Techno-economic evaluation of torrefaction, fast pyrolysis and pelletisation

Ayla Uslu

Report number: NWS-I-2005-27 December 2005


Techno-economic evaluation of torrefaction, fast pyrolysis and pelletisation

Supervision: Dr. Andre Faaij P.C.A. Bergman

Ayla Uslu

This study was concluded in partial fulfilment of the Master of Science program in Sustainable Development- Energy and Resources. Department of Science, Technology & Society Utrecht University, the Netherlands Part of the research was conducted in the Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN). Biomass Department, Petten, the Netherlands


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................6 ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................7 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................8 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 5 6 GENERAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................8 PROBLEM FORMULATION...................................................................................................9 OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................................10 METHODOLOGY AND EVALUATION CRITERIA ..................................................................10 REPORT STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................11 TORREFACTION ...............................................................................................................12 PYROLYSIS ......................................................................................................................31 PELLETISATION ...............................................................................................................44 COMPARISON OF PROCESSES ...........................................................................................52 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES FOR PRE-TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES ........................................55 FINAL CONVERSION .........................................................................................................59 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................62 LOGISTIC OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................63 DESIGNED CHAINS ..........................................................................................................67 CHAIN ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................69 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................81 PRE-TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................................................83 CHAIN ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................84 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................86

TECHNOLOGIES ...............................................................................................................12

CHAIN ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................62

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION..................................................................................83

REFERENCE LIST .............................................................................................................88 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................92


....................... 53 Table 16 Economic comparison of torrefaction...... charcoal and coal ......................................................... ............24 Figure 8 Net energy flows (in MWth) corresponding with torrefaction of woodcuttings at 280 °C and 17................................................................. 81 Table 24 Techno-economic comparison of torrefaction..........................................................25 Figure 9 Total capital investment cost breakdown Figure 10 Equipment cost breakdown ......................................... torrefied biomass......................................... 38 Table 13 Characteristics of wood pellets (Sawdust........................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 3 Wood..................... pelletisation and pyrolysis ................ TOP..................... 28 Table 8 Specific investment cost calculations of various capacities....................................................................................................................................................18 Figure 5 Torrefaction process authothermal operation equations ...........34 Figure 12 A schematic presentation of the mass and energy balance of a 5-ton dry feed per hour pyrolysis plant ................21 Figure 7 Net mass flows corresponding with torrefaction of cuttings at 280 oC and 17..... 2005)................................................................................................................ 5 MWth torrefaction plant................................. 27 Table 7 Total capital investment of a 37..................................17 Figure 4 General flow diagram of ECN torrefaction process (Bergman at al......................................................................... 58 Table 19 Cost figures for final conversion step.........19 Figure 6 General flow diagram of torrefaction in combination with pelletisation ............................................................ 54 Table 17 Main parameters used and ranges for sensitivity analysis....................... ........................... 25 Table 6 Local parameters assumed for different world regions ........ TOP.......................... 50 Table 15 Technical comparison of torrefaction...........................................5 min reaction time (HE: heat exchanger)...........................................14 Figure 3 Schematic representation of the Pechiney process (Berman et al................................................................................................................................................................... 59 Table 20 Characteristics of Latin American energy crops considered in this study (Ranges indicate short and long term............... torrefied biomass.................................................. pyrolysis and pelletisation pre-treatment processes .................................. 55 Table 18 Effects of scale on pellet production costs.......... pyrolysis and pelletisation pre-treatment processes.....)................................. 69 Table 23 Parameter used for sensitivity analysis and ranges .................................................................... 22 Table 4 Technical performance of torrefied wood pelletisation for sawdust and green wood chips .................................................................................................................. 2005).................. 32 Table 10 25 MWth-input capacity pyrolysis process investment cost calculations (sawdust as feedstock)37 Table 11 Economic parameters for a 25 MWth biomass pyrolysis plant.................................. 64 Table 21 Logistics of biomass from harvesting to the pre-treatment process point.... ...........................35 Figure 13 Specific Pyrolysis Plant Investments 1987-2003 (Solantausta.. wood pellets and torrefied pellets property comparison.............................................29 Figure 11 State of the art Ensyn RTP plant flow diagram (Source)...................... 30 Table 9 Typical properties of wood derived crude bio-oil ......................... 22 Table 5 Overall energy balance of the 150 MWth torrefaction process.......................... 38 Table 12 Production cost of a 25 MWth rotating cone pyrolysis plant...............LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Net calorific values (LHV) of untreated wood.......................5 min reaction time (HE: Heat exchanger)..............40 4 .................................................................................. 2001)............................. 15 Table 2 Comparison of the three evaluated reactor types for 150 MWth output torrefaction process....... cutter shavings........................... . Main decomposition regimes are based on Koukios et al...................................................................... 83 Table 25 Costs of chains delivering fuel and power ............. 46 Table 14 Cost data of pelletisation process .................................. and wood-grinding dusts as raw materials.......................................... (1982) .................................................................................................................. 85 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Main physico-chemical phenomena during heating of lignocellulosic materials at pre-pyrolytic conditions (torrefaction)................. 2005)........................................................................................ TOP......13 Figure 2 Stages in the heating of moist biomass from ‘ambient’ temperature to the desired torrefaction temperature and the subsequent cooling of the torrefied product (Bergman et al............. 67 Table 22 Designed chains. ......................... ...................

......................................................71 Figure 31 Costs of FT liquid for different pre-treated feedstock (Conversion in the graph comprises pretreatment and FT processes)...................66 Figure 28 Modelled bio-energy chains from Latin America to West Europe ...........58 Figure 26 Biomass transport overview...................................................102 Figure 52 Circulating fluid bed reactor......................... .............................................................. ........................................................................56 Figure 23 Pellet production sensitivity analysis.....................................................................................103 Figure 54 Rotating cone reactor .....................40 Figure 15 Fast pyrolysis total plant costs versus feedstock (dry) input (Bridgwater et al........ ......................................................................................................................................................101 Figure 51 RTI process for production of bio-oil......................... ............................................76 Figure 38 Primary energy use of chains delivering energy .....................................................................................42 Figure 17 Total capital investment cost versus feedstock (ton dry/hr) of 5 different pyrolysis plants (Graph uses the same data as Figure 15).....78 Figure 42 CO2 emissions of chains delivering FT liquid..........................56 Figure 24 Effects of scale on torrefaction investment costs.........83 Figure 47: Relation between the MCA and the energy yield of torrefaction.............................................................................................................................................................76 Figure 39 Primary energy use for chains delivering electricity............68 Figure 29 Cost data of chains delivering pellets in €/ ton dry delivered.............................................................................48 Figure 20 Cost breakdown of the total capital investment cost of a 24 000 ton pellet process (data from Thek and Obernberg.......................................................79 Figure 43 Comparison of the power cost delivery figures for every chain........ ...............................105 5 ........... The error bars represent the possible inaccuracy in the HHV measurement..............................................63 Figure 27 Schematically presentation of transportation distances . bubbling fluidised bed type of reactor.............................................................................................................. ....................................................................82 Figure 46 Sensitivity analysis of TOP delivery versus pre-treatment unit scale.............................................................................................................................74 Figure 35 Energy use of chains delivering biomass to the Rotterdam harbour in GJ/ ton dry delivered......................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... .........................................................................................................................................................................41 Figure 15 Specific investment cost versus capacity (MWth LHV) data of 5 different pyrolysis plants .......80 Figure 45 Sensitivity analysis for TOP process (OW: harvest operation period) ............45 Figure 18 Mass balance of the pelletising process ....75 Figure 36 Energy use of bio-oil delivered to West Europe in GJ/GJHHVbio-oil ...............................76 Figure 37 Energy use of the chains delivering FT liquid ..........................................................................................70 Figure 30 Cost of bio-oil delivered to West Europe in €/GJHHV .................55 Figure 22 Sensitivity analysis of bio-oil production costs .................78 Figure 41 CO2 emission caused by bio-oil delivery from Latin America to West Europe........................................................ Values are taken from the main design matrix........74 Figure 34 Cost of power obtained by co-firing for various bio-energy chains ..................................80 Figure 44 CO2 emissions of the chains delivering electricity (conversion in this graph means the pretreatment steps and emissions count for the electricity utilised during pre-treatment)........................................52 Figure 21 Sensitivity of torrefied biomass production ...................95 Figure 49 Bench scale pyrolysis unit flow diagram ... .......... 2001).........................................103 Figure 53 schematic diagram of the CFB unit for biomass flash pyrolysis...............................................................................................................................................................................................Figure 14 Specific Pyrolysis Plant Investments (Historic data from1987 to 2003 (Solantausta........................48 Figure 19 Energy balance for a 24000 pellet production process (Cost data is obtained from Thek and Obernberg (2004))...................72 Figure 32 Cost of the chains delivering electricity by means of BIGCC ......................................................................... ....95 Figure 48: Size reduction results of various torrefied biomass and feed biomass.100 Figure 50 BioTherm pyrolysis process flow diagram ............................................................. (2004) is used)........................................................43 Figure 17 State-of-the-art pellet production process diagram ............ 2002).....................57 Figure 25 Effect of scale on the bio-oil production costs....77 Figure 40 CO2 emission of chains delivering biomass to West Europe in kg CO2/ ton dry delivered....................105 Figure 55 Rotating cone reactor pyrolysis process flow diagram .................................................73 Figure 33 Cost of power obtained by combustion for various bio-energy chains....

Many thanks to Jaap Kiel.Acknowledgement This research has been performed at Utrecht University and at the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN). who made the internship at ECN possible. 6 . I would like to thank my supervisor Andre Faaij. Special thanks go to my friends and my family. They give a special colour to my life. First. which makes it more valuable. I also thank to Patrick Bergman who has never hesitated to share his valuable knowledge. for his support and guidance. advice and who has supervised my work during my internship at ECN.

7 .94€/GJHHV.34€/GJ) in the form of torrefied pellets (TOP). when torrefaction is combined with pelletisation. When the biomass is converted to pellets and delivered to Rotterdam harbour. there is a significant variation between the cost figures found in scientific literature for pyrolysis technology. Besides. which lowers the first truck transport. while the electricity cost from a BIGCC facility is 4. that has a significant influence on the overall chain. TOP process increases the bulk density 15% compared to conventional pellets. the energy requirement indicates how sustainable the designed chains are. the cost is 3. where Latin American energy crops are pre-treated and intermediate energy carriers are delivered to Western Europe and converted into power and syn-fuel. The bioenergy chain analysis indicates that 89% of the biomass initial content can be delivered as cheap as 73.6 €/GJHHV. conventional pellet energy content is 17. For comparison. while it is 0. Fisher Tropish fuel produced in Europe costs 6. pelletisation and pyrolysis technologies convert biomass into dens energy carriers that ease the transportation and handling.4 €cent/kWhe from an existing co-firing plant. Pre-treatment step is one of the factors.4 €/ton (3.08 GJ/GJHHV for pyrolysis oil.7 -6. Next. which is very close to TOP pellet delivery. first the technical and economic performances of the pre-treatment technologies are assessed. However.5 €/GJHHV. the product (TOP pellets) energy content is as high as 20.4-22. they influence the final conversion step.7 GJ/ton.Abstract The need for supplying sustainable energy resources raises the urgency of finding optimised bioenergy chains. pyrolysis liquid can be converted into FT liquid with a cost of 9. In this chain analysis step. Furthermore. Moreover.97 €/GJ for conventional pellets delivered from Latin America. On the other hand when the biomass is delivered to the Rotterdam harbour in the form of pyrolsyis oil.05 GJ/GJdelivery. When the economics of the three pre-treatment technologies are compared. Finally. the cost is in the range of 4. pelletisation has the lowest specific capital investment. the primary energy requirement is as low as 0.44 €/GJHHV for TOP pellets and 6. Another important point is that above 40 MWth torrefaction plant capacities. followed by torrefaction. Torrefaction. the economy of scale of each technology is analysed and the impacts of the pre-treated energy carriers on the final conversion stage is evaluated. In this study.6 €cent/kWhe even though it includes high amount of investment costs. not only the technologies but also the different scales are compared with each other. this study indicates that electricity can be produced as little as 4. In fact. For TOP delivery. The technology assessment part indicates that torrefaction is a very promising technology due to its high process efficiency compared to pelletising and pyrolysis technologies. several scenarios are produced. there is no economy of scale. On the other hand.12 GJ/GJdelivery for pellets and 0. In addition.7 GJ/ton while pyrolysis oil energy content is 17 GJ/ton.

Half of this reduction is planned to be accomplished through replacing coal by biomass (Bergman et al. Damen and Faaij 2003. which make energy supply vulnerable. Hamelinck et al (2003) has conducted a study to assess whether large-scale long distance transport of bio fuel from certain world regions. significant danger due to the reliance on fossil fuels. In fact. 1998). the orientation of technological development and institutional changes are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations. however. Sweden and Finland bio-energy markets have already emerged. feedstock costs contribute 1 IPCC SRES. The current global energy development pattern brings. For example. Agbert and Faaij.1 1. such as Latin America and Eastern Europe. Biomass is one of the renewable energy sources that are available worldwide. International biomass logistics were analysed by conducting several bio energy chains. 30% of the total energy supply is ascribed to biomass in 2100 (Nakicenovic and Swart. Those figures are the indicators for a future biomass based energy market potential.1 Introduction General Background Sustainable development is defined by the Brundtland Commission as “a process of change where the exploitation of resources. Agterberg and Faaij 1998).” In this respect sustained energy supply is one of the essential targets to be achieved and depends on secure and reliable energy sources. transport and final conversion steps. it is stated that 6 Mton/year of fossil fuel CO2 reduction needs to be accomplished in 2008-2012 by the coal-fired power stations in the Netherlands. developed countries increasingly shift towards renewable energy sources. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenario (SRES) 8 . In the IPCC 2nd report. Another problem that has emerged is that fossil fuel consumption causes substantial environmental harm. in some countries such as Brazil. According to some IPCC SRES1 future market scenarios. 2003. it is mentioned that human activity has caused a rise in atmospheric temperature in the recent years. Several researches have given indications that intercontinental trade of biofuel could be economically feasible (Hamelinck. the direction of investments. In addressing those threats. in the agreement of the Dutch government with Dutch energy sector. large–scale biomass trade can be the centre of attention due to European legislations concerning climate policies. which accounts for 9-14% of global energy demand (Hamelinck. Another phenomenon that triggers the international biomass trade is that some countries have larger biomass resources compared to other countries. 2005). bio-energy contributes 35% of the primary energy consumption in developing countries. Latin America holds high biomass energy production potential (Hoogwijk et al. Currently. 2004. 2004). It is abundant throughout the planet and can be used as an energy source with no CO2 addition to the environment. Moreover. Wasser and Brown 1995. These studies exposed that the pre-treatment step plays an eminent role in the whole chain since it affects the storage. 2000). is economically and energetically feasible and attractive in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction. For example. Broadly. Most of the world’s oil reserves are located in certain countries.

the key research question in this study is: Which pre-treatment method(s). Various bio-energy chains can be designed where these technologies are considered and depending on the economy and impacts on environment in terms of GHG emissions. the optimal chain can be obtained. product properties and the by product composition of the pre-treatment technologies. these technologies are still under development and their economic and technical performances are unclear. process performance. pyrolysis and pelletising are the pre-treatment technologies considered in this study.2 Problem formulation The studies concerning long distance bio-energy transport analysed several cases to perform the biomass delivery and final energy production costs. charcoal production and torrefaction may improve economics of the overall production chain. pre-treatment methods deserve more attention in the positioning of the chain and techno-economic analysis of the treatment processes themselves. Fast pyrolysis. In addition. However. the key technologies. New pre-treatment technologies are currently under development. the final conversion contributes roughly to more than 50% of electricity or fuel delivered. Pyrolysis and torrefaction are the thermochemical conversion technologies where bio-oil and torrefied biomass are produced in different temperature ranges respectively. 1. Hamelinck developed a tool with which different bioenergy chains can be analysed. Therefore. commercially available bio pellets are expensive and cannot be produced economically from a wide variety of biomass resources (only sawdust and planer shavings) when the small (smaller than 30 mm) particle sizes are required. which can give a clear picture of the economic performances. On the other hand in pelletisation biomass is dried and compressed to produce cylindrical pieces. mainly discusses the technology and the intermediate products they produce. Subsequently. Converting biomass into a densified intermediate can save transport and handling costs. it can improve the efficiency of the final conversion stage. Available information.20%-65% of the total delivery cost whereas pre-treatment and transport contribute 20%-25% and 25%-40%. When the overall chain is considered. however. torrefaction and pelletising need to be analysed in terms of technical performances and economy of scale. This tool enables to assess the influence of different pre-treatment technologies on the technical and economic performance of the whole chain. However. Existing research has been conducted mostly to obtain design data. the state-of-the-art biomass-to-energy chains are mostly based on energy densification by means of pelletisation. their techno-economic performances on the total bioenergy supply chain require detailed study. Torrefaction. It is clear from the work of Hamelinck (2004) that energy densification of the biomass is crucial. at what point of the chain. pyrolysis. rather than their influence on the performance of the whole production chain. Currently. However. respectively. there is no normalised data set. In this context. with which conversion technology (ies) would give the optimal power and fuel (syngas) delivery costs for international biomass supply chains? 9 . Moreover. depending on the location of the biomass resource.

In addition. pyrolysis and pelletising in relation to scale.1. -Analysing the impacts of intermediate products on power and syngas conversion technologies. this study focuses on the influence of the pre-treated biomass (intermediates) on transportation. the final conversion technologies have got specific requirements like the feedstock particle size. combustion and co firing for power production are considered as final conversion technologies. which are obtained from literature and personal communication. the improvement options on pelletisation still need to be investigated even though it is commercially applied. Following the literature survey. Hence. the total capital investment requirements are calculated (See Appendix 1). mass yields. the introduction of alternative pre-treatment technologies as pyrolysis and torrefaction are only interesting when they are comparable or better than the economics of this reference. Next. This is followed by the sensitivity analysis of the parameters that influence the production costs The cost data are normalised using the OECD deflator and exchange rates of national currencies per US$(See Appendix 2). This can be done by performing a techno-economic analysis of the biomass-toenergy production chain that is based on pelletisation. torrefaction and pelletisation. 2005). economy of scale is analysed. 1998. The bio-energy techno-economic analysis is based on biomass resources located in South America (Brazil) and the final conversion to power and fuels is situated in North-West of Europe. the impacts of the pre-treated intermediates on the final conversion step are assessed. shape. Finally. bulk density.3 Objectives The main objective of this study is to identify the optimal bioenergy chain design and provide insight in the differences between the torrefaction. energy yields and process efficiencies of each technology are presented. torrefaction and pyrolysis. this technology is considered the state-of-the-art reference (SOTA-system). the actual equipment costs are calculated using the scale factor R. pyrolysis and pelletisation pre-treatment technologies. 1.4 Methodology and evaluation criteria A technology review is performed where the design data of pre-treatment technologies are collected to determine the current technology status of pyrolysis. Entrained flow gasification for Fischer Tropsch liquid production. and moisture content. Since the capacities of the components affect the specific cost of a plant. This is done by identifying the base scales. biomass integrated gasification combined cycle (BIGCC). The capital costs are based on component level cost data. Moreover. However. As pelletisation is commercially applied. 10 . Economic evaluation is conducted by calculating the required capital investments and total production costs. compressibility. the base costs and the maximum scales of the equipments. The state-of-the-art processes are identified according to their commercial or demonstrated applications. Since. Bergman et al.. The sub-objectives are: -Analysing the potential and future technical and economic performances of torrefaction. R-values per component are obtained from literature (Faaij et al. -Evaluating the influence of intermediate products on transportation.

1. Chapter 4 summarises the main conclusions of this study and presents the discussion and recommendations. storage. pre-treatment and final conversion steps in many ways. Following the final conversion stage. South American bio-energy crops (eucalyptus) are considered as the source of biomass in this study. it presents the designed chains and provides the results. it provides the sensitivity analyses. Furthermore it allows conducting sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the study results and assess the variation in fuel/power costs. The transport mediums are chosen to be trucks for local transport and ships for international transport.5 Report structure The report begins with the review of the pre-treatment technologies. Chapter 2 presents the techno-economic analysis and the improvement options for torrefaction. several biomass–to-energy chains are designed. This tool gives the possibility to set up harvesting. impacts of pretreated intermediates on conversion technologies are investigated. Finally. Moreover. Moreover. they can influence the gas-cleaning step that takes part in gasification. transport. The influence of the pretreated intermediate on gasification and combustion in terms of efficiency and economy are also presented in this chapter Chapter 3 describes the approach and methodology used for biomass chain analysis. 11 . In this part. In addition to this. Hamelinck’s (2003) “biomass logistic tool” is used. It also enables to visualize the different combinations and scales of operations and carries out techno-economic analysis.intermediate energy carriers can alter the feedstock preparation and feeding system. scale effects and a brief techno-economic data comparison of pre-treatment processes. The final conversion stage is assumed to be applied in Rotterdam by means of FischerTropsch (FT) and conventional power plants. handling. Therefore. pyrolysis and pelletisation processes.

