Biomass and Eioenergy Vol. 10, Nos 2-3. pp. 79-92.

1996
Copyright 0 1996 ElsevierScience Ltd
Pergamon Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0961-9534(95)00063-l 0961-9534/96%I500+ 0.00

OVERVIEW OF BIOMASS AND WASTE FUEL RESOURCES

FOR POWER PRODUCTION

JAMES L. EASTERLY and MARGO BURNHAM

DynCorpmMeridian, 4300 King Street, Suite 400, Alexandria, VA 22302-1508, U.S.A.

Abstract-This paper provides an overview of issues and opportunities associated with the use of biomass
for electric power generation. Important physical characteristics of biomass and waste fuels are
summarized, including comparisons with conventional fossil fuels, primarily coal. The paper also provides
an overview of the current use of biomass and waste fuels for electric power generation. Biomass and waste
fuels are currently used for approximately 9800 MW of electric generating capacity, including about 6100
MW of capacity fueled by wood/wood waste and about 2200 MW of capacity fueled with municipal solid
waste. Perspectives on the future availability of biomass fuels (including energy crops) are addressed, as
well as projected levels of market penetration for biomass power. By the year 2010, there is a potential
for from 22,000 MW to as much as 70,000 MW of biomass-powered electric generating capacity in the
U.S. Given the range of benefits offered by biomass, including reduced sulfur emissions, reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, job creation, rural revitalization impacts, and new incentives under the Energy
Policy Act of 1992. the potential use of biomass for power production could significantly expand in the
futurk. Copyright 0 19$6 Elsevier Science Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION
Biomass can be grouped into four categories:
wood residues;
agricultural residues (from crops, food pro-
cessing and animals);
dedicated energy crops; and
municipal solid waste (MSW).
Large volumes of wood residues are gener-
ated by the wood products industry, including
paper mills, sawmills, and furniture manufac-
turing. While the wood products industry
currently uses much of its own residues, there is
still a substantial amount of residues available,
particularly from smaller sawmills which indi-
vidually have too little waste wood to justify
investing in a power plant. In cases where a
number of these smaller mills are in the same
vicinity, a centrally located power plant can
purchase residues from sawmills within approxi-
mately an 120 km (75 mile) radius and can
secure a supply of wood residues sufficient to
generate a significant amount of power. The
economic haul distance can potentially be
expanded much further if lower cost transpor-
tation options are used such as barge or rail.
Urban wood waste is another source of wood
residues, including tree trimmings, right-of-way
and land clearance, waste wood from construc-
tion and demolition, broken wood pallets, fruit
boxes and other wood packaging.
19
Another significant source of wood residues is
forestry residues or “culls” from forest manage-
ment (pre-commercial thinning of commercial
forests, where dead, dying, or unmerchantable
trees are selectively removed to increase the
productivity of forests). Wood residues ob-
tained from sound forest management do not
deplete the net forest resource base. Through
sustainable practices, trees are either replanted
or the forest resource is managed for regener-
ation to enhance its health and productivity in
the future.
In addition to wood residues, agricultural
residues offer substantial energy resources for
various applications. Crop residues, orchard
prunings and food processing wastes, such as
nutshells, are some of the components of the
agricultural residue supply which can be used
on-site or in regional biomass power facilities.
While it is important to leave a certain amount
of crop residues in the field (or turned into the
soil), there are often significant amounts of these
residues which need to be removed to reduce
problems with pests, diseases and other
concerns. In places like California, open field
burning of agricultural residues was a common
practice until recently, when the practice was
banned due to air pollution concerns. Opportu-
nities to use these residues for fuel have been
tempered, however, by a number of concerns
related to the transport, handling and combus-
80 J. L. EASTERLYand M. BURNHAM

Table 1. Typical composition and properties of unpro-

cessed MSW’
Composition As-received, % by weight

Paper 45
Plastic 6
Other organics 31
Ferrous metal 5
Aluminum 1
Glass 9
Other inorganics 3
-
Total 100
Property % by weight
Total moisture content 30
As-received ash content 25
Oven dry ash content 36

tion of these materials, which are addressed

later in this report.
The largest future source of biomass re-
sources is expected to come from dedicated
energy crops, including short-rotation woody
crops and herbaceous crops (primarily tall
grasses such as switchgrass).’ Some of the most
promising short-rotation woody crops are
hardwood trees which can be harvested every
5-10 years. Many hardwoods will regrow
vigorous shoots from the tree stumps which
remain after harvesting, a form of regrowth that
is known as coppicing. The resulting abundant
new growth can then be harvested again in 5-10
years. The ability to obtain numerous harvests
from a single planting significantly reduces
average annual costs for establishing and
managing energy crops, particularly in compari-
son to conventional crops. Production of energy
crops also requires much less intensive manage-
ment than most traditional agricultural crops,
especially in terms of lower inputs of fertilizers
and pesticides. In addition, because the root
systems of energy crops remain in the ground
between harvests, energy crops can help reduce
soil erosion problems.
Municipal solid waste (MSW) represents
another significant source of biomass fuel.
Table 1 provides details on the typical
composition and properties of unprocessed
MSW. In the U.S., paper and other organic
materials typically represent a large portion of
the waste stream-materials which make good
combustion feedstocks. Typically, 90% of the
volume of MSW is combustible material.3

