Combustion and life-cycle evaluation of torrefied wood for

decentralized heat and power production

1,4

J.-B. Michel ,C. Mahmed , J. Ropp , J. Richard , M. Sattler , M. Schmid

1

School of Business and Engineering Vaud, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, 1401
Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland
2
HEPIA, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, 1201 Geneva, Switzerland
3
Centre of Appropriate Technology and Social Ecology, Laboratories for Sustainable Energy Systems,
Langenbruck, Switzerland
4
Corresponding author Ph: +41265577594, Fax:+41265577579,
e-mail: jean-bernard.michel@heig-vd.ch

ABSTRACT
Torrefied wood pellets are produced from torrefied chips by thermo-chemical pre-treatment of biomass at
200-320C in the absence of oxygen during about 15-30 minutes. Overall, the torrefaction process
efficiency has been reported to be 90-95% % as compared to 84% for pelletisation. Torrefaction improves
the biomass: 30% higher calorific value and 50% higher energy density resulting in much lower handling
and transport costs. The fuel becomes hydrophobic making long term outdoor storage possible. The
purpose of this project was to compare the combustion and emission characteristics of torrefied vs.
normal wood pellets. With no modification to the feeding and the burner parameters, the ignition and
combustion characteristics of torrefied pellets are found very similar to those of normal pellets. Particulate
emissions per energy output were found very close and directly related to the ash content in the
feedstock. Using the Taguchi approach, it was possible to establish a model of the boiler performance as
a function of the input parameters. Further testing confirmed the validity of the model showing optimum
performance with a defined value of primary and secondary air flow rates which minimized particulate
emissions for both the normal pellets and the torrefied pellets.
Keywords: biomass, torrefaction, combustion, pellets, testing, Life-Cycle-Analysis, Life-Cycle-Impact
N.B. In this paper, all figures of thermal energy content of the fuels are given on the Low Calorific Value
(LCV) basis.

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1

Purpose of the work

Torrefied wood pellets are an attractive fuel for co-combustion in coal-fired power stations (Maciejewska
et al., 2006). Except for start-up, the process is autothermal (it generates its own energy due to mild
pyrolysis reactions) and the energy of the off-gases, which represent about 10% of the input energy, is
recovered. Overall, the process efficiency has been reported to be 90-95% % as compared to 84% for
pelletisation in one given set of operating conditions (Uslu, 2008). The purpose of this R&D project is to
compare the combustion and emission characteristics of torrefied wood pellets with those of normal wood
pellets.

1.2

Approach

About 1 ton of torrefied pellets have been prepared by ECN on their 100 kg/h pilot facility, using poplar as
the feedstock. Combustion tests have been carried-out on a 50 kW pellet boiler of the company Hoval with
normal pellets and with torrefied pellets. Input and output measurements have been made during start-up

and during stabilized operation. Flue gas concentrations of O2, CO and NO were measured continuously.
Total particulate emissions (TPM) were sampled using a disk filter following the proposed ISO/DIN 13336
standards. A scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) was used to determine the size distribution and the
total number concentrations of particles. The analytical set-up is shown in the appendix. The design of
experiment method from Taguchi was used to reduce the number of tests to a minimum while exploring
the complete space of variables with a 9*4 test matrix.

2 SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION AND RELEVANCE

Although there are a large number of publications regarding the torrefaction process itself, this is the first
comprehensive study on the combustion properties for domestic heating applications and on a complete
life cycle analysis including the combustion part. The results are relevant for cogeneration applications.

