Energy 196 (2020) 117129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Development in biomass preparation for suspension firing towards

higher biomass shares and better boiler performance and fuel
rangeability
Chungen Yin
Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, DK-9220 Aalborg East Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Suspension-firing enjoys the great popularity in biomass-fired heat and power generation. Since it has
Received 10 December 2019 the strictest requirement on fuel quality and particle size, cares must be taken in biomass handling. This
Received in revised form paper reviews, combined with concrete cases, the development in biomass preparation methods for
5 February 2020
suspension-firing: the processes and their impacts on critical issues in biomass suspension-firing. The
Accepted 9 February 2020
first-generation preparation method, based on raw biomass, was successfully used for biomass sus-
Available online 10 February 2020
pension co-firing at low shares and nowadays is mainly used for other combustion technologies, due to
the large particles it produces. The second-generation method, based on biopellets, is commonly used in
Keywords:
Suspension-firing
existing suspension-firing plants. It can reduce biomass particle size to 85% < 1 mm (maximum 3 mm),
Biomass ensuring good ignition and particle burnout. 100% biomass suspension-firing is mainly for high-quality
Milling biomass and often uses additives to mitigate corrosion. To improve fuel rangeability, the third-
Burnout generation method will be prevailing. It includes extra thermal pre-treatment for increasing the en-
Ash usability ergy density and grindability of the feedstock. Suspension-firing trials of torrefied biopellets are per-
Deposition and corrosion formed at several power plants. It is too costly in the present energy market and can be promoted by a
future regulatory condition change in favor of alternative solid fuel sources.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The depletion of fossil fuels, environmental pollution and global
warming make it imperative to substantially increase the use of
renewable energy sources. As the 4th largest global primary energy
carrier following coal, oil and natural gas, biomass is the most
abundant renewable energy source. Biomass for energy continues
to be the main source of renewable energy in the EU with a share of
60% [1]. Among all the biomass conversion technologies, direct
firing of biomass for combined heat and power generation is the
most common [1] and also a sustainable and cost-effective route to
turn biomass into energy [2]. The pressing EU energy and climate
targets set in 2018, i.e., a new EU binding renewable energy target
for 2030 of 32% [3] and a strategy for a climate neutral Europe by
2050 [4], will further spur the interest in widespread use of
renewable energy sources. Direct firing of biomass for heat and
power generation is expected to continue to increase substantially
across the EU.
E-mail address: chy@et.aau.dk.
To date, biomass firing has been applied in more than 240 power
plants globally. Biomass-fired heat and power generation involves
activities throughout its entire value chain from biomass handling
and storage, to biomass-firing system, and to ash and flue gas
treatment, each of which imposes various scientific and techno-
logical challenges, as shown in Fig. 1.
Due to annual or seasonal fluctuations in biomass supply and
great diversities in biomass properties, appropriate biomass
handling to meet the requirement of the combustion system and
safe storage to buffer the fuel supply is crucial for large-scale
biomass deployment. Biomass is subject to intrinsic self-heating,
caused by exothermic microbial reactions and chemical oxidation
processes, which may lead to spontaneous ignition [5]. There have
been serious fire incidents due to stored biomass at power plants in
recent years, including those in Esbjerg (Denmark) in 1998, Kris-
tinehamn (Sweden) in 2007, Hallingdal (Norway) in 2010 [6], and
Tilbury (UK) in 2012 [7].
Among all biomass-firing systems, suspension-firing enjoys the
popularity, which is used in approximately 50% of the biomass-
fired power plants worldwide. Compared to other firing technolo-
gies, suspension-firing is characterized by high combustion

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117129
0360-5442/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 C. Yin / Energy 196 (2020) 117129
Fig. 1. The value chain and key challenges of biomass-fired heat and power generation.
temperatures, intensive mixing and very short residence time of
fuel particles in furnaces. As a result, suspension-firing has the
highest requirement on fuel quality (e.g., high calorific value, low
ash and moisture content) and fuel particle fineness. However, solid
biomass fuels often have relatively low calorific value and high ash
and moisture content and are non-friable, which can induce
various operation problems in pulverized fuel-fired plants, e.g.,
corrosion and ash utilization [8] and deposition [9]. It is not
economical to mill the fibrous biomass to the similar size or shape
as pulverized coal particles [10]. Consequently, suspension-firing of
biomass needs to face some challenges with respect to, e.g., particle
sizes, particle burnout, deposition and corrosion. To date, the ma-
jority of biomass suspension combustion plants are mainly
restricted to co-firing high-quality biomass [11].
Among different groups of biomass, the mean ash yields in-
crease in the following order: Wood and woody
biomass < Herbaceous and agricultural biomass < Contaminated
biomass and industrial biomass wastes < Aquatic biomass < Animal
and human biomass wastes [12]. Wood and straw not only have the
least ash content, but also have favorably high ash melting tem-
peratures comparable to sub-bituminous coal and lignite that are
often fired in suspension-firing units. The mean ash initial defor-
mation temperature (DT), hemispherical temperature (HT) and
flow temperature (FT) of the relevant biomass groups and coals are
[13]:

DT: Bituminous coal (1251  C) > Sub-bituminous coal (1218
 C) > Wood and woody biomass (1192  C) > Lignite (1147
 C) > Herbaceous and agricultural biomass (979  C).

HT: Bituminous coal (1404  C) > Wood and woody biomass
(1380  C) > Sub-bituminous coal (1365  C) > Lignite (1261
 C) > Herbaceous and agricultural biomass (1241  C).

