Advanced Woody Biomass Logistics for Co-Firing in Existing Coal Power Plant: Case Study of the Great Lakes States

Abstract

One of the core decisions on securing the supply of biomass to co-firing power plants is the design of a proper logistics system. Though technologies have been developed to improve the characteristics of feedstock, their effects in the logistics systems have received less attention. This paper compares the conventional woody biomass logistics system with the advanced woody biomass logistics system that includes the torrefaction process to upgrade the feedstock. More specifically, this study uses a mixed integer linear program to integrate conventional and advanced biomass logistics and applies them to a case study of 26 coal power plants in the Great Lakes states to determine the most feasible logistics system for each plant. The results revealed that the amount of cost savings from the advanced woody biomass logistics depends on the capacity and location of the power plant. To categorize the cost savings of individual plants, it was found that plants can be divided into seven groups based on three parameters: 1) annual coal tonnage shipped (total capacity), 2) availability of biomass in the vicinity, and 3) average distance from biomass collecting sites. Overall savings from advanced logistics were small, but plants within each of the groups demonstrated similar cost reductions. The sensitivity analysis showed that trucking costs and feedstock purchasing costs were most sensitive to variation. From torrefaction effects, energy content after torrefaction had more significance than mass reduction.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 2016.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C., 2014.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. CO₂ Emissions from U.S. Electric Power Sector by Source, 2015, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C., 2016.

Tillman

D. A.

Biomass Cofiring: The Technology, The Experience, The Combustion Consequences. Biomass & Bioenergy, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2000, pp. 365–384.

Roni

M. S.

Eksioglu

S. D.

Searcy

Jha

A Supply Chain Network Design Model for Biomass Co-Firing in Coal-Fired Power Plants. Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 61, 2014, pp. 115–134.

Basu

Butler

Leon

M. A.

Biomass Co-Firing Options on the Emission Reduction and Electricity Generation Costs in Coal-Fired Power Plants. Renewable Energy, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2011, pp. 282–288.

Van der Stelt

M. J. C.

Gerhauser

Kiel

J. H. A.

Ptasinski

K. J.

Biomass Upgrading by Torrefaction for the Production of Biofuels: A Review. Biomass & Bioenergy, Vol. 35, No. 9, 2011, pp. 3748–3762.

Dutta

Leon

M. A.

Pros and Cons of Torrefaction of Woody Biomass. Joint eco ETI & CEF Projects Workshop Turfgrass Institute, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, 2011.

Boardman

R. D.

Cafferty

K. G.

Nichol

Searcy

E. M.

Westover

Wood

Bearden

M. D.

Cabe

J. E.

Drennan

Jones

S. B.

Male

J. L.

Logistics, Costs, and GHG Impacts of Utility Scale Cofiring with 20% Biomass. Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, 2014.

10.

Brzdekiewicz

Yang

Blasiak

Co-Firing Based on Biomass Torrefaction in a Pulverized Coal Boiler with Aim of 100% Fuel Switching. Applied Energy, Vol. 99, 2012, pp. 344–354.

11.

Steer

Marsh

Griffiths

Malmgren

Riley

Biomass Co-Firing Trials on a Down-Fired Utility Boiler. Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 66, 2013, pp. 285–294.

12.

Baxter

Biomass-Coal Co-Combustion: Opportunity for Affordable Renewable Energy. Fuel, Vol. 84, No. 10, 2005, pp. 1295–1302.

13.

Assadi

Impact of Cofiring Biomass with Coal in Power Plants–A Techno-Economic Assessment. Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2009, pp. 283–293.

14.

O’Mahoney

Thorne

Denny

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Generating Electricity from Biomass. Energy Policy, Vol. 57, 2013, pp. 347–354.

15.

Griffin

W. M.

Michalek

Matthews

H. S.

Hassan

M. N. A.

Availability of Biomass Residues for Co-Firing in Peninsular Malaysia: Implications for Cost and GHG Emissions in the Electricity Sector. Energies, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2014, pp. 804–823.

16.

Eksioglu

S. D.

Karimi

Eksioglu

Optimization Models to Integrate Production and Transportation Planning for Biomass Co-Firing in Coal-Fired Power Plants. IIE Transactions, Vol. 48, No. 10, 2016, pp. 901–920.

17.

Poudel

S. R.

Marufuzzaman

Bian

A Hybrid Decomposition Algorithm for Designing a Multi-Modal Transportation Network Under Biomass Supply Uncertainty. Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 94, 2016, pp. 1–25.

18.

Tumuluru

J. S.

Boardman

R. D.

Wright

C. T.

Response Surface Analysis of Elemental Composition and Energy Properties of Corn Stover During Torrefaction. Journal of Biobased Materials and Bioenergy, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012, pp. 25–35.

19.

Couhert

Salvador

Commandre

J. -M.

Impact of Torrefaction on Syngas Production from Wood. Fuel, Vol. 88, No. 11, 2009, pp. 2286–2290.

20.

Chen

Y.-C.

Chen

W.-H.

Lin

B.-J.

Chang

J.-S.

Ong

H. C.

Impact of Torrefaction on the Composition, Structure and Reactivity of a Microalga Residue. Applied Energy, Vol. 181, 2016, pp. 110–119.

21.

Mirchandani

P. B.

Francis

R. L.

Discrete Location Theory. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1990.

22.

IBM. CPLEX User’s Manual, Version 12 Release 7. IBM Corp. Studio, IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization, 2016.

23.

U.S. Department of Energy. 2016 Billion-Ton Report: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy, Volume 1: Economic Availability of Feedstocks ( Langholtz

M. H.

Stokes

B. J.

Eaton

L. M.

, eds.), Oak Ridge, TN, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2016, p. 448.

24.

U.S. Department of Transportation. Transportation Networks, National Transportation Atlas Database 2015. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, D.C., 2016.

25.

Diffen. Hardwood vs Softwood. 2017, http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hardwood_vs_Softwood. Accessed February 5, 2017.

26.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. Form 906/920/923: Utility, Non-Utility, and Combined Heat And Power Plant Database. Monthly Time Series. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C., 2017.

27.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Timber Product Output (TPO) Reports. Knoxville, TN, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 2012.

28.

Spelter

McKeever

Toth

Profile 2009: Softwood Sawmills in the United States and Canada. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI, 2009, p. 55.

29.

Fehrs

J. E.

Williston

, Secondary Mill Residues and Urban Wood Waste Quantities in the United States. Northeast Regional Biomass Program, Washington, D.C., 1999.

30.

Krajnc

Wood Fuels Handbook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Pristina, Kosovo, 2015.

31.

Gonzales

Searcy

E. M.

Eksioglu

S. D.

Cost Analysis for High-Volume and Long-Haul Transportation of Densified Biomass Feedstock. Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice, Vol. 49, 2013, pp. 48–61.

32.

Canadian National Railway. Canadian National Railway: Prices, Tariffs & Transit Times. 2016, https://www.cn.ca/en/customer-centre/prices-tariffs-transit-times. Accessed June 25, 2016.

33.

Norfolk Southern Railway. Norfolk Southern Railway: Public Price Publications. 2016, http://www.nscorp.com/mktgpublic/publicprices/. Accessed June 25, 2016.