See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236898178

A review on biomass classification and composition, co-firing issues and

pretreatment methods

Conference Paper · August 2011

DOI: 10.13031/2013.37191

CITATIONS READS
66 13,556

5 authors, including:

Jaya Shankar Tumuluru Christopher T Wright

Idaho National Laboratory Idaho National Laboratory
169 PUBLICATIONS   3,397 CITATIONS    51 PUBLICATIONS   2,285 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Richard D. Boardman Neal A Yancey

Idaho National Laboratory Idaho National Laboratory
46 PUBLICATIONS   1,103 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   448 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Biomass comminution process View project

Biopower View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jaya Shankar Tumuluru on 30 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INL/CON-11-22458
PREPRINT

A Review on Biomass
Classification and
Composition, Co-Firing
Issues and Pretreatment
Methods

2011 ASABE Annual International

Meeting

Jaya Shankar Tumuluru

Shahab Sokhansanj
Christopher T. Wright
Richard D. Boardman
Neal A. Yancey

August 2011
This is a preprint of a paper intended for publication in a journal or
proceedings. Since changes may be made before publication, this
preprint should not be cited or reproduced without permission of the
author. This document was prepared as an account of work
sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither
the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of
their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use,
or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product or
process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such
third party would not infringe privately owned rights. The views
expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of the United
States Government or the sponsoring agency.
An ASABE Meeting Presentation

Paper Number: 1110458

A Review on Biomass Classification and Composition, Co-firing

Issues and Pretreatment Methods

Jaya Shankar Tumuluru*1, Shahab Sokhansanj2, Christopher T. Wright1, Richard D.

Boardman1 and Neal A. Yancey1

1
Idaho National Laboratory, 2525 North Fremont Ave., Idaho Falls Idaho 83415.
[email protected] .
2
Oakridge National Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6422
[email protected].

Written for presentation at the

2011 ASABE Annual International Meeting
Sponsored by ASABE
Gault House
Louisville, Kentucky
August 7 – 10, 2011

Abstract. Presently, around the globe, there is a significant interest in using biomass for
power generation as power generation from coal continues to raise environmental
concerns. Using just biomass for power generation can bring a lot of environmental
benefits. However the constraints of using biomass alone can include high investments
costs for biomass feed systems and also uncertainty in the security of the feedstock
supply due to seasonal variations, and in most countries, limited infrastructure for
biomass supply. Alternatively, co-firing biomass along with coal offers advantages like a)
reducing the issues related to biomass quality and buffers the system when there is
insufficient feedstock quantity and b) costs of adapting the existing coal power plants will
be lower than building new systems dedicated only to biomass. However, with the above
said advantages there exists some technical constrains including low heating and energy
density values, low bulk density, lower grindability index, higher moisture and ash
content. In order to successfully cofire biomass with coal, biomass feedstock
specifications need to be established to direct pretreatment options that may include
increasing the energy density, bulk density, stability during storage and grindability.
Impacts on particle transport systems, flame stability, pollutant formation and boiler tube
fouling/corrosion must also be minimized by setting feedstock specifications including
composition and blend ratios if necessary. Some of these limitations can be overcome by
using preprocessing methods. This paper discusses the impact of feedstock
preprocessing methods like sizing, baling, pelletizing, briquetting, washing/leaching,
torrefaction, torrefaction and pelletization and steam explosion in attainment of optimum
feedstock characteristics to successfully cofire biomass with coal.

Key Words: Biomass, co-firing issues, pretreatment methods, physical and chemical
properties
Introduction
Behind only coal and oil, biomass stands as the third-largest energy resource in the world
(Bapat et al. 1997). Until the mid-19th century, biomass dominated global energy consumption.
With steep increases in fossil-fuel usage, biomass consumption for energy purposes has
declined for the past 50 years, but still provides about 1.25 billion tons of oil equivalents (Btoe)
or about 14% of the world’s annual energy consumption (Purohit et al., 2006; Werther et al.,
2000; and Zeng et al., 2007). Out of the 230 exajoules of estimated global primary energy, 56
exajoulesnearly one-fourthis used for agricultural practices (WEC, 1994). Wood fuels,
agricultural straws, and grasses are the most prominent biomass energy sources.
Biomass, if properly managed, offers many advantages, the most important being a renewable
and sustainable energy feedstock. It can significantly reduce net carbon emissions when
compared with fossil fuels, making it a clean development mechanism (CDM) for reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Li and Hu, 2003). The cheapest biomass sources are the
waste products from wood or agro-processing operations, but their supply is limited. To
overcome this limitation, countries around the world are planting biomass crops for energy
purposes. Most developed and industrialized nations have begun developing technologies to
use biomass more efficiently. In the United States and most of Europe, biomass has already
penetrated the energy market. The United States and Sweden obtain about 4 and 13% of their
energy, respectively, from biomass (Hall et al., 1992). Sweden has decided to phase out nuclear
plants, reduce fossil-fuel energy usage, and increase the use of biomass energy (Björheden,
2006).
In April 2005, the US Department of Energy (USDOE) and the US Department of Agriculture
(USDA) published a joint report commonly referred to as “The Billion Ton Report (BTR).” The
purpose of the report was to identify the technical feasibility of producing a billion tons of
biomass annually for use as feedstocks for biofuels and bioenergy, which would potentially
displace 30% of our annual petroleum use. This report looked at the production of biomass from
two primary landuses, forestland and agricultural land, which are estimated to produce 368 and
998 million dry tons per year respectively by the mid-21st century (USDOE/USDA 2005).
Presently, around the globe, there is a significant interest in using biomass for power generation
as power generation from coal continues to raise environmental concerns. Using just biomass
for power generation can bring a lot of environmental benefits. The limitations of using biomass
alone can include high investments costs and also the security of the feedstock supply which
can be attributed to seasonal supply and in most of the countries biomass is dispersed and the
infrastructure for biomass supply is not well established (EUROPE, Europe Commission). The
technical limitations of using just biomass can be low heating values, low bulk densities which
make large units of biomass to be transported (IEA Clean Coal Center, 2005). To overcome
these limitations combining biomass and coal for power generation can be a potentially viable
alternative. Advantages of co-firing biomass along with coal includes a) Coal can reduce the
issues related to biomass quality and buffer the system when there is insufficient feedstock
quantity and b) costs of adapting the existing coal power plants will be lower than building new
systems dedicated only to biomass (IEA Clean Coal Center, 2005). Type of biomass feedstock
available for energy purposes include agricultural residues, dedicated energy crops, forestry,
industry, parks and gardens, waste and other. Table 1 shows the list of biomass feedstock
material available for power generation.

3
Table 1. Types of biomass feedstocks used for energy purposes
Supply Type Example
Sector
Agricultural Dry lignocellulosic Straw (maize, cereal, rice)
residues agricultural residues Sugar beet leaves
Residue flows from bulb sector
Livestock waste Solid manure (chicken manure)
Liquid manure (cattle, pigs, sheep manure)
Dedicated Dry lignocellulosic SRW – willow; SRC – poplar; Eucalyptus
energy crops woody energy crops
Dry lignocellulosic Miscanthus; Switch grass; Common reed; Reed
herbaceous energy canary grass; Giant reed; Cynara cardu; Indian
crops shrub

Oil energy crops Sugar beet; Cane beet; Sweet sorghum; Jerusalem
Artichoke; Sugar millet
Starch energy crops Wheat; Potatoes; Maize; Barley; Triticae; Corn
(cob); Amaranth
Others Flax (Linum); Hemp (Cannabis); Tobacco stems;
Aquatic plants (lipids from algae); Cotton stalks;
Kenaf
Forestry Forestry by-products Bark; Wood blocks; Wood chips from tops and
branches; Wood chips from thinning; Logs from
thinning
Industry Wood industry Industrial waste wood from sawmills and
Residues Industrial waste wood from timber mills (bark,
sawdust, wood chips, slabs, off-cuts)
Fibrous vegetable waste from virgin pulp production
and from production of paper from pulp, including
black liquor
Food industry Wet cellulosic material (beet root tails); Fats (used
Residues cooking oils); Tallow, yellow grease; Proteins
(slaughter house waste)
Industrial products Pellets from sawdust and shavings; Briquettes from
sawdust and shavings; Bio-oil (pyrolisis oil); Ethanol;
Bio-diesel

Parks and Herbaceous Grass

Gardens Woody Pruning
Waste Contaminated waste Demolition wood; Biodegradable; municipal waste;
Sewage sludge; Landfill gas; Sewage gas
Others Roadside hay Grass/hay
Husks/Shells Almond; Olive; Walnut; Palm pit ; Cacao
Note: Explanation of feedstock categorization in the table: dry lignocellulosic feedstock is the category of
feedstock, which can be used for thermo chemical conversion (gasification, combustion and liquefaction).
Wet lignocellulosic feedstock is a feedstock that can be used for biological conversion (digestion)
Source: Loo van and Koppejan (2004) and VIEWLS (2005).