1. It occurs at temperatures between 200-300 oC where a solid uniform product is produced. The moisture uptake of torrefied biomass is very limited varying from1-6%. 2000. hydrophobic nature and grindability properties of biomass (Bergman et al. 2005).1. At low torrefaction temperatures decomposition occurs in the hemicellulose structure by means of a limited devolatilisation and carbonisation. torrefied wood did not find the market outlets. 2005). Since the 1930’s on. Bioenergy 2000. When the temperature is raised up to 200300 oC. non-polar unsaturated structures are formed which makes the torrefied biomass hydrophobic (Bergman et al. Through torrefaction biomass is converted into torrefied biomass which is typically 70% of its initial weight and contains 90% of the original energy content (Bioenergy. In France. torrefaction has been used in relation to woody biomass.1 Process definition Torrefaction is a thermal pre-treatment technology carried out at atmospheric pressure in the absence of oxygen. 2. 2005) 12 . 2002). The origin of torrefaction comes from roasting of coffee beans. Prins. hemicellulose and lignin. This process however has been done in lower temperatures in the presence of oxygen. This product has very low moisture content and a high calorific value compared to fresh biomass. whereas limited devolatilisation and carbonisation occur in the lignin and cellulose structure (See Figure 1. torrefaction has gained significant importance for energy applications. several studies have shown that torrefaction upgrades the energy density. 2004). In recent years. The research outcomes in those years appeared to be favourable at the technical stage. 2005). 30% of the biomass is converted into torrefaction gas that contains 10% of the initial energy content. A torrefaction plant demonstration with a production capacity of 12000 ton/year was constructed and operated (Bergman et al. In the lignin and cellulose structure however a minor decomposition is expected. however. Bergman et al. Bergman et al.1 Torrefaction 2. Destruction of OH groups in the biomass by dehydration reactions causes the loss of capacity to form hydrogen bonds with water.1 Torrefaction decomposition mechanism The polymeric structure of woody and herbaceous biomass comprises mainly cellulose. 2005. Even though it is still in its infancy.2 Technologies 2.1. hemicellulose extensively decomposes into volatiles and char-like solid products. In addition. torrefaction has been applied to produce a wood that is used as a building material (Bioenergy. The most reactive polymer is hemicellulose whereas the cellulose is the thermo stable part. In the 1980s the focus was on using torrefaction technology to produce wood that can be used as a reducing agent in metallurgic applications.

newly formed polymeric structures. In fact. 2. organics from devolatilisation and carbonisation and lipids consist. (1982) Depending on the torrefaction conditions and the biomass properties. And in the liquid phase. torrefaction conditions.1. temperature-time stages 13 . consists of original sugar structures and the reaction products. Nonetheless. reaction time and torrefaction temperature are fairly important in product specification (Berman et al.2 Torrefaction conditions Reaction time and reactor residence time is defined clearly before clarifying the necessary torrefaction temperature and the significance of moisture content in the torrefaction process. The gas phase consists of mainly CO. 2005). The solid phase. In practice. Main decomposition regimes are based on Koukios et al. 2005). biomass has to be heated through several stages before the real torrefaction regime is reached. char and ash fractions. In Figure 2. liquid and gas at room temperature. and traces of H2. the solid residence time in a reactor is never equal to the time which biomass particles are exposed to torrefaction (Bergman et al. CH4 and light aromatic components. torrefaction products can be classified as solid. so called torrefied biomass.Hemicellulose 300 Extensive Devolatilisation and carbonisation (E) Lignin E Cellulose E 300 D D D TORREFACTION 250 Temperature (°C) 250 Temperature (°C) Limited devolatilisation and carbonisation (D) C 200 C 200 150 depolymerisation and recondensation (C) glass transition/ softening (B) drying (A) 150 A A 100 Lignin Cellulose 100 Hemicellulose Figure 1 Main physico-chemical phenomena during heating of lignocellulosic materials at prepyrolytic conditions (torrefaction). H2O from biomass thermal decomposition. CO2.1. which are modified sugar structures.

however. tdry = drying time. 2005). In the pre-drying stage.c = cooling time from the desired Ttor to 200 °C. the biomass temperature increases. tc = cooling time to ambient temperature.h t tor. post-drying and intermediate heating occurs. Temperature-time profile is considered to be typical for a batch-wise operated reactor. biomass moisture content evaporation is very slow. those stages are the same for continuous operations. The temperature increases up to 200 oC and the physically bounded water is 14 . post drying and interm ediate heating t dry th 100 initial heating Moisture content pre-drying torrefaction solids cooling tim e Heat demand (cummulative) Mass yield (dry) tim e Figure 2 Stages in the heating of moist biomass from ‘ambient’ temperature to the desired torrefaction temperature and the subsequent cooling of the torrefied product (Bergman et al. moisture content decreases dramatically while the biomass temperature stays constant. 300 T tor Biomass temperature (°C) 200 t = intermediate heating time from drying to torrefaction.for a batch-wise operated torrefaction reactor is illustrated. In the initial heating stage. th. Following this stage.c tc t tor t h.h = heating time torrefaction from 200°C to desired torrefaction temperature (Ttor). ttor = reaction time at desired torrefaction temperature. Explanation: th = heating time to drying. ttor. ttor.

In Table 1. Above 200 oC torrefaction reaction occurs. charcoal and coal Untreated Torrefied Charco Coal wood biomass al LHVdry 17-19 18-23 30 25(MJ/kg) 30 Source: Bergman et al.2. was built up in 1980s in France and was operated for a few years. 2005 The moisture uptake of torrefied biomass is very limited due to the dehydration reactions that take place during the torrefaction reaction. 2004). 2002). Bangkok.1 Current status Torrefaction technology is not commercially available yet. The only commercially applied torrefaction plant. As a result. 2002) and the rotating drum concept (Duijn.1. the comparison of torrified biomass with raw wood. they have developed a TOP process (Torrefaction and Pelletisation) which aims to bring TOP pellets to the energy market. subsequently the calorific value of the product increases. Those studies provided information about the product quality.3 Product quality During torrefaction biomass loses relatively more oxygen and hydrogen compared to carbon.1. The Grupo Combustíveis Alternativos (GCA) at the University of Campinas in Brazil used a bench unit for biomass torrefaction (Bioenergy. PECHINEY. which is advantageous in conversion applications since they require biomass in very small sizes such as in the form of powder for entrained flow gasification 2. torrefied biomass. In addition to this.released. Those reactions prevent the bonding of biomass hydrogen with water. at ECN extensive research has been carried out. The net calorific value (LHVdry) of torrefied biomass is in the range of 18-23 MJ/kg or 20-24 MJ/kg when the HHV (dry) is concerned.1. torrefied biomass size reduction becomes easier. And finally. They designed an optimum integrated process.2 Production technology 2. torrefaction history dates back to the late 1980’s when the upgrading of wood and briquettes by means of torrefaction was investigated at the Asian Institute of Technology. and studied the impacts of torrefied biomass on co-firing and entrained flow gasification. It was a continuous process which was applied by Le Bois 15 . It becomes more fragile as it looses its mechanical strength. Thailand.1. Devolatilisation takes part in this stage. Table 1 Net calorific values (LHV) of untreated wood. Another change in the biomass occurs is the volumetric density. solid product is cooled to below 200 oC. In addition to this. charcoal and coal is presented. The recent studies on torrefaction technology are based on the airless drying concept (Bioenergy. However. 2. The torrefied biomass becomes more porous with a volumetric density of 180 to 300 kg/m3 depending on the initial biomass density and torrefaction conditions. Another study was held in Brazil.

a subsidiary of Pechiney Electrometallurgie in order to produce roasted wood for use in manufacturing silicon steel (Bioenergy.2 State-of –the. it should not be forgotten that the process conditions applied were different than it should be to yield a product that can be converted into energy in a later stage.1. However. The reactor was heated by conduction and thermal oil was used as a heat transfer fluid. 2002). dried to 10%mc. 2005).Torrefie du Lot. 16 . 2005). The temperature at the end of the roaster was reduced (Bergman et al. it is accepted as the state-of-the-art system. Since this is the only commercially built process. The pieces larger than 80 mm were removed at the outlet of the screen to be recycled and the fines that were smaller than 15 mm were sent to the boiler to be combusted. and a torrefaction reactor (roaster) (see Figure 3). The received wood was cut into 50 to 80 mm long and 15 mm thick chips at a rate of 20 ton/hr by a drum (SOTA) description PECHINEY has built the first demonstration unit of a torrefaction process that was in operation since early 1987s with a capacity of 12 000 ton/year of torrefied wood as a reduction agent for silicon metal (Girard and Shah. a drying kiln. The gases generated in the roaster were combusted and the fumes were returned to the kiln after being de-dusted. The process applied at Pechniey mainly consisted of a chopper where grinding is done. were transported to the roaster (torrefaction reactor) which was a hot mixing device with a double sheath and a rotating shaft with disc sections perpendicular to the axis of the shafts. This fluid was recycled between boiler and the reactor. 2.2. Following this operation the wood chips were transported to a tunnel kiln for drying. The chips.

the reactor used in the Pechiney process was poor in scaling up properties and expensive (Bergman et al. Process scaling up could reduce the production costs.2.3 Assessment of the Pechiney process The investment cost of Pechiney process was approximately 2. Various problems existed with this reactor design when it was considered for bigger scales. The operation temperature was in the range of 240 to 280 oC with a residence time of 60 to 90 minutes.9 M€ in 1985 with a specific investment of 25 €/ton product (Bergman et al. 2005).large rejects Wood Storage Chopper Wood Screen wood fines to boiler flue gas incinerator TW leisure combustibles Drying kiln Roaster TW Screen TW metallurgy thermal liquid wood fines from wood screen TW fines Boiler Figure 3 Schematic representation of the Pechiney process (Berman et al.1. 2005) The Pechiney process aimed at a product that has got a fixed carbon content with homogenized moisture content. These properties imply the need to search further for a better 17 . The feed moisture content was limited to 15% while the reactor through put was limited to 2 ton/hr. The energy efficiency of Pechiney was calculated as 65-75%. When the feedstock costs were included. 2. The low process efficiency was caused mainly by the feedstock losses during the chipping and sieving steps. However. 2005). The heat exchange area in this reactor was a limiting factor. 2005). Higher moisture contents would drop the reactor throughput. the production cost would approximately be around 150-180 €/ton. The torrefied wood production was roughly 100 €/ton when the feedstock costs were excluded. More than 80% of the total investment cost was arising from the reactor. Another disadvantage was that the reactor required free-flowing feed particles (Bergman et al.

The moisture content of the feedstock is extremely important since the feedstock property determines the required heat demand. In Appendix 3 the relationship between authotermal operation of the process in relation to the moisture content and energy yield of torrefaction is presented. The relationship between the feedstock moisture content and energy yield in ECN process can be summarised by. When the energy obtained from the torrefaction gas is equal to the energy demand of the dryer and the reactor. This phenomenon is explained in Figure 5. In fact.1. reactor. TheECN torrefaction process consists of dryer. there will be surplus of energy in the form of torrefaction gas. 2. heat exchanger. the system operates authothermal. Air utillity Fuel Fluegas Combustion Torrefaction gases gas recycle Torrefied biomass biomass Drying Torrefaction Cooling DP Fluegas Heat exchange Fluegas Figure 4 General flow diagram of ECN torrefaction process (Bergman at al. The necessary heat for drying and torrefaction is produced by combustion of liberated torrefaction gas. when torrefaction is operated in a different condition that produces less energy yield.2. 2005) 18 . Therefore. In fact.process technology.4 ECN Torrefaction technology The ECN torrefaction process is based on direct heating of the biomass during torrefaction by using the hot gas that is recycled. The energy content of the torrefaction gas is directly related to the solid and energy yield of torrefaction. combustion and cooling (Figure 4). On the other hand when the energy content of the gas is not enough. the energy content of the torrefaction gas plays a significant role in providing the energy demand of the dryer and the reactor. a torrefaction process with a capacity of 150 MWth is designed by ECN. in contrast when the energy yield of the process is higher than the optimised conditions this time the energy produced from the gas will not be enough to meet the dryer and reactor demand. the wetter the biomass feedstock is the lower the energy yield to be allowed in torrefaction in order to perform authothermal operation. utility energy needs to be used. The torrefaction gas is re-pressurised and heated before it is recycled to the reactor.

3 MJ/Nm3 to 16. The calorific value of the gas ranges from 5.reactor Qdryer Qreact. Qgas = Qdryer + Q react. Figure 5 Torrefaction process authothermal operation equations In this design the torrefaction gas is expected to be combusted so that the energy demand of the dryer can be met without or with a little utility fuel consumption.(DP: Pressure Drop recovery) Qgas Dryer Torref. 19 . this would result in a self supporting. high efficient system. Thus.2 MJ/Nm3 at the temperatures of 265 oC and 290 oC. respectively.

Besides. Another advantage of the moving bed reactor is that there is not a specific feedstock shape requirement. on m3 reactor volume for the rotating drum and on m2 particle surface area for moving bed.1. 2. three different reactor types are considered. On the other hand decreased mechanical strength and increased dust formation capacity in addition to low volumetric density makes a densification stage necessary. 2004a). It can handle non-free flowing materials. Screw reactor was one of the options since it was used in the SOTA process (Pechiney). Dryer design was based on flue gas re-circulation and modelled by ECN (Bergman. Cooler The torrefied biomass was cooled down to 50 oC by an indirectly heated rotating drum technology. Table 2 Comparison of the three evaluated reactor types for 150 MWth output torrefaction process Fill Shape of Costs 2 Heat transfer Total residence time material input coefficient 1 2 W/m /K minutes % Indirectly 30 34 60-70 Free-moving expensive heated screw Directly 41 55 10-15 Free-moving medium heated rotating drum Directly 200 20 100 flexible cheap heated moving bed 1 Estimated heat transfer coefficient is based on m2 exchange area for the screw reactor.Components of the system Dryer: Directly heated rotating drum technology was selected to dry the biomass from 50% moisture content to the desired 15%. moving bed reactor is roughly 6 times cheaper than the screw reactor. 2005. Directly heated moving bed gains from its compactness (high fill percentage). Reactor: During the process design at ECN.1. simplicity in construction.1.3 section torrefied biomass is defined as a porous product. Source: Bergman et al. with a low density. torrefied biomass is fragile which makes it relatively easy to grind. high heat transfer rates and small reactor size requirement. design studies in ECN resulted in favour of the moving bed reactor as the most promising technology. However. In fact. 2 Equipment purchase costs are compared with each other.5 Torrefied biomass densification In the 2. The three reactor comparison is summarised in the following table (Table 2). Water was chosen as a coolant. The second option was the directly heated rotating drum technology due to its many applications as a dryer and the third option was the directly heated moving bed. when the long distance 20 .2.

2005).5 to 15 compared to biomass. Biomass Drying Torrefaction Size Reductio Densification Cooling Torrefied pellets Figure 6 General flow diagram of torrefaction in combination with pelletisation Size reduction: The power consumption for size reduction following torrefaction is reduces around 70-90 % compared to biomass pelletisation (Bergman. and jaw crushers can be deployed instead of hammer mills. This subject is discussed further in the biomass supply chain chapter. production capacity of a chipper increases with a factor 7. Biomass pelletising consists of drying and size reduction prior to the densification. 2005). So. 2005). Besides. Densification: AT ECN. 2005). The comparison of torrified pellets with torrefied biomass. Koukios. Following torrefaction. However. wood pellets and fresh wood is shown in Table 3 (Bergman. densification and cooling can be achieved (Figure 6). while the energy consumption of densification could be reduced by a factor of 2 compared to biomass pelletisation. pelletising the torrefied biomass is inevitable. steam pre-conditioning is not required since torrefied biomass is fragile. 2005). 1993. 2005) are presented in Appendix 4. especially the shipment. a piston press has carried out torrefied biomass densification experiments. This press was modified to press in different diameters of various biomass products under different torrefaction conditions. Steam conditioning is applied to soften the biomass fibres. when torrefaction is considered. The experimental results of size reduction carried out at ECN (Bergman et al. 2002. Bergman et al. which are used for the conventional pelletising process (Bergman. Densification following torrefaction is considered in several studies (Lipinsky et al. Bergman et al. A simpler type of size reduction such as cutting mills. The mass density of torrefied biomass pellets is about 22 MJ/kg whereas the energy density reaches up to 18 GJ/ m3. 1978. it is still 20% higher than commercial wood pellets (Lipinsky et al. Reed and Bryant. Those studies indicate that the pressure required for densification could be reduced with a factor of 2 at 225 oC.4 GJ/m3). Following densification bio-pellets are cooled down. 2002. torrefaction in combination with pelletising offers significant advantages when the biomass logistics are considered. size reduction. Although this energy density is less than that of coal (20.transport is considered. 21 .

pellets Low High Low High Moisture content %wt 35% 3% 10% 7% 5% 1% Calorific value (LHV) Dry MJ/kg 17.8 16.4 22.4 17.7 As received MJ/kg 10.8 20. mechanical strength improves. The results showed that torrefied pellet water intake was very limited (up to 10-20% on mass basis) whereas wood pellets swell rapidly (Bergman.7 Cooling water m3/ton product 3.9 15. The water intake capacity of the product was determined by immersing them into water for 15 hours.7 20.8 Pellet strength Good Very good Dust formation Moderate High Limited Limited Hydro Swelling/ Hydroscopic nature Water Poor uptake phobic water swelling/ uptake Hydro phobic Biological Possible Impossible Possible Impossible degradation Pelletising the torrefied biomass not only increases the mass density but also the energy density.6 Mass density (bulk) Kg/m3 550 230 500 650 750 850 3 4.2 19.6 7.7 17.6 16. Table 4 Technical performance of torrefied wood pelletisation for sawdust and green wood chips Item Unit Torrefied wood Torrefied wood pelletisation pelletisation (sawdust) (green wood chips) Feedstock capacity Kton/y 170 170 Moisture content Wt.4 Energy density GJ/m 5.9 4.7 16. According to the experiments at ECN.biomass Wood pellets Torref. Besides. A gravimetric measurement device was employed to measure the water intake contents. torrefied biomass.9 21. Properties Unit Wood Torref. Technical performance characteristics of torrefied wood pelletising for sawdust and greenwood chips are given below (Table 4).2 6.7 Utility fuel MWth 22 . 57% 57% LHVar feed MJ/kg 6.2 Production capacity Kton/y 56 56 MWth fuel 40 40 Product Moisture content Wt.7 20. 3% 3% LHVar product MJ/kg 20.9 18.Table 3 Wood. wood pellets and torrefied pellets property comparison. torrefied pellets can withstand 1.5 19.5 to 2 times the force exerted on conventionally produced pellets before breakage.8 10. 2005).5 14.

Electricity consumption Thermal efficiency Net efficiency
a.r: as received


0.83 98.5% 93.7%

1.01 96.5% 90.8%


2.1.3 Technology evaluation Objectives & Methodology The focus in this section is on the technical feasibility of torrefaction process. This technology is not commercialised yet and most of the demonstrations have been done under laboratory condition. As a newly emerging technology, it requires technology analysis. In addition, the exploration of future development options is aimed at. In the analysis, the data obtained from the ASPEN flow sheet simulation package, which was created at ECN, is used. Overall mass and energy balances derived from those studies are used to calculate overall performance of the system. The process conditions are assumed to be the same as in the ECN torrefaction study (Bergman et al, 2005). Mass and energy balances According to the ECN study (Bergman et al, 2005) done under 280 oC temperature and 17.5 min reaction time conditions, the torrefaction reaction mass yield was determined as around 70% (Figure 7) whereas the mass yield of drying was around 60%. This number corresponds to the moisture content loss. In fact the biomass input moisture content was 50% and the biomass moisture content leaving the dryer was 15%.
flue gas(combustables +non combust.) 21.97 kg/s 0.01 kg/s ash 1.03 kg/s

3.62 kg/s

torref. gas
biomass 20 kg/s 18.97 kg/s 11.16 kg/s

7.54 kg/s Torrefaction torrefied biomass


HE 14.16 kg/s
flue gas

Figure 7 Net mass flows corresponding with torrefaction of cuttings at 280 oC and 17.5 min reaction time (HE: Heat exchanger). The thermal efficiency of the whole process was calculated as 96% while the net efficiency was approximately 92 %( includes the utility consumption) (Figure 8 and Table 5). The thermal efficiency of the whole process is mainly determined by the efficiency of the drying. The energy flow in dryer increases from 135.7 MWth to 152.8 MWth (See Figure 7). The high torrefaction efficiency takes its roots from the authothermal operation where the produced torrefaction gas is combusted and the energy demand of the dryer and reactor is met.




14.7 Combustion
Torrefaction gas

27.7 7.97 Cooling
Torrefied biomass




Drying 22.2


Torrefaction 5.47 HE




Figure 8 Net energy flows (in MWth) corresponding with torrefaction of woodcuttings at 280 °C and 17.5 min reaction time (HE: heat exchanger). Table 5 Overall energy balance of the 150 MWth torrefaction process Utility Unit Value Thermal output MWth 150 Thermal input MWth 156 Electricity input Dryer Reactor Fired heater/heat exchanger Axial flow fan Product cooler Air turbo blower Electricity input Thermal equivalent 1 Thermal efficiency 2 Net efficiency 3 MWth MWth MWth MWe MWe MWe MWe MWth % % 1.28 1 0.4 2.68 6.7 0.96 0.92

1 The efficiency of energy conversion is accepted as 0.40 2 Thermal efficiency is calculated as: thermal output/thermal input 3 Net efficiency is calculated as: thermal output/ (thermal input + utility)


1. yard improvements and the cost of land. Indirect costs include engineering & supervision.1 Methodology Economic evaluation is based on the estimations of required capital investment and total production costs. • Annual investment • Operation and maintenance • Biomass feedstock • Electricity demand The annual investment cost is calculated according to the below equation: I annul = α * It r 1 − (1 + r ) − L where: Iannual = annual investment cost α = the capital recovery factor It = total investment r = the discount rate L = the life time or depreciation period of the equipment α= The depreciation period was set to 10 years due to the expected lifetime of dryer and reactor. buildings. Therefore. process and auxiliary. The production cost breakdown estimations are presented in Appendix 5. The torrefied biomass production costs are calculated by dividing the total annual costs of a system by the produced amount of torrefied biomass. The chain analysis in this thesis is based on the assumption that biomass is imported from Latin America to West Europe and the biomass pre-treatment step is supposed to takes part in the Latin American region. the parameters assumed for different world regions and used in the torrefied wood production cost calculation are presented in Table 6. Both direct and indirect costs compose the fixed capital investment.4 Economic evaluation 2. Factorial method described by Peters and Timmerhaus (1991) is used as the reference source in the calculation assumptions (See Appendix 1).1. The total annual costs are. construction expense/constructer fee and contingencies. 26 .2. service facilities. Direct costs consist of equipments and their installation. 8000h/year is assumed to keep the operation continuous.4.

37.4. the labour costs in Latin America ranges around 1.7MWth. depending on the contract type (Tokman & Martinez. Cost estimates are done accepting 37. 2005a). 1998) and from ECN technical experts (Berman. 2003). the dryer is the most expensive equipment followed by torrefaction reactor (Figure 9 and Figure 10). 18. however for 75 and 150 MWth the units are paralleled. Dutch retail price for industry in The Netherlands are presented by the IEA(2002) and the average Brazilian price for electricity is 34 €(ANEEL. 2003). Finally. it is assumed that parallel units are built to meet the desired capacity which means that the scale factor is accepted as 1. 2.Table 6 Local parameters assumed for different world regions Latin America Electricity price1 €/ MWhe 35 Labour price2 €/ Man-hour 6 Western Europe 60 25 1 Electricity prices are derived from Hamelinck et al (2003). 2 Average salary for Western Europe is in the range of 14-40 €/man-hour (Bridgwater et al. 1999). 10MWth. so the equipment cost are calculated by doubling each unit’s cost.37-6.The major cost is derived from the installation cost. and 150 MWth output capacities are selected. The R-values (Appendix 6) are obtained from BIG/CC study (Faaij et al. the economy of scale is assessed. 2005). 27 . power equipment and such as capacity ratios are used in capacity factored estimation.5 MWth process as the base capacity because in ECN 150 MWth plant cost estimates were based on this capacity due to the fact that maximum unit of the process components are reached (Berman.1. When it concerns the equipment costs. To do so. 2002. The cost calculations are done using scale factors per component. For the 10 and 18.7 MWth processes R. the total investment cost for a 37. The equipmentbased estimations are done according to detailed design calculations (Bergman et al. equipmentbased estimates and vendor quotes of the main plant items. heat duty. 75MWth. Following these steps.5 MWth output torrefaction process including drying is calculated as 6.5MWth. When the maximum unit is reached. The scale is chosen in the range of 10 to 150 MWth since the only commercial process’ capacity was 10MWth and 150 MWth was designed at ECN. 2005). The flow rates. Hamelinck et al.factors are used.5 M€ and presented in Table 7 .2 Estimation of the total capital investment The total capital investment is estimated using the combination of capacity factored.59 US$ in 1998.

