The Torsional Chamber as an Alternative to the Technologies

Usually Employed in Biomass Co-firing

Royo, J.; Sebastin, F.; Canals, P and Rodrguez, N.*
CIRCE Foundation Centre of Research for Energy Resources and Consumptions
Mara de Luna, 3; 50018 Zaragoza (Spain)
* Independent consultant

ABSTRACT
Co-firing of dry biomass resources in pulverised coal power plants is, as is well known, a
technically feasible and environmentally interesting technology. Nevertheless, in order to
achieve its widespread implantation it is necessary to ensure its economic feasibility which is
conditioned so much by the investment required to adapt the power plant to the new situation,
as by the new operation costs involved.
These new operation costs are mainly due to the biomass pre-treatments required to
achieve optimum combustion efficiency. In many cases, when biomass resources are fed into
a coal utility boiler their moisture content has to be reduced and their particle size has to be
diminished in order to improve their performance.
An interesting option so as to reduce co-firing costs is the installation of a Torsional
Chamber in the coal utility boiler as the biomass burner. These devices, which have already
demonstrated their suitability in several biomass resources combustion plants but have never
been tested in co-firing experiences yet, consist of a water cooled ring swirl burner (the coal
utility boiler water will flow in it) in which inside, biomass particles are aerodynamically
suspended until they are completely burned.
The most interesting advantage of this technology is its high biomass particles residence
time, which permits to use, depending on the biomass fuel used, a particle size up to 30 mm
and a moisture content on a wet basis up to 30% maintaining, at least, the efficiency of the
pulverised biomass burners and therefore providing pre-treatments costs saving.
The objectives of this paper are both to put forward this new co-firing alternative and to
compare it economically with other options: the utilization of the existing pulverised coal
burners, the installation of new pulverised biomass burners or the integration of a grate in the
furnace of the coal utility boiler.

1.- Introduction
Socio-economic and environmental benefits related to the use of biomass (CO2 neutral
character, acidic flue gas emissions reduction, job-creation, energy dependency reduction,
etc.) are the reasons why this renewable energy source has been strongly supported. A
significant increment of the contribution of biomass resources in the energy market was
expected. However, current biomass penetration is slower and lower than it would be desired.
An interesting and promising alternative so as to increase biomass share in the energy
market is the thermochemical transformation of these renewable resources in coal-fired power
stations, concept usually referred to as co-firing, as is well known, defined as the
simultaneous combustion of different fuels, generally biomass and coal, in the same utility
boiler. Nevertheless, in order to achieve its widespread implantation it is necessary to ensure
its economic feasibility which is conditioned so much by the investment required to adapt the
power plant to the new situation, as by the new operation costs involved. These new operation
costs are mainly due to the biomass pre-treatments required to achieve optimum combustion
efficiency.
Although co-firing can be carried out in every power plant typology [1-3], the application
of this technology should focus in pulverised coal units as they are the most widespread type
of boilers at present. In order to obtain high generation efficiency, this type of power plants
work with very short fuel residence time by means of feeding finely pulverised coal particles
with low moisture content.
As residual biomass resources have different characteristics compared to the fossil fuel
which is going to replace, some steps are to be taken to ensure its complete combustion in a
boiler that, at first, was not designed for these fuels. Some consist of the adjustment of the
fuel parameters by employing moisture content and particle size reduction pre-treatments, and
others consist of the assembling in the boiler of additional feeding devices and biomass
burners designed or adapted to achieve an efficient combustion of the residues although, in
many cases, both of them have to be used together.
The location of a Torsional Chamber in the coal utility boiler as a biomass burner is an
interesting co-firing alternative. These devices, which have already demonstrated their
suitability in several biomass resources combustion plants but have never been tested in cofiring experiences yet, set high biomass particles residence time, which permits to use,
depending on the biomass type, a particle size up to 30 mm and a moisture content on a wet

