How are torrefaction technologies coming along?

Co-firing biomass in coal plants is being pushed in the UK. However, untreated biomass such as wood chips are fibrous, unlike easily ground coal. The difference in the consistency limits how much biomass used in co-firing. Torrefaction is a process of 'roasting' the feedstocks such as willow biomass making it the same consistency as coal, a harder fuel, easier to crush, and more effective for co-firing. Torrefied biomass is is also less costly to store, transport and handle than chips. The process works by heating the feedstock in oxygen deficient high temperature (about 300 C), removing water and volatile organic compounds (VOC), resulting in higher heat content and bulk density.

In a very good summary of the research in UK they discuss the issues surrounding torrefaction. To summarize here are some key questions:
1) which crops/trees are best for torrefaction. Grasses vs wood (softwood or hardwood?
2) whether torrefied biomass causes spontaneous combustion and potential explosiveness?
3) what are the environmental impacts - for example how much energy is used in making torrefied biomass? 

All these lead to the big question. Is torrefaction economical? According the article and the researchers interviewed : we still a number of years off from answering this question.

In our region Terra Green Energy is a leader of torrefaction technology. Check them out.

Torrefied biomass

Nothing simple in biomass burning tradeoffs

In light of the recent 400 ppm carbon dioxide in the atmosphere milestone The debate rages on in two recent articles about whether burning wood helps reduce carbon emissions.

The Guardian blog looked at the UK government encouragement of power stations to burn biomass. Case in point is the Drax plant - UKs largest power plant is converting 3 of the its 6 660MW units to biomass. The blog notes: "the biomass-for-energy debate suffers from being particularly nuanced, complex and scenario rich." In other words its not clear cut in terms of a good or bad thing. The blog argues tor addressing 3 key questions: 1) what biomass is being used, 2) are sustainability standards in place, and 3) the scale issue, especially since much of UK's wood is imported, and may eventually replace land for food production.

Midwest Energy news discusses a forest carbon issues, and specifically again refers to the 2010 Manomet study where one of the authors John Gunn recently noted in response to a report advocating heat from biomass that: "forest biomass GHG emissions are much more complicated than your article indicates.”

Gunn's point is that is not right to just assume biomass is carbon neutral. He notes that we need to consider: 1) the feedstock being burned 2) what is displacing, 3) whether we using the biomass for heat or electricity, and 4) the sustainability of the land management practices from which the biomass is coming. Similar arguments to the Guardian blog article. Here is a nice video describing the Drax plant.

Grass energy in the Northeast

Check out the presentations (PowerPoints) here from the 2nd annual Ag biomass heating Seminar, part of the  NE Heat conference held in Saratoga Springs in early April.

My quick thoughts from the seminar were:

1) There is ambitious and dedicated small scale grass energy production happening. Check out Bob Thomas's talk for example, however issues include field stones getting into processing machines, inconsistent  feedstock quality, feedstock moisture, pelletizing time, pellet fuel storage, ash content, boiler efficiency (combustion completeness).
2) Be sure to examine alternative markets when energy doesn't pay - see Don Nott's talk for example where he was producing switchgrass for energy but now is making more by selling it for animal bedding and fiber board, etc.
3) Can't compete with wood when there is so much low use wood available -  lets use wood supply first.
4) Folks are working on mobile pelletitizers.
5) Grass energy conversion for heat is still very expensive comparatively.
5) Markets are scarce - whats new?

Global state of the cellulosic fuel industry

About 140,000 metric tons of cellulosic fuel was produced annually since 2010, according to the “Status of Advanced Biofuels Demonstration Facilities in 2012,” a report produced by the International Energy Agency Bioenergy Task 39 group. Its a healthy 209 page report if you want to delve into details from surveyed companies developing advanced biofuel projects. Of 71 companies discussed in the repert, about two-thirds are using the biochemcial pathway, and almost 70% are operational. Here is link to the report, for more about IEA Task force 39 click here, and the Biomass magazine has a nice summary. They note:

“This report aims to cover the broad range of projects and technologies and to give an overview on who is pursuing them and where,” said the Task 39 group in the analysis. “As an update to a report published in 2010, it furthermore provides information on pathways that have been developed successfully and on such that have failed. The aim is to monitor the multi-facetted development, add transparency to the sector and thus support the development and deployment of advanced biofuels production technologies.”

Raw data for the report was supplied by the companies pursuing advanced biofuel projects. Therefore, the EIA Bioenergy Task 39 group warns that the list of projects may be incomplete, as some companies can be reluctant to share data. Information in the report also specifies that the group did complete independent evaluation of submitted data.

IEA Bioenergy Task 39 - Commercializing Liquid Biofuels

IEA Bioenergy Task 39 - Commercializing Liquid Biofuels

Links of interest

Excellent resource for finding wood-to energy facilities 

UK study finds problems with biofuels

Bloomberg New Energy Finance show strong renewable growth through 2030

Energy crops on marginal lands

If energy crops such as willow and switchgrass are going to become a consistent and reliable source of feedstock for biorefineries they need to be grown on our thousands of acres of 'marginal', idle, and strip mine lands. Peter Woodbury from Cornell gave a NEWBio webinar yesterday on the issue of the types of land suitable to growing energy crops. He focuses on land not already used for crops or forests.  Watch the webinar here. A huge issue of course is land availability and at what price will it take for farmers to grow this stuff. Of course that's assuming there is a market. Woodbury discussed his criteria for what defining these 'marginal' lands. And that's a debate in and of itself. He used land cover, land use and biophysical data to show maps and area available for energy crops that won't compete with food crops. He discussed this in the context of the Renewable Fuels Roadmap for New York.

And here is an article from Biomass Magazine from a couple of years on Ceres and Mendel growing energy crops on 'marginal lands.

Miscanthus grown by Mendel on reclaimed mine lands: Photo:  Oxford Resource Partners

The Renewable Portfolio Standard in limbo

Its a complicated business trying to set Renewable Portfolio Standards (RFS). Actually RFS2. Some background. The RFS2 came out of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 which stated that refiners will blend 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022.  Although EISA set annual cellulosic ethanol targets the problem is to date there is no commercial production of the stuff. See my previous blog about why. The EPA is charged with establishing and amending these targets based on Energy Information Administration (EIA) data.

So whats happening? The EIA estimates over 5 million gallons will be available in 2013. The EPA set its target at 14 million gallons, while the original EISA expected 1 billion gallons. Interestingly the Bloomberg Finance News has a white paper saying:

"The EPA's expectation of 14m gallons of cellulosic biofuels falls comfortably within our own projections of 22m gallons. The EPA expects this production to come from two commissioned plants (developed by KiOR and INEOS Bio), whereas our forecast also includes output from three other plants that we expect to become operational this year (plants developed by POET/DSM, Abengoa, and Fiberight)."

By the way a federal appeals court struck down EPAs 2012 standard. The oil and gas industry took EPA to court because they get fined for not using the fuel, even though it unavailable. This is where Congress comes in with a number bills and reports to either cap future standards, use only realized production, or get rid of the RFS all together  This last one is unlikely as the RFS is important in stimulating the nascent industry. In fact the ethanol industry is lobbying for EPA to increase blending requirements from 10 percent (E10) to 15 percent (E15). They worried about the blend wall, i.e., what happens when supply exceeds the mandated requirement. All in all it will an interesting year for RFS2 and hopefully there will be some clarification for all sides.

KiOR facilty in Mississippi is one of the first companies to produce cellulosic diesel from yellow pine