangesCOEbyabout15%.COEislesssensitivetochangesinsales
ofcompostabledigestatematerial.
ThehighdegreeofCOEsensitivitytotippingfee,capitalcosts,andO&Mcostsisdueto
therelativelysmallenergyproduction(and,therefore,electricityrevenue)fromAD
systems.Therevenuestreamsfromtippingfeeandcompostsalesareabouttwicethatof
theelectricity.Together,thedebtpayment,equityrecovery,andexpensesamountto3.3
timestherevenuestreamfromenergy.Changesinanyofthemajorexpenseornon
energyrevenuestreamshaveamagnifiedeffectonCOE.
310

Table 3.8-5. APS digester Scenario 1 base case, (full use of tax reductions)
Capital Cost and Performance Assumptions Income
Annual Wet Feedstock Consumption (Mg/y) 69,160 Electricity Capacity Payment ($/kW-y) 0
Annual Wet Feedstock Consumption (ton/y) 76,251 Electricity Sales Price ($/kWh) Model Output
Digester Plant Cost ($) 15,250,276 Electricity sales (or offset) $/y Model Output
Engine Generator Cost ($) 1,658,002 Interest Rate on Debt Reserve, if any (%/y) 2.0
Total Facility Capital Cost ($) 16,908,278 Sales price for Compostable Material ($/Mg) 13.20
Complete Cost ($/ton annual capacity) 222
Net Tipping Fee ($/t)
[after $9/ton processing cost] 18
Gross Electrical Capacity (kWe) 1564 Annual Capacity Payment ($/y) 0
Net Electrical Capacity (kWe) 1251 Net Water sales price ($/100 gallons) 0
Parasitic Load (kWe) 313 Annual Debt Reserve Interest ($/y) 0
Capacity Factor (%) 100 Annual Income from Compost Sales 330,274
Methane Production (m3/kg Wet Feedstock) 0.0577 Annual Income from Tipping fee ($/y) 1,372,169
Annual Methane Production (m
3
/y) 3,990,532 Income from Water sales ($/y) 0
Fraction of biogas used for heat or steam (%) 0 Non-Energy Total Income ($/y) 1,702,458
Gross Efficiency--Biogas to Electricity (%) 34 Non-Energy Total Income ($/t wet feedstock) 22.3
Annual Gross Electricity Generation (kWh) 13,701,979 Financing
Net Electricity available for sale (kWh/yr) 10,961,583 Debt ratio (%) 85.00
Annual Sludge production (t/y -50% moisture) 32,420 Equity ratio (%) 15.00
Liquid water, waste or re-use in process (t/y) 33,963 Interest Rate on Debt (%/y) 6.00
Economic Life (y) 20
Expenses Cost of equity (%/y) 15.00
Labor Cost ($/y) 497,921 Cost of Money (%/y) 7.35
Digester Plant Op & Maintenance Cost ($/y) 457,508 Total Equity Cost ($) 2,536,242
Insurance/Property Tax/utilities/professional ($/y) 84,541 Total Debt Cost ($) 14,372,036
Engine Operating Expenses ($/y) 205,530 Capital Recovery Factor (Equity) 0.1598
Contingency 62,275 Capital Recovery Factor (Debt) 0.0872
Total Expenses ($/y) 1,307,776 Annual Equity Recovery ($/y) 405,194
Total Expenses ($/ton input) 17.2 Annual Debt Payment ($/y) 1,253,020
Debt Reserve ($) 0
Escalation/Inflation Debt Payment and Equity Recovery ($/y) 1,658,213
General Inflation (%/y) 2.10 Debt Payment and Equity Recovery ($/t) 21.7
Escalation for Production Tax Credit (%/y) 2.10 Depreciation Schedule
Escalation--Sludge sales (%/y) 2.10 10 year MACRS used
Escalation--Other (%/y) 2.10 Levelized Required Energy Revenue
Level Annual Revenue Required (current $) 1,043,733
Taxes Level Annual Revenue Required (constant $) 874,065
Federal Tax Rate (%) 34.00
State Tax Rate (%) 9.60 Revenue Requirement (COE)
Production Tax Credit ($/kWh) 0.009 (Current $/kWh) 0.095
Combined Tax Rate (%) 40.34 (Constant $/kWh) 0.080

311

-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 0.5 1 1.5
C
O
E

(
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)
2
Tipping Fee Capital Cost Compost Sales O&M Costs
Figure 3.8-17. Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis (APS, Scenario 1)
312

-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
C
O
E

(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)
Figure 3.8-18. Current $ COE sensitivity analysis (APS, Scenario 1)
313

-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 10 20 30 40
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
50
Figure 3.8-19. COE versus tipping fee (MSW AD, Scenario 1)
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
100 150 200 250 300 350
C
O
E

(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

$
)
$4.5/ton $18/ton $31.5/ton
Net Tipping Fee:
Figure 3.8-20. Current $ COE versus capital cost (MSW AD, Scenario 1)
314

Table 3.8-6. APS digester Scenario 2 base case, (no negative taxes)
Capital Cost and Performance Assumptions Income
Annual Wet Feedstock Consumption (Mg/y) 69,160 Electricity Capacity Payment ($/kW-y) 0
Annual Wet Feedstock Consumption (ton/y) 76,251 Electricity Sales Price ($/kWh) Model Output
Digester Plant Cost ($) 15,250,276 Electricity sales (or offset) $/y Model Output
Engine Generator Cost ($) 1,658,002 Interest Rate on Debt Reserve, if any (%/y) 2.0
Total Facility Capital Cost ($) 16,908,278 Sales price for Compostable Material ($/Mg) 13.20
Complete Cost ($/ton annual capacity) 222
Net Tipping Fee ($/t)
[after $9/ton processing cost 18
Gross Electrical Capacity (kWe) 1564 Annual Capacity Payment ($/y) 0
Net Electrical Capacity (kWe) 1251 Net Water sales price ($/100 gallons) 0
Parasitic Load (kWe) 313 Annual Debt Reserve Interest ($/y) 0
Capacity Factor (%) 100 Annual Income from Compost Sales 330,274
Methane Production (m3/kg Wet Feedstock) 0.0577 Annual Income from Tipping fee ($/y) 1,372,169
Annual Methane Production (m
3
/y) 3,990,532 Income from Water sales ($/y) 0
Fraction of biogas used for heat or steam (%) 0 Non-Energy Total Income ($/y) 1,702,458
Gross Efficiency--Biogas to Electricity (%) 34 Non-Energy Total Income ($/t wet feedstock) 22.3
Annual Gross Electricity Generation (kWh) 13,701,979 Financing
Net Electricity available for sale (kWh/yr) 10,961,583 Debt ratio (%) 85.00
Annual Sludge production (t/y -50% moisture) 32,420 Equity ratio (%) 15.00
Liquid water, waste or re-use in process (t/y) 33,963 Interest Rate on Debt (%/y) 6.00
Economic Life (y) 20
Expenses Cost of equity (%/y) 15.00
Labor Cost ($/y) 497,921 Cost of Money (%/y) 7.35
Digester Plant Op & Maintenance Cost ($/y) 457,508 Total Equity Cost ($) 2,536,242
Insurance/Property Tax/utilities/professional ($/y) 84,541 Total Debt Cost ($) 14,372,036
Engine Operating Expenses ($/y) 205,530 Capital Recovery Factor (Equity) 0.1598
Contingency 62,275 Capital Recovery Factor (Debt) 0.0872
Total Expenses ($/y) 1,307,776 Annual Equity Recovery ($/y) 405,194
Total Expenses ($/ton input) 17.2 Annual Debt Payment ($/y) 1,253,020
Debt Reserve ($) 0
Escalation/Inflation Debt Payment and Equity Recovery ($/y) 1,658,213
General Inflation (%/y) 2.10 Debt Payment and Equity Recovery ($/t) 21.7
Escalation for Production Tax Credit (%/y) 2.10 Depreciation Schedule
Escalation--Sludge sales (%/y) 2.10 20 year Straight-Line used
Escalation--Other (%/y) 2.10 Levelized Required Energy Revenue
Level Annual Revenue Required (current $) 1,324,195
Taxes Level Annual Revenue Required (constant $) 1,108,936
Federal Tax Rate (%) 34.00
State Tax Rate (%) 9.60 Revenue Requirement (COE)
Production Tax Credit ($/kWh) 0.009 (Current $/kWh) 0.121
Combined Tax Rate (%) 40.34 (Constant $/kWh) 0.101

315

-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 0.5 1 1.5
C
O
E

(
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)
2
Figure 3.8-21. Constant $ COE sensitivity analysis (APS, Scenario 2)
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 0.5 1 1.5
C
O
E

(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)
2

316

Figure 3.8-22. Current $ COE sensitivity analysis (APS, Scenario 2)
317

0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 10 20 30 40
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
50

Figure 3.8-23. COE versus tipping fee (MSW AD, Scenario 2)
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
100 150 200 250 300 350
C
O
E

(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

$
)
$4.5/ton $18/ton $31.5/ton
Net Tipping Fee:

Figure 3.8-24. Current $ COE versus capital cost (MSW AD, Scenario 2)
318

3.9. Dairy Manure Power Systems
Background
Recentlegislation(SB5X)appropriatedmoniesforassistingdairiesinCaliforniainthe
installationofsystemstocreatepowerfromdairywastes.Thisledtotheestablishment
oftheDairyPowerProductionProgrambytheCaliforniaEnergyCommissioninorder
toencouragethedevelopmentofbiologicallybasedanaerobicdigestionandgasification
(biogas)electricitygenerationprojectsintheState.Objectivesincludedeveloping
commerciallyprovenbiogaselectricitysystemstohelpCaliforniadairiesoffsetthe
purchaseofelectricity,andprovidingenvironmentalbenefitsthroughreductionofair
andgroundwaterpollutantsassociatedwithstorageandtreatmentoflivestockwastes.
Approximately$10millionwasavailableincludingprogramadministrationcosts.
WesternUnitedResourceDevelopment,Inc.(WURD)wasselectedbytheEnergy
Commissiontomanagetheprogram.Theprogramcanprovidetwotypesofassistance
forqualifyingdairybiogasprojects:(1)buydowngrantsthatcoverapercentageofthe
capitalcostsoftheproposedbiogassystem;or(2)incentivepaymentsforgenerated
electricity.Ingeneral,buydowngrantscoveramaximumofupto50%ofthecapital
costsofthebiogassystembasedonestimatedpowerproduction,nottoexceed
$2,000/kWinstalled,whicheverisless.Electricitygenerationincentivepaymentsare
basedon5.7cents/kWhofelectricitygeneratedbythedairybiogassystempaidoutover
amaximumoffiveyears.Thetotalcumulativepaymentsundertheincentivepayment
routeareintended(afterfiveyears)toequaltheamountoffundingthatwouldbe
providedforanequivalentlysizeddigestertoelectricitysystemunderthebuydown
approach.
3.9.1 Determining Costs
Actualcostsfortheseprojectsarenotyetdocumented.Thecostswereestimatedinthe
grantproposalswhichservedasthebasisfordeterminingtheawardamount.Grant
paymentsaresubjecttoinvoicestobesubmittedbytheprojectowners.Complete
invoicesarenotyetavailableforreview.
Theestimatedcosts,generationcapacitiesandotherinformationfortheprojectsinthe
DPPParelistedinTable3.91.Theestimatedcapitalcostsrangeis$1,470to6,000/kW.
Thevalueof$1,470/kWseemslowsinceenginegeneratorsetsalonecostbetween$600
and$1,200(ormore)/kWdependingonsize,heatrecoveryandemissioncontrol
equipment,etc.Thecostonaperheadbasisis$180to$860perlactatingcow.The
costsperkWcapacitydonotcorrelatewiththecostsperanimalbecausenotallofthe
informationisbelievedtobeconsistent.Forexample,someofthedesigncapacitiesare
basedonafutureprojectedherdsizeand/ornotalloftheexistinglactatingcowsatthe
dairyarenecessarilyservedbythedigestersystem.
319

Table 3.9-1. California Dairy Power Program estimated costs and capacities
($/kW) ($/animal)
175 Cov'd lagoon 30 2500 429 $37,500 $75,000
237 Cov'd lagoon 75 1811 573 $67,900 $135,800
1050 Cov'd lagoon 120 3017 345 $181,000 $362,000
1258 Cov'd lagoon 150 1530 182 $114,779 $229,557
1600 Cov'd lagoon 160 4831 483 $320,000 $772,925
6000 Cov'd lagoon 250 6000 250 $500,000 $1,500,000
5081 Cov'd lagoon 300 4298 254 $600,000 $1,289,520
1100 Mixed 100 5820 529 $200,000 $582,000
600 Plug flow 130 3764 815 $244,642 $489,284
770 Plug flow 150 4413 860 $300,000 $661,923
1900 Plug flow 160 3281 276 $262,449 $524,898
1500 Plug flow 260 1469 255 $190,925 $381,850
4700 Plug flow 563 2747 329 $773,175 $1,546,350
7200 PF -2 stage 1000 4565 634 $2,000,000 $4,565,000
Averages 246 3575 444 $413,741 $936,865
Totals $5,792,370 $13,116,107
System Type
Number of
Lactating
Cows
Estimated Costs
Grant
Amount
Estimated
Total Cost
Estimated
Capacity
(kW)

PF = Plug Flow

Morespecificoperationalandbettercostdataareneededinordertodoadetailed
analysis.Recentprogressreportswithupdatedcostandthreemonthsofperformance
dataareavailablefromtheEnergyCommission.
135
Threeofthefacilitiesdiscussedinthe
reportutilizeacoveredlagoonforthedigesterandonefacilityisaplugflowsystem.
Thedairysizesrangefrom250to5,350averagenumbersoflactatingcows.Twofacilities
estimategasproductionisabouttwicewhattheinstalledenginecanconsumeandarein
theprocessoforareconsideringaddingenginegeneratorcapacity.Ifmoreengine
capacityisadded,theestimatedtotalinstalledcostforthesefoursystemsis$3,000to
$4,500/kW.Table3.92displayssomeofthecostandperformanceinformationinthe
recentprogressreports.

135.DPPP90dayevaluationreports(PublicationNos.CEC5002005114,115,116,and117.
Availableat:http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/renewable/finalreports.html
320

Table 3.9-2. Updated cost and performance information from four DPPP dairies
DPPP
Dairy
Ave.
number
lactatin
g cows
HRT
(days)
Capacit
y (kWe)
Ave
Powe
r (kW)
Engine
eff.
Est. Gas
Prodn.
(ft^3/cow/d
)
Est.
Power/co
w
(Kw/cow)
Final
Capital
Cost ($)
Installe
d Cost
($/kW)
Operatin
g Cost
($/kWh)
Installed
Cost -w/
sufficient
capacity
($/kW)
Cotton-
wood
5,351 34 300 255 0.32 41 0.05 2.7 M 9,000 0.027 4,351
Castel.
Bros.
1,608 40 160 129 0.25 88 0.08 800,000 5,000 0.006 2,932
Meadow
-brook
2,133 19 160 106 0.21 32 0.05 800,000 5,000 0.007 5,000
Blakes
Landing
247 34 75 26 0.24 60 0.11 336,362 4,485 0.005 4,485

Thereisreadilyavailableinformationfordairydigestersplannedandoperatinginthe
upperMidwest(Kramer2004).TheBiogasCasebookbyKramercontainsinformation
onanumberofdigesterfacilitiesdesignedforanimalmanureintheGreatLakesregion.
Mostofthefacilitiesaredairies,butswineandpoultrymanuredigestersareincludedas
well.Table3.93containsasummaryofinformationformostoftheoperatingor
planneddairydigestersystemsintheCaseBook.Thecostinformationisreportedbythe
projectdeveloperorestimatedbyKramer.Thecostsforthesefacilitiesrangefromabout
$2,400to$5,900/kWandabout$400to$1,100perlactatingcow.