02 0. purchased costs calculations for 37.7 0.22 0.5 MWth plant are done by dividing the cost figure into four.3 0. process and auxiliary C.06 0. land II.22 0.24 0.7 0.7 0.41 0.22 0.7 0.7 0.65 0. service facilities and yard improvements service facilities general cooling water system air supply system storage yard improvements D.10 0.65 0.7 0.01 0. According to Calis et al (2002). 28 .55 0.. Electrical installation A.59 0.65 0. Since the 150 MWth plant consists of 4 parallel lines. 20 .72 0.6 0.09 0. Installation Main plant items erection Civil Lagging 3.. 2005).20 0.3 0.7 8 20 1 3 1 Max.6 0.6 0.Table 7 Total capital investment of a 37. construction expense/ contractor fee C. engineering and supervision B. Instrumentation and control 4. contingency Working capital Total Capital Investment Specific investment (euro/ton/year) 0. buildings.43 0. Indirect costs A. maximum scale is 25 ton dry/hr.5 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.7 0.61 0.48 0.53 14.19 0.10 0. Purchased Equipment Dryer 2 Reactor Axial flow fans Product cooler Air turbo blowers Burners +heat exchangers 2.07 0.65 0. continued dryers B.47 0.14 0. ton dry/hr MWth MWe ton dry/hr MWe 1 Cost calculations are based on the 150 MWth torrefaction plant cost estimate (Bergman et al. Piping ducting and chutes 5.65 0. scale 25 20 .45 0.7 0. Direct cost 1.06 0.7 0.80 0. 5 MWth torrefaction plant Costs R-values Base 1 scale M€ I.32 6. 2 Rotary drum dryer is used.

R-values per component are obtained from literature (Faaij et al. For the indirect costs. When the operation conditions are optimised. (2005). For relatively large capacities (like 150 MWth). economies of scale are defined as decreasing specific investment costs while up-scaling a certain technology as a power function (Dornburg and Faaij. 2. base costs and maximum scales are obtained from the study done by Bergman et al.4.4. economy of scale is based on component level cost data. lower production costs can be achieved.4 Economies of scale Usually when the production capacity of a process is increased. this reduces the economy of scale.1. scaling up is not applied since they are the percentages of the capital investment costs and when the scale effect is applied to capital investment. multiple units have to be considered.1.3 Estimation of the total production costs Figure 10 Equipment cost breakdown The total production cost for a 150 MWth capacity torrefaction plant is estimated in the range of 40-58 €/ton product when the feedstock cost is excluded (Bergman et al. 29 . it influences the indirect costs. 2001). the total production cost can be decreased. The relationship between costs and capacities are as follows: COSTS SIZE 2  SIZE 2   = COSTS SZE1  SIZE1    where r is scaling factor ranging between 0 and 1 R In this study. 2005) whereas base scales.Heaters 12% Indirect costs 25% Working capital 5% Equipment costs 31% Blowers 1% Product cooler 21% Fans 5% Dryer 31% Reactor 30% Instalation costs 39% Figure 9 Total capital investment cost breakdown 2. Thus. However. a reduction in the average production cost is expected. Even though purchasing multiple units may cause some discount. In fact natural gas cost is rather high and when biomass is used as fuel instead of natural gas or a drier biomass is processed. 2005) (See Appendix 7). this option is omitted in this study because the discount rate is vendor related. 1998) and ECN study (Bergman et al.

70 0. const.13 0.17 0.65 0.12 0.08 0. When the capacity is exceeded 40 MWth.09 0.23 1.31 0.23 B.05 0.28 0.30 0.70 0.55 0.89 0.68 0.03 0.70 0.32 0.14 0.07 0.60 0.00 0.5 M€ I.29 0. Equipment purchase costs Dryer Reactor Axial flow fans Product cooler Air turbo blowers Burners +heat exchangers 2.06 0. Production Capacity (MWth) 150 75 37.16 0.70 0.02 0.03 0.65 0.59 0.94 0.07 0.20 0.26 0.70 0.65 0. process and auxiliary 1.01 0.72 0.61 0.04 0.40 1. Indirect costs A.32 0.08 0.66 0.17 0.17 0.15 II.70 30 .45 0.32 0.41 0.36 0.12 0. Table 8 presents the specific investment cost calculations for different plant scales.11 0.07 0.33 0.16 0.33 1.50 cooling water system 0.34 0.33 1.70 0.22 0.51 0.06 0.48 0. contingency Working capital 2.44 0.70 M€ M€ 18.20 0.09 0.05 yard improvements 0.06 0.60 0.01 0.15 0.43 0.15 0.47 0.10 0.Values are used to scale down.02 0.37.17 D.5 M€ 10. Electrical installation 2.10 C.09 0.65 0.03 0.60 0. Table 8 Specific investment cost calculations of various capacities.11 0.5 MWth capacity process is used as the reference scale because rotary drum dryer which comprises the highest cost compared to other equipments is used in its maximum scale in this process.24 0.89 0.04 0.27 0.30 0.10 0.22 0. engineering and supervision B.04 storage 1.45 2. For the smaller scale processes R.26 0. Instrumentation and control 4. Direct costs 1.24 air supply system 0.04 0.50 0.14 0.70 0.83 1.22 0.22 0.70 0. multiple equipment units need to be used.30 0.14 0.67 0.25 0. expense/ contractor fee C.18 0.03 0.00 M€ R value s A.32 0.02 0.09 0.65 0.65 0.19 0.06 0.70 0.10 0.14 0.70 0.22 0.01 0. Installation Main plant items erection Civil Lagging 3.04 0. Piping ducting and chutes 5. continued dryers 0.05 0. land 0.50 0.59 1.49 0.19 0.36 0.09 0.17 0.04 0. service facilities and yard improvements service facilities general 0.80 0. buildings.02 0.43 0.27 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.

hemicelluloses and lignin.00 11. • A vapour phase temperature of 450 –500 oC. the so called pyrolysis oil.1 Pyrolysis decomposition mechanism As previously mentioned.2 Pyrolysis 2.47 3. the main product is gaseous. Another method that captures a lot of attention is fast pyrolysis where very high heating rates at moderate temperatures and rapid product quenching are employed. The products of pyrolysis include gas. however.36 6. • Short vapour residence times (less than 2 seconds) • Rapid cooling of pyrolysis vapour to produce bio-oil 31 . • A moderate reaction temperature (around 500 oC).19 1Total investment cost is multiplied by the recovery factor (α) to obtain annual investment cost. 2004). Fast pyrolysis technology has received much attention in the last decades as a solution to convert biomass to a liquid fuel. The necessary conditions for fast pyrolysis are: • High heating and heat transfer rates at the reaction interface.56 2. The lower efficiency in gas production and the heat transfer to the reactor are the main problems.93 11. The by-product in both conditions is char. Fast pyrolysis technology is in favour of high liquid production.2.96 17. liquid fraction can be maximized up to 75% wt on a dry biomass feed basis (Bridgwater et al. The relative proportions of products are dependent on the pyrolysis method. Cellulose and hemicellulose degrades rapidly whereas lignin decomposes over a wider temperature range. It generates mostly vapours and aerosols where a rapid quenching of the pyrolysis vapours is needed to minimize secondary reactions.77 23. The vapour residence time is typically 1 s. • Finely ground biomass feedstock. equal yields of gas. liquid and solid char. However. the characteristics of the biomass and the reaction parameters (United Nations. Temperatures employed in pyrolysis are 400 to 800 oC (Bridgwater and Evans. The main product is liquid. biomass consists of cellulose. The process can be adjusted in favour of solid. liquid and solid are produced. 1994). 2 Specific investment cost is calculated by dividing annual investment cost by the production capacity. liquid or gas production.1 Process definition Pyrolysis can be described as the direct thermal decomposition of biomass in the absence of oxygen (Yaman. Fast pyrolysis occurs around 500 oC in which biomass is rapidly heated in the absence of oxygen. this is not a favourable technology due to the multiplicity of products that are difficult to handle and market. In fact.05 12.1. In the conventional pyrolysis. Depending on the product demand operation conditions are modified. 1993). At high reaction temperature.2.Total Capital Investment 1 Specific investment (euro/ton/year)2 19.53 14. The focus of this study is based on fast pyrolysis since the product aimed at in this study is liquid. 2. 2002) 2.

the yields from fast pyrolysis are between 40-65 wt% organic condensate. 10 to 20% char. However.5-7. the non-aqua phase consists of insoluble organics. 1999). The char produced in fast pyrolysis is very flammable due to its small size and high volatility.2 Products Pyrolysis process yields 3 main products that are liquid. 1999). therefore hot char from the process should be properly handled to avoid ignition.1-0.5 Specific gravity 1.2. In their study. The LHV of gases are expected to be around 15 MJ/nm3 (Diebold and Bridgwater. it has been reported to be around 32 MJ/kg (Diebold and Bridgwater. the properties of bio-oil depend on the type of process. Table 9 Typical properties of wood derived crude bio-oil Typical value Unit Moisture content 20-30 % pH 2.5 Source: Pyne. char and gas.2 Kg/lt Element analysis C 55-58 % H 5. Pyrolysis oil. the feedstock and its moisture content. is a dark brown liquid with a distinctive odour. the desired product.0 % O 35-40 % N 0-0.2 % HHV as produced 16-19 MJ/kg LHV 15-18 MJ/kg Viscosity (40 C and 25% 40-400 Cp water) Solid (char) 0. The general characteristics of this bio-oil is summarised in Table 9. While the aquatic phase consists of organo-oxygen compounds. 2005 32 . When it concerns the LHV of chars.2. mainly aromatics. 1999) depending on the biomass feed characteristics and reaction conditions.2 % Ash 0-0. 10-30% gases and 515% water based on dry feed (Diebold and Bridgwater. The liquid fraction consists of two parts: an aquatic phase and a non-aquatic phase.1. Generally. when the fast pyrolysis reactor operation is in favour of maximum liquid production with a minimum of vapour cracking. Raveendran and Ganesh (1996) indicate the higher heating values for several biomass types (See Appendix 8).

1999) and in 2000 they designed and built a 10ton/day bio-oil commercial demonstration plant. However. This facility was built in Wisconsin in 1996 and has operated with a commercial availability of over 94 % (Ensyn.2.2 Production technology 2. A second demonstration scale of 600 kg/h plant was built at the Grimma machine factory.. Another 200-kg/h pilot plant was demonstrated in Belgium in 1991 and operated until 1992. The product yields were 67% bio-oil. Enel Produzino is operating a pilot facility and currently the aim is to improve its operability and the product quality (Bio-energy projects.2 State-of-the-art-technology Ensyn patented Rapid Thermal Processing (RTP™) technology is accepted as the state of the art technology because it is commercialised (Figure 14). Bio-oil production has been demonstrated in North America at a scale up to 2 ton/hr throughput. 2005). designed and built by Ensyn of Canada. East Germany for the extraction of aromatic chemicals from the whole tires but this plant is also not operational (Kaminsky. In 2003 Dynamotive launched the construction of a 100 ton/day plant at Erie Flooring and Wood Products. to produce a fuel for co-firing in oil fired power plant.2. biomass from the hopper passes through a metering screw and feed screw into the vessel reactor where biomass is contacted with a stream of hot sand. sand is separated from the product vapour in a primary cyclone. It was a 15 ton/day Ensyn RTP3 pilot plant. The bio-oil yield of the plant was 39. the gas yield was 16. The most recent pilot plant was installed in Italy at Bastorda in mid 1996. Currently Ensyn has got a fast pyrolysis plant with a capacity of 75 ton/day (wet bases). A 500-kg/h pyrolysis plant was planned to be demonstrated in Italy in 1989 with a liquid and char yield of 25% for each (Bridgewater et al. rubber wastes. which is operating commercially. In Italy. 2004). Following this section. Europe on the other hand has recently involved in the production of liquid fuels from biomass. In this technology. oil wastes or other organic waste materials (Karminsky. Ontario. The pilot plant was operated at a capacity of 2 ton/day on a continuous feed basis and it processed more than 35 tones of feedstock (Dynamotive. 2005). Dynamotive Corp. 2000). The first commercial application of the Ensyn Technology was a 100 kg/hr unit to produce chemicals and fuel oil at Red Arrow Products in Wisconsin. has achieved a commercial version of RTI process so named “BioTherm TM Technology”.2.1 Current status Fast pyrolysis of biomass is on the verge of development and demonstration stage (in power production).8% char (kg/kg feed basis). re-heated and re-circulated to carry the heat to the fresh biomass. 26% gas and 0. In fact. In 1995 Resource Transforms International Ltd.2. which is based on the University of Waterloo (Canada) process. In mid 1993 Union Fenosa (Spain) constructed a 200-kg/h fast pyrolysis pilot plant. The aim in this process was the pyrolysis of plastic wastes. a commercial pyrolysis demonstration plant was constructed in Edenhausen (Germany) with a capacity of 5000 ton/year and was operational until 1989. USA.2. and the char yield was determined as 29%wt (Egemin). (RTI) began bench scale production of bio-oil. ENEL have installed a pilot plant. 2. A 33 . whereas pyrolysis plants are being marketed up to 10 ton/hr throughputs in Canada (Ensyn. Ensyn has started its fundamental fast pyrolysis experiments in 1981 at the University of Western Ontario. 1985).9%wt. 1985).2% wt.2.

1 Methodology Pyrolysis technology requires a lot of interest due to its significant logistical and hence economic advantages. The products are noncondensable gases. preferably 3mm. Even though state-of –the-art-technology is chosen different in the techno-economic calculation steps rotating cone technology is used as the reference process. 2000). 74% as received biomass gas Biomass feeder off gas secondary cyclone primary cyclone condensor column bio oil Reactor heat for pyrolysis char chatchpot packet condenser column gas recirculation Figure 11 State of the art Ensyn RTP plant flow diagram (Source) 2. bio-oil and char. Several condensers. daf. In this study rotating cone pyrolysis process is used as a reference technology due to its being compact and good integration of heat. fluid bed configurations are the most popular reactors from the commercial point of view due to their ease of operating and ready scale up (Bridgwater.3. 1991). which is used as a heat carrier. filters and demisters are used to condense and recover the liquid product. As seen in the flow diagram. This technology has been designed and demonstrated by BTG. It is possible to obtain detailed technical data for various reactor types but in this study an overall technology assessment which consists of mass and energy balances are presented. This process necessitates a feedstock with moisture content less than 10% on wet basis and a particle size less than 5mm. The detailed data are obtained from BTG Biomass Technology Group BV. The produced gas is cleaned in a filter and fed in the condenser.2. On the other hand ablative reactors offer the advantage of smaller downstream equipments and more intensive reaction. 1999). When the existing fast pyrolysis technologies with various reactor specifications are considered. Char is combusted in a fluid bed together with sand where heat is conveyed to the sand. particles are heated rapidly by mixing sand.3 Technology evaluation 2. 34 . The Netherlands (Gansekoele et al.2. The overview of current technologies are summarised in Appendix 9. The liquid product is 67%.secondary cyclone removes the char and inorganic fines consisting of ash and entrained sand (Bridgwater and Bridge.

5 MWLHV ash 0.4 Economic evaluation When international bio-energy transport is considered. where as non-condensable gas mass yield is 20% and char yield is 10%. 0. it still necessitates a detailed economic evaluation due to lack of publicly available economic data.Circulating bio-oil is used as a cooling medium. 35 .5 tons/hr 25 MWLHV Dryer 5. which is cooled down by water from a cooling tower. 2. 2000).05 tons/hr Figure 12 A schematic presentation of the mass and energy balance of a 5-ton dry feed per hour pyrolysis plant The char that is created in the pyrolysis plant is combusted and reused in the reactor. Due to its relatively high energy content and bulk density. Since the char combustion energy is more than what is required to run the reactor.75 tons/hr 2. converting bio-oil into energy or FT liquid is supposed to be easier than pellets.5 tons/hr 25 MWLHV Hammer mill 5. bio-oil is 70%. The mass yield of the main product. pyrolysis pre-treatment option seems attractive. In addition to this. the system works in authotermal mode (Gansekoele et al. 2. it can be economically advantageous compared to pellet transport.3.2 Mass and energy balances The process diagram of the 5.5 tons/hr 25 MWLHV gas Pyrolysis unit 0.5 ton/hr rotating cone reactor is given in Figure 12 where the mass and energy balances are demonstrated (Gansekoele et al. detailed mass balance of a 200 kg/hr pyrolysis plant is presented in Appendix 10.2.2. In addition to this when the final conversion stage is considered. As it can be seen in Figure 12.1MWLHV 4 tons/hr 16. the energy yield of the pyrolysis technology is approximately 66%. 2000). Even though the pyrolysis technology attracts a lot of attention and gets more commercialised. The liquid product can be either stored or readily transported depending on the requirement.7 kg/hr fluegas bio-oil 7. It is assumed that the gas leaving the condenser can be combusted in a gas engine for electricity generation and flue gases can be used for heating application. These assumptions are investigated later in the bio-energy chain analysis chapter.

Second a literature review (Bridgwater and Evans. Solantausta. 2. first the reference pyrolysis plant cost data is presented and compared to the data obtained from Hamelinck et al (2003).4. Hamelinck et al. the feedstock enters the pyrolysis plant.4. Therefore. Following this process.2.2. 2002. 2003) is conducted and finally the results are compared. When the rotating cone reactor is considered it demands a feedstock that has got a 2 mm particle size and moisture content below 12% (Gansekoele et al. Therefore. another process is designed where mainly Hamelinck et al (2003) data are used. in this section. it needs to be prepared. 2002. 36 . Investment cost of a 25 MWth process is presented in Table 10. Calis et al. the plant consists of dryer.1 Methodology The economic data obtained in this study for fast pyrolysis technology varies from each other.2. 2001. In fact pyrolysis reactors require stringent feedstock particles and moisture content. 2000). 1993. Bridgwater et al. In addition to this.2 Reference case Before biomass is fed to the pyrolysis system. hammermill and storage as preparation phase.

2 50 ton/hr hammermill with 0. 6 Cost data assumed to include engineering & construction expenses.37 0. 2000) Costs (M€) Costs (M€) I.5 7 4. Indirect costs Engineering and supervision (5% of direct costs) Const. Direct costs Rotary dryer 0.37 M€ base capital is scaled down with a 0.11 0.Table 10 25 MWth-input capacity pyrolysis process investment cost calculations (sawdust as feedstock) Item Rotating cone pyrolsysis Reference plant plant (Gansekoele et al.07 0.08 2 Silo 0.04 0.7 scale factor (Hamelinck et al. expense and contractor’s fee (6% of direct costs) Pyrolysis plant 6 Fixed capital investment 0. sand circulation system.21 Wood yard conditioning 0. 1990).331 M€ (Hamelinck et al.19 Installation cost (20%)4 5 Buildings 0. 37 .08 0. 6 The rotating cone technology includes biomass feed system.5 78 11.08 8. 7 Calculation is based on equation 1. 2003) 3 5000 m3 silo capital cost is mentioned 0. reactor and bio-oil condensing system Pyrolysis plant cost estimation details are confidential. 2003).81 1 Hammermill 0.36 0.58 II.03 Sub-total 0.12 0.04 3. Suurs 2002).61 1 A 100 ton/hr Van den Broek rotary drum with 5 M€ capital cost is scaled down by the 0.79 1.08 3 0. 4 Instalation costs are estimated to be the 20% of direct costs 5 Building costs are assumed to be the 22% of purchased equipment costs (Peters and Timmerhaus.10 0. char combustion.7 scale factor (Hamelinck et al.

04 4. Local Taxes 0.09 B. Direct Product Cost 1.In this study.08 4.f.38 3.a.a.a.39 2. Particle size 10 mm Biomass input 5 ton dry/hr Annual 7500 Hr/yr availability Bio-oil yield 70 % Bio-oil LHV 17.14 6. Distribution and Selling Costs 0.80 C. The economic parameters used in this calculation are shown in Table 11 Economic parameters for a 25 MWth biomass pyrolysis plant Factor Value Unit Biomass type wood Moisture content 50% wt% d. GENERAL EXPENSES A.31 2. Laboratory Charges 0. Maintenance and Repairs 0.35 II.15 8.f Depreciation 6. production cost breakdown (See Table 12) is processed.01 C.5 M€ cost Pre-treatment 0.7 %/year Pyrolysis plant 3. Operating Supplies 0. Direct Supervisory and clerical labour 0.14 3. Insurance 0. Operation Labour 0.= dry ash free Table 12 Production cost of a 25 MWth rotating cone pyrolysis plant I.f. Fixed Charges 1.5 MJ/kg Biomass cost 35 €/ton d.f.a. Administrate Costs 0. Rent 0. Research and Development Cost 0. Plant Overhead 0. Patents and Royalties B.02 7.15 5. Utilities Electricity 0. Raw Materials 1. MANUFACTURING COSTS M€ A. Ash content 1 wt% d. Depreciation 0.8 M€ cost d.2 38 .

Solantausta. while it was estimated around 410 US$/MWth in 2002 for 48 MWth capacity (See Figure 14). For instance.III TOTAL PRODUCT COSTS Bio-oil production cost feed €/ton€/GJ 4. which creates discrepancy. According to the VTT study results.20 The production cost is estimated around 112 €/ton (9 €/GJ) when the feedstock cost is accepted as 35 €/ton d.a. 2. in 2003.65 9.5 € in 1999 with a capacity of approximately 56 MWth. Because of lack of information about the estimate details. 39 . 2002.22 112. In Figure 14 and Figure 15 pyrolysis plant investments of several studies are summarised (VTT (Fin). it is not possible to clarify the variations.60 MWth varies substantially.3 Literature review and study comparison Even though there have been many demonstrated pyrolysis plants. Therefore.f for the reference case. this part of the study is based on literature reviews in combination with the obtained cost figure data evaluations. a pyrolysis plant costs around 34.The data used by Aston University is reported as manufacturer’s data whereas VTT used literature with in-house data. and Kemiinformation data used industrial data. 2001). Even for the similar capacities. it differs. In Figure 14. The calculation results are consistent when compared to literature studies (Bridgwater et al. the specific investment cost of a 37. Aston University (UK) & Kemmiinformation AB (Se)). the ranges of the cost estimates are different. while it costs around 25 M€ for 53 MWth capacity in 2002. the related cost figures are being kept confidential. the bio-oil production cost is approximately 75 €/ton (~6 €/GJ).4.5 MWth liquid capacity was estimated around 350 kUS$/MWth.2. the pyrolysis plant investment cost data between 40. On the other hand when the feedstock price is accepted as 0. Even though the cost data is from the same source.

(2002) has compiled a number of fast pyrolysis systems to give a financial scope. 14 data point for fast pyrolysis module was used. and the below figure was obtained (Figure 15). 40 . 2001) Figure 14 Specific Pyrolysis Plant Investments (Historic data from1987 to 2003 (Solantausta.Figure 13 Specific Pyrolysis Plant Investments 1987-2003 (Solantausta. 2001) In another study Bridgwater et al.