2. COMPARING BIOMASS AND COAL

In considering a new fuel such as biomass,

utilities need to know how biomass compares
 Biomass and waste fuel for power production 81

with conventional fossil fuels. As a solid fuel, wood and grass have very different bulk
biomass is clearly most similar to coal. For densities. Non-woody biomass spans a much
example, both biomass and coal require space wider range of characteristics than woody
for fuel storage as well as systems for moving biomass. Table 3 provides comparisons of the
solid fuel from storage areas to boilers. While energy contained in various types of biomass
there are similarities, there are also significant and coal by addressing the weight per unit of
differences between biomass and coal which are volume for these fuels. Comparing cubic meters
discussed below. per megagram [m” Mg- ’(ft’ ton-‘)] of material,
Table 2 provides comparisons of heating woody materials are generally in the range of
values and chemical characteristics for biomass 4.3-6.2 m’ Mg-’ (140-200 ft’ ton-‘), whereas
and coal. One key area of difference is energy coal is typically in the range of 1. l- 1.5 m’ Mg-’
content-the amount of energy in biomass tends (35-50 ft’ ton-‘). When biomass is densified by
to be distinctly lower than coal. in terms of the processing and compaction. its bulk volume can
energy per unit of weight or cubic volume of be much closer to that of coal. For example, the
fuel. For example. bituminous coal has roughly bulk volume of refuse-derived fuel. a processed
30,200 kJ kg-’ (13.000 Btu lb ‘), whereas form of MSW, is in the range of 1.5-2.3 m’
hardwoods have an energy content of approxi- Mg ’ (5@-75 ft’ ton ‘).
mately 19.800 kJ kg ’ (8500 Btu lb- ‘) on a dry At the other end of the spectrum. agricultural
basis. and agricultural residues average about materials such as loose straw can have a bulk
18.600 kJ kg ’ (8000 Btu Ib ‘) on a dry basis.’ volume in the range of 14.7 49.4 m’ Mg ’
However. biomass is generally not delivered (800P1600 ft’ ton ‘). although chopping 01
dry. On a wet (green) basis, biomass typically baling this type of material signiticnntly
has a moisture content from 40 to 50%. which increases its density. The tendency tou.ard IOM.
reduces the energy value of green hardwoods to weight per unit of vol~rn~e translates into highcl
about 9900 kJ kg ’(4250 Btu lb ‘). and reduces transportation costs. Thus options such as
the energy content of green agricultural residues baling which keep the density higher f01

to the range of 9300--9800 kJ kg ’ (4000~~4200 transportation purposes. are especially import-

Btu lb I).’ The moisture content of biomass fuel ant in considering the use of agricultural
delivered to a power plant can vary significantly residues (or herbaceous crops such as switch-
due to differences in factors such as harvesting. grass). Their lower bulk density also means that
storage and drying conditions. special considerations must be made fo1
There are hundreds of types of biomass with handling and processing these materials. as well
different physical characteristics. For example. as feeding them into combustion units.

Type of fuel Bulk volume (m’ Mg ‘. dry ha\is) [I” eon ‘1 Rel’crcncc’
U’ootl
Hardwood chips 4.4 [I431 6
Softwood chips 5.2 5.6 [I67 1X7] 6
Pellets I .6- I .X IS? 571 6. 7
Sawdust 6.2 [200] 7
Planer shavings 10.3 [334] 7
SrrtrW tn1tl stol‘er
Loose 24.7-49.5 (8Olk16021 8
Chopped 12.3-49.5 [40&801] 8
Baled 4.9-9.0 [160-2911 8
Moduled 0.8-10.3 [25-3341 9
Hammermilled 9.9-49.5 [320-8011 10. II
Cubed 1.5-3.1 [So-loo] 8
Pelleted I .4-1.8 [45-571 8
Orcltml prrrnings-l~~i~~u~lrn~lille~l 4.9-7. I [ 160-229) 10
Rduse-~ieri~erl,f~eI
12.7 mm pellets I.7 [56] I2
25.4 mm pellets 2.3 [74] 12
ClXll
Anthracite 1.1-1.2 [35-40] I3
Bituminous 1.1-1.5 [35-48] I3
Lignite 1.1-1.5 [36-501 13
‘Adapted by Meridian Corporation from the references indicated.
82 J. L. EASTERLYand M. BLJRNHAM

Table 4. Ash compositions of fuels by type, ash content and total alkali (Na?O + K?O)
Acids Bases

