Housekeeping- February 14, 2017

-Durham York Energy Centre Friday will not be visiting

- 1st of 3 problem sets is posted Submit hard copy on Tuesday February 28th,
2017 in class.
-Final Assignment:
Topic 1 paragraph summary and group members (up to 4 members) due
today 2%,
Email to Professor

1
Lecture 6: Biomass characterization
and metrics for evaluation
Learning Objectives:
-Characteristics:
-Density, proximate, ultimate
-densification, torrefaction
-Life Cycle Analysis

2
Density of Woody Materials
Specific Gravity (basic)
= oven-dry mass/green volume /SG water)
Density units (kg/m3 or g/cm3))
Hardwoods Aspen 0.36
(0.48-0.60) Walnut 0.53
Maple 0.56-0.63

cell wall
(1.5)

Softwoods 3

(0.34-0.40)
Bulk & Energy Density of Fuels
Bulk density (property of powders or granules)
= mass of many particles / the volume they occupy (kg/m3)
Bulk Density of a fuel impacts the Energy density
Energy Density = energy/volume (GJ/m3)
Costs associated with transportation, storage and material
handling (commonly purchased by volume)
With low bulk materials the volume of truck becomes limiting
factor (not weight)!
Fuel Density (g/cm3) MJ/kg Energy
Density
GJ/m3
Bituminous coal solid-SG 0.83 21.0 17.4
Solid Wood (oak) -SG 0.86 17.0 14.6
Wood pellets (@10% MC) BD 0.64 17.4 11.1
Green Chips (@45% MC) BD 0.35 10.7 3.74
Uncompacted straw (@20% MC) BD 0.09 15.5 1.39
Municiple Waste 0.16 2.1 4

Tillman (1981)
Bulk Density Relation to Particle Size

Switchgrass
Illustrates affect
that grinding
operation can
have on bulk
density
Smaller the
individual
particles the
tighter they will
pack
Cost? & Energy?

Sokhansanj, S. 2006
Ontario Power compacted fuel requirements
150 MW of generating capacity, Atikokan GS is the
largest capacity 100 per cent biomass fuelled plant in
North America
generate renewable, peak energy on demand
Require wood pellets to keep cost of conversion from coal to
wood at low cost, also allows co-firing.
90,000 tonnes per year of wood pellets
Thunder Bay plant converted to advanced
biofuels

6
Why Biomass Pellets?
PelleOzaOon
Improvements in:

Process control
Feed control
Less storage area

BIOMASS residues PELLETS

High moisture content Low moisture content
(>50%) (7-10%)
Not uniform shape & size Uniform shape and size
Low bulk density (40-200 Higher bulk density (600
kg/m3) 800 kg/m3)
Diculty in using Adapted to automated/
automated/pneumaOc pneumaOc handling
handling systems systems
Higher transportaOon, Lower transportaOon,
handling and storage cost handling and storage cost
Low energy density (3.7 GJ/ High energy density (4-10
m3) Omes that of wood
residue) 11.2 GJ/m3 7

Pellet Mill

Wood particles extruded

through small openings
(stove pellets) or larger dies
(fireplace logs)
No binder or rarely a starch
binder; fireplace logs often Pellet plant Lac Megantic
have wax added
Wood is densified, easier to
transport and store, pellets
will flow from a hopper by
gravity or can be conveyed
easily to a furnace for
continuous feeding

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mtmjg2fi7c
8
Pellet Production Costs versus Plant Capacity

Economies of scale
for fixed costs -ie.
personnel costs

90,000 tonnes/yr

Mani, 2009
Pellet Production Costs
Does not include
raw material costs.
Nashwaak Valley
wood Energy (Sept
2009)
Grade 1:S-P-F $36/t
Grade 2: mixed SW
$34/t
Grade 3 hemlock and
tamarack $32/t