4
Status on biomass co-firing
Biomass co-firing has been successfully demonstrated in over 150 installations worldwide for
most combinations of fuels and boiler types. About a hundred of these have been in Europe. In
the United States there have been over 40 commercial demonstrations and the remainder has
been mainly in Australia. A broad combination of fuels, such as residues, energy crops,
herbaceous and woody biomasses have been co-fired in PCC, stoker and cyclone boilers. The
proportion of biomass has ranged from 1% to 20%. The experience of biomass co-firing in PCC
boilers has demonstrated that, co-firing woody biomass resulted in a modest decrease in boiler
efficiency but no loss of boiler capacity. There was, however, a considerable reduction of SO2,
NOx and mercury emissions. Though herbaceous biomass have been co-fired in several plant
worldwide, their higher inorganic matter content results in higher chance of slagging and fouling.
Co-firing herbaceous fuels tends to be more difficult and costly than other fuels but it is possible
to co-fire there fuels if there is a regulatory incentive to do so.
Biomass co-firing has been used in Europe and the Netherlands in particular for over a decade.
Full-scale commercial co-firing of at least 10 percent biomass (based on heat input) is a daily
practice, with a wide variety of bio-fuels and co-firing configurations. The technology of co-firing
has been demonstrated in many boilers types in Europe.
The US has been slow to adopt biomass co-firing due to its limited full-scale commercial use
due to a lack of incentives, and a general reluctance in introducing new fuels into boilers.
However, power generation and co-generation from biomass, waste, and recovered fuels is now
quickly becoming a hot topic for the power sector as a result of new environmental policies and
regulations.
Hughes and Tillman (1998) have reviewed some of the co-firing studies carried out in USA.
These authors in their article on “biomass co-firing: status and prospects” have identified the
various utilities companies like Tacoma Public Utilities, Northern States Power, and Southern
Company has used the biomass for co-firing purposes and anticipated the public benefits.
The commercial operation of the Southern Company was at Georgia Power’s Plant Yates. The
Yates plant co-firing involved mixing low percentages of wood waste with coal on the coal pile.
Since Yates is a PC-based station, the wood waste fine sawdust, and coal are transported
together through the coal handling system and the pulverizers enroute to the boilers.
Tacoma Steam Plant # 2 was repowered by adding two fluidized-bed boilers fired with locally
available wood waste, RDF, and coal. The wood fuel used is the locally available hog fuel.
Northern States Power initiated co-firing at its King Station in the year 1987. They have used a
550 MWe cyclone boiler fired with sub-bituminous coal along with finely divided wood waste.
KEMA over the past 15 years has done co-firing with both direct and indirect systems using
different biomass. They have tried to co-firing coal and biomass mixtures up to 25 % and have
been involved with more than 50 small and full scale biomass trials. In North America, they have
performed extensive feasibility studies on co-firing for six large utilities (www. kema.com).
KEMA has recently supervised a fuel supply study, and provided a detailed techno-economic
assessment and conceptual design for American Electric Power (AEP), a U.S. public utility
holding company. The plant featured an 800 electrical megawatt (MWe) opposed wall
pulverized coal-fired boiler; the base load unit. The plant was firing low sulfur Eastern
bituminous coal, but after a flue gas desulfurization unit was installed in 2008, it was switched to
high sulfur coal, with four to seven pounds sulfur dioxide per one million BTU. The plant had a
selective catalytic reduction unit and cold-side electrostatic precipitator installed.

5
These commercial experiences have helped to identify the opportunities, and technical barriers,
associated with co-firing coal and biomass. Opportunities includes in the area of customer have
been demonstrated. Barriers identified includes fuel procurement issues, fuel quality issues, ash
quality issues related to flyash sales, and limits to the percentage of biofuels that can be fired
under given configurations.
There are various technical issues on co-firing biomass with coal. The major ones being fuel
feed, boiler chemistry, and ash deposition and disposal. Some of the issues has been
addressed by pretreating the biomass and are reaching to a solution. Losses in boiler efficiency
are mostly due to high moisture content in the biomass fuels. A consensus is emerging that co-
firing is feasible at most coal-fired power plants. Many power companies sell fly ash as a
Portland cement ingredient. An American Society for Testing and Materials standard (C618)
requires that only “coal ash” be used in the mixture. Work by DOE and several utilities targets a
change in the standard that would allow the use of co-firing ash in portland cement. Success of
this effort may encourage many utilities to use biomass because they will still be able to sell
their ash.
Co-firing may also be an opportunity for power companies to provide new, environmentally
responsible services. This opportunity provides industries, such as construction and
transportation, with a way to manage large quantities of wood waste. Co-firing can also provide
industries such as forestry, wood products, pulp and paper, agriculture, and food processing
with a way to divert large quantities of combustible biomass residues. The cost of biomass fuels
can be low when large amounts of wood and agricultural waste are available. Thus, co-firing
can simultaneously provide a service to industrial customers and renewable energy for
environmentally conscious electricity consumers.

Objective
There has been research carried on understanding the effect of biomass fuel properties like
physical, chemical and biochemical composition and flow properties, in terms of co-firing
efficiency (Mohammad et al., 2006 and Hughes and Tillman, 1998). These studies include a)
understanding the influence of co-firing on ash properties and flyash sales, b) the influence of
co-firing on boiler slagging and fouling problems, c) the influence of fuel blending on pulverizer
performance and d) the maximum percentage of co-firing as a function of materials handling
and combustion technologies. Not much literature is available in detailing biomass pretreatment
methods and their effect on the fuel properties for co-firing purposes. The present research is on
understanding biomass classification and composition, fuel properties in relation of co-firing
issues and to investigate the available pretreatment methods to overcome these issues.

Coal and Biomass classification and Composition

Coal
Coal is formed from ancient plant material accumulated in subsurface environments which
prevents the complete decay of the organic matter. Plants that died in a swampy area if covered
quickly by water, silt, sand, and other sediments further decompose to carbon dioxide and water
under normal circumstances. Instead under anaerobic conditions with the help of anaerobic
bacteria, (bacteria that do not require oxygen to live) the plant debris reduces to simpler forms:
primarily pure carbon and simple compounds of carbon and hydrogen (hydrocarbons) the
process by which coal is formed. The initial stage of decay of dead plants is a soft, woody
material known as peat. In some parts of the world, peat is still collected from boggy areas and
used as a fuel. Peat is not considered as good a fuel, as it burns poorly and releases a lot of

6
smoke. If peat is allowed to remain in the ground for long periods of time, it eventually becomes
compacted as layers of sediment known as overburden, collect above it. The additional
pressure and heat of the overburden gradually converts peat into another form of coal known as
lignite or brown coal. Continued compaction by overburden then converts lignite into bituminous
(or soft) coal and finally, anthracite (or hard) coal..
Although fossil fuels have their origin in ancient biomass, they are not considered biomass by
the generally accepted definition because they contain carbon that has been "out" of the carbon
cycle for a very long time. Their combustion therefore disturbs the carbon dioxide content in the
atmosphere. Technically coal is a sedimentary rock with a chemical structure similar to that of a
polymer. Its structure varies based on the age of the coal and therefore the amount of pressure
applied to it over time. The typical coal structure consists of numerous aromatic rings of five or
six carbons bonded with principally hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, and oxygen atoms. Nitrogen,
hydrogen, and sulfur are responsible for the majority of coal’s chemical properties. The nitrogen
and oxygen atoms in coal result in a readily combustible structure which has made coal a
popular fuel and source of heat throughout history. The main types of coal are listed below from
youngest:
¾ Peat (technically a precursor to coal)
¾ Lignite
¾ Sub-bituminous coal
¾ Bituminous coal
¾ Anthracite (pictured below)
¾ Graphite
Coal was first mined as fuel as far back as 10,000 years ago in China. During the last three
hundred years, coal has played an important role in the technological advances, culture, and the
global economy. Presently, coal is at the center of controversy as coal mining is high risk and
has many social concerns including the production of greenhouse gases when combusted.
Even with all the social and environmental concerns, coal continues to be an important and
improved source of fuel in the twenty first century.
The United States has more coal than the rest of the world has oil. There is still enough coal
underground in US to provide energy for the next 200 to 300 years. Trapped inside coal are
traces of impurities like sulfur and nitrogen. When coal burns, these impurities are released into
the air which further combine with water vapor to form weak forms of sulfuric and nitric acid -
also known as "acid rain."
Coals are classified upon the ratios which the volatile materials or hydro-carbons bear to fixed
carbon. Anthracite coal is low in volatile material and high in fixed carbon. Soft coals are high in
volatile matter and low in carbon. Volatile hydrocarbons in different coal are given in Table 2.

Table 2 The percentage of coal in volatile hydrocarbons runs are as follows

Anthracite 3.6
Semi-Anthracite 6.12
Semi-bituminous 2.18
Bituminous 8.50
The remaining components of the coals are absorbed moisture, fixed carbon and ash. The
ash in a first class coal should not be above 8 per cent.