Table 3.9-3. Estimated costs and capacities for dairy digester systems in the Midwest (Kramer
2004).
($/kW) ($/animal)
840 PF 1 135 2630 423 $355,000
1,000 PF 1 140 3571 500 $500,000
675 PF 1 130 3858 743 $501,500
1,400 PF 1 260 5869 1090 $1,526,000
875 PF 2 135 3852 594 $520,000
1,100 PF 2 200 3500 636 $700,000
3,400 PF 2 700 2429 500 $1,700,000
900 M 750 - - NA
910 M 750 - - NA
1,000 PF 2 200 - - NA
1,000 PF 2 200 - - NA
2,400 M 375 - - NA
3,200 VPF 750 - - NA
3,750 PF 2 600 - - NA
Averages 3673 641 828,929 $
Estimated
Total Cost
No. of
Stages
Estimated
Capacity
(kW)
Estimated Costs
Number of
Lactating
Cows
System
Type

PF = Plug Flow, VPF = Vertical Plug Flow, M = Mixed tank
NA = Not Available
*Figures 3.9-1 through 3.9-4 display some of the information in Tables 3.9-1 and 3.9-2.
321

Figure3.91showsestimatedcosts($/kW)versusdesignorestimatedcapacity.There
doesnotappeartobeaneconomyofscaleifalldigestertypesarelumpedtogether.For
thecoveredlagoondesignsinCalifornia,itappearsthatcostperinstalledkWincreases
withcapacity,contrarytoexpectations.Areviewoftheactualcostdatawhenavailable
isrecommendedbeforeanyconclusionscanbemaderegardingthisapparenttrend.
Plugflowdesigns(PF)intheMidwesthaveasimilarcosttrend,butagain,further
investigationsarewarranted.CaliforniaPFdesigns,andMidwesttwostagePFsdo
seemtotrendtolowercostwithlargercapacity(Figure3.91),butagain,becauseofthe
uncertaintyinthedatathesmallnumberoffacilitiesinthedataset,andtherelatively
narrowrangesofsizesbuilt,noconclusionscanbemadeatthistime.
Figure3.92showscostonaperanimalbasisversusnumberofanimalsatthefacility.
Thedataaresomewhatlessscatteredbutthereseemstobeatrendtowardslowercost
withincreasingherdsize.
Figure3.93displaystotalcapacityversusnumberofanimals.Asexpected,capacity
increaseswithnumberofanimals.Figure3.94showstheperanimalcapacity
(kW/animal)comparedwithherdsize.Thereappearstobeaweaktrendtolower
kW/animalwithlargerherdsizewhichisalsocounterintuitive.Onemightexpectbetter
manurecollectionefficiencywithlargeroperations.TheweaktrendinFigure3.94
mightreflectspecificationofoversizedgeneratingcapacitiesinanticipationof
increasingherdsizesometimeinthefuture.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Estimated Capacity (kW)
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
o
s
t

(
$
/
k
W
)
CA- Covered Lagoon CA- Mixed CA- PF
CA- PF, 2 stage MidWest - PF MidWest - PF, 2 stage
Figure 3.9-1. Estimated installed costs versus capacity for California and Midwest dairy digesters
322

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Number of Lactating Animals
C
o
s
t

(
$
/
a
n
i
m
a
l
)
CA - Covered Lagoon CA - Mixed CA - PF
CA - PF, 2-stage MidWest - PF MidWest - PF, 2-stage

Figure 3.9-2. Dairy digester costs versus number of animals
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
k
W
)
CA - Covered Lagoon CA- Mixed CA - PF

Figure 3.9-3. Estimated total capacity versus number of animals for dairy digesters
323

324

0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
k
W
/
A
n
i
m
a
l
)
CA - Covered Lagoon CA - Mixed CA - PF

Figure 3.9-4. Estimated capacity per animal versus number of animals for dairy digesters

DPPPCOEEstimates
CostofenergyestimatesfortheCaliforniaDPPPprojectswiththehighest($6,000/kW)
andlowest($1,469/kW)capitalcostestimatesweremade.Theassumptionsinclude85%
percentcapacityfactor,25%equityratio,6%loaninterestrate,15%returnonequity,15
yeareconomiclife,anda$0.009/kWhproductiontaxcreditforthefirstfiveyears.
O&Mcostsareassumedtobe$0.02/kWh.Thisincludesenginegeneratorcostsof
$0.015/kWh.Foreachscenario,thetotalO&Mcostsareabout$37,200forthefirstyear.
ThefiveyearMACRSdepreciationschedulewasusedandthenegativetaxesfrom
depreciationanddebtinterestareallowedorcreditedtotheproject.Combinedstateand
federaltaxrateis40.34%.
Thoughtheeconomiclife(andtechnicallife)wasassumedtobe15years,estimateswere
madefortwoloanrepaymentperiods:oneat10yearsandanotherat15years.Also
includedaretheresultsforCOEusingafiveyearloanandinvestmentrecoveryperiod
whichapproximatesrevenuerequiredforafiveyearsimplepayback.
325

Results
Forthelowcapitalcostscenario,theconstantdollarCOErangedfrom3.5cents/kWh
(forthelowcapitalcostamortizedover15years)to10.0cents/kWhforthelargecapital
costcasewitha10yearloanrepaymentperiod.Forthemidlevelcapitalcost
($3600/kWh),COEwasabout6.4cents/kWh(Table3.94).
If40%oftheengineexhaustandcoolingwaterheatarerecovered(annualbasis),then
COEisloweredbyroughly1.5cents/kWh(assumingdisplacementofnaturalgaspriced
at$5.50/MMBtu.
Forrecoveryofallinvestmentandloanamountsafter5years,thelevelizedCOEis
approximately6,13,and21cents/kWhforthelow,midlevel,andhighcapitalcostcases,
respectively(Table3.94).
Figure3.95displaystherelationshipofCOEtocapitalcostusingdifferentloanperiods
andprojectlifetimes.Forprojectswithsimplepaybackperiodoffiveyears(i.e.,five
yearloanandrevenuessufficienttopayloanandoperatingcostsinthefirstfiveyears),
theCOEisquitesensitivetocapitalcost,
326

Table 3.9-4. Economic parameters for California DPPP for highest, lowest, and mid-
priced project
Parameter Units
Capital Cost ($/kW)
Net Estimated Capacity (kW)
Capacity Factor (%)
" (hours)
Energy Production (kWh)
O&M $/kWh
Debt ratio (%)
Equity ratio (%)
Interest Rate on Debt (%)
Cost of Equity (%)
General
inflation/escalation
(%)
Total Cost of Plant ($)
Total Equity Cost ($)
Total Debt Cost ($)
Depreciation
Production Tax Credit ($/kWh)
Combined Tax Rate (%)
Economic Life (y)
Loan Repayment Period (y) 15 10 15 10 15 10
Results
Current $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh) 0.042 0.044 0.075 0.080 0.112 0.120
Constant $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh) 0.035 0.036 0.062 0.066 0.093 0.100
Current $ COE ($/kWh)
Constant $ COE ($/kWh)
375,000
1,125,000
Equity and Loan Repayment - 5 yrs, Analysis period 6 yrs to capture depreciation:
1,500,000
0.068 0.144
0.063 0.133 0.212
0.230
3600
250
85
7446
40.34
15
5 yr MACRS
0.009
91,813
275,438
225,000
675,000
75
25
367,250
2.8
900,000
Inputs and Results
1,861,500
0.02
1469 6000
6
15

Assumes negative taxes are credited to the project.

327

0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Capital Cost ($/kW)
C
O
E

(
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

$
/
k
W
h
)
15 yr loan 10 yr loan
5 yr loan 5 yr loan, 10 yr life
5 yr Economic life
Except where indicated, economic
life is 15 years

Figure 3.9-5. COE vs. capital cost for several loan periods or economic lifetimes for dairy
digester power systems

Discussion
Dairydigesterscanbecostlyandrequiremoderateenergypricesiffinancedsolelyby
electricitysales.Therearelikelycaseswherethesystemsarefinanciallyviableonenergy
revenueifthefacilityisalargeelectricityconsumerandtheonsitegenerationcanoffset
retailelectricityprices.DeliveredpowertodairiesintheSanJoaquinValleyairdistrict
variesbetween8andnearly16cents/kWhdependingonutilityandtimeofyear(see
Table3.95).Heatrecoveryforbeneficialuseisalmostalwaysfinanciallyattractiveif
thereisaconvenientheatclient,suchasnearbyfoodorcheeseprocessingfacility.Co
digestionoffoodorindustrialwastesand/orsillagematerialislikelytobeofadvantage
economicallybecauseofincreasedgasproductionand(inthecaseoffood/industrial
waste)thepossibilityofreceivingadisposalortippingfee.

328

Table 3-9-6. Retail power rates
136

SCE = Southern California Edison
PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric Company
TID = Turlock Irrigation District
MID = Modesto Irrigation District

136.BACTCostEffectivenessforDigester,SanJoaquinValleyAPCD,2004.
329

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
EnvironmentalandenergypoliciesinEuropeandJapanhavecreatedavibrantbiomass
powerindustryandresearchanddevelopmentsector.Thesepoliciescreatehighfeedin
tariffsforrenewableenergywhilesimultaneouslyimposinghighlandfillcoststhat
enableMSWconversiontechnologydevelopmentanddeployment.
InCalifornia,nonewsolidfuelcombustionfacilitieshavebeencommissionedsince1992
andseveralfacilitieshaveshutdownorconvertedtonaturalgasfuelasaresultofpoor
economicconditionsincludingcoincidentlossofassociatedindustriessuchassawmills
supplyingfueltocogenerationfacilities.Recentbiomasspowerrelatedactivityin
Californiahaslargelybeendrivenbyenvironmentalconcernsovermanurefrom
confinedanimaloperationssuchasdairiesandopportunitiesforgreateruseoflandfill
gasandsewagedigestergas.Californiasrenewableportfoliostandard(RPS)now
providesoneoftheprimarymechanismsforlongtermcontractingforrenewable
energy,buthighergenerationcostsassociatedwithmanybiomasstechnologiesin
competitionwithlowercostwindandgeothermalresourceshavesofarrestricted
biomassentryintothismarket.Increasinginterestinrenewabletransportationfuelsis
creatingmarketopportunitiesforbiomass,butpowergenerationwillremainakey
industryforfurtherbiomassdevelopment,includinganintegralpartofbiorefineries.
Californiawhileotherswouldneedsomelevelofsupportbeforeachievingcommercial
status.Mechanismsthatinternalizetheexternalbenefitsofsustainablebiomasspower
systemsarerecommended,suchascarbontrading,carbonemissionstaxes,orrenewable
energycredits.
OneofthehurdlesfacingtransferofthetechnologytotheUnitedStatesisthehighrisk
perceivedbyfinanciersduetothelackofdemonstratedfacilitiesoperatinginCalifornia
andsatisfyingpermitrequirements.Toaddresstheseissuesoftechnologytransfer,
SMUDmaywishtoconsidervariousdevelopmentalternatives,includingthefollowing:
Formapublicprivatepartnershiptodemonstrateadvancedthermochemical
conversion(i.e.,BIGCC)andothertechnologiesinCaliforniausingpilotor
commercialscaledesigns.
Increasethebiomasspowerportfolio.SMUDisalreadyinvolvedinthe
developmentofbiomasspowerprojectsthatenhancelocalwastemanagement
(i.e.,greenandfoodwasteandmanure).Thelargeresourceintheregion
composedofforestandagriculturalthinningsandresiduesrepresentan
opportunityforSMUDtosignificantlyincreaseitsbiomasspowerportfolio.
Specificprojectrecommendationsare:
o TransferexistingbiomassCHPtechnology(500kWto2MW)toasuitable
heatclientintheSacramentoregion(heatclientsincludeabsorptioncooling
applications).
330

o Exploitthefuelpotentialintheregionsricestrawandothercropresidues
withtransferofexistingtechnology.
Increaseresearchanddevelopmentfundingandactivitytoobtainmoredetailed
andmorereliableoperating,economic,andenvironmentaldatafornew
anaerobicdigestionandotherfacilitiesandparticipateinormotivaterelated
stateeffortstoenhancetheoverallqualityofinformationavailableonbiomass
systems.
Workwiththestateandfederalgovernmentstoincreaseresearchand
demonstrationactivityonconceptstoimprovetechnologyandreduceemissions
frombiomassconversion,including:
o InvestigateadvancedreburningusingbiomassfuelstoreduceNOx
emissionsforretrofitornewfacilitydesign.
o EvaluateSCRandregenerativeSCR(RSCR)NOxcontroltechniques.
o InvestigateozoneinjectiontoassessfeasibilityasaNOxcontroltechniquefor
solidfueledandotherbiomasssystems.
Improveemissionsperformanceofreciprocatingengines,including:
o Improvefuelgascleaning.
o H2Sandsiloxanefrombiogastoenablegreateruseofcatalyticaftertreatment
ofcombustiongasesandothercontrolmeasures.
o Reducenitrogencompounds(NH3,HCN)inproducergasfromthermal
gasificationsystems.
Continuedevelopmentofhydrogenenrichedfuelgasforimprovedleanburn
engineperformance.
Improveefficiencyofmicroturbines.
Reducecostsofstationaryfuelcellpowersystems.
facilitiesoverseaspresentatimelyopportunityforobservingandmonitoringthese
facilities.Furtherdevelopmentofexistingassociationwiththeprojectdevelopersin
ordertofacilitateexchangeofinformationisrecommended.Inaddressingthegreater
useofbiomasswithinitsterritoryandsurroundingregionforrenewablegenerationand
improvedenvironmentalquality,SMUDwillserveasamodelfordevelopmentinthe
restofthestate.SMUDactionscanhelpshiftstatewastemanagementpoliciestomore
appropriateresourcemanagementstrategies.
331

332

Commercialization Potential and Benefits to California
Therehasnotbeenanysubstantialincreaseinbiopowergeneratingcapacityin
Californiasincetheearly1990s.Inorderforbiomasspowertomakeasignificant
contributiontothesupplyofrenewableelectricityinCalifornia,theagingfleetof
biomassfacilitieswillneedtoberepoweredandlargeamountsofnewcapacitymustbe
developed.Ifthisistooccur,newstrategiesforutilizationofbiomassresourcewillbe
required,includingincreasingtherangeoffeedstocksused,newerandupdated
conversiontechnologies,andamoreconsistentpolicyapproach.
Becauseofextensiveresearchanddevelopmentoverseas,advancedbiomasspower
systemsthatarebuiltinCaliforniawilllikelybeimportedtechnologiesanddesigns.
Withthehighernaturalgaspricesrecentlyexperienced,automatedbiomassCHP
systemsarecommerciallyviableifasuitableclientfortheheatisavailable.Withoutheat
coproduct,theeconomicsofadvanced(aswellasthestandardstokerorcirculating
fluidizedbedboilers)biopowersystemsaremarginalatcurrentelectricitymarketprices.
DependingonwhichsetofRPSgoalsarepursued(20%renewablesby2017,or33%by
2020),newrenewablegenerationcapacitywillberequiredattherateof3,200to5,000
MWeachyear.Currentbiopowercapacityisapproximately1,000MWandbiomass
contributesabout2%oftotalor25%ofrenewablepowerconsumedinthestate.If
biomasspowerweretocontinuetoprovideofnonhydrorenewablegenerationunder
theRPS,thennewbiopowercapacitywouldneedtobeaddedattherateof800tomore
than1,200MWeachyear.
Thedescriptions,problemidentification,andanalysisinthereport,aswellasthe
contactdatabasecanbeusedtohelpdefineastrategyforbuildingincreasedbiopower
capacityinCalifornia.IncreasingbiopowerproductionbenefitsCaliforniabyincreasing
therenewablecontentintheelectricityportfolio,generateseconomicactivityinthefuel
supplyandlogisticssector,providesanumberofstablejobsatthegeneratingfacility,
andutilizessomeofthevastbiomassresourceinthestatethatotherwisewouldbe
consumedinprescribedburnsorwildfires,disposedinlandfills,orleftinfieldorforest
foreventualdecay.
Theinformationandanalysisinthisreportaddressesadvancedbiopowertechnologies
andincludesrecommendationsformovingforward.Thisreportcanserveasa
technologyreferenceandinformationsourceforthoseinvolvedinmappingastate
biomasspowerstrategythatcontributestotheRPS.Usedinthisway,thereport(and
project)willsavetheEnergyCommission,orotherstateagencies,timeandmoney.

