BIOMASS CO-FIRING

1.0 System Description

Figure 1. Biomass co-firing retrofit schematic for a pulverized coal boiler system.

Co-firing is the simultaneous combustion of different fuels in the same boiler. Many coal- and oil-fired boilers at
power stations have been retrofitted to permit multi-fuel flexibility. Biomass is a well-suited resource for co-firing with
coal as an acid rain and greenhouse gas emission control strategy. Co-firing is a fuel-substitution option for existing
capacity, and is not a capacity expansion option. Co-firing utilizing biomass (see Figure 1) has been successfully
demonstrated in the full range of coal boiler types, including pulverized coal boilers, cyclones, stokers, and bubbling
and circulating fluidized beds [1]. The system described here is specifically for pulverized coal-fired boilers which
represent the majority of the current fleet of utility boilers in the U.S.; however, there are also significant opportunities
for co-firing with biomass in cyclones. Co-firing biomass in an existing pulverized coal boiler will generally require
modifications or additions to fuel handling, storage and feed systems. An automated system capable of processing and
storing sufficient biomass fuel in one shift for 24-hour use is needed to allow continuous co-firing while minimizing
equipment operator expenses. Typical biomass fuel receiving equipment will include truck scales and hydraulic
tippers, however tippers are not required if deliveries are made with self-unloading vans. Biomass supplies may be
unloaded and stored in bulk in the coal yard, then reclaimed for processing and combustion. New automated
reclaiming equipment may be added, or existing front-end loaders may be detailed for use to manage and reclaim
biomass fuel. Conveyors will be added to transport fuel to the processing facility, with magnetic separators to remove
spikes, nails, and tramp metal from the feedstock. Since biomass is the “flexible” fuel at these facilities, a 5-day
stockpile should be sufficient and will allow avoidance of problems with long-term storage of biomass such as mold
development, decomposition, moisture pick-up, freezing, etc. [2].

2-35
 BIOMASS CO-FIRING

Fuel processing requirements are dictated by the expected fuel sources, with incoming feedstocks varying from green
whole chips up to 5 cm (2 inches) in size (or even larger tree trimmings) to fine dry sawdust requiring no additional
processing. In addition to woody residues and crops, biomass fuel sources could include alfalfa stems, switchgrass,
rice hulls, rice straw, stone fruit pits, and other materials [3]. For suspension firing in pulverized coal boilers, biomass
fuel feedstocks should be reduced to 6.4 mm (0.25 inches) or smaller particle size, with moisture levels under
25% MCW (moisture content, wet basis) when firing in the range of 5% to 15% biomass on a heat input basis [2,4].
Demonstrations have been conducted with feedstock moisture levels as high as 45%. Equipment such as hoggers,
hammer mills, spike rolls, and disc screens are required to properly size the feedstock. Other boiler types (cyclones,
stokers, and fluidized beds) are better suited to handle larger fuel particle sizes. There must also be a biomass buffer
storage and a fuel feed and metering system. Biomass is pneumatically conveyed from the storage silo and introduced
into the boiler through existing injection ports, typically using the lowest level of burners. Introducing the biomass at
the lowest level of burners helps to ensure complete burnout through the scavenging effect of the upper-level burners
and the increased residence time in the boiler. Discussions with boiler manufacturers indicate that generally no
modifications are required to the burners if the biomass fuel is properly sized [1].

The system described here, and shown in Figure 1, is designed for moderate percentage co-firing (greater than 2% on
a heat input basis) and, for that reason, requires a separate feed system for biomass which acts in parallel with the coal
feed systems. Existing coal injection ports are modified to allow dedicated biomass injection during the co-firing mode
of operation. For low percentage co-firing (less than 2% on a heat input basis), it may be possible to use existing coal
pulverizers to process the biomass if spare pulverizer capacity exists. If existing pulverizers are used, the biomass is
processed and conveyed to the boiler with the coal supply and introduced into the boiler through the same injection
ports as the coal (i.e., the biomass and coal are blended prior to injection into the boiler). Using existing pulverizers
could reduce capital costs by allowing the avoided purchase of dedicated biomass processing and handling equipment,
but the level of co-firing on a percentage basis will be limited by pulverizer performance, biomass type, and excess
pulverizer capacity. The suitability of existing pulverizers to process biomass with coal will vary depending on
pulverizer type and biomass type. Atritta mills (pulverizers which operate much like fine hammermills), for example,
have more capability to process biomass fuels [3].

Drying equipment has been evaluated by many designers, and recommended by some. Dryers are not included here
for three reasons: (1) the benefit-to-cost ratio is almost always low, (2) the industrial fuel sources that supply most co­
firing operations provide a moderately dry fuel (between 28% and 6% MCW), and (3) biomass is only a modest
percentage of the fuel fired. Although drying equipment is not expected to be included initially, future designs may
incorporate cost effective drying techniques (using boiler waste heat) to maintain plant efficiency while firing a broader
range of feedstocks with higher moisture contents.

2.0 System Application, Benefits, and Impacts

The current fleet of low-cost, coal-fired, base load electricity generators are producing over 50% of the nation’s power
supply [5]. With the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) requiring reductions in emissions of acid rain
precursors such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from utility power plants, co-firing biomass at
existing coal-fired power plants is viewed as one of many possible compliance options. In addition, co-firing using
biomass fuels from sustainably grown, dedicated energy crops is viewed as a possible option for reducing net emissions
of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. Coupled with the need of the industrial
sector to dispose of biomass residues (generally clean wood byproducts or remnants), biomass co-firing offers the
potential for solving multiple problems at potentially modest investment costs. These opportunities have caught the
interest of power companies in recent years.

2-36
 BIOMASS CO-FIRING

Unlike coal, most forms of biomass contain very small amounts of sulfur. Hence, substitution of biomass for coal can
result in significant reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. The amount of SO2 reduction depends on the percent
of heat obtained from biomass and the sulfur content of the coal. Co-firing biomass with coal can allow power
producers to earn SO2 emission allowances under Section 404(f) of the CAAA [6]. An allowance is earned for each
ton of SO2 emissions reduced (1 allowance = 1 ton = 0.91 tonnes; 1 tonne = 1 metric ton). This section of the CAAA
includes provisions for earning credits from SO2 emissions avoided through energy conservation measures (i.e., demand
side management or DSM) and renewable energy. In addition to any allowances which the producer earned by not
emitting SO2, two allowances can be given to the utility from an allowance reserve for every gigawatt-hour (106 kWh)
produced by biomass in a co-fired boiler. These allowances may then be sold or traded to others who need them to
remain in compliance with the CAAA. The value of an SO2 allowance has ranged from $135 in 1993 to a current value
of about $80.

