PRE-TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES,

AND THEIR EFFECTS ON THE INTERNATIONAL

BIOENERGY
SUPPLY CHAIN LOGISTICS

Techno-economic evaluation of torrefaction, fast pyrolysis and pelletisation

Ayla Uslu

Report number: NWS-I-2005-27

December 2005
 PRE-TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
AND THEIR EFFECTS ON THE INTERNATIONAL BIOENERGY
SUPPLY CHAIN LOGISTICS

Techno-economic evaluation of torrefaction, fast pyrolysis and pelletisation

Supervision: Dr. Andre Faaij

P.C.A. Bergman

Ayla Uslu

This study was concluded in partial fulfilment of the Master of Science program in Sustainable
Development- Energy and Resources.
Department of Science, Technology & Society
Utrecht University, the Netherlands

Part of the research was conducted in the Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN).
Biomass Department,
Petten, the Netherlands

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................6
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................7
1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................8
1.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................8
1.2 PROBLEM FORMULATION...................................................................................................9
1.3 OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................................10
1.4 METHODOLOGY AND EVALUATION CRITERIA ..................................................................10
1.5 REPORT STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................11
2 TECHNOLOGIES ...............................................................................................................12
2.1 TORREFACTION ...............................................................................................................12
2.2 PYROLYSIS ......................................................................................................................31
2.3 PELLETISATION ...............................................................................................................44
2.4 COMPARISON OF PROCESSES ...........................................................................................52
2.5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES FOR PRE-TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES ........................................55
2.6 FINAL CONVERSION .........................................................................................................59
3 CHAIN ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................62
3.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................62
3.2 LOGISTIC OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................63
3.3 DESIGNED CHAINS ..........................................................................................................67
3.4 CHAIN ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................69
3.5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................81
4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION..................................................................................83
4.1 PRE-TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................................................83
4.2 CHAIN ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................84
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................86
5 REFERENCE LIST .............................................................................................................88
6 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................92

3
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Net calorific values (LHV) of untreated wood, torrefied biomass, charcoal and coal ................... 15
Table 2 Comparison of the three evaluated reactor types for 150 MWth output torrefaction process........ 20
Table 3 Wood, torrefied biomass, wood pellets and torrefied pellets property comparison. ...................... 22
Table 4 Technical performance of torrefied wood pelletisation for sawdust and green wood chips .......... 22
Table 5 Overall energy balance of the 150 MWth torrefaction process...................................................... 25
Table 6 Local parameters assumed for different world regions .................................................................. 27
Table 7 Total capital investment of a 37. 5 MWth torrefaction plant........................................................... 28
Table 8 Specific investment cost calculations of various capacities. .......................................................... 30
Table 9 Typical properties of wood derived crude bio-oil .......................................................................... 32
Table 10 25 MWth-input capacity pyrolysis process investment cost calculations (sawdust as feedstock)37
Table 11 Economic parameters for a 25 MWth biomass pyrolysis plant.................................................... 38
Table 12 Production cost of a 25 MWth rotating cone pyrolysis plant....................................................... 38
Table 13 Characteristics of wood pellets (Sawdust, cutter shavings, and wood-grinding dusts as raw
materials.............................................................................................................................................. 46
Table 14 Cost data of pelletisation process ................................................................................................. 50
Table 15 Technical comparison of torrefaction, TOP, pyrolysis and pelletisation pre-treatment processes.
............................................................................................................................................................ 53
Table 16 Economic comparison of torrefaction, TOP, pyrolysis and pelletisation pre-treatment processes
............................................................................................................................................................ 54
Table 17 Main parameters used and ranges for sensitivity analysis............................................................ 55
Table 18 Effects of scale on pellet production costs. .................................................................................. 58
Table 19 Cost figures for final conversion step........................................................................................... 59
Table 20 Characteristics of Latin American energy crops considered in this study (Ranges indicate short
and long term,).................................................................................................................................... 64
Table 21 Logistics of biomass from harvesting to the pre-treatment process point.................................... 67
Table 22 Designed chains............................................................................................................................ 69
Table 23 Parameter used for sensitivity analysis and ranges ...................................................................... 81
Table 24 Techno-economic comparison of torrefaction, TOP, pelletisation and pyrolysis ....................... 83
Table 25 Costs of chains delivering fuel and power ................................................................................... 85