Sell price may be

$200.00

10

Mani, 2009
Energy Requirement for Switchgrass Pellets
Major cost for size
reduction and
pelletizing. Process GJ/tonne
Production and Switchgrass establishment 0.028
delivery of biomass Switchgrass fertilization and
represents 62% of application 0.460
entire energy cost. Switchgrass harvesting 0.231
Total energy cost for Switchgrass transportation 0.072
pellets from production Pellet mill construction 0.043
to consumer is 1.27 Pellet mill operation 0.244
GJ/tonne)
Management, sales, billing and
@ 18.5 GJ/tonne... still delivery 0.193
achieve 14.6:1 energy Total Input Energy 1.271
output to input. Total Output Energy 18.5
Not taking into account Energy Output/Input Ratio 14.6:1
the efficiency of
conversion. No drying 11

Samson et al.
Woody Biomass - Summary
What are the Issues with Woody Biomass as a fuel
compared to coal
Low calorific/energy value
High moisture content
Low energy density
Bulky, not economical to transport long distances
Non-homogeneous
Wide variation in combustion characteristics (proximate,
inorganic, moisture)
Wide variation in size and shape of particles
Storage and handling becomes complex
Difficult to grind
Absorbs moisture on storage
Prone to slagging and fouling 12
Advanced Biofuel- Increasing Energy Density
Torrefaction is a thermal pre-treatment technology used
on wood/pellets to improve the fuel characteristics
Performed at atmospheric pressure in absence of oxygen
Temperature between 200 3000C
Changes to fuel
Removal of water, some VOCs and most hemicellulose!
Dehydration reactions which result in the destruction of OH
groups
Cellulose losses its capacity to form hydrogen bonds with
water.
Increases hydrophobic nature (1-6% moisture uptake)
Loses its mechanical strength, more fragile
Increases grindability, grinds like coal
Important when re-grinding for use in power plant
Increase in HHV
Very similar to coal 13
Changes to Wood Constituents - Torrefaction

14
Affect of heating rate

slow pyrolysis
-high char/low tar
-secondary dehydration
and polymerization
reactions

fast pyrolysis
-low char/high tar
-minimizes volatile
residence time
-lower water content
(less dehydration
reactions)
Montoya et al. 2015
Torrefaction mass / energy balance

16

Dutta et al.
Benefits of Torrefaction
Biomass becomes hydrophobic
Reduces cost for transport material handling
Outdoor storage less expensive
No biological decomposition
Provides longer storage life
Low O/C ratio
Good feedstock for gasification (higher yield of
hydrocarbons)
Smoke producing compounds/removed (tars)
Improves homogenization of biomass
Physical and chemical properties
Grinding/Pelletizing 17
Example question:Energy for torrefaction
1 kg of wood chips with an energy content of
15.5 MJ was torrefied at 310C. The torrefied
material had an energy content of 19.9 MJ/kg
and a mass of 0.7 kg.
Determine the loss in energy per kg of wood
torrefied

1. Total energy of torrefied material

=19.9 MJ/kg X 0.7 kg
= 13.93 MJ
2. Energy lost 15.5 MJ 13.93 MJ = 1.57 MJ/kg

18
Energy and Mass Balance in Torrefaction
If 1 kg of biomass (19 MJ/kg) is torrefied at 300C. The
remaining solid is 0.85 kg (20 MJ/kg), the liquid component
is 0.10 kg and contains 15% moisture . The organic
portion of the liquid has a heating value of 21 MJ/kg.
Find the energy content of the gas component,
assuming no loses.
1. The energy content of solid

2. The energy content of the liquid

3. The gas component represents=19MJ-16.15 1.785 19

=1.065 MJ
Fuel Properties of Torrified Biomass
Chips Pellets
MC-> 35% MC-> 8%
Bulk Density-> Bulk Density-> 700
400 kg/m3 kg/m3
Energy density-> Energy density->
6.5 GJ/m3 11 GJ/m3

Torrefied
22 GJ/tonne

MC-> 4% MC-> 3%
Bulk Density-> Bulk Density-> 800
300 kg/m3 kg/m3
Energy density-> Energy density->
7.5 GJ/m3 16 GJ/m3
20
Characterization of Fuels