As with fossil fuels, a result of burning biomass is the emission of CO2. However, biomass absorbs about the same
amount of carbon dioxide during its growing cycle as is emitted from a boiler when it is burned. Hence, when biomass
production is undertaken on a sustainable or “closed-loop” basis by raising energy crops or by using the standard
practice in the U.S. of growing at least as much forest as is being harvested, net CO2 emissions on a complete fuel cycle
basis (from growth to combustion) are considered to be nearly zero [7]. Therefore, biomass co-firing may be one of
the most practical strategic options for complying with restrictions on generation of greenhouse gases. Fossil CO2
reductions are currently being pursued voluntarily by utilities in the U.S. through the federal government’s Climate
Challenge program. These utilities may be able to receive early credit for their fossil CO2 emission reductions for
future use in the event that legislation is passed which creates market value for CO2 reductions. Total estimated
emissions of both SO2 and CO2 from power plants operating in coal-only modes and when co-firing with biomass are
shown in Table 3 (Section 4.2).

In addition to these emissions reductions and being a base load renewable power option, biomass co-firing has other
possible benefits. The use of biomass to produce electricity in a dedicated feedstock supply system, where biomass is
grown specifically for the purpose of providing a fuel feedstock, will provide new revenue sources to the U.S.
agriculture industry by providing a new market for farm production. These benefits will result in substantial positive
economic effects on rural America. Using urban wood residues as a fuel reduces landfill material and subsequently
extends landfill life. For industries served by the utilities, rising costs of tipping fees, restrictions on landfill use, and
potential liabilities associated with landfill use represent opportunities for power companies to assist industrial
customers while obtaining low-cost biomass residues for use as alternative fuels. These residues can be mixed with
more expensive biomass from energy crops to reduce the overall cost of biomass feedstocks. Finally, firing biomass
in boilers with pollution control can reduce burning of wood residues in uncontrolled furnaces or in open fields, and
hence provides another means of reducing air emissions.

Potential negative impacts associated with co-firing biomass fuels include: (1) the possibility for increased slagging
and fouling on boiler surfaces when firing high-alkali herbaceous biomass fuels such as switchgrass, and (2) the
potential for reduced fly ash marketability due to concerns that commingled biomass and coal ash will not meet existing
ASTM fly ash standards for concrete admixtures, a valuable fly ash market. These two issues are the subject of
continued research and investigation. Two factors indicate that biomass co-firing (using sources of biomass such as
energy crops or residues from untreated wood) will have a negligible effect on the physical properties of coal fly ash.
First, the mass of biomass relative to coal is small for co-firing applications, since biomass provides 15% or less of the
heat input to the boiler. Second, combustion of most forms of biomass results in only half as much ash when compared
to coal. Despite these factors, significant efforts will be required to ensure that commingled biomass and coal ash will
meet ASTM standards for concrete admixture applications. In the immediate future (three to five years), the ASTM
standards that preclude the use of non-coal ash will probably remain unchanged. Estimated ash effluents are shown
in Table 3 (Section 4.2) for power plants operating in the coal-only mode and when co-firing with biomass.

2-37
 BIOMASS CO-FIRING

3.0 Technology Assumptions and Issues

Biomass co-firing is a retrofit application, primarily for coal-fired power plants. Biomass co-firing is applicable to most
coal-fired boilers used for power generation. A partial list of existing or planned utility applications is shown in Table
1. Retrofits to co-fire at 5% (by heat) or more for coal-fired cyclones, stokers, and fluidized bed boilers are potentially
simpler and less expensive than for pulverized coal. However, pulverized coal boilers are the most widely used steam
generating system for coal-fired power generation in the U.S., and they represent the majority of plants affected by 1990
Clean Air Act Amendment provisions for reducing the emissions of SO2 and NOx from electric generating units.

The power plants characterized in the following section are pulverized coal plants which co-fire from 10% to 15%
biomass on a heat input basis. The co-firing rate is not projected to exceed 15% due to biomass resource limitations
and requirements to maintain unit efficiency. System capital and operating costs are assumed to be representative of
plants which receive biomass via self-unloading vans and can utilize existing front-end loaders for receiving and pile
management. The facilities are assumed to be located in a region where medium- to high-sulfur coal (0.8% by weight
and greater) is used as a utility boiler fuel and where biomass residues are available for relatively low costs ($0.47/GJ,
or $0.50/MMBtu; 1 MMBtu = 106 Btu). Areas with these characteristics include portions of the Northeast, Southeast,
mid-Atlantic, and Midwest regions.

As shown in Table 1, biomass co-firing with coal is currently practiced at a handful of utility-scale boilers (Northern
States Power, Tacoma Public Utilities, New York State Electric and Gas, TVA). Co-firing has also been successfully
demonstrated by GPU Genco, Madison Gas & Electric, Southern Company, and several others. Retrofits require
commercially available fuel handling and boiler equipment. Optimized equipment for efficiently processing some
biomass feedstocks (such as switchgrass and willow energy crops) to a size suitable for combustion in a pulverized coal
boiler will require further development and demonstration. Engineering and design issues are well understood for most
applications, but the optimum design for a given power plant will be site-specific and could vary depending on a
number of key factors, including site layout, boiler type, biomass type and moisture content, level of co-firing, type of
existing pulverizer, and pulverizer excess capacity. In general, capital costs for blended feed systems are low (about
$50/biomass kW) and costs for separate feed systems are higher (about $200/biomass kW). The design shown in this
technology characterization is a separate feed system. Separate feeding is needed for biomass heat contributions greater
than 2% to 5% in a pulverized-coal boiler. At low co-firing levels in a pulverized-coal unit (<2%), or at mid-level (5%
to 10%) in a cyclone, blended feed can be used.