3 BIOMASS TORREFACTION REVIEW

Torrefied wood was used during the early years of steel production as a reducing agent in blast-furnaces
and was afterwards replaced by charcoal and coke (Annales des Mines, 1857). The process is rather
simple and involves anaerobic heating of dried biomass chips as shown in Figure 1.
Several reactor types are used depending on the proprietary process. The ECN BO2 process uses a
vertical moving bed countercurrent with recirculated flue-gas. The temperature is about 240C with a
residence time of about 20 minutes. Topell use a cyclone type swirling flow (entrained flow) and
temperatures up to 350 C with a much lower residence time (about 90 seconds) and fast quenching of
the torrefied chips. Airless technology (Airless web-site) use a rotary drum reactor, a technology that has
evolved from the ceramic drying technology. The drying and torrefaction technology operates by creating
superheated steam generated solely from the moisture contained in the biomass.
Raw biomass chips

Flue gas recycling and

postcombustion

Drying to about 20% moisture

Anaerobic heating between 240-320C

Autothermal process
grinding
pelletisation

Mass yield ~70%

Energy yield ~90%
10% left is partly recovered
LCV increase by ~ 30%

Torrefied
Biomass
pellets

Figure 1 Simplified process description

The work of Prins (2005) demonstrated that the mass yield during torrefaction is typically contains 70%
while the energy yield is about 90% of the original energy content, that is 1 kg of chips (dry basis) will lose
30% weight and 10% of their initial energy content. Torrefaction gases are produced from the
decomposition of hemicelluloses and are mainly composed of CO, CO2 and acetic acid. No moisture is left
following torrefaction but the torrefied biomass may uptake 6% of moisture from the ambient air.

In 1985, Pechiney built a 10000 t/y production plant, to use torrefied wood instead of charcoal in electric
furnaces (Peguret, 1986).
This new type of fuel is very promising because it alleviates a lot of the disadvantages of normal biomass
pellets:

The volumetric energy density is 50% higher than with normal pellets resulting in the same reduction
of handling and transport cost per energy output.
Grinding energy is reduced by 90% and overall, the process efficiency has been reported to be 9094% as compared to 84% for pelletisation (Uslu et al., 2008). See Figure 2.
Torrefied biomass is hydrophobic and therefore not subject to swelling and degradation allowing
outdoor storage and in the long term.
Its greater calorific value should be beneficial for combustion.

Energy

Pelletisation

Grinding

Drying

= 84 %

Raw chips, 57% moisture

Energy content
100 (LCV base)
= 90 94%
Drying

Torrefaction

Grinding

Pelletisation

Energy
12
Figure 2 Process efficiency comparison. Normal pellets (top), torrefied pellets (bottom) after Uslu et al.
(2008)
Several large scale production plants are planned or in construction in Europe and elsewhere, for the cocombustion of torrefied wood in coal-fired power stations:

Energy Center of the Netherlands, BO2 process (Kiel, J et al., 2008). They now work in association
with Vattenfall.
Atmosclear (Switzerland) large projects planned from 130 to 270 kt/y (Atmosclear web site)
Integro Earth Fuels, Wyssmont process, USA, 84 kt/y Roxborrow, NC (Integro Earth Fuels web site)
Topell, NL , Polow Torbed reactor technology, planned 60 ktons/y in Arnhem (NL) together with RWE
(Maaskant, E, 2009)
4Energy Invest (B), 38 kt/y in Ambleve (B) and Stramproy (4Energy Invest web site)

Essent trading (RWE) and Stramproy : 90 kt/y in Steenwijk (NL) (Essent trading web site)

A special session was devoted to torrefaction during the 18th biomass conference and exhibition (Lyon,
France) where the status of some of these projects were presented. In Spain, the 500 kg/h pilot plant built
by CENER was presented (Celaya et. al, 2010)
However, there seems to be no project so far directly targeted to domestic heating and cogeneration.

4 COST ANALYSES
Several economic comparisons have shown the benefits of using of torrefied pellets instead of normal
pellets. The table below provides a comparison of the cost of pellets for power generation with biomass
from Canada and from South-Africa shipped to Europe.
Hamelink (2005) reported that feedstock costs contribute around 2065% of the total delivery cost
whereas pre-treatment and transport contribute 2025% and 2540%, respectively, depending on the
location of the biomass resources.
According to Uslu (2008) TOP pellets can be delivered at costs as low as 3.3 /GJ (73.5 /ton) with a
biomass cost of 10 /ton as compared to 3.9 /GJ (66.3 /ton) for normal pellets. This is mainly due to
higher energy density compared to conventional pellets, which lowers both the road and sea transport
costs. This is also in agreement with the work of Peng et al. (2008) for pellets processed in South-Africa
with the ECN process and transported to Europe. The comparison with pellets produced in Vancouver and
processed in Europe after Herold, (2009) is presented in Table 1.
Similarly Kiel (2007) reported delivery costs for sawdust pellets supplied to North-West Europe: 4.7 /GJ
for torrefied and 5.9/GJ for normal pellets which confirms the economic advantage of torrefied pellets.
Table 1 Pellet costs from various sources