Bibliography
Ahrenfeldt,J.,T.K.Jensen,U.Henriksen,andJ.Schramm.2001.Experimentswithwood
gasengines.SAETechnicalPaper2001013681.
Ahrenfeldt,J.,T.Pedersen,U.Henriksen,andJ.Schramm.2000.FordVSG411fueledby
producergasfromtwostagegasifier.Proceedings1stWorldConferenceonBiomassfor
EnergyandIndustry,Sevilla,S.Kryitsis,A.A.C.M.Beenackers,P.Helm.
Amos,W.A.2002.SummaryofCharitonValleySwitchgrassCoFireTestingatthe
OttumwaGeneratingStationinChillicothe,Iowa:MilestoneCompletionReport.
NREL/TP51032424.
AQEG.2004.NitrogenDioxideintheUnitedKingdom.DefraPublications,AirQuality
ExpertGroup,Dept.forEnvironment,Food,andRuralAffairs,London.
Arumugam,S.,K.Annamalai,S.Priyadarsan,andB.Thien.2005.Anovelapplicationof
feedlotbiomass(cattlemanure)asreburningfuelforNOxreductionincoalfired
powerplants.SymposiumStateofthescienceinanimalmanureandwastemanagement.
Babu,S.P.1999.Thermalgasificationofbiomass.IEATask20overview.
Bain,R.L.,W.P.Amos,etal.2003.BiopowerTechnicalAssessment:StateoftheIndustry
andtheTechnology.NREL/TP51033123.
BakkerDhaliwal,R.,B.M.Jenkins,andH.Lee.1999.Equipmentperformanceand
economicassessmentsofharvestingandhandlingricestraw.Biomass:agrowth
opportunityingreenenergyandvalueaddedproducts.R.P.OverendandE.Chornet,
eds.Oxford:PergamonPress.
Baxter,L.2005.Biomasscoalcocombustion:opportunityforaffordablerenewable
energy.Fuel84(10):12951302.
Baxter,L.L.1993.Ashdepositionduringbiomassandcoalcombustion:Amechanistic
approach.BiomassandBioenergy4(2):85102
Bech,N.andL.Wolff.1995.Mathematicalmodelingofsurfacecombustingstrawbales.
Proceedingsofthe8thEuropeanBiomassConference,Biomassforenergy,environment,
agricultureandindustry.Pergamon,England.
Bech,N.,L.Wolff,etal.1996.Mathematicalmodelingofstrawbalecombustionincigar
burners.EnergyandFuels10:276283.
Beckmann,G.andC.A.Erickson.2000.Operatingexperienceandfuturechallenges
withSCRinstallations.PowerGenInternational.Orlando,Florida.
BolharNordenkampf,M.,andH.Hofbauer.2004.Gasifierdemonstrationplantsin
Austria.InternationalSlovakBiomassForum,Bratislava.February910,2004.
Brinton,W.F.2000.Compostqualitystandards&guidelines:AnInternationalView.
NewYorkStateAssociationofRecyclers.
Buffinga,G.J.andH.A.M.Knoef.2001.Implementationanddemonstrationofan
embeddedsmallscalepoultrymanureCHPprocess.
http://www.btgworld.com/services/pdf/pei/930sum.pdf(AccessedOctober1,2004).
Bush,Greg.2003.PersonalCommunication.KingCounty,Washington.
333

Calaminus,B.andR.Stahlberg.1998Continuousinlinegasification/vitrificationprocess
forthermalwastetreatment:processtechnologyandcurrentstatusofprojects.
WasteManagement18(68):547556.
Capareda,S.,Mukhtar,S.,Shaw,B.,Parnell,C.,andFlocchini,R.2005.WhitePaper
Highlyreactivevolatileorganiccompound(HRVOC)emissionsfromCAFOs.College
Station,Texas:CenterforAgriculturalAirQualityEngineeringandSciences(CAAQES),
BiologicalandAgriculturalEngineeringDepartment,TexasA&MUniversity.
Carpentieri,E.andA.Silva.1998.WBP/SIGAMEtheBrazilianBIGGTdemonstration
projectactualstatusandperspectives.BiomassandBioenergy15(3):229232.
Chitwood,D.E.,J.S.Devinny,andF.E.ReynoldsJr.1999.Evaluationofatwostage
biofilterfortreatmentofPOTWwasteair.EnvironmentalProgress18(3):212221.
Chung,Y.C.,Y.Y.Lin,andC.P.Tseng.2004.OperationalCharacteristicsofEffective
RemovalofH2SandNH3WasteGasesbyActivatedCarbonBiofilter.Journalofthe
Air&WasteManagementAssociation54(4April):450458.
Chynoweth,D.P.2002.Reviewofbiomethanefrommarinebiomass.TokyoGas
Company,Ltd.andUniversityofFlorida,Gainesville.
Cocker,D.R.,Shah,S.D.,Johnson,K.,Miller,J.W.,andNorbeck,J.M.(2004).
DevelopmentandApplicationofaMobileLaboratoryforMeasuringEmissionsfrom
DieselEngines.1.RegulatedGaseousEmissions.EnvironmentalScience&Technology
38:21822189.
Cockrell,Paul.2005.PersonalCommunication.Folsom,California:HDREngineering,Inc.
Coelho,S.T.,S.M.Velazquez,O.S.Martins,andA.H.Ushima.2004.Testspresentation
resultsoftheimportedgasificationsystemfromtheIndianInstituteofScienceIISc.
2ndWorldConferenceandTechnologyExhibitiononBiomassforEnergy.
Corella,J.,J.M.Toledo,andR.Padilla.2005.Catalytichotgascleaningwithmonoliths
inbiomassgasificationinfluidizedbeds.3.Theireffectivenessforammonia
elimination.Industrial&EngineeringChemistryResearch44(7):20362045.
Craig,K.R.,andM.K.Mann.(1996).Costandperformanceanalysisofbiomassbased
integratedgasificationcombinedcycle(BIGCC)powersystems.TP43021657,
NREL.
Crow,D.L.(2005).AirPollutionControlOfficersDeterminationofVOCEmission
FactorsforDairies.FinalRepot1August,2005,SJVAPCD.Availableat:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/dpag/APCO%20Determination%20of%20EF_A
ugust%201_.pdf
Crow,D.L.2005.DraftAirPollutionControlOfficersDeterminationofVOCEmission
FactorsforDairies.SanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict.
Dagaut,P.,andF.Lecomte.2003.ExperimentsandKineticModelingStudyofNO
ReburningbyGasesfromBiomassPyrolysisinaJSR.EnergyFuels17(3):608613.
Darvell,L.I.,K.Heiskanen,J.M.Jones,A.B.Ross,P.Simell,andA.Williams.2003.An
investigationofaluminasupportedcatalystsfortheselectivecatalyticoxidationof
ammoniainbiomassgasification.CatalysisToday81(4):681692.
DeBaere,L.2000.Anaerobicdigestionofsolidwaste:Stateoftheart.WaterScienceand
Technology41(3):283290.
334

DeBaere,L.2003.Stateoftheartofanaerobicdigestionofsolidwaste.Ninth
InternationalWasteManagementandLandfillSymposium.Cagliari,Italy.
DeBaere,L.,andJ.Boelens.1999.Restormixedwastesortingdigestionseparationfor
therecoveryofrecyclablesandenergy.http://www.ows.be(accessedJuly28,2004).
deLaclos,H.F.,S.Desbois,andC.SaintJoly.1997.Anaerobicdisgestionofmunicipal
solidorganicwaste:ValorgafullscaleplantinTilburg,theNetherlands.Water
Science&Technology36(67):457462.
Ding,Y.,K.C.Das,W.B.Whitman,andJ.R.Kastner.2000.Microbialecologyand
processperformanceofabiofiltertreatingmultiplegascontaminants.2000ASAE
AnnualInternationalMeeting.
Edelmann,W.,U.Baier,andH.Engeli.2004.Environmentalaspectsoftheanaerobic
digestionoftheorganicfractionofmunicipalsolidwastesandofagriculturalwastes.
Montreal,Canada:10thWorldCongressonAnaerobicDigestion.
Edelmann,W.,Schleiss,K.,andJoss,A.2000.Ecological,energeticandeconomic
comparisonofanaerobicdigestionwithdifferentcompetingtechnologiestotreat
biogenicwastes.WaterScience&Technology41(3):263273.
EIA.1997.RenewableEnergyAnnual1997.AnnualEnergyReview1996.
EIA.2003.DOEEIAAnnualEnergyOutlook2003.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/appa.pdf
EIA.2004.AssumptionstotheAnnualEnergyOutlook2004.DOE/EIA0554(2004).
Engstrom,F.1998.Hotgascleanupbioflowceramicfilterexperience.Biomassand
Bioenergy15(3):259262.
Farneti,A.,C.Cozzolino,D.Bolzonella,L.Innocenti,andC.Cecchi.Semidryanaerobic
digestionofOFMSW:thenewfullscaleplantofVerona(Italy).IIInt.Symp.Anaerobic
Dig.SolidWaste,heldinBarcelona,June1517.(eds.J.MataAlvarez,A.TilcheandF.
Cecchi),2:330333,Int.Assoc.Wat.Qual.
Fondahl,L.V.2000.USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Region9,aspublishedbyZ.
Zhang,CaliforniaEnergyCommission.
Frandsen,F.2003.Personalcommunication.TechnicalUniversityofDenmark.October22,
2003.
Giordano,P.2003.XylowattexperiencengasificationtechnologiesforCHPapplication
inEurope.RoundtableonbiomassgasificationtechnologiesIISc,India.1113December
1113.http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in/rtc.html(accessedOctober2,2004).
Girdhar,J.B.S.2004.Biomassgasifierprogramandpolicies.NewDelhi:Presentationby
Ministryofnonconventionalenergysources.
http://www.teriin.org/events/docs/biogasifier/jbs.pdf(accessedSeptember21,2004).
Grady,C.P.L.,G.T.Daigger,andH.C.Lim.1999.BiologicalWastewaterTreatment.
Secondedition.NewYork:MarcelDekkerInc.
Grass,S.W.,andB.M.Jenkins.1994.Biomassfueledfluidizedbedcombustion:
Atmosphericemissions,emissioncontroldevicesandenvironmentalregulations.
BiomassandBioenergy6(4):243260.
335

Gujer,W.,andA.J.B.Zehnder.1983.Conversionprocessesinanaerobicdigestion.Wat.
Sci.Tech.15:127167.
Haase,S.2003.BiomassResourceAssessmentandUtilizationOptionsfortheThree
CountiesinEasternOregon.OregonDepartmentofEnergy,C03057.
Hackett,C.etal.2004.EvaluationofConversionTechnologiesProcessesandProducts.
DraftFinalReport,UniversityofCalifornia.
Hansen,L.A.,H.P.Nielsen,etal.2000.Influenceofdepositformationoncorrosionata
strawfiredboiler.FuelProcessingTechnology64(13):189209.
Harding,N.S.,andB.R.Adams.2000.Biomassasareburningfuel:aspecialized
cofiringapplication.BiomassandBioenergy19(6):429445.
Hartmann,K.M.2004.AnAPSdigesterforthetreatmentoforganicsolidwasteand
energygeneration:UCDdigesterdesign.EngineeringReportfortheMasterof
Engineering.UniversityofCalifornia,Davis.
Hasler,P.,andT.Nussbaumer.1999.GascleaningforICengineapplicationsfromfixed
bedbiomassgasification.BiomassandBioenergy16(6):385395.
Hasler,P.,andT.Nussbaumer.2000.Samplingandanalysisofparticlesandtarsfrom
biomassgasifiers.BiomassandBioenergy18(1):6166.
Hasler,P.,P.Morf,R.Buehler,andT.Nussbaumer.1998.Gascleaningandwastewater
treatmentforsmallscalebiomassgasifiers.FinalReport.SwissFederalOfficeof
Energy&SwissFederalOfficeforEducationandScience.
Heermann,C.,F.J.Schwager,etal.2001.Pyrolysis&GasificationofWaste:A
WorldwideTechnologyandBusinessReview.JuniperConsultancyServicesLTD.
Heimrich,M.J.1997.TestsofleanNOxcatalysttechnologyforcommercialdiesel
enginesResearchNote972.CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.
Henderson,J.P.2001.AnaerobicDigestioninRuralChina,CityFarmer,CanadaOfficeof
UrbanAgriculture.http://www.cityfarmer.org/biogasPaul.html(accessedDecember
5,2003).
Herdin,G.,R.Robitschko,J.Klausner,andM.Wagner.2004.GEJenbacherexperience
withwoodgasplants.IEATask33.Fallmeeting,Copenhagen.
Hobbs,P.J.,J.Webb,T.T.Mottram,B.Grant,andT.M.Misselbrook.2004.Emissionsof
volatileorganiccompoundsoriginatingfromUKlivestockagriculture.Journalofthe
ScienceofFoodandAgriculture84(11):14141420.
IEA.2002.IEABioenergyTask33:Thermalgasificationofbiomass.SpringMeeting
Minutes.Amsterdam.
Im,Julio.2004.PersonalCommunication.InlandEmpireUtilityAgency.
Jenkins,B.M.1989.PhysicalPropertiesofBiomass.BiomassHandbook.O.KitaniandC.
W.Hall,eds.NewYork:GordonandBreach.860891.
Jenkins,B.M.,R.BakkerDhaliwal,etal.2000.Equipmentperformance,costs,and
constraintsinthecommercialharvestingofricestrawforindustrialapplications.
Paperofthe2000ASAEAnnualInternationalMeeting.ASAEAnnualInternational
Meeting,Milwaukee,Wisconsin.
Jenkins,B.M.,L.L.Baxter,T.R.MilesJr.andT.R.Miles.1998.Combustionpropertiesof
biomass.FuelProcessingTechnology54(13):1746.
336