Emissions of gaseous effluents other than CO2 and SO2 are not estimated in Section 4 because they are highly
dependent on boiler operating conditions and design. However, NOx emissions for a co-fired boiler could be lower
than those for a 100% coal-fired boiler due to the lower nitrogen content of biomass and the lower flame temperatures
associated with combustion of high-moisture-content biomass feedstocks. In addition, reburn technologies using
biomass could provide additional NOx reductions. Reburning involves a fuel-lean primary combustion stage, followed
by the downstream injection of an additional fuel (natural gas, or micronized coal or biomass) in a fuel-rich secondary
zone (the reburn zone) to reduce the NOx formed in the primary stage. Additional air is injected downstream of the
fuel-rich zone to complete combustion. Further research and development in the area of NOx reduction, for both reburn
and conventional co-firing arrangements, is required to better define the potential NOx reduction benefits associated
with biomass co-firing. If the NOx reduction benefits using biomass are proven to be

2-38
 BIOMASS CO-FIRING

Table 1. Previous, existing, or planned biomass co-firing applications [1].

Total (Net)
Utility, Plant Name, Location Co-fired Fuels Plant Size * Boiler Technology
Northern States Power Coal/wood residues 560 MWe Cyclone
Allen S. King Station (lumber)
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Otter Tail Power Co. Coal/refuse-derived-fuel 440 MWe Cyclone
Big Stone City, (RDF)/tires/waste oil/ag.
South Dakota refuse
Tennessee Valley Authority Coal/wood residues and 272 MWe Cyclone
Allen Fossil Plant coal/wood/tires
Memphis, Tennessee
I/S Midtkraft Energy Co. Coal/straw 150 MWe Circulating
Grenaa Co-Generation Plant Fluidized Bed
Grenaa, Denmark
Tacoma Public Utilities -- Light Division Coal/RDF/wood residues 2 x 25 MWe Bubbling
Steam Plant No. 2 Fluidized Bed
Tacoma, Washington
GPU Genco Coal/wood residues 130 MWe and Pulverized Coal
Shawville Station 190 MWe
Johnstown, Pennsylvania
IES Utilities Inc. (1) Coal/agricultural (1) 3 Units, (1) Pulverized Coal
Sixth Street (1) and Ottumwa (2) Stations residues 6-15 MWe
Marshalltown, Iowa (2) Coal/switchgrass (2) 714 Mwe (2) Pulverized Coal
Madison Gas & Electric Coal/switchgrass 50 MWe Pulverized Coal
Blount Street Station
Madison, Wisconsin
New York State Electric & Gas Coal/wood residues and 108 MWe Pulverized Coal
Greenidge Station coal/energy crops
Dresden, New York (willow)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. Coal/wood residues and 91 MWe Pulverized Coal
Dunkirk Station coal/energy crops
Dunkirk, New York (willow)
Tennessee Valley Authority (1) Coal/wood residues (1) 190 MWe (1) Pulverized Coal
(1) Kingston and (2) Colbert Fossil
Plants (2) Coal/wood residues (2) 190 MWe (2) Pulverized Coal
(1) Kingston, TN and (2) Tuscumbia, AL
EPON Coal/wood residues 602 MWe Pulverized Coal
Centrale Gelderland (demolition)
Netherlands
I/S Midtkraft Energy Co. Coal/straw 150 MWe Pulverized Coal
Studstrupvaeket, Denmark
Uppsala Energi AB Coal (peat)/ 200 MWe and Pulverized Coal
Uppsala, Sweden wood chips 320 MWt
New York State Electric & Gas Coal/wood residues and (1) 37.5 MWe (1) Stoker
Hickling (1) and Jennison (2) Stations coal/tires
Big Flats and Bainbridge, New York (2) 37.5 Mwe (2) Stoker
Northern States Power Coal/wood residues 2 x 17 MWe Stoker
Bay Front Station Ashland, Wisconsin (forest)
Notes:
*
The capacity supported by the supplementary (i.e., biomass) fuel will be a fraction of the total capacity shown in this table,
normally in the range of 1 to 10% of the total capacity.

2-39
 BIOMASS CO-FIRING

feasible for reducing the NOx emissions control costs at existing cyclone and pulverized coal boilers, the resulting cost
savings could be several times the fuel savings for co-firing [8]. The dollar value of NOx reduction will be site-specific,
depending on the cost of the alternative NOx control action.

As mentioned in Section 2, two other issues needing additional research and development efforts are: (1) slagging and
fouling on boiler surfaces caused by firing high alkali herbaceous biomass feedstocks such as switchgrass, and (2) the
potential for reduced fly ash marketability due to concerns that commingled biomass and coal ash will not meet ASTM
fly ash standards for concrete admixtures. Finally, due to high transportation costs, sufficiently inexpensive biomass
residues and energy crops (relative to local coal prices) must exist within an 80 to 120 km (50 to 75 mile) radius to
economically justify a co-firing operation [9]. Improved resource acquisition methods and energy crop development
are needed to foster the widespread adoption of biomass co-firing.

4.0 Performance and Cost

Table 2 summarizes the performance and cost indicators for the biomass co-fired system being characterized in this
report.

4.1 Evolution Overview

In the tables in this section, for each year from 1997 through 2030, the performance of two systems is estimated. One
is a pulverized coal power plant using only coal. These cases represent the plant operation prior to a biomass co-firing
retrofit. The other case shows the performance of the same power plant operating with biomass co-firing. The 1997
base case is a 100 MW plant which obtains 10% of its total heat input from biomass while in the co-firing mode,
resulting in 10 MW of biomass-based power generation capacity. This is representative of the planned size and co­
firing rates of two Northeast power plants that are presently participating in the DOE Salix Consortium demonstration
project. The same size boiler is used for the year 2000 case, but the co-firing rate is increased from 10% to 15%,
assuming that lessons learned during initial years will permit sustained operation in similar boilers at a 15% co-firing
rate. This case results in 15 MW of biomass-based generation capacity. Co-firing rates as high as 15% have been
demonstrated during preliminary testing. For the years 2005 through 2030, co-firing rates remain the same (15%), but
boiler sizes are increased from year to year. This demonstrates the effect that improved biomass feedstock acquisition
techniques and increased development of energy crops will have in allowing increasingly larger power plants to be co­
fired near maximum levels of 15%.