21
Proximate Analysis
Provide a measure of the ease
at which biomass can be
ignited and subsequently
oxidized. (reactivity of a fuel)
Typically used with coal
Representative of combustion
on grate
Characterizes a fuel based
on 4 characteristics:
(different methods available)
Moisture (104oC)
Volatile matter ( gases
released when heating to
950oC for 7 minutes)
Fixed carbon (solid fuel left
after VM driven off,
excluding ash and
moisture)
Ash (impurities remaining
on heating for 1 hr at
750oC) consists of
incombustible matter
22
Proximate Analysis
Volatiles
Fixed Ash Volatile:Fix Implications:
Type (dry wt %)
Carbon (dry wt ed Carbon
(dry wt %) %) ratio Biomass is not inter-
Big leaf maple 87.9 11.5 0.6 7.6
changeable
Ash influences
Doug Fir 87.3 12.6 0.1 6.9 maintenance and burner
Doug Fir bark 73.6 25.9 0.5 2.8 design (ie fluidized bed)
Must be addressed with
Cottonwood 79.5 17.5 3.0 4.5 air pollution equipment
bark
VM:FC ratio affects
Doug Fir 85.7 14.2 0.1 6.0
optimum operating
(decay)
conditions (air flow,
Rice husks 63.6 15.8 20.6 4.0
temperature, etc)
Anthracite 5.4 85.0 9.6 0.06 80% of wood will burn in
gas phase
High volatile 39.9 51.6 8.5 0.77
bituminous Higher VM will give
higher pyrolysis oil
Wheat straw 79.0 10.7 4.3 7.3
yields (less char)

Premium pellet std.

23
for ash <0.5%
Rossi, A.
Composition and energy in proximate Fractions

Product Mass fraction HHV (MJ/kg)

H 2O 0.25
CO 0.183
CO2 0.115 60%
H2 0.005 16.2
Light 0.047
hydrocarbons 41
Tar (C6H6.2O0.2) 0.20 20%
20%
Char (100% C) 0.20 32.8

Purity of Char is affected by carbonization temp.

% H in char = 7.39 0.01 T where T is the final24
carbonization temp (commonly >739 C)
Ragland et al. 1991
Volatile Matter and Gasification
Fuels with high VM Design implications
are easier to gasify
Biomass has high VM ! Updraft Downdraft
but also a large Moisture
gasifier
43 (max. 60)
gasifier
12 (max. 25)
condensable Content (wt%
wet)
component Ash Content 1.4 (max. 25) 0.5 (max. 6)
(wt% dry)
Makes gas clean up Particle Size 5-100 20-100
difficult (mm)
Tar Produced 10-150 0.01-6
(g/Nm3)
Producer Gas 5.0-6.0 4.5-5.0
LHV (kj/Nm3)
Capacity 1-10 <1.5
(MWth)
!

25
Gasifier - Updraft
Very efficient
sensible heat
generated at bottom is
used to preheat and
dry fuel
Disadvantage
produces excessive
amount of tar in the
raw gas
cant use for powering
vehicles
https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=kI7s6IRpOHA
26
Updraft gasifier with reactions

27
Gasifier - Downdraft
Air flows downwards.
gases/tars are passing
through the burning fuel.
tars are cracked thereby
increasing energy content
of gas
Cleaner gas
Disadvantage
lower efficiency
difficulty handling high MC
fuels and high ash

good for internal 28

combustion engines
Ash Content
Inorganic materials remaining
after combustion in air (9000C) N S Ash HHV
Relatively small in wood MJ/
compared to other biomass. drykg
Reduces the amount of Utah Coal 1.5 0.6 4.1 32.99
available energy.
Pittsburgh coal 1.2 3.1 10.3 31.78
Favours formation of char
Pollution concerns Doug fir bark 0 0 1.2 22.12
Particulate, NOx & SOx wood 0.1 0 1.0 20.95
Requirement for scrubbers Bagasse 0 0 11.3 21.28
and precipitators
Rice straw 0.6 0.1 19.2 15.22
Creates residue handling
issues & costs MSW 0.7 0.4 38.0 13.14
Bottom grates Paper 6.0 17.6
Ash handling
Switchgrass 10.1 18.0
fly ash
Paper mill 0.5 0.2 10.2 12.45
29

sludge
Mineral Content in Ash of Biomass
Main minerals in biomass ash are: Element Aspen (whole Pine bark
tree) ppm ppm
Calcium, potassium,
Ca 4160 5282
magnesium
K 1424 1333
benefit to tree growth if
returned to forest Mg 493 1337
They can form salt with organic acid P 323 ---
group of cell wall or can be in the 107 --
S
form of carbonates, sulfates,
silicates, etc. Fe 30 609