Coal is also classified according to its heating value and relative content of elemental carbon.
Anthracite contains the highest proportion of pure carbon (about 86%-98%) and has the highest
heat value-13,500–15,600 Btu/lb of all forms of coal. Bituminous coal generally has lower

7
concentrations of pure carbon (from 46% to 86%) and lower heat values (8,300-15,600 Btu/lb).
Bituminous coals are often sub-divided on the basis of their heat value, being classified as low,
medium, and high volatile bituminous and sub-bituminous. Lignite, the poorest of the true coals
in terms of heat value (5,500-8,300 Btu/lb) generally contains about 46%-60% pure carbon. All
forms of coal also contain other elements present in living organisms, such as sulfur and
nitrogen, which are very low in absolute numbers, but have important environmental
consequences when coal is used as fuel. Typical coal analysis for Central Appalachian, Illinois
Basin, Powder River Basin and N. Dakota Lignite are given in Table 3.

Table 3. Typical coal composition

Parameter Central Illinois Powder River N. Dakota
Appalachian Basin Basin (Black Lignite
(Long Fork) Thunder)
Proximate Analysis (wt. %)
Moisture 7.16 5.98 25.84 26.74
Ash 11.52 10.63 5.05 12.52
Volatile matter 31.23 35.11 31.56 31.58
Fixed Carbon 50.09 48.28 37.55 29.16
Ultimate Analysis (wt. % )
Carbon 66.93 60.68 51.89 31.80
Hydrogen 4.43 4.77 3.55 4.51
Oxygen 7.55 13.61 12.77 26.35
Nitrogen 1.34 1.09 0.67 0.59
Sulfur 1.07 3.24 0.23 0.84
Moisture 7.16 5.98 25.84 26.74
Ash 11.52 10.63 5.05 9.17
Chlorine (%) 0.12 0.30 0.01
Higher Heating Value (Btu/lb) 12114 10334 8943 7613
Ash Elemental Analysis (% Dry)
Al2O3 26.25 16.49 16.20 14.01
BaO 0.13 0.67
CaO 2.31 6.71 22.84 13.69
Fe2O3 8.38 20.41 6.02 7.39
K2O 3.26 1.66 0.56 0.51
MgO 1.42 0.77 5.22 2.51
MnO 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.12
Na2O 0.71 1.09 1.44 0.60
P2O5 0.56 0.45 1.57 0.39
SiO2 51.99 39.19 32.76 38.17
SrO 0.19 0.36
TiO2 1.07 0.84 1.28 1.15
SO3 2.20 5.43 10.10 14.41
Source: Tillman et al. (2009)

Biomass
Biomass, a renewable energy source, is biological material derived from living, or recently living
organisms, such as wood and herbaceous material. Historically, biomass is used to generate
electricity or produce heat through direct incineration. Forest residues for example (such as
dead trees, branches and tree stumps), yard clippings, wood chips and municipal solid waste
are often used for this purpose. However, biomass also includes plant or animal matter used for

8
production of fibers or chemicals. Biomass may also include biodegradable wastes that can be
burnt as fuel. It excludes organic materials such as fossil fuels which have been transformed by
geological processes into substances such as coal or petroleum. Industrial biomass can be
grown from numerous types of plants, including miscanthus, switchgrass, hemp, corn, poplar,
willow, sorghum, sugarcane (Volk et al., 2000) and a variety of tree species, ranging from
eucalyptus to oil palm (palm oil).
Biomass covers a whole gamut of energy forms. By definition biomass is “The total mass of
living organisms in a given area or of a given species usually expressed as dry weight. Biomass
also includes organic matter products, by-products and waste derived from living organisms
(especially regarded as fuel) excluding peat from such material. Cellulosic biomass is biomass
from cellulose, the primary structural component of plants and trees.” – IPCC 2007. Other terms
which also have biomass as their basis are biofuel, vegioil, bioenergy, bioethanol, biogas & etc.
The great advantage of biofuels is that they are considered to be 'carbon neutral' as they use up
as much carbon dioxide during growth, as they expel as a fuel.
Biomass, once processed, is also referred to “feedstock.” Different feedstocks available for
energy purposes include: oil seeds, grains, sugar crops, agricultural residues, trees, grasses,
and algae (Pena 2008). Agricultural residues, trees, and grasses, are referred to as cellulosic
biomass. Different parts of the plants are used depending on the category of feedstock. To give
an example biodiesel can be produced directly from the fats and oils from oils seeds like
soybeans etc. (Pena 2008). The product derived from a particular feedstock is dependent on
which part of the plant and the conversion process used. The possible products that can be
derived from biomass include biodiesel, ethanol, butanol, methane, hydrocarbons, and natural
oils, which can be further processed into any number of desirable fuels (Pena, 2008).
The European committee for standardization (CEN) published 27 technical specifications (pre-
standards) for solid biofuels during 2003-2006. Classification of biomass helps to differentiate
the raw material based on their origin with all the details. These are upgraded to common
standards to all the countries in Europe and are labeled as EN standards. The two most
important technical specifications developed are for classification and specification (EN 14961)
and quality assurance for solid biofuels (EN 15234). The classification of solid biofuels is based
on the origin and source. This will help to trace the fuel production chain. The solid fuels are
divided by the following sub-categories.
a) Woody biomass
b) Herbaceous biomass
c) Fruit biomass
d) Blends and mixtures

According to EN standards, woody biomass includes trees, bushes, and shrubs while
herbaceous biomass includes plants that have non-woody stem and which die back at the end
of the growing season. Fig. 2 indicates the woody biomass classification based on plantation, by
products and used wood. Herbaceous biomass also includes grains and their by products such
as cereals. Fruit biomass from parts of a plant which hold the seeds and blends refer to
intentional mixing of biomass and mixtures refer to the unintentional mixed biomass. Tables 4, 5
and 6 indicate the detail classification of woody, herbaceous, fruit and blends and mixtures.
Table 7 indicates typical biomass composition of wood and agricultural residues. It is very clear
from the table that ash content and volatile content are higher in agricultural biomass compared
to wood, making wood a more suitable candidate for co-firing purposes.

9
Fig. 2 Woody biomass classification
(Source: Eubionet III-Alakangas, E Classification of biomass origin in European solid biofuels
standards)

10
Table 4. Classification of 1 woody biomass (EN 14961-1)
1.1 Forest 1.1.1 Whole trees 1.1.1.1 Broadleaf
plantation without roots 1.1.1.2 Coniferous
and other 1.1.1.3 Short rotation coppice
virgin 1.1.1.4 Bushes
wood 1.1.1.5 Blends and mixtures
1.1.2 Whole trees with 1.1.2.1 Broadleaf
roots 1.1.2.2 Coniferous
1.1.2.3 Short rotation coppice
1.1.2.4 Bushes
1.1.2.5 Blends and mixtures
1.1.3 Stemwood 1.1.3.1 Broadleaf
1.1.3.2 Coniferous
1.1.3.3 Blends and mixtures
1.1.4 Logging residues 1.1.4.1 Fresh/green, broadleaf (including leaves)
1.1.4.2 Fresh/Green, Coniferous, (including needles)
1.1.4.3 Stored, Broadleaf
1.1.4.4 Stored, Coniferous
1.1.4.5 Blends and mixtures
1.1.5 Stums/roots 1.1.5.1 Broadleaf
1.1.5.2 Coniferous
1.1.5.3 Short rotation coppice
1.1.5.4 Bushes
1.1.5.5 Blends and mixtures
1.1.6 Bark (from forestry operations)a
1.1.7 Segregated wood from gardens, parks, roadside maintenance, vineyards
and fruit orchards
1.1.8 Blends and mixtures
1.2 By- 1.2.1 Chemically untreated 1.2.1.1 Without bark, Broadleaf
products wood residues 1.2.1.2 Without bark, Coniferous
and 1.2.1.3 With bark, Broadleaf
residues 1.2.1.3 With bark, Coniferous
from 1.2.1.5 Bark (from industry operations)a
wood 1.2.2 Chemically treated 1.2.2.1 Without bark
processin wood residues, fibers and 1.2.2.2 With bark
g industry wood constituents 1.2.2.3 Bark (from industry operations)a
1.2.2.4 Fibers and wood constituents
1.2.3 Blends and mixtures
1.3 Used 1.3.1 Chemically untreated 1.3.1.1 Without bark
wood wood 1.3.1.2 With bark
1.3.1.3 Barka
1.3.2 Chemically treated 1.3.2.1 Without bark
wood 1.3.2.2 With bark
1.3.2.3 barka
1.3.3 Blends and mixtures
1.4 Blends and mixtures.
a
Cord is not included in bark