4.2 Performance and Cost Discussion

The tools used for this analysis were based on EPRI’s BIOPOWER co-firing model [10]. Input requirements for the
model include ultimate analyses of the fuels (chemical composition of the fuels), capacity factor for the power plant,
net station capacity, gross turbine heat rate, and percent excess air at which the plant operates. The technical input
information used for the model was based on data from a representative Northeast power plant which intends to
implement biomass co-firing [2]. For a given biomass co-firing rate, the model calculates thermal efficiency, change
in net heat rate, coal and biomass consumption, and reduced SO2 and CO2 emissions.

The coal was assumed to contain 1.9% sulfur, compared to a 0.02% sulfur content for the biomass. Moisture contents
were 7.2% for the coal and 21.5% for the biomass. Ash contents were assumed to be 8.8% for coal and 0.9% for

2-40
Table 2. Performance and cost indicators.
Base Case
INDICATOR 1997 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030
NAME UNITS +/- % +/- % +/- % +/- % +/- % +/- %
Plant Size MW 100 100 150 200 300 400
General Performance Indicators
Capacity Factor % 85 85 85 85 85 85
Coal Moisture Content % 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2
Biomass Moisture Content % 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5
Annual Energy Delivery GWh/yr 745 745 1,117 1,489 2,234 2,978
Coal-only Performance Indicators
Efficiency % 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9
Net Heat Rate kJ/kWh 10,929 10,929 10,929 10,929 10,929 10,929
Net Power Capacity from Coal MW 100 100 150 200 300 400
Annual Electricity Delivery from Coal GWh/yr 745 745 1,117 1,489 2,234 2,978
Coal Consumption tonnes/yr 276,175 276,175 414,262 552,350 828,525 1,104,699
Annual Heat Input from Coal @ 31,751 kJ/kg TJ/yr 8,138 8,138 12,206 16,275 24,413 32,550
TOTAL Annual Heat Input TJ/yr 8,138 8,138 12,206 16,275 24,413 32,550
Biomass Co-firing Performance Indicators
Co-firing Rate (Heat Input from Biomass) % 10 15 15 15 15 15
Thermal Efficiency % 32.7 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5
Net Heat Rate kJ/kWh 11,015 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066
Net Power Capacity from Coal MW 90 85 128 170 255 340
Net Power Capacity from Biomass MW 10.0 15.0 22.5 30.0 45.0 60.0
Annual Electricity Delivery from Coal GWh/yr 670 633 949 1,266 1,899 2,532
Annual Electricity Delivery from Biomass GWh/yr 74 112 168 223 335 447
Coal Consumption tonnes/yr 250,525 237,695 356,542 475,389 713,084 950,778
Biomass Consumption (dry) tonnes/yr 42,933 64,695 97,043 129,391 194,086 258,781
Annual Heat Input from Coal @ 31,751 kJ/kg TJ/yr 7,382 7,004 10,506 14,007 21,011 28,015
Annual Heat Input from Biomass @ 19,104 kJ/kg TJ/yr 820 1,236 1,854 2,472 3,708 4,944
TOTAL Annual Heat Input TJ/yr 8,202 8,240 12,359 16,479 24,719 32,959

NOTES:
1. The columns for "+/- %" refer to the uncertainty associated with a given estimate
Table 2. Performance and cost indicators.(cont.)
Base Case
INDICATOR 1997 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030
NAME UNITS +/- % +/- % +/- % +/- % +/- % +/- %
Plant Size MW 100 100 150 200 300 400
Capital Cost ($/kW of BIOMASS power capacity)
Biomass Handling System Equipment $/kW 25 25 25 25 25 25
Conveyor 12.9 12.1 11.4 10.9 10.3 9.9
Separation Equipment, Conveyor 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7
Hogging Tower and Equipment 21.3 20.0 18.9 18.1 17.0 16.3
Pneumatic Conveying System (Vacuum) 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.4
Wood Silo with Live Bottom 5.5 5.2 4.9 4.7 4.4 4.2
Collecting Conveyors 6.6 6.2 5.8 5.6 5.3 5.0
Rotary Airlock Feeders 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Pneumatic Conveying System (Pressure) 17.0 16.0 15.1 14.4 13.6 13.0
Controls 10.5 9.9 9.3 8.9 8.4 8.0
Total Equipment 82.4 77.5 73.0 69.9 65.8 63.0
Biomass Handling System Installation 51.2 25 48.2 25 45.3 25 43.4 25 40.9 25 39.1 25
Total Biomass Handling 133.6 125.7 118.3 113.3 106.6 102.1
Civil Structural Work 36.9 25 34.7 25 32.7 25 31.3 25 29.4 25 28.2 25
Modifications at Burners 3.0 15 2.8 15 2.7 15 2.5 15 2.4 15 2.3 15
Electrical 16.4 25 15.4 25 14.5 25 13.9 25 13.1 25 12.5 25
Subtotal (A) 189.9 178.7 168.2 161.0 151.5 145.1
Contingency @ 30%, 0.3 * (A) 57.0 53.6 50.4 48.3 45.5 43.6
Total Direct Costs (B) 246.9 232.3 218.6 209.3 197.0 188.7
Engineering @ 10%, 0.1 * (B) 24.7 23.2 21.9 20.9 19.7 18.9
Total Capital Requirement 271.6 255.5 240.5 230.3 216.7 207.6
NOTES:
1. The columns for "+/- %" refer to the uncertainty associated with a given estimate
2. Plant construction is assumed to require 1 year for a retrofit to an existing system
Table 2. Performance and cost indicators.(cont.)
Base Case
INDICATOR 1997 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030
NAME UNITS +/- % +/- % +/- % +/- % +/- % +/- %
Plant Size MW 100 100 150 200 300 400
Incremental Operation and Maintenance Costs; Incremental O&M = Biomass O&M - Coal O&M ; Values in ( ) indicate negative costs (i.e., revenues).
Fuel Cost @ $9.14/dry tonne (biomass) * ¢/kWh (.820) (.817) (.817) (.817) (.817) (.817)
Fuel Cost @ $51.48/dry tonne (biomass) * ¢/kWh 1.622 1.635 1.635 1.635 1.635 1.635
Fuel Cost @ $9.14/dry tonne (biomass) † ¢/kWh (.439) (.437) (.437) (.437) (.437) (.437)
Fuel Cost @ $51.48/dry tonne (biomass) † ¢/kWh 2.002 2.016 2.016 2.016 2.016 2.016