Jenkins,B.M.,R.R.Bakker,andJ.B.Wei.1996.Onthepropertiesofwashedstraw.
BiomassandBioenergy10(4):177200
Jenkins,B.M.1993.Propertiesofbiomass.BiomassEnergyFundamentals,EPRITR102107.
PaloAlto,California:ElectricPowerResearchInstitute.
Jenkins,B.M.andL.L.Baxter.1994.Uncontrolledpollutantemissionsfrombiomass
combustionundersimulatedboilerfurnaceconditions.ProceedingsAFRCJFRC
PacificRimInternationalConferenceonEnvironmentalControlofCombustionProcesses.
Maui,Hawaii.
Jenkins,B.M.,R.B.Williams,etal.1999.Combustionofleachedricestrawforpower
generation.Proceedingsofthe4thbiomassconferenceoftheAmericas.Oakland,
California:13571363.
Jenkins,B.M.,R.B.Williams,R.R.Bakker,S.Blunk,D.E.Yomogida,W.Carlson,J.
Duffy,R.Bates,K.StuckiandV.Tiangco.1999.Combustionofleachedricestrawfor
powergeneration.Overend,R.P.andE.Chornet,eds.Biomass:AGrowthOpportunity
inGreenEnergyandValueaddedProducts.Oxford:PergamonPress.
Jenkins,B.M.,R.R.Bakker,R.B.Williams,R.BakkerDhaliwal,M.D.Summers,H.Lee,
L.G.Bernheim,W.Huisman,L.L.Yan,P.AndradeSanchez,andM.Yore.2000.
CommercialFeasibilityofUtilizingRiceStrawinPowerGeneration.Proceedings
Bioenergy2000.Buffalo,NewYork.
Jenkins,B.M.,R.R.Bakker,R.B.Williams,andM.A.Goronea.1997.Combustionof
LeachedRiceStrawinWheelabratorShastaBoilerNo.1atTemperaturesabove900
C.CombustionInstituteWesternStatesSection.SpringMeeting,Livermore,California.
Jenkins,B.M.2004.BiomassCollaborativeLettertotheCaliforniaEnergyCommission.
Jensen,P.A.,M.Stenholm,etal.1997.Depositioninvestigationinstrawfiredboilers.
Energy&Fuels11(5):10481055.
Junginger,M.,S.Agterbosch,etal.RenewableelectricityintheNetherlands.Energy
Policy32(9):10531073.
Kato,S.,M.Bueto,andC.Gallensten.2004.GasfiredpowerplantNOxemission
controlsandrelatedenvironmentalimpactsReporttotheLegislature.CARB,
StationarySourceDivision.
Kelleher,M.2001.AnaerobicdigestionfacilitiesinSwitzerland.Biocycle42(10):3438.
Kelleher,M.2005.FeasibilityofGeneratingGreenPowerThroughAnaerobicDigestion
ofGardenRefusefromSacramentoArea.FinalReporttoSMUD.Toronto:RIS
International.
Khodayari,R.,C.Andersson,C.U.I.Odenbrand,L.H.Andersson.2000.Deactivation
andRegenerationofSCRCatalystsUsedinBioFuelPowerPlants.Proceedingsofthe
5thEuropeanConferenceonIndustrialFurnaceandBoilers.Porto,Portugal.
Knoef,H.2003.TechnologyBriefFixedBedGasification.IEABioenergyTask33:Thermal
GasificationofBiomass.
Koch,T.1997.Logisticsandfeedpreparationofstrawforgasificationandcombustion.
Copenhagen,Denmark:DanishEnergyAgency.
Komilis,D.P.,R.K.Ham,andJ.K.Park.2004.Emissionofvolatileorganiccompounds
duringcompostingofmunicipalsolidwastes.WaterResearch38(7):17071714.
337

Kong,S.,andE.R.Allen.1997.Controloforganosulfuremissionsusingbiofiltration:
Dimethylsulfide.1997Air&WasteManagementAssocConferenceProceedings.
Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania.
Kramer,J.M.2002.AgriculturalBiogasCasebook.GreatLakesRegionalBiomassEnergy
Program.
Kramer,J.M.2004.AgriculturalBiogasCasebook2004Update.GreatLakesRegional
BiomassEnergyProgram.
Kraus,P.,andU.Grammel.1992.DieRelevanzderSchadstoffdiskussionbeider
Bioabfallkompostierung.(Relevanceofcontaminantdiscussionforbiowaste
composting).Abfallwirtschaft9,MICBaezaVerlagKassel.
Kubler,H.,K.Hoppenheidt,P.Hirsch,A.Kottmair,R.Nimmrichter,H.Nordsieck,W.
Mucke,andM.Swerev.2000.Fullscalecodigestionoforganicwaste.WaterScience
&Technology41(3):195202.
Kurkela,E.,P.Simell,P.Stahlberg,G.Berna,F.Barbagli,andI.Haavisto.2000.
Developmentofnovelfixedbedgasificationforbiomassresiduesandagrobiofuels.
ResearchNotes2059.Espoo,Finland:TechnicalResearchCenterofFinland,VTT.
Larsen,M.G.andA.Evald.1996.StrawFiredDistrictHeatingPlantsinDenmarkFacts
andFigures.CentreofBiomassTechnology,Denmark
Lee,J.H.,S.J.Schmieg,andS.H.Oh.2004.Catalyticreformingofethanolto
acetaldehydeforLeanNOx(x)emissioncontrol.Industrial&EngineeringChemistry
Research43(20):63436348.
Li,H.,J.R.Mihelcic,J.C.Crittenden,andK.A.Anderson.2003.Fieldmeasurements
andmodelingoftwostagebiofilterthattreatsodoroussulfurairemissions.Journal
ofEnvironmentalEngineering129(8August):684692
Logan,J.A.1983.NitrogenOxidesintheTroposphere:GlobalandRegionalBudgets.
JournalofGeophysicalResearch88(15):1078510807.
Ludwig,C.2003.Personalcommunication.
Ludwig,C.,S.Hellweg,andS.Stucki,eds.2003.MunicipalSolidWasteManagement
StrategiesandTechnologiesforSustainableSolutions.Berlin:SpringerVerlag.
Maly,P.M.,V.M.Zamansky,L.Ho,andR.Payne.1999.Alternativefuelreburning.Fuel
78(3):327334.
Manczyk,H.andM.D.Leach.2001.CombinedHeatandPowerGenerationandDistrict
HeatinginDenmark:History,Goals,andTechnology,Rochester,NewYork:
UniversityofRochester.
Marquis,N.P.,andB.Werner.2004.Emissionreductionoffsetstransactioncost
summaryreportfor2003.CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard,Sacramento.
MataAlvarez,J.2003.Biomethanizationoftheorganicfractionofmunicipalsolidwastes.
London:IWAPublishing.
Mattocks,R.2003.Selfscreeningassessment:theappropriatenessofacommunity
manurefoodwastedigestionsystem.AgriculturalUtilizationResearchInstitute/
RCMDigesters,Inc.
338

McDannel,M.,E.Wheless,andJ.Stahl.2005.Installationandstartupofadigestergas
firedmicroturbineandfuelcellattwowaterreclamationplants.PowerGen
RenewableEnergyConference.LasVegas,Nevada.
McOuat,W.,andB.Gill.2004.Proposeddigesterproject:Preliminaryeconomicanalysis
andriskassessment.CSUChannelIslands,HMHEnergyResources,Inc.Larkspur,
California.
Michelsen,H.P.,F.Frandsen,etal.1998.Depositionandhightemperaturecorrosionin
a10MWestrawfiredboiler.FuelProcessingTechnology54(13):95108.
Miles,T.2005.PersonalCommunication.T.R.MilesTechnicalConsultantsInc.Portland,
Oregon.
Miles,T.R.andD.Ganz.2002.CharitonValleyBiomassProjectStrawBoilerTrip
Report.T.R.MilesTechnicalConsultants.
Miller,J.A.,andC.T.Bowman.1989.Mechanismandmodelingofnitrogenchemistryin
combustion.ProgressinEnergyandCombustionScience15(4):287338.
Mojtahedi,W.,M.Ylitalo,T.Maunula,andJ.Abbasian.1995.Catalyticdecompositionof
ammoniainfuelgasproducedinpilotscalepressurizedfluidizedbedgasifier.Fuel
ProcessingTechnology45(3):221236.
Montgomery,M.,A.Karlsson,etal.2002.FieldtestcorrosionexperimentsinDenmark
withbiomassfuelsPart1:Strawfiring.Materials&CorrosionWerkstoffeundKorrosion
53(2):121131.
Morris,G.2000.BiomassEnergyProductioninCalifornia:Thecaseforabiomasspolicy
initiative.NREL/SR57028805.
Morris,G.2002.BiomassEnergyProductioninCalifornia.NRELProgressReport,Task
OrderNo.KCL03004002.
Nadgauda,S.S.2004.PersonalCommunication.StatenIsland,NewYork:Renova
Engineering.
NationalResearchCouncil(NRC).1991.Rethinkingtheozoneprobleminurbanandregional
airpollution.WashingtonD.C.:NationalAcademyPress.
Newman,R.2003.Atrialburnofrapestrawandwholecropsharvestedforenergyuse
toassessefficiencyimplications.B/U1/00768/00/00URN03/1569.New&Renewable
EnergyProgramme,ETSU/DTI(England).
Ng,Y.L.,R.Yan,X.G.Chen,A.L.Geng,W.D.Gould,D.T.Liang,andL.C.C.Koe.
2004.UseofactivatedcarbonasasupportmediumforH2Sbiofiltrationandeffectof
bacterialimmobilizationonavailableporesurface.AppliedMicrobiologyand
Biotechnology66:259265.
Nicolai,R.E.,andK.A.Janni.2001.Biofiltermediamixtureratioofwoodchipsand
composttreatingswineodors.WaterScience&Technology,44(9):261267
Nieminen,M.2004.ThermalGasificationofBiomassTechnologyBrief.IEABioenergy
Task33.
Nikolaisen,L.ed.,C.Nielson,M.G.Larsen,P.Keller,andL.K.Henriksen.1992(1998).
StrawforEnergyProduction,TechnologyEnvironmentEconomy.Copenhagen,
Denmark:DanishEnergyAgency.
339

Obert,E.F.1973.InternalCombustionEnginesandAirPollution.NewYork:Harper&
Row.
Okeefe,D.M.,D.P.Chynoweth,A.W.Barkdoll,R.A.Nordstedt,et.al.1993.Sequential
BatchAnaerobicCompostingofMunicipalSolidWasteMSWandYardWaste.Water
ScienceandTechnology27(2):7786.
Paisley,M.2004.PersonalCommunication.FERCOEnterprises.
Pasquiers,S.2004.Removalofpollutantsbyplasmacatalyticprocesses.European
PhysicalJournalAppliedPhysics28(3):319324.
Patel,J.2003.Personalcommunication.Vallejo,California:CarbonaCorporation.
Patel,J.2004.Personalcommunication.
Paul,P.P.,M.J.Heimrich,andM.A.Miller.1998.LeanNOxreductioncatalysisby
metalcompleximpregnatedmolecularsievesEffectofligandsandmetals.Catalysis
Today42(12):6171.
Pierce,J.L.1997.Landfillgaselectricpowergeneration:Acosteffectiveand
environmentallysoundrenewableenergysource.PowerGen97Asia.
Pitcher,K.,B.Hilton,etal.1998.TheARBREproject:progressachieved.Biomassand
Bioenergy15(3):213218.
Pletka,R.2005.PersonalCommunication.BlackandVeatch.
Price,D.,R.Birnbaum,R.Batiuk,M.McCullough,andR.Smith.1997.Nitrogenoxides:
Impactsonpublichealthandtheenvironment.EPA452/R97002.Washington,D.C.:
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofAirandRadiation.
Proll,T.,I.Siefert,A.Friedl,andH.Hofbauer.2005.RemovalofNH3fromBiomass
GasificationProducerGasbyWaterCondensinginanOrganicSolventScrubber.Ind.
Eng.Chem.Res.44(5):15761584.
R.W.Beck.2004.AnaerobicDigestionFeasibilityStudy.BluestemSolidWasteAgency&
IowaDepartmentofNaturalResources.
Rauch,R.,H.Hofbauer,K.Bosch,I.Siefert,C.Aichernig,H.Tremmel,K.Voigtlaender,
R.Koch,andR.Lehner.2004.SteamgasificationofbiomassatCHPplantGuessing
Statusofthedemonstrationplant.2ndWorldConferenceandTechnology.
Rizeq,G.,andV.Zamansky.2004.Utilizationofwasterenewablefuelsinboilerswith
minimizationofpollutantemissions.CaliforniaEnergyCommission50098037.Irvine,
California:GEGlobalResearch.
RosenbergM.,J.SperoT.T.Shih,andL.Duan.2004.CDFreportinpreparation.
Rudiger,H.,A.Kicherer,U.Greul,H.Spliethoff,andK.R.G.Hein.1996.Investigations
inCombinedCombustionofBiomassandCoalinPowerPlantTechnology.Energy
Fuels10(3):789796.
Salour,D.,B.M.Jenkins,etal.1993.Controlofinbedagglomerationbyfuelblendingin
apilotscalestrawandwoodfueledAFBC.BiomassandBioenergy4(2):117133.
Sander,B.1997.PropertiesofDanishbiofuelsandtherequirementsforpower
production.BiomassandBioenergy12(3):177183.
Schultz,G.2001.Securingofsupplyinshortandlongertermofwoodandstraw.Energi
E2IEATask30ShortRotationCrops.
340

http://www.shortrotationcrops.com/PDFs/IEA_Gert_Schultz.pdf(accessedJune
2003).
Seinfeld,J.H.1986.Atmosphericchemistryandphysicsofairpollution.NewYork:John
WileyandSons.
Sethi,P.2005.PersonalCommunication.CaliforniaEnergyCommission.
Simell,P.2002.DevelopmentofSCOtechnologyandotherhightemperatureNH3
removalprocessesforgasificationpowerplants.ProjectNewsletter,VTTProcesses.
Simell,P.(2004).Novelgasificationprocess.IEAWS3:Gascleaning&gasenginesfor
smallscaleapplications.
Simons,G.,Z.Zhang,etal.2002.LandfillGasToEnergyPotentialinCalifornia.
CaliforniaEnergyCommissionStaffReport50002041V1
Smet,E.,H.VanLangenhove,andI.DeBo.1999.Theemissionofvolatilecompounds
duringtheaerobicandthecombinedanaerobic/aerobiccompostingofbiowaste.
AtmosphericEnvironment33(8):12951303.
Springsteen,B.2000.AssessmentofCaliforniawasteresourcesforgasification,Final
Report.EERSDVContractNo.50098037SDV.Sacramento:CaliforniaEnergy
Commission.
Srivastava,R.K.,W.Neuffer,D.Grano,S.Khan,J.E.Staudt,andW.Jozewicz.2005.
ControllingNOxemissionfromindustrialsources.EnvironmentalProgress24(2):181
197.
Stahl,K.2001.VarnamoTheDemonstrationProgram.BerlingsSkogs,Trelleborg.
Stahl,K.andM.Neergaard.1998.IGCCpowerplantforbiomassutilization,Varnamo,
Sweden.BiomassandBioenergy15(3):205211.
Stahl,K.,L.Waldheim,andM.Morris.2004.BiomassIGCCatVarnamo,SwedenPast
andFuture.GCEPEnergyWorkshop.PaloAlto,California:StanfordUniversity.
Stassen,H.M.1993.Strategiesforupgradingproducergasfromfixedbedgasifier
systemstointernalcombustionenginequality.R.G.Graham;BiomassGasification
Hotgascleanup.IEAreportfortheBiomassGasificationWorkingGroup,Appendix
II.
StateoftheArt(SOTA)Manualforreciprocatinginternalcombustionengines.2003.
Trenton,NewJersey:DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqpp/downloads/sota/sota13.pdf
Stevens,D.2001.Hotgasconditioning:Recentprogresswithlargerscalebiomass
gasificationsystems.NREL/SR51029952.
SWIS.20003.CIWMBSolidWasteInformationSystem(SWIS).
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/swis/search.asp(accessedOctober31,2003).
Taube,J.,K.Vorkamp,M.Forster,andR.Herrmann.2002.Pesticideresiduesin
biologicalwaste.Chemosphere49(10):13571365.
Themelis,N.J.2003.Anoverviewoftheglobalwastetoenergyindustry.Waste
ManagementWorld(JulyAugust):4047.
Tonkyn,R.G.,S.E.Barlow,andJ.W.Hoard.2003.ReductionofNOxinsyntheticdiesel
exhaustviatwostepplasmacatalysistreatment.AppliedCatalysisB:Environmental
40(3):207217.
341