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Main physico-chemical phenomena during heating of lignocellulosic materials at pre-pyrolytic

conditions (torrefaction). Main decomposition regimes are based on Koukios et al. (1982) ...................13
Figure 2 Stages in the heating of moist biomass from ‘ambient’ temperature to the desired torrefaction
temperature and the subsequent cooling of the torrefied product (Bergman et al, 2005).........................14
Figure 3 Schematic representation of the Pechiney process (Berman et al, 2005)............................................17
Figure 4 General flow diagram of ECN torrefaction process (Bergman at al, 2005)........................................18
Figure 5 Torrefaction process authothermal operation equations .....................................................................19
Figure 6 General flow diagram of torrefaction in combination with pelletisation ............................................21
Figure 7 Net mass flows corresponding with torrefaction of cuttings at 280 oC and 17.5 min reaction time
(HE: Heat exchanger). ..............................................................................................................................24
Figure 8 Net energy flows (in MWth) corresponding with torrefaction of woodcuttings at 280 °C and 17.5
min reaction time (HE: heat exchanger). ..................................................................................................25
Figure 9 Total capital investment cost breakdown Figure 10 Equipment cost breakdown ..................29
Figure 11 State of the art Ensyn RTP plant flow diagram (Source).................................................................34
Figure 12 A schematic presentation of the mass and energy balance of a 5-ton dry feed per hour pyrolysis
plant ..........................................................................................................................................................35
Figure 13 Specific Pyrolysis Plant Investments 1987-2003 (Solantausta, 2001)..............................................40

4
Figure 14 Specific Pyrolysis Plant Investments (Historic data from1987 to 2003 (Solantausta, 2001)............40
Figure 15 Fast pyrolysis total plant costs versus feedstock (dry) input (Bridgwater et al, 2002). ....................41
Figure 15 Specific investment cost versus capacity (MWth LHV) data of 5 different pyrolysis plants ..............42
Figure 17 Total capital investment cost versus feedstock (ton dry/hr) of 5 different pyrolysis plants (Graph
uses the same data as Figure 15)...............................................................................................................43
Figure 17 State-of-the-art pellet production process diagram ...........................................................................45
Figure 18 Mass balance of the pelletising process ............................................................................................48
Figure 19 Energy balance for a 24000 pellet production process (Cost data is obtained from Thek and
Obernberg (2004)). ...................................................................................................................................48
Figure 20 Cost breakdown of the total capital investment cost of a 24 000 ton pellet process (data from
Thek and Obernberg, (2004) is used)........................................................................................................52
Figure 21 Sensitivity of torrefied biomass production ......................................................................................55
Figure 22 Sensitivity analysis of bio-oil production costs ...............................................................................56
Figure 23 Pellet production sensitivity analysis................................................................................................56
Figure 24 Effects of scale on torrefaction investment costs..............................................................................57
Figure 25 Effect of scale on the bio-oil production costs..................................................................................58
Figure 26 Biomass transport overview..............................................................................................................63
Figure 27 Schematically presentation of transportation distances ....................................................................66
Figure 28 Modelled bio-energy chains from Latin America to West Europe ...................................................68
Figure 29 Cost data of chains delivering pellets in €/ ton dry delivered. ..........................................................70
Figure 30 Cost of bio-oil delivered to West Europe in €/GJHHV .......................................................................71
Figure 31 Costs of FT liquid for different pre-treated feedstock (Conversion in the graph comprises pre-
treatment and FT processes). ....................................................................................................................72
Figure 32 Cost of the chains delivering electricity by means of BIGCC ..........................................................73
Figure 33 Cost of power obtained by combustion for various bio-energy chains.............................................74
Figure 34 Cost of power obtained by co-firing for various bio-energy chains .................................................74
Figure 35 Energy use of chains delivering biomass to the Rotterdam harbour in GJ/ ton dry delivered..........75
Figure 36 Energy use of bio-oil delivered to West Europe in GJ/GJHHVbio-oil ....................................................76
Figure 37 Energy use of the chains delivering FT liquid ..................................................................................76
Figure 38 Primary energy use of chains delivering energy ...............................................................................76
Figure 39 Primary energy use for chains delivering electricity.........................................................................77
Figure 40 CO2 emission of chains delivering biomass to West Europe in kg CO2/ ton dry delivered..............78
Figure 41 CO2 emission caused by bio-oil delivery from Latin America to West Europe. ..............................78
Figure 42 CO2 emissions of chains delivering FT liquid..................................................................................79
Figure 43 Comparison of the power cost delivery figures for every chain. ......................................................80
Figure 44 CO2 emissions of the chains delivering electricity (conversion in this graph means the pre-
treatment steps and emissions count for the electricity utilised during pre-treatment). ...........................80
Figure 45 Sensitivity analysis for TOP process (OW: harvest operation period) .............................................82
Figure 46 Sensitivity analysis of TOP delivery versus pre-treatment unit scale...............................................83
Figure 47: Relation between the MCA and the energy yield of torrefaction. Values are taken from the
main design matrix. The error bars represent the possible inaccuracy in the HHV measurement. ..........95
Figure 48: Size reduction results of various torrefied biomass and feed biomass.............................................95
Figure 49 Bench scale pyrolysis unit flow diagram ........................................................................................100
Figure 50 BioTherm pyrolysis process flow diagram .....................................................................................101
Figure 51 RTI process for production of bio-oil, bubbling fluidised bed type of reactor. ..............................102
Figure 52 Circulating fluid bed reactor. ..........................................................................................................103
Figure 53 schematic diagram of the CFB unit for biomass flash pyrolysis.....................................................103
Figure 54 Rotating cone reactor ......................................................................................................................105
Figure 55 Rotating cone reactor pyrolysis process flow diagram ...................................................................105