Variable Costs ¢/kWh

Consumables (incl. SO2 credit revenue) ‡ (.163) (.163) (.163) (.163) (.163) (.163)

Fixed Costs $/kW-yr

Labor 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Maintenance 5.43 5.11 4.81 4.61 4.33 4.15
Total Fixed Costs 10.43 10.11 9.81 9.61 9.33 9.15

Total Operating Costs

@ $9.14/dry tonne (biomass) * ¢/kWh (.842) (.844) (.848) (.851) (.855) (.857)
@ $51.48/dry tonne (biomass) * ¢/kWh 1.599 1.608 1.604 1.601 1.598 1.595
@ $9.14/dry tonne (biomass) † ¢/kWh (.462) (.464) (.468) (.470) (.474) (.477)
@ $51.48/dry tonne (biomass) † ¢/kWh 1.980 1.989 1.985 1.982 1.978 1.976
NOTES:
1. The columns for "+/- %" refer to the uncertainty associated with a given estimate
2. Plant construction is assumed to require 1 year for a retrofit to an existing system
*
Coal cost is assumed to be $39.09/tonne
†
Coal cost is assumed to be $28.05/tonne
‡
SO2 credit revenues are calculated as follows, with SO2 credits valued at $110/tonne SO2 = $100/ton SO2:
[(Coal-only - Co-firing) tonnes SO2/yr * (1 allowance/tonne SO2) + (2 allowances/GWh biomass power) * (GWh biomass power/yr)] *
($110/allowance) * (100 ¢/$) / (kWh biomass power/yr)
Projected annual SO2 savings for each year from 1997 to 2030 are $121,100, $181,600, $272,500, $363,100, $544,700, and $726,300, respectively.
 BIOMASS CO-FIRING

biomass. The coal heating value was 31,751 kJ/kg (13,680 Btu/lb) (dry), while that for the biomass was 19,104 kJ/kg
(8,231 Btu/lb) (dry). These values for sulfur, moisture, ash, and heating value were taken directly from tests conducted
on the fuel supplies for the representative power plant. They are typical for eastern bituminous coal and hardwood
biomass [11,12]. According to plant records, the gross turbine heat rate is 9,118 kJ/kWh (8,643 Btu/kWh). A capacity
factor of 85% was used, based on historical records at the plant and projected future needs. The resulting estimated
net heat rate for coal-only operation is 10,929 kJ/kWh (10,359 Btu/kWh). This value is typical of high capacity factor
coal boilers in the range from 100 MW to 400 MW, and was therefore assumed constant for all cases. Improvements
in net plant heat rate for future coal plants were not considered in this analysis. The material and energy balances for
the year 2000 case are shown in Figure 2.

All system capital costs are due to the retrofit of an existing pulverized coal boiler to co-fire biomass. Costs for the
1997 case are based on engineering specifications, including materials and sizing of major system components, from
a feasibility study for a corresponding 10 MW (biomass power) biomass co-firing retrofit at an existing plant [2]. The
unit costs for the co-firing retrofit are expressed in $/kW of biomass power capacity, not total power capacity. For each
following year, unit costs for larger co-firing systems were scaled down based on the relationship [13]:
Cost(B) = Cost(A) * [MW(B) / MW(A)]s, where the scaling factor "s" was assumed to be 0.9. The effect of this scaling
relationship is a 10% reduction in $/kW unit costs for a doubling in system capacity (MW). This corresponds to
observed economies of scale for coal power plants [14]. Since the system components are already commercially
available and no major technological advances are expected, the only reductions in unit capital costs assumed to occur
are due to economies of scale, not technological advancements or increased equipment production volumes.

Capital costs include costs for new equipment (e.g., fuel handling), boiler modifications, controls, engineering fees
(10% of total process capital), civil/structural work including foundations and roadways, and a 30% contingency [2].
Cost estimates for the example systems assume that front-end loaders and truck scales are already available at the plant
for unloading and pile management. Costs also assume that live-bottom trucks are used for biomass delivery, allowing
the avoidance of the purchase of a truck tipper. Land and substation (system interface) costs are zero because existing
plant property and the existing substation will be utilized.

Operation and maintenance costs, including fuel costs, are presented in Table 2 on an incremental basis. That is, each
O&M cost component listed there represents the difference in that cost component when comparing biomass co-firing
operation to coal-only operation. Negative costs, surrounded by parentheses in the table, represent a cost saving in the
co-firing operation relative to coal-only operation. Fixed operating costs are broken into two components, labor and
maintenance. Estimates of both of these cost components are based on information obtained from plant management
at an existing co-firing operation [2]. Fixed labor costs are estimated based on a requirement for one additional
operator for each 10 MW of biomass capacity (0.1 operator/MW). The operator manages the biomass deliveries,
handling and processing equipment, and is compensated at a loaded rate of $50,000 per year. Annual fixed
maintenance costs are assumed to be 2% of the original capital cost of the co-firing retrofit [15]. Variable operation
costs (consumables such as water, chemicals, etc.) are assumed to be the same for co-firing operation and coal-only
operation, with the exception of the assumed value received for reduced SO2 emissions. The assumed value of an SO2
allowance is $100/ton SO2 reduced ($110/tonne) and the value is assumed to remain constant throughout the analysis
period. It is also assumed that fossil-based CO2 emissions savings hold zero financial value; however, this is subject
to change and could have a large impact on the economics of a co-firing application.