FT: Bituminous coal (1423  C) > Wood and woody biomass
(1407  C) > Sub-bituminous coal (1389  C) > Lignite (1286
 C) > Herbaceous and agricultural biomass (1285  C).
The higher the ash melting temperatures, the less severe the
ash-induced operation problems will be. Because of the low ash
content and high ash melting temperatures, wood and woody
biomass and some herbaceous and agricultural biomass have a
good potential of becoming the feedstock of suspension-firing
boilers if they can be properly handled or prepared.
With the development in biomass feedstock handling and ash-
related problems mitigation, suspension-firing of biomass has
recently advanced from co-firing to 100% biomass dust-firing in
utility boilers. For example, Drax power plant, which is the largest
power plant in the UK and consists of six 600 MW pulverized coal-
fired units, has successfully converted four of its six units to 100%
biomass firing, starting in 2013 and through August 2018 [14]. The
company plans to convert its remaining two coal units to gas tur-
bine units before Britain’s 2025 coal phase-out. The largest power
plant in Denmark, Avedøre power plant, has also successfully
replaced coal with 100% biomass. Avedøre power plant has two
units. Unit 1 was successfully converted from coal-firing to wood-
firing in 2015. Unit 2, consisting of an 800 MWth ultra-
supercritical tower boiler, a 108 MWth straw-fired grate boiler
and two gas turbines, is also able to produce heat and power using
100% biomass nowadays [15].
This paper presents a state-of-the-art review of the develop-
ment in biomass preparation methods that have witnessed suc-
cessful applications in power plants. Their impacts on some critical
issues in suspension-firing, such as fuel particle size, particle
burnout, ash usability, deposition and corrosion, are elaborated in
combination with concrete cases. These issues will become
increasingly critical when the biomass shares in suspension co-
firing increase towards 100%. In order to facilitate suspension-
firing of 100% biomass and accommodate biomass of various
qualities, more efforts on biomass handling and preparation are
needed, for which promising preparation methods are also briefly
discussed.
 C. Yin / Energy 196 (2020) 117129
2. Biomass preparation for suspension-firing
Biomass requires much more cares in handling/preparation and
storage than coal does. For example, the fuel must be milled down
to a certain size for suspension-firing, which is a challenging task
for fibrous biomass material. Biomass must be kept dry all time: the
pellets need to be scrapped if they become wet. The dust created
during biomass preparation can be explosive. This paper mainly
focuses on biomass preparation for particle size reduction as well as
some relevant critical issues.
2.1. First-generation preparation method
In the first-generation preparation method, it is the raw biomass
that is delivered to a power plant. Then the raw biomass is handled
before being transported to the furnaces for combustion. When
used for suspension-firing, this method is mainly for co-firing of
biomass at low shares.
2.1.1. Preparation process and the resulting particle size distribution
The raw biomass received by the power plants passes through a
handling system as sketched in Fig. 2(a) [16]. Then the milled fuel
particles are pneumatically transported to furnaces for combustion.
Such a preparation process was successfully applied in some
suspension-firing power plants, e.g., suspension-firing of straw
with natural gas in Funen power plant [16] and suspension-firing of
straw with coal in Studstrup power plant in Denmark [17].
For suspension co-firing of straw, the large straw bales, ca.
500 kg each, are first shredded automatically in a shredder to
obtain a continuous flow of straw, which then passes through a
hammer mill after stones and the likes are separated. In the
hammer mill (with a usual screen or mesh size of 50 mm), the straw
is crushed and fragmented by the rotating hammers on the rotor, as
shown in Fig. 2(b) [18]. To analyze the particle size distribution, the
milled sample is taken at a location just above the air lock, where
the sample is considered representative of the straw particles
injected into the furnace due to the good mixing between different
particles. A 1.2 kg sample was used to experimentally characterize
the particle size and shape distribution of the straw milled and fired
in the boilers. Due to the anisotropy of the particles as shown in
Fig. 3, the traditional sieving analysis is found inapplicable to this
type of particles. Therefore, the 1.2 kg sample was analyzed
manually: sorting the individual particles piece by piece, measuring
their dimensions, then putting them into the corresponding size
and shape groups, and finally weighing each group. The measured
particle size distribution of the sample is given in Table 1, which can
be directly used in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation
Fig. 2. Preparation process of raw biomass for suspension-firing in utility boilers.
3
as done in Ref. [19].
The particles out of such a preparation process are much larger
than those usually fired in pulverized fuel boilers. Even though
biomass fuels often contain higher volatiles and less char and are
more reactive than coals, so large particles may not be able to flow
and mix with the gas and burn out within short residence times in a
furnace. The use of this biomass preparation method for suspension
co-firing biomass in utility boilers and the pros and cons are pre-
sented and discussed below.
2.1.2. Application in suspension co-firing biomass with natural gas
To co-fire wheat straw with natural gas in the 675 MWth natural
gas-fired boiler (unit 3 at Funen power plant), a straw preparation
plant as sketched in Fig. 2 was built with a capacity of 5 t/h, cor-
responding to 3% of the energy input at the full load. The boiler, as
shown in Fig. 4(a), has 18 gas burners arranged at three levels on
the two side walls, respectively. Three of them were converted into
gas/straw co-firing by removing the oil lance and flame scanner and
clearing the center core for pneumatic transport of the pulverized
straw particles, as shown in Fig. 4(b) [19]. Only one of the three
converted burners, which are marked by the dashed circles in
Fig. 4(a), could co-fire straw at a time.
After the retrofit in May 2001, a 2-month demonstration of
straw and natural gas co-firing was initiated. Straw feeding through
the modified burners was tried at all the three burner levels with
the aim to find the most effective way in terms of burnout and
deposit formation. The co-firing tests started with the co-fired
burner at the top level, then the middle and finally the bottom
level. The main conclusions from the demonstration include: (i) co-
firing straw and natural gas is not the most efficient way to utilize
straw for electricity production, primarily due to the high flue gas
temperatures at the furnace exit in natural gas-fired units and the
low melting temperatures of straw ash, which can induce severe
deposition and corrosion problems. (ii) The large straw particles
prepared by the process in Fig. 2 can cause severe problems in
suspension-firing, e.g., uneven fuel distribution in the furnace and
unstable combustion, and high unburned char or even unburned
straw particles in the bottom ash. (iii) Introducing the straw at the
lowest burner level, combined with high flue gas recycling intro-
duced to the boiler below the bottom burners, was found to be
optimum, e.g., no glowing straw particles in the convective section,
reduced deposition and corrosion, and minimized unburned straw
in the bottom ash. (iv) Decreasing the screen/mesh size in the
hammer mill from the default 50 mme30 mm lowered the mill
capacity whereas did not improve the combustion characteristics
[20].
4 C. Yin / Energy 196 (2020) 117129

Fig. 3. Wheat straw particles prepared for suspension co-firing by the process sketched in Fig. 2.

Table 1
The measured size distributions of the milled straw particles (screen/mesh size 50 mm in hammer mill).

Shape group Straw with nodes: 10.9 wt% Straw with heads: 4.2 wt% Regular straw pieces (no node/head): 84.9 wt%

Particle group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Mean length, mm 130 90 70 50 33 19 9 100 70 50 33 20 11 60 45 30 20 15 4.5 2.3 1.3 0.3
Mass fraction, % 0.4 0.5 1.2 2.6 3.3 2.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.7 1.6 4.0 19.9 23 16 12 4.3 2.5 1.6
Diameter, mm 4.8 4.1 4.7 5 4.3 3.7 3.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2 2 1.7 1.5 1.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1
Thickness Solid cylinders (approximated) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05

Fig. 4. Suspension co-firing straw with natural gas in the 675 MWth natural gas-fired boiler at Funen power plant, in which the three co-fired burners are marked by the dashed
circles.