Traa,Y.,B.Burger,andJ.Weitkamp.1999.Zeolitebasedmaterialsfortheselective
catalyticreductionofNOxwithhydrocarbons.MicroporousandMesoporousMaterials
30(1):341.
Turn,S.Q.,C.M.Kinoshita,D.M.Ishimura,andJ.Zhou.1998.Thefateofinorganic
constituentsofbiomassinfluidizedbedgasification.Fuel77(3):135146.
Vehlow,Jurgen.2004.PersonalCommunication.InstituteforTechnicalChemistry,
ForschungszentrumKarlsruhe.
Verma,S.2002.Anaerobicdigestionofbiodegradableorganicsinmunicipalsolid
wastes.MasterofScienceThesis.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity.
Vilas,E.,U.Skifter,A.D.Jensen,C.Lopez,J.Maier,andP.Glarborg.2004.Experimental
andmodelingstudyofbiomassreburning.Energy&Fuels18(5):14421450.
vonBernath,H.I.,G.C.Matteson,R.B.Williams,L.Yan,M.C.Gildart,B.M.Jenkins,Z.
Zhang,V.Tiangco,P.Sethi,G.Simons,M.Rosenberg,J.Spero.2004.Foodand
ProcessingResiduesinCalifornia:ResourceAssessmentandPotentialforPower
Generation.DepartmentofBiologicalandAgricultrualEngineering.Davis,California:
UCDavis.
Vorkamp,K.,E.Kellner,J.Taube,K.D.Moller,andR.Herrmann.2002.Fateof
methidathionresiduesinbiologicalwasteduringanaerobicdigestion.Chemosphere
48(3):287297.
Vorkamp,K.,J.Taube,J.Dilling,E.Kellner,andR.Herrmann.2003.Fateofthe
fungicidedodemorphduringanaerobicdigestionofbiologicalwaste.Chemosphere
53(5):505514.
Wang,W.Y.,N.Padban,Z.C.Ye,A.Andersson,andI.Bjerle.1999.Kineticsofammonia
decompositioninhotgascleaning.Industrial&EngineeringChemistryResearch38(11):
41754182.
Wang,W.Y.,N.Padban,Z.C.Ye,G.Olofsson,A.Andersson,andI.Bjerle.2000.
Catalytichotgascleaningoffuelgasfromanairblownpressurizedfluidizedbed
gasifier.Industrial&EngineeringChemistryResearch.39(11):40754081.
Wang,W.,andG.Olofsson.2002.ReductionofAmmoniaandTarinPressurized
BiomassGasification.5thInternationalSymposiumonGasCleaningatHigh
Temperature.
Wen,H.,C.Lausten,J.Pietruszkiewicz,P.Delaquil,andB.C.Jain.1999.Advancesin
BiomassGasificationPowerPlants.AmericanPowerConference.
Whyte,R.,andG.Perry.2001.AroughguidetoanaerobicdigestioncostsandMSW
diversion.Biocycle42(10):3033.
WieckHansen,K.,P.Overgaard,andO.H.Larsen.2000.Cofiringcoalandstrawina
150MWepowerboilerexperiences.BiomassandBioenergy19(6):395409.
Williams,R.B.,B.M.Jenkins,andD.Nguyen.2003.SolidWasteConversionAreview
anddatabaseofcurrentandemergingtechnologies.FinalReport.CIWMB
interagencyagreementIWMC0172.
Wolff,L.andN.Bech.1995.Surfacecombustionofstrawbales,atestfacilityfor
pyrolysisinvestigations.Proceedingsofthe8thEuropeanBiomassConference,Biomassfor
energy,environment,agricultureandindustry.Pergamon,England.
342

343

Zhang,R.H.,andZ.Q.Zhang.1999.Biogasificationofricestrawwithananaerobic
phasedsolidsdigestersystem.BioresourceTechnology68(3):235245.
Zhang,R.,andZ.Zhang.2002.Biogasificationofsolidwastewithananaerobicphased
solidsdigestersystem.USPatentNo.6,342,378.RegentsoftheUniversityof
California.
Zhang,Z.2003.Personalcommunication.
Zheng,Y.J.,A.D.Jensen,andJ.E.Johnsson.2004.Laboratoryinvestigationofselective
catalyticreductioncatalysts:Deactivationbypotassiumcompoundsandcatalyst
regeneration.Industrial&EngineeringChemistryResearch43(4):941947.
Zicari,S.M.2003.Removalofhydrogensulfidefrombiogasusingcowmanurecompost.
MasterofScienceThesis.Ithica,NewYork:CornellUniversity.
Zughbi,Jamal.2005.PersonalCommunication.InlandEmpireUtilitiesAgency.
Zwart,R.W.R.2003.Technical,economicandenvironmentalpotentialofcofiringof
biomassandwasteinnaturalgasfiredturbinesandcombinedcycles.ECNRX03
003,ECN.

Glossary
AD Anaerobic digestion
ADC Alternative daily cover
AF Air to Fuel Ratio (mass basis)
AF
stoich
Stoichiometric Air to Fuel Ratio (mass basis)
AMBR Anaerobic Moving Bed Reactor
APCD Air Pollution Control District
APS Anaerobic Phased Solids
AQMD Air Quality Management District
ASR Automobile shredder residue
ATDC After top-dead-center
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BDT Bone Dry Ton
BFB Bubbling fluidized bed
BGL British Gas- Lurgi
BIGCC Biomass integrated gasifier combined cycle
BTU British Thermal Unit
C&D Construction and demolition
C/N Carbon/nitrogen ratio
ca Capita
CADDET
Centre for Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated
Energy Technologies
CARB California Air Resources Board
CC Combined Cycle
CDFFP California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CEC California Energy Commission
CENBIO The Reference Center on Biomass (Brazil)
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFB Circulating fluidized bed
CH
4
Methane
CHP Combined Heat and Power
CI Compression Ignited
CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
COE Cost of energy
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CSTR Continuously stirred tank reactor (complete mix reactor)
d Day
DOE US Department of Energy
DPPP Dairy Power Production Program
EC European Community
344

EGR Exhaust gas recirculation
EIA US Energy Information Agency
EISG Energy Innovation Small Grant (a CEC program)
EJ 10
18
joules (exajoule)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPR Extended Producer Responsibility
ESP Electrostatic precipitator (for PM control)
EU European Union
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FOG Fats, Oils, and Grease
FT Fischer-Tropsch
GAIA Global Anti-Incinerator Alliance
GHG Greenhouse gas
GPD Gallons per day
GTCC Gas turbine combined cycle
GWh Gigawatt-hour (10
9
watt-hours)
h Hour
HALO Hydrogen assisted lean operation
HHV Higher heating value
HRSG Heat recovery steam generator
HRT Hydraulic Retention Time
HS High solids
IEA International Energy Agency
IGCC Integrated Gasifier Combined Cycle
IRR Internal Rate of Return
kg Kilogram
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt-hour
LFG Landfill gas
LFGTE Landfill gas to energy
LHV Lower Heating Value
LS Low solids
MACT Maximum Available Control Technology
MBT Mechanical biological treatment
MJ 10
6
joules (megajoule)
MMBTU Million BTU
MNES The Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources (India)
MRF Material recovery facility
MS Multi-stage
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
Mt Million short tons
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt-hour
345

MWth

Megawatt of heat or thermal energy
NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NSCR Nonselective Catalytic Reduction
PIER Public Interest Energy Research
PM Particulate Matter
POTW Publicly owned treatment works
PPA Power purchase agreement
PTC Production tax credit
PURPA Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act
RDDD Research, development, demonstration, and deployment
RDF Refuse derived fuel
REC Renewable Energy Credit
RFP Request for proposal
ROG
Reactive Organic Gases. Precursor to ground level ozone
formation.
ROR Rate of return
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RSCR Regenerative SCR
SBIR Small business innovation research
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SI Spark Ignited
SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
SO4 Standard Offer 4
SRAC short-run avoided cost
SRT Solids Retention Time
t Ton
TEQ Toxic Equivalent
TOC Total Organic Compound
TPD Tons per day
TS Total Solids
UASB Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
USDA US Department of Agriculture
VOC
Volatile Organic Compounds (sometimes referred to as
ROG). Precursor to ground level ozone formation
VS Volatile Solids
W Watt (Nms-1)
WWTP Waste water treatment plants
y Year

346

Acidogenic
Acid-forming; used to describe microorganisms that break down organic matter
to acids during the anaerobic digestion process
Aerobic With or in the presence of oxygen.
Anaerobic Without oxygen
Biogas
A naturally occurring gas produced from anaerobic digestion. Biogas is
composed primarily of methane (typically 5570% by volume) and carbon
dioxide (typically 3045%). Biogas may also include smaller amounts of
hydrogen sulfide (typically 502,000 parts per million [ppm]), water vapor
(saturated), oxygen (trace), siloxanes (if gas is produced from a landfill or waste
water treatment plant) and various trace hydrocarbons.
Carbonization
A low temperature and high residence time pyrolytic process designed to
produce the maximum quantity of char. Typically used to make char coal from
wood.
Cellulose
A complex carbohydrate, (C
6
H
10
O
5
)n, that is composed of glucose units.
Cellulose forms the main constituent of the cell wall in most plants.
Co-digestion
The simultaneous digestion of a mixture of two or more feedstocks. Co-
digestion is sometimes employed to balance nutrient requirements of the
process, improve gas production rate, as well as to process wastes from
multiple sources.
Combustion
A rapid conversion of chemical energy into thermal energy. The reaction is
exothermic. Organic matter is oxidized with sufficient air (or oxygen) for
reactions to go to completion. The carbon and hydrogen are oxidized to carbon
dioxide and water, respectively.
Conventional
pollutants
As specified under the Clean Water Act, conventional pollutants include
suspended solids, coliform bacteria, biochemical oxygen demand, pH, oil and
grease.
Criteria air pollutants
The six criteria pollutants are ozone (O
3
). carbon monoxide (CO), particulate
matter (PM
10
), sulfur dioxide (SO
2
), lead (Pb), and oxides of nitrogen (NO
x
).
Digestion
Either in the presence of oxygen (aerobic) or in an oxygen-depleted
atmosphere (anaerobic), the process in which microbes digest biogenic
carbonaceous materials and emit any number of energetic, inert gases and
liquids.
Elutriation
The separation of finer lighter particles from coarser heavier particles in a
mixture by means of a usually slow upward stream of fluid so that the lighter
particles are carried upward:
Entrain To carry (suspended particles, for example) along in a current.
Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR)
As it relates to solid waste management, refers to responsibility placed on
waste producers for disposal or mitigation of their own waste. Producer pays
or take-back laws are examples of implementing EPR.
Fermentation
The use of microorganisms such as yeast, bacteria, and fungi to convert
substrates such as sugar into products. In the absence of oxygen, these
products can include ethanol, methane, and carbon dioxide plus some increase
in cell mass. When oxygen is present, the increase in cell mass is generally
much greater with water and carbon dioxide usually the primary products.
Fischer-Tropsch
A synthesis process for producing mainly straight-chain paraffinic hydrocarbons
from a synthesis gas having the correct mixture of CO and H
2.
Catalysts are
usually employed. Typical operating conditions for FT synthesis are
temperatures of 390-660 F and pressures of 15-40 atmospheres depending on
the desired products. The product range includes the light hydrocarbons
methane (CH
4
) and ethane (C
2
), LPG (C
3
-C
4
), gasoline (C
5
-C
12
), diesel (C
13
-
C
22
), and waxes (>C
23
). The distribution of the products depends on the catalyst
and the process conditions (temperature, pressure, and residence time). The
synthesis gas should have low tar and particulate matter content to avoid
progressive contamination of the catalysts. Biomass derived synthesis gas for
347

FT liquid production is pre-commercial. However, it may be more easily
commercialized than coal since it has smaller quantities of contaminants to
remove in the synthesis gas cleaning process.
Gasification
Production of energetic gases from solid or liquid organic feedstocks usually by
partial oxidation. Primary energetic gases produced are hydrogen, carbon
monoxide, and methane, along with an inorganic ash residue.
Hydraulic retention
time (HRT)
The average time a volume element of fluid resides in a reactor. It is
computed from liquid-filled volume of an anaerobic digester divided by the
volumetric flow rate of liquid medium.
Hydrogasification
Gasification using hydrogen gas to react with the carbon in organic materials to
produce a methane rich gas effluent, and provide heat for the process. Any
pyrolytic products present are usually converted into methane. Steam pyrolysis
is often used as a precursor process that can enhance the hydrogen reaction
kinetics, despite the presence of water in the feed. Since oxygen is not
intentionally introduced, carbon oxides are reduced and methane increased as
the hydrogen pressure is increased. Toxic hydrocarbons, like furans and
dioxins, are chemically reduced by hydrogasification to less hazardous
chemical compounds.
Hydrolysis
A chemical or biological process in which water is added to other molecules
(the conditions are wide ranging and many molecules can be hydrolyzed).
Hydrolysis is a pre-treatment or preliminary step in fermentation processes that
ultimately yield biogas or ethanol. For cellulose and hemicellulose, a variety of
hydrolysis methods can be used to break down the long chain polymer into
simple glucose molecules, Efficiencies of hydrolysis vary among methods and
feedstocks.
Integrated Gasifier
Combined Cycle
(IGCC)
Combined cycle systems that incorporate a gasifier for the purposes of
converting the solid fuel to a fuel gas for combustion in a gas turbine using the
Brayton cycle. Combined cycle (CC) power systems can extract more useful
energy from a given amount of input energy or fuel by utilizing two power cycles
in sequence: 1) a gas turbine Brayton cycle and 2) a steam Rankine cycle
utilizing heat rejected in the gas turbine exhaust. In such systems, the steam
boiler is conventionally referred to as a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG).
Gas turbines require a clean, particle free exhaust gas for expansion through
the turbine. Using the effluent gases from gasified biomass or coal as a turbine
fuel requires cleanup before introduction to the combustion chamber of the
turbine, similar to those present in commercially cleaned natural gas.
Gasification of coal for IGCC is being done in over 20 facilities worldwide.
Incineration
A generic term in the industry that connotes any process that combusts waste.
Combustion of solid wastes that have had no sorting or pre-treatment applied to
the whole solid waste mass used as feedstock. Heat and power may or may
not be recovered.
Ligno-cellulosic
Consisting of cellulose intimately associated with lignin, an amorphous polymer
related to cellulose that has strength and rigidity. Wood is the most abundant
ligno-cellulosic material .though almost all plant biomass contains lignin. Lignin
does not degrade anaerobically (and is the most recalcitrant component of
biomass for aerobic decomposition). Because of the structural nature of ligno-
cellulosic material, much of the cellulose is difficult to access for anaerobic
digestion.
Mesophilic
One of two optimal temperature ranges for microorganisms involved in
anaerobic digestion. Mesophilic temperature is around 95 F (35 C).
methane
Methane is the main component of natural gas and biogas. It is the simplest
hydrocarbon consisting of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms (CH4).
The heat content of methane is approximately 1,000 BTU/scf (standard cubic
feet). Methane is a greenhouse gas with 21 times the global warming potential
of carbon dioxide by weight.
Nonselective The typical automotive '3-way' catalytic converter. Usually, the catalyst
348