Varies due to soil and Zn 36 ---

growth rate Mn 17 --
Soil contamination of Al 10 2149
biomass is influenced by Si -- 5278
harvesting method & timing. 13 --
Cu
30
Na 17 280
Problem of Ash Slagging -
Caused by:
Alkali metals: Potassium (K) and Sodium (Na)
Also Silica (Si) (very abrasive to equipment)
Usually find high concentration in fast growing plants
or plant components (such as seeds)
35% alkali content and above is dangerous level

31
Ash Slagging
What is ash slag? (molten ash)
Deposit formed during combustion
Ash will vapourize and condense on boiler tubes,
restricting heat transfer efficiency
Problem
Causes deposits in boiler which reduces heat transfer
If deposits break off they can damage combustion
chamber

32
http://www.analyticexpert.com/wp-content/
uploads/2012/08/3.jpg
Ash slagging
When ash contains a lot of K & Na, it melts at
low temperature, becomes liquid and results in
clinkers
Clinkering causing jamming of furnace elements

33
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/
facts/11-033.htm
Propensity of materials for slagging
Total Alkali
% in lb/
Fuel Ash % Ash lb/ton MMBtu
WOOD
Pine Chips 0.70% 3.00% 0.4 0.07 Min slag
< .4
White Oak 0.40% 31.80% 2.3 0.14
Hybrid Poplar 1.90% 19.80% 7.5 0.46 Probable
Urban Wood Waste 6.00% 6.20% 7.4 0.46 slag
Tree Trimmings 3.60% 16.50% 11.9 0.73

PITS, NUTS, SHELLS

Almond Shells 3.50% 21.10% 14.8 0.97

GRASSES Certain
Switch Grass 10.10% 15.10% 30.5 1.97 slag
Wheat Straw-average 5.10% 31.50% 32.1 2.00
Wheat Straw-hi alkali 11.00% 36.40% 80.0 5.59
34
Rice Straw 18.70% 13.30% 49.7 3.80
Chloride in biomass
Chlorine is one of the potentially limiting
characteristics for using biomass
Combination with high Alkali gives higher
propensity for problems.
Comes from NaCl of agriculture crops
Why?
Creates operational problems including corrosion,
slagging, on surface of boiler tubes exposed to flue
gas
HCl is produced
Leads to tube failure and water leaks
Especially corn stover & cobs
35
Quality of Sawmill Residues - Chlorine
Data sheet for Ontario biomass http://
www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/11-033.htm
HHV MJ/kg Ash (%) Chloride
IWPB > 16.5 GJ/T < 1% (OD) or < 0.03% or
standard < 3% (OD <0.1%
Balsam fir 20.9 1.13 0.03
(sawdust)
Sugar maple 20.3 3.5 0.06
(bark)
Eastern White 21.5 1.0 0.05
pine (sd)