It should be recognized that co-firing retrofit costs are extremely site-specific and can range from $50 to $700/kW [2,4]
depending on many factors, including boiler type, amount of biomass co-fired, site layout, existing receiving equipment
at the plant, complexity of handling and processing system design, nature of the biomass feedstock, etc. The example
used in the present analysis provides a payback period of about three to four years (a typical

2-44
 BIOMASS CO-FIRING

Turbine-Generator
Emissions tonnes/day
Steam (16.5 Mpa, 538 C, 343, 842 kg/hr) Flue Gas 12,513
CO2 2,337
Gross SO2 29.2
MW Net MW Nox 6.9
106.4 100.0 Partic. 0.4
Coal-Fired Utility Boiler

Aux MW
6.4

129 C
Boiler
Efficiency FGD
377 C ESP 0%
Air SO2 Rem.
87.7% Heater
318 C 38 C

Fan
Pulverizer 0.6 MW
27 C
Fly Ash Gypsum
Comb. Air 58.7 Water 0.0 Limestone
Bottom Ash 12,792.0 tonnes/day 0.0 tonnes/day 0.0
Coal 14.0 Biomass tonnes/day tonnes/day tonnes/day
766.0 tonnes/day 208.0
tonnes/day tonnes/day

Energy Balance Baseline Alt. Fuel Material Balance Baseline Alt. Fuel
(GJ/hr) Coal Only Cofired (Mg/hr) Coal Only Cofired
Heat In Mass In
Coal 1092.9 940.6 Coal 37.1 31.9
Wood Blend 166.0 Residues 11.1
Total 1092.9 1106.6 Limestone 0.0 0.0
Heat Out FGD Water Makeup 0.0 0.0
Net steam turbine output 360.1 360.1 Combustion air 525.3 533.0
Auxiliary power use 23.0 23.0 Total 562.4 576.0
Condenser 587.0 587.0 Mass Out
Stack gas losses 97.6 112.1 Bottom ash 0.7 0.6
Boiler radiation losses 3.4 3.4 Fly ash 2.8 2.4
Unburned carbon losses 5.5 4.4 Gypsum 0.0 0.0
Unaccounted for boiler heat loss 16.4 16.6 Flue gas 558.9 573.0
Total 1092.9 1106.6 Total 562.4 576.0
Plant Performance Annual Performance
Net Capacity, MW 100.0 100.0 Capacity Factor, % 85.0 85.0
Boiler Efficiency, % 88.8 87.7 Coal, 1000 tonnes/yr 276.2 237.7
Net Heat Rate, kJ/kWh 10,929 11,066 Alt. Fuel, 1000 tonnes/yr 64.7
Thermal Efficiency, % 32.9 32.5
Capacity Factor, % 85.0 85.0

Figure 2. Material and energy balances for 100 MW (Nameplate) boiler at 15% biomass co-firing (see year 2000
case) [10]. Moisture contents were 7.2% for the coal and 21.5% for the biomass.

2-45
 BIOMASS CO-FIRING

requirement for capital expenditures by plant managers)--i.e., it represents a realistic installation under present
economic conditions--assuming a biomass residue supply is available for $9.14/dry tonne ($8.29/dry ton,
$0.50/MMBtu) and coal costs at the plant are $39.09/tonne ($35.46/ton, $1.40/MMBtu). The economics are less
favorable for coal costs less than $39.09/tonne, especially in areas of the Midwest where prices are as low as
$28.05/tonne ($1.00/MMBtu). More expensive systems which do not provide a similar payback will likely not be
implemented unless the capital expenditure decisions are heavily influenced by other factors such as providing service
to a valuable customer, or achieving emissions reductions. To demonstrate the effect of various biomass and coal prices
on overall incremental operation and maintenance costs, three more fuel price scenarios are shown in Table 2. The
fuel price scenarios are:

1. $9.14/dry tonne ($8.29/dry ton, $0.50/MMBtu) biomass costs and $39.09/tonne ($35.46/ton, $1.40/MMBtu) coal
costs--This represents an economic scenario where abundant sources of biomass residues are available at a cheap
price, while coal prices are near the national average. The resulting simple payback periods range from 4.3 years
for the 1997 base case to 3.3 years in 2030. Under these financial circumstances, a biomass co-firing retrofit is
marginally economical with no additional environmental subsidies. An environmental credit equivalent to
$3.31/tonne ($3.00/ton) of reduced fossil CO2 emissions would result in a three year simple payback period for
the year 2000 case.
2. $51.48/dry tonne ($46.70/dry ton, $2.84/MMBtu) biomass costs and $39.09/tonne ($35.46/ton, $1.40/MMBtu)
coal costs--This represents an economic scenario where energy crops are the biomass fuel and coal prices are near
the national average. Under these financial circumstances, a co-firing retrofit will not pay off without additional
environmental subsidies. An environmental credit equivalent to $31.42/tonne ($28.50/ton) of reduced fossil CO2
emissions would be necessary to obtain a three year simple payback period for the year 2000 case.
3. $9.14/dry tonne ($8.29/dry ton, $0.50/MMBtu) biomass costs and $28.05/tonne ($25.45/ton, $1.00/MMBtu) coal
costs--This represents an economic scenario where abundant sources of biomass residues are available at a cheap
price while coal prices are low. The resulting simple payback periods range from 7.9 years for the 1997 base case
to 5.8 years in 2030. Under these financial circumstances, a co-firing retrofit will not pay off without additional
environmental subsidies. An environmental credit equivalent to $7.72/tonne ($7.00/ton) of reduced fossil CO2
emissions would be needed to achieve a three year simple payback period for the year 2000 case.
4. $51.48/dry tonne ($46.70/dry ton, $2.84/MMBtu) biomass costs and $28.05/tonne ($25.45/ton, $1.00/MMBtu)
coal costs--This represents an economic scenario where energy crops are the biomass fuel and coal prices are low.
Under these financial circumstances, a co-firing retrofit will not pay off without additional environmental subsidies.
An environmental credit equivalent to $35.82/tonne ($32.50/ton) of reduced fossil CO2 emissions would be needed
to achieve a three year simple payback period for the year 2000 case.

It should be noted that cheaper alternatives for biomass co-firing exist. While high percentage co-firing in pulverized
coal boilers represents a large potential market, it is also one of the most expensive co-firing arrangements. In the near
term, less costly alternatives such as low percentage co-firing in pulverized coal boilers, low- or mid-percentage co­
firing in cyclone boilers, or co-firing in stoker or fluidized bed boilers may be more attractive. Capital costs for these
options could be less than $50/kW of biomass power capacity. At a capital cost of $100/kW of biomass power
capacity, the fuel price scenarios described in cases 1 and 3 above would result in simple payback periods of 1.5 and
2.7 years, respectively, without additional environmental credits.