Catalytic Reduction
(NSCR)
sequentially reduces NOx compounds and oxidizes CO and unburned HC. It
operates in a very narrow (and low) oxygen concentration range requiring a
exhaust oxygen sensor and air/fuel controller. This is not compatible with lean-
burn engines because exhaust oxygen concentration is too high. The catalyst is
subject to damage by sulfur compounds in the exhaust.
Organic
Material containing carbon and hydrogen. Organic material in MSW includes
the biomass components of the waste stream as well as hydrocarbons usually
derived from fossil sources (e.g., most plastics, polymers, the majority of waste
tire components, and petroleum residues).
Priority (toxic)
pollutants
Pollutants that are particularly harmful to animal or plant life. They are grouped
primarily into organics (including pesticides, solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls
[PCBs], and dioxins) and metals (including lead, silver, mercury, copper,
chromium, zinc, nickel, and cadmium).
Pyrolysis
A thermal degradation of carbonaceous material in an oxygen-free reactor.
Pyrolytic oils, fuel gas, chars and ash are produced in quantities that are highly
dependent on temperature, residence time and the amount of heat applied.
Rankine cycle
The most widely used thermal cycle for electrical power generation throughout
the world. It is commonly called a steam cycle when the working fluid is water.
It consists of a boiler where heat is added to liquid phase pressurized working
fluid (water) to create a high temperature and pressurized vapor (steam if the
working fluid is water). The high-pressure steam is expanded through a turbine,
which turns a generator creating electrical power. The low-pressure steam
coming out of the turbine is condensed to liquid by cooling after which the
pressure of the relatively low temperature liquid is raised by a boiler feed pump
or pumps to repeat the cycle. Rankine cycle efficiencies depend on plant size,
fuel, and design and typically vary from about 10% for very small (<1 MW
e
)
solid-fueled systems to greater than 40% for large (>500 MW
e
) supercritical
units. Typical solid-fueled biomass and waste fired power plants (~10-100 MW
e
)
have net efficiencies of about 17-25%.
Reactive organic
gases
A term equivalent to volatile organic compounds that is used by the California
Air Resources Board. Reactive organic gases (ROG) are precursors to
photochemical smog.
Regenerative SCR
(RSCR)
Also called Tail-end SCR, an SCR system placed downstream of gas cleaning
and cooling operations in order to reduce catalyst fouling by sulfur and other
inorganic compounds in the exhaust gas. Because the gas has been cooled, it
must be re-heated (regenerated) to a high enough temperature for the catalyst
to function. In large coal facilities with RSCR, the energy penalty for reheating
the flue gas to 300 C (570 F) is about 3% of plant output.
Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR)
Selectively reduces NOx by the injection of ammonia or urea reagent upstream
of a precious metal oxide catalyst. This requires some oxygen in the exhaust
stream and therefore, as pertains to reciprocating engines, is only applicable to
lean burn SI, CI, and Dual-fuel CI engines. SCR is used in stationary gas
turbine applications and regenerative SCR systems are utilized in coal and
MSW combustion systems. The catalyst is also susceptible to sulfur and volatile
inorganic compounds adsorption rendering sites inactive. A certain amount of
ammonia passes through unreacted which requires monitoring in order to meet
ammonia slip limits. An SCR system consists of reagent storage, feed and
injection system, catalyst, and monitoring equipment for use in controlling
ammonia slip. Predictive mapping and monitoring of engine parameters can be
used for reagent flow control instead of exhaust monitoring. SCR for solid fuel
biomass combustion systems is developmental due to gas cleaning
requirements.
Selective Non-
Catalytic Reduction
(SNCR)
Utilizes ammonia, urea, or other suitable amine based compounds that react
selectively with NOx in a flue gas in the presence of oxygen to reduce oxides of
nitrogen to N
2
. The reactions proceed at fairly high temperature and the
temperature range for the reactions to occur is rather narrow at 1600 2100 F
349

(900-1150 C) which is why the technique is also known as thermal de-NOx
Typically, more than stoichiometric amounts of ammonia or urea are injected in
order to sufficiently drive the NOx reduction reactions which leads to certain
amounts of ammonia passing unreacted through the system (so-called
ammonia slip). SNCR is used extensively in industrial and utility boilers and
furnaces, including biomass boilers. SNCR is a component of BACT for
biomass boilers in California.
Short-run avoided
cost
Marginal cost to generate or procure the next increment of electricity. For
example, SRAC is used to set energy prices for qualifying facilities as defined
by PURPA
Standard Offer No. 4
(SO#4)
The Interim Standard Offer No. 4 (SO#4) were contracts made available to
independent biomass power developers by PG&E and SCE. Available for
signing in 1984 and 1985 with a 5 year window to bring projects on-line, the
SO#4 guaranteed firm energy prices for 10 years based on the relatively high
SRAC rates in effect at that time ($0.05-0.06/kWh) and escalating to above
$0.12/kWh. At the end of the 10-year fixed rate portion, generators would
receive the current market SRAC which had significantly declined by the late
1990s.
Starved air
incineration
This process is usually two fold. In the first stage, the reactor is fed with sub-
stoichiometric levels of oxygen, which creates a reducing environment, driving
the organic components into the gas phase and leaving the inorganic material
as ash residue. The next stage thermally oxidizes the organic gases by mixing
with excess oxygen.
Steam pyrolysis
A thermally driven decomposition of organic material in a high pressure
superheat steam reactor. The steam produces more gas products and less
pyrolytic oil than dry pyrolysis. The pyrolytic char formed is highly porous and is
often used to make activated carbon from waste biomass. The activation of the
char, enhances the reactivity of the gasification process, especially when using
hydrogen.
Steam reforming
An endothermic chemical conversion process used to make hydrogen and
carbon monoxide from superheat steam and hydrocarbon gases such as
methane using a nickel based catalyst.
Stoichiometry
Generally the molar or mass relationships among reactants and products of a
chemical reaction. In any combustion reaction, for example, there is a specific
molar or mass ratio of oxygen or air (contains 21% oxygen by volume) to fuel
that is required for complete combustion to occur (fuel fully oxidized to carbon
dioxide and water). This ratio is called the stoichiometric ratio or the
stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. The inverse ratio is referred to as the stoichiometric
fuel-air ratio. If excess oxygen or air is supplied, the combustion occurs under
fuel-lean conditions. If insufficient oxygen or air is supplied, the combustion is
fuel-rich. The ratio of the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio to the actual air-fuel ratio is
called the equivalence ratio (f), so that fuel-lean conditions occur at equivalence
ratios less than 1, and fuel-rich conditions occur at equivalence ratios greater
than 1. An equivalence ratio equal to 1 specifies the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio.
The inverse of the equivalence ratio is the air- or lambda-factor (l). Combustion
conditions are commonly described by the equivalence ratio, while gasification
conditions (extremely fuel rich) are commonly described by the air-factor.
Synthesis gas
A mixture of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas formed via
gasification for the express purpose of synthesizing products.
Technical availability
Related to biomass resource, it is the amount of resource estimated to be
practically and economically obtainable
Thermal oxidation
A high temperature oxidative process that uses excess oxygen to convert
gaseous organic matter into carbon dioxide and water vapor.
Total Solids
Used to characterize digester systems input feedstock. Total solids (TS) means
the dry matter content, usually expressed as % of total weight, of the prepared
feedstock. By definition, TS = 100 moisture content of a sample. Also, TS =
350

351

VS plus ash content.
Volatile organic
compounds
VOCs are non-methane, non-ethane, photoreactive hydrocarbon gases that
vaporize at room temperature (methane and ethane are not photoreactive). The
quantity of VOC is sometimes determined by measuring non-methane non-
ethane organic compounds. When combined with NO
x
and sunlight, VOCs
produce ozone, a criteria air pollutant. Anthropogenic sources of VOCs include
products of incomplete combustion, evaporation of hydrocarbon fuels, fugitive
emissions from oil refineries and petro-chemical plants, fermented beverage
manufacturing, large animal feeding operations and feed ensiling. However,
natural VOC emissions account for the majority of VOC emissions
(approximately 60% of the US VOC emission inventory). Vegetation, especially
hardwood and pine trees account for most of the natural VOC emissions. They
are also an intermediate product in the creation of methane during anaerobic
digestion and are produced during enteric fermentation.
Volatile Solids
Used to characterize digester systems input feedstock, volatile solids (VSs) are
the organic (carbon containing) portion of the prepared reactor feedstock.
Usually expressed as a fraction of total solids, but sometimes expressed as a
fraction of total sample (wet) weight. The amount of VS in a sample is
determined by an analytical method called "loss on ignition. It is the amount of
matter that is volatilized and burned from a sample exposed to air at 550 C for
2 hours. The inorganic (ash) component of total solids remains after the loss on
ignition procedure. VS + ash = TS. Not all of the VS component of a feedstock
is digestible.

Appendix A
Supplemental Figures from Chapter 3 (Economic Analysis)
APA1

Figure 3.4-5. COE versus Debt Interest Rate (Carbona Skive) A-3
Figure 3.4-6. COE versus Equity Ratio (Carbona Skive) ........................................... A-3
Figure 3.4-7. COE versus Electrical Efficiency (Carbona Skive) ............................... A-4
Figure 3.4-8. Company size and PTC effects on COE (Carbona Skive) ................... A-4
Figure 3.5-6. COE versus Equity Ratio (Kokemki) ...................................................... A-5
Figure 3.5-7. COE versus net electric power efficiency (Kokemki) ............................. A-6
Figure 3.5-8. Variation of COE with tax consequences (Kokemki) ............................. A-6
Figure 3.6-6. COE versus Debt Interest Rate (Carbona India IGCC) ......................... A-7
Figure 3.6-7. COE versus Equity Ratio (Carbona India IGCC) ................................... A-7
Figure 3.6-8. COE versus Capacity Payment (Carbona India IGCC) ......................... A-8
Figure 3.6-9. COE versus Efficiency of Plant (Carbona India IGCC) .......................... A-8
Figure 3.6-10 Variation of COE with tax consequences (Carbona India IGCC) ......... A-9
Figure 3.7-5. COE versus Debt Interest Rate (rice straw plant) .................................... A-9
Figure 3.7-6. COE versus Equity Ratio (rice straw plant) ........................................... A-10
Figure 3.7-7. COE versus Capacity Payment (rice straw plant) .................................. A-10
Figure 3.7-8. COE versus Efficiency of Plant (rice straw plant) .................................. A-11
Figure 3.7-9. Effect of tax consequences on COE (rice straw plant) .......................... A-11
Figure 3.8-11. COE versus equity ratio (MSW AD scenario 1) ................................... A-13
Figure 3.8-12. COE versus interest rate on debt (MSW AD scenario 1) ..................... A-13
Figure 3.8-13. COE versus O&M costs (MSW AD scenario 1) ................................... A-14
Figure 3.8-20. Required Tip Fee vs. Electrical Parasitic Load (MSW AD scenario 2) A-14
Figure 3.8-21. Required Tip Fee vs. Equity Ratio (MSW AD scenario 2) ................... A-15
Figure 3.8-22. Required Tip Fee vs. Debt Interest Rate (MSW AD scenario 2) ......... A-15
Figure 3.8-23. Required Tip Fee vs. O&M Costs (MSW AD scenario 2) .................... A-16

APA2

0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Interest Rate (%/y)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
Base Case

Figure 3.4-5. COE versus debt interest rate (Carbona Skive)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0 20 40 60 80
Equity Ratio (%)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
100

Figure 3.4-6. COE versus equity ratio (Carbona Skive)
APA3

0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0 15 30
Efficiency of Plant -Electric Power (%)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
45

Figure 3.4-7. COE versus electrical efficiency (Carbona Skive)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
Large Profitable
Company (Base
Case)
Large Profitable
Company, w/o PTC
Small Company (no
'neg. taxes')
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)

Figure 3.4-8. Company size and PTC effects on COE (Carbona Skive)Photo credit: UC Davis
Research Team; Photo credit: Robert Williams
APA4

0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Interest Rate (%/y)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
Base Case
(6%)

Figure 3.5-5. COE versus interest rate (Kokemki)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Equity Ratio (%)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)

Figure 3.5-6. COE versus equity ratio (Kokemki)
APA5

0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0 15 30 45 6
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
0

Figure 3.5-7. COE versus net electric power efficiency (Kokemki)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
Large Profitable Company
(Base Case)
Large Profitable Company
(w/o PTC)
Small Company (no neg.
taxes)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)

Figure 3.5-8. Variation of COE with tax consequences (Kokemki)
APA6

0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1
Interest Rate (%/y)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
6

Figure 3.6-6. COE versus debt interest rate (Carbona India IGCC)
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0 20 40 60 80
Equity Ratio (%)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
100
Equity Ratio is 15% in
Base Case

Figure 3.6-7. COE versus equity ratio (CarbonaIndia IGCC)
APA7

0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0 50 100 150 200
Capacity Payment ($/kW-y)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)

Figure 3.6-8. COE versus capacity payment (Carbona India IGCC)
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0 15 30 45 6
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
0
Figure 3.6-9. COE versus efficiency of plant (Carbona India IGCC)
APA8

0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
Large Profitable
Company, w/ PTC
(base case)
Large Profitable
Company (no PTC)
Small Company (no
PTC or 'negative' taxes)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)

Figure 3.6-10 Variation of COE with tax consequences (Carbona India IGCC)
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Interest Rate (%/y)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
16

Figure 3.7-5. COE versus debt interest rate (rice straw plant)
APA9

0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0 20 40 60 80
Equity Ratio (%)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
100
Base Case

Figure 3.7-6. COE versus equity ratio (rice straw plant)
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Capacity Payment ($/kW-y)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
Figure 3.7-7. COE versus capacity payment (rice straw plant)
APA10

0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0 15 30 45 6
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
0

Figure 3.7-8. COE versus efficiency of plant (rice straw plant)
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
Large Company SmallCompany
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)

Figure 3.7-9. Effect of tax consequences on COE (rice straw plant)
APA11

APA12

0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 5 10 15 20
Equity Ratio (%)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
Base Case

Figure 3.8-11. COE versus equity ratio (MSW AD Scenario 1)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Debt Interest Rate (%/y)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
Base Case is 6%

Figure 3.8-12. COE versus interest rate on debt (MSW AD Scenario 1)
APA13

-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
O&M ($/short ton of feedstock)
C
O
E

(
$
/
k
W
h
)

Figure 3.8-13. COE versus O&M costs (MSW AD Scenario 1)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 15 30 45 60 75 9
Internal Electricity Consumption (% of gross generation)
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

T
i
p
p
i
n
g

F
e
e

(
$
/
t
o
n
)
0

Figure 3.8-20. Required tipping fee vs. electrical parasitic load (MSW AD Scenario 2)
APA14

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 5 10 15 20
Equity Ratio (%)
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

T
i
p
p
i
n
g

F
e
e

(
$
/
t
o
n
)
Base Case

Figure 3.8-21. Required tipping fee vs. equity ratio (MSW AD Scenario 2)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Debt Interest Rate (%/y)
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

T
i
p
p
i
n
g

F
e
e

(
$
/
t
o
n
)
14

Figure 3.8-22. Required Tipping fee vs. debt interest rate (MSW AD Scenario 2)
APA15

APA16

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
O&M ($/short ton of feedstock)
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

T
i
p
p
i
n
g

F
e
e

(
$
/
t
o
n
)

Figure 3.8-23. Required tipping fee vs. O&M costs (MSW AD Scenario 2)