Black spruce 20.6 0.35 0.005

(sd)
Forest Harvest Okay Commonly ???
Residue 3% - 6%
Processes to Reduce Ash /Chlorides/other
1. Crop Selection
Lower levels in (C4) and
annual crops
switch grass (1.7%), big
bluestem, (1.8%)
Switchgrass
Cool season grasses (C3)
Reed canary grass (6.3),
wheat straw (11.1)
2. Growing conditions
Soils have large influence
Higher ash in clay soils over Perennial
sandy soils rye
37
Processes to Reduce Ash /Chlorides/other elements
3. Plant Fractions 5. Minimize Soil
Ash distribution Contamination
varies amongst plant Entrapped soil
fractions obviously increases
Lowest in grass stems ash
Highest in leaves Can leave higher
stump at harvest
4. Harvest Timing
Leave cut biomass in
field to overwinter
Reduces ash through
leaching and loss of
plant components (like
leaves)
Spring harvest results
38
in loss in yield
Ultimate Analysis
Also called elemental composition of a fuel
(percentage of dry weight).
Percent by weight of C,H,N,S, & O (by
subtraction)
Ultimate analysis of wood (dry, ash-free weight percent)
Element Average of 11 Average of 9 Oak bark Pine bark
hardwoods softwoods
C 50.2 52.7 52.6 54.9
H 6.2 6.3 5.7 5.8
O 43.5 40.8 41.5 39.0
N 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2
S -- 0.0 0.1 0.1 39

Ragland et al. 1991

Ultimate Analysis
1. Can be used to calculate the empirical formula of
any fuel.
Once you know Molecular formula can determine
CO2 & H2O
Element Ultimate analysis MW Moles
RESULTS (%weight)
C 54.1 12 4.5
H 6.1 1 6.1
O 38.8 16 2.4
N 0.17 14 .01
Ash 1 - -

Doug fir bark C4.5H6.1O2.4N0.01

C4.5H6.1O2.4N0.01 + ??O2 ??CO2 + ??H2O + ??NO2 + ??SO2

40
Ultimate Analysis
Ultimate Analysis is useful for:
2. Estimating HHV (using mass percent of each element)
Shows good correlation to HHV
HHV(MJ/kg) = 0.475 (%C) -2.38
Dulong's equation for biomass
HHV(MJ/kg) = 0.335(%C) +1.423(%H)-0.154(%O)-0.145(%N)

3. Molar H:C ratio (H/C) shows fuel reactivity

Doug fir C4.4H6.3O2.5Ntr (H/C = 1.43)
Bituminous coal C6.7H4.3O.14N.09 (H/C =0.64)

4. Indicates CO2 Emissions

Higher C:H ratio - higher CO2 emissions per amount of
energy produced (in complete combustion) 41
Ultimate Analysis (cont..)
4 cont. Estimating theoretical CO2 emissions from a fuel

C4.4H6.3O2.5Ntr + 6O2 4.4CO2 + 3.15H2O (HHV 18 kJ/g)

1g 0.42g or 0.023 gCO2/kJ

.0022 moles .0097 moles

C + O2 CO2 (32 kJ/g)

1 g1 3.67g4 or 0.11 g CO2/kJ5
.083 moles2 .083 moles3
42
General equation for any biomass combustion

Can be used to determine CO2 per tonne of

biomass combusted.

43
Energy Content of Wood
-Which wood has higher heat value softwood or
hardwood? And Why?
HHV Density %C %H %O %Ash
MJ/kg g/cm3
Hardwoods 19.5 0.55 49.8 6.09 43.1 1.9
Softwoods 20.0 0.43 51.8 6.36 41.6 1.3

Calculate?
HW = 18.7 MJ/kg SW = 20.0 MJ/kg
Which wood has higher energy density?

Energy Density
GJ/cm3
Hardwoods 10.7
Softwoods 8.6 44
Implications for Use - Summary
High volatile proportion makes them better fuels
for gasification than coal
More reactive
Also easier for thermochemical treatment to
higher value fuels such as Methanol and
hydrogen
Biomass ash content is lower than for most coals
Sulphur content much lower than fossil fuels
Trace contaminants in biomass ash can be used
as soil amendment, unlike coal which may
contain toxic metals
45
Gasification Example
Find the amount of air required for efficient
gasification of sorghum stalks.
-*NOTE: Efficient gasification requires 30% of the
stoichiometric air requirement.
Given: Ultimate analysis is Calculate

Composition %dry weight MW Moles

C 40 12 3.33
H 5.2 1 5.2
O 40.7 16 2.54
N 1.4 14 .1
S 0.2 32 .006
ASH 12.5
Total 100% 46
How to Solve:
1. Calculate the molecular formula for the material.
C3.33H5.2O2.54N.1S.006
2. Balance the equation for complete combustion
(given air is 21% O2 and 79% N2)
C3.33H5.2O2.54N.1S.006 + 3.36[O2+3.76N2]!3.33CO2 +

+2.6H2O + 3.36*3.76N2 + .006S

3. The Air/Fuel ratio is the mass of air (O2+N2) used

as compared to the mass of fuel consumed.

