Search

Issues of traffic congestion and community acceptance limit the size of biomass-processing plants based on truck delivery to about 2 million (M) dry t/yr or less. In this study, the cost of ethanol from an ethanol fermentation plant processing 2 M dry t/yr of corn stover supplied by truck is compared with that of larger plants in the range of 4-38 M dry t/yr supplied by a combination of trucks plus pipelines. For corn stover, a biomass source with a low yield per gross hectare, the cost of ethanol from larger plants is always higher. For wood chips from the boreal forest, a biomass source with a relatively high yield per gross hectare, a plant processing 14-38 M dry t/yr produces ethanol at a 13% reduction in cost compared with a plant producing 2 M dry t/yr supplied by truck. Processing of value-added products, such as chemicals from lignin, would be enabled by larger-scale plants.

The cost of transporting wood chips by truck and by pipeline as a water slurry was determined. In a practical application of field delivery by truck of biomass to a pipeline inlet, the pipeline will only be economical at large capacity ( >0.5 million dry t/yr for a one-way pipeline, and >1.25 million dry t/yr for a two-way pipeline that returns the carrier fluid to the pipeline inlet), and at medium to long distances ( >75 km [one-way] and >470 km [two-way] at a capacity of 2 million dry t/yr). Mixed hardwood and softwood chips in western Canada rise in moisture level from about 50% to 67% when transported in water; the loss in lower heating value (LHV) would preclude the use of water slurry pipelines for direct combustion applications. The same chips, when transported in a heavy gas oil, take up as much as 50% oil by weight and result in a fuel that is >30% oil on mass basis and is about two-thirds oil on a thermal basis. Uptake of water by straw during slurry transport is so extreme that it has effectively no LHV. Pipeline-delivered biomass could be used in processes that do not produce contained water as a vapor, such as supercritical water gasification.

The power cost and optimum plant size for power plants using three biomass fuels in western Canada were determined. The three fuels are biomass from agricultural residues (grain straw), whole boreal forest, and forest harvest residues from existing lumber and pulp operations (limbs and tops). Forest harvest residues have the smallest economic size, 137 MW, and the highest power cost, $63.00 MWh−1 (Year 2000 US$). The optimum size for agricultural residues is 450 MW (the largest single biomass unit judged feasible in this study), and the power cost is $50.30 MWh−1. If a larger biomass boiler could be built, the optimum project size for straw would be 628 MW. Whole forest harvesting has an optimum size of 900 MW (two maximum sized units), and a power cost of $47.16 MWh−1 without nutrient replacement. However, power cost versus size from whole forest is essentially flat from 450 MW ($47.76 MWh−1) to 3150 MW ($48.86 MWh−1), so the optimum size is better thought of as a wide range.None of these projects are economic today, but could become so with a greenhouse gas credit. All biomass cases show some flatness in the profile of power cost vs. plant capacity. This occurs because the reduction in capital cost per unit capacity with increasing capacity is offset by increasing biomass transportation cost as the area from which biomass is drawn increases. This in turn means that smaller than optimum plants can be built with only a minor cost penalty. Both the yield of biomass per unit area and the location of the biomass have an impact on power cost and optimum size. Agricultural and forest harvest residues are transported over existing road networks, whereas the whole forest harvest requires new roads and has a location remote from existing transmission lines. Nutrient replacement in the whole forest case would make power from the forest comparable in cost to power from straw. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]