The reason can be that the cost data in VTT study include drying. 1993) is outside the expected range and this can be interpreted as the result of low process efficiency (30. The data in point 3 (Bridgwater and Evans. Five different pyrolysis plant capital investment cost data are plotted into a graph (Figure 16). Qh. kECU2000 = 40.6194 where. pyr = the total plant cost of the pyrolysis reactor system.2004/MW 41 . Investment (kUS$. pyr.Figure 15 Fast pyrolysis total plant costs versus feedstock (dry) input (Bridgwater et al. The data distribution is reasonable excluding point 3. Therefore. When the graph is compared to the VTT study (Figure 13 and Figure 14).62%). ton dry/hr However. pret. th ) Equation 1 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 5 10 MW th -output (LHV) 15 20 Spec. Detailed information about the cost data is included in Appendix 11. However. which increases the capital cost significantly. dry = the mass flow rate of prepared wood feed into the reactor.8× (Q h. dry×1000)0. TPCconv. 2002). TPCconv. The equation to calculate the cost of fast pyrolysis system was determined from the figure as. it is not possible to give further clarification since detailed information related to the investment costs in VTT study is not available. the cost data differ. the cost data of this curve could not be obtained. pret. 1993). a new curve is produced which consists of available cost estimates (Bridgwater and Evans.

it is reasonable to obtain such high cost figures. the reactors used and the definition of the pyrolysis plants. Different calculation methods may cause this difference. which needs to be emphasized.Figure 16 Specific investment cost versus capacity (MWth plants LHV) data of 5 different pyrolysis When the total capital investment costs versus feedstock amount are plotted in a graph (See Figure 17). It requires adjustment for interest and inflation. in the Shell study. As an example. Bridgwater et al. 2002).. On the other hand.36 M€2004) whereas it is calculated as 5. The investment cost for the pyrolysis system was calculated using the scale factor. an equation (Equation 2). different from Bridgwater et al (2002) is obtained. a simpler approach was followed (Calis et al. (2002) has collected normalised plant costs for a number of fast pyrolysis and gasification systems to give the same equipment and financial scope while in this study five different pyrolysis plant investment cost data estimation is plotted to the graph. 2002). The installed investment cost of a 10 ton/hr plant was calculated as 5. A scale factor of 0.19M€2004) (Calis et al.01 M€. 42 . When a 10 ton/hr plant is calculated according to Equation 1 the total plant cost is calculated as 12. Another point. It is rather difficult to clarify the reasons beneath the cost figure differences without knowing the detailed information related to the data used in those studies. It might be derived from the characteristics of the pyrolysis plant.96 M€ for 2002(6. In case the pyrolysis plant cost figures include dryer costs. which was under design and for which a price of 2.27 M€ was estimated.25 M€2000(13. a maximum size of 10 ton/hr plant investment cost was derived from the 2 ton/hr system. 2004 by Equation 2.6 was accepted for pyrolysis plants. is that the total plant cost mentioned in Bridgwater’s study is different than total plant investment.

4316 R = 0. k€2004 = 94.126x 2 0. TCI.4316 Equation 2 43 .Capital investment cost of pyrolysis plants Total Capital Investment (kEuro-200 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Feed input (kg/hr) 5000 6000 y = 94.8164 Figure 17 Total capital investment cost versus feedstock (ton dry/hr) of 5 different pyrolysis plants (Graph uses the same data as Figure 16).126 *Qdry(kg/hr)0.

the first patent for densification was issued in the U. 1978). 2 Free flowing means that the particles have got the same shape that they can flow through freely. 1995) and the moisture content below 10-15 %. The pellet production in 2001 exceeded 700. Those processes at first were used to produce animal feed and then it shifted into densified fuel production for energy market. 2003). • Feedstock reception • Chipping • Final drying • Size reduction (typically to 3 mm) • Pelletising • Cooling • Storage The flow line of the process depends on the characteristics of the biomass received. In 1880. maximum 3-20 mm (Pierik and Curvers. Another advantage of pelletising is that it enables free flowing2.3 2. In addition. Densification in terms of pelletising has been commercialised. 2001).3. Finland and Sweden are the two leading countries in pelletising technology in Europe. However. 44 . (Reed and Bryant. piston press can compensate for up to 20 % moisture content. Pelletising process consist of the following stages.1 Pelletisation Process definition Pelletising can be defined as drying and forming of biomass under high pressure to produce cylindrical pieces of compressed and extruded biomass with a maximum diameter of 25 mm. ship and convert into electricity or other chemicals (AEAT. The aim in pelletising is to densify the biomass to produce a significant smaller volume and a higher volumetric energy density fuel that is more efficient to store. The production of pellets requires small feedstock particles.000 tons (Hirsmark. a 120-ton/day plant has been operating since 1976 in Oregon (Reed and Bryant.5 oC) and then compacted with a steam hammer. which facilitates material handling and rate of flow control (Koppejan and Meulman. For example if the feedstock material is exclusively sawdust there will be no requirement for chipping. As an example.2. By pelletising not only a uniform and stable fuel is obtained but also the amount of dust produced is minimized. 1978). 2002).The sawdust or other wood residues were heated to 150 oF (65.S.

3. 2004). the feedstock is heated to 50 to 100 oC to soften the lignin and obtain the desired moisture content and at approximately 150 oC mechanical densification is applied. moisture content of 10% to 25% is mentioned as optimal (Reed and Brytant. 1978).3.2. 2.3. pelletising and cooling (Figure 18). In the pelletising process biomass is dried to 10-15% moisture content.1 Pelletising decomposition mechanism Biomass densification in the form of pelletising occurs around a temperature of 150 oC . These steps are drying. 2002). the pressure required for densification increases dramatically. begins to soften at 100 oC and permits the moulding of the wood. 2.1 Current status As mentioned above pelletising technology is fully commercialised.1.2 Production technology 2. The use of wood pellets has increased in the 1990s in Sweden. This not only increases energy density but also eases the handling and transportation since the biomass weight is reduced. Another advantage is that dried biomass is less susceptible to mould and insect attacks during storage (Stahl et al. In the recent years. If the feedstock is either too dry or too wet. pelletisation biomass screening drying cooling grinding pellet storage Figure 18 State-of-the-art pellet production process diagram Drying: The moisture content of fresh biomass is around 50 %.2. However. several pellet production plants have been established and the utilization equipment has improved (Alakangas and Paju. In fact. Thus. milling (grinding). which holds the cellulose together like glue. Water plays an important role in densification. Denmark and Austria and earlier in the North America. lignin.3.2 State of the art system (SOTA) description Pellet production basically consists of at least four steps. Finland. Cellulose is stable at temperatures below 250 oC. 45 .2.

harden and form the pellets (Viak et al. 2. Therefore. compressing it into pellets.2.3 Products The produced pellets have a net calorific heating value in the range of 16.9 . Cooling: The pressure exerted during the pelletising process can break up the pellets. Pelletising: There are two main types of pelletisers: flat die pelletisers or ring die pelletisers (MacMahon and Payne. Loose materials are fed into pelletising cavity. and wood-grinding dusts as raw materials Variables Unit Value Size diameter mm 6-10 length mm 10-13 Energy content MJ/kg 16. However. which are under development in order to improve the quality of the pellets and to decrease the energy consumption during pelletisation process.2. additives or binding agents can be used in this stage.3. which is converted into heat. The research is being carried out in Norway at the Cambi Bioenergi Vestmarka. the cooling process is necessary to stabilise. Grinding: In general hammer mills are used in this step. steam dryer (direct or indirect) and hot air dryer are the commonly used technologies (Malisius et al. 2002 2. The aim is to produce pellets which are much harder.9-18. 1982). To increase the abrasion resistance and bind the biomass.16 MJ/kg. Counter-flow coolers are mostly used for this process. The raw material is preconditioned in this technology by heating a steam-compression reactor to release the natural 46 . 1982). Drum dryer. The actual value depends on the moisture content that varies between 5 to 10%. The hammer mill is in general powered by an electric motor.0 Moisture content % 7-12 Ash content % 2 650-700 Bulk density kg/m3 1. 200). Adjustable knifes cut the pellets to the desired length. This heat is also used to extract further moisture from the raw material at this stage. They are usually added at approximately 1 wt% of the pellet mass (MacMohan and Payne. 2000).There are many biomass dryer types developed.4 Improvements in the pelletising technology Currently there are two different processes. Die rotation and roller pressure force the material through die. have a higher specific weight (with a bulk density of 850 kg/m3) and are less sensitive to moisture and separation of fines. Grinding is necessary to produce uniform materials for feeding to the pellet mill.5 Space demand m3/ton Source: Alakangas and Paju. They grind biomass into fine fractions not bigger than 3mm. the screen size depends on the diameter of the pellets to be produced. cutter shavings.3. Table 13 Characteristics of wood pellets (Sawdust. One of them is a steam explosion process where experimental pellet production plant is being carried out.

storage and peripheral equipments) and general investment costs. There are various standard values for fuel pellets in Europe and US (AEAT.045 kWh/kg. 2004) with a 24 000-ton pellet product/year is presented in order to include the recent improvements in the costs figures. The second technology has been developed by the Italian company EcoTre System. there is significant energy consumption and investment cost reduction in this technology. an Austrian case study (Thek and Obernberg. which causes the material to explode. After a certain exposure time. cooling. The aim is to present the data which is used in the chain analysis In the economic evaluation part. pelletisation. depending on the type of wood (in Hamelinck et al (2003) the electricity consumption is mentioned at the range of 15-40 kWhe/ton with a moisture content of 8%). The investment cost consists of equipment costs (drying. which include electrical installation. The process operates at low temperatures (55-60 oC) and without any additives. Hamelinck et al (2003) mentioned the energy consumption of a rotary drum dryer 20 kWhe/ton. the production of sufficiently strong pellets that can endure mechanical wear caused by storage and transport is still a challenge (Alakangas and Paju. In this new technology. the pressure is reduced. The annual capital cost is calculated by multiplying the capital recovery factor with the investment cost.3.025 kWh/kg-0.lignin. grinding. the electricity consumption ranges between 0.3 Techno-economic evaluation 2. annual capital cost is first calculated per item and then added up to find the final capital cost. The aim of this development was to minimize energy consumption. This is due to the difference between labour cost in Europe and Latin America and between electricity costs. which means that a simple dryer can be employed or a dryer might not be required et al.3.However. 2002).3. 2.2. In the literature it is mentioned that the preconditioning process also doubles the pellet production capacity. the plant in Norway is a prototype plant and is not yet commercial. those standards do not usually define durability or mechanical stability. The main advantage of this system is its simplicity and lower investment costs. Pellet standards and the quality marking are important in order to guarantee high quality pellets.1 Objectives & Methodology This part includes a general overview of the technology in relation to the technical and economic data. Since the utilization period varies per equipment.5 Reliability Even though pellet production technologies are commercialised. 2003) (See Appendix 12). The pelletiser in this process can handle biomass with 30% to 35% moisture content.3. In the production cost calculations the operation costs differ depending on the location of the plant. and construction costs. In fact. The plant is assumed to operate 7884 h/year. 2. 47 . However.

3.27 MWth 0. The thermal efficiency is calculated approximately 94%. 44. Since no volatilisation has occurred during pelletising process.5 M (10% mc) Figure 19 Mass balance of the pelletising process When it concerns the energy balance. not only the energy density of feedstock and the product but also the energy consumed during the process has to be evaluated.58 MWth 0. while the produced pellet moisture content is 10%. whereas net efficiency is 87%. 48 .2 Mass and Energy balance Most of the time the fresh biomass moisture content is around 50%.3.19 MWth 0.03 MWth Figure 20 Energy balance for a 24000 pellet production process (Cost data is obtained from Thek and Obernberg (2004)).66 MWth Drying Grinding Pelletisation Cooling 24000 tonpellet/year 12 MWth 0.2. the total mass loss is caused by the moisture content evaporation (Figure 19).45 water evaporation biomass 100 M (50% mc) pellets 55. 34000 ton/year 12. A complete energy balance of a 24 000 ton pellet /year process is presented in Figure 20.

3. the data used in the other study consist of literature survey and manufacturing data. On the other hand. 2004). whereas rotary drum dryer capacity is mentioned as 100ton/hr (Hamelinck et al. questionnaire survey of pellet producers in Austria. recent studies carried out by Thek and Obernberg (2004) and Hamelinck et al. 2003) 49 .2. A 24000 ton/year pellet production plant total investment cost is mentioned as 2 M€ (Thek and Obernberg .3.3 Estimation of total capital investment and production costs In this part. The dryer cost data differs significantly. The data in Thek and Obernberg (2004) study are based on the already realised plants. (2003) are used as reference literatures. South Tyrol and Sweden. The tube bundle dryer is given for a 6 ton/hr capacity. Specific investment costs mentioned in those studies are summarised in Table 14.

the rotary drum dryer is assumed to be the most conventional and proven technology for drying. The capital cost of a dryer with 3 ton/h water evaporation rate is mentioned to be in the range of 40000-55000 €/year (Thek and Obernberg. 2004). In the literature the investment cost of tube bundle dryer is mentioned as 375 k€ and the input capacity 6 ton/hr (Thek and Obernberg.7 1. The evaporated water is calculated as 72.67 4 Rotary Drum Hammermi ll Pellet press k€/MWthinp % ut Kwhe/ton 20 0. rotary drum dryer for 20 MWth is mentioned as 434 k€.85-26.08 4 2. 2003 Type Specific Invest. (2003). 55% w.083 100. In the table it is scaled up to 100 ton/hr to be comparable with rotary drum dryer.4 5 4. 2004) In Hamelinck et al.16 €/tonpellets (Thek and Obernberg.√mm/to n)8 28 15.34 8 3 20 197 48. Grinding investment cost is mentioned as 62 000€ for hammermill (Thek and Obernberg.74 11 4 5 6 7 The capacity of the plant is 47304 tonfresh/year with a 7884 hr/year operation load. 2004).b.2 GJ/ton.34 0.26(kwh. The capacity of tube bundle dryer is given as 6 ton/hr.5 10 30 41.Table 14 Cost data of pelletisation process Thek and Obernberg. 50 . 2004). In Bergman (2004).8 8. The biomass moisture content is accepted as 15% before entering the pelletiser.67 77. 20041 O& Type Specific M Invest 2 Costs k€/MWthinp % Drying 3 Grinding Pelletisation7 Cooling General investments9 Peripheral equipment 10 Total 1 2 3 Life time year 15 10 10 15 Energy Hamelinck et al.5 18 10 2 1 2 29. Specific investment costs are calculated by dividing the total investment cost with the input capacity Tube bundle dryer and the belt dryer are mentioned as the most common dryers in Austria and the specific costs of dryers are in the range of 16. The LHVar is considered as 6.26 40.8 ton for a 100 ton/hr capacity dryer. Costs O& M Life time years 15 15 10 Energy-e Tube bundle dryer Hammer mill Ring die pellet mill Counterflow cooler ut kWhe/to n 13 36.

since the first column gives the total plant cost. General investment costs include mainly construction costs. 2003). Energy consumption in Hamelinck et al. and steel constructions. wheras the second coloum gives only the equipment costs. intermediate storage. the total costs can not be compared with each other. Peripheral equipment cost consists of conveying systems. 51 .8 9 10 11 The energy consumption of chipping is calculated depending on the diameter of the product. (2003) is given as a bond index (See details in Hamelinck et al.

As shown in Figure 21.000 100. 250. 2004).7 €/ton with the 36 €/ton dry raw material cost. 2.000 0 Pellet process Perip. The annual operating time is considered as 7884 hr/year and the electricity price is 50. general investment costs and the dryer costs. 52 . the total capital investment costs are dominated by the peripheral equipment costs.000 150. When biomass cost is considered o.87 €/MWh (Thek and Obernberg. Storage Cooling Pelletisetion Grinding Drying General investment Figure 21 Cost breakdown of the total capital investment cost of a 24 000 ton pellet process (data from Thek and Obernberg. (2004) is used). The specific pellet production cost is approximately 90.000 Capital costs (Euro2004 /year) 200.4 Comparison of processes The technical and economic comparison of the pre-treatment processes mentioned in this study are presented in Table 15 and Table 16. the production cost is approximately 58 €/ton. Equipm.000 50.

beech/oak and several organic waste materials have been successfully converted to bio-oil 3 Thermal efficiency indicates the efficiency where utility use is not included (energy cap.63 98.4 24.5% 93. content LHV a.9-21.48 93. in (Shell study-Calis et al. 53 . TOP. 2003). however in this study the moisture contents and the energy contents are obtained from ECN literature (Bergman et al. rice husks.5% 90.3% 25 57% 6.05 92.8-10.2% 84% -6.8 17 7 500-650 7. Unit Torrefaction TOP Process Pyrolysis Pelletisation Feedstock type Input Cap. biomass 3 19.8-10.5 23.r Product type Product m.0150 Mwe/MWth. poplar.5 23.9% 87% 25 57% 6.6 24 96. 2004) 2 3mm pine wood.2 Torr. product /energy cap. electricity is assumed to be generated with 40% efficiency.2 Bio-oil 20-30 (~22%) 17 1200 20-303 16. feedstock) 4 Net efficiency includes the utility consumption 5 Pyrolysis electricity consumption is accepted as 0.2 Pellets 5-1 25 57% 6.8 17 7 500-650 7.2 Pellets 10-7 15. Product LHV ar Mass density (bulk) Energy density(bulk) Production capacity Thermal efficiency 3 Net efficiency4 %wt MJ/kg Kg/m 3 Woodcuttings chips Sawdust 1 Green wood chips Clean wood waste2 Sawdust Greenwood chips MWth %wt MJ/kg 25 50% 6. sawdust residues from wood waste supplier. beech.Table 15 Technical comparison of torrefaction.9-18.7% 14. Moist.5 66% 64% 5 19. wheat straw.9 20 4 230 4.919.c.12 96.2 Pellets 10-7 15.6 21 6 0 20 4 22 7 750-850 750-850 14. pyrolysis and pelletisation pre-treatment processes.918 4 24.2 Pellets 5-1 25 25 57% 6.1% 92.8% GJ/m3 MWth LHV 1 Sawdust is generally know with a relatively lower moisture content (around 35%).

and 44 MWth input.23) or a 5 ton dry/hr pyrolysis plant.42 2 5 45 (sawdust) 50(green wood) 2. This value is accepted as 40 kWh/ton feed in Hamelinck’s study (2004).86 75 6 1 Data is obtained from Bergman.19(greenwood) 0.15 (greenwood) 5 41(sawdust) 54(green wood) 3. TOP. (2003). 4 The energy consumption of the Moving Bed torrefaction process is 92 kWh (Bergman. 2 The cost data is derived form the rotating cone reactor study and from the calculation where equipment costs data is mainly obtained from Hamelinck et al (2003).17 % €/ton €/GJ kWh/ton 5 58 3. 2005. sizing.Details of cost calculations can be found in Pyrolysis section.190.2 92 4 0. 7 Data include drying.5 91(sawdust) 110(greenwood) 5 48 108 5. (2005). pelletisation and cooling equipments. 54 . in and the MWth.0150 Mwe/MWth. size reduction and densification. spec. respectively. 3 The production cost assumptions are based on the 0 feedstock cost. Scale for torrefaction. torrefaction.Table 16 Economic comparison of torrefaction. pyrolysis and pelletisation pre-treatment processes 1 Torrefaction TOP process 1 Pyrolysis Pelletisation 1 0.4 129(sawdust)201(greenwood) 7 Specific Capital investment O&M Production costs 3 Energy –e M€/MWthinput 0. Cost data includes drying. 8000 hr load factor and 10 years life time for torrefaction. in is accepted as 25 MWth (Fig. electricity consumption is accepted as 0. 5 Data include drying.09(sawdust) 0. TOP and Pelletisation are 37. 8 Data is obtained from Hamelinck et al.5 MWth input. in fact steam for drying is obtained from the torrefaction gas. TOP and pelletisation. 6 Calculation is done based on shell study.13(sawdust) 0. sizing and densification process. 44 MWth input. and 15 years for pyrolysis.

5 5 7500 20 Range 30-43 2. discount rate influences the production cost. In fact.4 25 8 8000 10 Bio-oil Range 14-32. biomass production cost 65 Torrefied biomass production costs (euro/ton pr. load factor.5 12.5-43.75 8-18 7500-8560 6-16 Value 37 3.2.75-4 4-10 7000-8760 10-25 Pellet Value 36 0. In the total production cost concept.5 Sensitivity analyses for pre-treatment technologies The parameters that affect the torrefied biomass and bio-oil production costs are analysed. sensitivities of production costs based on these factors are investigated. Increasing capital investment 40 % increases the product cost 17%. Table 13 shows the parameters and the ranges these parameters may vary. capital cost.-year) 60 55 50 capital costs 45 0 2 4 6 parameter variation 8 10 12 interest rate depreciation period biomass costs load factor Figure 22 Sensitivity of torrefied biomass production 55 . Therefore. biomass cost. Table 17 Main parameters used and ranges for sensitivity analysis Parameters Biomass costs(€/tondry) Capital costs (M€) Discount rate (%) Load factor (h/year) Depreciation period(years) Torrefied biomass Value 20. interest rate and depreciation period are the factors that affect the production costs significantly. Sensitivity analysis of torref. discount rate determines depreciation of the capital costs. Following to capital cost.24 7 7884 15 Range 20-45 50%-150% 5-15 7500-8760 10-20 Torrefied biomass production costs are highly sensitive to the capital costs.

Increasing load factor from 80% to 100% decreases the production cost approximately 15%. Sensitivity analysis of bio-oil production cost 10 Bio-oil cost (Euro/GJ 9. But still the load factor considered is more than 80%. The bio-oil production cost is hardly affected by the capital investment cost of the pyrolysis plant which is different than torrefied biomass production cost.Bio-oil production cost is influenced by biomass costs. capital costs and load factor significantly. The bio-oil can be produced as cheap as 8 €/GJ in the full load. The reason might be that drying and size reduction is not included in the pyrolysis process which accounts a high percentage in the total capital cost. load factor can decrease pellet production cost to 83 €/ton. Pelletisation sensitivity analysis 100 Pellet production costs (euro/ton pellet) 95 90 85 Biomass cost 80 1 2 Variable 3 Capital cost Int. When the raw materiel is increased from15 €/ton to 50 €/ton. rate Depreciation Load factor Figure 24 Pellet production sensitivity analysis 56 .5 9 8.5 Biomass costs 8 1 2 3 Variables 4 5 6 Capital costs Depreciation period Load factor Figure 23 Sensitivity analysis of bio-oil production costs When pelletisation process is considered. the bio-oil production cost increases around 30%.

After 40 MWth input. The torrefaction and pyrolysis processes are capital-intensive. hence investment costs are key to the establishment of production costs. On the other hand.00 Specific Investment Costs (Euro/ton) 50.00 100.00 10. According to Figure 26.00 40. 57 . capacities larger than 40 MWth does not decrease the production cost. production costs will be more expensive due to higher investment costs Torrefaction economy of scale 60.Another important factor that needs further investigation is the scale effect. Economies of scale have a considerable influence on the production costs. Unless the maximum scales of the equipments are excesses. the specific investment cost is constant. smaller scales are needed.00 20.00 0. capacities larger than 20-25 MWth input don’t benefit much from economies of scale.00 30.00 MWth output Figure 25 Effects of scale on torrefaction investment costs On the other hand.00 0.00 200. the economy of scale on capital investment costs are displayed. The cost data plotted to the graph can be found in section 2.00 150. economy of scale increases above 20 MWth input capacities. For the pelletising process.1.00 50. In Figure 25. cheaper investment cost can be achieved by larger conversion units. when pyrolysis process is considered. when the capacity is smaller than 40 MWth.4. In this repect.