Ash Fe203 AhO, PZOS Ti02 CaO MgO Na?O K20 SiO: Ratio” Reference
Percent of ash
Potential erosion”
Rice husk 23.4% 0.10 2.00 0.20 0.20 0.10 1.20 95.60 0.01 I7
Bagasse. 3.5% 14.80 15.30 3.50 1.92 2.21 0.86 3.52 54.00 0.08 I8
Hawaii
Construction wood 3.4% 4.23 12.55 1.35 0.59 10.87 2.69 4.71 5.55 53.56 0.09 I8
Wheat straw 8.9% 1.50 2.00 5.00 3.60 0.30 6.60 78.20 0.09 18
Rice straw 13.4% 0.30 3.30 2.00 2.80 1.10 8.00 79.80 0.1 I I7
Pine bark 3.0% 3.00 14.00 25.50 6.50 1.30 6.00 39.00 0.19 I7
Demolition wood 4.9% 6.22 6.03 0.88 15.96 3.76 3.87 2.41 41.21 0.23 I8
Whole tree 1.3% 3.99 8.87 3.03 23.43 4.59 1.62 10.48 34.81 0.35 18
average
Manure 34.9% 1.88 6.06 5.52 0.25 13.05 4.45 4.85 12.29 41.99 0.41 18
Western hog fuel 0.5% 4.41 2.31 0.01 25.37 7.62 5.64 9.26 35.18 0.42 I8
Softwood bark 2.0% 5.00 6.30 57.00 5.50 3.10 4.10 16.00 0.45 I8
Jack pine 2.1% 5.00 6.30 0.20 51.60 5.50 3.10 4.10 16.00 0.45 I8
Eastern hemlock 2.5% 1.30 2.10 53.60 13.10 1.10 4.60 10.00 0.57 I8
Almond shells 4.8% 3.77 12.27 2.49 5.08 14.14 22.60 0.85 18
Oat straw 4.0% 0.50 0.80 12.30 3.00 0.30 40.30 37.30 I .09 I8
Tree prunings 2.0% 1.94 19.90 8.30 1.48 12.66 9.95 1.42 I8
Walnut shells 0.6% 2.40 7.00 3.65 1.08 21.50 13.60 1.66 I8
Potential foulingd
Cotton stalks 4.6% 0.50 0.80 16.40 5.20 2.00 30.00 8.40 3.81 I7
Hardwood bark 3.4% 0.60 0.50 77.00 1.90 3.90 7.20 1.50 7.40 18
Oak 1.6% 3.40 26.00 2.90 1.60 42.00 5.50 7.93 I8
Sunflower seed 4.2% 0.60 0.10 9.20 7.20 0.40 39.30 1.70 23.35 I7
husks
Cotton gin trashb 9.4% 3.30 4.30 16.10 8.00 11.30 40.70 I8
Annual 5.0% 0.20 3.80 1.90 4.10 14.00 35
RyegrasG
Bituminous coals 5-13% 5-35 l&-35 l-20 0.34 l-4 20-60 38

‘Fuel types with a ratio [(NazO + K20)/Si02] above 2 require special precautions to avoid fouling problems. If the ratio
is below 0.2, then erosion may occur unless precautions are taken.
bInsufficient information to calculate the ratio.