5
Acknowledgement

This research has been performed at Utrecht University and at the Energy Research Centre of the
Netherlands (ECN). First, I would like to thank my supervisor Andre Faaij, for his support and
guidance. I also thank to Patrick Bergman who has never hesitated to share his valuable
knowledge, advice and who has supervised my work during my internship at ECN. Many thanks
to Jaap Kiel, who made the internship at ECN possible.

Special thanks go to my friends and my family. They give a special colour to my life, which
makes it more valuable.

6
Abstract
The need for supplying sustainable energy resources raises the urgency of finding optimised bioenergy
chains. Pre-treatment step is one of the factors, that has a significant influence on the overall chain.
Torrefaction, pelletisation and pyrolysis technologies convert biomass into dens energy carriers that ease
the transportation and handling. Besides, they influence the final conversion step.

In this study, first the technical and economic performances of the pre-treatment technologies are
assessed. Next, the economy of scale of each technology is analysed and the impacts of the pre-treated
energy carriers on the final conversion stage is evaluated. Finally, several scenarios are produced, where
Latin American energy crops are pre-treated and intermediate energy carriers are delivered to Western
Europe and converted into power and syn-fuel. In this chain analysis step, not only the technologies but
also the different scales are compared with each other.

The technology assessment part indicates that torrefaction is a very promising technology due to its high
process efficiency compared to pelletising and pyrolysis technologies. Moreover, when torrefaction is
combined with pelletisation, the product (TOP pellets) energy content is as high as 20.4-22.7 GJ/ton. For
comparison, conventional pellet energy content is 17.7 GJ/ton while pyrolysis oil energy content is 17
GJ/ton. Another important point is that above 40 MWth torrefaction plant capacities, there is no economy
of scale.

When the economics of the three pre-treatment technologies are compared, pelletisation has the lowest
specific capital investment, followed by torrefaction. However, there is a significant variation between the
cost figures found in scientific literature for pyrolysis technology.

The bioenergy chain analysis indicates that 89% of the biomass initial content can be delivered as cheap as
73.4 €/ton (3.34€/GJ) in the form of torrefied pellets (TOP). In fact, TOP process increases the bulk
density 15% compared to conventional pellets, which lowers the first truck transport. When the biomass is
converted to pellets and delivered to Rotterdam harbour, the cost is 3.94€/GJHHV, which is very close to
TOP pellet delivery. On the other hand when the biomass is delivered to the Rotterdam harbour in the
form of pyrolsyis oil, the cost is in the range of 4.7 -6.6 €/GJHHV. Furthermore, this study indicates that
electricity can be produced as little as 4.4 €cent/kWhe from an existing co-firing plant, while the
electricity cost from a BIGCC facility is 4.6 €cent/kWhe even though it includes high amount of
investment costs.

Fisher Tropish fuel produced in Europe costs 6.44 €/GJHHV for TOP pellets and 6.97 €/GJ for conventional
pellets delivered from Latin America. On the other hand, pyrolysis liquid can be converted into FT liquid
with a cost of 9.5 €/GJHHV.

In addition, the energy requirement indicates how sustainable the designed chains are. For TOP delivery,
the primary energy requirement is as low as 0.05 GJ/GJdelivery, while it is 0.12 GJ/GJdelivery for pellets and
0.08 GJ/GJHHV for pyrolysis oil.