47
 Therefor for 1 kg of sorghum stalks to be
completely combusted requires 5.28 kg of air.

For gasification with 30% stoichiometric

requirement 1.6 kg of air per kg of biomass
required.
48
Quantifying the Energy Benefit
of Biomass Systems
Life-cycle analysis
Life Cycle Assessment
Must be conducted when considering using any
biomass for biofuel or bioenergy application.
Eg. US biofuel policy calls for renewable fuels to
meet GHG reduction thresholds
Also known as
1. cradle-to-grave approach
2. Well-to-wheel approach

MOST common metrics are:

1. Net Energy
2. Green House Gas (GHG) balance

53
LCA for conversion of coal to electricity

Emissions
1022

9 991
17 5

assuming 95% carbon capture

890
28 6 12 46
54
Life Cycle Assessment

55

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2008/04/18/life-cycle-analysis/
Common components of LCA for Biorefinery
1. Feedstock production
growing the crop to generate the biomass resource
2. Feedstock transport
transporting the biomass from land to point of use
3. Biorefinery production
converting the biomass into fuel/chemical/energy
4. Bioenergy distribution and storage
delivering and storing biofuels/jbioenergy
5. Dispensing biofuel
transferring bioenergy/biofuels to end users (e.g., a gas station,
transfer station, power transmission)
6. End use
using the fuel (e.g., engines, burners, or other combustion systems)
7. Disposal/Waste Management/Recycle
Recycling biocompostibility, biodegradability routes for disposal
Feedstock Production
includes the energy (GHG emissions) required to
grow feedstock

EXERCISE:
Make a list of all energy inputs to produce a crop of
corn.

57
Principle Energy Inputs?
1. Production of fertilizers
2. Production of herbicides and pesticides
3. Production of seeds (annual crops) or seedlings (trees)
4. Irrigation systems (pumps)
5. Food consumed by workers
6. Site preparation and planting and harvesting
7. Workers commuting to and from work site
8. Transporting the biomass to processing site and waste from site
9. Energy for processing to fuel
10. Energy to supply water to plant and waste treatment plant
11. Production of manufacturing equipment and materials used in
agricultural operation and processing plant
12. ETC>>>>>
Detailed Energy Requirements for Corn Production

Table 11.20 Annual energy inputs used to produce corn, as estimated in six
different studies.
Original Source
P2004 PiP2005 SM2004 F2006 O2005 Quebec

N Input (kg/ha) 148.8 153 149.7 149.7 146.00 150

N embodied energy (MJ/kg) 54.43 54.43 56.9 56.9 57.50 54.43
N embodied energy (GJ/ha) 8.10 8.33 8.52 8.52 8.40 8.16
P Input (kg P2O5 /ha) 62.5 65 63.7 63.7 64.00 55
P embodied energy (MJ/kg) 6.8 17.4 9.3 9.3 7.03 6.8
P embodied energy (GJ/ha) 0.43 1.13 0.59 0.59 0.45 0.37
K input (kg K2O/ha) 93.5 77 98.9 98.9 88.00 85
K embodied energy (MJ/kg) 6.8 13.6 7 7 6.85 6.8
K embodied energy (GJ/ha) 0.64 1.05 0.69 0.69 0.60 0.58
Lime input (kg CaO/ha) 333 1120.8 448.3 275.00 270
Lime embodied energy (MJ/kg) 1.75 1.2 1.2 1.71 1.75
Lime embodied energy (GJ/ha) 0.58 1.34 0.00 0.54 0.47 0.47
Fertilizer embodied energy (GJ/ha) 9.74 11.85 9.80 10.34 9.92 9.59
Table 11.20 Annual energy inputs used to produce corn, as estimated in six
different studies. errors or that do not appear in the original analysis.
Original Source
P2004 PiP2005 SM2004 F2006 O2005 Quebec