The differences between the chemical make-
up of biomass and coal, illustrated in Table 2,
also have important implications for the
environment. Unlike coal, which often has a
sulfur content in the 2-3% range, biomass
contains virtually no sulfur. Biomass thus offers
benefits by reducing SO? emissions which are
tied to acid rain. The fuel-bound nitrogen in
biomass is also significantly lower than in coal,
which may help reduce emissions of NO, which
contribute to urban ozone pollution.
Trees and other plants remove carbon dioxide
from the air during growth. Thus, biomass
combustion recycles atmospheric carbon, rather
than contributing additional carbon, as occurs
with combustion of fossil fuels. As a result, the
use of biomass in substitution for fossil fuels
offers an important option for reducing
emissions of greenhouse gases which contribute
to global warming.j4
As illustrated in Table 2, the ash content of
biomass is generally much lower than coal-
biomass typically has less than one-third as
much ash as coal. It should be noted, however,
that the ash content of different types of
non-woody biomass can vary widely. For
example, almond shells have an ash content of
5%, whereas rice hulls have an ash content of
18%.4 In addition, the ash from some agricul-
tural residues and from new tree growth (e.g. the
tops of trees or the ends of tree limbs) can have
a relatively high alkaline metal content,
particularly potassium and sodium.‘s These
alkaline metals tend to lower ash melting
temperatures and can increase ash deposition
and fouling of boiler equipment. I6 (Note: one
particularly promising approach for eliminating
these fouling concerns is the use of biomass
gasifiers with gas clean-up systems which
remove the ash and alkali metals-this technol-
ogy is currently being developed under a joint
project between the U.S. Department of Energy
and industry. ‘.35One of the related issues being
addressed is the potential for alkali-related
fouling in the gasifier, prior to the gas clean-up
system.)
Table 4 provides information on the compo-
sition of biomass ash. While the reaction which
 Biomass and waste fuel for power production
OTHER
0.2%
HYDROELECTRIC
3.8%
Fig. 1. U.S. Consumption of energy by source, 1991.‘y-‘o of dedicated mass-burn boilers, where little or
causes ash deposition is not entirely understood,
it is known that the compounds Na02 and K,O
are particularly troublesome because they
lower the melting temperature of biomass ash.
A measure of the potential for deposition
is the ratio of alkali metal oxides to silica
[(NaO? + K?O)/SiOz] in the ash. If the ratio
exceeds 2, then special precautions may be
needed to avoid fouling. If the ratio is less than
0.3, precautions should be taken to avoid
erosion which can occur from high silica content
in the ash, as is the case with rice hulls.” At the
bottom of Table 4 the range in ash composition
for bituminous coal is also provided to allow
comparisons with the values for biomass ash.
When used in a cofired mode, differences in the
slagging and fouling characteristics for the
wood
Fig. 2. Biomass electric capacity by feedstock.z’,‘4
83
blend of biomass and coal ash would need to be
considered.
The inert materials, plastics, and various
types of contaminants in municipal waste have
been of concern to utilities interested in cofiring
this waste in their existing boilers. However,
experience with separation and processing of
municipal waste into refuse-derived fuels (RDF)
and cofiring in utility boilers has shown that
RDF can be an acceptable fuel for some utility
boiler applications.’ An alternative to RDF
cofiring which has proven satisfactory is the use
no processing of municipal waste is required.
3. CURRENT BIOMASS USE
As illustrated in Fig. 1, all forms of biomass
energy contributed about 3.0 EJ [2.9 quadrillion
Btus (quads)] or 3.6% of the total supply of
energy in the U.S in 1991. Use of biomass for
power production represented about 0.73 EJ
(0.70 quads) or about 2.4% of the total energy
used for electric power production. It is
interesting to compare the contribution of
biomass to that of hydroelectric, which con-
tributed 3.8% to U.S. energy supplies in 1991.
There is a widespread public awareness of the
energy contribution from hydroelectric power,
yet the public is generally unaware of the
significance of biomass as a contributor to
energy supplies in the U.S.
Agrloulture landflw
waste DIgestor Gas
 J. L. EASTERLY
and M. BURNHAM
Fig. 3. Biomass electric generation capacity by state, 1989.?4
Wood is by far the largest current source of
biomass for power production, as shown in
Fig. 2. Municipal solid waste is the next largest,
followed by agricultural wastes, then landfill
gas.“.?4 The 1991 capacity numbers in Fig. 2
represent a total of 9333 MW of biomass and
waste-fueled generating capacity, this total is for
non-utility producers; there were an additional
464 MW of wood/waste-fueled capacity owned
and operated by utilities. While utilities owned
less than 5% of the total 1991 capacity, utility
subsidiaries have participated in the financing
and development of many projects.” Municipal
solid waste systems are generally owned and
operated by municipalities or independent
developers. Roughly 70% of the current
(non-MSW) biomass generating capacity is at
cogeneration facilities, mostly in the forest
products industries, and primarily at paper and
lumber mills. The remaining 30% is at
stand-alone non-utility biomass power plants.
The energy conversion efficiencies at existing
stand-alone biomass power plants are generally
rather low because they are relatively small
systems compared to coal-based systems-
biomass power plants have typically been built
in the 15-50 MW range, compared to coal
plants which are often in the 150-500 MW
range. The smaller scale of biomass power
plants has not facilitated economy-of-scale
benefits which can be achieved in larger coal
power plants. Generally, the net electrical
less than 100 MW
efficiencies for stand-alone biomass power
plants have been in the range of 18-25%.“.”
Figure 3 provides a comparison of biomass
electric generating capacity by geographic
region. A large proportion of the existing
biomass power plants have been located where
there are substantial forests and forest product
industries and where the price of electricity is
rather high. This has been particularly true in
the State of California and also in New
England. For example, the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG and E) reports that
more than 900 MW of biomass capacity was
developed in its service territory in the 1980s;”
and in the State of Maine, biomass represents
roughly 26% of the electric generating ca-
pacity.‘4.34 There is also a considerable amount
of biomass generating capacity in the Southeast,
as shown in Fig. 3. The Southeast has a large
forest products industry which creates substan-
tial amounts of wood residues. Since electricity
rates are generally low in this region, most of the
biomass-based electricity is used on-site by
manufacturing facilities which burn their own
wood residues.
4. FUTURE POTENTIAL FOR BIOMASS
Figure 4 illustrates the potential amount of
future biomass energy resources which could be
available and compares this potential with total
U.S. energy requirements. Over the long term,
 Biomass and waste fuel for power production 85

Total 1991
U.S. Energy Consumption - 81.5 Quads

Quads
20

15

10

0
Residues

Future Potential Potential Impact

Fig. 4. Potential energy from biomass.“‘.” ?y3’

energy crops are expected to provide the biggest
portion of future biomass resources for power
production. In the National Energy Strategy it
was estimated that energy crops could provide
about 17 EJ (16 quads) of energy to future U.S.
energy supplies.?5 In addition, residues from
forests as well as agriculture may contribute
about 5.3 EJ (5 quads) of energy.‘“‘9,37
Municipal solid waste resources could
provide approximately 2.1 EJ (2 quads) of
future energy resources.z5 When added together,
future potential biomass resources could supply
24.7 EJ (23.5 quads), which equals about 28%
of the current U.S. energy consumption of
approximately 85.6 EJ (81.5 quads). As noted
earlier, current biomass energy use is approxi-
mately 3.2 EJ (3 quads). Clearly, if the potential
for biomass is achieved, it represents a
considerable energy resource for the future.
The geographic distribution of biomass
resources is an important consideration.
Figure 5 shows the locations of current