7
1 Introduction

1.1 General Background

Sustainable development is defined by the Brundtland Commission as “a process of change

where the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological
development and institutional changes are all in harmony and enhance both current and future
potential to meet human needs and aspirations.” In this respect sustained energy supply is one of
the essential targets to be achieved and depends on secure and reliable energy sources. The
current global energy development pattern brings, however, significant danger due to the reliance
on fossil fuels. Most of the world’s oil reserves are located in certain countries, which make
energy supply vulnerable. Another problem that has emerged is that fossil fuel consumption
causes substantial environmental harm. In the IPCC 2nd report, it is mentioned that human
activity has caused a rise in atmospheric temperature in the recent years.

In addressing those threats, developed countries increasingly shift towards renewable energy
sources. Biomass is one of the renewable energy sources that are available worldwide. It is
abundant throughout the planet and can be used as an energy source with no CO2 addition to the
environment. Currently, bio-energy contributes 35% of the primary energy consumption in
developing countries, which accounts for 9-14% of global energy demand (Hamelinck, 2004).
According to some IPCC SRES1 future market scenarios, 30% of the total energy supply is
ascribed to biomass in 2100 (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000). Those figures are the indicators for a
future biomass based energy market potential. In fact, in some countries such as Brazil, Sweden
and Finland bio-energy markets have already emerged. Moreover, large–scale biomass trade can
be the centre of attention due to European legislations concerning climate policies. For example,
in the agreement of the Dutch government with Dutch energy sector, it is stated that 6 Mton/year
of fossil fuel CO2 reduction needs to be accomplished in 2008-2012 by the coal-fired power
stations in the Netherlands. Half of this reduction is planned to be accomplished through
replacing coal by biomass (Bergman et al, 2005).

Another phenomenon that triggers the international biomass trade is that some countries have
larger biomass resources compared to other countries. For example; Latin America holds high
biomass energy production potential (Hoogwijk et al. 2003; Damen and Faaij 2003; Agterberg
and Faaij 1998).

Several researches have given indications that intercontinental trade of biofuel could be
economically feasible (Hamelinck, 2004; Wasser and Brown 1995; Agbert and Faaij, 1998).
Hamelinck et al (2003) has conducted a study to assess whether large-scale long distance
transport of bio fuel from certain world regions, such as Latin America and Eastern Europe, is
economically and energetically feasible and attractive in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG)
reduction. International biomass logistics were analysed by conducting several bio energy chains.
These studies exposed that the pre-treatment step plays an eminent role in the whole chain since
it affects the storage, transport and final conversion steps. Broadly, feedstock costs contribute
1
IPCC SRES; International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenario (SRES)

8
20%-65% of the total delivery cost whereas pre-treatment and transport contribute 20%-25% and
25%-40%, respectively, depending on the location of the biomass resource. When the overall
chain is considered, the final conversion contributes roughly to more than 50% of electricity or
fuel delivered.

Existing research has been conducted mostly to obtain design data, process performance, product
properties and the by product composition of the pre-treatment technologies. However, their
techno-economic performances on the total bioenergy supply chain require detailed study. In this
context, the key technologies, pyrolysis, torrefaction and pelletising need to be analysed in terms
of technical performances and economy of scale. Pyrolysis and torrefaction are the
thermochemical conversion technologies where bio-oil and torrefied biomass are produced in
different temperature ranges respectively. On the other hand in pelletisation biomass is dried and
compressed to produce cylindrical pieces. Various bio-energy chains can be designed where these
technologies are considered and depending on the economy and impacts on environment in terms
of GHG emissions, the optimal chain can be obtained.

1.2 Problem formulation

The studies concerning long distance bio-energy transport analysed several cases to perform the
biomass delivery and final energy production costs. Hamelinck developed a tool with which
different bioenergy chains can be analysed. This tool enables to assess the influence of different
pre-treatment technologies on the technical and economic performance of the whole chain. It is
clear from the work of Hamelinck (2004) that energy densification of the biomass is crucial.
Converting biomass into a densified intermediate can save transport and handling costs. In
addition, it can improve the efficiency of the final conversion stage. Subsequently, pre-treatment
methods deserve more attention in the positioning of the chain and techno-economic analysis of
the treatment processes themselves. Torrefaction, pyrolysis and pelletising are the pre-treatment
technologies considered in this study.

Currently, the state-of-the-art biomass-to-energy chains are mostly based on energy densification
by means of pelletisation. However, commercially available bio pellets are expensive and cannot
be produced economically from a wide variety of biomass resources (only sawdust and planer
shavings) when the small (smaller than 30 mm) particle sizes are required. New pre-treatment
technologies are currently under development. Fast pyrolysis, charcoal production and
torrefaction may improve economics of the overall production chain. However, these
technologies are still under development and their economic and technical performances are
unclear. Moreover, there is no normalised data set, which can give a clear picture of the economic
performances. Available information, however, mainly discusses the technology and the
intermediate products they produce, rather than their influence on the performance of the whole
production chain.
Therefore, the key research question in this study is: Which pre-treatment method(s), at what
point of the chain, with which conversion technology (ies) would give the optimal power and fuel
(syngas) delivery costs for international biomass supply chains?