Herbicide input (kg/ha) 2.54 6.2 2.8 2.8 3.00

Herbicide embodied energy (MJ/kg) 261 418.4 355.6 355.6 266.56
Herbicide embodied energy (GJ/ha) 0.66 2.59 1.00 1.00 0.80
Insecticide input (kg/ha) 1.08 2.8 0.21 0.21 1.00
Insecticide embodied energy (MJ/kg) 268.4 418.4 358 358 284.82
Insecticide embodied energy (GJ/ha) 0.29 1.17 0.08 0.08 0.28
Herbicide + Insecticide energy (GJ/ha) 0.95 3.77 1.07 1.07 1.08 1.72
Gasoline use (litres/ha) 29 40
Gasoline energy (GJ/ha)[1] 0.91 1.25 1.28 1.28 1.01
Diesel fuel use (litres/ha) 80 88 71
Diesel energy (GJ/ha)[2] 2.89 3.18 2.72 2.72 3.06 2.56
LPG use (litres/ha) 47 252 252
LPG energy (GJ/ha) 1.21 0.77 0.77 1.68 6.46
Natural gas use (sm3/ha) 21.3
Natural gas energy (GJ/ha) 0.81[3] 0.67 0.67 0.56
Direct fossil fuel use (GJ/ha) 5.81 4.43 5.43 5.43 6.31 9.03
Electricity use (GJ/ha) 0.69 0.05 0.82 0.82 0.48 0.48
Direct energy use (GJ/ha) 6.50 4.48 6.25 6.25 7.00 9.50
Energy Inputs to Produce Corn
1000s of seeds/ha 57 63.3 71 71
Seed embodied energy (MJ/kg) 103.6 103.6 9.7 9.7
Energy embodied in Corn Seeds (GJ/ha) 1.96 2.18 0.23 0.23 2.16 0.23
Electricity used for irrigation (GJ/ha) 1.11 [5] 1.11b 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00
Energy to transport materials (GJ/ha) 0.40 0.49[6] 0.07 0.50 0.5 0.50
Energy to transport workers (GJ/ha)[7] 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
Human labour energy (GJ/ha)[8] 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57
Total transport + labour (GJ/ha) 1.26 1.35 0.94 1.37 1.36 1.36
Energy in machinery (GJ/ha) 6.05[9] 4.26[10] 0.32 0.32 0.32 4.26
Inputs packaging (GJ/ha) 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.074

Total energy to produce corn (GJ/ha) 27.65 29.07 18.74 19.70 21.97 28.52
Total energy to produce corn (MJ/kg dry
corn) 3.24 3.38 2.14 2.25 2.20 4.52
Corn yield (kg moist corn/ha) 8537 8600 8746 8746 9986 6316

Corn energy yield (GJ/ha)1 136.42 137.43 139.76 139.76 159.58 100.93
Energy Return Ratio (ERR)
Energy return on Energy Invested
(EROEI)
1(kg moist corn/ha) x (0.85 kg dry corn/kg moist corn) x (18.8 MJ/kg dry
corn).
Metrics -Quantifying Energy Benefit
Terms
1. Net Energy Yield (Enet), available energy
= [energy output (Eout) energy inputs (Ein)]

2. Net Energy Efficiency

= [(Eout Ein)/Eout ]X 100%

3. Energy Return Ratio (ERR), ratio of energy realized based on

input of energy
= (Eout / Ein)
Petroleum was
4. Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) 100:1 now is
3-15:1
= [(Eout Ein)/Ein] X 100%