Wood resources and residues

??
Agricultural and wood residues
!J Low inventory
Fig. 5. Locations for agricultural and forest residues’
 J. L. EASTERLYand M. BURNHAM
Hybrid Poplars
Fig. 6. Locations
agricultural and forest activities where biomass
resources are available in the form of residues.
Agricultural residues are primarily available in
the Midwest, Southeast and mid-Atlantic
regions where there is a significant amount of
farming activities. Forest resources and residues
are available in the New England, mid-Atlantic
and Southeastern regions, as well as in the
Pacific Northwest.
Promising locations for various species of
biomass energy crops are shown in Fig. 6. As
noted earlier, energy crops include both woody
crops and herbaceous species. Some of the most
promising tree crops for the northern and
mid-latitudes are hybrid poplars, black locust
and silver maple. Promising herbaceous crops
for these latitudes include switchgrass, reed
canary grass and sorghum. In the warmer
Southeast climate, promising tree species in-
clude sycamore, sweetgum, poplars and black
locust. Promising herbaceous species include
switchgrass, tropical grasses and sorghum. In
some areas of California and the Pacific
Northwest, hybrid poplars look attractive, and
eucalyptus is promising in warmer Pacific
regions such as Hawaii and California.
In considering energy crops, a primary
question is how much land is needed per
megawatt of generating capacity. The amount
of land needed will depend on the productivity
of the energy crops. Current DOE goals are to
reach average productivity levels of 22 dry (Mg
Black Locust
Hybrid Poplars
Silver Maple
for promising biomass energy crops.’
ha-‘) (10 dry tons acre-’ year-‘). Energy crops
are still in the developmental stage, with average
yields from larger stands typically in the range
of 11-13 dry Mg ha-’ (5-6 dry tons acre-’
year-‘). Assuming that early commercial energy
crop systems achieve average yields of 16 dry
Mg ha-’ (7 dry tons acre-’ year-‘), approxi-
mately 174 ha (430 acres) of energy crops will
be required for each megawatt of generating
capacity {assuming a power plant capacity
factor of 70% and a heat rate of 13,750 kJ
(kW h)-’ [13,100 Btu (kW h)-‘I).
It will not be necessary to have one large
plantation or plot of energy crops for a power
plant; rather, a number of separate land owners
could be under contract to grow energy crops,
or a utility could lease their land and manage
the crop development for dedicated biomass
energy supplies. Figure 7 illustrates this concept,
showing how 100 plantations of energy crops
might be configured within a 40 km (25 mile)
radius to supply a 150 MW power plant. (An
alternative configuration would be to seek a
mosaic of crop acreage in the form of corridors
which connect forest tracts in order to facilitate
wildlife habitat/movement and improved re-
gional biodiversity.J6) The figure helps illustrate
that the power plant would require a relatively
small percentage of the land within a 40 km
(25 mile) radius. [As noted earlier, a rough
rule-of-thumb is that biomass can be economi-
cally transported to a power plant up to a radius
 Biomass and waste fuel for power production 87

as
P I \
25mi
radius
-

5mi

Fig. 7. Integrated 150 MW biomass power plant supplied by 100 energy plantations of 260 hectares (640
acres) each.

of about 120 km (75 miles)]. A 40 km (25 mile)
radius encompasses about 5076 km’ (1960
square miles), thus the 259 km’ (100 square
miles) for energy crops shown in the example
represents only about 5% of the land within the
40 km (25 mile) radius.
Energy crops may be helpful in creating a
price ceiling for biomass fuel. Figure 8 illustrates
this concept. Future biomass power plants are
likely to be fueled by a mix of wood residues and
dedicated energy crops, particularly in the early
years when dedicated energy crops are being
fully established. The lowest-cost biomass is
likely to be urban wood waste and residues,

2- ... .. ....................... ....

DFSS

FOreSt
FMSidU8S

$/Gigajoule and
Whole
(or $/MMBtu) Tree
Mill 8
Chips
FOrESI
Residues
r
Nearby
Mill
Residues

O-
Urben
WOOd % of Fuel Requirements
Waste

DFSS = dedicfdedteedstodcsupplysystem usin0 oneroycmps

Fig. 8. Creating a price ceiling with energy crops.

88 J. L. EASTERLYand M. BURNHAM

EPRI
P@WtlOlI
? ?%-IO/Combined Cycle Stand-Alone
I Gas lhbine Cogeneration

Advanced Steam Stand-Alone

? ?Stmd Alone Steam Cycle
m Steam lUrbine Cogener~ion
DOE
Projection

0
19x4 1992 1904 1996 1999 ZOoo 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Fig. 9. Biomass power market projections.’

