TECHNOLOGIES FOR BIOMASS CHP

Presentation to
Northeast Regional Biomass Steering Committee Meeting
The Century House
997 New Loudon Road
Latham, NY 12110

Sean Casten
Chief Executive Officer
161 Industrial Blvd.
Turners Falls, MA 01376
www.turbosteam.com

Creating Value from Steam Pressure

Some thoughts on biomass as a fuel for combined heat and
power generation.

The Bad News The Good News

• Without advances in • The technologies biomass is

gasifiers, you can’t burn it in suited to are also those
the sexy power generation used by the overwhelming
technologies majority of US power gen
• Gas turbines • 75% of all US power
• Fuel cells plants
• Microturbines • 32% of all dedicated
• Etc. CHP plants

The “problem” with biomass is common to almost all opportunity

fuels, all of which are becoming ever more economically attractive as
fuel and electric costs rise.
Understanding 75% of US power generation in 30 seconds or
less…

Rankine Power Plant

Fuel Steam Turbine

(Coal, oil, nuclear,
gas, etc.) Generator
Electricity to
Grid

High
Boiler Pressure Low
Steam Pressure
Steam

High Low
Pressure Pressure Heat to
Water Water atmosphere

Cooling Tower
Pump
Understanding biomass thermal energy plants in 30 seconds
or less…

Lumber Mill Energy Plant

Pressure
Reduction
Valve
Mill waste

High Low
Boiler Pressure Pressure
Steam Steam

High Low
Pressure Pressure Heat to
Water Water lumber
Dry Kiln
Boiler Pump
The opportunity – convert H plants into CHP plants.
Steam Turbine
Generator
Electricity to
Plant Bus

Mill waste

Boiler Isolation
Valve Isolation
Valve

Heat to
lumber
Dry Kiln
Boiler Pump
Several non-intuitive benefits of this approach.

• Operating Savings: The presence of the thermal load makes this

generation ~ 3X as efficient as the central power it displaces.
• More efficient than most other CHP technologies because all of input
energy is recovered (comparable to a gas turbine that uses 100% of hot
exhaust gas as hot air for a process).

• Capital Savings: Since 75% of the power plant is already built, the
effective (marginal) capital costs are quite low.
• 1,000 MW Rankine plant typical capital costs ~ $1 billion ($1,000/kW)
• 1 MW steam turbine generator integrated into existing facility typical
installed capital costs ~ $500,000 ($500/kW)
• Turbosteam has done fully installed systems for as little as $300/kW

• Similar logic applies to non-fuel operating costs, since most of Rankine

cycle O&M are in the boiler and cooling tower. Turbine-generator O&M
costs are negligible.
• Long term Turbosteam service contract on 1 MW unit ~ 0.1 c/kWh
Steam turbines come in two flavors – with infinite variety:
backpressure (BP) and condensing (CX).
• Thermal balance & fuel costs sometimes lead to excess steam in
certain applications. When this happens, can make economic sense to
combine BP and CX approaches to maximize power.
Condensing (CX) Configuration Backpressure/Condensing (BP+CX) Configuration

HP Steam HP Steam Electricity

Electricity

LLP Steam to LLP Steam to

LP Steam condenser
condenser
to load

• Thermal plants are usually suboptimally designed for CHP. BPTG

design often includes increases in boiler pressure and/or reductions in
distribution pressure to boost power output. At the (confusing)
extreme, this can enable condensing turbines in backpressure
operation.
• Pure CX is NOT a CHP application, but can make economic sense
where fuel is free/cheap.
 We have installed 112 systems in the U.S., and 180 worldwide
since 1986.

Non-U.S.
• 17 countries
>10,000 kW • 68 installations
5001 – 10000 kW • 37,343 kW
1001 – 5000 kW
501 – 1000 kW
1 – 500 kW
 20 of these installations are in the lumber and wood products
industries.
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Buehler Lumber
Brattleboro Kiln Dry Pompanoosuc Mills Wightman Lumber
Marcel Lauzon • PA lumber mill
• 462 kW
• VT lumber mill • VT furniture mfr • NY lumber mill
• Quebec sawmill • 20,700 lbs/hr
• 380 kW • 50 kW • 96 kW
• 335 kW BP+C design • Induction generator
• 18,000 lbs/hr • 3,900 lbs/hr • 5,000 lbs/hr
• 17,000 lbs/hr
• Induction generator • Induction generator • Induction generator
• Synch. generator