11
Table 5. Classification of 2 herbaceous biomass (EN 14961-1)
1.1 Herbaceous 2.1.1 Cereal crops 2.1.1.1 Whole plant
biomass 2.1.1.2 Straw parts
2.1.1.3 Grain or seeds
2.1.1.4 Husk or shells
2.1.1.5 Blends and mixtures
2.1.2 Grasses 2.1.2.1 Whole plant
2.1.2.2 Straw parts
2.1.2.3 Seeds
2.1.2.4 Shells
2.1.2.5 Blends and mixtures
2.1.3 Oil seed crops 2.1.3.1 Whole plant
2.1.3.2 Stalk and leaves
2.1.3.3 Seeds
2.1.3.4 Husks or shells
2.1.3.5 Blends and mixtures
2.1.4 Root crops 2.1.4.1 Whole plant
2.1.4.2 Stalk and leaves
2.1.4.3 Root
2.1.4.4 Blends and mixtures
2.1.5 Legume crops 2.1.5.1 Whole plant
2.1.5.2 Stalk and leaves
2.1.5.3 Fruit
2.1.5.4 Pods
2.1.5.5 Blends and mixtures
2.1.6 Flowers 2.1.6.1 Whole plant
2.1.6.2 Stalk and leaves
2.1.6.3 Seeds
2.1.6.4 Blends and mixtures
2.1.7 Segregated herbaceous biomass from gardens, parks, roadside
maintenance, vineyards, and fruit orchards

2.1.8 Blends and mixtures

2.2 By-products 2.2.1 Chemically untreated 2.2.1.1 Cereal crops and grasses
and residues herbaceous residues 2.2.1.2 Oil seed crops
from 2.2.1.3 Root crops
herbaceous 2.2.1.4 legume crops
processing 2.2.1.5 flowers
industry 2.2.1.6 Blends and mixtures
2.2.2 Chemically treated 2.2.2.1 Cereal crops and grasses
herbaceous residues 2.2.2.2 Oil seed crops
2.2.2.3 Root crops
2.2.2.4 legume crops
2.2.2.5 flowers
2.2.2. 6 Blends and mixtures
Blends and mixtures
2.3 Blends and mixtures

12
Table 6. Classification of 3 fruit biomass and 4 Blends and mixtures (EN-14961-1)
3.1 Orchard and 3.1.1 Berries 3.1.1.1 Whole berries
horticulture 3.1.1.2 Flesh
fruit 3.1.1.3 Seeds
3.1.1.4 Blends and mixtures
3.1.2 Stone/kernel 3.1.2.1 Whole fruit
fruits 3.1.2.2 Flesh
3.1.2.3 Stone/kernel
3.1.2.4 Blends and mixtures
3.1.3 Nuts and 3.1.3.1 Whole nuts
acorns 3.1.3.2 Shells and husks
3.1.3.3 Kernels
3.1.3.4 Blends and mixtures
3.1.4 Blends and mixtures
3.2 By-products 3.2.1 Chemically 3.2.1.1 Berries
and residues untreated fruit 3.2.1.2 Stone/kernel fruits
from fruit residues 3.2.1.3 Nuts and acorns
processing 3.2.1.4 Crude olive cake
industry 3.2.1.5 Blends and mixtures
3.2.2 Chemically 3.2.1.2 Stone/kernel fruits
treated fruit 3.2.1.3 Nuts and acorns
residues 3.2.1.4 Crude olive cake
3.2.1.5 Blends and mixtures
3.2.3 Blends and mixtures
3.3 Blends and mixtures
4 Blends and mixtures
4.1 Blends
4.2 Mixtures

Table 7. Typical biomass composition

Parameter Wood waste Switchgrass Corn Stover
Proximate Analysis (wt. %)
Moisture 42.00 9.84 8.00
Ash 2.31 8.09 6.90
Volatile matter 47.79 69.14 69.74
Fixed Carbon 7.90 12.93 15.36
Ultimate Analysis (wt. % )
Carbon 29.16 42 42.60
Hydrogen 2.67 5.24 5.06
Oxygen 23.19 33.97 36.52
Nitrogen 0.60 0.69 0.83
Sulfur 0.07 0.17 0.09
Moisture 42 9.84 8.00
Ash 2.31 8.09 6.90
Chlorine (%) 0.01 0.18 0.24
Higher Heating Value (Btu/lb, 5028 7002 7000
A.R.)
Ash Elemental Analysis (% Dry)
Al2O3 3.55 4.51 3.80
BaO

13
CaO 45.46 5.60 8.80
Fe2O3 1.58 2.03 1.80
K2O 8.52 11.60 17.30
MgO 7.48 3.00 3.40
MnO
Na2O 2.13 0.58 1.50
P2O5 7.44 4.50 2.70
SiO2 17.78 65.18 52.10
SrO
TiO2 0.50 0.24 0.13
SO3 2.78 0.44 3.70
Source: Tillman et al. (2009)

Biofuels
Biofuel is defined as: “Any liquid, gaseous, or solid fuel produced from plant or animal organic
matter. Second-generation biofuels are products such as ethanol and biodiesel derived from
ligno-cellulosic biomass by chemical or biological processes.” –IPCC 2007
Biofuels are derived from various plant parts and the conversion process used to convert the
plant part determines the biofuel that can be produced. Each biofuel displaces different
quantities of fossil fuel equivalents. The conversion of biomass to biofuel can also result in by-
products, which are usually plant parts and materials that cannot be converted due chemical
composition.
The final step in the production of bioenergy, defined as “energy derived from biomass (IPCC
2007)”, is the consumption of biofuels to produce electricity, heat, or steam. Heat is the form of
energy used in combustion engines, which we typically associate with biofuel consumption.
Unprocessed biomass can also be directly burned to produce heat, as is the case when wood is
burned in a fireplace. The previously mentioned by-products can also be directly burned to
produce bioenergy in the form of heat.

Biomass co-firing
Co-firing is the burning of more than one type of fuel simultaneously. Usually, the term is used
to describe the burning of coal with another fuel source. The fuel can be mixed with the coal
outside the combustor, or the fuels can be added to the combustor separately. The most
common type of facility for co-firing is large, coal-fired power plants, however, other coal-burning
facilities, like cement kilns, industrial boilers, and coal-fired heating plants, are also good
candidates for co-firing.
Co-firing biomass can be a low-cost option for converting biomass to electricity efficiently and
cleanly by adding biomass as a partial substitute fuel in high-efficiency coal boilers. In all the
boiler types commonly used by electric utilities, it has been proven that there will be little or no
loss in total boiler efficiency after adjusting combustion output for the new fuel mixture. This
implies that biomass combustion efficiency to electricity would be close to 33%-37% when co-
fired with coal. Extensive studies on biomass co-firing has indicated that biomass can provide
about 15% of the total energy input with modification of feed intake and burner modifications.
Co-firing biomass with coal offers several environmental benefits like reduced emissions of
carbon dioxide. With less sulfur in the biomass than in most coals a significant reduction of
emissions of sulfurous gases like sulfur dioxide also occurs. A couple of studies on co-firing

14
woody biomass with coal showed significant reduction, about 30%, in oxides of nitrogen which
results in smog and ozone pollution.
In general, there are four alternative approaches to injecting biomass into the generation
process. Each approach targets different parts of the process, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Alternative Co-firing Approaches (Source: www.kema.com)

Approach 1 blends the coal/biomass mixture on a conveyor belt and co-mills the fuel mixture in
the existing coal pulverizers, then combusts in the existing coal burners. Approach 2 separates
biomass pre-processing (milling and drying), followed by injection of the biomass in the
pulverized fuel lines (after the pulverizers) and simultaneous biomass/coal combustion in the
original or modified coal burners. Approach 3 separates biomass pre-processing, feeding and
combustion in separate, dedicated biomass burners. Finally, approach 4 provides for indirect
co-firing of biomass; for example, through an upfront gasifier with co-combustion of the
(cleaned) fuel gas in the main coal-fired boiler.

Technical considerations for co-firing

Each of these approaches has its own unique operational requirements, limitations and
constraints, and puts specific demands on both the fuel quality and the achievable biomass
percentage. Constrains which include technical, regulatory and economic considerations
associated with the all the above approaches are given below (www.kema.com).

¾ Permitting requirements, specific site restrictions

¾ Fuel type, availability and quality
¾ Storage capacity, required road/rail movements, fuel logistics
¾ Required fuel handling, pre-processing (drying, milling)
¾ Pulverizer capacity and performance
¾ Burner arrangement, available space in the boiler house
¾ Possibilities for injecting biomass into the boiler
¾ Boiler performance, steam conditions, net power output, re-powering options
¾ Existing boiler limitations
¾ Corrosion, slagging, fouling propensity
¾ Flue gas cleaning operation and performance
¾ Emissions constraints
¾ Ash quality requirements
¾ Health and safety aspects

15
Regulatory, Environmental and Economic considerations
Regulatory and environmental considerations include current and expected upcoming
renewable energy policies, carbon dioxide emission-reduction targets, tax incentives, and new
legislation with respect to waste disposal (www.kema.com). Economic considerations include
the cost of biomass from identified fuel supplier(s), coal costs, required capital for co-firing
installation, ongoing operations and maintenance costs, and the corporate finance model
(weighted average cost of capital, tax rate, inflation, etc.).