basis up to 30% maintaining, at least, the efficiency of the pulverised biomass burners and
therefore providing pre-treatments costs saving [4].
The objectives of this paper are both to put forward this new co-firing alternative and to
compare it economically with other options: the utilization of the existing pulverised coal
burners, the installation of new pulverised biomass burners or the integration of a grate in the
furnace of the coal utility boiler.
2.- Co-firing technology options in pulverised coal utility boilers.
Despite the co-firing concept is a low cost alternative compared to all other renewable
power generation options, and has been tested successfully in several European and American
power plants [1-3, 5], there are some aspects which have to be analysed in detail for each
utility boiler in order to achieve an efficient and feasible alternative which could emerged as a
frequent operation technology. These aspects are, for example, the most suitable coal
replacement value by biomass; the pre-treatments which have to be employed and their
optimization; the most appropriate biomass particles feeding location; the most suitable
biomass burner technology to be employed, etc.
There are several alternativeswhich can be used to fed biomass resources into a
pulverised coal-fired utility boiler. The final co-firing option installed mainly depends on the
boiler and burners typology, the type of coal employed, and the local biomass resources
characteristics. Basically, the following concepts are the ones which are generally used in
order to co-fire biomass with coal:

Biomass addition to the coal flow and blend feeding to the coal burner;

Separately biomass handling and feeding through existing coal burners:

o Blending it with the coal before the burner entrance;
o Feeding independently from coal using burner free ducts;
o Switching one or more coal burners to biomass (shutting off coal);

New specific pulverised biomass burners retrofitting and pre-treatment

equipments installation;

Integration of a biomass grate in the furnace of the coal utility boiler;

Combustion of biomass in a separate unit and utilisation of the created heat in

the boiler of the existing plant;

Gasification of biomass and combustion of the product gas as an additional

fuel in a coal boiler.

The first option, which implies using existing fuel processing and handling equipment
has been tested only at small biomass feeding percentages (up to 2% on a heat basis, or about
5% by mass) [6-7] because due to the inappropriateness of coal mills to reduce biomass
particle size, higher replacements could cause blockages or increase fire risks. Although these
aspect depends strongly on the coal and biomass type employed, in general, higher coal
replacements by biomass using this co-firing concept seems to be inadvisable. In this paper a
replacement up to approximately 10% of coal by biomass on a heat basis is going to be
considered and for this reason this co-firing alternative has not be analysed.
When combustion of biomass is done in a separate unit and the generated heat is
introduced in the boiler of the existing plant or when biomass is converted into a gas and this
gas is burned in conventional coal boilers, no severe modifications of the existing utility
boiler are necessary but, at the present time, the specific investment (/kWe) of the biomass
conversion plant is relatively high compared to other co-firing options [8-10] and similar to,
for example, installing in some utility boilers a grate. This paper does not compare the
gasification or the completely separate biomass combustion units but these co-firing options
could be identified, from an economic point of view, to the grate integration in the furnace of
the coal utility boiler.
The following paragraphs go deeply into the alternatives finally selected.
Separately biomass handling and feeding through existing coal burners
Generally, coal specific volumetric energy density is much higher than dry biomass
resources one (i.e., some anthracites have 7 GJ/m3 compared to 2.5 GJ/m3 which, on average,
have forestry biomass resources) which implies that higher volumes of fuel have to be fed
into the utility boiler in order to generate the same amount of energy in a heat basis. However,
some pulverised coal power plants employ coals which have, approximately, the same energy
density than the biomass resources. This similarity helps to save investment costs when
adapting a coal fired plant to co-firing because some of the coal handling and feeding devices,
such as the burners, can be used to introduce biomass particles into the boiler. In these cases,
co-firing investment costs are reduced considerably, they only include the pre-treatment
equipments needed to prepare biomass particles and their handling and feeding and, in some