5. OVERVIEW OF MARKET FACTORS

where suppliers might actually pay a fee to
dispose of their wood residues, resulting in a
As noted above, wood residues and waste
negative fuel cost. The next lowest cost biomass
materials are currently the primary sources of
fuel could be nearby mill residues. Somewhat
biomass used for power production. Use of
higher-cost biomass could come from more
these resources is expected to increase over the
distant lumber mills and paper mills, and
next 5-10 years, but at a declining rate, leveling
residues from forestry operations, which would
off somewhat beyond the year 2000, whereas
incur higher biomass transportation costs as
energy crops are expected to begin providing
transportation distances increase. The remain-
significant and increasing contributions beyond
ing and potentially largest portion of biomass
the year 2000.” The scale-up of energy crop
fuel supplies could come from dedicated energy
technology is beginning now at a number of
crops. (Note that Fig. 8 is meant to convey a
sites.
general concept for the mix of biomass fuels a
A key consideration is how rapidly the use of
power plant might use; transport distances/
biomass resources can be expanded to achieve
transportation costs will play a major role in
their potential. Estimates of the future expan-
determining the delivered cost of biomass fuels.)
sion of biomass resources for power production
The cost goal for energy crops is in the range of
are presented in the Five-Year Plan for the U.S.
approximately $2.10 per trillion joules ($2.00
Department of Energy’s (DOE) Biomass Power
per million Btu) when commercialized, which
Program.’ Fig. 9 shows DOE’s projections for
could help create a regional price ceiling for
anticipated capacity additions from biomass
other sources of biomass residues/fuels. By
power for 1990 through 2010, assuming an
creating a competitive market for different
aggressive DOE/industry effort to develop and
biomass fuel resources, energy crops would help
commercialize advanced technology systems.
limit the ability of any one supplier to dictate
These projections are based on the following
prices, thus helping keep fuel prices at a more
assumptions:
stable, competitive level.
An important aspect of energy crops is their relatively low fossil fuel prices will make it
ability to provide an assured supply of biomass difficult for biomass power to compete
fuel for power plants. By working with the local through the 1990s particularly considering
agricultural sector, it is anticipated that a the relatively low conversion efficiencies
dedicated feedstock supply system (DFSS) can (l&25%) of current biomass boiler systems,
be created with the use of energy crops. Lenders thus tending to limit the growth of biomass
as well as project planners have become power to situations where very low-cost
increasingly concerned about the availability of biomass residues are available for fuel;
assured biomass supplies for biomass power less efficient steam turbine (Rankine-based)
plants, and this DFSS approach is expected to cogeneration will eventually be replaced by
help significantly in addressing this concern. more efficient biomass gasifier- or biocrude-
 Biomass and waste fuel for power production 89

fired combustion turbine cogeneration ones discussed below, there is an attractive