Environmental taxes and credits, and the cost of meeting renewable portfolio standards are also
considered. The assessment can also consider: benefits from reduced sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxide, and/or mercury emissions; reduced ash landfill costs or income from ash applications;
renewable energy certificates (RECs); and production tax credits (PTCs). The cost of emitting
carbon should be assessed against the cost of breaking even with biomass (www.kema.com).

Coal versus biomass combustion

One of the reasons biomass is a good candidate for co-firing with coal is that both biomass and
coal are solid fuels and the equipment designed to burn coal is assumed to be able to use
biomass as well. However, coal and biomass have differences in their chemical composition.
Table 8 indicates typical properties of different solid fuels which include both coal and biomass.
Most notably, biomass has a higher fraction of hydrogen and oxygen, and less carbon than coal.
As a result, biomass tends to generate less energy than coal, about two-thirds as much, on a
mass basis. In addition, the differences in composition cause biomass to have a higher fraction
of volatile matter, which causes it to have more “flaming combustion” and less “char
combustion” (glowing coals). This difference can affect the optimum sizing and design of the
combustion chamber, as well as the ideal flow rate and location of combustion air.
Table 8 Typical elemental composition of Pennsylvania coal and biomass
Fuel Percent C H O N S Si K Ca Cl
Anthracite coal 91-94 2-4 2-5 0.6- 0.6- 2-6 0.1- 0.03- 0.01-
1.2 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.2
Bituminous coal 83-89 4-6 3-8 1.4- 1.4- 2-3 0.1- 0.1- 0.01-
1.6 1.7 0.2 0.3 0.13
Wood, clean & dry 50 6.1 43 0.2 - 0.05 0.1 0.04 -
Switchgrass 48 5.5 43 0.2 - 1.4 0.4 0.2 -
Note: C= Carbon; H= Hydrogen; O= Oxygen; N= Nitrogen; Si= Silicon; K= Potassium; Ca=
Calcium; Cl= Chlorine
Source: Miller and Tillman (2008) and Bain et al. (2003).

Biomass fuel properties and their influence on co-firing

Biomass in general has a proximate analysis of 80% volatile matter and 20% fixed carbon
(moisture and ash free basis) where as group-1 bituminous coal has 70-80 % fixed carbon and
20-30% volatile matter. Table 9 and 10 compares coal and biomass properties showing that
different types of biomasses have differences within the group, especially with regards to
moisture and ash content.

16
Table 9. Typical properties of different solid fuels
Property Coal Peat Wood Bark Forest Willow Straw Reed Olive
without residues canary residues
bark (coniferous grass
tree with (spring
needles) harvest)
Ash 8.5- 4-7 0.4-0.5 2-3 1-3 1.1- 5 6.2-7.5 2-7
content 10.9 4.0
(bd)
6-10 40-55 50-60 45-65 50-60 50-60 17-25 15-20 60-70
Moisture
content
(w%)
26- 18.5- 18.5- 18.5-20 17.4 17.5-19
NCV 20.9- 18.4- 17.1-
28.3 20 23
(MJ/kg) 21.3 19.2 17.5
C, %db 76-87 52-56 48-52 48-52 48-52 47-51 45-47 48-50
45.5-
46.1
H, %db 3.5-5 5-6.5 6.2-6.4 5.7- 6-6.2 5.8- 5.8- 5.7-5.8 5.5-6.5
6.8 6.7 6.0
N, %db 0.8- 1-3 0.1-0.5 0.3- 0.3-0.5 0.2- 0.4- 0.5-1.5
0.65-
1.5 0.8 0.8 0.6
1.04
O, %db 2.8- 30-40 38-42 40-44 40-46 40-46 44 34
24.3-
11.3
40.2
S, %db 0.5- <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05-
<0.05 0.02- 0.08- 0.07-
3.1 0.2
-0.3 0.10 0.13 0.17
Cl, %db <0.1 0.09
0.02- 0.01- 0.01- 0.01-0.04 0.01- 0.14- 0.1 (in
0.06 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.97 ash)
K, %db 0.003 0.8- 0.1- 0.1-0.4 0.2- 0.69- 0.3-0.5
0.02- 30 (in
5.8 0.4 0.5 1.3
0.05 ash)
Ca, %db 4-12 0.05- 0.1-1.5 0.2-0.9 0.2- 0.1- 9 no data
0.02-
0.1 0.7 0.6
0.08
db - dry basis, MC –moisture content w%= percent wet basis; %bd- percent dry basis

Biomass usually has high moisture content resulting in a relatively low fuel calorific value. Fresh
wood typically contains 50% water by weight, whereas bituminous coals are approximately 5%.
This high moisture content of the biomass affects its combustion properties. Higher moisture
content will reduce the maximum combustion temperature and increase the necessary
residence time of feedstock in a combustion chamber, and consequently could result in
incomplete combustion and increased emissions (volume of flue gas produced per energy unit)
(CEN-335-Solid biofuels, Fuel Specifications and classes, March 2003).

Typically biomass contains less ash than coal and its composition is based on the chemical
components required for plant growth, whereas coal ash reflects mineralogical composition. In
both coal and biomass, ash-forming matter can be present in four general forms: easily
leachable salts, inorganic elements associated with the organic matter of the biomass, minerals
included in the fuel structure and inorganic material - typically sand, salt or clay. Alkaline metals
that are usually responsible for fouling of heat transfer surfaces are high in biomass ash and are

17
released in the gas phase during combustion. These inorganic compounds are in the form of
salts or bound in the organic matter. In peat, for example, inorganic matter is bound mostly in
silicates, which are more stable at high temperature. The elemental composition of ash (alkali
metals, phosphorus, chlorine, silicon and calcium) affects ash-melting behavior. Chlorine, a
minor constituent in virtually all coals and all biofuels, contributes to a number of combustion
phenomena depending upon concentration. Even a small concentration of chlorine in the fuel
can result in deposition of harmful alkaline and chlorine compounds on boiler heat transfer
surfaces. Numerous corrosion mechanisms exist with chlorine in solid fuels. These mechanisms
have been elucidated for biomass co-firing with coal. With regard to chemical properties of
biomass, it generally has less sulfur, fixed carbon, and fuel bound nitrogen, but more oxygen
than coal. Another characteristic of biomass is it has low bulk energy density, hydrophilic in
nature and non-friable character (CEN-335-Solid biofuels, Fuel Specifications and classes,
March 2003). Table 11 indicates the physical and chemical characteristics of biomass and their
influence on co-firing.

Table 10. Comparison of selected parameters of different varieties of coal and biomass
Parameter Coal Biomass

Lignite Switchgrass
Central Illinois Powder Wood
Appalachian Basin River waste
Basin
HHV, Btu/lb 12114 10334 8943 7613 5028 7002
lb/106 Btu of 83 97 112 131 199 143
Fuel
Fe2O3/CaO 3.63 3.04 0.26 0.54 0.03 0.36
lb Cl/106 Btu 0.10 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.26
0.38 0.28 0.11 0.13 0.49 1.41
lb (Na2O +
K2O)/106Btu
lb S/106Btu 0.88 3.14 0.26 1.10 0.14 0.24
6
lb H2O/10 5.91 5.79 28.89 35.12 83.53 14.05
Btu
lb ash/106 Btu 9.51 10.29 5.65 12.05 4.59 11.55
lb fuel N/106 1.11 1.05 0.75 0.77 1.19 0.99
Btu
VM/FC Ratio 0.62 0.73 0.84 1.08 6.05 5.35
Cl/S molar 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.21 1.17
ratio
Source: Tillman et al. (2009)

Biomass co-firing challenges and hurdles

Many challenges exist in co-combustion of biomass and coal. To list some of the important ones
a) fuel preparation, b) handling, c) storage issues, d) milling, e) feeding, f) different combustion
behavior, g) possible changes in overall efficiency, h) deposit formation (slagging and fouling), i)
agglomeration and sintering, j) corrosion and/or erosion and consequently changes in life-time
of equipment, k) ash utilization issues and l) overall economics (Baxter, 2005; Karki et al., 2004;
EUBION and Jarvinen and Alakangas, 2001).