9
1.3 Objectives

The main objective of this study is to identify the optimal bioenergy chain design and provide
insight in the differences between the torrefaction, pyrolysis and pelletisation pre-treatment
technologies. This can be done by performing a techno-economic analysis of the biomass-to-
energy production chain that is based on pelletisation, torrefaction and pyrolysis. Moreover, this
study focuses on the influence of the pre-treated biomass (intermediates) on transportation.

The sub-objectives are:

-Analysing the potential and future technical and economic performances of torrefaction,
pyrolysis and pelletising in relation to scale.
-Evaluating the influence of intermediate products on transportation.
-Analysing the impacts of intermediate products on power and syngas conversion technologies.

As pelletisation is commercially applied, this technology is considered the state-of-the-art

reference (SOTA-system). Hence, the introduction of alternative pre-treatment technologies as
pyrolysis and torrefaction are only interesting when they are comparable or better than the
economics of this reference. However, the improvement options on pelletisation still need to be
investigated even though it is commercially applied. The bio-energy techno-economic analysis is
based on biomass resources located in South America (Brazil) and the final conversion to power
and fuels is situated in North-West of Europe.

1.4 Methodology and evaluation criteria

A technology review is performed where the design data of pre-treatment technologies are
collected to determine the current technology status of pyrolysis, torrefaction and pelletisation.
The state-of-the-art processes are identified according to their commercial or demonstrated
applications. Following the literature survey, mass yields, energy yields and process efficiencies
of each technology are presented.

Economic evaluation is conducted by calculating the required capital investments and total
production costs. The capital costs are based on component level cost data, which are obtained
from literature and personal communication. Since the capacities of the components affect the
specific cost of a plant, economy of scale is analysed. This is done by identifying the base scales,
the base costs and the maximum scales of the equipments. Next, the actual equipment costs are
calculated using the scale factor R. R-values per component are obtained from literature (Faaij et
al., 1998; Bergman et al, 2005). Finally, the total capital investment requirements are calculated
(See Appendix 1). This is followed by the sensitivity analysis of the parameters that influence the
production costs The cost data are normalised using the OECD deflator and exchange rates of
national currencies per US$(See Appendix 2).

In addition, the impacts of the pre-treated intermediates on the final conversion step are assessed.
Entrained flow gasification for Fischer Tropsch liquid production, biomass integrated gasification
combined cycle (BIGCC), combustion and co firing for power production are considered as final
conversion technologies. Since, the final conversion technologies have got specific requirements
like the feedstock particle size, shape; compressibility, bulk density, and moisture content,

10
intermediate energy carriers can alter the feedstock preparation and feeding system. Moreover,
they can influence the gas-cleaning step that takes part in gasification. Therefore, impacts of pre-
treated intermediates on conversion technologies are investigated.

Following the final conversion stage, several biomass–to-energy chains are designed. In this part,
Hamelinck’s (2003) “biomass logistic tool” is used. This tool gives the possibility to set up
harvesting, transport, storage, handling, pre-treatment and final conversion steps in many ways. It
also enables to visualize the different combinations and scales of operations and carries out
techno-economic analysis. Furthermore it allows conducting sensitivity analyses to test the
robustness of the study results and assess the variation in fuel/power costs.
South American bio-energy crops (eucalyptus) are considered as the source of biomass in this
study. The final conversion stage is assumed to be applied in Rotterdam by means of Fischer-
Tropsch (FT) and conventional power plants. The transport mediums are chosen to be trucks for
local transport and ships for international transport.

1.5 Report structure

The report begins with the review of the pre-treatment technologies. Chapter 2 presents the
techno-economic analysis and the improvement options for torrefaction, pyrolysis and
pelletisation processes. In addition to this, it provides the sensitivity analyses, scale effects and a
brief techno-economic data comparison of pre-treatment processes. The influence of the pre-
treated intermediate on gasification and combustion in terms of efficiency and economy are also
presented in this chapter

Chapter 3 describes the approach and methodology used for biomass chain analysis. Moreover, it
presents the designed chains and provides the results.

Finally, Chapter 4 summarises the main conclusions of this study and presents the discussion and
recommendations.

11
2 Technologies
2.1 Torrefaction

2.1.1 Process definition

Torrefaction is a thermal pre-treatment technology carried out at atmospheric pressure in the

absence of oxygen. It occurs at temperatures between 200-300 oC where a solid uniform product
is produced. This product has very low moisture content and a high calorific value compared to
fresh biomass.