Appendix B
Base Cash Flows
APB1

Annual Cash Flows-Carbona Skive
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Equity Recovery 513,051 513,051 513,051 513,051 513,051 513,051 513,051 513,051 513,051 513,051
Equity Interest 450,000 440,542 429,666 417,158 402,774 386,233 367,210 345,334 320,176 291,245
Equity Principal Paid 63,051 72,509 83,385 95,893 110,277 126,818 145,841 167,717 192,875 221,806
Equity Principal Remaining 2,936,949 2,864,440 2,781,055 2,685,162 2,574,885 2,448,067 2,302,225 2,134,508 1,941,633 1,719,827
Debt Recovery 1,750,367 1,750,367 1,750,367 1,750,367 1,750,367 1,750,367 1,750,367 1,750,367 1,750,367 1,750,367
Debt Interest 1,020,000 976,178 929,727 880,488 828,295 772,971 714,327 652,165 586,273 516,427
Debt Principal Paid 730,367 774,189 820,640 869,879 922,071 977,396 1,036,040 1,098,202 1,164,094 1,233,940
Debt Principal Remaining 16,269,633 15,495,444 14,674,804 13,804,925 12,882,853 11,905,458 10,869,418 9,771,216 8,607,122 7,373,183
Fuel Cost 1,478,972 1,520,384 1,562,954 1,606,717 1,651,705 1,697,953 1,745,495 1,794,369 1,844,612 1,896,261
Non-fuel Expenses 1,278,271 1,314,063 1,350,857 1,388,681 1,427,564 1,467,536 1,508,627 1,550,868 1,594,292 1,638,933
Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation 4,000,000 6,400,000 3,840,000 2,304,000 2,304,000 1,152,000 0 0 0 0
Capacity Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Annual heat sales ($) 1,718,138 1,766,246 1,815,701 1,866,541 1,918,804 1,972,530 2,027,761 2,084,538 2,142,906 2,202,907
Annual Ash sales ($) 2,988 3,071 3,157 3,246 3,337 3,430 3,526 3,625 3,726 3,831
Interest on Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes -1,863,594 -3,456,494 -1,694,396 -622,692 -587,407 228,808 1,047,267 1,089,292 1,133,838 1,181,058
Tax Credit 388,926 388,926 388,926 388,926 388,926 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes With PTC -2,252,521 -3,845,421 -2,083,323 -1,011,618 -976,333 228,808 1,047,267 1,089,292 1,133,838 1,181,058
Energy Revenue Required 1,047,015 -516,874 1,275,048 2,377,411 2,444,213 3,681,754 4,533,520 4,609,784 4,689,529 4,772,932
Current $ Level Annual Cost (LAC)
Cost of Money 0.0735
Present Worth (time 0) 975,329 -448,518 1,030,672 1,790,178 1,714,466 2,405,706 2,759,441 2,613,751 2,476,913 2,348,360
Total Present Worth 28,940,052
Capital Recovery Factor (current) 0.1122
Current $ Level Annual Revenue
Requirements ($/y) 3,248,063
Current $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh) 0.0752
Constant $ Level Annual Cost (LAC)
Real Cost of Money (inflation adjusted) 0.0443
Capital Recovery Factor (constant) 0.0926
Constant $ Level Annual Revenue Requ 2,681,040
Constant $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh) 0.0620

APB2

Annual Cash Flows-Carbona Skive Continued
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Equity Recovery 513,051 513,051 513,051 513,051 513,051 513,051 513,051 513,051 513,051 513,051
Equity Interest 257,974 219,712 175,712 125,111 66,920 0 -76,958 -165,459 -267,236 -384,279
Equity Principal Remaining 1,464,750 1,171,411 834,072 446,131 0 -513,051 -1,103,060 -1,781,570 -2,561,857 -3,459,187
Debt Recovery 1,750,367 1,750,367 1,750,367 1,750,367 1,750,367 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Interest 442,391 363,912 280,725 192,547 99,077 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Principal Paid 1,307,976 1,386,455 1,469,642 1,557,820 1,651,290 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Principal Remaining 6,065,206 4,678,752 3,209,110 1,651,290 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fuel Cost 1,949,356 2,003,938 2,060,048 2,117,730 2,177,026 0 0 0 0 0
Non-fuel Expenses 1,684,823 1,731,998 1,780,494 1,830,348 1,881,597 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Annual heat sales ($) 2,264,588 2,327,997 2,393,181 2,460,190 2,529,075 0 0 0 0 0
Annual Ash sales ($) 3,938 4,048 4,162 4,278 4,398 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes 1,231,110 1,284,166 1,340,405 1,400,018 1,463,208 346,850 346,850 346,850 346,850 346,850
Tax Credit 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes With PTC 1,231,110 1,284,166 1,340,405 1,400,018 1,463,208
Energy Revenue Required 4,860,181 4,951,475 5,047,023 5,147,045 5,251,777 859,901 859,901 859,901 859,901 859,901
2,227,562 2,114,024 2,007,283 1,906,906 1,812,490 276,449 257,521 239,890 223,465 208,165

APB3

Annual Cash Flows - Kokemaki, Finland
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Equity Recovery 141,089 141,089 141,089 141,089 141,089 141,089 141,089 141,089 141,089 141,089
Equity Interest 123,750 121,149 118,158 114,719 110,763 106,214 100,983 94,967 88,048 80,092
Equity Principal Remaining 807,661 787,721 764,790 738,420 708,093 673,218 633,112 586,990 533,949 472,952
Debt Recovery 481,351 481,351 481,351 481,351 481,351 481,351 481,351 481,351 481,351 481,351
Debt Interest 280,500 268,449 255,675 242,134 227,781 212,567 196,440 179,345 161,225 142,018
Debt Principal Paid 200,851 212,902 225,676 239,217 253,570 268,784 284,911 302,006 320,126 339,333
Fuel Cost 286,071 294,081 302,315 310,780 319,482 328,427 337,623 347,077 356,795 366,785
Non-fuel Expenses 432,929 445,051 457,512 470,322 483,491 497,029 510,946 525,253 539,960 555,078
Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation 1,100,000 1,760,000 1,056,000 633,600 633,600 316,800 0 0 0 0
Annual heat sales ($) 305,853 314,416 323,220 332,270 341,574 351,138 360,970 371,077 381,467 392,148
Annual Ash sales ($) 867 891 916 942 968 995 1,023 1,052 1,081 1,111
Taxes before PTC -512,488 -950,536 -465,959 -171,240 -161,537 62,922 287,998 299,555 311,806 324,791
Tax Credit 131,723 131,723 131,723 131,723 131,723 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes With PTC -644,211 -1,082,259 -597,682 -302,963 -293,260 62,922 287,998 299,555 311,806 324,791
Energy Revenue Required 390,509 -35,995 460,450 767,368 789,612 1,158,686 1,397,015 1,422,196 1,448,452 1,475,835
Present Worth (time 0) 363,772 -31,234 372,200 577,824 553,864 757,100 850,328 806,386 765,043 726,135
Requirements ($/y) 994,798
Constant $ Level Annual Revenue
Requirements ($/y) 821,133

APB4

Annual Cash Flows - Kokemaki, Finland (Continued)
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16
Equity Recovery 141,089 141,089 141,089 141,089 141,089 0
Equity Interest 70,943 60,421 48,321 34,405 18,403 0
Equity Principal Paid 70,146 80,668 92,768 106,684 122,686 0
Equity Principal Remaining 402,806 322,138 229,370 122,686 0 0
Debt Recovery 481,351 481,351 481,351 481,351 481,351 0
Debt Interest 121,658 100,076 77,199 52,950 27,246 0
Debt Principal Paid 359,693 381,275 404,152 428,401 454,105 0
Debt Principal Remaining 1,667,932 1,286,657 882,505 454,105 0 0
Fuel Cost 377,055 387,613 398,466 409,623 421,093 0
Non-fuel Expenses 570,621 586,598 603,023 619,907 637,265 0
Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capacity Income 0 0 0 0 0 0
Annual heat sales ($) 403,128 414,416 426,020 437,948 450,211 0
Annual Ash sales ($) 1,143 1,175 1,207 1,241 1,276 0
Interest on Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes before PTC 338,555 353,146 368,611 385,005 402,382 0
Tax Credit 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes With PTC 338,555 353,146 368,611 385,005 402,382
Energy Revenue Required 1,504,400 1,534,206 1,565,313 1,597,786 1,631,693 0
689,511 655,027 622,550 591,957 563,129 0

APB5

APB6
Annual Cash Flows -Carbona IGCC

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Equity Recovery 838,748 838,748 838,748 838,748 838,748 838,748 838,748 838,748 838,748
Equity Interest 787,500 779,813 770,973 760,806 749,115 735,670 720,209 702,428 681,980
Equity Principal Paid 51,248 58,935 67,775 77,941 89,633 103,077 118,539 136,320 156,768
Equity Principal Remaining 5,198,752 5,139,817 5,072,042 4,994,101 4,904,468 4,801,391 4,682,852 4,546,532 4,389,764
Debt Recovery 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741
Debt Interest 1,785,000 1,736,476 1,685,040 1,630,518 1,572,724 1,511,463 1,446,527 1,377,694 1,304,731
Debt Principal Paid 808,741 857,265 908,701 963,223 1,021,016 1,082,277 1,147,214 1,216,047 1,289,010
Debt Principal Remaining 28,941,259 28,083,994 27,175,294 26,212,071 25,191,054 24,108,777 22,961,563 21,745,516 20,456,507
Fuel Cost 1,821,204 1,872,198 1,924,619 1,978,509 2,033,907 2,090,856 2,149,400 2,209,583 2,271,452
Non-fuel Expenses 2,915,109 2,996,732 3,080,641 3,166,898 3,255,572 3,346,728 3,440,436 3,536,768 3,635,798
Debt Reserve 2,593,741 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation 3,500,000 6,300,000 5,040,000 4,032,000 3,227,000 2,579,500 2,292,500 2,292,500 2,292,500
Capacity Income 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000
Annual heat sales ($) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Annual Ash sales ($) 5,519 5,673 5,832 5,995 6,163 6,336 6,513 6,696 6,883
Interest on Debt Reserve 77,812 77,812 77,812 77,812 77,812 77,812 77,812 77,812 77,812
Taxes before PTC -1,252,395 -3,112,537 -2,225,938 -1,507,617 -924,323 -445,164 -207,236 -160,701 -111,375
Tax Credit 886,950 886,950 886,950 886,950 886,950 0 0 0 0
Taxes with PTC -2,139,345 -3,999,487 -3,112,888 -2,394,567 -1,811,273 -445,164 -207,236 -160,701 -111,375
Energy Revenue Required 7,414,866 3,093,445 4,116,216 4,974,521 5,701,718 7,215,760 7,605,763 7,808,631 8,018,668
Current $ Level Annual Cost
(LAC)
Present Worth (time 0) 6,907,187 2,684,345 3,327,300 3,745,787 3,999,406 4,714,871 4,629,440 4,427,499 4,235,296
Requirements ($/y)
7,679,676
Current $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh)
0.078
Constant $ Level Annual Cost
(LAC)
Real Cost of Money (inflation
adjusted) 0.0443
Requirements ($/y)
6,049,004
Constant $ LAC of Energy ($/kWh)
0.061

Annual Cash Flows -Carbona IGCC (Continued)
Year 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Equity Recovery 838,748 838,748 838,748 838,748 838,748 838,748 838,748 838,748 838,748 838,748 838,748
Equity Interest 658,465 631,422 600,323 564,560 523,431 476,134 421,742 359,191 287,257 204,534 109,402
Equity Principal Paid 180,283 207,326 238,424 274,188 315,316 362,614 417,006 479,557 551,490 634,214 729,346
Equity Principal Remaining 4,209,481 4,002,155 3,763,731 3,489,543 3,174,226 2,811,612 2,394,607 1,915,050 1,363,560 729,346 0
Debt Recovery 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741 2,593,741
Debt Interest 1,227,390 1,145,409 1,058,510 966,396 868,755 765,256 655,547 539,255 415,986 285,321 146,816
Debt Principal Paid 1,366,350 1,448,331 1,535,231 1,627,345 1,724,986 1,828,485 1,938,194 2,054,485 2,177,755 2,308,420 2,446,925
Debt Principal Remaining 19,090,156 17,641,825 16,106,594 14,479,249 12,754,264 10,925,779 8,987,585 6,933,100 4,755,345 2,446,925 0
Fuel Cost 2,335,052 2,400,434 2,467,646 2,536,740 2,607,769 2,680,786 2,755,848 2,833,012 2,912,336 2,993,882 3,077,711
Non-fuel Expenses 3,737,600 3,842,253 3,949,836 4,060,431 4,174,123 4,290,999 4,411,147 4,534,659 4,661,629 4,792,155 4,926,335
Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2,593,741
Depreciation 2,292,500 1,151,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capacity Income 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000
Annual heat sales ($) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Annual Ash sales ($) 7,076 7,274 7,478 7,687 7,902 8,124 8,351 8,585 8,825 9,072 9,326
Interest on Debt Reserve 77,812 77,812 77,812 77,812 77,812 77,812 77,812 77,812 77,812 77,812 77,812
Taxes before PTC -59,088 767,711 1,604,934 1,667,208 1,733,218 1,803,189 1,877,358 1,955,978 2,039,314 2,127,651 2,221,288
Tax Credit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes with PTC -59,088 767,711 1,604,934 1,667,208 1,733,218 1,803,189 1,877,358 1,955,978 2,039,314 2,127,651 2,221,288
Energy Revenue Required 8,236,164 9,232,800 10,244,615 10,486,369 10,736,884 10,996,527 11,265,679 11,544,740 11,834,131 12,134,291 9,851,943
4,052,327 4,231,661 4,373,922 4,170,600 3,977,861 3,795,114 3,621,801 3,457,398 3,301,410 3,153,374 2,384,959

APB7

Annual Cash Flows - Straw Facility
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Equity Recovery 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802
Equity Interest 2,640,000 2,614,230 2,584,594 2,550,513 2,511,319 2,466,247 2,414,414 2,354,805 2,286,256 2,207,424
Debt Recovery 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793
Debt Interest 4,224,000 4,109,172 3,987,455 3,858,435 3,721,673 3,576,706 3,423,041 3,260,156 3,087,498 2,904,480
Debt Principal Paid 1,913,793 2,028,620 2,150,338 2,279,358 2,416,119 2,561,086 2,714,752 2,877,637 3,050,295 3,233,313
Fuel Cost 7,568,964 7,871,722 8,186,591 8,514,055 8,854,617 9,208,802 9,577,154 9,960,240 10,358,649 10,772,995
Debt Reserve 6,137,793 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation 8,800,000 15,840,000 12,672,000 10,137,600 8,113,600 6,485,600 5,764,000 5,764,000 5,764,000 5,764,000
Capacity Income 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444
Annual heat sales ($) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Annual Ash sales ($) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest on Debt Reserve 245,512 245,512 245,512 245,512 245,512 245,512 245,512 245,512 245,512 245,512
Taxes before PTC -2,754,512 -7,436,293 -5,212,271 -3,411,659 -1,950,871 -752,252 -160,526 -50,407 66,319 190,048
Tax Credit 2,486,614 2,561,212 2,638,048 2,717,190 2,798,706 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes with PTC -5,241,126 -9,997,505 -7,850,319 -6,128,849 -4,749,576 -752,252 -160,526 -50,407 66,319 190,048
Energy Revenue Required 21,837,939 11,573,433 14,375,470 16,777,987 18,865,547 23,599,491 24,957,301 25,864,147 26,809,470 27,794,940
Present Worth (time 0) 20,257,829 9,959,205 11,475,346 12,424,096 12,959,123 15,038,000 14,752,523 14,182,346 13,637,017 13,115,297