For each fuel cost scenario, biomass costs are assumed to remain constant (in 1997 dollars) in future years. The 100%
residue scenario (#1 from above) is a likely one for the early years of a co-firing retrofit since, in the absence of greater
monetary values for SO2 (and CO2) emissions reductions, a cheap source of residue fuel will be required to return the
capital investment in an acceptable period of time (three years or less). A more dependable--but likely more expensive­
-feedstock in future years may be provided by dedicated energy crops. Once the capital costs have been paid off by

2-46
 BIOMASS CO-FIRING

fuel cost savings gained from using cheap residues in the initial years, feedstocks from dedicated energy crops may be
combined with the remaining available cheap residues.

Coal costs are assumed to remain constant (in 1997 dollars) through future years based on projected stable coal prices
[5]. The base year price of $39.09/tonne ($35.46/ton) is near or less than the 1995 average delivered coal price for the
following census regions: New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, South Atlantic, West South Central, and
Pacific Contiguous [16].

It should be recognized that, in a competitive restructured power industry, a major advantage of co-firing is fuel
diversification. Plant management will use the fuel mix which will provide the overall lowest production costs once
all fuel prices, O&M costs, environmental credits, and tax benefits are considered.

Effluent estimates (see Table 3) were derived using ultimate analyses and material balances (material and energy
balances for the year 2000 case were provided in Figure 2). In Table 3, effluent estimates are shown for each year for
coal-only operation, co-fired operation, and net reductions due to co-firing. Sulfur dioxide emissions, fossil fuel based
carbon dioxide emissions, and ash discharges are all reduced by co-firing. Total estimated emissions of CO2 from the
stack show an increase when co-firing (due partially to the increased net heat rate when co-firing); however, if energy
crops are used as the fuel source, the net CO2 emissions on a full fuel cycle basis will be decreased due to the
absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere by the crops during their growth.

5.0 Land, Water, and Critical Materials Requirements

Resource requirements are shown in Table 4. It is important to note that in a typical co-firing application, no additional
expenditures for land would be incurred. Available on-site coal storage areas can be managed to accommodate the
biomass, and the space occupied by handling and processing equipment for biomass is easily provided on the existing
property.

Land: The land area required for this co-firing example includes the area required for fuel storage plus the area needed
to house the biomass processing and handling equipment. In a typical co-firing application, this newly required space
can be found on the existing site of the power plant, and no additional land costs are incurred by the power producer.
This is one example of the site-specific nature of a co-firing retrofit. The biomass storage, handling, and processing
system will need to be designed to perform efficiently while also fitting within available space without negatively
impacting existing operations at the facility. Additional land will be required for growing biomass to replace that used
at the power plant. The estimated land requirements for growing biomass are also shown in Table 4, along with the
average annual yields (dry tons/acre) used for the calculations for each year.

Because biomass has a lower energy density than coal, it will occupy a larger land area. The bulk volume (dry basis)
of sawdust is about 6.2 m3/MT (200 ft3/ton) while an average value for bituminous coal is about 1.3 m3/MT (42 ft3/ton)
[11]. Combined with the estimated heating values of the fuels, 19,104 kJ/kg (8,231 Btu/lb) for biomass and
31,751 kJ/kg (13,680 Btu/lb) for coal, biomass occupies 0.33 m3/GJ (12 ft3/MMBtu) while coal only occupies
0.04 m3/GJ (1.5 ft3/MMBtu); i.e, the biomass (sawdust) in this example occupies about eight times as much volume
as coal for the same amount of heat. The resulting additional land area required for storage of biomass, assuming a
5-day supply is maintained on-site in a 6 m (20 ft) high pile, is shown in Table 4. This number assumes that biomass
supplies will be handled in a similar manner to the present supply of coal at the facility; i.e., by bulldozers and front
end loaders, placed in a single pile approximately 6 m (20 ft) high.

2-47
 BIOMASS CO-FIRING

Table 3. Gaseous, liquid*, and solid effluents. (Values in this table, for each year, correspond to conditions
described in Table 2.)
Base Future
Year
Indicator Name Units 1997 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030
Plant Size MW 100 100 150 200 300 400
Annual Electricity Generation GWh/yr 745 745 1,117 1,489 2,234 2,978
Coal-Only System:
Gaseous Emissions
SO2 tonnes/yr 10,500 10,500 15,700 21,000 31,500 41,900
Fossil CO2 tonnes/yr 705,800 705,800 1,058,800 1,411,700 2,117,500 2,823,400
Solid Effluents
Bottom Ash tonnes/yr 4,900 4,900 7,300 9,700 14,600 19,400
Fly Ash tonnes/yr 20,600 20,600 30,900 41,200 61,700 82,300
Co-Firing System:
Co-Firing Rate (Heat obtained % of total 10 15 15 15 15 15
from biomass)
Gaseous Emissions
SO2 tonnes/yr 9,500 9,100 13,600 18,100 27,200 36,200
Stack CO2 (Fossil + tonnes/yr 718,600 725,000 1,087,600 1,450,100 2,175,100 2,900,200
Biomass)
Fossil CO2 tonnes/yr 640,300 607,500 911,300 1,215,000 1,822,500 2,430,000
Solid Effluents
Bottom Ash tonnes/yr 4,500 4,300 6,500 8,700 13,000 17,300
Fly Ash tonnes/yr 18,900 18,200 27,400 36,500 54,700 72,900
Co-Firing System Savings vs. Coal-Only:
Gaseous Emissions
SO2 tonnes/yr 950 1,400 2,100 2,900 4,300 5,700
Stack CO2 (Fossil + tonnes/yr (12,700) (19,200) (28,800) (38,400) (57,600) (76,800)
Biomass)
Fossil CO2 tonnes/yr 65,600 98,300 147,500 196,700 295,000 393,400
Solid Effluents
Bottom Ash tonnes/yr 350 500 790 1,100 1,600 2,100
Fly Ash tonnes/yr 1,700 2,300 3,500 4,700 7,000 9,400
1. For this analysis, biomas sulfur content was 0.02% and ash content was 0.9%. Coal sulfur content was
1.9% and ash content was 8.8%
*
Liquid effluents are negligible, and therefore not included here.