(biocrude is a liquid fuel similar to petroleum window of opportunity which has developed for
which can be made from biomass); biomass power.
improved stand-alone steam units continue to
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct)
be installed through the turn of the century,
provides a number of incentives for biomass;
but eventually are replaced by high-efficiency
biomass power offers significant job creation
integrated gasification/advanced turbine sys-
and rural revitalization potential, especially if
tems (i.e. steam-injected gas turbines. com-
energy crops are widely developed;
bined-cycles);
biomass offers energy security benefits as a
cofiring biomass with coal in existing utility
domestic renewable fuel source;
boilers will gain growing acceptance through
climate change benefits could be achieved
2010;
from expanded biomass energy use (via
permitting and public awareness regarding
recycling of atmospheric carbon in the
biomass power will improve as more systems
biomass fuel cycle);
are installed and the knowledge base of
acid rain can be mitigated by cofiring virtually
biomass characteristics and benefits im-
sulfur-free biomass with coal (cofiring would
proves; and
also provide CO1 benefits by displacing coal);
beyond the year 2000, the availabilty and use
and
of dedicated energy crops as power plant fuels
reduced landfill requirements could also
will expand rapidly as their costs decline and
occur with the use of waste and residual
fossil fuel costs increase.
biomass, by diverting biomass residues from
The U.S. DOE estimates that approximately landfills and using them for a higher value
22,000 MW of biomass power capacity will be fuel use.
available by the year 2010. This could be a
The EPAct includes a number of sections
conservative estimate, considering that only
which will help support biomass power develop-
about 2.1 EJ (2 quads) of biomass feedstocks
ment. Section 1212 of the EPAct establishes a
would be needed to fuel this level of capacity,
1.5$ (kW h))’ payment available to public
well below the potential future biomass
utilities for electricity produced from biomass
availability discussed earlier. A recent EPRI
and other renewables. This payment is to be
report projected that as many as 50,000 MW of
made by the U.S. DOE with funding provided
biomass power could be produced from roughly
by Congress. Section 1914 of the EPAct includes
5.3 EJ (5 quads) of biomass resources by 2010
a 1.5e (kW h))’ tax credit for closed-loop
[assuming roughly 4.2 EJ (4 quads) are from
biomass power systems, as well as wind systems.
energy crops].Jo If advanced biomass gasifier/
Closed-loop biomass is essentially defined as the
combined-cycle power plants reach the efficien-
use of dedicated energy crops as the fuel for
cies anticipated by the DOE Biomass Power
power production. The EPAct also established
Program (32-38%) roughly 70,000 MW of
a $50 million fund for joint ventures, which
capacity could be available using 5.3 EJ
requires 50% cost sharing, and biomass power
(5 quads) of biomass resources in the future.
technologies are eligible for this joint venture
(Note: the 70,000 MW capacity figure assumes
funding.
the average conversion efficiency for all biomass
Another factor contributing to the window of
power plants is about 30%, at a 70% average
opportunity for biomass power is the large
system-wide capacity factor; 50,000 MW corre-
number of direct and indirect jobs it creates.
sponds to an average 2 1% plant efficiency, with
Figure 10 provides estimates of direct and
a 70% capacity factor.) Whether the market is
indirect jobs supported annually by biomass
22,000 MW, 50,000 MW or 70,000 MW, there
power as money is respent and additional jobs
is clearly a significant potential for biomass
are created throughout the economy.3’ The
which should be considered in planning for
number of jobs currently supported by biomass
future electric generating capacity.
power is approximately 60,000, and by the year
2010, annual direct and indirect jobs supported
6. A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR BIOMASS
POWER by biomass power could potentially exceed
250,000 if biomass power development
Based on a number of observations made expands to the level projected by the U.S. DOE
earlier in this paper, as well as some additional in Fig. 9.
90 J. L. EASTERLYand M. BURNHAM
1992 1997 2ooo Ml0
Fig. 10. Jobs supported by biomass power annually.3’
Under new acid rain standards in the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments, many utility
boilers now exceed sulfur emissions limits.
Figure 11 provides a state-by-state illustration
of the number of utilities which must reduce
sulfur emissions. Biomass is an abundant
resource in many of these states, offering an
opportunity to cofire biomass with coal to meet
requirements for reduced sulfur emissions. For
example, in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin there are
abundant biomass resources and numerous
utilities exceeding sulfur emissions standards.
Figure 12 highlights the comparison between
CO1 emissions from biomass power and the
current fossil fuel mix. As discussed earlier,
biomass combustion and regrowth is a process
of recycling atmospheric carbon, thus biomass
power contributes virtually zero net emissions
of CO*, which compares very favorably to fossil
fuels, which on average contribute over 600,000
kg (660 tons) of CO? per gigawatt-hour
produced.32 On a total life-cycle basis, biomass
Fig. I I. Utility boilers exceeding SO? requirements under CAAA (no. of units per state).
power is one of the most attractive options for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions of all of the
power production options.
7. SUMMARY
Biomass and wastes are relatively high-bulk,
low-energy-density fuels compared with coal,
thus fuel transportation distance has a major
impact on the price of biomass fuels.
Utilities can play a “white hat” role in helping
their communities find win-win solutions to
residue disposal, helping to reduce landfill
problems while also strengthening the economic
viability of their industrial customers by
reducing their residue disposal costs and
problems.
New national goals for stabilizing emissions
of greenhouse gases (and potential new regu-
lations regarding emissions of greenhouse gases,
particularly carbon dioxide) could make
biomass an especially interesting option for
utilities.
While biomass resources currently represent
only about 1% of U.S. electric generating
capacity, by the year 2010, biomass could
provide nearly 10% of the electric generating
capacity in the U.S., if some of the millions of
acres of underutilized agricultural land available
in the U.S. is used for producing energy crops.
The potential for substantial expansion of
biomass power could stimulate hundreds of
thousands of jobs, and could help revitalize
rural areas of the U.S. while offering an
 Biomass and waste fuel for power production 91

M$igo~

Gigawatt-hour
200

Current Nuclear Wind Large Biomass

Fuel Hydro with
Mix Regrowth
Fig. 12. CO? Emissions from electric generating technologies.‘?