APB8

Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Equity Recovery 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802 2,811,802
Equity Interest 2,116,767 2,012,512 1,892,619 1,754,741 1,596,182 1,413,839 1,204,145 962,997 685,676 366,757
Equity Principal Paid 695,034 799,290 919,183 1,057,060 1,215,620 1,397,962 1,607,657 1,848,805 2,126,126 2,445,045
Equity Principal Remaining 13,416,749 12,617,459 11,698,276 10,641,216 9,425,596 8,027,634 6,419,977 4,571,171 2,445,045 0
Debt Recovery 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793 6,137,793
Debt Interest 2,710,481 2,504,843 2,286,866 2,055,810 1,810,891 1,551,277 1,276,086 984,384 675,179 347,422
Debt Principal Paid 3,427,311 3,632,950 3,850,927 4,081,983 4,326,902 4,586,516 4,861,707 5,153,409 5,462,614 5,790,371
Debt Principal Remaining 41,747,378 38,114,428 34,263,501 30,181,518 25,854,616 21,268,100 16,406,394 11,252,984 5,790,371 0
Fuel Cost 11,203,915 11,652,072 12,118,155 12,602,881 13,106,996 13,631,276 14,176,527 14,743,588 15,333,332 15,946,665
Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6,137,793
Depreciation 2,895,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capacity Income 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444 3,504,444
Annual heat sales ($) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Annual Ash sales ($) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest on Debt Reserve 245,512 245,512 245,512 245,512 245,512 245,512 245,512 245,512 245,512 245,512
Taxes before PTC 2,260,661 4,356,991 4,504,355 4,660,561 4,826,139 5,001,652 5,187,695 5,384,901 5,593,940 5,815,521
Tax Credit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes with PTC 2,260,661 4,356,991 4,504,355 4,660,561 4,826,139 5,001,652 5,187,695 5,384,901 5,593,940 5,815,521
Energy Revenue Required 30,761,763 33,790,152 34,906,856 36,071,177 37,285,194 38,551,083 39,871,118 41,247,676 42,683,240 38,042,614
13,464,953 13,720,344 13,148,217 12,603,688 12,085,232 11,591,414 11,120,888 10,672,393 10,244,740 8,470,229

APB9

Annual Cash Flows Generic MSW AD (COE Calculation)
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Equity Recovery 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294
Equity Interest 619,010 612,968 606,019 598,028 588,838 578,270 566,116 552,140 536,067 517,583
Debt Recovery 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797
Debt Interest 1,403,090 1,364,948 1,324,517 1,281,660 1,236,232 1,188,078 1,137,035 1,082,929 1,025,577 964,784
Debt Principal Paid 635,707 673,849 714,280 757,137 802,565 850,719 901,762 955,868 1,013,220 1,074,013
Fuel Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation 2,751,158 4,952,084 3,961,667 3,169,334 2,536,567 2,027,603 1,802,008 1,802,008 1,802,008 1,802,008
Income--Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Income - Electricity sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Income--Heat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Income--Compost Material 238,166 243,167 248,274 253,488 258,811 264,246 269,795 275,461 281,245 287,152
Income-- Tipping Fee 2,599,326 2,653,912 2,709,644 2,766,546 2,824,644 2,883,961 2,944,525 3,006,360 3,069,493 3,133,953
Income - Sales of waste water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes w/o credit -984,439 -2,446,595 -1,749,687 -1,185,055 -726,560 -349,919 -162,897 -126,319 -87,546 -46,446
Tax Credit 98,885 144,231 147,260 150,352 153,510 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes -1,083,324 -2,590,826 -1,896,947 -1,335,407 -880,070 -349,919 -162,897 -126,319 -87,546 -46,446
Revenue Required 447,092 -1,084,931 -416,089 119,889 549,129 1,052,633 1,212,448 1,221,249 1,231,661 1,243,804
Present Worth (time 0) 416,480 -941,452 -336,341 90,276 385,180 687,804 737,987 692,449 650,538 611,972
Requirements ($/y)
1,108,183
Current $ LAC of Electrical Energy
($/kWh)
0.101
Requirements ($/y)
928,039
Constant $ LAC of Electrical Energy
($/kWh)
0.084

APB10

Annual Cash Flows Generic MSW AD (COE Calculation) (Continued)
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
Equity Recovery 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 13,185,870
Equity Interest 496,326 471,881 443,769 411,441 374,263 331,508 282,340 225,797 160,773 85,995 9,059,134
Equity Principal Paid 162,967 187,412 215,524 247,853 285,031 327,785 376,953 433,496 498,521 573,299 4,126,737
Equity Principal Remaining 3,145,874 2,958,462 2,742,938 2,495,085 2,210,054 1,882,269 1,505,316 1,071,819 573,299 0 --
Debt Recovery 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 40,775,940
Debt Interest 900,343 832,036 759,631 682,881 601,526 515,289 423,879 326,984 224,275 115,404 17,391,099
Debt Principal Remaining 13,867,270 12,660,509 11,381,342 10,025,426 8,588,155 7,064,647 5,449,729 3,737,915 1,923,393 0 --
Fuel Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation 905,131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,511,578
Income--Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Income--Heat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Income--Compost Material 293,182 299,339 305,625 312,043 318,596 325,286 332,117 339,092 346,213 353,483 5,844,779
Income-- Tipping Fee 3,199,766 3,266,961 3,335,567 3,405,614 3,477,132 3,550,151 3,624,705 3,700,823 3,778,541 3,857,890 63,789,512
Interest on Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes w/o credit 603,455 1,261,551 1,310,501 1,362,388 1,417,388 1,475,688 1,537,487 1,602,993 1,672,429 1,746,032 6,124,450
Tax Credit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 694,238
Taxes 603,455 1,261,551 1,310,501 1,362,388 1,417,388 1,475,688 1,537,487 1,602,993 1,672,429 1,746,032 5,430,213
Revenue Required 1,864,141 2,492,050 2,510,181 2,530,601 2,553,474 2,578,972 2,607,280 2,638,592 2,673,116 2,711,073 30,736,364
854,390 1,063,977 998,340 937,551 881,253 829,113 780,823 736,097 694,671 656,297

APB11

Annual Cash Flows - Generic MSW AD (Required Tipping Fee Determination)
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Equity Recovery 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294
Equity Interest 619,010 612,968 606,019 598,028 588,838 578,270 566,116 552,140 536,067 517,583
Debt Recovery 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797
Debt Interest 1,403,090 1,364,948 1,324,517 1,281,660 1,236,232 1,188,078 1,137,035 1,082,929 1,025,577 964,784
Debt Principal Paid 635,707 673,849 714,280 757,137 802,565 850,719 901,762 955,868 1,013,220 1,074,013
Fuel Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation 2,751,158 4,952,084 3,961,667 3,169,334 2,536,567 2,027,603 1,802,008 1,802,008 1,802,008 1,802,008
Income--Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Income - Electricity sales 582,323 594,552 607,038 619,786 632,801 646,090 659,658 673,511 687,654 702,095
Income--Heat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Income-- Tipping Fee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes w/o credit -984,439 -2,446,595 -1,749,687 -1,185,055 -726,560 -349,919 -162,897 -126,319 -87,546 -46,446
Tax Credit 98,885 144,231 147,260 150,352 153,510 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes -1,083,324 -2,590,826 -1,896,947 -1,335,407 -880,070 -349,919 -162,897 -126,319 -87,546 -46,446
Revenue Required 2,464,094 974,429 1,686,517 2,266,650 2,740,971 3,290,504 3,497,315 3,554,098 3,613,500 3,675,661
Present Worth (time 0) 2,295,383 845,563 1,363,279 1,706,775 1,922,624 2,150,058 2,128,729 2,015,176 1,908,577 1,808,485
Requirements ($/y)
3,467,174
Current $ LA Tipping fee
Requirement ($/Mg) 38.227
($/short ton) 34.7
Requirements ($/y)
2,903,555
Constant $ LA Tipping fee
Requirement ($/Mg) 32.013

APB12

Annual Cash Flows - Generic MSW AD (Required Tipping Fee Determination) Continued
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
Equity Recovery 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 659,294 13,185,870
Equity Interest 496,326 471,881 443,769 411,441 374,263 331,508 282,340 225,797 160,773 85,995 9,059,134
Equity Principal Remaining 3,145,874 2,958,462 2,742,938 2,495,085 2,210,054 1,882,269 1,505,316 1,071,819 573,299 0 --
Debt Recovery 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 2,038,797 40,775,940
Debt Interest 900,343 832,036 759,631 682,881 601,526 515,289 423,879 326,984 224,275 115,404 17,391,099
Fuel Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation 905,131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,511,578
Income--Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Income - Electricity sales 716,839 731,893 747,262 762,955 778,977 795,336 812,038 829,090 846,501 864,278
Income--Heat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Income-- Tipping Fee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes w/o credit 603,455 1,261,551 1,310,501 1,362,388 1,417,388 1,475,688 1,537,487 1,602,993 1,672,429 1,746,032 6,124,450
Tax Credit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 694,238
Taxes 603,455 1,261,551 1,310,501 1,362,388 1,417,388 1,475,688 1,537,487 1,602,993 1,672,429 1,746,032 5,430,213
Present Worth (time 0) 1,992,387 2,146,320 2,027,751 1,916,618 1,812,439 1,714,759 1,623,156 1,537,235 1,456,628 1,380,991
69,343,487
69,343,487

APB13

Table APS-2. Base Case Cash Flow, APS Scenario 1 (Full tax deductions)
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Equity Recovery 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194
Equity Interest 380,436 376,723 372,452 367,541 361,893 355,398 347,928 339,338 329,460 318,100
Debt Recovery 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020
Debt Interest 862,322 838,880 814,032 787,693 759,773 730,178 698,808 665,555 630,307 592,945
Fuel Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation 1,690,828 3,043,490 2,434,792 1,947,834 1,558,943 1,246,140 1,107,492 1,107,492 1,107,492 1,107,492
Income--Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Income--Heat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes w/o credit -605,024 -1,503,647 -1,075,336 -728,320 -446,535 -215,056 -100,114 -77,634 -53,804 -28,545
Tax Credit 98,654 125,907 128,552 131,251 134,007 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes -703,678 -1,629,555 -1,203,888 -859,571 -580,542 -215,056 -100,114 -77,634 -53,804 -28,545
Revenue Required 559,868 -374,296 42,908 378,585 648,793 1,005,273 1,111,019 1,124,110 1,138,354 1,153,826
Present Worth (time 0) 521,535 -324,797 34,684 285,072 455,088 656,858 676,250 637,371 601,255 567,701
Capital Recovery Factor (curren 0.0970
Current $ Level Annual Revenue 1,043,733
Current $ LAC of Electrical En 0.095
Real Cost of Money (inflation ad 0.0514
Capital Recovery Factor (consta 0.0812
Constant $ Level Annual Revenu 874,065
E Constant $ LAC of Electrical 0.080
APB14

Table APS-2. (Continued) Base Case Cash Flow, APS Scenario 1 (Full tax deductions)
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
Equity Recovery 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 8,103,874
Equity Interest 305,036 290,012 272,735 252,866 230,017 203,741 173,523 138,772 98,809 52,851 5,567,632
Equity Principal Remaining 1,933,416 1,818,234 1,685,776 1,533,449 1,358,272 1,156,819 925,148 658,727 352,342 0 --
Debt Recovery 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 25,060,392
Debt Interest 553,340 511,359 466,860 419,690 369,690 316,690 260,511 200,960 137,837 70,926 10,688,356
Debt Principal Paid 699,680 741,660 786,160 833,330 883,329 936,329 992,509 1,052,059 1,115,183 1,182,094 14,372,036
Fuel Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation 556,282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,908,278
Income--Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Income--Heat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes w/o credit 370,876 775,334 805,418 837,307 871,109 906,940 944,920 985,180 1,027,855 1,073,090 3,764,012
Tax Credit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 618,372
Taxes 370,876 775,334 805,418 837,307 871,109 906,940 944,920 985,180 1,027,855 1,073,090 3,145,640
Present Worth (time 0) 707,319 827,217 778,401 732,980 690,713 651,376 614,762 580,678 548,944 519,393
20,874,658
20,874,658

APB15

Table APS-4. Base Case Cash Flow, APS Scenario 2 (no negative taxes).
APB16

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Equity Recovery 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194
Equity Interest 380,436 376,723 372,452 367,541 361,893 355,398 347,928 339,338 329,460 318,100
Debt Recovery 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020
Debt Interest 862,322 838,880 814,032 787,693 759,773 730,178 698,808 665,555 630,307 592,945
Fuel Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation 845,414 845,414 845,414 845,414 845,414 845,414 845,414 845,414 845,414 845,414
Income--Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Income--Heat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes w/o credit -33,480 -17,632 -833 16,973 35,849 55,856 77,064 99,545 123,374 148,633
Tax Credit 98,654 125,907 128,552 131,251 134,007 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes 0 0 0 0 0 55,856 77,064 99,545 123,374 148,633
Revenue Required 1,263,546 1,255,258 1,246,796 1,238,156 1,229,335 1,276,185 1,288,197 1,301,289 1,315,533 1,331,005
Present Worth (time 0) 1,177,034 1,089,253 1,007,835 932,325 862,303 833,876 784,094 737,832 694,837 654,876
Capital Recovery Factor (curren 0.0970
Current $ Level Annual Revenue 1,324,195
Current $ LAC of Electrical En 0.121
Real Cost of Money (inflation ad 0.0514
Capital Recovery Factor (consta 0.0812
Constant $ Level Annual Revenu 1,108,936
Constant $ LAC of Electrical E 0.101

APB17

APB18
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
Equity Recovery 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 405,194 8,103,874
Equity Interest 305,036 290,012 272,735 252,866 230,017 203,741 173,523 138,772 98,809 52,851 5,567,632
Equity Principal Remaining 1,933,416 1,818,234 1,685,776 1,533,449 1,358,272 1,156,819 925,148 658,727 352,342 0 --
Debt Recovery 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 1,253,020 25,060,392
Debt Interest 553,340 511,359 466,860 419,690 369,690 316,690 260,511 200,960 137,837 70,926 10,688,356
Debt Principal Paid 699,680 741,660 786,160 833,330 883,329 936,329 992,509 1,052,059 1,115,183 1,182,094 14,372,036
Fuel Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation 845,414 845,414 845,414 845,414 845,414 845,414 845,414 845,414 845,414 845,414 16,908,278
Income--Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Income--Heat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taxes w/o credit 175,408 203,789 233,873 265,763 299,565 335,396 373,376 413,635 456,310 501,546 3,764,012
Tax Credit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 618,372
Taxes 175,408 203,789 233,873 265,763 299,565 335,396 373,376 413,635 456,310 501,546 3,763,135
Present Worth (time 0) 617,730 583,197 551,089 521,231 493,462 467,631 443,597 421,232 400,415 381,034
26,483,902
26,483,902
Table APS-4. (Continued) Base Case Cash Flow, APS Scenario 2(no negative taxes).

APB19

Cec 500 2012 060

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cec 500 2012 060

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Publ i c I nter est Ener gy Resear ch ( PI ER) Pr ogr am

FI NAL PROJECT REPORT

Table ES-1. Air emissions from biomass fueled power systems

1.4.2 Biomass Integrated Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Efforts

Japans first municipal waste, fluidizedbed, gasificationmelting furnace

Sources; 1). Title V airpermits available on-line at; http://www.arb.ca.gov/fcaa/tv/tvinfo/permits/permits.htm

(1,111) (1,105) (1,076) (1,040) (1,047) (1,055) (1,022) (1,021)

Underestimate and further

(lb/MW-hr) (g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd) (lb/MW-hr)

Emissions from Reciprocating Engines

Figure 2-10. Gasoline engine emissions vs. Lambda

2.3.1 Air District Attainment Status and Emission Limits

(lb/MW-hr) (g/bhp-hr) (ppmvd) (lb/MW-hr)

Figure 2-24. Gasoline engine emissions vs. Lambda

Annual Cash Flows -Carbona IGCC

You might also like