BIOMASS COMBUSTION AND CO- FIRING AS A PATH TO ZERO- EMISSION POWER PRODUCTION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Jarosław Zuwała SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND EFFICIENT USE OF ENERGY RESOURCES Brussels, 25.03.2010 I N S T Y T U T C H E M I C Z N E J P R Z E R Ó B K I W Ę G L A 1
Large biomass utilities and CHP plants in Poland EC Gdańska, EC Gdyńska EC Białystok PGE Elektrownia Szczecin Elektrownie Ostrołęka PGE Elektrownia Dolna Odra OPEC Grudziądz PGE EC Bydgoszcz ZE Pątnów-Adamów-Konin Dalkia EC Poznań PGE Energetyka Boruta Dalkia EC Łódź EC Wrocław PGE Elektrownia Turów PCC Rokita - Energetyka KGHM PM - Energetyka TAURON: PKE Elektrownia Jaworzno III/II PKE Elektrownia Łaziska PKE EC Bielsko PKE Elektrownia Siersza PKE Elektrownia Jaworzno III EC Czechnica EC Będzin, EC Zabrze Elektrownia Rybnik EC śerań EC Siekierki Elektrownia Kozienice Fortum Częstochowa PGE Elektrociepłownia Kielce Elektrownia Stalowa Wola EC StrzyŜów Elektrownia Skawina EC Kraków I N S T Y T U T C H E M I C Z N E J P R Z E R Ó B K I W Ę G L A 2
Issued guarantees of origin for RES based electricity in Poland Item (1) 1. Biogas plants Renewable energy (2) Sewage sludge biogas BGO Electricity [MWh] (3) 73 821,602 Manure and farm litter biogas Landfill biogas BGR bgs 7 981,494 139 079,828 2. Biomass plants Forest residues and agriculture biomass bmg 1 774,432 Mixed biomass Pulp and paper industry residues and woodprocessing industry residues biomass plants BMM BMP 5 825,124 507 444,764 3. 4. Wind plants Hydropower On-shore River hydropower (< 0,3 MWel) W1L WOA 790 287,701 184 075,939 5. Biomass co-firing River hydropower (< 1 MWel) River hydropower (< 5 MWel) River hydropower (< 10 MWel) River hydropower (> 10 MW) Dam hydropower or river hydropower with pumping section Fossil fuels and solid biomass WOB WOC WOD WOE WOF WSB 152 455,211 390 917,081 168 604,340 1 010 529,364 247 281,200 2 536 041,002 TOTAL Fossil fuels and biogas WSG 2 705,822 6 218 824,904 I N S T Y T U T C H E M I C Z N E J P R Z E R Ó B K I W Ę G L A 3
Mandatory biomass consumption structure biomass co-firing 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Forest-biomass Agro-biomass 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 I N S T Y T U T C H E M I C Z N E J P R Z E R Ó B K I W Ę G L A 4
Mandatory biomass consumption structure hybrid biomass 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Forest-biomass Agro-biomass 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 I N S T Y T U T C H E M I C Z N E J P R Z E R Ó B K I W Ę G L A 5
Mandatory biomass consumption structure 100% biomass 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Forest-biomass Agro-biomass 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 I N S T Y T U T C H E M I C Z N E J P R Z E R Ó B K I W Ę G L A 6
Status quo Biomass is used now in over 30 utilities and CHP plants in Poland. Domination of simple co-firing with fossil fuels is observed. Average biomass energy share in the fuel blend for such installations doesn t exceed 5-7%. 100% coal to 100% biomass boiler retrofit projects are carried out now (Białystok BFB, Wrocław PC, Czechnica CFB,, High share biomass combustion ) enabling to combust from 60% biomass (PC boilers, energy share) up to 100% biomass (BFB). Biodegradable waste fractions (recycled biomass) co-firing projects are under considerations by some companies. Biomass pre-treatment technologies (torrefaction) implementation is foreseen to emerge in the following years I N S T Y T U T C H E M I C Z N E J P R Z E R Ó B K I W Ę G L A 7
Sustainability measure is needed Useful products, including final energy carriers such as electricity and heat are generated as a result of power, technological and transport processes implementation, creating a network of interdependences. Thus they should be burdened not only with the direct consumption of chemical energy in the processes of fuel combustion in utility boilers. Also up-stream energy consumption in the transmission of final energy carriers, energy consumption in fuels transport and their extraction from the deposit as well as with energy consumption in the manufacture of machines and equipment used in each of the aforementioned stages. I N S T Y T U T C H E M I C Z N E J P R Z E R Ó B K I W Ę G L A 8
Possible approach - exergy based tools Thermoecological cost of electricity generated in CHP plant Thermoecological cost of heat generated in CHP plant I N S T Y T U T C H E M I C Z N E J P R Z E R Ó B K I W Ę G L A 9
Conclusions Biomass co-firing offers an interesting option for renewable energy generation with lowest capital cost, at the same time taking advantage from the high energy efficiencies of coal-fired plants (especially CHP plants). Co-combustion in large utilities creates a potential for high electric efficiencies due to high steam parameters and technical measures for efficiency improvement. As was concluded by Repetto (Green Fees: How a Tax Shift Can Work for the Environment and the Economy, 1992), the environmental taxes along with the proper tax reforms could influence the individual country s economy. Analogically, it can be assumed that the reform of Polish green energy support system could enhance the development biomass and biomassbound industries. Cummulative approach (thermoecological cost, LCA) can be applied applied to analyze the impact of biomass co-firing implementation on environmental burdens. I N S T Y T U T C H E M I C Z N E J P R Z E R Ó B K I W Ę G L A 10
Thank you for your attention! Jarosław aw Zuwała Ph.D. zuwala@ichpw.zabrze.pl I N S T Y T U T C H E M I C Z N E J P R Z E R Ó B K I W Ę G L A 11