Cost item

Production capacity
(ktons/y)

Source 2 (Herold, 2009)

Vancouver B Europe

Source 1 (Peng, 2008)

S-Africa B Europe
Sawdust case

40

80

56

Pellets

Pellets

Torrefied pellets
(ECN)

23.6

11

15

Production

70

41

45

Transport

62.6

54

42

Product

Costs in /ton product

Raw material

Margin
Total

23.9
(/ton )

180.1

106

102

(/GJ)

11.2

6.61

4.99

5 MAIN COMBUSTION AND LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS RESULTS

5.1

Test set-up

Combustion tests were carried-out on a 50 kW pellet boiler of the company Hoval shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 - Schematic of the 50 kW Hoval Biolyt boiler and photograph of the sampling system
A forced draught burner is used on this boiler (and not a grid or a drum), allowing a rather accurate control
of primary and secondary combustion. A scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) was applied to determine
the size distribution and the total number concentrations of particles in the range from 0.01-0.400 m.
Exhaust gas is taken with a probe, which is also fed with particle free air. The resulting dilution factor is
adjusted by the flow rate of the diluting air and the total flow. To prevent condensation of water onto the
particle surface, the dilution factor is chosen high enough, to achieve a dew point below ambient
temperature. (Wieser and Gaegauf, 2000).
The design of experiment method from Taguchi was used to reduce the number of tests to a minimum
while exploring the complete space of variables. A first test campaign was carried out in order to identify
most relevant parameters and their levels. This resulted in a matrix of 4 variables and 3 levels as shown in
Table 2 with a total of 9 test cases.

Table 2 Test case parameters

Factors

Level 1

Pellet type

C1 (classical,
swiss forest mix)

Secondary air fan

setting
Primary air fan
setting
Feeding screw
(65% = 100%
load)

Level 2

Level 3

T (torrefied)
Poplar

T (torrefied
poplar)

35%

45%

60%

35%

40%

45%

30%

50%

65%

In the first and second test campaign the so-called classical pellets were commercial Swiss pellets and
unfortunately not poplar for comparison with the ECN pellets. The third and last test campaign was carried
out with poplar pellets made specifically for this purpose, referred to later as C2 pellets.
Consequently, all the results were fitted with a model and the results are discussed in the next section.

5.2

Combustion test results

The combustion behavior of the torrefied pellets was found very similar to that of the normal pellets:

The warm-up period was slightly reduced

The mass flow of the torrefied pellets had to be reduced by about 10% to achieve the same
energy input
The optimum settings of primary & secondary air flows in terms of emissions were identical
Measured

Measured

Model

Model

Measured
Model

Figure 4 Raw test results and comparison with the model data
The raw results obtained with the various test campaigns are displayed in Figure 4. The points referred to
as model are the calculated values from a curve fitting model (using a second order polynomial). This
approach is necessary to show the separate influence of the various parameters, which otherwise is not
possible with the raw results.
A second measurement campaign was carried out, with the objective of finding the best air settings in
terms of CO and particulate emissions. Surprisingly, the optimum settings were the same for C and T
pellets with the following values:

Primary air : 45% ;

Secondary air : 55%.