cases, minor modifications in order to improve biomass particles combustion in the coal
burner.
Several experiences have been carried out in order to demonstrate both technical and
environmental feasibilities of this co-firing option, in most of the cases feeding biomass
particles through the lower coal burners so as to increase biomass particles residence time and
therefore, reducing unburned particles appearance risks [11].
Normally, biomass is directly fed to the coal flame centre, which allows working with
higher particle sizes; many tests have reached good results employing 5 mm [5, 11 and 16] or
even higher mesh size sieves. In these cases pre-treatments costs can be considerably reduced
because no severe milling or drying processes are required, although on the other hand,
unburned particles percentage slightly increase, both in flying ashes and in bottom ashes,
which leads to efficiency looses. On the contrary, when small particle sizes are employed
(about 1 mm size) looses are negligible but investment and operation pre-treatment costs
increase considerably.
New specific pulverised biomass burners retrofitting and pre-treatment equipments
installation
In some cases, coal or biomass resources characteristics force to avoid the employment of
the existing coal burners when trying to adapt the coal power plant to the co-firing technology
and additional specific biomass burners have to be retrofitted, normally designed to work with
pulverised biomass particles provided that they guarantee their transformation in the coal
utility boiler. These new burners are installed as lower as possible in order to increase
biomass particles residence time into the boiler (which was designed to burn approximately
70 m size coal particles) or in the upper part of the boiler, as reburning burners, so as to
decrease NOx emissions. Both biomass injection ways set similar pre-treatment requirements
than using the existing coal burners but higher investment costs due to, in addition to pretreatment devices, they require new burners retrofitting.
Integration of a biomass grate in the furnace of the coal utility boiler
Other alternative which has also been carried out is the combustion of biomass resources
on a grate integrated in the furnace of the coal boiler. This option does not necessitate drying
nor milling processes so that it saves operation and investment pre-treatment costs but, on the
contrary, the installation of such a grate involves high retrofitting costs and needs sufficient
free space below the boiler which makes in many cases a retrofit impossible [10, 12].

Provided that this co-firing option does not require pre-treatments and because of its
retrofitting investment costs are similar to the ones involved when combustion of biomass is
done in a completely separate unit or when biomass is gasified and the gas generated is
burned in the existing utility boiler, this alternative could be considered as an example of the
three of them.
This paper puts forward another co-firing option which means the retrofitting of a
Torsional Chamber as a biomass burner in the coal utility boiler. The next section describes
deeply into both this biomass combustors technology and this co-firing alternative.
3.- The Torsional Chamber: an efficient biomass burner.
The Torsional Chamber, which is a horizontal cylinder connected to a boiler through an
inverted-cone-shaped neck (see Figure 1) is essentially a much-improved cyclonic combustor
[4].

Figure 1. A Torsional Chamber without its external insulation layer. This particular chamber is used
to burn sunflower hulls and produces, connected to a boiler, 20 t/h of saturated steam at 12 bar.

The secondary air is tangentially injected into the Torsional Chamber by means of
nozzles. This generates aerodynamic fields which provide high residence times for the fuel
particles (which are fed in pneumatic suspension), enough to ensure a complete combustion.
The combustion gases, along with a part of the ashes, leave the chamber through an invertedcone-shaped neck and enter the boiler, while the remainder of the generated ashes are
periodically removed from the Torsional Chamber*.

More information related to this technology characteristics could be obtained in references [4, 13 and 14]

The chamber is formed by tube rings connected to upper and lower headers, shaping a
completely water-cooled surface where the energy generated in the combustion process
begins to be transferred to the heated fluid. The whole tube system is connected to the
circulation of the boiler by an independent system of risers and downcomers. In this way, the
recovery of thermal energy generated in the chamber is maximized, and refractory cladding
(and, therefore, maintenance) is minimized. The only refractory bricks needed are located on
the closed end of the chamber.
The Torsional Chamber is suitable to burn any solid biomass which can be transported in
pneumatic suspension. Typical fuels include wood chips, sawdust, sunflower hulls, cotton
husk, grape and olive marcs and straw, [4] and it would be an appropriate technology to
transform with high efficiency and low costs a lot more of them (the Circe Foundation has in
its co-firing laboratory an experimental Torsional Chamber (850 kWth) which is currently
used in order to do several tests with different biomass resources so as to optimize their
thermochemical transformation [15]). The suitability for pneumatic suspension depends on
the particle density/cross sectional area ratio but, for many biomass resources, this means
roughly that the particles must have diameters ranging from 0,1 to 30 mm. There is no
limitation whatsoever in burning together particles with wildly different sizes or densities, as
long as all of them can be maintained in suspension. If the moisture content ranges from 10 to
30% the combustion air must be pre-heated to 100 to 150 C. Fuels with moisture content
under 10% on a wet basis can be injected into the Torsional Chamber without any additional
treatment [4].
The main advantages of the Torsional Chamber can be summarized as follows (100%
biomass-fired) [4]:
-

