Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Concurrent with the assault on coal, increased numbers of pundits are advocating the use
of alternative fuels. A lot of well-meaning people believe that burning wood pellets is as
simple as leaving the coal in the ground and cranking up the chipper. In and of itself, this is
a noble thought worthy of research and investment. But the cold hard reality is that, for the
foreseeable future, the focus most likely will be on renewable biomass sources that can be
effectively blended (cofired) with coal in existing or reasonably modified coal-fired units
with minimal capital outlay.
Biomass is effectively carbon neutral: The amount of carbon released during combustion is
equal to the carbon absorbed during plant growth. There are numerous examples of
operationally successful test cofiring of biomass and coal on an experimental scale. But
although the future of biomass as a viable full-scale alternative to coal is still uncertain,
bringing biomass material on site and running it through traditional infrastructure designed
for coal can create unanticipated hazardous conditions. Whether that blending takes place
in the fuel yard or at the burners, commingling of fuels can trigger severe safety
implications that must be taken into account.
Some of the more common biomass candidates that have been tested are wood pellets,
saw dust, pelletized grain, grain screenings, wheat shorts, and pelletized agri-waste.
Combustible Dust. It’s a fact that coal movement generates fugitive dust. Whether coal is
moving along on a conveyor, passing through a transfer point, or being discharged into or
exiting a container, dust is produced. The main hazard introduced with biomass is that
most biomass materials also produce combustible dust as they flow though the handling
system. Adding combustible biomass dust to combustible coal dust can greatly increase
an already hazardous condition. (For more on fugitive dust issues, see “Dusty Trail: The
Movie,” p. 68.)
A value called the deflagration index, denoted as Kst, is assigned to all combustible dusts
based on standard ASTM testing protocol. The higher the K st value, in essence, the bigger
the explosion. Table 2 provides some indication of relative K st values for coal and biomass.
Table 2. Explosion propensities of coal and biomass material. A value called the deflagration index, denoted as Kst,
is assigned to all combustible dusts based on standard ASTM testing protocol. The higher the Kst value, the bigger the
explosion to be expected. Source: The Utility FPE Group Inc.
Duality of Fuel Mixes. A third hazard arises from blending coal and biomass products.
Significant information is available regarding the reactive and explosive hazards of various
ranks of coals. However, there has been very little research into the same characteristics
of biomass and coal-biomass blends. The Technical Research Center of Finland found
that coal-biomass mixtures are less reactive than just coal alone but more reactive than
biomass alone. This means that blending coal and biomass in the same silo will contribute
to higher levels of reactivity than if the silo contained just biomass.
1. In better times. The coal-fired four-unit 1,131-MW Tilbury Power Station began operating in the late 1960s. Last
February, significant damage to portions of the fuel-handling portion of the plant occurred when a fire broke out in two
silos containing wood pellets. The units had recently been converted to burn biomass. Courtesy: RWE npower
This late-1960s plant had recently been converted from coal to biomass and was billed as
a pioneer in its use of biomass technology. The fire involved 4,000 tons of wood pellets in
two silos. The plant, which ended its commissioning period on February 6, was set to
begin commercial operations. Before the fire, the plant was intended to be the largest coal-
to-biomass conversion in Europe, using 2 million tons of wood pellets per year.
The blaze at the Tilbury plant followed a raging fire in October 2011 at a 100,000–cubic
meter wood pellet storage facility at the Port of Tyne in the north of England. Other
biomass-related fires and explosions include the following incidents:
In June 2009 an explosion at the University of South Carolina’s wood-burning boiler
caused a “potentially lethal accident.” That explosion followed two previous smaller
explosions and a series of mechanical breakdowns.
In June 2011 a dust explosion crippled a biomass wood pellet production facility
near Waycross, Ga. Production was down for approximately one month.
On July 15, 2009, a large stack of discarded dock piers burned at the chipper for a
power plant located in Clarion County, Pa. Crews were on scene all day and into
the night. Every fire department in the area had representatives and apparatus
there to help fight the large fire.
On February 5, 2010, a biomass plant in Brilon, Germany, exploded, killing three
workers.
https://www.powermag.com/safety-implications-of-coal-and-biomass-fuel-mixes/