NO=f(P)

C2

mg/Nmat13%O2

mg/Nmat13%O2

120

CO=f(P)

118
116
114
112
110
20.0

30.0

40.0
Pin kW

50.0

C2

50.0

60.0

1500
1000
500
0
20.0

60.0

30.0

40.0
Pin kW

Figure 5 Comparison of the emission characteristics (interpolated model data)

The comparison of the flue-gas emissions of torrefied (T) and classical (C1 & C2) pellets is given in

NO=f(P)

C2

mg/Nmat13%O2

mg/Nmat13%O2

120

CO=f(P)

118
116
114
112
110
20.0

30.0

40.0
Pin kW

50.0

C2

50.0

60.0

1500
1000
500
0
20.0

60.0

30.0

40.0
Pin kW

Figure 5 with these settings. It shows that torrefied pellets can potentially produce less CO than classical
pellets and at the same time make it possible to reduce the excess air, thereby increasing the thermal
efficiency. Particulate emissions were found to depend strongly on the fuel ash content. In this case, the
so-called C2 pellets are from poplar with a higher ash content than the poplar used for torrefied pellets
which explains their higher particulate emissions. The particulate size distributions were also very similar.
NOx emissions are found to be similar in this case, but one could expect lower NOx emissions depending
on the amount of fuel nitrogen that has been released during torrefaction.

5.3

Life-Cycle Impact Assessment summary

The comparison of impacts of the two biomass fuels was performed using the Impact 2002+ life cycle
impact assessment (LCIA) method. The functional unit was the MJ of heat produced by the boiler. Results
are summarized in the following table showing an overall gain of 50% mainly due to the improvement of
the overall process efficiency.

Indicator

Unit

1MJ-Heat-T

1MJ-Heat-C2

Gain T

Human Health

[DALY] (Disability Adjusted Life Years [year]

2.54316E-08

4.66562E-08

45%

Ecosystem
Quality

[PDF] (Potentially
species)

0.006238811

0.006907042

10%

Damage

Fraction

of

Climate Change

[kg CO2]

0.004685857

0.013145215

64%

Resources

[MJ primary] (overall process)

0.083996764

0.254237773

67%

Single Score

[Points normaliss]

5.06726E-06

1.00833E-05

50%

6 EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION: REGIONAL ENERGY CENTRE

The project was part of a fully integrated waste-to-energy (Kompogas) refinery plant of a regional scale.
The core of the plant is an anaerobic digester for green waste (20000 t/year wet basis, with 30% dry
matter). The digester produces biogas which is fed to the gas line after a methanisation process. The
green waste going to process is split into a non lignocellulosic and lignocellulosic fraction. The later is
burnt in a solid fuel burning combined heat and power plant (CHP). The CHP uses an externally fired gas
turbine (EFGT) or hot air turbine. This type of use of an EFGT will be first of its kind worldwide,
representing an economically efficient solution for solid fuel CHP in small and medium scale applications.
This type of fermenting plant produces a non fermentable cellulosic waste. In the case of this plant the
waste output was 5000 t/a (wet, 30 to 40% DM) which contain a significant amount of energy. One of the
options considered for heat recovery was to process it into a valuable, storable fuel via torrefaction. The
waste heat from the BCC would supply the drying step with heat. Initial simulations have demonstrated
the economic feasibility.
The project was submitted in December 2008 to the European Commission (ENERGY.2008.8.2.1: High
efficiency poly-generation - renewable energies for applications in industry, Secondary topic:
ENERGY.2008.2.2.2: High-efficiency medium-to-large scale electricity generation from biomass and
waste). The material (and associated income) flow of the system is shown in Figure 6 as it is now and as
it should have been after the project.
Today, the Kompogas plant in Rmlang, standing for a standard solution is producing 400 kWth of
Naturgas (biogas upgraded to grid demands, SNG), 145 kWth neighborhood industrial heat demand (all
year). Some 3000 t/a compost and water and 2000 t/a screened waste wood (25% of input) are resulting
too. The produced gas, power and sold heat represent only 54% total efficiency regarding the heat value
of the input. However the rest of the energy is mostly conserved in the compost and screened waste wood
but those products do not represent an economic value today. The total income with the gas, power and
heat production does not exceed 400000. per year (50 /t input). The wet waste has to be
transported away to further low grade utilisation.
RENEC: with the biomass combined cycle, the output of gas, power and heat is increased by 45% to an
income of 580000 /a (72.5 /t) and additionally, a heat stream of more than 200 kWth is delivered to the
torrefaction plant, which process additional 3250 t/a waste wood into 1250 t/a dry, stable, merchantable
pellet fuel, with a market value of 275000. (84.5 /t input). The average of the two values is 76.6 /t,
an increase of 53%.
Why 5000 t/a of waste wood? As mentioned earlier, the standard size of a Kompogas-plant is 20000 t/a
(wet green waste input) instead of only 8000 t/a in the case of the demo-plant. Therefore, the typical 25%
of screened waste wood will increase from 2000 t/a to 5000 t/a at a standard size Kompogas plant. The
drying heat demand for the maximum 3250 t/a very wet waste wood will never exceed the heat supply by
the BCC (which itself consumes the left-over of 1750 t/a to be burned).
The concept of the Regional Energy Centre has been first mentioned by CATSE in a TechnologyScreening study (Schmid et al., 2007).
Therefore, the project was going well beyond the state of the art with the first 1:1 scale application of an
externally fired gas turbine to generate power and heat from biomass and with an increase of overall
9