00 150.Pyrolysis economy of scale 300.00 0.00 200. Economy of scale 80 70 60 50 40 0 10 20 30 MWth 40 50 60 Table 18 Effects of scale on pellet production costs. Specific production cost (Euro/ton pellet) 58 .00 80.00 40.00 0.00 100.00 50.00 MWth Figure 26 Effect of scale on the bio-oil production costs.00 Specific production cos (Euro/ton) 250.00 20.00 60.

6 Final conversion The objective of this chapter is to identify the effects of torrefied biomass. Table 19 Cost figures for final conversion step Unit Base scale Maximum scale R factor Efficiency Life time Total capital req. The depreciation is done for 10 years. MWth MWth % year M€ M€/MWthinput BIGCC1 105 408 0. When the 0. The fibrous structure and the tenancy of biomass are reduced by hemicelluloses decomposition together with the depolymeristation of cellulose during the torrefaction reaction. Spec. when torrefaction is applied.7 0.61 57 25 90 0.System descriptions and information about the cost data can be found Appendix 13. 2003. The investment cost is increased 10% when the feedstock is solid (Calis et al.16 0 EF gasification4 1000 0. The cost data considered in this study is presented in Table 19. capital req.5 71% 25 41-45 0.08kWe/kWthdry. Therefore.86 FBCombustion2 200 200 0. However. and Fischer Tropsch technologies are addressed where the final conversion is applied in the chain analysis. electricity consumption for milling decreases significantly. the consumption decreases to 0.045 4 O&M % 4 1 Cost data is obtained from Faaij et al. According to a study carried out at ECN (van der Drift et al. 4 The investment of an entrained flow gasifier includes fuel feeding system and syngas cooler. co-firing. 1997 3 Data is based on Hamelinck et al. The capacity of the mill increases in proportion to the particle size.3 €/MWhLHV for pyrolysis oil. biomass integrated gasification combined cycle (BIGCC).7 €/MWhLHV for pellets and 6.7 40 10 16. The power consumption in size reduction is significantly reduced when the biomass is first torrefied. combustion.77 35 25 124 0. milling biomass into 100µm consumes 0.01-0. 2003) Impact of pre-treated biomass on gasification systems When torrefaction is applied to the biomass several advantages are foreseen. In the same study the relationship between the particle size and chipper capacity are determined for untreated.2. 2004).62 4 Cofiring 3 100 100 0. and pyrolysis oil on the final conversion stage in terms of technology and economy.2 mm particle size is 59 . dried and torrefied willow. In the gasification pre-treatment step. In this study biomass is eventually assumed to be used for electricity generation and transportation fuel production. 85% power reduction can be achieved.02 kWe/kWth. 1988 2 Data is based on Dornburg.041-0. Extra (non fuel) costs for coal load are mentioned as 13. This cost is accepted as capital cost and O&M accepted as 0.

which is mainly biomass sizing. 2005). In fact. the pre-treatment section needs to be adjusted depending on the bio-oil characteristics. 2005): . following remarks regarding filtering are made: 1) The entire system has to be cleaned with methanol after filtering. Impacts of pre-treated biomass on combustion Combustion reactivity of the torrefied biomass was evaluated at ECN (Bergman et al. In the case of bio-oil combustion.5 times the capacity of untreated willow. water and particulates content. the bio-oil pre-treatment step consists of filtering and preheating the bio-oil. The most important parameters for bio-oil combustion are viscosity. it was observed that the carbon conversion of torrefied biomass is comparable to that of woodcuttings and significantly higher compared to low. In the case of bio-oil. . due to the aggressive characteristics of bio-oil. (2000). In this study. when the oil quality is poor. Different than a regular biomass pre-treatment section. The effects of the pyrolysis-oil quality on combustion is summarised as (Pyne. sizing is not necessary anymore and the feeding system can be similar to the liquid fuel feeding systems instead of the ones that are suitable for solid feed in. even the modifications to the burner and boiler cannot be enough. the quality of the bio-oil influences the combustion efficiency significantly.The increase of pyrolysis oil water content causes NOx reduction but on the other hand it increases the particle and soot may cause blockage in the feed line due to the various reactivity of oil components. . .Therefore the bio-oil needs to be pre-treated before it is combusted. Filtering The oil is filtered to reach a maximum particle size of 40 µm. 2005). bio-oil raw material. bio-oil age and amount of methanol addition (up to 10% wt%) (Pyne. In fact.or high volatile coal (Bergman et al. Methanol addition homogenises poor quality oil and decreases particulate emissions.oil age and/or in homogeneity gives uneven combustion. Pre-heating of bio-oil 60 . . 2000). In Appendix 14 the detailed study definitions can be found. 2) Bio-oil charges of less than 30 cSt viscosity do not have to be preheated. 2005).methanol edition homogenizes the poor quality pyrolysis oil and improves its combustion. According to a study done by Gansekoele et al. the chipper capacity for torrefied willow is up to 6. The equipment used for filtering needs to be stainless steel.solid content affects the amount of incombustibles.considered. The high viscosity of the bio-oil causes blockages of the burner pipe and the high water content of bio-oil makes it barely possible to ignite (Gansekoele et al.

depending on the bio-oil quality. preheating the bio-oil up to 60-70 oC improves the combustion. The tests run by BTG showed that the preheating of the flame tunnel to reach wall temperature above 500 oC is very important for a stable combustion of bio-oil. the flame tunnel has to be preheated to reach wall temperatures above 500 oC. Another experimental study was carried out by Juste et al. bio-oil was prepared for combustion at constant temperature in a heating and stirring device in the BTG test study.Following the filtering stage. In addition to this. The pre heat temperature was set to roughly 60 o C. 61 . (2000) to analyse the combustibility of pyrolysis oil. This study also showed that some important modifications need to be done in the injection system of the gas turbine due to the high viscosity of bio-oil. For a stable combustion of bio-oil.

62 . An important parameter in the chain design is the locations where the pre-treatment options are situated. the transportation type and distances. the biomass derived energy production costs have to be competitive. In fact the means of biomass plantation. Namely. which influence the overall production cost. these are: -Production site -Central gathering point (CGP) -Export terminal -Import terminal -Conversion unit Figure 27 visualises these transfer points. torrefaction pretreatment option was not considered in Hamelinck et al (2003) study.1 Approach and methodology In order to achieve sustainable energy targets in terms of bio-energy production. In this study five transfer points are considered. pre-treatment. This chapter covers performance evaluation and further optimisation of long distance bio-energy supply and final conversion stage with a special focus on the pre-treatment technologies. the pre-treatment methods and their locations. there are several factors. Several bio-energy chains are considered to obtain the most efficient transport chain design and the techno-economic evaluation of the overall chain is achieved by using Hamelinck’s logistic tool (Hamelinck et al. When the international bio-energy trade is considered. The biomass chains considered in this study generally consist of production. and the final conversion technologies affect the production costs significantly.3 Chain analysis 3. Different pretreatment scales are applied to the bio-energy chains in order to see their impacts on technical and economic performances of the total chain. 2003). Hamelinck et al (2003) developed a tool that with which the possible bio-energy chains can be compared and the influence of key parameters can be assessed. However. namely torrefaction and pyrolysis whereas pelletising is used as a reference process. transport and energy conversion steps.

there is a potential of 8-13 EJ/yr of Eucalyptus energy. 2002). sizing and drying Latin American energy crops are chosen as the biomass source in this study since Latin America offers high yield biomass with low production costs (Hamelinck et al. Biomass producttion 63 . 2003).Biomass producttion Central Gathering Point( CGP) Biomass producttion Biomass producttion Biomass producttion Export Terminal (Harbour) Import Terminal (Harbour) Conversion Unit Figure 27 Biomass transport overview 3. 2001). The characteristics of Latin American energy crops are presented in Table 20. Brazil.2 3.85 Mha whilst it is 2.3 Mha in Chile (Bonita et al. In Brazil 6 Mha of plantation area is used for pulpwood and energy production (Damen.1 Logistic operations Biomass source. In the northeast part. Plantations in Argentina amounts up 0.2. storage. Argentina. and Chile are the countries where biomass plantations exist commonly.

especially for transportation.4 0.3 Drying Drying in this study is done to increase the efficiency of pre-treatment technologies. biomass is dried to 15% moisture content whereas in pyrolysis it is done to 7%.2.) Type Position Biomass (€/tonw. Due to the smaller size requirements for the pre-treatment technologies (2 mm for pyrolysis and 3-10 mm for pellets) hammer mills are required. roll crushers are employed. 3.2.4 Pre-treatment 64 .Table 20 Characteristics of indicate short and long term. to produce better quality energy carriers.b) (€/GJ) Energy fuel (MJHHV/ton) Distribution (ton/km2) Avg ps(mm) Density (kg/m3bulk) HV (GJHHV/tondry) Dm loss/month Supply Latin American energy crops considered in this study (Ranges Logs Roadside 16.8-10. when it is in the form of bio-oil. (2003) study. The cost data for drying is included in the pre-treatment cost figures because the drying technology is integrated. to decrease the capital costs of conversion technologies and to avoid biomass decomposition. The harvested biomass is considered to be stored in the field for up to six weeks so that natural drying is achieved without any extra cost. Further in the transport chain several other storage options are applied depending on the biomass type. When the biomass is in the form of pellets.b: wet bases. Dm: dry matter. Costs and other related operational data are based on the Hamelinck et al. Avg ps: Average particle size HV: heating value Harvest bundlers are employed as a harvesting technology because it is assumed that there are dense plantations and a machine which cuts and bundles the stems directly is more efficient. In the torrefaction technology.2.2 Sizing Following to the harvesting operation biomass is cut to the desired feedstock particle size depending on the pre-treatment process type.2 1. silos.5% Whole year Source: Hamelinck et al. special lined carbon steel tanks are considered. A rotary drum dryer is employed in this study due to its commercial availability. 3.8-1 60-49 467-583 1000 324 19. From bundles (3000 mm) to chips (30 mm). 2003 w. 3.

65 . In the base case scenario.As mentioned before. biomass is directly pelletised without being converted into an intermediate. biomass feedstock is either converted into pyrolysis oil or into torrefied biomass. feedstock is pelletised due to its low bulk density. Following to the torrefaction.

Another assumption made is that the distance from the import harbour to the final conversion unit is accepted as 100 km for which a truck is considered.5 Final conversion As mentioned in the previous chapter. Shipment distance from Latin America to West Europe is assumed as 11. The first truck transport distance is accepted as the radius of the circle (See Figure 28) (Dornburg and Faaij. Faaij and Meuleman. Bothwel 2005). 20% of land under energy cropping and 5. EF gasification.2.yr yield is accepted. Suezmax tanker (125000 ton) is considered for bio-oil shipment and Suzemaks bulk carrier or tank is employed for pellets. 66 . so that the biomass delivery area provides sufficient amount of biomass to the unit. The total transport distance to the harbour is accepted as 100 km.3. R1 X Pre-treat. the percentage of the land occupied with crops and the biomass yield. Following the pre-treatment step. 1998. unit R2 Harbour Biomass delivery area Harbour Figure 28 Schematically presentation of transportation distances The first transportation distances from the place of harvesting to the transfer point in relation to the capacity of pre-treatment unit is illustrated in Table 21. biomass is transported to the harbour. The pre-treatment unit is located in the centre of the circle. 1998).2. 3.500 km. So the second transport distance varies depending on the size of the pre-treatment unit. gasification (FB) combined cycle (BIGCC). In this study.6 Transportation Transport distances are determined depending on the pre-treatment process capacities. In fact. Farming areas are assumed as circle areas. combustion and co-firing technologies are applied in the end of the chain with the purpose of either electricity production or syngas production. It is assumed that the percentage of the land used for energy farming is between 10 and 30 %( Faaij et al.74 tonfresh/ha. 2001. pre-treatment plants are located at the centre of the farming areas in order to provide sufficient amount of feedstock to the process unit.

74 33375.99 20% 536.90 20% 417.00 17.05 16 153.41 5.15 35% 249.82 17. these options are not renamed in the designed chains.70 383.06 17.32 20% 890.13 5.Table 21 Logistics of biomass from harvesting to the pre-treatment process point.00 5. conversion.07 9 40.56 32.53 17.05 5.05 13.20 11. one way) 19.89 35% 31. Therefore. and cooling. distance to transfer point(km. pre-treatment capacities and final conversion processes. pre-treatment technologies.02 16.70 47. 67 . The chains are analysed assuming that the biomass input is 600MWth. The last chain is considered as the reference scenario.74 8343.61 20% 1668. Pre-treatment Capacity MWth input Biomass LHVdry(MJ/kg) Fuel input plant (kton wet/year) Moisture content Fuel input plant (kton dry/year) Yield (ton /ha/yr) Number of ha energy crops Land available for energy farming Number of square km energy crops with 20% occupation Distance to transfer point(km. In Figure 29. one way) Av.21 20% 3337.74 66751.58 35% 124.3 Designed Chains Depending on the harvesting methods. smaller pre-treatment units (19MWth) are assumed whereas in the central gathering points relatively bigger pre-treatment options (150 MWth) are considered. The 1st and the 2nd chain are considered to show the transport cost differences between torrefied biomass and torrefied + pelletised (TOP) biomass.74 17800.78 23.70 61. drying.70 191.84 12 76. The mentioned pre-treatment processes consist of further sizing. chain options that are modelled in this study are illustrated.54 35% 40.13 17.74 10720. several bio-energy chains from Latin America to West Europe can be modelled.52 5.60 23 3. In the local processing steps.17 35% 66.70 102.53 8 25.

truck transp. truck transp. truck transp. Storage Open air pile (bales) truck transp.Harvesting (felling) Base Case Scenario Storage Open air pile (bales) Storage Open air pile (bales) Storage Open air pile (bales) truck transp. central Chipper Torrefaction Pelletisation Storage (Silo) Chipper Torrefaction Peletisation Storage (Silo) Chipper Hammermill Pyrolysis Storage (Tank) Chipper Hammermill Pyrolysis Storage (Tank) truck transp. truck transp. Export Harbour ship transport Import Harbour truck transp. Storage Open air pile (bales) Storage Open air pile (bales) truck transp. Chipper Hammermill Pelletisation Storage local local truck transp. central Chipper Torrefaction Storage (Silo) truck transp. Storage(silo/tank) Preparation Final conversion BIGCC Co-firing Combustion EF-Fischer Tropsch Figure 29 Modelled bio-energy chains from Latin America to West Europe 68 . truck transp. truck transp.

75)-ship LA1-torr+pellet(18. the torrefaction pre-treatment option is compared for different scales.+pellet. The 69 . + Pellet. delivery to Rott.4 Chain analysis Torrefaction Torref. Table 22 Designed chains. Pelletisation Pyrolysis Torref. Pelletisation Pyrolysis Fischer Tropsh (Entrained flow) in Rotterdam BIGCC (Fluidised bed) Combustion Co-firing LA1: Latin American energy crops 3. Pelletisation Pyrolysis Torref.75 MWth 40 MWth 75 MWth 150 MWth 40 MWth 25 MWth 10 MWth 40 MWth 40 MWth 25 MWth 40 MWth 40 MWth 25 MWth 40 MWth 40 MWth 25 MWth 40 MWth 40 MWth 25 MWth Final conversion type No final conversion.1 Cost data 3. and the costs of the transportation.In the analysis section. + Pellet. the logistics of torrefied biomass for a smaller scale (18.75)ship LA1-TOP(40)-ship LA1-torr+pellet(75)-ship LA1-torr+pellet(150)ship LA1-pellet(40)-ship LA1-pyro(rot. +pellet. Pelletisation Pyrolysis Torref. Code Pre-treatment type LA1-torr(18.1 Chains delivering solid energy carriers The size of the pre-treatment unit plays a significant role in biomass logistics since it influences both the first truck transport distance. cone)-ship LA1-pyro (10). In Figure 30.4. harbour Pelletisation Pyrolysis Torref. + Pellet. Pretreatment Scale 18. The codes of the chains are shortly summarised in Table 22.ship LA1-TOP-ship-FT(EF) LA1-pellet-ship-FT(EF) LA1-pyro-ship FT(EF) LA1-TOP-BIGCC LA1-pellet-BIGCC LA1-pyro-BIGCC LA1-TOP-combustion LA1-pellet-combustion LA1-pyro-combustion LA1-TOP-co-firing LA1-pellet-co-firing LA1-pyro-co-firing 3.1. the cost difference is significant.75 MWth) is analysed to see the difference between transporting it as pellets or as torrefied biomass.75 MWth 18.4. At first. scale and final conversion type. In fact. every chain is given a name depending on the pre-treatment type.

The delivery cost of TOP to pellet is 73. respectively).Transportation of torrefied biomass in the form of pellets is much cheaper.7 €/ton dry delivery. The major steps contributing to the overall delivery cost are biomass source. the pyrolysis plant cost data differs significantly in literature.75)-ship LA1-TOP(40)-ship LA1-torr+pell(75)-ship LA1-t orr+pell(150)-ship LA1-pellet (40)-ship LA1-Pell(20)-ship Figure 30 Cost data of chains delivering pellets in €/ ton dry delivered. Second.75 MWth-40MWth-75MWth and 150 MWth are compared . truck transport and pre-treatment step. scale effect of pelletisation is also investigated. In addition to this. this process is compared to the base case scenario where biomass is converted into pellet and transported. When 18. In addition to this.main cause is the shipment.5 €/ton dry delivery to 69. 3. when the cost data is considered for the energy content. Therefore. Torrified biomass bulk density is very light (230 kg/ton) compared to torrefied and pelletised biomass (750 kg/ton).1. However. Pre-treatment step contributes to 26% of the total delivery cost.4). which causes discrepancy. torrefaction is considered in combination with pelletisation and named as TOP. however.1. it is seen that the delivery costs of smaller scales are relatively cheaper. while truck transport contributes to 24% and biomass to 26 %. in Figure 31. Actually. pre-treatment scale effect is evaluated by considering a smaller plant scale (10 MWth). in the 40 MWth system (named as TOP process). the TOP delivery cost is cheaper than the pellet (3. Furthermore. in the torrefaction technology section 40 MWth is defined as the optimal scale because of economy of scale (See 2.5 €/ton dry delivered. the cost can be as cheap as 75.4. Costs of chains delivering pellets 120 Torrfaction 100 Costs (€/tonne dry delivered) Torrefaction+pelletisation Referance (pelletisation) Storage Drying Densification Sizing Ship Train Truck Wire Biomass 80 60 40 20 0 LA1-t orr(18. the different torrefaction scales are compared with each other to estimate the optimum scale of torrefaction unit.94 €/GJLHV.4. However.34 €/GJLHV to 3. bio-oil delivery cost is analysed for two different cost data obtained for the same scale (See Table 10).75)-ship LA1-torr+pellet (18. 70 . Therefore.2 Chains delivering liquid energy carriers 10 and 25 MWth capacity pyrolysis plants are considered in the bio-oil delivery concept in order to see the effect of scale on delivery costs. The analysis shows that the cost of delivering biomass in the form of TOP is very close to the form of pellets. further in the chain design.

97 €/GJHHV. As mentioned before. transportation. is 6. Cost of chains delivering FT-liquids 10 9 8 Referance C onversion Storage Densification Drying Sizing Ship Train Truck Wire Biomass Costs (€/GJHHV Liquids) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Pre-treat. 2003. inconsistent pyrolysis plan cost data causes inconsistency in the chain analysis.6 €/ GJHHV when the investment cost is calculated depending on other references (Hamelinck et al. Cost of chains delivering bio-oil 8 Rot. Solantausta 2001). Approximately 30-50% of the cost counts for pre-treatment. where pelletisation is considered. the liquid cost in the reference case.cone)-ship LA1-pyro(10)-ship LA1-pyro(25A)-ship Comparison 25 MWth 10 MWth 10 MWth Costs (€/GJHHV Liquids) 25 MWth Storage Densification Ship Truck Biomass LA1-pyro(10MWt h-A)-ship Figure 31 Cost of bio-oil delivered to West Europe in €/GJHHV On the other hand when Fishers Tropsch liquid production is considered.+conv.3 €/ GJHHV for a cheaper investment cost figure. The cost of bio-oil delivery contributes to biomass. storage and pre-treatment costs.7 €/GJHHV – 5. Bathdizdai. 2003. the conversion to FT liquid stage is assumed to be applied in West Europe. 2004. whereas it increases to 6. 2003).The delivery cost of bio-oil ranges between 4.44 €/GJHHV for TOP whereas it costs approximately 9. However. Cone 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 LA1-pyro(rot . LA1-TOP-ship-FT(EF) 7 LA1-Pellet -ship-FT(EF) LA1-pyro-ship-FT(EF) 71 . The FT liquid cost around 6. Fischer Tropsch conversion unit is considered in West Europe with a large scale (1000MWth) since FT liquid production is cost effective at large scales (Hamelinck et al.42 €/GJHHV for bio-oil (See Figure 32). Calis et al.

72 .Figure 32 Costs of FT liquid for different pre-treated feedstock (Conversion in the graph comprises pre-treatment and FT processes).

64 €/GJ (7.2 €cent/kWhe) for the reference chain. they can be stored in open air. when BIGCC option is considered (Figure 33). 21.3. the conversion step in Figure 33 not only comprises the BIGCC system but also the biomass pre-treatment steps.4. The conversion step contributes approximately 50% of the total power cost while the second major contributor is transportation (~25%). application of bio-oil in BIGCC and FB-combustor is not considered in this study because technical possibility of bio–oil in fluidised bed has not researched.3 Chains producing electricity Electricity is assumed to be produced either in BIGCC or in FB combustor –steam turbine or in PC boiler. the costs of the chains in Figure 34 are mainly influenced by conversion steps followed by transportation and biomass harvesting steps. 73 . Similar to the electricity production by BIGCC.24 €/GJ (5.1. However. cost of chains delivering electricity are. and 22. It accounts for approximately 60% of the total cost. so instead of storing them in silos.05 €/GJ (4. Conversion step here also includes both pre-treatment and final conversion to electricity step. The storage costs shown in the figure for TOP process can be omitted since torrefied biomass has got a hydrophobic characteristic.7 €cent/kWhe) for the TOP chain. Costs of chains delivering electricity (BIGCC) 16 14 Costs (€/GJ power delivered) 12 Conversion 10 8 6 4 2 0 Storage Densification Drying Sizing Ship Train Truck Wire Biomass LA1-TOP-BIGCC LA1-pellets-BIGCC Referance Figure 33 Cost of the chains delivering electricity by means of BIGCC In the case of using FB-combustion.84 €/GJ (8. The electricity cost for TOP and pellet chain are 13.5 €cent/KWhe) respectively. However.6 €cent/kWhe) and 15.