Its investment cost is comparable to that of a grate and lower than a fluidized bed;

The Torsional Chamber technology is scalable over a wide range of required

power, from 750 kWth up to 30,000 kWth;

Most existing boilers can be retrofitted with Torsional Chambers;

It allows an efficient combustion with very little air excess and with high degree of
completation. As a consequence, the gaseous emissions (particles, VOCs and CO)
are within current and foreseeable regulations without complex fume depuration
systems;

The combustion is very stable throughout the operational range of the chamber;

It allows a quick regulation, comparable to that of a fossil fuel burner.

Torsional Chamber and co-firing

This paper puts forward a new co-firing option, the installation of a Torsional Chamber in
the coal utility boiler as a biomass burner. The Torsional Chamber would be retrofitted so
coal utility boiler water will flow in it, whereas biomass combustion gases, after transferring
part of their energy content, will go into the coal utility boiler through the inverted-coneshaped neck where they would complete their combustion if necessary (See Figure 2). The
correct adaptation position boiler wall chosen, height, etc- has to be analysed in detail for
each installation but provided that practically complete biomass combustion takes place
within the Torsional Chamber, its final position should not affect the global boiler efficiency.

Figure 2. Retrofitting of the Torsional Chamber in the coal utility boiler diagram.

By this co-firing option both high biomass efficiency combustion and low pre-treatment
requirements fit together. In spite of the fact no co-firing installations have retrofitted this
option yet, its technical viability could be ensured when large biomass combustion projects
using this combustor are considered or extrapolated.
In the following section this new co-firing option is going to be compared with the
alternatives which were chosen before.

4.- Economic Analysis.

Co-firing in existing pulverised coal-fired power plants makes it possible to achieve
much better efficiency in converting biomass fuel into electric power compared to stand-alone
biomass plants. Nevertheless, in many cases co-firing can be only employed with low-cost or
free resources due to the investment and operation costs which are involved in the
modification of the power plant. One of the key factors which is currently developed in order
to obtain co-firing technology take off is the diminution of these costs. Subsequently, four
different co-firing options costs are compared,
1- Separately biomass particles handling and feeding independently from coal through
existing coal burners;
2- New specific pulverised biomass burners retrofitting;
3- Integration of a biomass grate in the furnace of the coal utility boiler;
4- Installing a Torsional Chamber as a biomass burner.
Provided that is impossible to consider a general analysis due to the great amount of the
factors involved in the final result (coal and biomass employed, utility boiler typology, power
plant output, biomass heat replacement rates, etc.) the following hypothesis are going to be
considered in order to compare the four options. In spite of the fact that is an example with
specific data, the results that will be obtained with other assumptions would be quite similar.
-

The existing power plant produces 150 MWe with a 33.3% net efficiency.

10% of the coal flow is replaced by biomass (on an energy basis), that is, 15 MWe
(45MWth) are generated by this renewable resource.

Forestry biomass resources are employed. It is considered that these resources have
the following characteristics:
o LHV (dry basis) = 19,250 kJ/kg;
o Biomass resources maximum particle size (as received in the power plant) is
300 mm, that is, they are previously chipped before transporting them to the
plant;
o Two different biomass moisture contents (as received in the power plant) are
going to be considered, 45% (green wood) and 25% (natural drying is
applied).

When the first co-firing option is considered it is assumed that both the coal type
and the utility boiler employed allow to use the existing coal burners in order to fed
biomass particles.

When the third co-firing option is taken into account it is assumed that there is
sufficient free space at the bottom of the boiler to install a biomass grate.

When the four alternatives are compared no efficiency penalties attributable to

biomass feeding into the boiler (mainly caused to unburned carbon in bottom ashes
and flying ashes) are going to be taken into account.