The origin of torrefaction comes from roasting of coffee beans. This process however has been
done in lower temperatures in the presence of oxygen. Since the 1930’s on, torrefaction has been
used in relation to woody biomass. The research outcomes in those years appeared to be
favourable at the technical stage; however, torrefied wood did not find the market outlets. In
France, torrefaction has been applied to produce a wood that is used as a building material
(Bioenergy, 2002). In the 1980s the focus was on using torrefaction technology to produce wood
that can be used as a reducing agent in metallurgic applications. A torrefaction plant
demonstration with a production capacity of 12000 ton/year was constructed and operated
(Bergman et al, 2005).

In recent years, torrefaction has gained significant importance for energy applications. Even
though it is still in its infancy, several studies have shown that torrefaction upgrades the energy
density, hydrophobic nature and grindability properties of biomass (Bergman et al, 2005;
Bioenergy 2000; Prins, 2004).

Through torrefaction biomass is converted into torrefied biomass which is typically 70% of its
initial weight and contains 90% of the original energy content (Bioenergy, 2000; Bergman et al,
2005). 30% of the biomass is converted into torrefaction gas that contains 10% of the initial
energy content. The moisture uptake of torrefied biomass is very limited varying from1-6%.
Destruction of OH groups in the biomass by dehydration reactions causes the loss of capacity to
form hydrogen bonds with water. In addition, non-polar unsaturated structures are formed which
makes the torrefied biomass hydrophobic (Bergman et al, 2005).

2.1.1.1 Torrefaction decomposition mechanism

The polymeric structure of woody and herbaceous biomass comprises mainly cellulose,
hemicellulose and lignin. The most reactive polymer is hemicellulose whereas the cellulose is the
thermo stable part. At low torrefaction temperatures decomposition occurs in the hemicellulose
structure by means of a limited devolatilisation and carbonisation. In the lignin and cellulose
structure however a minor decomposition is expected. When the temperature is raised up to 200-
300 oC, hemicellulose extensively decomposes into volatiles and char-like solid products,
whereas limited devolatilisation and carbonisation occur in the lignin and cellulose structure (See
Figure 1, Bergman et al, 2005)

12
 Hemicellulose Lignin Cellulose

Extensive
E E
300 Devolatilisation 300
and

carbonisation
(E)
D

TORREFACTION
250 D D 250
Limited
devolatilisation
Temperature (°C)

Temperature (°C)
and
carbonisation (D) C

200 200

C
depolymerisation
and
recondensation
(C)
150 150

glass transition/ A
softening (B)

drying (A)
A
100 100
Hemicellulose Lignin Cellulose

Figure 1 Main physico-chemical phenomena during heating of lignocellulosic materials at pre-

pyrolytic conditions (torrefaction). Main decomposition regimes are based on Koukios et al.
(1982)

Depending on the torrefaction conditions and the biomass properties, torrefaction products can be
classified as solid, liquid and gas at room temperature. The solid phase, so called torrefied
biomass, consists of original sugar structures and the reaction products, which are modified sugar
structures, newly formed polymeric structures, char and ash fractions. The gas phase consists of
mainly CO, CO2, and traces of H2, CH4 and light aromatic components. And in the liquid phase;
H2O from biomass thermal decomposition, organics from devolatilisation and carbonisation and
lipids consist. Nonetheless, torrefaction conditions; reaction time and torrefaction temperature are
fairly important in product specification (Berman et al, 2005).

2.1.1.2 Torrefaction conditions

Reaction time and reactor residence time is defined clearly before clarifying the necessary
torrefaction temperature and the significance of moisture content in the torrefaction process. In
fact, biomass has to be heated through several stages before the real torrefaction regime is
reached. In practice, the solid residence time in a reactor is never equal to the time which biomass
particles are exposed to torrefaction (Bergman et al, 2005). In Figure 2, temperature-time stages

13
 for a batch-wise operated torrefaction reactor is illustrated; however, those stages are the same for
continuous operations.

300

T tor
Biomass temperature (°C)

200

t tor,h t tor,c
t dry
tc
th
100 t tor

t h,int

post drying and

interm ediate
initial heating pre-drying heating torrefaction solids cooling

tim e
Moisture content
Mass yield (dry)
(cummulative)
Heat demand

tim e

Figure 2 Stages in the heating of moist biomass from ‘ambient’ temperature to the desired
torrefaction temperature and the subsequent cooling of the torrefied product (Bergman et al,
2005).
Temperature-time profile is considered to be typical for a batch-wise operated reactor.
Explanation: th = heating time to drying, tdry = drying time, th,int = intermediate heating time from
drying to torrefaction, ttor = reaction time at desired torrefaction temperature, ttor,h = heating time
torrefaction from 200°C to desired torrefaction temperature (Ttor), ttor,c = cooling time from the
desired Ttor to 200 °C, tc = cooling time to ambient temperature.