2003) and the feedstock handling accounts 6.2€/GJ (5.8 €cent/kWhe) for TOP chain and pyrolysis chain. respectively.4 €cent/kWhe) – 16. Approximately 10-15% wood pellets can be cofired by mass (Hamelinck et al.2 €/GJ (4. the electricity costs are in the range of 12. Cost of chains delivering electricity (co-firing) 18 16 14 Costs (€/GJ power delivered) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 LA1-TOP-co-f i r i ng LA1-pel let-co-f ir ing LA1-pyr o-co-f i r i ng Conversion Storage Sizing Ship Truck Biomass Figure 35 Cost of power obtained by co-firing for various bio-energy chains 74 . when the chains are analysed assuming the final conversion step as co-firing. 2003).Costs of chains delivering electricity (FB-combustion) 25 Referance Costs (€/GJ power delivered) 20 Conversion 15 Storage Densification Drying 10 Sizing Ship 5 Train Truck Wire 0 Biomass LA1-TOP-combustion LA1-pellet-combustion Figure 34 Cost of power obtained by combustion for various bio-energy chains On the other hand.7 €/MWhLHV value for pellets (Hamelinck et al.3 €/MWhLHV for bio-oil and 13.

98 GJ/ton dm for TOP process with a relatively small scale (18.75 MWth) to 2.4.46 GJ/ton dm for torrefied biomass without pelletisation.75)-ship LA1-torr+pellet(18.2.0 Sizing Ship 0. Total energy use of a Suezmak bulk carrier is 4516 MJ/km (Hamelinck et al.5% of the delivered LHV. 2003) and a ship is filled volumetrically before it is filled down to its load mark by weight due to light load of torrefied wood which explains such a high energy use in torrefied biomass shipment. Reference case primary energy requirement for energy is 11% of delivered biomass (LHV). Energy use of chains delivering biomass 3.0 Energy use (GJ/tonne dry delivered) 2. Energy use for chains delivering biomass range from 1.5 Densification Drying 1.0 Wire LA1-torr(18.5 Train Truck 0. This difference occurs due to the energy use during shipment.3.2 Energy use 3.5 2. On the other hand only torrefied and delivered biomass requires 12% of the delivered LHV.0 Storage 1. 75 . The primary energy use for TOP delivery is approximately 8.75)-ship LA1-TOP(40)-ship LA1-torr+pell(75)-ship LA1-torr+pell(150)-ship LA1-pellet(40)-ship LA1-Pell(20)-ship Biomass Figure 36 Energy use of chains delivering biomass to the Rotterdam harbour in GJ/ ton dry delivered.1 Chains delivering solid energy carrier Figure 36 shows the primary energy use for the considered chains in this study.4.

2.02 0. the primary energy use of FT liquid production chain is 26 % of the delivered HHV for reference case. TOP process also uses primary energy of its 17% energy content.2 Energy use of chain delivering liquid The energy use in bio-oil delivery to West Europe is approximately 8% of the delivered bio oil HHV.10 Ship Train Truck Wire Biomass Figure 38 Energy use of the chains delivering FT liquid 0.03 0.06 0.4.04 0.08 0. The energy is mainly required in the pre-treatment step and transportation step.30 0. The pellet chains require further sizing to be fed to the gasifier whereas bio oil does not need to be pulverised Energy use of chains delivering FT-liquids Energy use (GJ/GJHHV liquids delivered) 0.15 Drying Sizing 0.05 0.00 LA1-pyro(rot.07 0.00 LA1-TOP-ship-FT(EF) LA1-Pellet-ship-FT(EF) LA1-pyro-ship-FT(EF) Figure 39 Primary energy use of chains delivering energy 76 .cone)-ship LA1-pyro(10)-ship C onversion Storage Densification Drying Sizing Ship Train Truck Wire Biomass Figure 37 Energy use of bio-oil delivered to West Europe in GJ/GJHHVbio-oil On the other hand. Energy use of chains delivering bio-oil Energy use (GJ/GJHHV liquids delivered) 0.05 0.01 0. whereas it is approximately 16 % for the chain where bio-oil is converted in to FT liquid.25 C onversion 0.09 0.20 Storage Densification 0.3.

3. Energy use of chains delivering electricity 0.1 Desnification 0. The CO2 emission in biomass harvesting is mainly caused by the electricity consumed for harvesting equipment and the fuel used to forward the harvested biomass.75 MWth torrefied biomass and lowest for TOP for the same scale(18.75MWth)process. The amount of emissions of the torrefied biomass reaches 138. The lowest CO2 emission (4 kg/GJ) happens in the TOP chain. 3.1 Delivering solid energy carriers CO2 emission for the designed chains follow a similar path as energy use since the CO2 emission is the highest for the chain of 18. which is mainly caused by the shipment and followed by the electricity consumption for pelletisation. where a 40 MWth torrefaction and pelletisation pre-treatment is considered 77 .2 Energy use of chains delivering electricity The primary energy use is in the range of 15% to 25 % to deliver 1 GJ power. The main steps that use primary energy are the energy requirement for densification and fuel consumption. The CO2 caught in the harvested biomass at the beginning of the chain is not considered in the below figures.25 0.2. approximately 40% of the energy use contributes to the pre-treatment (mentioned as densification) step. LA1-pelletcomb Biomass 0 Figure 40 Primary energy use for chains delivering electricity. In fact.3 CO2 emissions 3.3.05 Ship Truck LA1-TOPBIGCC LA1-pelletBIGCC LA1-TOPco-firing LA1-pelletco-firing LA1-pyroco-firing LA1-TOPcom.3 Energy use (GJ/GJ power delivered) 0.4.16 kg/ton dm.15 Sizing 0.

CO2 emissions of chains delivering biomass

Emissions (kg CO2/tonne dry delivered)

Storage 100 Densification Drying Sizing Ship Train 50 Truck Wire Biomass



LA1-t orr+pellet (18,75)-ship




LA1-pellet (40)-ship


Figure 41 CO2 emission of chains delivering biomass to West Europe in kg CO2/ ton dry delivered Chains delivering liquids

Figure 42 presents the CO2 emissions of each chain in which biomass is converted into bio-oil and delivered to West Europe harbour. CO2 emitted to the atmosphere is mainly because of the electricity used during bio-oil conversion step and the fuel used in transportation. The Latin American electricity mix contains 49% natural gas, which causes 0.056 ton CO2/GJgas. Average CO2 emission is around 4.1 kg per 1 GJ bio-oil delivered to the west Europe harbour.

CO2 emissions of chains delivering bio-oil

Emissions (kg CO2/GJ liquids)


Conversion Storage Densification


Drying Sizing Ship


Train Truck Wire






Figure 42 CO2 emission caused by bio-oil delivery from Latin America to West Europe.


In the case of FT chains, similar to the energy use, reference case CO2 emission is the highest (11.90 kg CO2/GJ liquid). Delivering biomass in the form of TOP and bio-oil and converting them into FT liquid causes approximately 8.5 kg CO2/GJ liquid.

CO2 emissions of chains delivering FT liquids
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Emissions (kg CO2/GJ liquids)

Conversion Storage Densification Drying Sizing Ship Train Truck Wire Biomass





Figure 43 CO2 emissions of chains delivering FT liquid.
3.4.4 Comparison of the chains delivering power and chain optimisation

One of the aims of this study was to obtain the optimal chain. In this respect, the chain that delivers electricity and FT liquid cheaper with less energy use during the cycle and that emits less CO2 needs to be identified. In order to find this out, all the designed chains delivering power are compared in terms of power delivery cost, FT delivery costs, energy use and CO2 emissions. According to the Figure 44, electricity can be delivered as cheap as 12.2 €/GJ (4.4 €/kWhe) from an existing co-firing plant. On the other hand it costs 13.05 €/GJ (4.6 €cent/kWhe) when the BIGCC is considered. Even with high capital investment cost, BIGCC is compatible to the existing co-firing plants because of its high efficiency.


Cost of chains delivering electricity

Costs (€/GJ power delivered) 20




Storage Ship Truck Biomass






LA1-pellet -co-firing


LA1-TOP-combust ion


Figure 44 Comparison of the power cost delivery figures for every chain. When the greenhouse gas emissions are considered, the least environmental friendly chain is the one with pellet combustion. It emits 22.93 kg CO2/GJ (Figure 45). TOP –BIGCC chain emits 9.5kg CO2/GJ.

CO2 emissions of chains delivering electricity

Emissions (kg CO2/GJ powere delivered)


Conversion Storage Densification


Drying Sizing Ship


Train Truck Wire











Figure 45 CO2 emissions of the chains delivering electricity (conversion in this graph means the pre-treatment steps and emissions count for the electricity utilised during pre-treatment).


plantation yield.5€/ton to 90. when the biomass is harvested for a shorter period of time. The first truck distance decreases 30%. When the land yield is increased. and load factor are determined as the key uncertainties.5 €/ton for 8 months harvesting and it decreases to 61. Table 23 Parameter used for sensitivity analysis and ranges Parameters Base value Range Interest rate 10% 5%-20% Yield (ton/ha. Interest rate also plays an important role in delivered TOP cost. Torrefied and pelletsised (TOP) biomass delivery cost is very sensitive to harvest operation period and interest rate.However when the FT liquid delivery is considered. However. when operation period is increased to 12 months.year) 5. The cost of TOP delivered is 73.42 €/GJHHV. which causes a decrease in the first truck transport (the first truck transport calculation is presented in Table 21). The base values and the ranges sensitivity analysis done. there is a variation in the transportation costs. But the cost reduction is as small as 1% since biomass yields in Latin America is high and the first truck transports are 81 . TOP chain delivering liquid costs as cheap as 6. The cost difference is related to the capital investment cost of the equipment employed in the chain.3 €/ton. BIGCC efficiency is higher (56%) compared to combustion (35%) and co-firing (40%) and it gains from bigger scales (105MWth-408MWth) whereas entrained flow gasification efficiency is considered as 71% with a 1000 MWth capacity.44 €/GJHHV. And operation cost decreases because the equipment is not fully utilised throughout the year. The cost changes depend on the storage and operational costs. is presented in Table 23.48 Harvest operation period 8 3-12 (OW)(months) Figure 46 shows the results of sensitivity analysis. An increase of interest rate from 10 % to 20 percent. pyrolysis chain cost is 9. when the biomass yield is doubled. TOP delivery cost decreases about 16%. When the biomass yield is considered. the TOP chain with BIGCC and Entrained flow Fischer Tropish liquid production chains are accepted as the optimal chains by means of production costs and environmental factors.9 €/ton for 12 months harvesting.43-11. increases the intermediate cost from 73. On the other hand. 3. the needed biomass harvesting area decreases. interest rate. As a conclusion. Changing the operation period form 8 months to 6 months increases the TOP delivery cost 14%. the number of storage unit increases significantly. In fact.74 1.5 Sensitivity Analysis For biomass supply to Western Europe. CO2 emission of TOP chain and pyrolysis chain are less compared to pellet chain.

however. 82 . the delivery cost increases0.relatively short. when the unit scale exceeds 40 MWth. changing biomass yield from 60% to 140% of base value results in 21% fuel cost change. When the pre-treatment unit is considered as small as 10 MWth. causes 11% delivery cost decrease. the delivery cost is 82. mainly because of longer first transport distance. Besides. the delivery cost does not influence from the scale effect. According to Batidzirai (2005). this cost difference is not included. since the biomass plantation and harvesting is not in this study boundary. scale effect plays an important role in the fuel delivery cost. Increasing the unit scale to 40 MWth. Sensitivity analysis for TOP supply 120 110 Costs (Euro/ton delivered ) 100 90 80 70 60 50 1 2 3 Variation 4 5 OW Int. On the other hand.28%. The biomass yield increase logically decreases the biomass costs. Rate Yield Figure 46 Sensitivity analysis for TOP process (OW: harvest operation period) The torrefaction process is capital intensive. Therefore.9 €/GJ.

pelletisation and pyrolysis Torrefaction TOP Pelletisation Pyrolysis Process efficiency Product Energy content(LHVdry) Mass density Energy density % MJ/kg Kg/m3 GJ/m3 92% 20.1 Pre-treatment technologies The three different pre-treatment technologies. TOP. at what point of the chain. the main outcomes of this study are discussed and an answer to the research question is presented.5 66%-70% 17 500-650 20-30 83 .7 750-850 14.422.4 84%-87% 17.4 230 4. Table 24 Techno-economic comparison of torrefaction. pyrolysis and pelletisation were evaluated in terms of their technical and economic performances. In the following table. the study results are summarized.6 90. with which conversion technology (ies) would give the optimal power and syn-fuel production costs for the intercontinental biomass supply chain? In this chapter.TOP delivery cost for different TOP process scales 85 Euro/ton dry delivered 80 75 70 10 20 40 MWth 150 Figure 47 Sensitivity analysis of TOP delivery versus pre-treatment unit scale.8% 20. 4 Discussion and conclusion The main research question in this study was: Which pre-treatment method(s).918.7 1200 7. 4. torrefaction.8-10.

15 54 0. The reason for such a low extra investment is that torrefied biomass is easily grinded. pyrolysis process. various biomass supply chains were envisioned. The product energy content of TOP process is also significant.19-0. which is discussed below.17 58 0. TOP (torrefaction in combination with pelletisation) and pelletisation process efficiencies are quite high compared to pyrolysis technology.19 50 0. their performances as part of the overall bioenergy chain determines their desirability. However. However. A similar conclusion can be reached for the pelletisation process. when compared to the other technologies. the pyrolysis liquid production cost estimates are in the range of 6-12 €/GJHHV in the Western Europe conditions. does not gain much from the economy of scale. Thus. pellets and pyrolysis oil included harvesting. The detailed information can be found in the economy of scale section. When the economics of the three pre-treatment technologies are compared. one each with low and relatively high capital investment costs.Specific capital investments Production costs M€/MWth €/ton 0. has serious drawbacks in terms of process efficiency and economy. pre-treatment. Adding the densification step after the torrefaction process increases the specific investment cost by only 10%. The final conversions considered were to 84 . thereby increasing the energy density of the intermediate product.75 times higher than conventional pellets and 3 times higher than torrefied biomass. pelletisation has the lowest specific capital investment costs. there is a significant variation between the cost figures found in scientific literature. This study showed that torrefaction plant capacity exceeding 40 MWth did not gain from the economy of scale anymore. Energy density of the TOP pellet is approximately 1. The. When the specific capital investment of pyrolysis technology is considered. which includes both sizing and pelletisation processes. Economy of scale plays a significant role in the specific capital investment costs.2 Chain analysis In this study. as an alternative. This variation could have been explained by assuming that different technologies were used. transportation and final conversion. Pyrolysis technology benefits from economy of scale in smaller capacities. the power consumption for sizing decreases by approximately 50%-75 % compared to fresh biomass. the cost data even from the same source was inconsistent. Pelletisation process exceeding 35-40 MWth. 4. in this study. Above 25 MWth. Therefore. two scenarios were considered. Depending on those scenarios. storage. Biomass supply chain logistics for torrefied and pelletised (TOP) biomass.42 75-104 Table 24 indicates that torrefaction. Consequently. this study indicates that torrefaction in combination with pelletisation pretreatment process is comparable and even more advantageous than pelletisation. economy of scale advantages disappear for pyrolysis. Combining torrefaction with pelletisetion eliminates the low bulk density of torrefied biomass.

which is assumed to be 57% whereas it is 35% for combustion and 40% for co-firing.44 €/GJHHV. when TOP is considered for smaller scales.Fischer tropsch (FT) fuels and also power production by means of biomass integrated gasification combined cycle (BIGCC). different scales and. the delivery cost is 9.5 F.9 As seen in Table 25. As mentioned before. BIGCC benefits from its high efficiency. the delivery cost increases by 10% because of longer first truck transport. when the base scale is increased by 87. which lowers the first truck transport costs.75 MWth. In fact. Latin American energy crops (eucalyptus) were assumed to be imported to the Netherlands.34 €/GJ).40 €/GJHHV. depending on the scenarios mentioned above. TOP pellets can be delivered as low as 73.44 4. with a 40 MWth plant scale. In order to investigate the optimal location for the pre-treatment processes.34 6.8 5. These chains were then compared with each other.7 8. On the other hand. parallel to these. whereas it is 80% for pellets and 66% for pyrolysis oil. As mentioned. such as 18. In fact. the delivery cost increased by 16%.97 5.7 -6.6 €/GJ.6 9. Fischer Tropsch fuel production cost can be as low as 6.2 4.6 Pellet 3. These efficiencies are influenced by the pre-treatment process efficiencies and the dry matter losses during transport. Another reason is the plant scale applied. When the final conversion is applied at large centralised facility.6 4. The entrained flow gasifier assumed here had a 1000 MWth capacity.7 -6. When pyrolysis oil is converted into FT liquid. different locations were applied in the chains.6 €/kWh either with a large scale biomass integrated gasification combined cycle facility or with an existing co-firing plant.22 PJ initial amount of biomass to Rotterdam harbor by means of TOP pellets. Pyrolysis oil delivery costs are in the range of 4. This study shows that it is possible to deliver 89% of an 17. The truck transport.94 6. the truck transport contributes 24 % of the biomass delivery cost.Pyrolysis 4. the storage and the pre-treatment costs are the major costs in the overall chain. In addition to these. It means that when a new facility is considered the cost will be higher.5 €/ton (3. 85 . One of the reason for such a low delivery cost is the approximately 15% higher bulk density compared to conventional pellets. it was possible to obtain low production costs. The calculation results are summarized in Table 25. The chains were named depending on the pre-treatment technology applied. combustion and co-firing. cost data for co-firing does not include the facility capital investment cost but it includes extra costs for pellets and pyrolysis oil handling.7%. the amount of storage steps is reduced at an optimal scale level. Table 25 indicates that power production costs can be as low as 4.50 Power Power (Combustion) (Co-firing) €/kWh €/kWh 7. Table 25 Costs of chains delivering fuel and power Power Intermediate FT-Liquid (BIGCC) delivered to fuel €/kWh €/GJHHV harbour €/GJHHV TOP 3.

90 kg CO2/GJ delivered. is the optimum supply chain. considering such a large scale brings its risks. in plants with a scale of 40 MWth. investors should keep in mind the risk of shorter harvesting periods. the pyrolysis oil supply chain emits 4. which in return increases the delivery costs. The primary energy required to deliver the fuel to the Rotterdam harbour is.5 kg CO2/GJ delivered for pellet supply to the Rotterdam harbour. 10% for pellet and 8%-9% for pyrolysis oil (HHV) of their initial energy content. Besides. however. This necessitates several storage and extensive biomass production areas. • TOP supply converted to the FT-liquid is the optimal synfuel production chain and.3 Recommendations • This study shows that converting biomass into TOP intermediate decreases the long distance transport costs compared to pellets.5 CO2/GJ power delivered with TOP pellet-BIGCC system and 22. The plant capacity considered is 40 MWth. pelletisation has already been commercialised and there is a room to improve the technology. where the former data is for TOP pellet delivery and conversion and the latter for pellet deliver and conversion in the Rotterdam harbour. Consequently. even with the optimistic data. On the other hand. while it is 5. For the comparison. Pyrolysis technology. Another striking conclusion of this study is that pyrolysis facility. Latin American power and fuel mixes and efficiencies were used to calculate the CO2 emissions. FT chains emits in the range of 8. The CO2 emissions are caused mainly by the transportation fuel and the external power used for densification. 86 . • TOP supply converted to power either by BIGCC or existing co-firing facility are the optimal chains. However.1 kg CO2/GJ delivered. the CO2 emission from coal combustion is 95kg CO2/GJLHV and natural gas combustion is 56 kg CO2/GJLHV. Even though pyrolysis technology keeps it is popularity. 8 % for delivered TOP. In this study. Since there is no current torrefaction plant demonstration. lack of information is a bottleneck which needs to be overcome. the bioenergy supply chain is very sensitive to the harvest operation period.5 kg CO2/GJ delivered -11. The pre-treatment technologies in this study consider a high load factor to keep the system continuous. The study results show that the CO2 emission for TOP supply is 4 kg CO2/GJ delivered. on the other hand fell short. 8 months harvesting is considered. it creates the risk in meeting the feedstock requirements. according to this study. 4. Conversion to FT fuels requires 16 to 26% while it is in the range of 15% to 25% for power production. the following answers to the research question can be given: Torrefaction in combination with pelletisation(TOP). On the other hand.9 CO2/GJ power delivered with pellet combustion. The CO2 emission for power production is in the range of 9.Energy use and CO2 emissions are the aspects that indicate the sustainability of the chains. can not compete with the TOP and pelletisation pre-treatment technologies in the context of intercontinental bioenergy logistics.

when the pre-treatment is considered in the chain. torrefaction in combination with pelletisation is a very promising technology that requires further interest from investors and policy makers.Consequently. this study indicates that intercontinental bioenergy transport is economically and energetically feasible. 87 . Furthermore.

Kiel JHA. Batidzirai B. “Pyrolysis oil for heat generation: verification of a second-generation pyrolysis process”. “ Future prospects for biofuel production in Brazil-a chain comparison of ethanol from sugarcane and methanol from eucalyptus in Sao Paulo State”. Report EWAB 9841. Bridge S. “An introduction to fast pyrolysis of biomass for fuels and chemicals”. 1999. The Netherlands. Industry and Climate Protection. “ Torrefied wood. “Review of Biomass Pyrolysis Technologies in. Msc. 2000] [Bio-energy projects. Paper presented at Bioenergy conference. BIOCOAL concept version. Fuel Vol 74 No. “A techno-economic comparison of power production by biomass fast pyrolysis with gasification and combustion”. The 2nd World Conference and Technology Exhibition on Biomass for Energy. Utrecht University. UK.P. Damen K. 2005] [Bergman.2004. Bergman PCA. “Biomass Pyrolysis Liquids Upgrading and Utilisation. 1991. 2005] [Bergman. 2002.V. Diebold J. 4. 2000. Bridgwater A. Bridgwater A. Kiel JHA.. 2004. Brammer JG. Bonita M.. “A new process for Torrefied wood manufacturing”.biomatnet. Communication with Bergman PCA. 2001. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. The Netherlands. sustainable Development Department environment Division2002. ECN Report. 2002] [Batidzirai B. Ahveninen H. Jyvaskyla.Model development and evaluation”. .21p. 1995. “Wood Pellet Manufacture in Scotland-A report produced for Scottish Enterprise Forest Industries Cluster”. Commission of the European Communities. http://www. “Combined torrefaction and pelletisation – The TOP process”. European Bioenergy projects. 1991] [Bridgwater and Evans. The Netherlands. economy and market”. 2002. Veijalainen P. Agbert AA. Birmingham. Aston University & DK Teknik (Denmark). “The technical and economic feasibility of biomass gasification for power generation”. 2001] [Diebold and Bridgwater. 2005. “Design of Rotary Drum Dryers. Vol. “An assessment of thermochemical conversion systems for processing biomass and refuse”. Bridgwater AV. en enhanced fuel”.V. 2. Boersma AR. 1995] [Bridgwater.. Evans GD. Bergman PCA. 2005. cpl press. ECN Report. Department of Science Technology and Society. +app.631-653. VTT Processes 64 p. General Bioenergy. 2005] [Bergman.. Bioenergy. Correa F. 2003. ETSU B/T1/REP1993. 2004. Boersma AR. Rome. “ Development of torrefaction for biomass co-firing in existing coal-fired power stations”. Zwart RWH. “Optimisation of bioenergy supply chain LogisticsMozambique Case Study. Grassi G. UK. Fast pyrolysis of biomass: A handbook”. 2002] [Bioenergy. Department of science. July 2005. Bergman PCA. “bio-energy trade: possibilities and constraints on short and longer term”. “Torrefaction for entrained-flow gasification of biomass”. [AEAT. Fast pyrolysis of biomass: a handbook. Faaij APC. Inter-American Bank.htm Bridgwater AV. OPET Report 5. Novem.. Issue 1.5 pp. 2003] [Agbert and Faaij 1998] [Alakangas and Paju. Arcate JR. 2002] [Bonita et al. pp11-92.. PyNe. Utrecht University. 1999] 88 . technology and society. No. 2002] [Damen. ECN Report. Forest Clusters: A Completive Model for Latin America. Italy. Bridgwater AV. Toft AJ.. &Bridgwater AV ‘Overview of fast pyrolysis of biomass for the production of liquid fuels. Bergman PCA. Alakangas E & Paju P. 2004a] [Bergman et al.5 Reference list AET. 1995. 2005b] [Bioenergy. “Wood pellets in Finland-technology. 1993] [Bridgwater. Elsevier. 2004] [Bridgwater and Bridge. Idaho. Utrecht. 2004] [Bergman et al.V. 1999. BridgwaterA. 2002. 1999] [Bridgwater et al. Thesis. 62 pp+ annexes.