Cox Lumber
Bell-Gates Lumber Fitzpatrick & Weller
Aristokraft
• KY hardwood products
• VT sawmill • NY furniture mfr
mill
• 75 kW • TN furniture mfr • 450 kW
• 1,000 kW
• 4,600 lbs/hr • 825 kW BP+C design • 24,150 lbs/hr
• 45,000 lbs/hr
• Induction generator • 34,000 lbs/hr • Synch. generator
• Synchronous generator
• Induction generator
Bruce Hardwoods (2)
Bertch Cabinet Mfg
Young Mfg Company
Young Mfg Company
• TN flooring mfr Webster Industries
• IA cabinet mfr
• KY millworks facility • 525 kW + 3250 kW
• KY millworks facility • 279 kW BP+C design
• 120 kW • 40,000 lbs/hr + • WI lumber mill
• 200 kW • 15,525 lbs/hr
• 13,000 lbs/hr 50,000 lbs/hr • 550 kW, dual BP
• 8,000 lbs/hr • Induction generator
• Synch. generator • Synch. generators • 27,600 lbs/hr
• Synch. generator
• Induction generator

Not shown: Kendrick Forest Products (50 kW, IA) and Ethan Allen (616 kW, VT)
Worldwide installations, by industry

• Chemical/Pharmaceuticals 28
• Food processing 22
• Lumber & Wood Products 20
• District Energy 19
• Petroleum/Gas Processing 17
• Colleges & Universities 16
• Pulp & Paper 11
• Commercial Buildings 11
• Hospitals 8
• Waste-to-Energy 6
• Military Bases 5
• Prisons 2
• Textiles 1
• Auto manufacturing 1
Capex & Opex Considerations

Capex
• >1 MW, STG costs are reliably $500/kW or less (below this level, fixed
engineering costs predominate)
• Does not include boiler, condenser, piping costs. This alone makes the
economics of backpressure much more compelling than condensers since the
remaining infrastructure already exists.
• Compare: modern central power plant typically costs $500 – 1500/kW. T&D
adds another $1300.

Opex
• For BP, fuel efficiency = boiler efficiency (75%+ in biomass applications).
• For CX, fuel efficiency is a direct function of inlet and exhaust pressure; at
typical boiler pressures, efficiency is unlikely to exceed 20%.
• Compare to central power @ 33%. CX only favored when fuel is very cheap.
• Envt’l permitting tied to boiler; typically not required for BP applications
• Operator requirements usually tied to boiler (MA exception)
Marginal cost savings for backpressure and condensing steam
turbine-generators.

Marginal Power Generation Costs for Biomass

Steam Plants Spread shows
the value of heat
0.120
recovery. As
Generation costs, $/kWh

0.100 Backpressure difference

0.080 Condensing between these
curves and elec
0.060 value increases,
0.040 more $ for cap
recovery, profit,
0.020
etc.
0.000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Biomass cost, $/dry ton (@ 15MMBtu/ton)

Assumptions: 75% efficient backpressure, 20% efficient condensing. Actual

condensing efficiencies are quite variable; this is the high end for most
biopower plants. Costs for fuel only; O&M and capital recovery not shown.
Assumes 15 MMBtu/dry ton biomass energy density
A final idea – think like a CHP developer, and see how it
changes your idea of how to make biopower work.
• Try not to chase PURPA. Displaced power purchases (e.g., size to less than or equal to
facility load) make for much better overall project economics than power exporting
generators.
– Lots of rules of thumb about what biomass has to be to be economically competitive appear to
undervalue the output energy.

• Calculate marginal generation costs, then see if you can justify capex. Don’t “sell” projects
based on your assumptions of capital costs & interest rates.
– Give yourself the opportunity to be financially creative.

• Learn to love efficiency, including heat recovery.

– Too many plants chase minimum efficiencies to get PURPA limits and leave $ on the table.

• In energy markets, economic self interest gets you to environmentally good things – but
environmental concerns independent of $ get you to end-of-pipe controls and advanced
technology. Learn to listen to your wallet.
– Chase energy efficiency rather than tax credits – may boost long term economics even while it
compromises short term incentives.
– Cheap, proven technology is usually a better idea than expensive, unproven ones
– The biggest opportunities are often in system-level designs, not component-level advances