Search

Abstract: Development of biomass projects at optimum size and technology enhances the role that biomass can make in mitigating greenhouse gas. Optimum sized plants can be built when biomass resources are sufficient to meet feedstock demand; examples include wood and forest harvest residues from extensive forests, and grain straw and corn stover from large agricultural regions. The impact of feedstock cost on technology selection is evaluated by comparing the cost of power from the gasification and direct combustion of boreal forest wood chips. Optimum size is a function of plant cost and the distance variable cost (DVC, $drytonne−1 km−1) of the biomass fuel; distance fixed costs (DFC, $drytonne−1) such as acquisition, harvesting, loading and unloading do not impact optimum size. At low values of DVC and DFC, as occur with wood chips sourced from the boreal forest, direct combustion has a lower power cost than gasification. At higher values of DVC and DFC, gasification has a lower power cost than direct combustion. This crossover in most economic technology will always arise when a more efficient technology with a higher capital cost per unit of output is compared to a less efficient technology with a lower capital cost per unit of output. In such cases technology selection cannot be separated from an analysis of feedstock cost. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Pipeline transport of corn stover delivered by truck from the field is evaluated against a range of truck transport costs. Corn stover transported by pipeline at 20% solids concentration (wet basis) or higher could directly enter an ethanol fermentation plant, and hence the investment in the pipeline inlet end processing facilities displaces comparable investment in the plant. At 20% solids, pipeline transport of corn stover costs less than trucking at capacities in excess of 1.4Mdrytonnes/yr when compared to a mid range of truck transport cost (excluding any credit for economies of scale achieved in the ethanol fermentation plant from larger scale due to multiple pipelines). Pipelining of corn stover gives the opportunity to conduct simultaneous transport and saccharification (STS). If current enzymes are used, this would require elevated temperature. Heating of the slurry for STS, which in a fermentation plant is achieved from waste heat, is a significant cost element (more than 5cents/l of ethanol) if done at the pipeline inlet unless waste heat is available, for example from an electric power plant located adjacent to the pipeline inlet. Heat loss in a 1.26m pipeline carrying 2Mdrytonnes/yr is about 5°C at a distance of 400km in typical prairie clay soils, and would not likely require insulation; smaller pipelines or different soil conditions might require insulation for STS. Saccharification in the pipeline would reduce the need for investment in the fermentation plant, saving about 0.2cents/l of ethanol. Transport of corn stover in multiple pipelines offers the opportunity to develop a large ethanol fermentation plant, avoiding some of the diseconomies of scale that arise from smaller plants whose capacities are limited by issues of truck congestion. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]