Centre Technique Forestier Troical.htm Faaij A. “Scaling – up and operation of a flash pyrolysis system for bio-oil production and application on the basis of rotating cone technology”. Mann MK. June 2004 Hirsmark J. technology and society. [Dornburg. Meuleman B van Ree R. Department of science. 1996] Damen et al. Dornburg V. PhD thesis. wood roasting demonstration unit report. The Netherlands.” BioTherm TM A system for Continuous Quality. 2002. “Long term perspectives of biomass integrated gasification/combined cycle (BIG/CC) technology. Medioambientas y Tecnologicas. presentation held at Praktijkdag Grootschalige Bio-energy Projecten” . Venderbosch RJ. Department of Science Technology and Society. 2003 Calis HPA. Contract FAIR-CT97-3203. 2003] [Hamelinck. Sweden. 1989. “ Efficiency and economy of wood fired biomass energy systems in relation to scale regarding heat and power generation using combustion and gasification technologies”.techtp. 21. Faaij APC.ensyn. Report. 1998 Gansekoele E. “Outlook for advanced biofuels” Department of Science Technology and Society. 1998] [Gansekoele et al. KARA Energy Systems BV. 2000 Girard P & Shah N. Pascual LSE.. 2000] [Girard and Shah. 2002] 89 . “ Cost and performance analysis of biomass based integrated gasification combined-cycle (BIGCC) power system”. “Torrefied wood unit resthout en andere biomassstromen”. Fast Pyrolysis BioOil”. Thesis. 1999.Boerrigter H. Utrecht alternative to charcoal for reducing deforestration”. costs and electricity efficiency”. Department of science. Faaij APC. FAO paper. 2002] [Craig and Mann. 2005] [Faaij and Meuleman. Haan JP. Rostock University. Peppink G. technology and society. 2003.Commission of the European Communities. “ Densified biomass fuels in Sweden: Country report for the EU/IBDEBIF project”. 91-108. Suurs RAA. August 2003 Hamelinck C. DynaMotive Energy Systems Corporation. p. 2005 http://www. Germany. National Renewable Laboratory of the US Department of Energy Managed by Midwest Research Institute for the US Department of Energy . “ International bioenergy transport costs and energy balance”.htm Hamelinck CN. Van de A B. “Developments on torrefied wood. 1989] [DynaMotive. 2001. Utrecht University. “Technical and economic feasibility of large scale synthesis gas production in the Netherlands from imported biomass feedstock. 1996. Msc. Duijn C. Senter Novem. “ A system analysis of biomass energy systems in relation to scale – optimising economics and energy yields of heat and power generation with biomass combustion and gasification technologies”. France. 1999] [Ensyn. 2004 Commission of the European Communities directorate-general for energy. Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. Luxemburg. 2005] [Hamelinck et al. 61 pp + annexes. Utrecht University. Swedish Iniversity of Agriculture Sciences Department of Forest Management and Products. 4th biomass Conference of the Americans. Upsala. Van Der Drift B. Utrecht University. 2004] [Hirsmark. The Netherlands. Oakland. Dornburg V. 2001] [Duijn. 2002. Spain. Department of science. A life cycle inventory of existing biomass import chains for "green" electricity production.a strategic decision analysis study” . Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas. BTG Biomass Technology Group Craig KR. 1999] [Dornburg and Faaij. http://www. California. The Netherlands. 1999. The Netherlands. The Netheralns. Van Den Broek R. technology and society. Damen KJ and Faaij APC. Utrecht University>Copernicus Institute>Science Technology and Society. Agency for Research in Sustainable Energy. 2004] [EU Faaij APC. Utrecht the Netherlands. the Netherlands .[Calis et al.. Utrecht University. Wagenaar B. Strenziok R.

“Techno-economic assessment.”A second look at fast pyrolysis of biomass-the RTI process”. special report on emission scenarios. 2001 Stahl M. van den Broek R.from research to commercialization”. COMBIOA new competitive liquid biofuel for heating. 2003. 2004. Thek G. 1999] Hoogwijk M. http://www. EWAP report. Cambridge university press. http://www. Cambridge UK. Renstro¨ m R. 2005] [Raveedan and Ganesh. Timmerhaus KD. Faaij APC. Gielen D and Turkenburg WC. D. 1995. Utrecht University.pyne. Obernberger I. Voutetakis SS. The Netherlands. Energy Systems Engineering. Cepal review 69. “Enhanced wood fuels via torrefaction”. 2002. Canada. Department of Science Technology and Society. “ Energy densification of biomass”. L. Samolada MC. Abatzoglou N. Bombay. ECN. M. pp.[Hoogwijk et al. Monfort J. “ Logistics and pre-treatment of biomass fuels for gasification and combustion”. Radlein D. & Payne J. Holmens pelleterings handbok. “Thermodynamic analysis of biomass gasification and torrefaction”. “Wood pellet production costs under Australian and in comparison to Swedish framework conditions”. Chemical Process Engineering Research Institute (CPERI) and Department of Chemical Engineering. Reed TB. project no: NNE5-CT-2001-00604. Vasalos IA. 2000 Kaminsky W. Iatridis DK. Granstro¨ m K. Thessaloniki. 2002] [Thek and Obernberger. Fuel Chemistry division preprints. “Heating value of biomass and biomass products”. V. US department of energy division of solar technology.19. Curvers APWM. 2002.pdf 90 . 2003] [Prins. on Soft Energy Forms. “preliminary test on combustion of wood derived fast pyrolysis oils in a gas turbine combustor”.. 1995] [Pyne. Suurs RAA. solid-state refining of biofuels. Advances in thermochemical biomass Lappas AA. 1985 Koppejan J & Meulman PDM. 2001] [Stahl et al. 2004] [Tokman and Martinez.1990] [Pierik and Curvers. “The market for fuel pellet produced from biomass and waste in the Netherlands”. 439-448. 8. 1999] [Solantausta.612 pp. Greece. Austria. Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 1996] [Reed and Bryant. 2000. 2000] [Peters and Timmerhaus. J. 1990-1998”. Report. Singapore. 1982] [Koukios. Solar Energy Research Institute.. the Finish case study”. 2004] [Suurs.J. Journal of Biomass and Bioenergy. p. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 51pp 2337 . “ Labour costs and competitiveness in the Latin Amerian manufacturing sector. “Progress in thermochemical. Nakicenovic N. MacGrawHill Book Co. pHD thesis. Prins MJ. 1990. Majerski P. Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki. Holmen Chemicals Limited. Lipinsky ES.. Biomass and Reed T. Eindhoven Technical University. 2000] [Karminsky. 2001] [Koukios et al. Solantausta Y. The Netherlands. Indian Institute of Technology. Bridgwater 2003. Martinez D. Vol 2. 1985] [Koppejan and Meulman. 2002] [MacMahon and Payne. 1999. in press. Mavrokoukoulakis J. “Long distance bioenergy logistics”. 2002] [Lipinsky et al.. 1996..27. 1982] [Nakicenovic and Swart. Bryant B. Arcate JR. 1982. “Biomass pyrolysis in a circulating fluid bed reactor for the production of fuels and chemicals”. 1993] [Lappas et al. “Plant design and economics for chemical engineers”. “Densified Biomass a new form of solid fuel”.uk/?_id=73 Raveendran K and Ganesh A. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis. 2001. a special report of IPPS working group III”. Tokman VE. Waterloo. India. pg: 119-128. 4th edition. the Netherlands.eclac. Scott DS. 1978. and Swart R. Berndes G. 1982. MacMahon. Koukios EG. Peters MS. 1999. 2004] [Juste et al. 2004. Industrial processes for biomass drying and their effects on the quality properties of wood pellets. Piskorz J. 671-693 Graz. Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of biomass for energy. Biomass & Bioenergy.2002. Pierik JTG. Proc 1st National Conf.. Berghel J. 1978] [Scott et al. work package 5. 2004 Juste G. Koukious EG. “Intergovernmental panel on climate change. “Thermal Recycling of Polymers”.

Van Swaaij PM. Prins W. 2005] United Nations.htm http://www. 1994. 1994. Istanbul. 49 pp.fao. http://www. Kessler D. “Pyrolysis of biomass in the rotating cone reactor: Modelling and experimental justification”. 1994] [Mlisius et al. 2000] [Wagenaar et al. Nilson B. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. 2000. Wagenaar BM.htm#Contents Malisius U. Chemical Engineering Department. “ Wood pellets in Europe-state of the art technologiss. “Pyrolysis of biomass to produce fuels and chemical feedstocks”. 1994] [Yaman.undp. Schmidl Geislhofr Vol. Strehler A. http://www.htm 91 .. Whitfield J.[United Nations. Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering Faculty. Jauschnegg H. market”. Hartman H. Chemical Engineering Science. Industrial Netwok on Wood Pellets. Turkey. Istanbul Technical University. Yaman S.fao. Rapp S. Huber R. Hahn B. Rome. Thermie B DIS/ 2043/98-AT. 2004] [UNDP. 5109-5126. The Netherlands.

It should be realized that the values given can vary depending on many factors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I. university of Colorado. and company policies. Service facilities and yard improvements (40-100% of purchased-equipment costs) D. installed (6-30% of purchased equipment cost) 4. Purchased equipment (15-40& of fixed-capital investment) 2. Equipment+installation+instrumentation+piping+electrical+insulation+painting (50-60% of fixed-capital investment) 1. Contingency (5-15% of fixed-capital investment III. Construction expense and contractor’s fee (6-30% of direct costs) C. Direct production costs (about 60% of total product cost) 1. Fixed-capital investment = direct costs +indirect costs IV. Raw materials (10-50% of total product cost) 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I. Indirect costs = expenses which are not directly involved with material and labour of actual installation of complete facility (15-30% of fixed-capital investment) A. Timmerhaus KD. type of process. Percentages are expressed on annual basis. Working capital (10-20% of total investment) V. Estimation of capital investment cost (showing individual components) The percentages indicate in the following summary of the various costs constituting the capital investment are approximations applicable to ordinary chemical processing plants. process and auxiliary (10-70% of purchased-equipment cost) C. Building. plant design and economics for chemical engineers. Electrical. Installation. such as plant location. Land(1-2% of fixed-capital investment or 4-8% of purchased-equipment cost) II. etc. Instrumentation and controls. Piping. Engineering and supervision (5-30% of direct costs) B. installed (10-40% of purchase-equipment cost) B. including insulation and painting 3. It should be realized that the values given can vary depending on many factors. Direct supervision and clerical labour (10-25% of operation labour) 92 . installed (10-80% of purchased-equipment cost) 5. complexity of instrumentation. Manufacturing cost= direct production costs +fixed charges +plant overhead costs A. Operation labour (10-20% of total product cost) 3. fourth edition.6 Appendices Appendix 1 Peters MS. Total capital investment = fixed-capital investment + working capital -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Estimation of total product cost (showing individual components) The percentages indicated in the following summary of the various costs involved in the complete operation of manufacturing plants are approximations applicable to ordinary chemical processing plants. such as plant location. type of process. Direct costs = material and labour involved in actual installation of complete facility (70-85% of fixed-capital investment) A.

salesman. laboratories. and maintenance. a contingency factor can be included by increasing the total product cost by 1-5%. and advertising C.2 4. B. Local taxes (1-4% of fixed-capital investment) 3. safety and protection. Labour charges (10-20% of operating labour) 8. Utilities (10-20% of total product cost) 5. II. legal fees. General expenses= administrative costs+ distribution and selling costs + research and development costs. payroll overhead. Gross-earning cost (gross earning = total income – total product cost.4-1% of fixed-capital investment) 4. or 0.5-1% of fixed capital investment) 7. and method of calculation-about 10% of fixed-capital investment for machinery and equipment and 2-3% of building value for buildings) 2. or 5-15% of total product cost). packaging. Operating supplies (10-20% of cost for maintenance and repairs. Administrative costs (about 15% of costs for operating labour. includes costs for sales offices. Depreciation (depends on life period. supervision. 93 . or 2-6% of total product cost). Financing (interest) 1 (0-10% of total capital investment) III. Patents and royalties (o-6% of total product cost) B. A. medical services. Rent (8-12% of value of rented land and buildings) C. salvage value. recreation. Insurance (0. a general range for gross earning cost is 30-40% of gross earnings) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 interest on borrowed money is often considered as a fixed charge if desired. Research and development costs (2-5% of every sales dollar or about 5% for total product cost) D. salvage. clerical wages. Distribution and selling costs (2-20% of total product cost). Maintenance and repair (2-10% of fixed-capital investment) 6. supervision. amount of gross earnings cost depends on amount of amount of gross earnings for entire company and incometax regulations. and maintenance. and storage facilities. and communications. Total product cost2 = manufacturing cost+ general expenses IV. Plant overhead costs (50-70% of cost for operating labour. shipping. includes costs for the following: general plant upkeep and overhead. Fixed charges (10-20% of total product cost) 1. office supplies. restaurants. includes costs for executive salaries.

05 26.66 74.11 66.26 11.48 63.34 12.05 9.77 83.20 41.90 85.91 77.17 39.73 92.67 94.56 79.33 60.38 87.11 18.38 12.62 90.50 75.87 18.78 101.98 54.78 9.07 1993 85.70 42.75 10.30 1991 95.00 56.11 11.10 11.15 34.59 73.60 101.70 14.97 46.30 38.65 40.19 24.56 20.06 59.68 70.46 24.00 100.93 17.72 18.06 22.34 67.93 16.85 34.52 63.30 20.10 61.99 39.42 111.14 23.77 50.93 49.83 29.30 10.07 51.62 43.38 27.17 99.04 92.05 16.82 13.08 45.31 8.46 35.43 95.76 2003 100.35 39.18 10.66 44.63 21.49 93.97 32.74 50.89 91.44 38.06 125.51 11.63 50.17 49.95 1965 18.16 92.80 20.50 80.70 13.32 84.49 29.41 46.36 91.32 76.68 116.72 45.37 22.18 85.43 24.48 9.00 100.56 9.72 81.45 20.87 10.48 54.36 37.00 2004 117.55 15.25 15.17 42.66 89.57 85.33 35.71 74.06 103.08 13.03 110.05 104.35 16.74 40.07 15.08 94.45 19.49 42.93 11.76 85.86 41.14 11.52 91.64 45.04 46.99 29.56 21.20 2000 81.83 14.26 17.58 90.30 77.24 82.58 26.92 93.82 69.40 114.11 69.96 18.90 15.76 29.77 44.18 2001 75.47 76.92 48.50 10.56 17.20 41.43 80.85 88.69 43.59 1990 93.77 51.50 91.86 12.03 94.24 48.84 32.33 41.91 22.96 18.53 19.85 84.91 43.43 51.47 48.95 43.68 89.00 19.98 30.83 30.83 15.07 73.05 104.00 100.38 25.67 32.33 48.99 108.27 67.50 82.85 79.27 58.13 91.90 113.94 24.35 79.40 14.71 13.93 9.81 47.98 46.76 63.83 55.58 83.66 81.08 42.42 82.38 99.03 36.46 92.29 12.83 54.67 30.34 13.14 81.99 41.11 20.80 48.34 11.87 61.47 107.52 32.00 100.50 99.09 72.08 8.54 52.86 65.57 71.76 13.12 31.39 39.30 44.85 14.64 96.55 84.55 18.89 86.17 57.43 86.85 25.73 9.86 43.33 1962 17.21 80.08 26.43 7.58 90.68 15.09 11.97 83.86 44.86 30.74 72.00 100.95 79.24 86.34 1998 84.23 88.56 13.44 24.19 86.25 1992 91.13 81.70 16.28 86.51 70.80 69.80 1987 68.21 21.18 98.60 54.16 68.99 15.59 14.71 98.79 86.18 52.19 15.52 76.85 30.64 25.33 38.53 11.48 37.39 26.87 83.27 114.21 27.15 11.26 18.62 12.91 10.51 48.04 13.94 37.46 18.47 13.78 68.20 81.80 17.04 86.15 11.25 42.61 16.40 89.30 17.54 90.31 31.34 27.49 53.33 93.51 88.55 13.07 81.88 69.30 22.12 88.37 83.50 9.Appendix 2 OECD Deflator Deflators for Resource Flows from DAC Donors a (2003 = 100) 1960 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Japan Luxembourg Netherlands New Zealand Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States TOTAL DAC EC 17.97 96.00 100.04 55.93 61.91 19.12 18.38 110.05 16.47 98.06 11.25 20.24 48.85 53.03 38.35 111.99 85.06 14.91 25.62 12.75 48.79 112.69 78.43 17.13 43.07 10.37 31.24 19.41 40.30 77.23 51.41 38.47 21.44 107.56 29.50 24.84 82.49 80.57 13.84 16.08 11.17 84.48 49.46 37.16 34.04 86.69 79.50 18.35 68.31 52.73 19.00 100.81 86.54 74.42 74.15 13.54 99.96 14.08 16.40 10.05 62.89 101.05 48.56 1976 49.99 35.22 10.95 8.56 71.05 12.46 77.24 15.04 9.22 61.25 98.10 46.24 17.85 1970 22.47 15.75 14.12 74.35 82.96 24.95 92.00 100.22 113.52 19.46 15.67 92.54 55.42 59.00 100.34 42.91 83.63 96.01 92.06 1967 20.86 85.48 93.14 68.63 15.35 86.43 14.00 100.71 9.93 1971 24.62 40.58 92.53 63.89 93.52 66.21 14.03 76.93 83.07 24.23 11.07 48.64 15.34 87.69 1983 69.24 23.31 92.99 113.93 41.87 69.35 90.00 100.29 1999 87.19 89.89 105.59 29.79 90.15 14.88 10.22 20.25 93.80 112.55 11.77 76.83 47.24 15.03 8.68 33.33 83.19 14.28 52.96 87.32 27.27 16.48 72.75 55.87 7.50 54.86 74.85 77.01 31.32 78.37 86.00 100.02 1984 71.64 52.00 100.61 69.66 40.25 40.17 88.31 75.79 42.84 32.10 47.71 82.24 79.53 24.76 43.34 88.68 81.39 21.58 12.19 9.02 81.46 24.47 10.99 16.33 11.18 30.37 87.62 85.30 17.60 102.78 40.77 108.17 55.18 17.00 104.15 85.12 19.48 86.23 48.41 36.79 95.59 24.69 49.56 27.33 29.23 76.93 12.69 31.97 81.85 71.65 84.28 90.26 37.67 9.18 74.90 17.51 48.52 13.99 35.59 86.92 42.41 74.46 12.98 26.38 55.80 76.68 84.18 11.66 86.84 12.15 78.07 78.08 62.59 85.36 24.64 80.62 87.80 32.55 110.61 12.86 76.07 91.79 74.e.13 81.20 88.19 40.49 11.12 81.12 19.57 109.70 1978 54.29 94.48 29.54 26.00 43.53 41.62 97.53 90.31 96.15 86.53 27.23 67.90 23.51 15.25 64.55 30.11 10.37 80.70 13.48 80.93 75.46 72.37 14.57 11.57 93.74 96.87 23.40 39.36 27.45 15.83 13.44 48.03 28.46 41.10 97.33 1963 17.24 16.05 71.69 16.01 90.43 88.76 40.49 22.45 112.38 15.56 86.33 1964 18.78 27.28 34.89 18.30 14.04 108.28 31.52 41.15 69.00 13.13 12.58 86.01 89.94 10.78 1985 59.57 9.29 77.84 33.20 58.76 12.71 14.04 31.00 100.20 13.87 100.37 46.29 12.81 101.79 113.43 14.27 16.90 14.48 36.42 44.24 67.03 83.82 90.07 89.82 43.80 46.27 65.86 16.01 19.64 31.11 43.52 16.63 43.33 92.54 18.01 8.14 17.51 39.95 57.99 80.50 21.76 53.00 87.22 112.94 13.89 47.65 91.65 30.31 10.40 80.51 63.85 34.52 112.31 10.08 83.79 2002 81.41 75.69 9.71 38.04 66.17 35.98 53.08 95.17 50.10 30.45 52.85 16.99 88.30 33.53 40.07 92.98 90.89 27.55 1986 60.39 38.04 63.00 100.25 72.08 14.24 38.20 78.59 82.02 78.64 25.05 47.09 54.79 11.09 1982 71.48 39.26 12.90 113.35 81.42 13.29 48.19 109.53 1968 20.69 68.01 52.73 71.42 11.53 81.44 16.56 104.26 68.27 1988 83.68 20.99 46.51 21.91 17.10 72.92 35.54 67.85 74.62 100.58 89.95 83.47 44.74 48.39 13.49 16.28 18.59 81.52 50.45 23.97 39.39 1977 48.90 98.44 40.81 13.61 81.03 21.40 46.15 7.09 13.60 76.62 11.74 13.58 82.03 81.72 41.42 94.11 12.66 103.27 38.15 14.77 43.08 13.64 1980 65.39 75.11 20.69 41.86 19.59 39.40 103.21 89.88 90.89 50.61 109.98 78.31 77.61 21.41 1973 37.00 100.60 90.70 80.22 73.03 91.65 75.80 35.68 35.74 12.00 81.37 12.03 28.34 52.19 12.44 81.09 49.54 14.54 77.72 22.30 11.33 72.46 77.02 62.14 88.67 19.75 12.49 35.92 a) Including the effect of exchange rate changes.01 45.04 16.10 13.53 28.83 77.94 100.28 1974 44.90 13.89 26.71 35.71 71.39 17.60 84.73 83.17 48.69 16.49 14.65 72.55 61.30 47.30 1979 58.71 41.69 68.59 14.27 30.80 45.94 88.58 72.98 20.00 100.00 100.44 73.00 100.01 44.61 82.87 15.30 1997 99.25 85.33 12.23 82.49 12.12 55.14 11.79 47.18 78.10 49.80 93.83 82.14 49.45 71.66 60.56 44.30 80.43 11.09 43.76 112.82 22.98 13.89 23.07 46.22 95.69 81.17 43.86 1981 72.69 13.08 12.39 107.14 106.92 64.36 70.56 78.44 47.00 100.73 81.47 46.35 111.73 17.55 83.62 10.03 69.33 1961 17.12 15.20 53.96 41.13 13.54 91.21 86.19 70.50 89.23 73.67 74.64 38.80 117. applicable to US dollar figures only.11 85.05 70.33 85.20 53.83 59.98 66.22 74.68 11.99 76.29 88.84 74.70 56.42 14.03 12. i.60 97.56 12.32 53.00 25.11 11.89 9.94 57.96 63.38 89.28 42.45 78.72 80.03 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Japan Luxembourg Netherlands New Zealand Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States TOTAL DAC EC 92.38 53.61 42.57 65.26 98.37 26.71 54.72 12.11 29.25 15.18 57.02 82.52 48.36 40.63 1994 1995 1996 103.82 85.72 47.88 17.56 16.05 16.41 75.61 90.04 1969 21.97 85.30 41.94 51.36 27.08 135.93 41.12 109.99 37.07 26.14 58.05 64.49 43.23 38.10 12.34 11.97 34.11 12.98 30.24 53.80 55.36 35.06 13.60 49.06 84.96 40.57 14.34 41.38 28.04 72.38 50.40 1989 90.97 16.70 88.38 20.29 94.95 111.15 64.00 100.83 14.11 75.21 78.70 12.22 22.02 13.24 13.28 38.13 12.25 13.06 21.36 18.72 77.27 21.32 28.54 17.31 16.46 111.13 74.21 20.29 11.07 21.91 83.53 1966 19.93 110.06 72.83 49.65 35.59 113.21 13.54 88.54 84.98 1975 46.25 28.17 71. 94 .79 23.08 7.69 22.12 15.00 100.15 1972 27.98 18.86 11.53 18.27 71.18 14.55 88.79 43.35 12.29 32.48 64.83 20.83 11.35 35.28 82.19 35.30 68.67 16.88 105.64 81.23 86.56 42.47 11.95 35.20 50.48 14.99 15.48 81.63 89.28 16.77 20.17 13.97 15.88 27.00 100.96 81.37 11.71 21.88 17.28 94.47 40.90 79.78 25.