efficiency compared to the existing plant by 45%. In the same time, the output of valuable products, such
as gas, power, and storable, dense pellet-fuel increase by over 50% from 50 to 76.6 /t of wet plant input.
This could be achieved using four innovative technologies.

Autothermal torrefaction of the biowastes by firing the reactor with the off-gas of the torrefaction
itself.

The externally fired gas turbine, additionally increasing in its cycle efficiency:

by after-firing it with biogas from the anaerobic digestion process (Kompogas-Plant) and

using fogging to increase the efficiency of the turbocompressor.

Low temperature Combined Cycle by heat recovery to generate power using ORC-Technology.

A full RENEC (20000 t/a) represents polygeneration of heat, power, SNG and pellet fuel from one site
from regional green wastes, collected from a region of approximately 80000 persons (38000 households)
supplying power for 1500 households (if they are not equipped with an electric water boiler), pellet fuel
for 1000 households and SNG to run 1500 cars. Meaning, RENEC could contribute to up to 3.5% of the
energy supply of the region built into.
Fermenter
Heating
65 kWth
Offgas
recirculation
8%
1280 kW th x 8000 h/a

Green-Matter
8000 t/a
30% TS

Screening

3
BG 160 m /t, 50% CH 4 = 400kW

Wet waste wood

Gas engine
e = 37%

Naturgas (>95% CH4)

400 kW Hu
320000 CHF/a
@10 Rp/kWh
=105 CHF/t

132 kW e Strom

Kompost

3100 t/a
40% TS

Wood

Wood

1750 t/a, 40% DM

Hu = 1.83 kWh/kg

3250 t/a, 40% DM

Hu = 1.83 kWh/kg

Regional Energy Center I

PSA
Methanisation
tot = 92%

3
BG 160 m /t, 50% CH 4 = 400 kW

Kompogas
Fermenter

Room Heating (winter), PaintingBay-Heating (all year), washing

water (all year),

400
kW

730
kW

Greenwaste to power, grid gas, dry fuel

and heat - total

District Heating and

Industrial Heat,
130 kWth @ 90C

50 kWth
Biogas

EFGT
Wood-CHP
e = 22%
tot = 86%

Foging

82% Efficiency
Sketch for Kompogas AG from
CATSE (kozentrum Langenbruck),
9.9.2008 /ms

100 kWe Power

320 kWth
@ 290C

265 kWe
Power
530000 CHF/a
@25 Rp./kWh
=105 CHF/t

Waste Heat
(radiation to heat
the fac.) 60 kWth
Rekuperated
Band Dryer

120 kWth @ 115 C

Particle
Exhaust
Filter

KOMPOGAS

Thermo-Oil
Boiler
tot = 62%

200kWth
@ 170C

275 kWth
@ 70C
ORC
heat CHP
e = 16%
tot = 95%

155 kWth Heat @ 40 C

LCV
Burner
110 kWe
Torefaction
tot = 90%

33 kWe Strom

Waste Heat
(radiation) 10 kWth
KOMPOGAS

Pelletisation
tot = 100%

1250 t/a, dry, stable pellet fuel

835 kWth, 440000 CHF/a = 135 CHF/t

Figure 6 - RENEC I as it should look after the project. All installations mentioned above the dashed line
are the existing 8000 t/a Kompogas-plant (SOTA) near Zurich.
10