2.1.3. Application in suspension co-firing biomass with coal
Comparatively, co-firing straw with coal is a more efficient way
to produce electricity from straw. The silicon (Si) and aluminum
(Al) in coal fly ash, as well as the sulfur (S) in coal, can bind the alkali
from the straw and thus mitigate deposit formation and corrosion.
Suspension co-firing straw and coal has been commercialized in
utility boilers worldwide. In Denmark, there have been quite some
co-firing campaigns, as reviewed in Ref. [21]. For example, at
Studstrup power plant, both unit 1 and units 3/4 were converted
into straw/coal co-firing, using the straw preparation system as
sketched in Fig. 2.
Unit 1, built in 1968, is a two-pass 150 MWe pulverized coal
boiler, with 12 conventional axial swirl burners on the rear furnace
wall at three levels. On this unit, a unique two-year (from January
 C. Yin / Energy 196 (2020) 117129
1996 to February 1998) demonstration of co-firing up to 20% straw
on energy basis was conducted. The four burners at the medium-
level were converted into co-firing burners, in which the oil lance
and flame watch were relocated in order to clear the center pipe of
the burner for pneumatic straw feeding. The two-year demon-
stration, including comprehensive in situ measurement [22] and
deposition characterization [23], showed that co-firing straw up to
20% energy share in unit 1 was viable [17].
After successful demo in unit 1, both unit 3 and unit 4 were
converted to co-firing: unit 4 in 2002 and unit 3 in 2005. Units 3/4,
originally built in 1985, are two 350 MWe pulverized coal boiler
with 24 low-NOx burners arranged at two levels on the front and
rear wall (six burners each level), respectively, as seen in Fig. 5. Four
of the six burners at the upper level on the rear wall of the boilers
were converted to co-firing by relocating the oil lance and flame
scanner in order to clear the burner core air tube for straw injection
(cf. Fig. 5). The four coal/straw co-fired burners were found to
provide very efficient combustion. The residue carbon in the ash
was generally lower at straw co-firing than at coal firing alone. The
coal ash has a beneficial effect on the corrosive elements in the
straw. Due to the reaction between the potassium chloride from the
straw and the coal ash [24], potassium is bound to the ash and
chloride is released as HCl in the flue gas. Under the co-firing
scheme with relatively low straw share, no chlorine-containing
deposits were formed in the boiler and the risk of corrosion was
thus limited [25].
2.1.4. Remarks on the first-generation preparation method
The biomass handling/preparation method sketched in Fig. 2
has been successfully used in power plants for biomass suspen-
sion co-firing at low biomass shares. It produces large non-
spherical biomass particles, distinctly differing from tiny spherical
particles in terms of motion and conversion characteristics in
suspension-fired furnaces. For instance, a new, closed model for
tracking large, cylindrical biomass particles is developed by solving
the coupled particle translation and rotation and addressing the
effects of the particle shape and orientation [26]. It is very different
from the traditional model for tiny spherical particle tracking. After
validation, the new model is used in CFD simulation of natural gas
and pulverized straw suspension co-fired burners in the 675 MWth
natural gas-fired boiler (unit 3 at Funen power plant) and the fates
of large non-spherical fuel particles are found to be very different
from those of the equi-volume spherical particles [19]. The effect of
Fig. 5. Suspension co-firing straw with coal in the two 350 MWe pulverized coal boilers at Studstrup power plant: Plant diagram (left); Converted low-NOx burner for co-firing
(right).
5
particle shape is also accounted for in modeling of coal-to-straw
combustion transition [27]. Besides the influence of particles’ size
and shape on their motion, a comprehensive model for large
biomass particle conversion which accounts for the intra-particle
heat and mass transfer and reactions, instead of the traditional
conversion model for small particles under isothermal conditions,
is developed and implemented in CFD simulation of biomass/coal
suspension co-firing [28]. Such differences need to be properly
taken into account in CFD analysis and then CFD-aided boiler
design and optimization in order not to remarkably compromise
the boiler performance such as combustion aerodynamics, burnout,
pollutant emissions and ash usability.
Primarily because of the large particle sizes, the first-generation
preparation method was only used in suspension co-firing of
biomass at very low shares. When co-firing biomass at high shares
or suspension firing of 100% biomass, the combustion system needs
to be substantially modified, and/or the biomass preparation pro-
cess needs to be greatly improved, in order to assure a good
burnout and good ash usability. As a result, the second-generation
biomass preparation method emerges and is commonly used
nowadays.
2.2. Second-generation preparation method
In most current retrofits for suspension co-firing of biomass, it is
often biomass pellets (or briquettes occasionally) that are handled
in power plants. The second-generation preparation includes pel-
lets production in a pellet plant and then pellets milling and firing
in a power plant. This preparation method can be used for
suspension-firing of 100% high-quality biomass.
2.2.1. Pelleting biomass
Wood pellets production from raw biomass is well elaborated in
Ref. [29]. Wood logs are initially dried before they are shredded into
wood chips. In the primary milling, the wood chips are milled by a
knife ring flaker and a drop feed chipper to smaller particles, which
are then further milled in a hammer mill to obtain a homogeneous
and fine material below 1.5 mm in size. Then, the sawdust, with or
without additives or binding agents, is pelletized using ring die
pellet machines. Quite often, 2% additives can be used to make
pellets, in order to reduce fouling during pellet combustion [30].
Finally, the pellets are cooled down from 90  C to room tempera-
ture for stabilization and hardening. Straw pellet production is
6 C. Yin / Energy 196 (2020) 117129
simpler than wood pellet production, for both of which the pro-
duction process layout is sketched in Fig. 6.
2.2.2. Milling biomass pellets
To produce fine enough particles that can be burned out in
pulverized fuel furnaces, the biomass pellets undergo a secondary
milling at power plants in mills as sketched in Fig. 7.
A horizontal roller mill comprises of several conical rollers
which are hydraulically pressed onto a horizontal rotating grinding
table. The roller axis is inclined at 15 to the table. The axes of the
rollers and table do not intersect. Solid feedstock is directed onto
the center of the table, and spread outward under the rollers and
into a rising air flow at the periphery that is directed via a louvre
ring. The louvre ring surrounds the grinding table and conveys the
air flow to the classifier, in which fine particles pass whereas coarse
particles are separated and remain on the grinding table. A hammer
mill has hammers installed on a rotating disk which is enclosed
within a liner. Feedstock is drawn into the mill, and ground by the
impact between hammers and the wall until the particles are small
enough to pass through the screen and get removed [29].
2.2.3. Fuel particle burnout in suspension firing of 100% biomass
Though biomass pellets have a better grindability index [5], such
a secondary comminution of biomass pellets in conventional coal
mills still produces relatively large particles.
In biomass suspension-firing trial in a power plant, commer-
cially available wood pellets from different suppliers are mixed and
ground in the traditional coal roller mills without reconfiguring
their settings. The milled samples are collected from the pipeline to
the burners. Fig. 8 plots the particle size distribution (PSD)
measured by traditional sieving analysis for the samples collected
from a real suspension-firing process [32] and from the
suspension-firing trial [33]. During the trial, the roller-milled pel-
lets have a mean particle size of 900 mm and a Rosin-Rammler
spread parameter of 1.5 [33], much larger than roller-milled coal
particles.
In the roller-milled wood pellet samples, two groups of large
particles (nominal dp ¼ 2 mm and 3 mm) are shown in Fig. 9, in
which the corresponding size groups of the samples from the
hammer milling trial are also given. The larger the particles, the
Fig. 6. Wood (top) and straw (bottom) pellets production process (adapted from Ref. [31]).
more irregular they tend to be and the less accurate the traditional
sieving analysis will be. The milled sample retained on the 2.8 mm
mesh in sieving is collected for a more accurate size and shape
characterization using a dynamical digital image processing device,
CAMSIZER [34]. As an example, Fig. 10 shows the CAMSIZER-
measured maximum and minimum Feret diameter distribution
for the sample, indicating that the traditional coal roller mills
produce larger particles than the hammer mills do, which is also
consistent with the sieving analysis results.
In suspension-firing of 100% biomass, the size distribution and
burnout of the fuel particles is much more critical than co-firing
biomass at low shares. Efforts are made to characterize the igni-
tion and burnout of biomass particles under conditions close to real
pulverized fuel flames. For example, an experimental study is
performed to investigate the ignition and burnout times of single
biomass particles of various sizes and shapes in a gas burner flow
reactor shown in Fig. 11, which can create process conditions very
close to those in an industrial pulverized fuel furnace [35]. A
transient model is also developed to predict the conversion of large
biomass particles in the reactor. The model not only properly solves
the ambient flow and particle interaction but also the intra-particle
heat and mass transfer and reactions [36].
Fig. 12 shows the ignition and burnout times of the nominal
3 mm particle from hammer-milling trial (see Fig. 9 for the particle)
under different process conditions. The 3 mm particle, whose vol-
ume, XFe,max, XFe,min and thickness are 2.45 mm3, 3.0 mm, 2.8 mm
and 0.3 mm, respectively, is assumed as a circular disc in the model.
The comparison in Fig. 12 serves as a good cross-validation of the
testing and modeling. The burnout results indicate that 3 mm may
represent the maximum particle size allowed in real pulverized fuel
furnaces. Under 6 vol% O2, the biomass particle of 3 mm is burned
out within about 7 s e a duration fuel particles are less likely to
attain in the hot zones in a real furnace. Particle burnout is very
sensitive to local O2. For example, under 20 vol% O2, the biomass
particle of such a size can be burned out within about 3 s, which is
more likely attainable for fuel particles in the hot zones in a real
furnace. As a result, in order to achieve a good burnout in 100%
biomass dust firing, the mills need to be configured to reduce the
particle sizes, in particular to reduce the maximum particle size to
about 3 mm and to reduce the portion of large particles. The
 C. Yin / Energy 196 (2020) 117129 7