In the initial heating stage, biomass moisture content evaporation is very slow; nonetheless, the
biomass temperature increases. In the pre-drying stage, moisture content decreases dramatically
while the biomass temperature stays constant. Following this stage, post-drying and intermediate
heating occurs. The temperature increases up to 200 oC and the physically bounded water is

14
released. Above 200 oC torrefaction reaction occurs. Devolatilisation takes part in this stage. And
finally, solid product is cooled to below 200 oC.

2.1.1.3 Product quality

During torrefaction biomass loses relatively more oxygen and hydrogen compared to carbon,
subsequently the calorific value of the product increases. The net calorific value (LHVdry) of
torrefied biomass is in the range of 18-23 MJ/kg or 20-24 MJ/kg when the HHV (dry) is
concerned. In Table 1, the comparison of torrified biomass with raw wood, charcoal and coal is
presented.

Table 1 Net calorific values (LHV) of untreated wood, torrefied biomass, charcoal and coal
Untreated Torrefied Charco Coal
wood biomass al
LHVdry 17-19 18-23 30 25-
(MJ/kg) 30
Source: Bergman et al, 2005

The moisture uptake of torrefied biomass is very limited due to the dehydration reactions that
take place during the torrefaction reaction. Those reactions prevent the bonding of biomass
hydrogen with water. Another change in the biomass occurs is the volumetric density. The
torrefied biomass becomes more porous with a volumetric density of 180 to 300 kg/m3 depending
on the initial biomass density and torrefaction conditions. It becomes more fragile as it looses its
mechanical strength. As a result, torrefied biomass size reduction becomes easier, which is
advantageous in conversion applications since they require biomass in very small sizes such as in
the form of powder for entrained flow gasification

2.1.2 Production technology

2.1.2.1 Current status

Torrefaction technology is not commercially available yet. However, torrefaction history dates
back to the late 1980’s when the upgrading of wood and briquettes by means of torrefaction was
investigated at the Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand. Another study was held in
Brazil. The Grupo Combustíveis Alternativos (GCA) at the University of Campinas in Brazil
used a bench unit for biomass torrefaction (Bioenergy, 2002). Those studies provided information
about the product quality.

The recent studies on torrefaction technology are based on the airless drying concept (Bioenergy,
2002) and the rotating drum concept (Duijn, 2004). In addition to this, at ECN extensive research
has been carried out. They designed an optimum integrated process, and studied the impacts of
torrefied biomass on co-firing and entrained flow gasification. In addition to this, they have
developed a TOP process (Torrefaction and Pelletisation) which aims to bring TOP pellets to the
energy market.

The only commercially applied torrefaction plant, PECHINEY, was built up in 1980s in France
and was operated for a few years. It was a continuous process which was applied by Le Bois

15
Torrefie du Lot, a subsidiary of Pechiney Electrometallurgie in order to produce roasted wood for
use in manufacturing silicon steel (Bioenergy, 2002).

2.1.2.2 State-of –the- art-system (SOTA) description

PECHINEY has built the first demonstration unit of a torrefaction process that was in operation
since early 1987s with a capacity of 12 000 ton/year of torrefied wood as a reduction agent for
silicon metal (Girard and Shah, 2005). Since this is the only commercially built process, it is
accepted as the state-of-the-art system. However, it should not be forgotten that the process
conditions applied were different than it should be to yield a product that can be converted into
energy in a later stage.

The process applied at Pechniey mainly consisted of a chopper where grinding is done, a drying
kiln, and a torrefaction reactor (roaster) (see Figure 3). The received wood was cut into 50 to 80
mm long and 15 mm thick chips at a rate of 20 ton/hr by a drum chopper. The pieces larger than
80 mm were removed at the outlet of the screen to be recycled and the fines that were smaller
than 15 mm were sent to the boiler to be combusted. Following this operation the wood chips
were transported to a tunnel kiln for drying. The chips, dried to 10%mc, were transported to the
roaster (torrefaction reactor) which was a hot mixing device with a double sheath and a rotating
shaft with disc sections perpendicular to the axis of the shafts. The reactor was heated by
conduction and thermal oil was used as a heat transfer fluid. This fluid was recycled between
boiler and the reactor. The gases generated in the roaster were combusted and the fumes were
returned to the kiln after being de-dusted. The temperature at the end of the roaster was reduced
(Bergman et al, 2005).

