1. Biomass CHP – best practice Conclusions and recommendations Anders Evald, Janet Witt, Kati Veijonen Harrie Knoef, Johan Vinterbäck, Elvira Lutter Vienna 9 March 2006

2. Project aims Promote biomass CHP in Europe and highlight plants with the best operation Provide e.g. authorities and future plant owners with information about typical plant performance and about best available technologies. Enable benchmarking, identify the improvement potential of the existing European CHP plants Replicate best practices Challenge: collect reliable data

3. Different technolgies covered 19 biogas and landfill gas plants 4 gasification plants 10 CFB (circulating fluidized bed) plants 11 BFB (bubbling fluidized bed) plants 15 grate-fired steam boiler plants using uncontaminated biomass 8 grate-fired steam boiler plants using municipal solid waste (MSW) as a fuel 1 dust fired steam boiler plant

4. Fuels covered Solid biomass –Forest fuels –Forest industry by-products such as bark, sawdust etc. –Wood pellets –Agricultural residues such as straw, husk etc. –Municipal solid waste –Landfill gas –Manure etc. for biogas plants Fossil fuels –Heavy fuel oil –Natural gas –Coal

5. Key performance indicators availability utilisation period total efficiency fuel input: biofuels vs. fossil fuels nominal efficiency vs. operational efficiency own power consumption total efficiency on monthly basis

6. Gasification plants Utilization factor: the extent, to which installed power is utilised Availability factor: the extent, to which the plant is available for operation

10. Gratefired boiler plants

12. Ranked to increasing capacity

15. Cross technology comparison

16. Plant size

17. Electric efficiency

18. Total efficiency

19. Utilization

20. Availability

21. Conclusions and recommendations 1.Bigger is better –Higher efficicency –Lower own consumption –Better availability –Lower specific investment –But constrained by heat marked, and not necessarily true for biogas plants

22. Capacity and utilization Plants are bigger than simply justified by the heat market –High electricity price –Optimizing tariff income –Heat accumulator Plants built for the future Plant nominal capacity is too optimistic – very few plant perform anywhere near their anticipated (nominal) efficiency in practical operation Economic optimization –Not too small –Not too big Low utilization = poor payback on invested capital

23. CHP or not CHP Many plants are not 100% dependent on heat market (combined heat and power only as a fraction) German biogas plants produce very little heat, and they don’t meassure it Premium price for electricity not allways require full combined production –Incentive for RE, but not for the most efficient RE Large plants (MSW) cannot connect enough heat demand

24. Balancing heat and power Energy efficiency: electricity is the premium product; heat is a by-product Valid also money-wise But not allways: nordic heat markets show high value for heat Industrial facilities might see steam as the main product and electricity as a byproduct

25. Choosing the right technology Large difference in electric efficiency Low electric efficiency is compensated by more heat Heat market set the framework Steam cycles: go for high steam data Retrofitting old equipment to improve efficiency and reduce own consumption

26. Industrial systems A more fragile heat market Industries change Operated according to steam demand – less power and low utilization

27. Reducing own consumption Big difference depending on choice of technology Option for improvement in old plants Low efficiency lead to high own concumption

28. Operational problems New challenges for plant operators Fuel quality problems (feed systems, moisture content, flue gas fans etc.) Sintering bed material Fouling heat transfer surfaces –Decrease efficiency and high temperature corrosion Result: lower efficiencies, higher maintenance Exchange experience!

29. Some concluding remarks [1] Technology implemented must be mature –Proven prototype models –Long-term duration tests Adequate infrastructure –Local manufacturing capacity –After-sale service –Training facilities –Sustainable feedstock supply Motivated & skilled labor –Operators, Management –Incentives

30. Some concluding remarks [2] Information & knowledge exchange –Performance, limitations, opportunities –Evaluation with competing options –Set-up monitoring program of successes in India, China Clear regulations –Permitting procedures –Emission according to “ALARP” –Health, Safety & Environment Sale of electricity and heat –Any legal obstacle should be removed –Long-term fixed price is prerequisite

31. Some concluding remarks [3] Product quality must meet client specifications –Technical performance –Financial/economic performance –Operational performance –Gaining confidence Certification –stimulation –product must meet defined quality standards Scale-up, demonstration, replication, optimization –Economy of numbers (instead of economy of scale) –Reduced capital costs –Improvement from learning by doing

32. Some concluding remarks [4] >Do not repeat the mistakes from the past –learning by doing and not by a scientific approach (cooperation is prefered) –too optimistic approach of the economics, efficiency and availability, projections: 7000 hrs of operation in 1 st year –no optimal cooperation of the ownership-consortium and conflicting interests (who is responsible for what). Manufacturer versus plant owner Plant owner/technology supplier versus permitting authority

33. Health, Safety & Environment www.gasification-guide.eu

34. Success stories CHP gasifiers [1] More than “5 installed” systems: –Bioneer [district heating] –Co-firing [at power stations] –Biomass engineering, UK –Eqtec, Spain –Xylowatt, BE –Mothermik, DE –Pyroforce, CH –Güssing concept, AT –Volund (DK, DE, Japan, Italy)) –India, China (thousands, but unfavourable emissions)

35. Success stories [2]

36. Success stories [3]

37. Thank you for your attention! Harrie Knoef BTG biomass technology group BV www.btgworld.com Knoef@btgworld.com Ph: +31-53-4861190