18
Table 11. Physical and chemical characteristics of biomass feedstocks and their effects on co-
firing
Properties Effects
Moisture content Storage durability
Dry-matter losses
Low NCV
Self ignition
Physical

Bulk density Fuel logistics (storage, transport, handling) costs

Ash content Dust, particle emissions
Ash utilization/disposal costs
Particle dimension and size Determines fuel feeding system
distribution Determines combustion technology
Drying properties
Dust formation
Operational safety during fuel conveying
Carbon C GCV (positive)
Hydrogen H GCV (positive)
Oxygen O GCV (negative)
Chlorine Cl Corrosion
Nitrogen N NOx, N2O, HCN emissions
Sulfur S SOx emissions, corrosion
Fluor F HF emissions
Corrosion
Potassium, K Corrosion (heat exchangers, superheaters)
Lowering of ash melting temperatures
Chemical

Aerosol formation
Ash utilization (plant nutrient)
Sodium, Na Corrosion (heat exchangers, superheaters)
Lowering ash melting temperatures
Aerosol formation
Magnesium, Mg Increase of ash melting temperature
Ash utilization (plant nutrient)
Calcium, Ca Increase of ash melting temperature
Ash utilization (plant nutrient)
Phosphorus, P Increase in ash meting point
Ash utilization (plant nutrient)
Heavy metals Emissions of pollutants
Ash utilization and disposal issues
Aerosol formation
Source: European Biomass Association et al. (2000) and Loo van and Koppejan (2004)
Note: GCV: Gross calorific value, NCV: Net calorific value
Existing coal mills have a certain capacity, however, the grindability of biomass can limit the
amount of biomass that can be co-milled with coal in existing mills, and consequently co-fired.
Moreover, coal mills or pulverizers cannot process certain types of biomass, due to its fibrous
nature. These problems are often not faced in indirect or parallel co-firing configurations, as the
biomass is milled and delivered to the boiler by an independent line (such dedicated line can
also be introduced to direct co-firing system). Mixtures of fuels with different combustion
behaviors such as blends of wood fuels with straw cannot be combusted together in grate

19
furnaces, whereas fluidized bed combustion systems are more fuel flexible, but have problems
related to bed agglomeration.
Herbaceous biomass is difficult to size in coal pulverizers or mills as it has high chlorine and
alkali content, which creates corrosion problems and deposit formation, whereas wood biomass
which contains less ash and alkali components, makes it more suitable. According to CEN-335-
Solid biofuels, Fuel Specifications and Classes (2003) most of the challenges that co-firing
poses to boiler operation originate from fuel properties and can be summarized as follows
(Demirbas, 2003).
¾ Pyrolysis starts earlier for biomass than for coal
¾ Volatile matter content of biomass is higher than in coal
¾ Fractional heat contribution by volatile substances in biomass is approximately 70%
compared with 30-40% in coal
¾ Specific heating value [kJ/kg] of volatiles is lower for biomass compared with coal
¾ Biomass char has more oxygen compared with coal and it is more porous and
reactive
¾ Biomass ash is more alkaline in nature, which may aggravate the fouling problems
¾ Biomass can have high chlorine content.

Corrosion of the boilers surfaces is one of the major issues when co-firing biomass with coal.
The most commonly identified corrosion mechanism is the reaction of chlorine with alkali metals
(potassium and sodium). Chlorides form the most stable alkali-bearing species in the gas
phase, as KCl and NaCl. Potassium chloride is most significant when co-firing or firing biomass
alone. These compounds can deposit on pendant tubes and other heat transfer surfaces
(Tillman et al., 2009).
Issues related to ash gains importance when biomass is considered for combustion along with
coal in co-firing plants. Ash contents of different biomass fuels can vary significantly (Table 12).
Straw and other herbaceous fuels like Miscanthus or grass have higher ash contents than wood
because they uptake relatively more nutrients during growth. In case of wood fuels, the bark
content in the fuel has an influence on the ash content, as bark has higher ash content and
higher level of mineral impurities such as sand and soil (Loo van and Koppejan 2004).

Table 12. Ash content of different biomass fuels and coal

Biomass fuel Ash content (% wt, d.b)
Bark 5-8
Wood chips with bark (forest) 1-2.5
Wood chips without bark (industrial) 0.8-1.4
Sawdust 0.5-1.1
Waste wood 3-12
Starch and cereals 4-12
Miscanthus 2-8
Coal 5-45 (8.5-10.5 on average)
Source: Loo van and Koppejan 2004; Kavalov and Peteves 2004; EUBION; Foster et al. (2004)

Direct co-firing of biomass and coal produces mixed biomass and coal ash, whereas parallel co-
firing and indirect co-firing can produce separate biomass and coal ashes. The utilization
options for the ash produced (single coal, single biomass, and mixed biomass with coal) are
important from environmental and performance of co-firing systems.

20
Coal ash utilization
The ash produced during firing of coal (boiler slag, fly ash and bottom ash) is utilized in the
construction industry and underground mining, restoration of open cast mines, pits and quarries.

Biomass ash utilization

Potentially, the ash originating from combustion or gasification of biomass can be used as
fertilizers or fertilizer production as they are rich in Mg and Ca. Lack of nitrogen and soluble
phosphorous limits its application for fertilizer. Direct utilization of biomass ash in building
applications might be possible only for some types of bottom ash; or it might be used as raw
material in the production of building materials. Presently, several research activities are
characterizing biomass ash and assessing the possibilities for its utilization. Fly ash from
fluidized bed gasification of biomass can be used as fuel for power generation as they have high
energy content. These ash have high calorific value due to high amounts of unburned carbon
and are hydrophobic According to the estimates in utilization of ash as a fuel is the best option
for carbon-rich ash, from the economical point of view. Ash can be reused as fuel directly in a
form of a fine powder (in PF boiler), or compacted by pelletisation or granulation. Ash in forms of
pellets, briquettes or granules has the following advantages: their volume is reduced by factor 4-
6, they can be stored in ambient air, and the health and safety risks (e.g. dust explosion) are
reduced. To make this application successful, consistency and quality of ash is a key factor.
Also ash needs to be provided in quantities high enough, to boost interest and development of
ash utilization options (Broek van der et al 2002).

Biomass Pretreatment methods to reduce co-firing issues

Different pretreatment methods include a) washing/leaching, b) grinding, c) pelletization, d)
briquetting, e)_torrefaction, and f) steam explosion. Biomass pretreatment is carried out for the
following reasons (Loo van and Koppejan, 2004; IEA Bioenergy; ECN, 2004).
¾ Biomass obtained from different sources often does not match with the narrow fuel
specifications of feeding systems and the conversion processes considered.
¾ Reduce the cost of handling, storage and transportation and to improve transport and
storage characteristics.
¾ Reduce the need to invest in complex and expensive combustion or gasification
installations.
¾ Reduce the plant’s investment, maintenance and personnel costs by using homogenous
fuel that is suitable for an automatic fuel feeding combustion system.
¾ Biomass properties achieved due to pre-treatment can reduce certain problems related
to co-firing like a) problems associated with biomass supply chain (e.g. the costs of
transportation of pelletized or briquetted biomass are lower than those of untreated
biomass) b) operational constraints (certain forms of pre-treatment allow for utilization of
coal infrastructure for feeding, milling etc. of biomass, without their costly modifications
or installation of separate processing lines for biomass) and c) technical constraints (e.g.
reduction of corrosion due to biomass washing).

Washing/Leaching
The potential problems with biomass co-firing with coal include ash deposit, slag formation,
corrosion, sintering and agglomeration and problems related to chemical composition due to
presence of Cl, Na and K. The alkali compounds in the biomass can be reduced by methods
like washing and leaching which help to remove troublesome elements. Additives such as
dolomite and kaolin are capable of reducing sintering problems by raising the melting point of

21
ash. Also vaporization of alkali compounds can be reduced by a decrease in process
temperature (Davidson 2002). Washing of herbaceous biomass is very important due to high
ash content (Jenkins, 1996; Davidson, 2001; Jensen, 2001). The removal of alkali metals,
chlorine and sulfur can be beneficial in increasing the fusion temperatures of straw ash
(Jenkins, 1996).
In general washing and leaching can occur with water, acid, or ammonia. (Davidson, 2001)
Around 90% of alkali in biomass is present in water-soluble or ion-exchangeable form, and is
susceptible to vaporization during heating (Davidson, 2001). Typical ash-forming components
that are leached out by water include alkali sulphates, carbonates and chlorides (EUBION).
Elements leached out by ammonia are organically associated, such as Mg, Ca as well as K and
Na, whereas HCl leaches the carbonates and sulphates of alkaline earth and other metals.
Silicates and other minerals remain in the insoluble residue (EUBION). If biomass washing can
effectively reduce problems caused by alkali components in biomass, largescale washing of
problematic fuels prior to combustion may be economically feasible in industrial conversion
systems (Davidson, 2001). Reduction of alkali compounds in biomass feedstock before co-firing
can save cost involved in maintenance (e.g. superheaters would become more durable for
longer periods) (CORDIS, 2005).

Grinding
Preparation of biomass for co-firing in a boiler requires reducing the material to a smaller size
(Task 3.4, 2001). It is usually not practical and not necessary to bring biomass feedstock to the
same size or shape as coal, however large and aspherical biomass particles cause challenges
for fuel conversion efficiency (in case of coal such sizes would cause an incomplete
combustion, in case of biomass this effect is mitigated due to its highly volatile character)
(Wieck-Hansen and Sander, 2003). Size reduction of biomass can be carried out by the
following methods
¾ Grinding or hammer mills can be used to produce particle sizes below 5 mm.
¾ drum chippers and disc chippers are used for particle sizes in the range of 5-50 mm
¾ Chunking to particle size of 5-25 cm-the particle sizes produced by a chunker vary more
that those produced by chippers, however the advantage of a chunker is its low power
consumption.