2-48
 BIOMASS CO-FIRING

Table 4. Resource requirements.

Indicator Base Year
Name Units 1997 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030
Total Plant Capacity (net) MW 100 100 150 200 300 400
Total Biomass Capacity (net) MW 10.0 15.0 22.5 30.0 45.0 60.0

Land Required for Biomass m2/MW 84 84 84 84 84 84

Storage & Equipment* ha 0.084 0.126 0.189 0.252 0.378 0.504
†
Land Required for Energy Crops ha/MW 470 404 351 311 253 253
ha 4,732 6,057 7,907 9,333 11,386 15,182
Water m3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
* 2
The m /MW values are based on a biomass power capacity of 15 MW.
†
The energy crop yields were assumed to increase linearly from 9.4 to 17 dry tonnes/ha/yr (4.1 to 7.5 dry
tones/acre/yr) from years 1997 to 2020. Yields are assumed to remain constant between 2020 and 2030.

According to Parsons Power [2], based on equipment specifications and experience with similar systems, the storage
and handling equipment for a 15 MW biomass system will require an area with dimensions of approximately 15 x 18 m
(50 x 60 ft), or about 0.027 ha (0.067 acres). The total additional land requirements, including equipment and fuel
storage areas, for a co-firing retrofit designed for supporting 15 MW of biomass power capacity would be about 0.126
ha (0.31 acres).

Water: Increases in water consumption at the plant are considered to be negligible compared to coal-only operation.

6.0 References

1. Winslow, J.C., S.M. Smouse, and J.M. Ekmann, et al., Cofiring of coal and waste, IEA Coal Research, London:
August 1996. Report IEACR/90.

2. Utility Coal-Biomass Co-firing Plant Opportunities and Conceptual Assessments, Antares Group Inc., Landover,
MD, and Parsons Power, Reading, PA, for the Northeast Regional Biomass Program, and the U.S. Department
of Energy: November 1996.

3. Hughes, E., and D. Tillman, Biomass Cofiring: Status and Prospects, Electric Power Research Institute, and Foster
Wheeler Environmental Corp.: November 1996.

4. Wood Fuel Cofiring at TVA Power Plants--Volume 1: Retrofitting Existing Boilers to Cofire Wood Fuel, Ebasco
Environmental for Electric Power Research Institute: June 1993. Report 3407-1.

5. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 1996 with Projections to 2015, DOE/EIA-0383(96),
January 1996.

6. U.S. House of Representatives, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Report 101-952, October 1990.

2-49
 BIOMASS CO-FIRING

7. Energy Information Adminstraion, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1995, DOE/EIA­
0573(95), October 1996.

8. Moore, T., "Harvesting the Benefits of Biomass," EPRI Journal, May/June 1996, p. 16.

9. Turnbull, J., "Strategies for Achieving a Sustainable, Clean and Cost-Effective Biomass Resource," Proceedings:
Strategic Benefits of Biomass and Waste Fuels, Electric Power Research Institute, December 1993, EPRI TR­
103146.

10. BIOPOWER: Biomass and Waste-Fired Power Plant Performance and Cost Model, Electric Power Research
Institute: March 1995. Report EPRI/TR-102774.

11. Easterly, J.L., Overview of Biomass and Waste Fuel Resources for Power Production, Proceedings: Strategic
Benefits of Biomass and Waste Fuels, Electric Power Research Institute, December, 1993, EPRI/TR-103146.

12. Steam: It's Generation and Use, Babcock & Wilcox, Baberton, Ohio, 1992.

13. Technical Assessment Guide, Electricity Supply - 1993, Electric Power Research Institute: June 1993. Report
EPRI/TR-102276-V1R7.

14. Komanoff, C., Power Plant Cost Escalation - Nuclear and Coal Capital Costs, Regulations, and Economics,
Komanoff Energy Associates, New York, NY: 1981.

15. Easterly, J., Biomass Processing and Handling Assessment fo Biomass-Fueled Power Plants, prepared for
National Renewable Energy Lab: March 10, 1994.

16. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 1995--Volume I, DOE/EA.-0348(95), July 1996.

Additional References

17. Benjamin, W., Building Biomass into the Utility Fuel Mix at NYSEG: System Conversion and Testing Results
for Greenidge Station, Proceedings of The Seventh National Bioenergy Conference, Nashville, TN (September
1996).

18. Guidelines for Co-Firing Refuse-Derived Fuel in Electric Utility Boilers, Electric Power Research Institute: June
1988. Report 1861-1.

19. Strategic Analysis of Biomass and Waste Fuels for Electric Power Generation, Electric Power Research Institute:
December 1993. Report EPRI/TR-102773.

20. Environmental Protection Agency, The National Allowance DataBase Version 2.0 Technical Support Document,
EPA/400/1-91/028, Office of Atmospheric and Indoor Air Pollution, June 1991.

21. Langr, K., A Comparison of Wood, Coal, and RDF Combustion Systems - Focus on N.S.P. Bay Front and French
Island, Proceedings of the Biomass Combustion Conference, Reno, Nevada (January 1992).

22. Economic Benefits of Biomass Power Production in the U.S., Meridian Corporation, Alexandria, VA, and Antares
Group Inc., Landover, MD, for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.

2-50
 BIOMASS CO-FIRING

23. Piscitello, E.S., and C.P. Demeter, Biomass Co-firing Analysis Summary, Antares Group Inc.: May 1992.

24. Technical Assessment of Waste-to-Electric Energy Options--Final Report, Volume 1, Rural Electric Research:
February 1992. Report 90-4.

25. Tewksbury, C., Design and Operation of a 50-MW Wood-Fueled Power Plant, Proceedings of the Energy from
Biomass and Wastes, Institute of Gas Technology (1987).

26. U.S. Department of Energy, Electricity from Biomass: A Development Strategy, Office of Solar Energy
Conversion, April, 1992.

27. Tillman, D.A., Cofiring Wood Waste in Utility Boilers: Results of Parametric Testing and Engineering
Evaluations, 1996 Joint Power Generation Conference, Vol. 1, ASME, Foster Wheeler Environmental, 1996.

2-51