REFERENCE LIST

4Energy Invest web site: www.4energyinvest.com (accessed 22.03.10)

Airless systems web-site http://www.airless-systems.co.uk/
Annales des Mines, Troisime Srie, Tome XII, 1857. Recueil de mmoires sur lexploitation des
mines et sur les sciences et les arts qui sy rapportent, chez Cardillan-Goery diteur libraire. Paris
1857. Available at http://books.google.com
Atmosclear web site: www.atmosclear.com (accessed 22.03.10)
Available at www.ieabcc.nl/meetings/task32_Hamburg2009/cofiring/03%20Topell%20revised.pdf
(accessed 22.03.10)
Celaya J, Goin, I Gil, J, Etcheveria I, 2010 - New Pilot Plant for Biomass Torrefaction. 18th
biomass conference and exhibition. 3-7 May 2010, Lyon, France
ECN web site: www.ecn.nl (accessed 22.03.10)
Essent trading web site: www.essent.eu (accessed 22.03.10)
Hamelinck CN, Suurs RAA, Faaij APC. 2005. Techno-economic analysis of international bioenergy trade chains. Biomass Bioenergy. 2005;29(2):11434.
Herold, I. 2009. Biomass and Waste to Energy: Trends in Investment in the EU. Biomass Industry
Day. Hamburg, July 1st 2009.
Integro Earth Fuels web site: www.integrofuels.com (accessed 22.03.10)
Kiel, J et al., 2008 - BO2-technology for biomass upgrading into solid fuel pilot-scale testing and
market implementation. 16th European Biomass Conference & Exhibition. 2-6 June 2008,
Valencia, Spain
Kiel, J., 2007- Torrefaction for biomass upgrading into commodity fuels, IEA Bioenergy Task 32
workshop, Fuel storage, handling and preparation and system analysis for biomass combustion
technologies, Berlin, 7 May 2007
Maaskant, E, 2009. Topell on torrefaction. IEA Bioenergy Task 32, New Biomass Co-firing
Concepts. Hamburg, 30th June 2009.
Maciejewska A. et al. 2006. Co-firing of biomass with coal: constraints and role of biomass pretreatment. European commission report, DG JRC, Institute for Energy, EUR 22461 EN, 2006,
ISBN 92-79-02989-4
Peguret A. 1986. Le bois torrfi: cots et position par rapport aux autres combustibles. Rapport
AFME 85-91-1001, 1986 N INIST 10128404
Peng J, S Sokhansanj, X Bi, CJ Lim and S Melin, 2008. A Study of Torrefaction for the Production
of High Quality Wood Pellets. CSBE 50th Annual Conference. North Vancouver, B.C., Canada,
July 13-16, 2008.
Prins M.J. 2005. Thermodynamic analysis of biomass gasification and torrefaction. Ph.D.
Eindhoven Technical University, The Netherlands.
Topell web site: www.topell.nl (accessed 22.03.10)
Uslu A., Faaij A.P.C., Bergman P.C.A. 2008. Pre-treatment technologies, and their effect on
international bioenergy supply chain logistics. Techno-economic evaluation of torrefaction, fast
pyrolysis and pelletisation. Energy, Volume 33, Issue 8, August 2008, Pages 1206-1223
Schmid M., Gaegauf C. , Sattler M. , Dezentrale Stromerzeugung mit Feststoffbiomasse,
Langenbruck, 2007, available at
www.powerchips.gi/press/070119_SB_Investors_Knowledge_Solid_Fuel_CHP_page28&53.pdf
11

Wieser U. and Gaegauf C.K., 2000 - Nanoparticle emissions of wood combustion processes.1st
World Conference and Exhibition on Biomass for Energy and Industry, June 2000 Available at
www.oekozentrum.ch/files/nanoparticles.pdf (accessed 22.03.2010)

12