Pelletizing
Pelletizing is a compacting process that produces homogenous fuel with a high energy density
in cylindrical shapes with dimension of 6-8 mm diameter (Loo van and Koppejan, 2004).
Currently, pellets are the most appropriate biomass-derived fuel to be utilized in coal-fired plants
(Bergman et al., 2005). Pelletizing of the biomass addresses the low bulk density problems
associated with biomass which significantly impacts the transportation costs and also can
restrict the co-firing ratio due to limited capacity of boiler input systems. Pelletizing can be
applied to various biomass like woody as well as herbaceous. Additionally, the properties of
pellets make it easier to grind the feedstock, handle it, and feed into the boiler. The properties of
biomass pellets are indicated in Table 13. The process of pelletizing includes drying, milling,
conditioning, actual pelletizing and cooling and separation of fines ((Loo van and Koppejan,
2004).

22
Table 13. Properties of densified biomass
Wood pressing Bark pressings
Moisture content [(wt% (w.b)] <12 <18
Ash content [(wt% (d.b)] <0.5 <6
NCV [MJ/kg (d.b.)] >18 >18
S content [wt.% (d.b.)] <0.04 <0.08
N content [wt.% (d.b.)] <0.3 <0.6
Cl content [wt.% (d.b.)] <0.02 <0.04
Source: (Loo van and Koppejan, 2004)
Challenges using pellets in co-firing plants are
¾ Dust generation during uploading and unloading of pellets as they can reduce to fines
due to mechanical damaging (easily disintegrate and cause dust and handling
problems).
¾ Pellets are hydrophilic in nature which makes them difficult to handle when wet. They
tend to absorb moisture from surroundings which make them swell; loose shape and
consistency and create handling problems.

Briquetting
Co-firing of coal with biomass briquettes is an interesting option as the properties allow for using
coal infrastructure (transport, storage, feeding) without modification of the system. The
advantages of briquetting of agricultural residues for boiler applications are (Purohit et al.,
2005):
¾ Rate of combustion can be comparable to that of coal
¾ Uniform combustion can be achieved
¾ Particulate emissions can be reduced
¾ Storage properties are improved
¾ Transportation, storage and feeding are more efficient.

Briquettes can be made from biomass, or blends of biomass and coal-dust (Yaman et al., 2001).
The typical diameter of briquettes is 30-100 mm (Loo van and Koppejan 2004). Briquettes have
density of 800-1200 kg/m3 compared to 60- 180 kg/m3 of loose biomass. The major limitation of
the biomass briquettes is uptake of moisture during storage which can lead to increase in
biological degradation and loss of dimensional stability.

Torrefaction
Torrefaction is treating the biomass thermo-chemically in the absence of oxygen at
temperatures between 200-300°C for residence times of 30-60 min. During this process the
biomass partially decomposes giving off volatiles and giving the remaining solid as a final
product (sometimes referred to as char) (Bergman, 2005). Torrefaction is a promising technique
which can make biomass properties comparable to coal and makes biomass feedstocks
favorable to combustion and gasification. Some of the advantages of torrefaction are
¾ Increases the heating value per unit weight
¾ Makes biomass hydrophobic in nature
¾ Improves the grinding properties
¾ Increases the uniformity in the feedstocks
¾ Increases the binding properties as more lignin is available for binding during pelletizing
¾ Can help to achieve a uniform feedstock

23
Torrefaction can help to reduce some of the constraints biomass has in relation to co-firing with
coal. Size reduction is a major issue due to fibrous nature of the biomass, torrefaction makes
the biomass flaky and crisp which helps in size reduction and reduces the energy required by un
to 70-90% (similar to bituminous coal) (Bergman, 2005). It improves the storage and feeding
characteristics as the biomass is hydrophobic and does not absorb moisture from environment.
It also reduces the dry matter loss during storage and helps to maintain quality. The research
carried out on co-firing of torrefied wood up to 9 % (energy basis), mixed with coal has led to the
conclusion that there is still enough room for increasing the co-firing ratio (pulverizer’s limits
were not reached), and co-firing of torrefied wood can be a viable feedstock option for direct co-
firing of biomass with coal (Weststeyn, 2004). The drawback of torrefaction is low volumetric
energy density (volume of the torrefied biomass is around 180-300 kg/m3). The low volumetric
energy density problems can be overcome by pelletizing the torrefied materials. Torrefaction
and pelletisation can be complementary as they address each other’s limitations. Physical
properties of wood chips and torrefied wood pellets are given in Table 14. The chemical
composition of different torrefied biomass material is given in Table 15.

Table 14. Physical properties of wood chips, regular and torrefied pellets
Physical Property Wood chips Wood pellets Torrefied
wood pellets
Moisture content (%) 35 6-10 % 1-5 %
Calorific Value (MJ/kg) 10.5 16 21
Bulk density (kg/m3) 300-500 600-650 750-800
Energy bulk density 5.8 9 16.7
Hygroscopic nature Wets Wets Hydrophobic
Behaviour in storage Gets mouldy Deteriorates and gets Stable
Dry matter loss mouldy
Source: Mitchell et al. (2007)

Table 15. Ultimate analysis, HHV (dry ash free basis), and moisture content of untreated and
torrefied biomass
Raw Torrefaction temperature °K
Reed Canary Grass 503 523 543 563
C (%) 48.6 49.3 50.3 52.2 54.3
H (%) 6.8 6.5 6.3 6.0 6.1
N (%) 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
O (%) 37.3 37.0 37.3 36.3
Moisture (%) 4.7 2.5 1.9 1.3 1.2
CV (kJ/kg) 19,500 20,000 20,800 21,800
Wheat straw
C (%) 47.3 48.7 49.6 51.9 5.6
H (%) 6.8 6.3 6.1 5.9 1.0
N (%) 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8 27.6
O (%) 37.7 35.6 33.2 0.8
Moisture (%) 4.1 1.5 0.9 0.3 0.8
CV (kJ/kg) 18,900 19,400 19,800 20,700 22,600
Willow
C (%) 49.9 50.7 51.7 53.4 54.7
H (%) 6.5 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0
N (%) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1

24
O (%) 39.9 39.5 38.7 37.2 36.4
Moisture (%) 2.8 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0
CV (kJ/kg) 20,000 20,600 20,600 21,400 21,900
Source: Bridgeman et al. (2008)

Pyrolysis
Fast or flash pyrolysis is an option for directly converting to a liquid product (pyrolysis oil) from
biomass through thermal decomposition at temperatures of 450-550°C. Pyrolysis oil consists of
about 70% oxygenated organics and 30% water (weight basis). The yield efficiency of the
pyrolysis oil production is on average about 70%, depending on the feedstock, process
configuration, and conditions. The volumetric energy content of pyrolysis oil is about 19 GJ/m3,
which is much higher than that of biomass logs (6 GJ/m3). Thus, the transportation costs, which
are a major factor that influences the overall cost efficiency of biomass utilization in energy
systems, are reduced significantly. The application of pyrolysed biomass for co-firing can be
sometimes challenging, as the liquid products obtained by means of pyrolysis are rich in water
that is detrimental for ignition (Yaman 2000). Table 16 indicates the biomass pyrolysis products.

Table 16: Biomass pyrolysis products

Process Products
Liquids (%) Char (%) Gases (%)
Fast pyrolysis (moderate temperature short residence 75 12 13
time)
Carbonization (Low temperature and long residence 30 35 35
time)
Gasification (high temperature long residence time) 5 10 85
Source: Stefan Czernik, NREL

Summary of hurdles required for biomass for co-firing in cogeneration plant are given in Table
17. Table 18 indicates the summary of the advantages of biomass pretreatment and further
challenges associated.

25
Table 17. Summary of the hurdles for biomass-coal co-firing
Hurdles Required Attributes Solutions

9 Less hydrophillic ¾ Torrefaction reduces moisture

Feed Milling,
9 Low in fiber and oils, reduces fibers;
Entrainment,
9 Low in moisture and oily residues ¾ Pelletization increases density
Classification
9 Low friability and particle hardness
9 Particle density equivalence (particle
size/momentum)
9 Dense-phase particle pneumatic transport ¾ Torrefaction & pelletization (ibid)
Feed System
9 Uniform particle size
9 Low explosivity index
9 Particle density equivalence
9 Flame properties match fuel-oxidant mixing and ¾ Torrefaction to adjust fuel heat
Burner Performance
reactions design parameters content
9 Volatiles behavior similarity ¾ Feedstock selection (nitrogen,
9 Soot formation & radiation similarity sulfur, chlorine, etc)
9 Acceptable pollutant formation / control
9 Mineral composition affecting slag formation ¾ Washing and leaching
Slagging / Fly Ash
temperature, viscosity, and corrosivity ¾ Feedstock selection / blending
9 Elemental ash composition
9 Softening / ash fusion temperature
9 Minimal impact on SCR catalyst bed poisoning ¾ Managing fuel properties by pre-
Post Combustion
9 Minimal impact on precipitators and scrubbers treatment processes- i.e.,
Processes
9 Minimal impact on baghouse particle collectors torrefaction, washing/leaching
¾ Feedstock selection / blending