Fig. 7. Conventional mills used in pulverized fuel-fired power plants.

particle size distribution of the biomass dust sample collected just

before the burners in a power plant is also plotted in Fig. 8 (in solid
lines), which shows that approximately 50 wt% of the particles are
below 500 mm and less than 10 wt% are large particles in the size of
1.2e3.1 mm. Such a particle fineness provides a necessary condition
for successful suspension-firing of 100% biomass dust in the boiler.

2.2.4. Suspension firing of 100% biomass in utility boiler e a case

Fig. 8. PSD of roller-milled biomass pellet samples from biomass suspension-firing
plants.
study
As mentioned previously, the largest power plant in Denmark e
Avedøre power plant e has switched to 100% biomass-firing. The
main boiler of unit 2 is an 800 MWth tangentially-fired ultra su-
percritical tower boiler, built in 2001 originally for heavy fuel oil
and natural gas. In 2002, it was converted to 80% wood pellet firing.
The boiler has 16 circular low-NOx burners at 4 levels, as seen in
Fig. 13(a), in which the different combustion zones and their

Fig. 9. Two groups of large wood particles from roller-milling and hammer-milling trial.

Fig. 10. CAMSIZER-measured PSD of milled wood pellets retained on 2.8 mm mesh.
8 C. Yin / Energy 196 (2020) 117129

Fig. 11. Combustion of single biomass particle in a burner flow reactor, in which test procedure and estimate of ignition and burnout time are also illustrated.

Fig. 12. Ignition and burnout of a nominal 3 mm wood particle under process conditions close to pulverized fuel furnaces.

characteristics are also indicated. Designed for staged combustion,
the tangential firing system is equipped with low-NOx burners,
over-burner air system, over-fire air system, and 4 mills supplying
wood dust to the burners at the 4 levels, respectively. Fig. 13(b)
shows some burners and over-burner air openings at a corner in the
furnace. The circular low-NOx burner, as shown in Fig. 13(c), has
axially concentric channels for the primary air, swirling secondary
air and un-swirling tertiary air, which are used to transport pul-
verized fuel, stabilize the ignition front together with the flame
holder, and delay oxygen access for the long low-NOx flame,
respectively. For each burner, the overall air ratio is slightly sub-
stoichiometric. In 2014, the fourth and last coal mill was adapted
for wood pellet application, enabling the plant to be operated at
100% of its rated capacity without any fossil fuels. The adapted mills
are capable of reducing the wood particle size to approximately 85%
< 1 mm, ensuring good ignition and particle burnout (<5% carbon
in ash) [15].
2.2.5. Deposition and corrosion in suspension firing of 100%
biomass
Another critical issue in 100% biomass dust-firing, which is
significantly different from suspension co-firing biomass with coal
at low biomass shares, is deposition and corrosion. As explained
above, when co-firing biomass with coal, the coal ash (mainly Si
and Al in coal fly ash) and S in coal can effectively bind the alkali
from biomass and thus mitigate deposit formation and corrosion.
Such synergy effects were also confirmed in comprehensive testing
[38] and modeling [39] of wooden biomass and coal co-firing in
pulverized fuel combustors. In 100% biomass dust-firing, deposi-
tion and corrosion could be a severe problem, especially for the
 C. Yin / Energy 196 (2020) 117129 9

