No abstract

Combustion of biomass and co-combustion with fossil fuels are viable means of reducing emissions in electricity generation, and local biomass resources are appealing to minimize life cycle emissions. In the Rocky Mountain Region of the U.S., a bark beetle epidemic is causing widespread forest death and associated safety hazards. This biomass has potential to be a feedstock resource, thereby achieving dual goals of improving forest health while supplying biomass for uses such as co-firing with coal in power plants. In this study, combustion and co-combustion of healthy pine (HP) and beetle kill pine (BK) with coal were conducted to assess the interchangeability of these feedstocks in raw and torrefied forms. HP and BK pine were torrefied at 200, 250, and 300 C to increase energy density and improve grindability, both of which aid in seamless integration into power plants. Grindability was assessed for both feedstocks at each torrefaction condition. The raw feedstocks were pyrolyzed to assess their relative compositions. Raw and torrefied feedstocks were then combusted alone and co-combusted with sub-bituminous Powder River Basin coal using thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Modulated TGA was used to derive kinetic parameters of coal, raw and torrefied biomass, and coal-biomass blends. Results show increased grindability and pyrolysis mass loss of BK as compared to HP, which are attributed to the degraded state of the wood. Combustion and cocombustion show favorable interchangeability of the HP and BK, and additive behavior when co-combusted with coal.

No abstract

Widespread mortality of forests in the western United States due to a bark beetle epidemic provides a source of biomass for power generation. This study assessed availability and economics of co-firing beetle kill biomass with coal in power plants in the western U.S. Since biomass may be considered carbon neutral under careful management, co-combustion of biomass with coal provides power plants a way to meet emission reduction requirements, such as those in the EPA Clean Power Plan (CPP). Cost has been a barrier to co-firing, but the economics are altered by emission reduction requirements, such as CPP guidelines. The present study assessed beetle kill biomass availability in national forests in Wyoming and Colorado through Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) data. Power plants near beetle kill mortality were identified as candidates for co-firing. An economic assessment of costs to implement co-firing was conducted. Co-firing reduces the need for the USFS to manage beetle kill trees

Hydrocarbon fuel production and utilization are considered water intensive processes due to the high volumes of water used in source development and fuel processing. At the same time, there is significant water formed during combustion. However, this water is not currently widely harvested at the site of production. Instead, it is added to the hydrologic cycle, often in a different location from the fuel production site. This study quantifies the water formed from combustion of these fuels and analyzes the magnitudes of formation in the context of other hydrologic sources and sinks in order to facilitate future assessments of water harvesting technology and/or atmospheric impacts of combustion. Annual water formation from stoichiometric combustion of hydrocarbon fuels, including natural gas, oil-and natural gas liquid-derived products, and coal, in the United States and worldwide are presented and compared with quantities of water sequestered, evaporated, and stored in the atmosphere. Water production factors in terms of mass and energy of fuel consumed, WPFm and WPFe, respectively, are defined for the comparison of fuels and incorporation into future life cycle analyses (LCAs). Results show that water formation from combustion has increased worldwide from 2005 to 2015, with the largest increase coming from growth in combustion of natural gas. Water formation from combustion of hydrocarbon fuels equals or exceeds water sequestered from the hydrologic cycle through deep well injection in the US annually. Overall, water formation is deemed significant enough to warrant consideration by LCAs of water intensity in fuel production and use, and should be included in future analyses.