26
Table 18. Biomass pretreatment methods, advantages and challenges
Pretreatment Advantages Challenges
method
9 Basic pre-treatment bringing the feedstock to the ¾ Storage of sized biomass can increase
Sizing
size required by boiler specifications microbiological activity and dry matter losses
(grinding,
¾ Due to microbiological activity, biomass
chipping,
storage can be a source of significant GHG
chunking and
emissions (CH4, N2O).
milling)
¾ Sizing can be problematic due to non-friable
character of biomass

9 Reduces dry matter (energy) losses of biomass ¾ Natural drying is commonly applied, however
Drying
during storage has a disadvantage of unforeseeable
9 Reduces the risk of biomass decomposition, weather conditions
selfignition ¾ Drying in dryers require sized biomass
9 Risk, and problems with fungi development during which can be problematic due to non-friable
storage character of biomass
9 Increases potential energy input for steam
generation
9 Higher energy density, with benefits for ¾ Pellets, despite their benefits, can be
Pelletizing
9 transportation costs sensitive to mechanical damaging and can
9 Possibility for utilization of coal infrastructure for absorb moisture and swell, loose shape and
feeding and milling (permits automatic handling consistency.
and feeding) ¾ They require specific storage environment for
9 Easier grinding safe and efficient storage.
9 Increased possible co-firing ratio (if constrained by
boiler capacity and low bulk density of untreated
biomass)
9 Less storage space required
9 Dry feedstock (better storage properties, reduced
health risks, reduced energy losses, higher calorific
value)
9 Higher energy density, possibility for more efficient ¾ Easy moisture uptake potentially leading to
Briquetting
transport biological degradation and loss of structure
9 Possibility for utilization of coal infrastructure for (similarly to
storage, milling, and feeding ¾ pellets), therefore briquettes require special
9 Less storage space required storage conditions.
9 Possibility of spontaneous combustion during ¾ Hydrophobic agents can be added to
storage is reduced briquetting process, but increase their costs

27
9 Rate of combustion comparable with coal significantly.
9 Reduction of corrosion ¾ Moisture content of biomass is increased
Washing
9 Reduction of slagging, fouling (ash deposition), after washing
/leaching sintering and agglomeration of the bed
9 Reduces the wearing-out of equipment,and
decreases the risk of shut-down of the system for
related maintenance
9 Washing is especially important in case of
herbaceous feedstocks.
9 Possibility for utilization of coal infrastructure for ¾ Torrefied biomass has low volumetric energy
Torrefaction
feeding and milling density (biomass volume after torrefaction is
9 Improved hydrophobic nature – easy and safe reduced only slightly, ranging from 180-
9 storage, biological degradation almost impossible 300kg/m3
9 Improved grinding properties resulting in reduction
of power consumption during sizing
9 Increased uniformity and durability
9 Combines the advantages of torrefaction and ¾ Does not address the problems related to
TOP process
pelletizing, while addressing the challenges related biomass chemical properties i.e. corrosion,
to both. slagging, fouling, sintering, or agglomeration
9 Torrefaction could solve the drawbacks of the co-firing systems.
encountered with the durability and biological
degradation of pellets. In return, pelletisation of
torrefied biomass offers solution to its low
volumetric energy density.
9 After torrefaction, the high energy-consumption for
size reduction and densification is avoided, and the
desired production capacity can be established
with smaller equipment.
9 Higher energy density, resulting in decreased
transportation costs.
9 Easy utilization of coal infrastructure for feeding
and milling
9 Less storage space required
Source: Maciejewska et al. (2006)

28
Conclusions

¾ The main constraints for co-firing biomass with coal, especially in direct co-firing
operations which is considered as the most common method, are handling, storage,
milling and feeding problems, deposit formation (slagging and fouling), agglomeration,
corrosion and/or erosion, and ash utilization issues.

¾ Some of the methods for overcoming the hurdles of co-firing biomass with coal are
taking preventive measure in the downstream like cleaning of deposits by soot blowing
or exchange of agglomerated bed material, adding chemicals to reduce corrosion and
increase the ash melting point in order to avoid agglomeration and deposit formation,
introducing dedicated biomass infrastructure (e.g. feeding, milling, storage, conveying) to
the existing coal system, and more expensive alternative (in terms of investment costs)
is introducing more advanced co-firing modes such as parallel co-firing or indirect co-
firing, where not only fuel preparation and feeding lines, but also conversion units for
biomass and coal are independent.

¾ Co-firing hurdles in terms of physical, chemical and storage properties of biomass can
be reduced by pre-treatment.

¾ Pre-treatment methods like size reduction, washing, pelletizing, briquetting and

torrefaction can help to modify the biomass properties and make them more suitable for
co-firing.

¾ Torrefaction of biomass makes it to behave more like coal and will help overcome the
grinding issues associated with the fibrous nature of biomass and moisture uptake
during storage. The physical and chemical properties of torrefied & densified biomass
are comparable with some coals like N. Dakota Lignite and Powder River Basin coal
(Black Thunder) available in USA.

¾ Torrefied biomass has less hydrogen, oxygen and volatile matter and higher carbon
which make it more suitable for co-firing with coal.

¾ Densification of torrefied biomass material can be the best option in terms of modifying
physical properties, chemical composition and storage behavior for co-firing with coal.

¾ The alkali compounds in the biomass can be reduced by methods like washing and
leaching. Reduction of alkali compounds in biomass feedstock before co-firing can save
cost involved in maintenance of co-firing systems.

¾ More research has to be carried out to understand the elemental ash composition of the
torrefied biomass at different torrefaction temperature, residence time and biomass
species.

¾ An interesting option is pyrolysis of biomass into pyrolysis oil, however this option cannot
be applied in direct co-firing systems since the liquid form of the feedstock requires a
separate conversion unit as well as dedicated transport, storage, feeding etc. systems.

29
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, under DOE Idaho Operations Office
Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517. Accordingly, The U. S. Government retains and the publisher,
by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the U. S. Government retains a
nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published
form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for U. S. Government purposes.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DISCLAIMER

This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S.
Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the
accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that is use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein
to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and
opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S.
Government or any agency thereof.

References
Bain, R. L., W. A. Amos, M. Downing, and R. L. Perlack. 2003. Biopower Technical
Assessment: State of the Industry and Technology. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory Technical Report NREL/TP-510-33123. Golden, Colo.: National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, 2003.
Baxter, L. 2005. Biomass-coal co-combustion: opportunity for affordable renewable energy. Fuel
84, 1295-1302.
Bergman, P.C.A. 2005. Combined torrefaction and pelletisation, The TOP process, ECN-C-05-
073.
Bergman, P.C.A., A.R. Boersma, R.W.R. Zwart, and J.H.A. Kiel. 2005. Torrefaction for biomass
co-firing in existing coal-fired power stations “BIOCOAL”, ECN, ECN-C-05-013.
Biomass Energy Center (http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk) webpage accessed Aug,
2010.
Bridgeman, T.G., J.M. Jones, I. Shiel, and P.T. Williams. 2008. Torrefaction of reed canary
grass, wheat straw and willow to enhance solid fuel qualities and combustion properties.
Fuel 87, 844–856.
Broek van der R., Wijk van A. and Turkenburg W. 2002. Electricity from energy crops in
different settings – a country comparison between Nicaragua, Ireland and the
Netherlands. Biomass and Bioenergy 22, 79-98.
CORDIS. 2005. Solving corrosion issues in combustion biomass, http://icadc.cordis.lu/fepcgi/
srchidadb?CALLER=OFFR_TM_EN&ACTION=D&RCN=2243.
Davidsson, K.O., J.G. Koresgren., J.B.C. Pettersson, and U. Jaglid. 2002. The effects of fuel
washing techniques on alkali release from biomass. Fuel 81, 137-142.
Demirbas, A. 2003. Sustainable cofiring of biomass with coal. Energy Conversion and
Management. 44, 1465-1479.

30
ECN, Biomass pre-treatment and feeding (2004).
EUBION (European Bioenergy Networks), ALTENER, Biomass co-firing-an efficient way to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions (http://ec.europa.eu/old-address-ec.htm)
EUROPA, European Commission,
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/energy/nn/nn_rt/nn_rt_bm/article_1111_en
European Biomass Association et al. (2000). Woodpellets in Europe. State of the Art,
Technologies, Activities, Markets. Thermie B DIS/2043/98-AT, Industrial Network on
Wood Pellets, http://www.energyagency.at/ (en)/publ/pdf/pellets_net_en.pdf, 2000.
Evan E. H., and D. A. Tillman.1998. Biomass cofiring: status and prospects 1996. Fuel
Processing Technology 54, . 127–142
Foster D.J., W.R. Livingston, J. Wells, J.Williamson, W.H. Gibb and D. Bailey. 2004. Particle
Impact Erosion and Abrasion Wear – Predictive Methods and Remedial Measures.
Report No. COAL R241 DTI/Pub URN 04/701.
Mohammad Z., M. Behdad, and T. F. Wall. 2006. Flow properties of biomass and coal blends.
Fuel Processing Technology 87, 281 – 288.

31

View publication stats