Energy Extraction Net Energy Out

Energy Source
(Eout) (invested) (Ein) (return) (Enet)
-transport, fertilizing, -surplus energy
-Fuel energy
processing, irrigation, etc
content = (Eout)-(Ein)
62
Quantifying Energy Benefit
4. Fossil Energy Ratio (FER) is the ratio of energy
output based on input of fossil energy
= energy in output (Eout)/fossil energy input (Fein)
Energy Inputs to Produce Corn
1000s of seeds/ha 57 63.3 71 71
Seed embodied energy (MJ/kg) 103.6 103.6 9.7 9.7
Energy embodied in Corn Seeds (GJ/ha) 1.96 2.18 0.23 0.23 2.16 0.23
Electricity used for irrigation (GJ/ha) 1.11 [5] 1.11b 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00
Energy to transport materials (GJ/ha) 0.40 0.49[6] 0.07 0.50 0.5 0.50
Energy to transport workers (GJ/ha)[7] 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
Human labour energy (GJ/ha)[8] 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57
Total transport + labour (GJ/ha) 1.26 1.35 0.94 1.37 1.36 1.36
Energy in machinery (GJ/ha) 6.05[9] 4.26[10] 0.32 0.32 0.32 4.26
Inputs packaging (GJ/ha) 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.074

Total energy to produce corn (GJ/ha) 27.65 29.07 18.74 19.70 21.97 28.52
Total energy to produce corn (MJ/kg dry
corn) 3.24 3.38 2.14 2.25 2.20 4.52
Corn yield (kg moist corn/ha) 8537 8600 8746 8746 9986 6316

Corn energy yield (GJ/ha) 136.42 137.43 139.76 139.76 159.58 100.93
ERR 4.9 4.7 7.5 7.1 7.3 3.5
EROEI 3.9 3.7 6.5 6.1 6.2 2.5
(kg moist corn/ha) x (0.85 kg dry corn/kg moist corn) x (18.8 MJ/kg dry corn).
Points to Consider when comparing LCAs
1. Boundaries
2. Transportation distances
3. Energy unit must be consistent
4. Metric used ie. ERR, EROEI

65
Affect of Fertilization and Irrigation on Yield of Miscanthus
Normal yield 25-30 t/ha/y http://
Annual harvest for up to 15 www.you
years tube.com
/watch?
Harvest either summer or v=T-1P2s
Feb/March (to allow drying) C4 rk1nU

No N, no benefit
in irrigation.
With N,
irrigation is a
benefit

How do we know whether the treatments

(energy and material inputs) justify the
increase in productivity?
66

Ercoli, et al. 1999

Affect of Fertilization and Irrigation on Yield of Miscanthus
Normal yield 25-30 t/ha/y
Annual harvest for up to 15
years
Harvest either summer or Feb/
March (to allow drying) Net energy
yield
No N, no
benefit in
irrigation.
With N,
irrigation is a
benefit ERR

Irrigation & N
level increased
biomass
Energy
content 16.5 67

MJ/kg Ercoli, et al. 1999

Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI)

Energy yield was 291-564 GJ/ha (from previous slide)

ERR-Low yield =291GJ/16GJ = 18 High yield = 564GJ/44GJ = 13
68
IBSAL model
Intregrated Biomass supply analysis and
logistics model
developed by US DOE to model movement of
biomass from field to biorefinery
uses estimates of fuel usage and carbon emissions of
equipment used in collecting and transporting
biomass

69
Structure of IBSAL

Inputs:
1. Field information
2. Harvest Schedules
3. Equipment data
4. Storage information
5. Daily weather

70
LCA other important models
Read EPA Lifecycle Analysis of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions from Renewable Fuels. on
blackboard.
National Renewable Fuel Standard program (RFS)
Requires mandatory lifecycle GHG reduction thresholds to
be considered for renewable fuel categories (compared to
petroleum fuels in 2005)
Requires a 50% reduction to be classed as bio-diesel
Requires a 60% reduction to be classed as bio-ethanol

71
72
Greenhouse Gas Equivalency
For GHG calculations there are 3 main gases of
interest: (IPCC)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) = 1 GWP
Methane (CH4) = 21 GWP
Nitrous oxide (N2O) =310 GWP
Each has different 100-year global warming
potential (GWP)
Reported in CO2 equivalents

CO2 equiv (tonnes)=CO2 x 1.0+CH4 x 21+N2O x 310

73
74