Advanced Energy Conference October 2011 URBAN FRIENDLY BIOMASS @ SCALE “Size Matters” Scott Layne, CEM Nexterra System Corp. slayne@nexterra.ca
US Renewables Demand • The EIA Annual Energy Outlook for 2010 projects that the demand for renewable energy will experience robust growth through 2030 • Biomass will account for a significant portion of incremental demand U.S. Renewables Forecast 1 Current U.S. Energy Supply 1 (billions of kilowatt hours) EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2010. 1 2 │ Private & Confidential
Growth of Biomass Energy • Over the last three years, global investment Advantages of Biomass in new biomass and Waste-to-Energy (WtE) • Renewable generating capacity has averaged US$9.7 • Carbon neutral billion per year • Baseload/dispatchable • State Renewable Portfolio standards (RPS) • Meets RPS requirements policies require roughly 61 GW of renewable • Wide availability of biomass fuel capacity by 2025, equivalent to 15% of • Substantial cost savings 1 projected electricity demand growth. Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance 1 Spread between biomass % of US Dispatchable fuel ($1– $3 / MMBtu) and Power Baseload & Load Peaking Intermittent natural gas ($8 / MMBtu). Supply 1 Following √ Coal 49% √ Nuclear 19% √ √ √ Natural Gas 22% √ Wind <1.0% √ Solar <2.0 % √ √ Biomass 1.32% 3
Diverse & Widely Available Supply of Biomass U.S. Volume of Biomass (millions of tons/year) 80 160 30 57 7 Primary Mill Residuals Urban Wood Residuals Forest Residuals Biosolids Crop Residuals 1 million bone dry tons of wood/yr = 150 MW e.g. Urban Wood (MBDT/Y) = 4,500 MW Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 4
The Importance of Scale
Biomass Heat and Power – Smaller Is Better Constrained by scale = fuel Centralized, rural, industrial, Conventional Biomass disruption, fuel risk, financing low efficiency, higher permitting, community (Large Combustion) emissions, capital intensive acceptance Small plants, urban, Constrained by technology Next Gen Biomass institutional, high efficiency, response comparable to ultra low emissions, other renewables (e.g. solar, (Small Gasification) community friendly wind) 6
Scale Drives Sustainability – Combustion Technology Choices – Gasification – Digestion – Daily volume of fuel needed – Residuals & urban biomass vs. Fuel Consumption harvested trees – Other non-woody biomass: & Supply agricultural wastes, crop fuels, biosolids, algae – Rate of Criteria Emissions, HAP’s, CO2 – Absolute volume of pollutants Emissions released – Secondary sources from fuel processing and transportation – Proximity to load & system losses Site Selection – Transportation & traffic impact – Ability to use heat/waste heat 7
Technology Comparison –Combustion vs. Nexterra CHP 2 MW Nexterra biomass CHP plant 30 MW ABB/Zurn biomass plant, CA Old Paradigm New Paradigm Model Centralized Distributed Efficiency (power only) Low (20%) High (25%) Efficiency (CHP) System dependent High (60%+) Scale (economic) Large (>30 MW) Small (2–10 MW) Fuel Footprint High (30 MW = 250,000 dtpy) Low (2 MW = 13,000 dtpy) Fuel Truck Traffic High (30 MW = 36 trucks/day) Low (2 MW = 2 trucks/day) Steam Plant Operators Yes No PM Emissions High volume Ultra Low – natural gas equivalent Permitting/Public Risk Higher Lower Construction Time Long : 24 – 36 months Short: 12 months Grid Connection Costs Higher Minimal – inside the fence Urban Friendly No – scale, traffic, emissions Yes – scale, traffic, emissions 8
Technology Selection Impact on Emissions Nexterra Nexterra Combustion Nexterra Emissions – as a % Emissions - # of Emissions* Emissions** of TPY of Times Lower than Combustion Combustion TPY @ 14 TPY @ 14 Lbs/MMbtu Lbs/MMbtu MWth MWth PM 0.0196 5.6 0.005 1.4 26% 4 (with secondary control) CO 0.259 73.5 0.0066 1.9 3% 33 VOC 0.038 10.8 .00135 0.4 4% 25 (method 25A) NOx 0.2287 64.9 .206 58.5 90% NOx 0.1025 29.1 0.045 12.8 44% 2 (with secondary NOx control) Total TPY 154.8 62.2 40% 2.5 (no NOx control) Total TPY 119.0 16.5 14% 7 (with NOx control) * Average of test results from 17 biomass combustion facilities as detailed in Levelton Consultants report ** Average of results from 5 Nexterra gasification facilities 9 │ Private & Confidential
Biomass Fuel Options -- Is it Sustainable? � Woody Biomass – forest products & residuals, crop trees, urban wood waste � Agricultural Waste – corn stover, oat/rice hulls, bagass, etc. � Organic MSW – food waste, yard waste, FOG’s (fats, oils, greases) � Animal Waste – poultry litter, livestock manure � Biosolids – sludge from municipal wastewater treatment operations Proximity to Markets � Algae, Kelp, Seaweed � Fuel Management Issues include: • Cost & availability of long term supply • Processing & handling the fuel • Emissions & operational characteristics 10
Siting Considerations -- Is it Urban Friendly?
Conclusions about Scale
Distributed Biomass Energy vs. Central Power Stations Attribute Comparison Benefit Lower PM, NOx, CO, VOC, TOC emissions. Air Emissions Lower Easier permitting, more public acceptance and cleaner air. Lower public health costs Able to utilize variety of local feedstocks. More Fuel Flexibility Better fuel supply options, lower fuel cost, and reduced fuel procurement risk Higher overall efficiency using thermal energy Efficiency Better and lower grid system losses. Dispatchable to a wide range of operating conditions Use of recovered materials for fuel, plus Forest Sustainability Better purpose grown crop fuels. No need to harvest trees for “whole tree” chips Locally sourced feedstock less susceptible to Similar Energy Security supply disruption. Ability to alter fuel mix Local siting near point of use contributes to Urban Friendly Unique overall efficiency and potential for rapid deployment 13
Opportunities and Challenges OPPORTUNITIES • Organizations need energy security & fuel supply diversity • GHG/sustainability goals place a premium on energy from renewable sources • Carbon accounting is coming • Government and other incentive programs (REC’s, tax credits, etc.) • Policy and regulatory consistency • Biomass fuel supply markets are maturing CHALLENGES • Low fossil (natural gas) energy prices • Biomass systems require operator training and acceptance • Many projects are seasonal versus 7/24/365 • Customer perceptions about emissions, fuel supply, and scale • Biomass energy projects are capital intensive • 3 rd party business models require innovation in procurement and contracting 14
Thank You Scott Layne, CEM Vice President of Sales North Region USA 484.354.5636 slayne@nexterra.ca www.nexterra.ca
Recommend
More recommend
