Heat and Power Production via Gasification in the Range 5–50 MWe

Blackadder, William; Lundberg, Henrik; Rensfelt, Erik; Waldheim, Lars

doi:10.1007/978-94-011-1336-6_35

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The dried biomass is delivered to lockhoppers pressurized using nitrogen from the air separation unit to feed to the gasifier, which operates at a pressure of 36 bar, a level that has been demonstrated, but only at pilot scales to date [71,72]. A more detailed engineering analysis (than is included in the scope of this work) is required to fully assess the relative benefits of biomass gasification at pressures higher or lower than 36 bar.…”

Section: Biomass Gasification Islandmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Cost-Benefit Assessment of Gasification-Based Biorefining in the Kraft Pulp and Paper Industry

Larson¹,

Consonni²,

Katofsky³

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Production of liquid fuels and chemicals via gasification of kraft black liquor and woody residues ("biorefining") has the potential to provide significant economic returns for kraft pulp and paper mills replacing Tomlinson boilers beginning in the 2010-2015 timeframe. Commercialization of gasification technologies is anticipated in this period, and synthesis gas from gasifiers can be converted into liquid fuels using catalytic synthesis technologies that are in most cases already commercially established today in the "gas-to-liquids" industry.These conclusions are supported by detailed analysis carried out in a two-year project co-funded by the American Forest and Paper Association and the Biomass Program of the U.S. Department of Energy. This work assessed the energy, environment, and economic costs and benefits of biorefineries at kraft pulp and paper mills in the United States. Seven detailed biorefinery process designs were developed for a reference freesheet pulp/paper mill in the Southeastern U.S., together with the associated mass/energy balances, air emissions estimates, and capital investment requirements. Commercial ("Nth") plant levels of technology performance and cost were assumed. The biorefineries provide chemical recovery services and co-produce process steam for the mill, some electricity, and one of three liquid fuels: a Fischer-Tropsch synthetic crude oil (which would be refined to vehicle fuels at existing petroleum refineries), dimethyl ether (a diesel engine fuel or LPG substitute), or an ethanol-rich mixed-alcohol product.Compared to installing a new Tomlinson power/recovery system, a biorefinery would require larger capital investment. However, because the biorefinery would have higher energy efficiencies, lower air emissions, and a more diverse product slate (including transportation fuel), the internal rates of return (IRR) on the incremental capital investments would be attractive under many circumstances. For nearly all of the cases examined in the study, the IRR lies between 14% and 18%, assuming a 25-year levelized world oil price of $50/bbl -the US Department of Energy's 2006 reference oil price projection. The IRRs would rise to as high as 35% if positive incremental environmental benefits associated with biorefinery products are monetized (e.g., if an excise tax credit for the liquid fuel is available comparable to the one that exists for ethanol in the United States today). Moreover, if future crude oil prices are higher ($78/bbl levelized price, the US Department of Energy's 2006 high oil price scenario projection, representing an extrapolation of mid-2006 price levels), the calculated IRR exceeds 45% in some cases when environmental attributes are also monetized.In addition to the economic benefits to kraft pulp/paper producers, biorefineries widely implemented at pulp mills in the U.S. would result in nationally-significant liquid fuel production levels, petroleum savings, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and criteria-pollutant reductions. These are quantified in...

show abstract

Section: Biomass Gasification Islandmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Cost-Benefit Assessment of Gasification-Based Biorefining in the Kraft Pulp and Paper Industry

Larson¹,

Consonni²,

Katofsky³

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Thermal Engineering Laboratory assumed the responsibility of the circulating fluidized-bed gasification technology called the MINO process (Juniper Consultancy Services Ltd, 2000). Studsvik operated the MINO 2.5-MW pilot plant at up to 2,027 kPa (294 psi) from 1979-1986 (Blackadder, 1993). Figure 11 shows the MINO process with a high-temperature filter.…”

Section: Tps Termiska Processer Abmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Evaluation of Co2 Sequestration Technologies Task 4, Biomass Gasification-Based Processing

Rollins¹,

Reardon²,

Nichols³

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomass derived energy currently accounts for about 3 quads of total primary energy use in the United States. Of this amount, about 0.8 quads are used for power generation. Several biomass energy production technologies exist today which contribute to this energy mix. Biomass combustion technologies have been the dominant source of biomass energy production, both historically and during the past two decades of expansion of modern biomass energy in the U. S. and Europe. As a research and development activity, biomass gasification has usually been the major emphasis as a method of more efficiently utilizing the energy potential of biomass, particularly wood. Numerous biomass gasification technologies exist today in various stages of development. Some are simple systems, while others employ a high degree of integration for maximum energy utilization. The purpose of this study is to conduct a technical and economic comparison of up to three biomass gasification technologies, including the carbon dioxide emissions reduction potential of each. To accomplish this, a literature search was first conducted to determine which technologies were most promising based on a specific set of criteria. The technical and economic performances of the selected processes were evaluated using computer models and available literature. Using these results, the carbon sequestration potential of the three technologies was then evaluated. The results of these evaluations are given in this final report 4 INTRODUCTIONBiomass derived energy currently accounts for about 3 quads of total primary energy use in the United States. Of this amount, about 0.8 quads are used for power generation (EPRI 2001). Several biomass energy production technologies exist today which contribute to this energy mix. Biomass combustion technologies have been the dominant source of biomass energy production, both historically and during the past two decades of expansion of modern biomass energy in the U. S. and Europe. As a research and development activity, biomass gasification has usually been the major emphasis as a method of more efficiently utilizing the energy potential of biomass, particularly wood. Gasification technology was first commercialized using coal, however biomass resources such as wood have a unique environmental advantage over traditional fossil fuels in that the gasification of biomass has a mitigating effect on global warming, when a renewable biomass fuel is used instead of a fossil fuel. Also, biomass feedstocks are typically lower in sulfur and nitrogen than most coals.Numerous biomass gasification technologies exist today in various stages of development. Some are simple systems, while others employ a high degree of integration for maximum energy utilization. "Integration" refers in a general way to obtaining heat and multiple products, in addition to electricity from the fuel or feedstock used. In a specialized way in gasification power systems, "integration" refers to use of the heat and steam flows from the gasification and gas cl...

show abstract

“…Nowadays, research in energetic production by biomass tends towards big power plants, more than 10 MWe (Hogan, 1994;Agelin et al, 1996;Blackadder et al, 1994). In this way, it is possible to attain a big electric power production (EPP), good production and a good efficiency, lowering production costs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…There are various gasification techniques even if only few can be considered profitable. For small power ((5 MWe), it is possible to use a small fixed-bed gasifier at atmospheric pressure (Blackadder et al, 1994) (Figure 1). The gas obtained has high-molecular-weight compounds derived from the destructive distillation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%