8 1.70 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% MCA (% wt.85 0.4 0.18) C(290.Appendix 3 The relationship between authotermal operation of the process in relation to the moisture content and energy yield of torrefaction 1. 2004) 95 .265.8 1.2 0.300.21) C(280.4 average particle size (mm.80 0. Values are taken from the main design matrix.6 0.2 1. The error bars represent the possible inaccuracy in the HHV measurement.10) (D.0 average particle size (mm.6 0. Biomass feedstock) Figure 48: Relation between the MCA and the energy yield of torrefaction.10) 320 280 chipper capacity (kWth) 240 200 160 120 80 40 Net power consumption curves Capacity curves Figure 49: Size reduction results of various torrefied biomass and feed biomass (Bergman et al.24) Willow (10-13% moist) Willow (<1% moist) Woodcuttings (14% moist) AU bituminous coal TW borssele run demolition wood (D.90 0.10) (W. Appendix 4 Size reduction results of various torrified biomass and feed biomass 90 80 Power consumption (kWe/MWth) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0. volume based) 0.00 0.75 0. volume based) 360 C(270.24) W(260.95 energy yield (LHV ) daf 0.280.12) W(290.2 0.0 1.4 0.

5 euro/man-hour taking the labour education level and necessary specialisation for the plant into consideration.Direct Supervisory & 15% of Operation labour clerical labour 4. Plant Overhead 60% of Operation labour II. GENERAL EXPENSES A. 60% of the employees are assumed to work as the general staff and their salaries are calculated on the basis of Latin American labour price. In Hamelinck. Distribution and Selling 3% of Total production cost Costs of Total production cost C. Patents and Royalties 3% of Total capital investment B. In this study this price is increased to 2. Depreciation 18% of Total capital investment 2. Research and 3% Development Cost Source: Peters&Timmerhaus. (1991) fourth edition 1 In the calculations.Appendix 5 Torrefied biomass production cost breakdown I. Maintenance and Repairs 2% of Total capital investment 6. Fixed Charges 1. Rent C.5% of Total capital investment 4. Operating Supplies 15% of Maintenance & repair 7. Local Taxes 1% of Total capital investment 3. Insurance 0. it is assumed that 40% of the employees are at the management position and they are being paid according to the West European labour cost. Raw Materials 2. Operation Labour 1 25 €/man-hour for Western 60% of the employee is Europe accepted as Latin American 6 euro/man-hour Latin employee America 3. Administrate Costs 15% of Operation labour B. Laboratory Charges 10% of Operation labour 8. Utilities 5. Latin American labour price is mentioned as 1 euro/man-hour. MANUFACTURING COSTS 1. 96 .

Source: Faaij et al. 1988 97 .Appendix 6 Component list relevant for BIG/CC systems and their corresponding R-values.

17 2. 3. Laboratory Charges 8. Depreciation 2. Patents and Royalties B.42 0. Utilities Electricity Natural Gas Cooling water 5.25 0. 2005 Total production costs Meuro/ton 5.54 0. Financing TOTAL PRODUCT COSTS Source: Bergman et al.46 58.87 15.66 2.44 0.. Research and Development Cost D.52 .31 0. Plant Overhead II.81 2.47 1. Insurance 4.17 5. Raw Materials 2. Fixed Charges 1. Local Taxes 3.04 0.18 98 . Operation Operating labour 3.88 13. Operating Supplies 7. Direct Product Cost 1.81 5. MaintananMaintenance 6. Administrive Costs B. Rent C.08 0. Direct Supervisory and cleical labor 4. GENERAL EXPENSES A. Distribution and Selling Costs C. MANUFACTURING COSTS A.Appendix 7 Estimation of the total production costs of the torrefied biomass Cost Items I.

Biomass needs to be grinded to small particles (<2-3 mm) to achieve high heating rates. There are 2 types of fluid bed reactors..Appendix 8 Higher heating values and energy distributions of raw biomass and pyrolysis products Source: Raveendran & Ganesh. 99 .6 s. Bubbling fluid bed reactors Bubbling bed reactors are easy to construct and operate since they have got a well-understood technology. Besides. The bubbling bed reactor configurations are widely used in laboratory systems. The liquid production is up to 70% on a dry feed basis. Temperature control is easy in this reactor and the efficiency of heat transfer to biomass particles is high. However. When the volatiles residence time (net empty reactor volume divided by the inlet gas volume rate at reactor conditions) is in the range of 0. it should not be forgotten that the biomass particle residence time in the optimal temperature should be longer than the apparent volatile residence time to achieve the complete conversion unless the biomass particles are extremely fine (around 50 µm).2-0. bubbling fluid bed and circulating fluid bed. This design produces a good quality bio-oil with minimum char content. Char is eluted from the reactor since char can act as a catalyst to crack the vapour. 1996 Appendix 9 Overview of current fast pyrolysis technologies Fluid bed reactors Fluid bed configurations are the most popular reactors from the commercial point of view due to their ease of operating and ready scale up (Bridgwater. 1999). it is difficult to design a reactor capable on a large scale of very high heating rates required for such a short processing time. it is possible to produce maximum yield of organic liquid at temperatures of 475-525 oC for nearly all biomass feedstock.

. 1999). 100 . They discovered that they could achieve high yields of liquid at relatively low temperatures.3 –0. The particle size in the RTI study was 1 mm maximum with a moister content of 10%. heat transfer to bed can be a limiting factor.When the scaling up of this reactor is considered. short volatile residence times required for the process can also be achieved in a deep fluid bed contrary to the necessary condition mentioned as shallow bed depth by other scientists. The thermal efficiency in this technology ranges from 60 to 70% depending on the design (Scott et al. The liquid yields and the composition obtained in this study was similar to other fast pyrolysis with higher temperatures and shorter residence times like 0. Figure 1 Bench scale pyrolysis unit flow diagram According to a study carried on by University of Waterloo and Resource Transform International. The diagram of a bench-scale pyrolysis unit flow diagram operated in the University of Waterloo is shown in figure 1. Residence time of solids and vapours are controlled by fluidising gas flow rate and it is higher for char than for vapours. 1999). which demanded special design methods. The temperature range applied in this study ranges from 360 to 490 o C with gas residence times greater than 2 s.8 s. up to 5 s. The high gas-to-biomass fed ratio causes thermal efficiency reduction because the re-circulating gas steam in the bio-oil condensation units requires cooling and reheating again to reuse it as a heat source for pyrolyser. The shallow fluid beds were causing transverse temperature and concentration gradients to develop in the fluid bed. moderate heating rates and relatively long solids and gas residence times (Scott et al. The experiment results of the RTI process and Waterloo fast pyrolysis process (WFPP) is presented in table 1. in large sizes..

Table X. has achieved a commercial version of RTI process so named “ BioTherm TM Technology”.9 74.%) mf hardwood sawdust feed Temperature(oC) WFPP RTI process RTI process with char converter 500 430 430 Char 11. Comparisen of yields from waterloo fast pyrolysis process and RTI process Process Experimental yields (wt. The exhaust gas from the jacked is used to preheat the pyrolysis gas by means of a gas to gas heat exchanger before the pyrolysis gas is re-entered the reactor. the external jacket.9 10. By the help of this metering box.0 MJ/kg. When pine as the prepared feedstock (10% mc and small particles) was used in BioTherm to produce 72%yield rate of bio-oil. feedstock is conveyed to a storage hopper with an auger and a screw feeder supplies feedstock to a lock hopper consists of a two knife-gate valves that in turn supplies the feed to a metering box.8 12. a controlled amount of feedstock is fed through a constant speed injector screw. which represents the 5% of the total calorific value of the bio-oil (DynaMotive. Pyrolysis reactor.5 Bio-oil 76.5 MJ/kg of heat is required (including the radiation and exhaust gas loses). The pilot plant was operated at a capacity of 2 tonnes of feedstock per day on the continues feed basis and it has already processed more than 35 tones of feedstock. The BioTherm process consists of the following equipments (Fig 2): Figure 2 BioTherm pyrolysis process flow diagram Storage hopper and feed system. around 2. 1999). In 101 .5 4. However when the non-condensable gas produced is directly injected into the reactor burner. the required net heat from an external source is only 1. surrounding the reactor shell is heated by a natural gas burner to heat the fluidised sand.3 73 Gas 5.1 19 Table 1 Comparison of yields from waterloo fast pyrolysis process and RTI process Source: Dynamotive Corp.

CFB is suitable for large throughputs. in the absence of oxygen. Product tank: Figure 3 RTI process for production of bio-oil. In general there exists a char combustor. bubbling fluidised bed type of reactor. vapours and aerosols scrubbed are rapidly cooled down to below 50 oC in the quenching system by a liquid. which delivers the heat to the reactor by re-circulation of 102 . The bio-oil condensed are collected in a product than while the liquid recovered is cooled in a heat exchanger and recycled to the recovery system. The excess of the gas is vented from the system. Electrostatic precipitator: The non-condensable gas and residual biooil aerosol droplets enter to the electrostatic precipitator. heat transfer rates are not high since they depend only on gas-solid convective transfer. The clean inert gas is then recycled to the bubbling fluid bed reactor.the reactor the feedstock is rapidly heated to temperatures above 450 oC by fluidised sand. Cyclone: The products pass through two mechanical cyclones to remove entrained solid char particles. Most circulating fluid beds are dilute phase units. Circulating fluid bed (CFB) & Transported bed reactors In this technology the residence time for char and vapour are almost the same and the char content of the produced bi-oil is higher which may require a post-treatment to reduce char content. The char is collected under the cyclones. Bio-oil recovery quench system: The gases.

Source: Pyne.the heated sand (Figure 4). In fact ash can behave like cracking catalysts for organic molecules. 2002 103 . 2005 Figure 5 Shematic diagram of the CFB unit for biomass flash pyrolysis Source: Lappas et al. Figure 4 Circulating fluid bed reactor. which can cause loss of volatile bio-oil yield In this technology either recycling of the partially reacted feed or a very fine particle size is necessary to achieve the necessary biomass residence time since the particle residence time would not be uniform and would only be a little greater than volatile residence time. Ash transfer to the pyrolyser and accumulation in the circulating solids can be a problem that needs to be worked out in this technology.

Moreover. Another issue in this type of technology is that there could be high heat losses because the hot surface must be at a higher temperature than the reaction temperature (Scott et al. 1994). While the biomass is transported to the upper part of the cone. riser and cyclone. 6) the technology includes an internal circulation of particles where the sand is flown through the upper part of the cone and fell down back to the into the fluidised bed an external circulation where the char and sand are transported through an orifice to the combustor. In order to avoid the secondary tar cracking. The cone types or plate types of ablative reactors are mechanically complex since they require moving parts. As can be seen from the schematic view of the reactor (Fig. a high heating transfer rate is achieved (Wagenaar et al. this in fact might cause cost reduction. The advantages of this technology are its being compact and good integration of heat. the reactor surface temperature and the relative velocity of the biomass on the heat exchange surface influence the rate of reaction. In ablative pyrolysis heat is transferred from the hot reactor walls through the biomass under pressure. the reaction is more intensive. where the cone is partly submerged in a fluid bed. 1999). therefore partially reacted solids should be recycled. The wood particles are fed to the bottom of the rotating cone together with the heat carrier particles (sand). One of the advantages mentioned is that pyrolysis product will be formed at high concentration since no carrier gas is needed. The system scaling is more costly due to process control by surface area. Since the particles contact to the hot rotating cone wall while being transported. achieving the necessary residence time for the biomass particles can be a problem. the pyrolysis vapour residence time is kept below 1s. even though the process equipments are smaller. The process is limited in heat supply to the reactor rather than heat supply to the biomass particles.Ablative pyrolysis In this technology there is no upper limit in feedstock sizing since the rate of reaction is not limited by the rate of heat transfer through a biomass particle as it is in other pyrolysis technologies. However in the cyclonic types. gas-phase residence time in the reactor can be reduced due to the possibility of a small gas phase volume in side the rotating cone. The ash char and unconverted biomass is being collected in the dead volume of the reactor. The rotation in the reactor both achieves the solid mixing and its’ transport to the upward of the reactor. In addition. Pressure. An advanced version of rotating cone has been developed. The char abrasion in this technology is significant. In the combustor sand is reheated and is recycled to the reactor by means of a standpipe. Rotating cone reactor: The schema of a rotating cone reactor demonstrated by BTG is presented below. On the other hand. bio-oil cracking reactions can be reduced. 104 .

com. 13 mm particle size has been applied in an engineering scale pyrolysis system.Figure 6 Rotating cone reactor Figure 7 Rotating cone reactor pyrolysis process flow diagram Source: Btgworld. where vortex rector was 105 . 2005 Vortex reactor: In this reactor the particle size enters the reactor is more flexible.

Table 2 Overview of fast pyrolysis reactor characteristics for bio-oil production Property Fluid bed CFB Entrained Rotating cone Ablative Vacuum Status# Demo Pilot None Pilot Lab Demo Bio-oil wt% 75 75 65 65 75 60 Complexity Medium High High High High High Feed size Small Medium Small V small Large Large Inert gas need High High High Low Low Low Specific size Medium Large Large Small Small Large Scale up Easy Easy Easy Hard Hard Hard # Demo = demonstration (200 – 2000 kg h-1) # Pilot = pilot plant (200 – 200 kg h-1 # Lab = laboratory (1 – 20 kg h-1) Source: Pyne.Vacuum pyrolysis In vacuum pyrolysis solid heating and mass transfer rates are low and the solid residence time is very high (Bridgwater et al. Scott et al. 2005 106 . which makes the system rather expensive (Wagenaar et al. 1999). One of the advantage in this technology is that short volatile residence times is easy to achieve without coupling the biomass particle residence time to that of the volatiles. 1994). 1999). a large capacity of vacuum pump is needed to require the vacuum condition. The general features of the reactors are summarised in the below table. 2002. Even though a comparable amount of bio-oil yield can be achieved by vacuum pyrolysis. The technology requires large-scale equipment (Scott et al.

Appendix 10 Mass balance of a 200 kg/hr pyrolysis plant (Source: Gansekoele et al. 2000) 380 kg/hr 6000 kg/hr Combustor Non condensable gas 40 kg/hr Biomass 200 kg/hr Condensor 180 kg/hr Reactor 6020 kg/hr 120 kg/hr Air Oil 140 kg/hr 8640 kg/hr Cooling tower 3500 kg/hr heat exchanger water 240 kg/hr Air 107 .

600. Capital cost includes install.20 Efficiency 40% Total capital costs 500. The aim is to pyrolyse shredder waste. However it does not include purchase or leasing of land.000 GBP Year 1992 Reactor technology Entrained flow Remarks Cost figures include storage. feeding and pyrolysis system Cost estimates are in the range of US$800. land.000-1600. piping.500. insulation and electricity installation The cost includes material handling.00 30.17 50% 2. utilities.000 € 2000 Rotating cone 108 . oil handling. 1 Egemin 2 Ensyn 1.000 US$ 1992 Transported bed 3 ASR 4. These figures don’t include building. feed and product oil storage.000 US$ 1992 Vacuum pyrolysis 4 Interchem (NA)Indust ries 4.Appendix 11 The pyrolysis plants capital cost and efficiency data Name Capacit y (ton/hr) 0.360.000 US$ 1991 Ablative pyrolysis 5 BTG 5.04 67% 1.62% 5..000.030. pyrolysis system.00 70% 3. instrumentation. char handling and all the storage systems.

2003 109 .Appendix 12 Wood pellet quality requirements Source: AET.

1988 110 . In the biomass Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (BIGCC).Appendix 13 Final conversion technologies 1 Biomass Gasification Combined Cycle and Fischer Tropsch Fuel Biomass gasification is the thermochemical conversion of carbonaceous feedstock into a gaseous energy carrier. 1995). their applications with biomass are very little. A BIGCC system consists of pre-treatment. gas turbine. the flue gas produced is used to fire a gas turbine. 1995). 1998. Fluidised bed reactor is applied in the BIGCC system while entrained bed gasification is applied in the Fischer Tropsch fuel production. . fluid bed gasification is better suited for larger scales because of the high specific throughput of the reactors (which keeps the vessel size limited) and the flexibility for various fuel types (Faaij et al. Furthermore. 1998). heat recovery steam generator and steam turbine sections (Figure 1). a gas turbine is combined with a steam cycle that offers high electrical efficiencies (Faaij et al.On the other hand entrained flow gasification is one of the most developed and versatile gasification technologies due to its high operation temperature (up to 1500 oC). In fact. however. Figure 1 Schematic presentation of a BIGCC system Source: Faaij et al. so called fuel gas by partial oxidation at elevated temperatures (Bridgwater. gasification. The gasification technologies assumed in this study are entrained flow gasification and fluid bed gasification. gas cleanup. There have been many commercially operating entrained flow gasifiers in Europe. Bridgwater.

When those cost data are compared with Figure . The dotes in the figure denote the estimates. it can be seen that the cost data for a 94 MWth input is rather consistent whereas for the bigger scales (around 300 MWth input). the investment of an entrained flow gasifier including fuel feeding and syngas cooler is estimated using the oil (entrained flow) gasifier 41 €/kWth for a 1000 MWth plant. a 10% increase on investment is assumed resulting in 45 €/kWth for an entrained flow gasifier including fuel feeding and syngas cooler. When the feedstock is solid biomass. 1998. the total capital requirement for the BIGCC systems are assumed in the range between 112M€-256M€ for the capacity range of 94 MWLHVinput-364 MWLHV-input in the base year of 2004. (1998). Capital costs of IGCC systems 1800 1600 Euro-2004/kWth 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 19 27 40 66 80 144 140 170 250 310 300 MWth Figure 2 Capital costs of IGCC systems According to Calis.Cost data for BIGCC systems and FT fuel The capital costs of BIGCC systems are estimated in several studies (Faaij A and Meuleman B. The reason of this difference can depend on the trendline. Figure offers cheaper capital costs. In another study carried out by Faaij et al. 1996. In fact. Craig and Mann. et al. Dornburg. (2003). the trendline for integrated gasification combined cycle capital costs are presented. 111 . the estimated capital cost of a 332 MWth input is around 240 M€ which is also consistent with the study of Faaij et al (1998). The data collected from those researches are plotted into a graph (Figure ). In Figure 2. 1999).

except for the dried willow (<1%wt). However in the recent years. For example willow torrifeied decreases the power consumption with about 50% compared to untreated biomass. When the willow untreated.2 Combustion &Co-firing In general biomass combustion for 100% biomass applications is either stoker-fired or fluid designs (Bridgwater et al. 2003).2-6. In those experiments torrefaction was done with the 3-6 kg batch reactor and a heavy-duty cutting mill (1. Moisture content of the torrefied biomass ranges from 1. the power consumption for torrefied willow is around 8 for dried willow is 30 and for untreated willow is 55 kWe/MWth So around 45% in power 112 .2 mm.5kWe) is employed. the power consumption is significantly reduced when the biomass is first torrefied. Appendix 14 Effects of torrefied biomass on entrained flow gasification Several experiments were carried out in ECN to manifest the torrefied wood size reduction improvements. For example when the willow size is cut down to 0. Legend: biomass type (T (oC). the related chemical and physical change can be distinguished. Figure 1 illustrates the relation between power consumption and particle size for both fresh biomass and torrefied biomass. small proportions of biomass are being co-fired with coal in large suspension-fired furnaces. However the type of the feedstock influences the power consumption. reaction time (min)) Moisture content of fresh biomass was in the range of 10-13% on mass basis. Figure 1 Effect of torrefaction on the power consumption of biomass size reduction.6%wt. As seen in the figure. In this study fluid bed boiler combined with a steam turbine is selected due to it’s commercially availability in larger scales (at capacities ranging from 15 to 715 MWth input (Bridgwater et al. 85% power reduction can be achieved. dried and torrefied are compared. 2002).

02 kWe/kWth (van der Drift et al..5 times the capacity of untreated willow. however when torrefaction is applied the consumption decreases to 0. Another positive impact of torrefaction is that it acts as a thermal filter. the experiments indicate that the particles become smaller in the length to diameter ratio. When it concerns the particle size distribution and shape. Besides. Thus the particles become more spherical. The capacity of the mill increases in proportion to the particle size. fluidisation is not possible to achieve due to their needle shape that keeps the particles too large to meet the smooth fluidisation regime. Another positive impact of torrefaction is that it acts as a thermal filter. which abolishes the original differences existing in. When it concerns the untreated biomass.01-0. willow and torrefied willow are measured and it is concluded that a 100µm torrefied biomass can achieve fluidisation. whereas the 40% can be related to the chemical changes due to torrefaction pre-treatment. untreated biomass and yield a product with similar mechanical properties.2 mm particle size is considered the chipper capacity for torrefied willow is up to 6. When the 0.08kWe/kWth. dried and torrefied willow (Figure 3). 113 . In the same study carried out by ECN the relationship between the particle size and chipper capacity are determined for untreated. Smooth fluidisation of coal. the length of particles is reduced more compared to their diameter. Milling biomass into 100µm consumes 0. 2004). which abolishes the original differences existing in. untreated biomass and yield a product with similar mechanical properties. This is an important feature since it affects the smooth fluidisation.consumption can be related to the physical change.

2002 114 ..Appendix 15 Bio-oil production cost figures Source: Bridgwater et al.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful