Chapter 1: Biomass and Bioenergy: January 2007

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/309127353
Chapter 1: Biomass and Bioenergy
Chapter · January 2007
CITATIONS READS
0 5,761
2 authors:
James N Ness Behdad Moghtaderi

Griffith University University of Newcastle
36 PUBLICATIONS 274 CITATIONS 297 PUBLICATIONS 4,687 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Binary Mixture of Particles in Circulating Fluidised Bed (CFB), Miniature Single Fluidised Beds, and Mixing/Segregation View project
Flame Spread over Inert Porous Solids Wetted with Flammable Liquids under Conditions Pertinent to Industrial Fires View project
All content following this page was uploaded by James N Ness on 14 October 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Coal-Biomass Cofiring Handbook
Chapter 1
Biomass and
Bioenergy
1 2
by James Ness and Behdad Moghtaderi
1
Research Fellow and Lecturer, Griffith School of Engineering, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland
2
Co-Director, Priority Research Centre for Energy, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales
This chapter presents a broad overview of biomass and bioenergy, the potential
environmental, economic and sustainability benefits to be derived from using biomass
to generate electricity, and the state-of-the-art of biomass cofiring technology with a
particular focus on pulverised fuel boilers.
Contents | Chapter 1
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................... 2
1.2 Biomass and Bioenergy .............................................................. 5
1.2.1 Biomass resources ........................................................... 5
1.3 Biomass Utilisation Technologies in Australia ............................... 6
1.3.1 Electricity and heat ........................................................... 9
1.3.2 Biogas ............................................................................. 11
1.3.3 Biofuels ............................................................................ 12
1.4 An Overview of Biomass/Coal Cofiring ........................................ 14
1.4.1 Direct cofiring in pulverised fuel boilers ............................ 15
1.4.2 Indirect cofiring in pulverised fuel boils ............................. 18
1.5 Biomass and Sustainability ........................................................ 19
1.6 Drivers for Cofiring Biomass with Coal ....................................... 21
1.7 Business Case for Biomass Cofiring ........................................... 22
1.8 Summary ................................................................................... 24
1.9 References ................................................................................. 24
Appendix 1.1: Biomass energy plants in Australia ....................... 27
Appendix 1.2: Biomass energy plants in Europe ......................... 29
Appendix 1.3: Biomass energy plants in the USA ........................ 34
Appendix 1.4: Biomass cofiring projects in Japan ....................... 35
Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy 1

1.1 Introduction
Australia’s population of 21 million people is heavily dependent on fossil fuels for its primary
energy resources of which coal has been Australia’s largest energy source for many decades. Of
the 5,593 petajoules of primary energy consumed in Australia in 2004–2005, some 42% came
from coal, with the other fossil fuels, oil and natural gas, supplying 34% and 20% respectively
(Figure 1.1). Currently, Australia obtains 4.6% of its primary energy requirements from
renewable resources [wood, wood waste, bagasse (cane residue used in the sugar industry),
hydroelectricity, wind and solar]. Of these, biomass together with biogas is predominant and
holds a 74.6% share. About 4.5% of the total primary energy consumption in Australia is
from biomass and, on one projection (Bush et al. 1997; Dickson et al. 2001), this percentage
is expected to increase to 4.8% in 2019–2020. Of this projected amount, nearly 2.0% is in the
form of bagasse, and 2.8% in the form of firewood (eucalyptus and pine used for domestic
heating) and wood waste (both soft- and hard-woods such as pine and eucalyptus, respectively,
used in the wood products industries).
Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel, Australia

2004-2005, %
Figure 1.1: Primary energy consumption in Australia 2004–2005, by fuel

Source: ABARE http://www.abareconomics.com/data_services/energy.html
The largest energy-using sector is electricity generation which accounted for 31% of total
energy consumption in net energy terms, followed by transport and manufacturing, both at
about 24%. Coal – black and brown – accounted for nearly 77% of the generated electricity,
with renewable energy sources contributing 7.5% of the electricity output. Figure 1.2
shows the contribution of different fuel types to the electricity generated in Australia while
Figure 1.3 gives the breakdown for the renewable energy resources that currently contribute to
the generation of electricity (ABARE at http://www.abareconomics.com/data_services/energy.
html; ABARE Energy update 2006). Coal is expected to remain the main energy source for
electricity generation for the immediate future (Commonwealth of Australia 2004a, p. 36)
although growth in renewables and natural gas is anticipated.
2 Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

Electricity Generation in Australia, by Fuel,

2004-2005, %
Figure 1.2: Electricity generation in Australia 2004–2005, by fuel

Renewable Resource Consumption in Australia,

2004-2005, %
Figure 1.3: Renewable energy resources for electricity generation, 2004–2005

This energy consumption pattern, with its reliance on the combustion of fossil fuels, results in
Australia’s very high per capita greenhouse gas emissions level. Under the Kyoto greenhouse
gas accounting conventions, the greenhouse gas emissions were 28.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide
equivalents per Australian in 2004. The production and use of energy is the major human
activity contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. In 2004, electricity generation – the biggest
single source of energy-related emissions – contributed 34.6% of the national emissions of
greenhouse gases (Commonwealth of Australia 2004b).

Biomass has the potential to be an increasingly cost-competitive renewable energy source in

Australia and to make a valuable contribution to the overall energy supply system mainly
because of its very low cost and the fact that it is renewable. There is still considerable scope
for making better use of the existing biomass energy supplies and also for developing new
supplies. Biomass is particularly well positioned to play a major role in Australia’s effort to
reduce greenhouse emissions.
Efforts to increase the utilisation of biomass in electricity generation started in a consolidated

manner on November 20, 1997, when the Australian Government’s package of measures
designed to address climate change, including measures aimed at reducing the impact of the
energy sector on the environment, were announced in a document called Safeguarding the
Future: Australia’s Response to Climate Change (Commonwealth of Australia 1997). From
then on, a wide range of initiatives were put forth by both the federal and state governments
for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and utilising renewable energy on both the supply
and demand sides. Among these perhaps the most important initiative was the Mandatory
Renewable Energy Target (MRET) through the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 and its
Regulation (ORER 2000), which involved a mandatory target for electricity retailers and large
electricity purchasers to source an additional 9,500 GWh per annum of their electricity from
renewable energy sources by 2010 (ORER 2000). This regulation enables biomass electricity
to be cost-competitive in the electricity market.
Another important initiative originated from Safeguarding the Future: Australia’s Response
to Climate Change was the Renewable Energy Action Agenda (DITR 2002) instigated by the
Australian Government in 1999. This initiative entails renewable energy industry participants
working with government, primarily through the Department of Industry, Tourism and
Resources and the Australian Greenhouse Office, to move the renewable energy industry to
sustainable and international competitiveness with a target of annual sales of $4 billion by
2010.
One of the technology options for utilisation of biomass fuels for electricity generation is cofiring
which in general refers to the co-combustion of two different fuels. Cofiring allows generators
to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by partly substituting coal with CO2-neutral biomass
fuels. Cofiring biomass and coal in an existing pulverised coal-fired power plant is a low-cost
option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. High combustion efficiency can be achieved with
only minor or no modification to existing systems.
It must be highlighted that similar to any other type of organic fuels, biomass materials generate
CO2 emissions once their chemical structure is broken in the combustion reaction. However,
biomass is considered a CO2-neutral fuel source because the carbon dioxide generated during
its thermal conversion (i.e. combustion, gasification, etc.) is removed from the atmosphere by
growing plants through the photosynthesis process. For this reason, in the international carbon
accounting conventions, the carbon dioxide released during the combustion of biogenic carbon
fuels such as wood, wood waste, bagasse and biogas is not reported as an energy combustion
emission (AGO workbook 2006, p. 7).

1.2 Biomass and Bioenergy

Biomass is organic matter of recent origin produced directly or indirectly by living organisms.
The biomass in plant matter is produced by the process of photosynthesis in which carbon
dioxide and water from the environment are converted, using energy from sunlight, into the
carbohydrates (sugars, starches, cellulose and lignin) that constitute the plant. Animals which
feed on the plants and/or other animals are also a form of biomass, as is the organic waste
produced by these animals.
The energy in the sunlight is thus stored as chemical energy in the various forms of biomass.
Biomass may then be regarded as an energy resource which can be used to provide heat,
electricity and transport fuels for humankind and includes wood from plantation forests,
residues from forest production and the timber industry, residues from agricultural production,
vegetable oils, animal fats and organic wastes from industry, animal husbandry and human
settlements.
Biofuels are solid, liquid or gaseous fuels made from the wide range of organic materials
identified as biomass. Some biofuels such as wood and fibrous materials may be used directly
as fuel sources with little processing, whereas other biofuels are obtained indirectly from the
biomass through an appropriate conversion technology to provide the energy in a form more
convenient to deliver the required energy service. Bioenergy is the term commonly used to
refer to the chemical energy stored in biofuels.
1.2.1 Biomass resources

Australia has a large biomass resource in the form of native vegetation, forest plantations and
forestry residues, wood and wood processing wastes, agriculture crops and crop residues from
field and processing operations, herbaceous and woody energy crops, wastes arising from a range
of activities involved in animal husbandry, food processing wastes, industrial organic wastes,
vegetable oil and municipal solid wastes. Native forests and old growth forests are excluded
from consideration as biomass resources for energy production and their characteristics are not
considered further in this handbook except for wood wastes which arise from processing native
forest products and are permitted to be used as a biomass resource.
The biomass resources that are considered eligible biomass resources under the Renewable
Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (ORER 2000) are:
• Forest and forestry residues
• Wood and wood wastes
• Agricultural crop residues
• Agricultural process residues
• Energy crops
• Black liquor
• Wet waste from animal husbandry and food processing
• Municipal solid wastes.
These different biomass resources will be examined in detail in Chapter 2.

1.3 Biomass Utilisation Technologies in Australia

The conversion of biomass resources into useful energy service products can be undertaken
using a wide range of technological pathways. In Australia, various technologies for biomass
utilisation are being used or are under commercial development because of the availability of
considerable existing and potential biomass resources (see Table A1.1.1 in Appendix 1.1). In
particular, Australia has substantial experience in landfill gas, sewage gas and bagasse power
plants. Biomass utilisation projects vary in scale from simple combustion in domestic open
fires to fully commercial combined heat and power stations typically comprising complex
100 MWe thermo-chemical reactors. The technical and commercial status of biomass utilisation
technologies together with other renewable energy technologies has been summarised in the
Renewable Energy Action Agenda discussion paper (DITR 2000) and Renewable Energy
Roadmap (DITR 2002).
Biomass utilisation technologies can be classified based on either (i) the fuel conversion process
or (ii) the energy service product. The primary energy conversion processes are:
• Combustion in which the biomass is burnt in the presence of excess air to release its
energy as heat. Furnace technology options for combustion include: underfed grates,
travelling grates, pulverised fuel burners, cyclone burners, and fluidised beds.
• Gasification in which the biomass is burnt in a reduced-air atmosphere so that it is
converted into a product gas rich in carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The gasification
process can be performed in fluidised beds and fixed beds.
• Pyrolysis which is the thermal degradation of biomass fuel in the absence of oxygen.
The biomass is converted into a range of products comprising char, fuel gas and liquid
“bio-oil”. The bio-oil seems to be the attractive value-added product in this process and
the recent trend is the development of “fast pyrolysis” technology which has a higher
yield of bio-oil that can be used as a chemical feedstock or as a fuel oil in a furnace. The
fluidised bed is the preferred technology for the pyrolysis reaction.
• Biochemical processes which can also be used to convert biomass into methane or liquid
fuels such as alcohols by anaerobic digestion and fermentation processes. Because of the
complex molecular structure of some biomass materials, hydrolysis is required prior to
fermentation in those cases.
The various process routes that are available for converting biomass into useful energy forms
are illustrated in Figure 1.4. In addition to its role as an energy resource biomass is also a
chemical feedstock but that function will not be explored further in this handbook except to
note that its use as a chemical feedstock may become the major market competitor to using
biomass as an energy resource.
Based on the energy service product, biomass utilisation technologies can be classified into
those for producing:
• Heat and electricity
• Biogas
• Biofuels.

Figure 1.4: Processes for the conversion of biomass to fuels, energy and heat
Source: Tester et al. (2005)
The relevant biomass utilisation technologies classified based on the energy service product and
their applications are summarised in Table 1.1. The recent developments on these technologies
are discussed in more detail in the following subsections.

Table 1.1: Status of modern biomass utilisation technologies in Australia, 2006
Bioenergy Biomass Application

Technology Status
type used examples
Electricity and heat Cofiring biomass and All biomass Mature and fully Macquarie Generation
coal commercial (1999) and Delta
Electricity (1999)
Direct combustion Bagasse (and cane Mature and fully In sugar mills and
for cogeneration of trash); wood wastes; commercial wood processing plants
electricity and heat with black liquor (Sunshine Electricity,
conventional boiler 2002)
Direct combustion in Green wastes Mature and commercial EnviroStar (2002),
fluidised bed boiler Energy Equipment
Australia (EEA) (2003)
Biomass integrated Bagasse and cane trash Research & Sugar Research Institute
gasification combined development, (Hobson et al. 2002)
cycle demonstrating and
pre-commercial
Biogases
Landfill gas Landfill/gas recovery Municipal solid waste Established and Energy Development
(MSW) commercial Limited (EDL) (2003)
Sewage gas Digestion Sewage Mature and fully Malabar Sewage
commercial Treatment Plant, NSW
(DITR 2000)
Biogas Digestion Wet wastes and food Digestor – commercial EarthPower Technologies
wastes demonstration Sydney Pty Ltd
Syngas Gasification for Crop wastes (cotton Transition between R&D Methanex Pty Ltd 5,000
producing syngas trash and rice hull) and commercialisation t/y Syngas factory in
Darwin
Biofuels
Bio-ethanol Hydrolysis/fermentation/ Sugar, molasses, starch Established commercial Various companies, see
distillation cellulose, wood with subsidy. Ethanol Burnard (2002) for a
exempt from fuel excise complete list
to encourage production
Bio-oil Pyrolysis, gasification MSW, wood waste Established and Western Power (see
(mallee) demonstration for RIRDC 2002 report),
commercialisation SWERF (see Wootton
2002 for more details)
Bio-methanol Gasification All biomass Research & development Various organisations
and companies, see
RIRDC (2002) report for
more details
Source: Moghtaderi et al. (2006)

1.3.1 Electricity and heat

As summarised in Table 1.1, within the Australian context there are four potential technologies
for utilising biomass as fuel to generate electricity and heat (i.e. processing heat). Biomass can
be used through:
1) Direct combustion in a conventional steam boiler to cogenerate processing steam and
electricity
2) Cofiring coal and biomass in a pulverised coal-fired boiler
3) Directly combusting in a fluidised bed combustor (FBC)
4) Gasification in a gasifier to produce low calorific value gas for running a gas turbine/
generator for electricity generation. The biogases produced from biomass (see Table 1.1),
can also be burnt or cofired with other fuels in boilers or gas engines to generate further
electricity and heat. That process is described separately in the following biogas section.
Direct combustion is a commercialised technology that is widely used to generate electricity

and/or heat for processes in industries related to biomass resources, such as the sugar and wood
products industries. In these cases, the biomass resources are generally available on-site and
burned in conventional steam boilers. Bagasse has been extensively used as the main fuel to
generate electricity and heat in sugar mills of New South Wales and Queensland (Redding
Energy Management 1999). Most sugarcane mills utilise bagasse to cogenerate steam and
electricity for their own needs, but recently some plants have been expanded and upgraded
to allow the exportation of large quantities of electricity to the grid. New, relatively large
cogeneration plants have been also established recently. Examples include: cogeneration
projects of Condong Sugar Mill (30 MW) and Broadwater Sugar Mill (38 MW) in New South
Wales (Sunshine Electricity 2002; Burnard 2002) and Rocky Point Sugar mill in Queensland
(Burbidge 2000) where sugarcane (both bagasse and cane trash) is utilised as the base fuel and
other locally available biomass fuels (e.g. wastes from camphor laurel and sawmill residues)
as supplement fuels.
The Australian bagasse cogeneration industry is already quite well developed. Benefits to
the reduction of greenhouse gas and to generation of a second revenue stream for the sugar
industry imply a potentially significant role for cogeneration in the electricity market. The
MRET renewable energy measure is evolving as the primary driver for the development of
cogeneration projects in the sugar industry.
Technologies are essentially the same for other biomass fuels such as wood wastes including
bark, chips, sawdust, mill sludge, fibre and scrap timber, which are used to generate processing
steam and electricity in the timber product industry (Allsopp 2001). Australia has a great deal
of experience in designing and building such plants.
Cofiring
Cofiring biomass and coal in an existing pulverised coal-fired power plant is a low-cost option
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by partly substituting coal with CO2-neutral biomass fuels.
High combustion efficiency can be achieved with only minor or no modification to existing
systems. It has been demonstrated that up to 15% of total energy output can be substituted

from biomass fuel sources. In Australia, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (ORER
2000) is the major driver behind electricity generation companies adopting the practice of
coal/biomass cofiring.
In August 1999, Macquarie Generation’s Liddell Power Station became the first coal-fired
power station in Australia licensed to carry out cofiring for electricity production (Macquarie
Generation 1999) with the aim of generating 2% of energy through the burning of renewable
biomass. The cofiring program was then expanded to the company’s Bayswater power station.
The biomass supplied for Macquarie Generation’s cofiring program includes sawdust and
shavings from saw mills, forest thinnings, and laminate and medium-density fibreboard (MDF)
plant wastes. The 2% of energy output translates to 5% of biomass fuel by mass because of the
lower calorific value of the biomass fuel compared to Australian black coal. At full capacity,
the two stations consume about 900,000 tonnes per annum of biomass fuel.
Other electricity generators are also burning biomass fuels. For example, Delta Electricity
is cofiring biomass in its plants, aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions by up to
20,000 tonnes each year (Delta Electricity 1999). Other examples include CS Energy in
Queensland and Western Power in Western Australia. The sources of biomass fuel for these
companies include sawmill residues (a by-product of sustainable plantation operations),
construction and demolition wood wastes, as well as urban green waste (UGW). Despite
some technical difficulties, the cofiring technology appears to be fully adopted as a full-scale
commercial operation by the electricity generation sector (see Table A1.1.2 in Appendix 1.1
for a summary of Australian cofiring operations).
Further details on cofiring technology and the Australian experience are presented in
Section 1.4 of this chapter and in Chapters 4 and 5, with several case studies described in
Chapter 8.
Fluidised bed combustion

A fluidised bed combustor (FBC) utilises biomass fuels also through direct combustion. FBC
involves the combustion of waste in a fluidised bed of sandy material with high thermal inertia
but low combustion temperature. This form of combustion is highly tolerant to low heating
value wastes with variable quality, and produces much lower pollutant emissions than other
conventional forms of combustion (e.g. the low combustion temperature results in low thermal
NOx production).
Several green waste to energy projects got under way prior to 2003, using the FBC technology
of Energy Equipment Australia (EEA 2003), including those in Nowra (18 MWt) of NSW,
Bell Bay (65 MWt) of Tasmania, Kemerton (65 MWt) of Western Australia, Stapylton
(65 MWt) of Queensland and Morwell (65 MWt) of Victoria. For example, the Stapylton Green
Power Plant being constructed in Queensland by EnviroStar Energy Ltd uses bubbling FBC
technology which is fuelled by urban green wastes collected by urban councils within the greater
Brisbane region. The first stage is 5 MWe and the second stage is 20 MWe. Approximately
240,000 tonnes of UGW will be converted into 145 GWh of green power annually using FBC
and a steam turbine (EnviroStar Energy 2002). A similar plant (20 MWe) will be also built in
Morwell, La Trobe Valley, Victoria, which will be fuelled by household green wastes as well
as sawmilling residues from plantation timbers (EnviroStar Energy 2002).

Biomass integrated gasification combined cycle (BIGCC)

BIGCC is an advanced technology for utilising biomass to generate electricity, in which
biomass is gasified with air to produce syngas, which is then combusted to drive a gas turbine/
generator for the production of electricity. The residual heat of exhaust gas from the gas turbine
is also used to produce steam and run a steam turbine/generator to generate more electricity.
The combined cycle insures a very high energy efficiency. A 5 MWe BIGCC system fuelled
by bagasse and cane trash is under development for a commercial scale demonstration plant in
Queensland (Hobson et al. 2002).
1.3.2 Biogas
Biogas generation technologies include (i) biochemical technologies such as anaerobic digestion,
which breaks down organic material into methane and carbon dioxide and (ii) thermal/chemical
technologies such as pyrolysis and gasification, which converts biomass wastes into syngas
and/or other products.
Landfill gas technology

Landfill gas technology is commercialised technology in Australia for the generation of low
calorific gas from landfilled municipal solid waste (MSW). Landfill gas is generated by the
anaerobic decomposition of organic refuse deposited in landfills. It is primarily a mixture of
carbon dioxide and methane in roughly equal proportions. Small quantities of water vapour and
minor organic compounds are also present in the landfill gas. The substantial methane content
of landfill gas enables it to be utilised as a fuel for power generation. Typically, generation
of landfill gas begins within weeks of the organic MSW being deposited at a landfill site and
continues at a gradually decreasing rate for over 20 years after filling ceases.
The commercial utilisation of landfill gas as a fuel requires the gas to be extracted from landfill
sites with a reasonably consistent flow and quality. In Australia, Energy Developments Ltd
(EDL 2003) has developed a process that meets this requirement by drilling a pattern of vertical
gas production wells across the landfill area. These wells are linked by an underground piping
network to a central gas collection facility. The entire system is maintained under a vacuum,
inducing the flow of landfill gas into the collection facility, where gas processing is undertaken
to reduce moisture levels and filter out fine particles. The processed landfill gas is then used
as a fuel in either gas engine or gas turbine generator sets. The power generation facilities are
interconnected with a utility grid to enable the sale of the electricity produced.
The installed operating capacity plus plants under construction for landfill gas in Australia
was reported as 151.5 MW at 31 December 2004: 36.9 MW in Victoria, 18.1MW in Western
Australia, 11.0 MW in South Australia, 53.8 MW in New South Wales, 28.6 MW in Queensland
and 3.1 MW in the Australian Capital Territory (Australian Business Council for Sustainable
Energy 2005: 56-58). This is a progressive rise from an installed capacity of 80 MW in 1997
through 100 MW in 2000 to the current level. The installed capacity of landfill gas is expected
to steadily grow to about 250 MW by 2010 (Redding Energy Management 1999).

Anaerobic digestion
Anaerobic digestion technology is being demonstrated in Australia mainly to convert sewage
and wet wastes from agriculture and food processing into biogas. In Australia, the amount of
sewage feedstock for biogas production using the anaerobic digestion technology is relatively
small, although the electricity production from this source has potential for expansion from
its current level of 20 GWh/year to an upper limit of about 200 GWh/year. The Malabar
Sewage Treatment plant in New South Wales now generates 3 MW of electricity from
digester gas (DITR 2000). The wet wastes are potentially a larger resource. For example, over
100 MW of power for use in New South Wales can be produced from biogas generated from
wet waste sources. Projects such as Orange City Beef Biogas Plant under the Sustainable
Energy Development Authority, SEDA (Bartle 2002) have been developed to generate biogas
from wet wastes for firing boilers for cogeneration.
Gasification
Gasification technology is being demonstrated and commercialised in Australia mainly to gasify
agricultural wastes into biogas. In New South Wales, two projects are under development, one
for gasification of cotton trash and the other for gasification of rice hull to produce biogas
(Bartle 2002). One project is developed using a technology from Biomass Energy System
Technologies (BEST) (i.e. swept-drum pyrolyser and char gasifier) to convert cotton trash
into syngas, which is aimed at 200,000 t/year cotton trash mostly in New South Wales. The
first stage of the project is to replace liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the ginning season
(8,500 tonnes, 2,200 h/yr) and the second stage is to develop a 2.5 MW cogeneration system
together with cotton trash collection and storage (25,000 tonnes, 8,000 h/yr). In another project,
the same gasification technology is applied for utilising 300,000 t/year of NSW rice hull to
generate syngas. Gasification technology is quite well established and current operations do not
face any safety-related challenges.
1.3.3 Biofuels
In Australia, generating biofuels (bio-oil, bio-diesel, bio-ethanol and bio-methanol) from
biomass, particularly from planted wood, is claimed to offer several advantages on a broad
national scale. These include (ABA 1999; RIRDC 2002):
• Environmental benefits (reduced greenhouse emissions, reduced vehicle exhaust
emissions, improved urban air quality, salinity abatement, improved soil stability and
fertility and weed control)
• Economic benefits (related to the opportunities to provide viable economic alternatives
to existing agricultural/forestry industries)
• Regional benefits (the majority of biomass resources are located in rural and regional
Australia and their development could be expected to provide a major economic,
employment and social stimulus to these areas).
Therefore, biofuels have been attracting attention from both government and industry. Several
research and development (R&D) and demonstration projects have been conducted recently in
Australia.

Ethanol (CH3CH2OH)
Bio-ethanol, a renewable fuel, is known as an “oxygenate” because it contains 37% oxygen
by weight (Klass 1998). Oxygen enhances the combustion of petrol in engines, and therefore
contributes to reductions in exhaust emissions such as carbon monoxide. Ethanol is currently
the most widely used biofuel in the transport sector in Australia (38% of the ethanol production
in 2000 was used as transport fuel, while 30% and 28% were used as a chemical in industry and
for export, respectively) (Naughten 2001).
Sugarcane and wheat are food crops. Their use for ethanol production is limited by their costs
as human and animal feeds, and it is typically the by-products of the manufacture of food-
grade products that are used for ethanol production. Therefore, the cost of ethanol from these
materials is higher, mostly because of the cost of the feedstock. Biomass, in the form of wood
and agricultural residues, is viewed as a low cost alternative feed to sugar and starch. However,
only part of the biomass (cellulose and hemicellulose) can be converted into sugars for use
in the fermentation process. Nevertheless, because it is potentially available in far greater
quantities than sugar and starch feeds, this form of biomass receives significant attention as
a feed material for ethanol production. Technical and economic research related to ethanol
production from wood plantation materials (Foran & Mardon 1999; RIRDC 2002) has been
carried out in Australia.
Bio-diesel
Bio-diesel is the name for a variety of ester-based oxygenated fuels made from vegetable oils
or animal fats (Klass 1998). Vegetable and animal oils and fats, like soybean, rapeseed/canola,
recovered vegetable and animal fats, can be used to produce bio-diesel. Bio-diesel is the only
alternative fuel that can be used directly in any existing, unmodified diesel engine. Because
it has similar properties to petroleum diesel fuel, bio-diesel can be blended in any ratio with
petroleum diesel fuel. Bio-diesel has many advantages as a transport fuel. For example,
bio-diesel can be produced from domestically grown oilseed plants such as canola. Producing
bio-diesel from domestic crops reduces Australia’s dependence on foreign petroleum, increases
agricultural revenue and creates jobs.
The production of bio-diesel is well known and is carried out using a series of catalytic reactions.
There are a small number of outlets providing bio-diesel currently in Australia. There are also
quite a number of companies around Australia in the planning stages or nearing completion
of their bio-diesel production facilities (BAA 2003). A bio-diesel pilot plant, using acid
esterification, glycerine recovery technologies to generate up to 10 ML/year was developed
under the administration of SEDA (Burnard 2002).

Bio-oil
Bio-oil refers to the oils, including benzene and toluene derived from biomass either directly
by pyrolysis or indirectly by separating/processing tar compounds formed during biomass
gasification. In Australia, bio-oil technology is undergoing commercialisation. For example,
Energy Developments Ltd (EDL) has been demonstrating a technology called ‘Solid Waste to
Energy and Recycling Facility’ (SWERF®) (Wooton 2002), which integrates waste to energy
and recycling processes and uses advanced thermal conversion to convert waste into useful
energy forms including electricity and bio-oil. The waste material used is mainly MSW and
also includes waste biomass and commercial and industrial waste.
1.4 An Overview of Biomass/Coal Cofiring

Biomass cofiring is currently being done and can be implemented with a range of options
for combustion and gasification technology. The pyrolysis technology option is less well
developed at the commercial level. In this respect, Stucley et al. (2004, p. 101) note “it must
also be remembered that, worldwide, only one company (Ensyn) currently operates commercial
pyrolysis plants”. In the EUROPA (2002, p. 50) report it is considered that pyrolysis may be
more appropriate for biomass or waste combustion alone in waste to energy systems rather than
for cofiring biomass with coal.
Cofiring biomass fuels with coal in pulverised coal-fired furnaces can be carried out using three
technology options:
1) Direct firing of the biomass with the coal
2) Indirect firing of the biomass fuel
3) Firing the biomass fuel in a separate boiler but using the steam in the existing generating
plant.
These three options are described in more detail in the following subsections. It will be seen that
the direct cofiring option involves the least need for additional plant and therefore investment,
but the indirect cofiring and parallel firing options have advantages such as the possibility of
using relatively difficult biomass fuels with high alkali and chlorine contents and the separation
of ashes. Further, the last two options give more control over combustion of the biomass with
reduced risks to operation of the main coal-fired plant.
The tables in Appendices 1–4 of this chapter summarise the Australian and international
experience with biomass energy plants and biomass-coal cofiring operations.

1.4.1 Direct cofiring in pulverised fuel boilers
With direct cofiring, the biomass is fed directly into the coal-burning boiler (Figure 1.5). This
can be achieved by one of four basic options, which depend on where the biofuel is blended
with the main fuel and how it is introduced into the boiler. These options may be described
as:
1) Co-pulverising
2) Separate pulverising, common injection
3) Separate pulverising, separate combustion
4) Biofuel for reburn.
Figure 1.5: Routes available for direct cofiring

Source: Meijer (2004)

Co-pulverising
The biomass is mixed with the coal before the coal feeders. The mixed fuel is processed
through the coal mills and distributed to all the coal burners. This is the simplest option and
can be expected to involve the lowest capital cost. It does, however, involve the highest risk to
the normal operations of the coal-fired boiler. Experience indicates that this technique is likely
to be applicable only at low biomass/coal fuel ratios. The recommended limits vary among
authors, with some experience with sawdust reported at biomass/coal ratio as high as 20% on
a mass basis. Nevertheless, it would appear prudent to work with less than 10% biofuel in the
feed blend if co-pulverising is to be used.
Examples of direct cofiring using co-pulverising of biofuel and coal feed are:
i) Trial burning tests at Swanbank A reported by Spero (2000) using pre-processed urban
garden waste with coal
ii) Amager Power Plant Unit 3, Denmark where straw pellets were mixed with coal prior to
co-grinding in the mills. The power plant has a capacity of 250 MWe (EUROPA 2002)
iii) Georgia Power’s Hamond Unit in the USA where trial burning of wood-waste with coal
found that the mill’s power requirements were raised by about 10–15% when wood fuel
was added to the coal
iv) Delta Electricity Power Stations at Vales Point, Wallerawang and Mt Piper
v) Macquarie Generation’s Liddel Power Plant
vi) British trials and commercial operations at large power plants where pre-blending the
biomass with the coal at low cofiring ratios and processing the blended fuel through the
existing coal handling and firing system is practised (Livingston 2004).
Separate pulverising with common injection

In this case a completely separate handling, metering and milling plant is required for the
biomass. After the pulverisation step the biomass is injected into the pulverised fuel pipe-work
before or at the burners. This option requires more equipment than the simple co-pulverising
process. Van Loo and Koppejan (2002, p. 173) also suggest that it might be “more difficult
to control and to maintain the burner operating characteristics over the normal boiler load
curve”.
This technique is used at the Studstrup Power Plant, Denmark. In that plant, pulverised straw
is cofired with coal. Four (out of 12) burners were converted to handle the pulverised straw.
In these modified burners, the straw is fired down the burner core air tube and the coal is
introduced through the primary air annulus. It is possible to cofire the straw at up to 20% of the
total furnace heat input at full boiler load (van Loo & Koppejan 2002, p. 176).
Miura (2004) discusses pilot plant trials in Japan, which included trials on coaxial burners in
which the prepared woody biomass was injected in the core of the burner and the pulverised
coal was injected through the annulus. Davis et al. (2002) also report on this type of duel-fuel
burner arrangement for cofiring sawdust with coal in which the sawdust was injected through
the centre injector while the coal was injected through an annular region surrounding the centre
injector.

Separate pulverising with separate combustion

This approach uses a separate biofuel handling and pulverising system with the prepared
biofuel then injected into the boiler through a number of dedicated burners. This will require a
higher capital investment than either options (1) or (2) but it is a lower risk option with respect
to normal boiler operation.
The use of a separate wood handling, processing and combustion system was used at the
Gelderland Power Station, the Netherlands. The wood-firing capacity is around 3–4% of the
coal input, on a heat input basis. This plant reported considerable initial problems with the
wood handling and preparation system, but no negative impacts on the operation of the boiler
(van Loo & Koppejan 2002, p. 176).
The Plant Kraft Station of Savannah Electric, USA cofired wood (sawdust) and coal with the
coal being fired in one row of burners and the wood being fired in a separate row. The tests at
that plant demonstrated that high percentages of wood could be cofired in this type of pulverised
coal boiler, using a separate dedicated wood feeding system.
The USA research reported by Harding and Tillman (2004) stated that using separate burners for
biomass and coal was the preferred option when retrofitting a PF coal-fired utility for biomass
cofiring. Separate biomass burners were reported by Japanese researchers (Miura 2004; Miura
et al. 2004) to give better performance than coaxial burners (dual-fuel burners) with respect to
emissions reduction in pilot scale tests.
However, Savolainen et al. (2003) advocate the use of dual-fuel burners (coal/biomass burners)
for cofiring biomass with coal. Separately pre-treated biomass is injected through some of
the coal burners as well as the coal. They state that the coal flame then supports the biomass
flame, which is required for proper burnout of the wet biomass. The dual burner has, they
claim, operational advantages over pre-blending the coal and biomass for direct firing in the
coal burners or the use of separate burners for each fuel type. Dixon et al. (2003) discuss swirl
burners for the combustion of bagasse in a raw sugar mill. In their paper, they describe the use
of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling to improve understanding of the advanced
swirl burners being developed with the intention of replacing the current sugar mill boiler
technology that uses pneumatic fuel spreaders. CFD modelling was also used by Savolainen et
al. (2003) to aid in the development of their dual-fuel burners.
Davis et al. (2002) also discuss the use of CFD for providing a better understanding of the
complex combustion process. They describe two biomass injection schemes they studied: (1) a
simple annulus: a blend of sawdust and coal was milled and injected into the furnace through a
simple annulus; and (2) a coaxial injection: the sawdust was injected through the centre injector
while coal was injected through the annular region surrounding the centre injector.
A variation on this method of cofiring is the power plant at St Andra, Austria where the biomass
(with minimum pre-processing) is fired on a travelling grate installed directly under the furnace
of the pulverised coal boiler. Around 3% of the total heat input to the boiler was provided by
the biofuel in this case.

Use of biofuel as a reburn fuel

Van Loo and Koppejan (2002, p. 173) note the possibility of using biofuel as a reburn fuel for
NOx control by burning the biofuel in a purpose-designed reburn system in the upper furnace.
They imply that some test-work has been done on this type of process but it is something for
future development. No detailed case studies of this methodology were found in the literature
although the use of gas from the gasification process (see next section) has been used as a
reburn fuel at one plant, the BIOCOCOMB project at Zeltweg Power Plant, Austria (van Loo &
Koppejan 2002). EUROPA (2002, p. 53) note that, in the USA, projects on advanced biomass
reburning aimed at greater than 90% NOx removal have been funded through the Energy and
Environmental Research Center and the Federal Energy Technology Center.
1.4.2 Indirect cofiring in pulverised fuel boilers

Indirect cofiring involves the gasification of the biomass in a separate plant and the product gas
is then fed into the boiler furnace. Indirect combustion is, then, an option in those cases when
a solid biomass fuel is to be cofired in a PF boiler, natural gas boiler or a gas turbine. Quite
a few demonstration plants using gasification technology have been tested in Europe and the
USA. Van Loo and Koppejan (2002, p. 180) claim that “on the scale of operation relevant to
most utility boiler cofiring projects, the preferred approach is based on air-blown, atmospheric
pressure, circulating bed gasification” of prepared wood chips. Both bubbling and circulating
fluidised bed processes for biomass gasification have been used and there are a number of
commercial suppliers for these types of plants. Process plants use fluidised bed technology for
combined heat and power (CHP) and in energy from waste projects where the technology is
suitable for handling a wide variety of wastes as fuels as noted previously in Section 1.3.1.
The Zeltweg Power Plant in Austria was the first gasification plant of this type to come online.
Summarising the experience at that plant, there is no need to pre-dry or grind up the biomass
feedstock which is fed into a separate air-blown circulating fluidised bed (CFB) gasifier. Here it
is partially gasified and broken up by the effects of attrition and heat. The product gas generated,
including fine char particles, is fed to the pulverised coal boiler where it is burned.
A key issue with indirect cofiring of the fuel gas from the gasifier is the treatment of the gas
prior to combustion in the PF furnace. The product gas from the gasification process is a fuel
of low calorific value, wet, hot and contains tars, other condensable organic substances and
biomass ash materials. This gas can be burned as is, at relatively low cost but with some risk to
the operation of the boiler and its availability.
Alternatively the gas can be cooled and cleaned by heat exchangers, filters and scrubbers to
improve the quality of the gas prior to its combustion in the pulverised coal boiler furnace.
While this is achieved at some cost, it does reduce the risks to the operation and availability of
the main boiler. This process is the one used at the Amer Power Plant in Geertruidenberg, the
Netherlands (van Loo & Koppejan 2002, p. 183).

The EUROPA (2002, p. 46) report states “There is substantial interest throughout the world
in the development of coal-based gasification plant for utility-scale power generation. The
potential advantages of gasification plant are higher efficiencies and significantly lower
environmental impact than conventional coal-fired plant. These advanced clean coal systems
fall predominantly into two categories, namely ‘integrated gasification combined cycle’ (IGCC)
and ‘topping cycles’.” It is also noted in that report (p. 47) that tests were conducted on three
different gasification technologies (fluidised beds, fixed beds and entrained flow) in Europe
in the early 1990s for the cogasification of waste materials with coal and concluded that the
feasibility of cofiring coal in mixtures with various biomass and waste-derived fuels had been
established and there was considerable potential for cofiring blends in the various gasification
technologies.
1.5 Biomass and Sustainability

Biomass is a renewable energy resource, is widely distributed in its various forms and offers
the potential for a sustainable energy resource if managed correctly. The sustainability of the
biomass resource depends on how rapidly the biomass is regenerated relative to its rate of
consumption in meeting energy and other demands placed on the resource.
The use of waste materials such as agricultural and municipal wastes as biofuels contributes
to sustainability development since this use offers an alternative to disposal in landfills. The
value of the biofuel as an energy resource will offset to some extent the relatively high costs of
collection often ascribed to the handling of these waste materials.
When biomass is cofired with coal in an existing coal-fired installation, the biomass offers a
number of benefits. The use of biomass can significantly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions
per unit of electricity sent out. It can lead to reductions in the emissions of the oxides of sulfur
and nitrogen, and it can assist with the disposal of solid waste by avoidance of landfilling and
the associated costs. The biomass fuel itself may be available as a lower-cost fuel compared
to coal. However, all potential benefits are site-specific and cost savings, in particular, need
to be evaluated carefully as the costs of biomass feedstock can vary over a wide range, and
transportation and handling costs can make even zero cost wastes expensive at the power
station gate.
Other reasons for using biomass as a fuel source include: a diversified primary fuel mix, reduced
dependence on imported fuel resources and security of fuel supplies.
However, the energy density of biomass is low when compared to coal and other fossil fuels.
Even when dry, biomass has a heating value much less than a black coal and is somewhat
closer to a brown coal. The moisture content of biomass can be high and thus the biomass may
require drying before combustion otherwise efficiencies of the energy conversion processes
will be low. Drying is an energy-intensive process and from a sustainability viewpoint is best
done using the natural drying process from the wind and sun. However, this may not be feasible
when the biomass is being used at high rates of consumption or in wet, humid climates.

Using biomass as an energy resource competes with other uses of the biomass or with alternate
uses of the land, water and other inputs used to produce the biomass. This is particularly
evident in agricultural systems where biomass for energy production competes with biomass
for food, fibre and timber products or grasses for cattle and sheep raising. Intensive cropping
of biomass for fuel will add additional demand on the water resources of a region, will impact
on biodiversity and deplete soil nutrients. Biomass resources in the form of processed garden
wastes, agricultural residues and woodchip have established markets in the horticultural
industry and for use on home gardens or in public parks and gardens.
The energy use associated with the harvesting and transportation of biomass will be significant.
This is exacerbated by the fact that biomass has a low energy density on a mass and volume
basis when compared to fossil fuels and the biomass resource itself may be distributed over a
wide area. Efficient collection and transport operations are necessary to minimise energy use
and associated environmental impacts as well as costs in acquiring the biomass resource.
In relation to sustainability considerations, the potential benefits of cofiring biomass with coal
in existing or new pulverised coal fired boilers include (Baxter 2004; Baxter and Koppejan
2005; Stucley et al. 2004; van Loo & Koppejan 2002):
• Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by displacing part of the fossil fuel with a
carbon-neutral biofuel
• Potential reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen
• Reduction in the quantity of a waste material that would otherwise be going to landfill
• Recovery of energy from a waste material
• Access to a fuel that may be available at a lower cost than coal
• Lower levels of toxic trace elements in a fuel compared to coal
• Growing energy crops can contribute to the control of salinity and have a positive impact
on water quality
• Energy crops may also increase biodiversity
• Energy crops and biomass processing can assist regional economic development through
job creation and market opportunities
• Potential co-products from biomass energy systems include resins, other biofuels,
activated carbon and fertilisers.
Challenges that arise with cofiring biomass with coal would include:
• Storing and processing the biofuel
• Ensuring a reliable supply of biomass that meets desired quality specifications
• Minimising reductions in boiler efficiency due to higher moisture levels of biomass
• Possibility of increased corrosion of and deposition on heat transfer surfaces
• Reducing levels of emissions of local pollutants
• Handling, storing and using ash that results from the combustion of the commingled
fuels
• Competing uses for the biomass.
The most comprehensive methodology that can be used to determine the environmental impacts
from an energy system is a life cycle assessment (LCA) which is a systematic procedure to

identify, evaluate and ultimately reduce the environmental impacts from a specific process.
Material and energy balances are used to compile an inventory of all emissions, resource
depletion and energy consumption for all processes from raw material extraction through
to final waste disposal or recycling that are associated with the process being assessed. The
inventory results may then be processed into a number of categories, each with an indicator
that measures the impact of the system on human health and the environment. Procedures and
guidelines for conducting an LCA are given in the ISO 14040 series of standards and have been
applied in several Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development (CCSD)
reports (see, for example, Cottrell et al. 2003a; Cottrell et al. 2003b). Several studies that used
the LCA framework to investigate biomass cofiring with coal have been reported (Mann &
Spath 2001; Cottrell et al. 2003a).
Mann and Spath (2001) concluded that both lifecycle and direct plant emissions are reduced
when cofiring biomass produced exclusively for energy use compared with 100% coal-based
electricity generation. Reductions in emissions of the following local pollutants were identified:
CO, particulates, SO2 and NOx. They further reported that at blending rates of 5% and 15% by
heat input, cofiring reduces greenhouse gas emissions on a CO2-equivalent basis by 5.4% and
18.2%, respectively.
In an analysis of the circulating fluidised bed combustion process for power generation using
coal, coal-biomass blends or biomass as the fuel, Cottrell et al. (2003a) concluded that with
biomass there was a significant reduction in all emissions considered but especially greenhouse
gases, particulates and ash. However, with the use of purpose-grown crops to supply the
biomass, there was a significant increase in freshwater consumption and a slight increase in
energy consumption, which results from the lower thermal efficiency of the power plant with
biomass and the consumption of fuel in the forest management and transportation of biomass.
The environmental impacts of cofiring biomass with coal are analysed in more detail in
Chapter 6 of this handbook.
1.6 Drivers for Cofiring Biomass with Coal

The reduction in the carbon dioxide intensity of the electricity supply, as noted above, is a
significant driver for the adoption of cofiring greenhouse gas neutral biomass with coal in
conventional coal-fired power plants. The application of technologies that improve the
environmental performance of an industry and an individual generator will have benefits in
terms of public perception and corporate image. Significant reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions from the stationary energy sector would assist the country in achieving its Kyoto
target.
However, commercial returns are also required to make the technology attractive in the
business world. The Australian Government’s Mandatory Renewable Energy Target policy and
the renewable energy certificates created under that scheme were the key commercial drivers
for the uptake of biomass cofiring in Australia. The operation of the MRET scheme and the
calculation of renewable energy certificates are addressed in detail in Chapter 7.

1.7 Business Case for Biomass Cofiring

The costs of bioenergy from various technologies compared with the price of energy generated
from fossil fuels are summarised in Table 1.2. As noted in the table, bioenergy is more expensive
than conventional energy. However, because great environmental contributions can be made
by biomass utilisation (e.g. CO2 and dryland salinity reductions), a considerable decrease
in bioenergy price can be achieved, should appropriate tax incentives become set in place
(RIRDC 2002). The social benefits – for example contributions to the regional economy and to
employment – are also important but are difficult to estimate. After considering the benefits of
greenhouse abatement and on-farm salinity reduction, biomass electricity is cost-competitive
with conventional electricity (RIRDC 2002). Government promotion and community awareness
have also led to bio-ethanol being considered an acceptable transportation fuel in the Australian
market.
Issues that need to be addressed in developing a business case for cofiring include:
• Availability of biomass; types and distances
• Quality and price of biomass feedstock versus coal
• Competing non-energy uses of the biomass
• Long-term contracts
• Space available for biomass delivery, storage and reclamation
• Environmental regulations including air quality and ash disposal
• Staffing and operators
• Occupational health and safety concerns
• Insurance
• Green power
• Corporate image.

Table 1.2: Cost of bioenergy technologies compared to other renewable energy technologies and fossil
fuels – current and expected trends
Energy source Technology Cost ($/MWh)a Expected trend Comment

Coal Coal-fired steam 30–40 Stable
Gas 35–60 Small decrease
Wind Wind turbine/generator 75–90 Decrease 15–30 by 2010 Site (wind resource)
Wind remote area power 150–400 variation is the reason for
supply (RAPS) the range in costs
Hydro Hydro turbine/generator 40–100 Increase (attractive sites Cost is very site-specific
are used)
Micro hydro RAPS 70–250 Remain constant
Fuel wood Boiler 70–110 Cost assumes biomass is
Pyrolysis furnace 0.45–0.85 per litre provided at a cost of
$20–50/tonne
Bagasse Boiler (cogeneration) 50–60 Decrease expected with Embedded generator
Gasification 30–100b efficient increase network cost savings
Various wastes Boiler (cogeneration) 80–200b Decrease 25% by 2010
Gasifier/gas engine
Sugar, starch cellulose Hydrolysis/fermentation 0.28–0.69/litre of ethanol Competitive with oil by Worldwide cost has
/distillation 2010 decreased 50% over past
10 years
Wet waste Biogas digestion/ 30–200 Increase beyond 2005 Economics depend on
Gas engine negative cost of fuel and
value of by-products
Landfill gas Gas engine 50–99 No change to 2010 Most of resource
Sewage gas recoverable at $65/MWh
aUnit is Australian $/MWh except where another unit is specified bEstimated cost once technically viable
Source: Redding Energy Management 1999
High costs have been associated with the collection and transportation of forestry and,
in particular, agricultural residues. Seasonal and regional variations occur with residue
availability and quality. The lack of established infrastructure for collecting, transporting
and brokering forest and crop residues represents a significant barrier to the development of
functioning markets for these biomass fuels. Dedicated energy crops would overcome some of
these barriers and contribute to the development of the needed infrastructure and markets. The
effects of drought and seasonal variations in crop yields must be factored into the risk analysis
of reliability of biomass supply.
Biomass procurement is then potentially a complex and costly undertaking and can therefore
be a significant barrier to building a business case for a cofiring project. Generally, wood
waste and urban green wastes would be the least expensive biomass resources available. These
would be followed by, in terms of increasing costs, sawmill residues, forest residues, animal
husbandry wastes, agricultural residues and energy crops. The costs of acquisition may by offset
by avoided landfill costs for some biomass materials, but costs of collection (or production and
harvesting in the case of energy crops) and processing into a form suitable for cofiring may be
substantial. Given the relatively low cost of coal as an energy sources in Australia, the cost of
biomass fuels on an energy basis will often exceed the cost of coal. Nevertheless, in view of the
high variability with available biomass types and costs, and supply infrastructure, the analyses
will be very site-specific.
Chapter 7 in this handbook addresses the commercial considerations within the Australian
context in detail.

1.8 Summary
Australia has an extensive biomass resource and a wide selection of technology pathways is
available for converting the chemical energy in the biomass into useful energy services. Cofiring
suitably prepared biomass with coal in existing pulverised coal-fired power plant is a low-cost
option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation and to earn renewable
energy certificates. However, biomass procurement may be a complex and costly undertaking
presenting a significant challenge to the development of a business case for a cofiring project.
Examples of coal-fired power plants in Australia and other countries that use or have trialled
biomass cofiring have been presented in this chapter.
1.9 References
Allsopp, BA 2001, Timber by-products as biomass fuels: Materials handling issues,
<http://www.ghd.com.au/papers/>.
Australian Biofuels Association (ABA) 1999, Multi-benefits of a national biofuel industry, policy paper from the
Australian Biofuels Association, <http://www.australianbiofuelsassociation.org.au/>.
Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) 2007, Energy economics data and annual
updates, <http://www.abare.gov.au/>.
Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy 2005, Waste to energy: A guide for local authorities,
<http://www.bcse.org.au/docs/Publications_Reports/WasteTo Energy Report.pdf>.
Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) 2006, The AGO factors and methods workbook 2006, published by the
Australian Greenhouse Office, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of
Australia, http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/workbook/index.html.
Bartle, J 2002, Achieving sustainability through bioenergy, Bioenergy Australia, 2002 Conference, Sydney, NSW.
Baxter, L 2004, Biomass cofiring overview, 2nd World Biomass Conference, Workshop 4: The status of biomass/
coal cofiring, Organised by IEA BioenergyTask 32: Biomass Combustion and Cofiring, Rome, 14 May
2004, <www.ieabcc.nl>.
Baxter, L & Koppejan, J 2005, Biomass-coal co-combustion: opportunity for affordable renewable energy, Fuel,
84(10), 1295–1302.
Biodiesel Association of Australia (BAA) 2003, Biodiesel facts, Biodiesel Association of Australia, Homebush
South, <http://www.biodiesel.org.au/>.
Burbidge, D 2000, Renewable energy boosts rural Queensland, Proceedings of Solar 2000 from Fossils to
Protons, CD-ROM, (D. Mills, ed.), Australian and New Zealand Solar Society Conference, Brisbane,
November 29 – December 1.
Burnard, A 2002, Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA), New bioenergy developments in New South
Wales, Australian Bioenergy Conference 2002, Manly, NSW, 2–3 December.
Bush, S, Harris, J & Ho Trieu, L 1997, Energy 1997 projections: Australian energy consumption and production,
ABARE Research Report 97.2, Canberra.
Commonwealth of Australia 1997, Safeguarding the future: Australia’s response to climate change, Statement by
the Prime Minister of Australia, <http://www.ecobusiness.com.au/grn/green.html>.
Commonwealth of Australia 2004a, Energy white paper, <http://www.energywhitepaper.gov.au/>.
Commonwealth of Australia 2004b, National greenhouse gas inventory,
<http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/inventory/2004/index.html>.

Cottrell, A, Nunn, J, Urfer, A & Wibberley, L 2003a, Systems assessment of electricity generation using biomass
and coal in CFBC, Technology Assessment Report 24, Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in
Sustainable Development (CCSD), QCAT, Technology Transfer Centre, Pullenvale, Queensland.
Cottrell, A, Nunn, J, Urfer, A, Wibberley, L, Scaire, P & Palfreyman, D 2003b, Systems assessment of future
electricity generation options for Australia, Technology Assessment Report 32, Cooperative Research
Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development (CCSD), QCAT, Technology Transfer Centre, Pullenvale,
Queensland.
Davis, K, Shim, H-S, Lignell D, Denison, M & Felix, L 2002, Evaluation of wood cofiring injection strategies
using CFD simulations: Pilot- and full-scale results, <http://www.reaction-eng.com/downloads/
clearwater_davis_2002.pdf>.
Delta Electricity 1999, <http://www.del.com.au/>.
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR) 2000, Renewable energy action agenda, June,
<http://www.industry.gov.au/>
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR) 2002, Renewable energy roadmap, October,
<http://www.industry.gov.au>.
Dickson, A, Thorpe, S, Harman, J, Donaldson, K & Tedesco, L 2001, Australian energy outlook to 2019-2020,
Australian Institute of Energy, National Conference Energy 2001 – Exploring Australia’s energy future,
Sydney, 22–33 November.
Dixon, TF, Mann, AP, Plaza, F & Gilfillan WN 2003, Development of advanced technology for biomass
combustion: CFD as an essential tool, International Symposium on Utilisation of Coal and Biomass,
ISUCB-03, Newcastle, Australia, 28–29 August.
Energy Development Ltd (EDL) 2003, <http://www.edl.com.au/>.
Energy Equipment Australia (EEA) 2003, <http://www.energyequipment.com.au/>.
EnviroStar Energy Ltd 2002, <http://www.envirostar.com.au/projects/>.
EUROPA 2002, Opportunities and markets for co-utilisation of biomass and waste with fossil fuels for power
generation, prepared by CRE Group Ltd for European Commission, available as final_report_version_
4_with_pi.pdf at <http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/res/sectors/bioenergy_publications_en.htm>.
Foran, B & Mardon, C 1999, Beyond 2025: Transition to the bio-alcohol economy using ethanol and methanol,
Report to National Dryland Salinity Program of the Land and Water Resources Research and
Development Corporation, December.
Harding, NS & Tillman, DA 2004, US biomass cofiring experience, presentation to workshop on Near-term
Options to reduce CO2 emissions from the Electric Power Generation Sector in APEC Economies,
organised by the Expert Group on Clean Fossils Energy (EGCFE) Energy Working Group, Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), 16 February, Conrad Jupiters Convention Centre, Gold Coast,
Australia.
Hobson, PA, Dixon, TF, Wheeler, C & Lindsay, N, 2002, Development of bagasse gasification technology for
increased cogeneration in the Australian sugar industry, ISSCT Engineering workshop, Berlin,
October 2002.
Klass, DL 1998, Biomass for renewable energy, fuels and chemicals, Academic Press, San Diego, USA,
ISBN: 0124109500.
Livingston, WR 2004, The current status of biomass cofiring at coal-fired power stations in Britain, presentation
to 2nd World Biomass Conference, Workshop 4: The status of biomass/coal cofiring, organised by IEA
BioenergyTask 32: Biomass Combustion and Cofiring, Rome, 14 May.
Macquarie Generation 1999, <http://www.macgen.com.au/>.
Mann, MK and Spath, PL 2001, A life cycle assessment of biomass cofiring in a coal-fired power plant, Clean
Products and Processes, 3(2), 81–91; also see NREL Report No. 29457.
Meijer, R 2004, Biomass cofiring: Status in the Netherlands, presentation to 2nd World Biomass Conference,
Workshop 4: The status of biomass/coal cofiring, organised by IEA BioenergyTask 32: Biomass
Combustion and Cofiring, Rome, 14 May.

Miura, R, 2004, R&D for coal and woody biomass cofiring technology in Japan, presentation to 2nd
World Biomass Conference, Workshop 4: The status of biomass/coal cofiring, Organised by IEA
BioenergyTask 32: Biomass Combustion and Cofiring, Rome, 14 May.
Miura, R, Takahiro N, Hirata, M, Takahashi, Y, Otani, Y, Yuasa, H, Kiyono T,Tajima, M & Ueda, S 2004,
Research and development for coal and woody biomass cofiring technology in Japan, paper prepared in
conjunction with presentation by Miura (2004).
Moghtaderi, B, Sheng, C & Wall, T 2006, An overview of the Australian biomass resources and utilisation
technologies, BioResources, 1(1), 93–115.
Naughten, D 2001, Viability of sugar cane based fuel ethanol, ABARE Report to the Department of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries, Canberra, Australia, October.
Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator (ORER) 2000, Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act, No.170, 2000,
<http://www.orer.gov.au/>.
Redding Energy Management, in association with Energy and Environmental Management Group 1999, 2%
renewables target in power supplies potential for Australian capacity to expand to meet the target,
report submitted to the Australian Greenhouse Office, available at <http://www.greenhouse.gov.
au/markets/mret/redding.html>.
Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation (RIRDC) 2002, Wood for alcohol fuels, status of
technology and cost/benefit analysis of farm forestry for bioenergy, RIRDC Publication 02/141, RIRDC,
Barton, ACT, November 2002.
Savolainen, K, Nyberg, K & Dernjatin, P 2003, Cofiring biomass in the pulverised fuel boilers, Bioenergy 203,
International Nordic Bioenergy Conference, 2–5 October, 286–289.
Schuck, S. 2004, Task 32 Presentation – Australia, presentation to 2nd World Biomass Conference, Workshop
4: The status of biomass/coal cofiring, Organised by IEA BioenergyTask 32: Biomass Combustion and
Cofiring, Rome, 14 May.
Spero, C 2000, Study on cofiring of biomass with coal at Swanbank A Power Station: Stage I – Characterisation
of biomass and pilot-scale testing, CS Energy Ltd, Brisbane.
Stucley, CR, Schuck, SM, Sims, REH, Larsen, PL, Turvey, ND & Marino, BE 2004, Biomass energy production
in Australia: Status, costs and opportunities for major technologies, RIRDC Publication 04/031, Project
N0 EPL-1A, RIRDC, Barton, ACT.
Sunshine Electricity 2002, Broadwater biomass cogeneration proposal, environmental impact statement, prepared
for the NSW Sugar Milling Cooperative Limited, February 2002.
Tester, JW, Drake, EM, Driscoll, MJ, Golay, MW & Peters, WA 2005, Sustainable energy: Choosing among
options, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
van Loo, S & Koppejan J (eds) 2002, Biomass combustion and cofiring handbook, Twente University press,
Enschede, the Netherlands.
Wiltsee, G 2000, Lessons learned from existing biomass power plants, NREL report, NREL/SR-570-26946,
February, US Department of Energy, <http://ww.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/26946.pdf>.
Wootton, P 2002, Development of SWERF® technology, Bioenergy Australia 2002 Conference, Sydney, NSW,
2–3 December.

Appendix 1.1: Biomass energy plants in Australia
Table A1.1.1: Summary of biomass energy plants in Australia
Installed
No. Name State Energy source Technology Owner Comments
capacity
1 Stapylton QLD Green wastes from green Fluidised bed combustion 500 kW Green Pacific Energy A 5MW proof of concept is being
clippings to tree trimmings Ltd constructed. Approval to build another
20MWs. Was expected to be online by
March 2004.
2 Mount Gambier SA Wood waste – radiata pine Cogeneration 3500 kW Carter Holt Harvey Commissioned 1968; operating
residues
3 Narrogin WA Wood from coppicing of Fluidised bed for 1000 MW steam Western Power/Oil Integrated wood processing demonstration
mallees, local plantations carbonising plant (wood turbine Mallee Co/ Enecon plant, using biomass feed rate of 20,000
converted to charcoal), Pty Ltd tonnes per year and produces electricity
distillation then gasification (7.5 GWh), activated carbon (690 t) and
of leaf, cogeneration eucalyptus oil (210 t). Under construction.
4 Muja power station WA Wood waste Steam turbine, wood waste 5000 kW (Assumed Western Power Blends wood waste into the coal feed
blended with coal feed 5 MWs of renewable Corporation
energy generated)
5 Mount Piper power NSW Wood waste Steam turbine, wood waste 5000 kW (Assumed Delta Electricity Blends wood waste into the coal feed
station blended with coal feed 5 MWs of renewable
energy generated)
6 Liddel power station NSW Sawmill waste blended with Steam turbine, wood waste 5000 kW (Assumed Macquarie Generation Cofiring of sawmill waste; up to 5%
coal feed blended with coal feed 5 MWs of renewable biomass blended with coal
energy generated
from wood waste)
7 Bayswater power NSW Wood waste, blended into Steam turbine, wood waste 5000 kW (Assumed Macquarie Generation Operating
station coal feed blended with coal feed 5 MWs of renewable
energy generated
from the wood waste)
8 Vales Point B power NSW Wood waste, blended into Steam turbine, wood waste 5000 kW (Assumed Delta Electricity Operating
energy generated
9 Wallerawang C power NSW Wood waste, blended into Steam turbine, wood waste 5000 kW (Assumed Delta Electricity Operating
energy generated
Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

10 Tumut power station NSW Wood waste Cogeneration, pulp and 17,000 kW Visy Operating
27
paper mill power plant
Table A1.1.1: Summary of biomass energy plants in Australia (continued...)
28
Installed
No. Name State Energy source Technology Owner Comments
capacity
11 Maryvale power VIC Black liquor from pulp and Steam cogeneration, pulp 24,000 kW Australian Paper Pulp and paper mill (3x12MW and
station paper process and paper mill power plant 1x18.5MW). Australian Paper has 2 x black
liquor recovery boilers (renewable fuel type
about 50%). Operating
12 Gympie Power Station QLD Macadamia nut shells Steam turbine 1,500 kW Ergon Energy 5,000 tpa of macadamia nut shells will be
burned in a $2M 6MW high pressure steam

boiler and a 1500kW steam turbine at
Suncoast Gold Macadamias

13 Upper Chittering WA Food and agricultural wet Reciprocating engine, 10 kW Rufftuff Commissioned 2001; operating
power station waste gasification
Table A1.1.2: Overview of cofiring biomass with coal in Australia

Name Owner Installed capacity Biofuel Current status Burner technology Fuel feed
Vales Point Delta Electricity 2 x 660 MWe pulverised Less than 5% by weight of Cofiring commercially Tangentially fired Via coal pulverising mills
fuel units wood waste via conveyor
Wallerawang Delta Electricity 2 x 500 MWe pulverised Less than 5% by weight of Cofiring commercially Tangentially fired Via coal pulverising mills
Mt Piper Delta Electricity 2 x 660 MWe pulverised Less than 5% by weight of Cofiring commercially Wall-fired Via coal pulverising mills
Liddel Macquarie Generation 4 x 500 MWe pulverised Less than 5% by weight of Cofiring commercially Tangentially fired Via coal pulverising mills
Plants conducting trials
Swanbank B CS Energy 4 x 125 MWe pulverised Wood waste Trial only NA Via coal pulverising mills
fuel units via conveyor
Muja Western power 2 x 200 and Wood waste Trial only NA Via coal pulverising mills
2 x 227 MWe pulverised via conveyor
fuel units
Tarong Tarong Energy 2 x 350 MWe pulverised Wood waste Trial only NA Via coal pulverising mills
Stanwell Stanwell Corporation 4 x 350 MWe pulverised Wood waste Trial only NA Via coal pulverising mills
Source: Schuck (2004)
Appendix 1.2: Biomass energy plants in Europe
Table A1.2.1: Summary of 21 biomass energy plants in Europe
Installed
No. Name Country Energy source Technology Owner Comments
capacity
1 Rauhalahti CHP Plant Finland Peat, wood (sawdust, bark, Bubbling fluidised bed Main boiler Fortum Heat & Problems with dust and peat powder
cutter dust, chips) and coal, (BFB) 295 MWth, (87 MWe, Power, City of in fuel handling; fluidised bed boiler
(oil sometimes); 80 MWth). Jyvaskyla performs well; biomass sourced from over
biomass to 30% Steam: 110 kg/s, 50 suppliers
13.5 MPa, 533OC
2 Termoutiliszatore, Italy Biomass 20% (olive CHP, Multifuel biomass 102 MWth (district ASM Brescia SPA Biomas fuel price is based on energy
Brescia residues, wine residues, boiler on stoker grate, heating), 45 MWe (public utility) content, will pay transport costs only on
poultry rejects, wood and supplied by ANSALDO_ (electrical output) low energy (< 7 MJ/kg) biofuels; fees
wood residues, bark, pulp, MARTIN_ABB consortium charged on difficult to handle biofuels
sawdust, straw); Main fuels:
MSW, industrial waste,
sewage sludge (dried);
Start-up and supplementary
fuel: natural gas
3 Stora Enso Fors Ltd Sweden Biofuels (wood chips, Circulating fluidised bed Boiler capacity: Stora Enso Ltd Stora Enso Fors is a cardboard mill. There
sawdust, bark, sludge), (CFB); biofuel and coal 55 MWth, 9.6 MWe (Swedish/Finnish are four boilers in the paper mill, one of
paperboard rejects, paper have separate fuel feeding electrical output. company) which is the CFB using biofuel and coal.
and “non-polluting” systems. Coal is screened Steam: 20 kg/s, Wear on screws and silos transporting the
plastics, coal and oil; (< 15 mm); Biofuel is 6 MPa, 475OC. biofuel is significant.
Biofuel now the main fuel processed to 1–50 mm.
4 Kraftwerk Schwandorf Germany Brown coal with waste Pulverised fuel boiler 509 MWe till April Bayernwerk Middle load power station.
wood; have done tests on 1999; now 300 MWe Konventionelle Did some testing in 1996 with straw and
cofiring straw pellets, grass Warmekraftwerke other wastes; smaller units shut down in
and cereals with brown (BKW) – public 1999. Wood is wet (around 20% moisture)
coal, now cofire waste utility during loading to suppress dust. Wood is
wood at about cut to a few centimetres before delivery
9–12% and ground with coal at plant. Cofiring
at 10% biomass degraded the boiler
efficiency about 0.3 to 0.5%.
5 UPM Kymmene Paper Finland Main fuels are bark, Combined fluidised bed (a 104 MWth plus UPM Print PC could be used in the combined coal/oil
Mill Kaipola sawdust and effluent sludge BFB)and pulverised coal 26 MWe. (UPM-Kymmene) burners but to date it has been added to
with peat as the support fired boiler Steam at 40 kg/s, the biofuel feed lines after crushing. Most
fuel. Coal and oil are used 11.5 MPa, 530OC significant maintenance repairs have been
as reserves. Forest residue the replacement of blowers due to bearing
chips now being used as damages and replacement of steam

well. pipes in lower boiler zone. Wear on chain
conveyors in boiler feed is a problem.
29
Table A1.2.1: Summary of 21 biomass energy plants in Europe (continued...)
30
Installed
capacity
6 ENA Kraft, Enkoping Sweden Main fuel: wood (original CHP, vibrating grate boiler 55 MWth, electrical There are a number of boilers at the
design); now burns biofuels: output 23 MWe. plant. This description is based on the
bark, sawdust, residues Steam: 27 kg/s, main CHP boiler. Forestry biofuels come
from logging operations and 10 MPa, 540OC from within 70 km of plant. Delivery by
salix (short rotation coppice) trucks. Too much salix (>15%?) causes
problems with fouling and high K and
Na.
7 Assens Fjernvarme Denmark Wood: whole tree chips, CHP plant, grate furnace, Electrical: 4.7 MWe Assens Fjernvarme Feed system blends different wood
chipped logs, clean smaller particles burn in Heating: 10.3 MWth. A.m.b.a. cooperative fuel types before the feed hoppers.

industrial wood waste suspension. Grate is water Steam: 7.7 MPa, Better mixing of fuel might be needed
chipped, wet and dry cooled and vibrates. 525OC to give more consistent output steam
sawdust. Oil is used for conditions.
start-up (about 10 minutes)
8 Heizkraftwerk Germany Main fuel: coal (32 MJ/kg, CHP plant, travelling grate Electrical: 80 MWe Stadtwerke Wurzburg Coal size: 8–20 mm.
Wursburg < 1%S). Biofuel: untreated boiler Heating: 180 MWth AG (municipal utility) Wood chips: 10–50 mm.
wood chips (15 MJ/kg) to Transport distance for wood chips about
25% max (by mass) 30 km. Coal and wood chips are mixed
in desired proportions by “balance” belt
conveyors and fed into the coal funnel to
feed the boiler chutes.
9 AssiDoman Frovi Sweden Bark, sawdust, logging BFB-boiler (plant also has BFB boiler: 100 MWth AssiDoman Steam: 42 kg/s, 6.3 MPa, 480OC.
residues, wood waste and another boiler – “recovery” on biofuels, Overall experience of BFB was good.
slurry from paper and pulp boiler) at 850OC 135 MWth when About 2–3 tonnes of sand is removed
production. Oil is support oil is added. and replaced each day in the BFB.
fuel. Electrical output is
25 MWe (both boilers
supply steam to the
turbine)
10 CIPRO demonstration Italy Range of biomass fuels Grate burner, (not 0.75 MWth ENEA Research Small experimental plant rated at 2.3t/h
plant tested: wood, wood integrated into boiler) Centre fuel use (at NCV of 13.8 MJ/kg)
residues, logging residues,
bark, sawdust, straw, rice
husks, cocoa beans husk,
hazel nuts, fruit stones.
Support and start-up fuel:
oil
Installed
capacity
11 Grena Denmark Coal and straw at 50% CFB (fluidised sand bed) Electrical output: A/S Midtkraft Straw delivered by truck in form of
Fraftvarmevaerk straw on an energy basis. boiler for a CHP plant. 18.6 MWe. Thermal bales. It is shredded and then conveyed
Other biofuels used are Fuels are fed in separately, output 60 MWth pneumatically into the boiler. Coal is
wood pellets, residues from all mixing occurs in the (includes district delivered by trucks and milled to about
sunflower production and fluidised bed. Designed to heating of max 8 mm before feeding into boiler, either
other agricultural residues. operate on coal alone or up 35 MWth.) at inlets in bottom of boiler or through
Light oil is used for start-up to 60% straw. Combustion Boiler steam: rotary valves into ash recirculation
of the CFB. camber temperature is 9.2 MPa, 505OC system.
820–830OC.
12 Linkoping Sweden Boiler 1:Coal and rubber CHP plant. Three boilers: Wood fuelled boiler: Tekniska Verken New gas cleaning and scrubbing
waste (tyres and others). one burning coal, one 65 MWth and steam group equipment were needed for burning
Boiler 2: Biofuels (wood burning oil and one for at 23 kg/s, 5.9 MPa rubber and biofuels. Fewer problems
waste, bark) wood fuels and a small and 475OC. with biofuels compared to coal/rubber
Boiler 3: oil used for electric boiler. Boilers Total capacity mixes. Some extra corrosion in
top-load and reserve. have been converted from 240 MW and 77 MWe superheaters attributed to chlorine in
original oil burners. Biofuel wood.
boiler now uses a travelling
grate.
13 Mortagua Portugal Wood wastes: mainly Water cooled vibrating 30 MWth SEFLPR SA (operator) Boiler designed to burn fuel of low
forest residues, pine bark. grate, to be changed to a EDP – electricity utility heating value (13.3 MJ/kg) and 30%
Natural gas for start-up and partial step-grate. (owner) moisture at 8.7 t/h.
support.
14 Knivsta, Uppsala Sweden Various wood fuels 15 MW boiler uses mainly Two biofuelled boilers Uppsala Energi Ltd A small district heating plant for a town
Energi (bark, sawdust, recycled bark on a travelling gate. at 15 MW and 8 MW group of about 8,000 people. Nails in crushed
crushed pallets). Oil as a 8 MW boiler cofires dry heat output pallets caused a lot of problems, mainly
supplementary fuel. sawmill residues, crushed blocked holes in grid. Problem with
pallets (recycled wood) on supplier, discontinued use of crushed
a fixed grate. pallets.
15 Cacia Pulp Mill Portugal Fuel oil: black liquor from Biofuel boiler: rotatory Biofuel boiler: 125 t/h Portucel Industrial The biofuel boiler used 78% biomass
plant. grate, four fuel oil burners of steam at 6.4 MPa and 32% oil (by mass) in 1998; 71% and
Biofuels: eucalyptus bark, burning biomass/oil 29% in 1999.
sawdust, wood chips, olive and 105 t/h on
bagasse and almond shells biomass alone.
– from own operations or
purchased
16 St Andra Austria Main fuel: coal. Moving grate installed in 124 MWe total plant. Verbund Biomass replaces about 3% of coal
Biofuel: bark, with some PCC boiler (actually two 10 MWth biomass input. Bark has to be shredded before

chopped wood and moving grates, one from combustion grate. feeding into boiler; maximum length is
shredded forest residues each side) 300 mm.
31
32
Installed
capacity
17 Forssa CHP Plant Finland Wood-derived fuels: BFB designed for wood Fuel power, 66 MW, Vapo Oy Energy Plant built to supply district heat
sawdust, bark, chips. fuels. Bed temperature is electric power to town of Frossa. No support fuel
“Recovered fuels”: peat 800–850oC. 17.2 MWe, district necessary. Corrosion problems
heating 48 MW. observed in superheater pipes (due to
Steam: 22.8 kg/s, Cl in logging residues, maybe?).
6.1 MPa, 510oC
18 Maabjerg Denmark MSW, straw, wood chips. CHP plant; three boilers, Biomass fuel to boiler: Vestkraft A/S (utility In operation since 1993; biomass
Natural gas for superheater two for waste and one for 36 MWth. company) system extended in 1996
combined combustion of Natural gas for

straw and wood chips. superheater: 6 MWth.
Water-tube steam boiler Steam data: 6.5 MPa,
with a water-cooled 520OC, 53t/h
vibrating grate.
19 Kymijarvi –Lahden Finland Main boiler: coal, Atmospheric CFB gasifier; Steam boiler: 350 MW Lahti Energia Oy Plant to provide heat and power for
Lampovoima Oy supplemented with natural at about 850OC. Direct on coal/oil/gas. Lahti area; can also be used as a
gas. gasification of wet Electric capacity: peaking power station for electricity.
Biomass: wood resides, biofuels followed by use of 185 MWe. The gasifier replaces 15% of the fossil
refuse derived fuels (plastic, product gas in the existing District heating: fuel and reduces SO2, NOx and CO2
paper, cardboard, wood), pulverised coal-fired boiler. 250 MWth. emissions. Can handle feed of high
chipped railway sleepers Two specially designed The gasifier replaces moisture (up to 60%). With wet biofuel
and shredded tyres. gas burners are located 15% of the fossil fuel. the NCV is only about 2.2 MJ/kg.
beneath the main coal Stability of main boiler is excellent.
burners.
20 Zeltweg Austria Main boiler: pulverised coal. Atmospheric CFB gasifier; 137 MWe. Thermal Verbund Gasifier is nearly 20 m away from
Gasifier fuel: bark, sawdust, gas is then burned directly capacity of CFB is the boiler. About 3% of coal usage is
wood chips and shavings. as additional fuel in the about 10 MWth. Total replaced by the gasifier. Power plant
pulverised coal boiler. boiler output is around is nearly 40 years old is used for peak
Partial gasification is 344 MWth load electricity.
sufficient.
21 IPO WOOD Kiuruvesi Finland Bark and sawdust Small scale electric power 8 MWth: electric Iisalmen Sahat Oy (a Newest plant commissioned in 1999
(50–65% moisture) and and heat generating (CHP) power 0.9 MWe, private sawmill)
wood chips (40–55% plant burning biomass fuels district heat power
moisture) on a rotating underfeed 7 MWth.
grate Steam data: 350OC,
2.5 MPa
CHP = combined heat and power BFB = bubbling fluidised bed

CFB = circulating fluidised bed MSW = municipal solid waste
Source: EUBIONET Reports of 21 Cofiring Plants 2001, available at <http://www.vtt.fi/virtual/afbnet/d17.html>
Table A1.2.2: The current situation at large central coal-fired power plants in Britain
Station Capacity (MWe) Generator Status Biomass fuels
Aberthaw 1,455 Innogy Trial Wood
Cockenzie 1,200 Scottish Power Trial Wood
Cottam 2,000 EdF Trial Wood
Didcot 2,100 Innogy Trial Wood
Drax 4,000 Drax Power Commercial Various
Eggborough 1,960 British Energy Trial Various
Ferrybridge 2,035 AEP Commercial Various
Fiddlers Ferry 1,955 AEP Commercial Various
Ironbridge 970 Powergen Trial Wood
Kingsnorth 2,034 Powergen Trial Cereal residues
Longannet 2,400 Scottish Power Commercial Sewage sludge
Ratcliffe 2,010 Powergen Trial Various
Rugeley 1,000 International Power Trial Various
Tilbury 1,085 Innogy Trial Wood
West Burton 1,980 EdF No activity -
Source: Livingston (2004)

33
34
Appendix 1.3: Biomass energy plants in the USA
Table A1.3.1: Summary of biomass plants in the USA
Plant parameters
Plant Date online Fuels Boiler(s) Pressure Temperature
Rate (t/h) MWe
(MPa) (oC)
Bay Front December 1979 Mill, TDF, coal 2 modified coal stokers 127.0 30
Kettle Falls December 1983 Mill 1 travelling grate stoker 188.2 10.3 510 46
McNeil June 1984 Forest, mill, urban 1 travelling grate stoker 217.7 8.8 510 50

Shasta December 1987 Mill, forest, ag 3 travelling grate stokers 231.3 6.2 485 49.9
El Nido (closed) October 1988 Ag, forest, mill 1 bubbling FBC 59.0 4.5 399 10
Madera (closed) July 1989 Ag, forest, mill 1 bubbling FBC 117.9 5.9 454 25
Stratton November 1989 Mill, forest 1 travelling grate stoker 181.4 10.2 513 45
Chowchilla II (closed) February 1990 Ag, forest, mill 1 bubbling FBC 59.0 4.5 399 10
Tracy December 1990 Ag, urban 1 water-cooled vib grate 18.5
Tacoma (cofiring) August 1991 Wood, RDF, coal 2 bubbling FBCs 2.8 399 12
Colmac February 1992 Urban, ag, coke 2 CFB boilers 210.5 8.7 496 49
Grayling August 1992 Mill, forest 1 travelling grate stoker 149.7 8.8 510 36.17
Williams Lake (Canada) April 1993 Mill 1 water-cooled vib grate 254.8 10.9 510 60
Multitrade June 1994 Mill 3 fixed grate stokers 329.3 10.3 510 79.5
Ridge August 1994 Urban, tyres, LFG 1 travelling grate stoker 156.5 10.3 527 40
Greenidge (cofiring) October 1994 Manufacturing 1 tangentially-fired PC boiler 301.6 10.1 541 10.8*
Camas (cogen) December 1995 Mill 1 water-cooled vib grate 99.8 4.1 399 38 - 48
Nohomish (cogen) August 1996 Mill, urban 1 sloping grate 197.3 5.7 454 43
Okeelanta (cogen) January 1997 Bagasse, urban 3 water-cooled vib grate 598.7 10.5 513 74
Lahti (cofiring, cogen) Finland January 1998 Urban, RDF 1 CFB gasifier + PC 450.0 17.2 540 25**
* 108 total net MW, 10% from wood and 90% from coal FBC = bubbling fluidised bed combustor RDF = refuse-derived fuel
** 167 total net MW, 15% from biofuels and 85% from coal CFB = circulating fluidised bed boiler TDF = tyre-derived fuel
“mill” = mill waste, “ag” agricultural waste, “urban” urban waste and so on LFG = landfill gas PC = pulverised coal
Source: Wiltsee (2000)
Appendix 1.4: Biomass cofiring projects in Japan
Table A1.4.1: Biomass cofiring projects in Japan
Company Boiler Biomass Firing system Cofiring ratio* Feed system Mill for biomass Status
Chugoku Electric Hammer mill, cutter

Pilot scale Green wood, bamboo 5–10% Separate injection Pilot scale tests
Power Co Inc. mill
250 MW Saijyo
Shikoku Electric Co-pulverising with
pulverised coal (PC) Bark Wall firing 1% Ball mill Demonstration
Power Co. Inc. coal
boiler
1,000 MW Matsuura Co-pulverising with

J-Power Sewage sludge Wall firing 1% Roller mill Demonstration
PC boiler coal
Construction and
Co-pulverising with
J-Power Pilot scale demolition, green 5% Roller mill Pilot scale tests
coal
wood, bamboo
20 MW Ube No. 2 PC Construction and

Ube Industries Ltd Tangential firing 10% Separate injection Roller mill Demonstration
boiler demolition
* Cofiring ratio is the percentage of heat input from biomass fuel

35
View publication stats

Chapter 1: Biomass and Bioenergy: January 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1: Biomass and Bioenergy: January 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Chapter 1: Biomass and Bioenergy

Chapter · January 2007

James N Ness Behdad Moghtaderi

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy 1

Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel, Australia

Figure 1.1: Primary energy consumption in Australia 2004–2005, by fuel

2 Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

Electricity Generation in Australia, by Fuel,

Figure 1.2: Electricity generation in Australia 2004–2005, by fuel

Renewable Resource Consumption in Australia,

Figure 1.3: Renewable energy resources for electricity generation, 2004–2005

Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy 3

Biomass has the potential to be an increasingly cost-competitive renewable energy source in

Efforts to increase the utilisation of biomass in electricity generation started in a consolidated

4 Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

1.2 Biomass and Bioenergy

1.2.1 Biomass resources

Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy 5

1.3 Biomass Utilisation Technologies in Australia

6 Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy 7

Table 1.1: Status of modern biomass utilisation technologies in Australia, 2006

Bioenergy Biomass Application

8 Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

1.3.1 Electricity and heat

Direct combustion is a commercialised technology that is widely used to generate electricity

Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy 9

Fluidised bed combustion

10 Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

Biomass integrated gasification combined cycle (BIGCC)

Landfill gas technology

Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy 11

12 Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy 13

1.4 An Overview of Biomass/Coal Cofiring

14 Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

1.4.1 Direct cofiring in pulverised fuel boilers

Figure 1.5: Routes available for direct cofiring

Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy 15

Separate pulverising with common injection

16 Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

Separate pulverising with separate combustion

Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy 17

Use of biofuel as a reburn fuel

1.4.2 Indirect cofiring in pulverised fuel boilers

18 Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

1.5 Biomass and Sustainability

Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy 19

20 Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

1.6 Drivers for Cofiring Biomass with Coal

Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy 21

1.7 Business Case for Biomass Cofiring

22 Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

Energy source Technology Cost ($/MWh)a Expected trend Comment

Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy 23

24 Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy 25

26 Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

Chapter 1 | Biomass and Bioenergy

burned in a $2M 6MW high pressure steam