With regard to the last assumption, the boiler efficiency diminution would be lower when
employing the second and the fourth co-firing options due to they use specific high efficiency
biomass burners instead of adapting a coal burner or employing a lower efficiency biomass
combustion technology. However, it is difficult to obtain data which could be used to
compare all the technologies considered.
Biomass pre-treatment requirements and pre-treatment equipment needed.
In order to feed biomass particles into the coal utility boiler different equipment and pretreatment processes are needed for each co-firing option.
1- Separately biomass handling and feeding through existing coal burners.
Although this option does not involve new specific burners retrofitting, due to biomass
particles are fed directly to the coal flame centre and, normally, through the lower burners
with available free ducts (which implies increasing biomass residence time), particle sizes
between 3 and 6 mm with a moisture content up to 25% on a wet basis have been tested with
negligible boiler efficiency diminutions [5, 11 and 16].
To achieve these particle properties the fitting of a size reduction plant would be required.
If the particle size objective involves a reduction from 300 mm down to 3 mm, the installation
of a two stages size reduction plant will be necessary (this plant could possibly include a hog
and a pulverizer or two pulverizers); and if the particles moisture content needs to be
decreased down to 25% a dryer would also be required.
2- New specific pulverised biomass burners retrofitting.
References analysis shows that so as to achieve efficient biomass combustion results
different biomass particle sizes have been tested, which vary between 0.5 mm and 6 mm.
However, with modern burner-technology, the particle size distribution of the biomass as

large as 100% < 8 mm and 30-40% < 1mm can be accepted [17]. With regard to particles
moisture content, it has been assumed that the maximum value which could be acceptable is
25% (on a wet basis). For these reasons, the same pre-treatment requirements and the same
devices are assumed for this option than for the previous alternative.
3- Integration of a biomass grate in the furnace of the coal utility boiler.
Certainly, this is the option which requires lower pre-treatment costs due to this
technology is able to work even with worse particle characteristics than the ones which have
been considered to compare all the options. Nevertheless, when this alternative is compared to
the other options it is compulsory to consider that itrequires a non negligible electric operation
costs, about 8 kWe/MWth, due to it is necessary to work the grill [10].
4- Installing a Torsional Chamber as a biomass burner.
This technology is able to manage, without noticeable efficiency diminutions, several
biomass resources with up to 30 mm particle size and with a moisture content up to 30% on a
wet basis [4]. In order to compare the four options, some slightly more restrictive working
conditions have been imposed, 25 mm particle size and a 30% moisture content. To achieve
these particle characteristics the installation of a dryer and a hog or a pulverizer will be
required. The drying equipment is only necessary when considering that the plant is working
with green wood.
Biomass resources pre-treatment equipment investment costs and operation consumption.
The following table (Table 1) shows the considered pre-treatment equipment investment
costs and their thermal and/or electric energy consumption during the process.
With regard to the dryer thermal consumption it has been assumed that this equipment is
fed with the selfsame biomass resources. According to this, the higher drying requirements,
the higher biomass resources consumption will be required. Previously resources drying
means slight energy penalizations compared to feeding wet biomass resources into the boiler,
but on the contrary, implies lower consumptions in the particle size reduction devices and
better utility boiler behaviour. The former requires 3,100 kJ per kilogramme of evaporated
water [18], and the latter, assuming a 85% thermal boiler efficiency, needs 2,875 kJ per
kilogramme of evaporated water. Despite having higher energy consumptions, the installation
of this equipment would be in many cases compulsory when working with several resources
at the considered moisture content.

Table 1. Pre-treatment equipment investment costs and energy consumption during the process.

Equipment

Specific Investment

Thermal energy
consumption

110 /(kg/h)of evaporated water (1) 3,100 kJ/kgof evaporated water.(2)

Dryer
Hog or pulverizer
(300 mm down to 25 mm)
Pulverizer (25 down to 3 mm)

Electric energy
consumption
(over dry biomass)
50 kJ/kg (3)

7 /(kg/h)of dry biomass (4)

------

117.5-160 kJ/kg (5)

13 /(kg/h)of dry biomass (4)

------

460 kJ/kg (3)

(1)

: from [18, 19] and manufacturers data.

(2)

: from [18].

(3)

: from [20].

(4)

: from manufacturers data.