Fig. 13. The 800 MWth tangentially-fired ultra supercritical tower boiler at Avedøre power plant, burning pulverized wood pellets (adapted from Ref. [37]).

feedstock with high alkali index and chlorine content [40], as seen
in Fig. 14.
Therefore, cares must be taken in design and operation to
mitigate deposition and corrosion during 100% biomass dust-firing.
Particulate matters emissions, deposition and corrosion in
biomass-firing, and the corresponding mechanisms and/or mea-
sures to mitigate such operation problems, have been extensively
researched in literature, as reviewed recently. For instance,
modeling methods of ash formation and deposition during biomass
combustion is reviewed in Ref. [9], understanding, interpretation
and analysis of deposition and corrosion in Ref. [41], mechanism
and mitigation of deposition and corrosion in Ref. [42], and physical
and properties of the ashes in Ref. [43]. The schematic diagram of
particulate matters formation, deposition and corrosion in biomass
dust combustion is also briefly sketched in Fig. 15.
In principle, the ash-related problems in biomass combustion
can be readily solved by cutting the relevant pathways (i.e., the red
lines in Fig. 15) through, e.g.,

feedstock leaching to remove alkali metals (K and Na) and Cl in
the feedstock;

use of additives, binding the alkali into larger particles with
higher melting temperatures whilst releasing Cl into the gas
phase as HCl, via chemical reactions such as
Al2O3$2SiO2 þ 2MCl þ H2O / M2O$Al2O3$2SiO2 þ 2HCl, where
M is K or Na. In such a way, Cl is removed from deposits, largely
mitigating high-temperature corrosion. Additives can also make
deposits less sticky, facilitating soot-blowing.