environmentally sound renewable energy and S. B. Radding (eds), Thermal Conversion of Solid
Wastes and Biomass, pp. 127-142, ACS Symposium
technology. Series 130. American Chemical Societv, Washington,
DC (1979).
13. D. Green (ed.), Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook,
REFERENCES 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York (1984).
14. A. Chupka and D. Howarth, Renenuble Electric
1. U.S. Department of Energy, The Nutional Biomass Generation: An Assessment of Air Pollution Prevention
Power Program: Five-Year Program Plan (FY 94-98), Potential. EPA. EPA/400/R-921005 (March 1992).
Draft (April 1993). 15. T. Miles; Sr, Alkali deposits in biomass power ‘plant
2. EPRI. Guidelines for Cojiring Refuse-derived Fuel in boilers, EPRI Conference Proceedings “Strategic Ben-
Electric Utility Boilers, Vol. l-Executive Summary, e$ts of Biomass and Waste Fuels”, 30 March-l April,
Vol. 2-Engineering Evaluation Guidelines, EPRI Washington, DC (1993).
CS-5754 (June 1988). 16. C. MacCallum (Sandwell, Inc.). Boiler design consider-
3. J. Easterly and S. McQueen, Meridian Corporation, ations with respect to biomass ash deposition, Biomass
Waste-to-Energy: A Primerfor Utility Decision-makers, Combustion Conference Proceedings, Reno, NV, 28-29
Western Area Power Administration, 80 pp. (December January (1992).
1986). 17. R. Hollenbacher, Biomass combustion technologies in
4. Solar Energy-_ Research Institute, Thermodvnamic Data the United States, paper presented at the Biomass
for Biomass Conrersion and Waste Incineration. Combustion Conference, Reno, NV, 28-29 January
Prepared by E. Domalski, T. Jobe, Jr. (NBS), T. Milne (1992).
(SERI) (September 1986). 18. T. R. Miles, Operating experience with ash deposition
5. EPRI, Technical Assessment Guide: Electricity Supply- in biomass combustion systems, Biomass Combustion
1989. P-6587-L Vol. I Revision 6 (November 1989). Conference, Reno, NV, 28-29 January (1992).
6. T. R. Miles, Processing of biomass for gasification, 19. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Internaiional Bioenergy Directory and Handbook, pp. Administration, Estimates of U.S. Biofiels Consumption
391401. Bioenergy Council, Washington, DC (1984). (1990) (October 1991).
7. Technology Application Laboratory, Georgia Institute 20. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
of Technology, The Industrial Wood Energy Handbook, Administration, Annual Energy Review 1991 (June
Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York (1984). 1992).
8. N. Magasiner, Design criteria for fibrous fuel fired 21. Edison Electric Institute, 1991 Capacity and Generation
boilers. Energ! World, pp. 4-12 (August/September of Non-utility Sources of Energy (November 1992).
1987). 22. J. H. Turnbull (Pacific Gas and Electric Company), PG
9. B. M. Jenkins and J. M. Ebeling, Correlation of and E Biomass Qualifying Facilities Lessons Learned
physical and chemical properties of terrestrial biomass Scoping Study-Phase I: Advanced Energy Systems.
with conversion, Proc. Energy from Biomass and Report 007.6-91.5., San Ramon, CA (1991).
Wastes, IX, pp. 371400. Institute of Gas Technology, 23. U.S. Department of Energy, Electricity from Biomass:
Chicago, IL (1985). A Development Strategy, Washington, DC, Draft
10. J. F. Arthur, R. A. Kepner, J. B. Dobie, G. E. Miller (October 1991).
and P. S. Parsons. Tub grinder performance with crop 24. N. Rader et al., The power of the states: a fifty-state
and forest residues. Trans. ASAE 256, 1488-1494 survey of renewable energy. Public Citi-en (June
(1982). 1990).
11. G. M. Barton, Specification of standard biomass 25. U.S. Department of Energy, Nafional Energ! Struteg,r
materials for thermochemical research, in R. P. (February 1991).
Overend, T. P. Milne and L. K. Mudge (eds). 26. Employment Research Associates. Biomass Resources:
Fundamentals of Thermochemical Biomass C&oe;sion, Generating Jobs and Energy, Council of Great Lakes
pp. 1127-l 135. Elsevier Applied Science, London Governors and the U.S. Department of Energy
(1982). (November 1985).
12. H. Alter and J. A. Campbell. The preparation and 27. JAYCOR. Regional Assessment of Nonforestryrelated
properties of densified refuse-derived fuel, in J. L. Jones Biomass Resources, Southeastern Regional Biomass
92 J. L. EASTERLY
and M. BURNHAM
Energy Program, Tennessee Valley Authority (March
1990).
28. J. Kerstetter, Assessment of Biomass Resources for
Electric Generation in the Pacific Northwest: Draft
Issue Paper for the Northwest Power Planning Council,
Washington State Energy Office, Olympia, WA
(October 1989).
29. K. Skog, Current and projected wood energy consump-
tion in the U.S. Proc. IGT Conf. Energy from Biomass
and Wastes XIII, April 1989; and follow-up telephone
conversation between J. Easterly and K. Skog on 20
July (1992).
30. J. Turnbull, Strategies for achieving a sustainable, clean
and cost-effective biomass resource. EPRI (January
1993).
31. Meridian Corporation and Antares Group, Inc.,
Economic benefits of biomass power production in the
U.S. Biologue (September/December 1992).
32. Meridian Corporation, Environmental emissions from
electric generating facilities: the total fuel-cycle, report
for the U.S. Department of Energy (Spring 1989).
33. S. Williams and K. Porter, Power Piup. Investor
Responsibility Research Center Inc., Washington, DC
(1989).
34. U.S. Department of Energy, Electric Power Annual 1991
(February 1993).
35. B. Wiant et a/., Biomass gasification hot gas cleanup for
power generation. Proc. First Biomass Cocf?rence of the
Americas, 30 August-2 September, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (1993).
36. W. Hoffman, J. Cook and J. Beyea, Some ecological
guidelines for large-scale biomass plantations. Proc.
First Biomass Conference of the Americas, 30 August-2
September, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(1993).
37. S. Tyson, Resource Assessment of Waste Feedstocksfbr
Energy Use in the Western Regional Biomass Energ)
Area, Western Area Power Administration (February
1991).
38. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Analp*ses of Ash from Uniled
States Coals, BuMines Bulletin No. 567 (1956).