(5)

: from [20]. The lower value corresponds with dry wood (moisture content, 20%) and the higher corresponds with

green wood (moisture content, 50%).

Total specific investment (without considering pre-treatment equipments).

The most difficult issue to be appraised is, probably, the new installation and retrofitting
costs needed to adapt the existing power plant to the co-firing technology. References analysis
shows specific investment values very different amongst each other, mainly because tests
have been carried out with several types of coal, various biomass resources (which affect
enormously pre-treatments involved) and different coal utility boilers typology. Moreover,
available information is extremely heterogeneous due to, generally, these data comprise
different number and typology of new equipment acquisition, include different adaptation
works or compare theoretical to real costs in a particular installation and the latter always
have its own determining factors which separate real from theoretical costs.
This aspect is specially critical when retrofitting a grate in the furnace of the coal utility
boiler (third option) due to the lack of experiences or installations: considering theoretical
values, the specific investment costs required to adapt an existing power plant to co-firing by
adding a grate in the furnace vary between 400 /kWe [10] and 800-900 /kWe [12]
depending on the total output generated with the biomass resources, 28 MWe and 4.2 MWe
respectively. However, it has to be considered that when a real grate adaptation was executed
(4.2 MWe generated with biomass) the final investment costs were only 333 /kWe, that is,
lower than they were expected, due to in this particular case already existing biomass storing
and conveying systems were easily adapted [10, 12].

In order to carry out the economic analysis several data or references were looked up and
finally, average real data were used when it was possible and theoretical values were
employed when there were not other sources or when there was little information with great
discrepancies amongst data. In this way, the total investment costs (without including the pretreatment equipment) which were finally employed are the following,
-

330 /kWe when considering both the specific new biomass burners retrofitting
(21) and the Torsional Chamber adaptation. Although from data obtained from the
manufacturers** the theoretical specific investment costs needed to retrofit
Torsional Chambers as a co-firing option are slightly lower, 300 /kWh, due to still
no co-firing experiences have installed this technology, the same value as the one
employed with other burners was used;

230 /kWe when feeding biomass through existing coal burners [5, 22 and 23];

600 /kWe when integrating a grate in the furnace of the coal utility boiler. This
value has to be considered with some reserves according to the determining factors
exposed previously.

Results
The following tables show the coal power plant retrofitting costs for the four co-firing
options. According to the hypothesis explained before, forestry biomass generates 15 MWe of
the total plant output and two different biomass resources moisture content as received are
considered (25 and 45 % on a wet basis).
As it can be seen in both tables, retrofitting a Torsional Chamber as a biomass burner in
the coal utility boiler is, amongst the alternatives considered, the most profitable co-firing
option because:
-

When compared to the existing coal burners utilisation this alternative requires
higher investment widely balanced with lower pre-treatment costs.

If it is compared to the new specific pulverised biomass burners retrofitting this

alternative implies lower pre-treatment investment and operation costs due to it is
capable of working with less restrictive biomass characteristics. This result is
specially significant provided that amongst the four analysed options, both the

**

AGREST Equipamientos Industriales, srl. Av. Belgrano, 355, P. 13. C1092AAD. Buenos Aires (Argentina).

Torsional Chamber and the Pulverised biomass burner adaptation, do not depend on
the coal or utility boiler typology.
-

Despite of having no pre-treatment costs, the integration of a biomass grate

investment is excessively high. Nevertheless, as was mentioned before, this
investment has to be considered very cautiously.

Biomass grate co-firing option analysis results are, in a sense, similar to the ones that
would be obtained if a separate biomass combustion unit were installed (using the created
heat in the boiler of the existing plant) or if a biomass gasifier were installed (employing the
product gas as an additional fuel in a coal boiler). Pre-treatments could be avoided in the three
alternatives and in many cases, the investment costs would possibly be quite similar.
Table 2. Retrofitting and operation costs when considering that biomass has 300 mm particle size and
45% moisture content on a wet basis (as received).
FORESTRY BIOMASS AS RECEIVED: 300 mm and 45% moisture content
CO-FIRING OPTION
Coal burner

Biomass burner

Grate

Torsional Chamber

4,152

5,652

9,000

5,425

277

377

600

362

Biomass consumption (kWthh/year)(6)

45,839

45,839

45,000

45,672

Electric self consumptions (MWeh/year) (7)

13,493

13,493

2,880

3,849

Electric self consumptions (%)(7)

11.2

11.2

2.4

3.2

Annual costs (k)(8)

3.117

3.302

3.356

2.977

Specific costs (c/kWeh) (9)

2.60

2.75

2.80

2.48

Total Investment (k)

Specific Investment (k/kWe)

(6)

: Over L.H.V, considering both 8,000 annual working hours and that there is no efficiencies penalty
attributable to the biomass feeding.