Use of effective shedding techniques. For example, modern
dedicated biomass dust-fired boilers use “slagging” super-
heaters, which have a large spacing between super-heater
tubes (e.g., 400 mm) for the ash to build up.
For the 800 MWth tangentially-fired ultra supercritical tower
10
Fig. 14. Fouling characteristics of different biomass feedstock.
boiler at Avedøre power plant which fires 100% wood pellets,
bituminous coal fly ash is used as additives to mitigate the corro-
sion problem. The major ash forming elements of the wood ash are
Ca, Si and K whereas Cl and S is low. The coal fly ash has a large
content of Si and Al with a Si/Al molar ratio of 1.37 which is close to
kaolinite (Al2O3$2SiO2). The coal fly ash has a very low (0.01) molar
ratio of (K þ Na)/(Si þ Al), implying that a large fraction of alumi-
nosilicates in the coal fly ash is available for capturing gaseous alkali
species. In the coal fly ash, no Cl is found, whereas the S content is
much larger than that of the wood. The tests show that the added
coal fly ash effectively removes the alkali species such as KCl, K2SO4
and KOH/K2CO3 in the deposits sampled at various places as well as
in the fly ash, greatly mitigating deposition, corrosion and SCR
catalysts deactivation rate during 100% wood dust combustion in
Fig. 15. Particulate matters formation, deposition and corrosion in biomass dust-firing.
C. Yin / Energy 196 (2020) 117129
this boiler [44]. The addition of the coal ash is also found to effec-
tively suppresses the combustion aerosols formation and emission
from this boiler during 100% wood dust-firing, due to the effective
removal of the alkali species from the gas phase [45].
In future when coal is phased out and no coal fly ash is available,
other solid additives can be used during 100% biomass dust-firing
in industrial utilities [46], e.g., quartz which is expected to be
more efficient than coal fly ash in terms of binding alkali from
biomass and mitigating deposit formation, corrosion and SCR cat-
alysts deactivation.
CFD has been proven to be a powerful and cost-effective tool in
design, trouble-shooting and optimization of industrial pulverized
coal-fired furnaces. Similarly, CFD can be effectively deployed to
increase the understanding of the underlying physics and key
problems, explore unfamiliar operation conditions, optimize and
examine the sub-processes and their interactions, and propose
innovative conceptual designs for suspension-firing of biomass.
Pilot-scale tests have been performed recently for turbulent
swirling combustion of biomass dust to characterize the effects of
the shares of biomass dust, combustion atmosphere and so on. In
the tests, flame parameters, such as in-flame species [47], ignition
and flame stability [48], NOx emissions [49], heat transfer [50],
emissions reduction and deposits characteristics [51], emissions
and burnout [52], species concentrations and gas temperature [53],
are measured. The experimental studies not only attain a
phenomenological understanding of biomass dust-flames under
different firing conditions but also provide a solid database for
validating biomass dust-firing modeling. The current modeling of
biomass suspension-firing does not adequately address the key
differences between coal- and biomass-firing such as particle dy-
namics, fuel particle combustion, and emission formation, and does
not sufficiently address the new issues of interest either such as
deposition and corrosion. Non-spherical biomass particles are
commonly approximated as equi-volume spherical particles in
biomass combustion CFD [54]. A recent modeling study suggests
that if a spherical simplification is desirable, it may be more
 C. Yin / Energy 196 (2020) 117129
accurate to retain the diameter of the cylindrical biomass particle in
the calculation rather than to use the diameter of an equi-volume
spherical particle [55]. A preliminary CFD prediction of deposition
in a pulverized fuel-fired combustor has also been attempted [56].
Biomass flame CFD needs to properly account for all the differences
in physical (including the above-mentioned size and shape) and
chemical properties of biomass dust and then needs to be validated
by the experimental results. Only in such a way, CFD can be reliably
used as a tool for analyzing biomass dust flame front, velocity,
temperature, species and pollutant distribution and for designing
and optimizing of industrial biomass dust-fired furnaces.
2.3. Third-generation preparation method
Biomass torrefaction is a promising preparation method for
suspension-firing of biomass in large-scale utility boilers, which
has been widely investigated as reviewed in Ref. [57]. Torrefaction
is a mild thermal pre-treatment process, in which the pre-dried
biomass is exposed to temperatures of 250e350  C in the
absence of oxygen at atmospheric pressure. Part of the combustible
volatile matter is released, and a char material which is hydro-
phobic and brittle in nature is produced. Use of torrefied biomass
can avoid many of the difficulties associated with biomass
handling/preparation, storage and combustion [58]. The process of
torrefaction alters the physical properties of biomass, reducing its
fibrous tenacious nature [59]. Torrefied biomass can be handled
and combusted in the same way as coal, without additional infra-
structure. As a result, the most immediate advantage of torrefaction
is the deployment of direct co-firing at existing power stations
without the need of retrofitting [60]. The use of torrefied biomass
also holds many other advantages such as the possibility of outdoor
storage, lower sensitiveness to degradation due to the hydrophobic
nature of torrefied biomass, favorable size distribution and spher-
ical particles after milling [61]. The plant efficiency of co-firing of
torrefied biomass is usually higher than co-firing of various
biomass pellets or combustion of low-rank coals, because of the
higher energy density and better grindability of torrefied biomass
[62]. However, one needs to be aware of potential incomplete
combustion issue induced by coarser biomass particles and
decreased char reaction rates when co-firing torrefied biomass at
high thermal fractions or firing torrefied biomass alone [63].
Another potential problem is higher NOx emissions during com-
bustion of torrefied biomass, which may be mitigated by air supply
optimization [64]. Torrefaction can be applied to any biomass
feedstocks and convert them into a more homogeneous product of
higher bulk density and higher calorific value, improving the fuel
rangeability of large-scale suspension combustion plants.
Biomass torrefaction is being commercialized in a few countries,
focusing on two major technical developments. One is to reduce the
additional energy input required for drying and pyrolyzing the
feedstock. The other is to optimize the degree of torrefaction and
the production of the pellets with the required durability for bulk
handling, transportation and storage [15].
Torrefied biomass pellets have not yet regularly used for
suspension-firing in power plants. However, trials with the cofiring
of several thousand tonnes of torrefied biomass pellets have been
performed at several power plants.
At Amer power plant, a co-firing trial was performed during
November and December 2013. 2300 tons of Topell torrefied pellets
were co-fired at a co-firing ratio of 5 wt%. No adverse effects on
milling and burning were detected in the tests. The trial confirms
that high-quality torrefied biopellets can be produced and co-fired
at large commercial scales, suggesting torrefied biopellets a po-
tential better alternative to conventional wood pellets to substitute
fossil fuels [65].
11
At Studstrup power plant, 200 tons of torrefied spruce pellets
were co-fired in an 8-h co-firing trial in 2014 in unit 3. As shown in
Fig. 5, the boiler has 24 burners, among which 6 were dedicated to
the torrefied pellets and 18 for coal. The share of biomass during the
co-firing trial was 32 wt%. The boiler operators concluded that the
torrefied spruce pellets are a very easy fuel to run with and their
properties are similar to the coal fired in the plant. Moreover, no
dust formation issue was observed during unloading or in chain
conveyors. However, the co-firing trial experience showed that the
process is too costly in the present energy market, decreasing in-
terest in commercializing the concept for production of power
plant fuels [66].
2.4. Discussion and recommendation
The first-generation preparation method produces large, highly
irregular biomass particles. When it was used for suspension-firing,
it was only for suspension co-firing of biomass at very low biomass
shares. Currently it is mainly used to prepare biomass for grate-
firing or fluidized bed combustion, which are not as sensitive to
particle size or shape as suspension-firing.
The second-generation preparation method is commonly used
nowadays in suspension-firing plants. It is capable of reducing the
wood particle size to approximately 85% < 1 mm, with the
maximum size of about 3 mm, and thus ensuring good ignition and
particle burnout (<5% carbon in ash). The second-generation
method can be used for suspension-firing of 100% high-quality
biomass such as wood pellets. When suspension-firing 100%
biomass, additives such as bituminous coal fly ash and quartz are
often used to mitigate the corrosion problem.
In order to further improve the rangeability of solid biomass
fuels and the performance of suspension-firing plants, the third
generation method will be prevailing. It includes additional ther-
mal pre-treatment processes such as torrefaction, which not only
increase the energy density and grindability of the feedstock but
also facilitate their long-term storage. All these are critical for large-
scale suspension-firing. Suspension-firing trails of torrefied bio-
pellets have been successfully performed at several power plants.
However, it is considered too costly in the present energy market.
The future economic or regulatory conditions change in favor of
alternative solid fuel sources (e.g., for the pressing target of coal
phase-out) will largely promote the development and widespread
application of the third-generation preparation method.
3. Conclusions
When used for suspension-firing, biomass needs dedicated
handling and preparation, which largely affects the resulting
biomass particle size distribution and thus the overall combustion
performance. The paper reviews the development in biomass
preparation for suspension firing, in combination with application
examples, not only facilitating the understanding of the methods
and the relevant key issues but also providing good models for
other pulverized fuel-fired power plants that will be converted into
biomass-firing. Some useful take-home messages are:

When suspension-firing of 100% biomass in utility boilers, it is
necessary to properly mill the feedstock to reduce the maximum
particle size down to 3 mm and to reduce the portion of large
particles (e.g., <10e15 wt% particles in the size range of
1e3 mm), in order to achieve good burnout and ash usability.

The use of additives such as coal fly ash, quartz and kaolinite can
effectively bind the alkali into larger particles with higher
melting temperatures and release Cl into the gas phase as HCl,
largely mitigating deposition and corrosion in pulverized
12 C. Yin / Energy 196 (2020) 117129
biomass-fired utility boilers. This is particularly important for
100% biomass suspension-firing in utility boilers.

To accommodate low-grade biomass (rather than wood or
straw) in suspension-firing units, more dedicated pretreatments
are needed to update the fuel quality of the feedstock, in which
the thermochemical pretreatment such as torrefaction can be
combined with the use of additives and pelletization.
Acknowledgement
The author gratefully thanks the Review Papers Committee
(Prof. Soteris Kalogirou, Prof. Neven Duic and Prof. Henrik Lund) of
the 14th Conference on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water
and Environment Systems (SDEWES) for their invitation to prepare
this review paper as well as the valuable comments from them and
other SDEWES reviewers. As one of the two accepted review pa-
pers, out of 16 received in total, this paper was presented as a
session keynote during the conference in October 1e6, 2019 in
Dubrovnik, Croatia.
References
[1] European Parliamentary Research Service. Biomass for electricity and heating
e opportunities and challenges. 2015.
[2] Tous M, Pavlas M, Stehlik P, Popela P. Effective biomass integration into
existing combustion plant. Energy 2011;36:4654e62.
[3] European Commission. Europe leads the global clean energy transition. 14
June 2018.
[4] European Commission. The Commission presents strategy for a climate
neutral Europe by 2050. 28 November 2018.
[5] Ashman JM, Jones JM, Williams A. Some characteristics of the self-heating of
the large scale storage of biomass. Fuel Process Technol 2018;174:1e8.
[6] Koppejan J, Lo €nnermark A, Persson H, Larsson I, Blomqvist P, Arshadi M,
Valencia-Reyes E, Melin S, Howes P, Wheeler P, Baxter D, Nikolaisen L. Health
and safety aspects of solid biomass storage, transportation and feeding. IEA
Bioenergy 2013;1:3e23.
[7] Hedlund FH, Astad J. Safety e a neglected issue when introducing solid
biomass fuel in thermal power plants? Some evidence of an emerging risk. In:
Huang C, Kahraman C, editors. Intelligent systems and decision making for
risk analysis and crisis response. Leiden: CRC Press; 2013. p. 263e8.
[8] Niu Y, Tan H, Hui S. Ash-related issues during biomass combustion: alkali-
induced slagging, silicate melt-induced slagging (ash fusion), agglomeration,
corrosion, ash utilization and related countermeasures. Prog Energy Combust
Sci 2016;52:1e61.
[9] Cai Y, Tay K, Zheng Z, Yang W, Wang H, Zeng G, Li Z, Siah K, Prabakaran S.
Modeling of ash formation and deposition processes in coal and biomass fired
boilers: a comprehensive review. Appl Energy 2018;230:1447e544.
[10] Tymoszuk M, Mroczek K, Kalisz S, Kubiczek H. An investigation of biomass
grindability. Energy 2019;183:116e26.
[11] Yin C, Li S. Advancing grate-firing for greater environmental impacts and ef-
ficiency for decentralized biomass/wastes combustion. Energy Procedia
2017;120:373e9.
[12] Vassilev SV, Vassileva C, Song Y, Li W, Feng J. Ash contents and ash-forming
elements of biomass and their significance for solid biofuel combustion.
Fuel 2017;208:377e409.
[13] Vassilev SV, Baxter D, Vassileva C. An overview of the behaviour of biomass
during combustion: Part II. Ash fusion and ash formation mechanisms of
biomass types. Fuel 2014;117:152e83.
[14] Drax. Drax moves closer to coal-free future with unit four conversion. 2018.
August 20.
[15] Livingston WR, Middelkamp J, Willeboer W, Tosney S, Sander B, Madrali S,
Hansen MT. The status of large scale biomass firing e the milling and com-
bustion of biomass materials in large pulverized coal boilers. In: Koppejan J,
Cremers MFG, editors. IEA bioenergy: task 32. Biomass combustion and
cofiring; 2016. p. 69e72.
[16] Yin C. Biomass Co-Firing (chapter 5). In: Rosendahl L, editor. Biomass com-
bustion science, technology and engineering. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead
Publishing; 2013. p. 84e105.
[17] Wieck-Hansen K, Overgaard P, Larsen OH. Cofiring coal and straw in a 150
MWe power boiler experiences. Biomass Bioenergy 2000;19:395e409.
[18] Rosendahl L, Yin C, Kær S, Friborg K, Overgaard P. Physical characterization of
biomass fuels prepared for suspension firing in utility boilers for CFD
modelling. Biomass Bioenergy 2007;31:318e25.
[19] Yin C, Rosendahl L, Kær S, Condra T. Use of numerical modeling in design for
co-firing biomass in wall-fired burners. Chem Eng Sci 2004;59:3281e92.
[20] Overgaard P, Larsen E, Friborg K, Hille T, Jensen PA, Knudsen S. Full-scale tests
on co-firing of straw in a natural gas-fired boiler. In: Proceedings of the 14th
European biomass conference and exhibition; 2005. p. 17e21. Paris, France
October.
[21] Dam-Johansen K, Frandsen F, Jensen P, Jensen A. Co-firing of coal with
biomass and waste in full-scale suspension-fired boilers. In: Qi H, Zhao B,
editors. Cleaner combustion and sustainable world. Beijing: Springer, Tsing-
hua University Press; 2013. p. 781e800.
[22] Hansen P, Andersen K, Wieck-Hansen K, Overgaard P, Rasmussen I,
Frandsen F, Hansen L, Dam-Johansen K. Co-firing straw and coal in a 150 MWe
utility boiler: in situ measurements. Fuel Process Technol 1998;54:207e25.
[23] Andersen K, Frandsen F, Hansen P, Wieck-Hansen K, Rasmussen I,
Overgaard P, Dam-Johansen K. Deposit formation in a 150 MWe utility PF-
boiler during co-combustion of coal and straw. Energy Fuels 2000;14:765e80.
[24] Wang G, Jensen PA, Wu H, Frandsen FJ, Laxminarayan Y, Sander B, Glarborg P.
Potassium capture by coal fly ash: K2CO3, KCl and K2SO4. Fuel Process Technol
2019;194:106115.
[25] Sander B, Skøtt T. Bioenergy for electricity and heat e experiences from
biomass-fired CHP plants in Denmark. DONG Energy; 2007.
[26] Yin C, Rosendahl L, Kær S, Sørensen H. Modelling the motion of cylindrical
particles in a nonuniform flow. Chem Eng Sci 2003;58:3489e98.
[27] Mandø M, Rosendahl L, Yin C, Sørensen H. Pulverized straw combustion in a
low-NOx multi-fuel burner: modeling the transition from coal to straw. Fuel
2010;89:3051e62.
[28] Yin C, Kær S, Rosendahl L, Hvid S. Co-firing straw with coal in a swirl-
stabilized dual-feed burner: modeling and experimental validation. Bio-
resour Technol 2010;101:4169e78.
[29] Trubetskaya A, Poyraz Y, Weber R, Wadenba €ck J. Secondary comminution of
wood pellets in power plant and laboratory-scale mills. Fuel Process Technol
2017;160:216e27.
[30] Kafle S, Euh SH, Cho L, Nam YS, Oh KC, Choi YS, Oh JH, Kim DH. Tar fouling