(7)

: Only considering the pre-treatment plant electric self consumptions, that is, without including general
plant electric self consumptions such as cooling system, gas cleaning, etc.

(8)

: It only includes the biomass cost (0.6 c/kWthh over L.H.V.), the electricity self consumed costs and the
investment repayment costs (considering a ten years repayment period and a 4% interest rate).

(9)

: These values do not consider neither staff costs nor general costs (common devices repayment, general
plant electric self consumptions, etc.) increment.

Table 3. Retrofitting and operation costs when considering that biomass has 300 mm particle size and
25% moisture content on a wet basis (as received).
FORESTRY BIOMASS AS RECEIVED: 300 mm and 25% moisture content
CO-FIRING OPTION
Coal burner

Biomass burner

Grate

Torsional Chamber

3,626

5,126

9,000

5,012

242

342

600

334

Biomass consumption (kWthh/year)(6)

45,000

45,000

45,000

45,000

Electric self consumptions (MWeh/year) (7)

12,393

12,393

2,880

2,433

Electric self consumptions (%)(7)

10.3

10.3

2.4

2.0

Annual costs (k)(8)

2,979

3,164

3,356

2,851

Specific costs (c/kWeh) (9)

2.48

2.64

2.80

2.38

Total Investment (k)

Specific Investment (k/kWe)

(6) (7) (8) (9)

, , : the same as the ones in Table 2.

5.- Conclusions.
A new co-firing option, which implies the retrofitting of a Torsional Chamber in the
pulverised coal-fired utility boiler as a biomass burner, has been put forward. This alternative
offers the following advantages:
-

The Torsional Chamber could be adapted to every utility boilers typology and it
could be used with a wide range of biomass resources;

It requires low fuel pre-treatments, particle size up to 30 mm and moisture content

on a wet basis up to 30%;

Retrofitting investment costs are only slightly higher than the ones involved in the
existing coal burners adaptation;

No coal replacement by biomass percentage limits exist;

In order to compare this alternative to the usually employed co-firing options an

economic analysis including retrofitting investment costs and operation and investment pretreatment costs has been carried out. This analysis has shown that the Torsional Chamber
adaptation is the most profitable co-firing option. The economic advantages of this alternative
could be even higher since the specific installation costs which have been employed are
higher than the theoretical ones and because the analysis does not consider that employing the

Torsional Chamber, as with pulverised biomass burners retrofitting, implies lower unburned
carbon levels than with other options.
Moreover, this method requires lower self electric consumptions than others (excepting
the grate option) so employing this co-firing option would even be more economically
attractive if renewable electric generation premiums or emission penalizations are considered.
Finally, the Torsional Chamber retrofitting as a biomass burner is an economic and
technical option which should be taken into account when replacing coal by biomass in a coal
utility boiler. The most important barrier to achieve co-firing widespread implantation is its
economic feasibility which is conditioned so much by the investment required to adapt the
power plant to the new situation, as by the new operation costs involved, so the Torsional
Chamber co-firing option costs diminution should help to increase biomass share in the
energy market, with the environmental advantages that this aspect will bring with.

REFERENCES
[1]

Bemtgen, J.M., Hein, K.R.G., Minchener, A.J. (1995) Combined combustion of

Biomass/Sewage Sludge and Coal. Volume II: Final Reports IVD, University of
Stuttgart. ISBN 3-928123-16-5

[2]

Spliethoff, H., Hein, K.R.G. (1995) Co-combustin of coal and Biomass. Suitability of
Combustion Systems and State of the Art. IVD, University of Stuttgart. Symposium
Co-combustion and Gbiofuels, Nijmegen/NL, 8-9 November.