reduction in wood pellet boiler using additives and study the effects of ad-
ditives on the characteristics of pellets. Energy 2017;129:79e85.
[31] Christiansen H. Halm- og træpiller er blevet moderne. Forskning i Bioenergi
2004;3:4e6.
[32] Bashir MS, Jensen PA, Frandsen F, Wedel S, Dam-Johansen K, Wadenba €ck J,
Pedersen ST. Suspension-firing of biomass. Part 1: full-scale measurements of
ash deposit build-up. Energy Fuels 2012;26:2317e30.
[33] Holm J, Sørensen L, Henriksen U, Hjuler K, Simonsen K, Berg M. Fuel prepa-
ration and characterisation e part of the PSO project: biomass dust firing.
Denmark: DTU; 2006.
[34] Retsch Technology GmbH. Operating instructions/Manual particle size anal-
ysis system CAMSIZER, Doc. Nr. V0115.
[35] Momeni M, Yin C, Kær S, Hansen T, Jensen P, Glarborg P. Experimental study
on effects of particle shape and operating conditions on combustion charac-
teristics of single biomass particle. Energy Fuels 2013;27:507e14.
[36] Momeni M, Yin C, Kær S, Hvid S. Comprehensive study of ignition and com-
bustion of single wooden particles. Energy Fuels 2013;27:1061e72.
[37] Bendixen K. USC technology in CCT boilers applying biomass cofiring. Milano:
Presented at Powergen Europe; 28-30 June 2005.
[38] Kazagic A, Smajevic I. Synergy effects of co-firing wooden biomass with
Bosnian coal. Energy 2009;34:699e707.
[39] Perez-Jeldres R, Cornejo P, Flores M, Gordon A, García X. A modelling
approach to co-firing biomass/coal blends in pulverized coal utility boilers:
synergistic effects and emissions profiles. Energy 2017;120:663e74.
[40] Mandø M. Direct combustion of biomass (chapter 4). In: Rosendahl L, editor.
Biomass combustion science, technology and engineering. Cambridge, UK:
Woodhead Publishing; 2013. p. 61e83.
[41] Frandsen FJ. Utilizing biomass and waste for power production e a decade of
contributing to the understanding, interpretation and analysis of deposits and
corrosion products. Fuel 2005;84:1277e94.
[42] Yin C, Rosendahl L, Kær S. Grate-firing of biomass for heat and power pro-
duction. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2008;34:725e54.
[43] Nunes LJR, Matias JCO, Catal~ ao JP. Biomass combustion systems: a review on
the physical and chemical properties of the ashes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;53:235e42.
[44] Wu H, Bashir MS, Jensen PA, Sander B, Glarborg P. Impact of coal fly ash
addition on ash transformation and deposition in a full-scale wood
suspension-firing boiler. Fuel 2013;113:632e43.
[45] Damoe AJ, Wu H, Frandsen FJ, Glarborg P, Sander B. Impact of coal fly ash
addition on combustion aerosols (PM2.5) from full-scale suspension-firing of
pulverized wood. Energy Fuels 2014;28:3217e23.
[46] Qi J, Han K, Wang Q, Gao J. Carbonization of biomass: effect of additives on
alkali metals residue, SO2 and NO emission of chars during combustion. En-
ergy 2017;130:560e9.
[47] Damstedt B, Pederson JM, Hansen D, Knighton T, Jones J, Christensen C, et al.
Biomass cofiring impacts on flame structure and emissions. Proc Combust Inst
2007;31:2813e20.
[48] Lu G, Yan Y, Cornwell S, Whitehouse M, Riley G. Impact of co-firing coal and
biomass on flame characteristics and stability. Fuel 2008;87:1133e40.
[49] Lin W, Jensen P, Jensen A. Biomass suspension combustion: effect of two-stage
combustion on NOx emissions in a laboratory-scale swirl burner. Energy Fuels
2009;23:1398e405.
[50] Smart JP, Patel R, Riley GS. Oxy-fuel combustion of coal and biomass, the effect
on radiative and convective heat transfer and burnout. Combust Flame
2010;157:2230e40.
[51] Ndibe C, Grathwohl S, Paneru M, Maier J, Scheffknecht G. Emissions reduction
and deposits characteristics during cofiring of high shares of torrefied biomass
 C. Yin / Energy 196 (2020) 117129
in a 500 kW pulverized coal furnace. Fuel 2015;156:177e89.
[52] Sung Y, Lee S, Kim C, Jun D, Moon C, Choi G, et al. Synergistic effect of co-firing
woody biomass with coal on NOx reduction and burnout during air-staged [60]
combustion. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2016;71:114e25.
[53] Choi M, Li X, Kim K, Sung Y, Choi G. Detailed in-furnace measurements in a [61]
pulverized coal-fired furnace with combined woody biomass co-firing and air
staging. J Mech Sci Technol 2018;32:4517e27. [62]
[54] Tabet F, Go€kalp I. Review on CFD based models for co-firing coal and biomass.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:1101e14.
[55] Leth-Espensen A, Li T, Glarborg P, Løvås T, Jensen PA. The influence of size and [63]
morphology on devolatilization of biomass particles. Fuel 2020;264:116755.
[56] Riccio C, Simme NJ, Oakey JE. Deposition prediction in a pilot scale pulverized
fuel-fired combustor. Fuel 2019;253:1204e13. [64]
[57] Bach Q, Ø Skreiberg. Upgrading biomass fuels via wet torrefaction: a review
and comparison with dry torrefaction. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;54:
665e77. [65]
[58] Tumuluru J, Sokhansanj S, Hess J, Wright C, Boardman R. A review on biomass
torrefaction process and product properties for energy applications. Ind Bio-
technol 2011;7:384e401. [66]
[59] Arias B, Pevida C, Fermoso J, Plaza M, Rubiera F, Pis J. Influence of torrefaction
13
on the grindability and reactivity of woody biomass. Fuel Process Technol
2008;89:169e75.
Bridgeman T, Jones J, Williams A, Waldron D. An investigation of the grind-
ability of two torrefied energy crops. Fuel 2010;89:3911e8.
Starfelt F, Aparicio E, Li H, Dotzauer E. Integration of torrefaction in CHP plants
e a case study. Energy Convers Manag 2015;90:427e35.
Mun TY, Tumsa TZ, Lee U, Yang W. Performance evaluation of co-firing various
kinds of biomass with low rank coals in a 500 MWe coal-fired power plant.
Energy 2016;115:954e62.
Stroh A, Alobaid F, Busch JP, Stro € hle J, Epple B. 3-D numerical simulation for
co-firing of torrefied biomass in a pulverized-fired 1MWth combustion
chamber. Energy 2015;85:105e16.
Lasek JA, Kopczynski M, Janusz M, Iluk A, Zuwala J. Combustion properties of
torrefied biomass obtained from flus gas-enhanced reactor. Energy 2017;119:
362e8.
Carbo M, Abelha P, Cieplik M, Kroon P, Mour~ ao C, Kiel J. Handling and storage
of torrefied biomass pellets. Amsterdam: World Biomass Power Markets;
2015.
Jensen F. Torrefaction development and demo plant. Project final report of
EUDP project e J. nr.. 2017. 64010-0461.