[3]

Spliethoff, H., Hein, K.R.G. (1995) Combined combustion of coal and biomass in
pulverized fuel and fluidized bed systems. IVD, University of Stuttgart. 3rd Int.
Conference on Combustion Technology, 3-6 July.

[4]

Tejero, I., Trujillo, A., Len, E. H. (2000) An Efficient Technology for The Combustion
of Biomass 1st World Conference and Exhibition on Biomass for Energy and Industry.,
5-9 June. Sevilla, Espaa.

[5]

Antares Group, Inc. , Parson Power. (1996) Utility Coal-Biomass Co-firing Plan
Opportunities and Conceptual Assessments. Final Report Prepared for the Northeast
Regional Biomass Program and the United States Department of Energy. Dec 13.

[6]

Hughes, E. (2000) Biomass Cofiring: Economics, Policy and Opportunities Biomass

and Bioenergy 19 p. 447-465

[7]

Barry Lawson Associates (1997) Report of a One-Day Forum: Co-firing II Co-firing

Coal and Biomass in Utility Boilers, January.

[8]

VTT Energy (2001) The analysis report of Plant no. 19: Kymijrvi Lahden
Lmpvoima Oy. Filand Cofiring of biomass evaluation of fuel procurement and
handling in selected existing plans and exchange of information (COFIRING) Part 2,
Final report.

[9]

VTT Energy (2001) The analysis report of Plant no. 20: Zeltweg. Austria Cofiring of
biomass evaluation of fuel procurement and handling in selected existing plans and
exchange of information (COFIRING) Part 2, Final report.

[10] Obernberger, I. (2003) Co-firing biomass with fossil fuels technological and
economic evaluation based on Austrian experiences Industrially relevant, technical
progress in developing biomass as a viable energy source, University of Utah, Salt Lake
City, Feb 19.
[11] Canals, P., Palacio, J., Pascual, J., Royo, J., Sebastin, F., Tapia, R. (2002) Co-firing
of Low Rank Coal and Biomass: A Promising Pilot Experience International
Conference on New and Renewable Technologies for Sustainable Development June
24-26, Azores, Portugal
[12] VTT Energy (2001) The analysis report of Plant no. 16: St. Andr. Austria Cofiring
of biomass evaluation of fuel procurement and handling in selected existing plans and
exchange of information (COFIRING) Part 2, Final report.
[13] Gupta, A.K., Lilley, D. G., Syred, N., (1984) Swirl flows Ed. Abacus Press, London,
England.
[14] Lawn, C. J. (1987) Principles of Combustion Engineering for Boilers Edited by C. J.
Lawn, Academic Press, London. ISBN 0-12-439035-8
[15] Ramos, R. (2002) Combustin de biomasa con cmara torsional, CV Revista
Internacional de Energa y Medio Ambiente. n 57, Enero/Febrero p. 32-36
[16] Tillman D.A. (2000) Biomass cofiring: The technology, the experience, the combustion
consequences, Biomass and Bioenergy 19, p. 365-384
[17] Savolainen, K. (2003) Co-firing of biomass in coal-fired utility boilers. Applied
Energy 74, p. 369-381

[18] Wimmerstedt, (1999) R. Recent advances in biofuel drying. Chemical Engineering

and Processing 38, p. 441-447
[19] Brammer, J.G., Bridgwater, A.V. (1999) Drying technologies for an integrated
gasification bio-energy plant Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 3, p. 243289
[20] Blackwell, B.R., MacCallum, C., Helminen, P.O., Mackay, W.B. Pope, S.H., Holmes,
G.W., Wong, J.W.K. (1984) Preparation of Wood for Combustion Sandwell
Engineering. Report for the Canadian Electrical Association
[21] VTT (2003) private communication
[22] Hughes, E. (1998) Utility Coal-Biomass Co-firing Tests Advanced Coal-Based Power
and Environmental Systmes98 Conference
[23] Fundacin CIRCE (2002) Co-combustin en la Central Trmica de Escucha. Informe
Final Project 2FD97-0764