16
 large rejects

wood fines to
Wood boiler
Chopper Wood Screen
Storage

flue gas
incinerator

TW
leisure
combustibles

TW TW metallurgy
Drying kiln Roaster Screen

thermal TW fines
liquid

wood fines from

wood screen Boiler

Figure 3 Schematic representation of the Pechiney process (Berman et al, 2005)

The Pechiney process aimed at a product that has got a fixed carbon content with homogenized
moisture content. The operation temperature was in the range of 240 to 280 oC with a residence
time of 60 to 90 minutes. Various problems existed with this reactor design when it was
considered for bigger scales. The heat exchange area in this reactor was a limiting factor. The
feed moisture content was limited to 15% while the reactor through put was limited to 2 ton/hr.
Higher moisture contents would drop the reactor throughput. Another disadvantage was that the
reactor required free-flowing feed particles (Bergman et al, 2005).

The energy efficiency of Pechiney was calculated as 65-75%. The low process efficiency was
caused mainly by the feedstock losses during the chipping and sieving steps.

2.1.2.3 Assessment of the Pechiney process

The investment cost of Pechiney process was approximately 2.9 M€ in 1985 with a specific
investment of 25 €/ton product (Bergman et al, 2005). More than 80% of the total investment cost
was arising from the reactor. The torrefied wood production was roughly 100 €/ton when the
feedstock costs were excluded. When the feedstock costs were included, the production cost
would approximately be around 150-180 €/ton. Process scaling up could reduce the production
costs. However, the reactor used in the Pechiney process was poor in scaling up properties and
expensive (Bergman et al, 2005). These properties imply the need to search further for a better

17
process technology. In fact, a torrefaction process with a capacity of 150 MWth is designed by
ECN.

2.1.2.4 ECN Torrefaction technology

The ECN torrefaction process is based on direct heating of the biomass during torrefaction by
using the hot gas that is recycled. The torrefaction gas is re-pressurised and heated before it is
recycled to the reactor. The necessary heat for drying and torrefaction is produced by combustion
of liberated torrefaction gas. In fact, the energy content of the torrefaction gas plays a significant
role in providing the energy demand of the dryer and the reactor. When the energy obtained from
the torrefaction gas is equal to the energy demand of the dryer and the reactor, the system
operates authothermal. On the other hand when the energy content of the gas is not enough,
utility energy needs to be used. The moisture content of the feedstock is extremely important
since the feedstock property determines the required heat demand. The relationship between the
feedstock moisture content and energy yield in ECN process can be summarised by; the wetter
the biomass feedstock is the lower the energy yield to be allowed in torrefaction in order to
perform authothermal operation. In Appendix 3 the relationship between authotermal operation of
the process in relation to the moisture content and energy yield of torrefaction is presented.
The energy content of the torrefaction gas is directly related to the solid and energy yield of
torrefaction. Therefore, when torrefaction is operated in a different condition that produces less
energy yield, there will be surplus of energy in the form of torrefaction gas, in contrast when the
energy yield of the process is higher than the optimised conditions this time the energy produced
from the gas will not be enough to meet the dryer and reactor demand. This phenomenon is
explained in Figure 5.

TheECN torrefaction process consists of dryer, reactor, heat exchanger, combustion and cooling
(Figure 4).
Air

utillity Fuel

Fluegas

Combustion
Torrefaction
gases
gas
recycle
Torrefied
biomass biomass
Drying Torrefaction Cooling

DP

Fluegas
Heat exchange
Fluegas

Figure 4 General flow diagram of ECN torrefaction process (Bergman at al, 2005)

18
(DP: Pressure Drop recovery)

Qgas

Dryer Torref.reactor

Qdryer Qreact.

Qgas = Qdryer + Q react.

Figure 5 Torrefaction process authothermal operation equations

In this design the torrefaction gas is expected to be combusted so that the energy demand of the
dryer can be met without or with a little utility fuel consumption. Thus, this would result in a self
supporting, high efficient system. The calorific value of the gas ranges from 5.3 MJ/Nm3 to 16.2
MJ/Nm3 at the temperatures of 265 oC and 290 oC, respectively.

19
Components of the system

Dryer: Directly heated rotating drum technology was selected to dry the biomass from 50%
moisture content to the desired 15%. Dryer design was based on flue gas re-circulation and
modelled by ECN (Bergman, 2004a).

Reactor: During the process design at ECN, three different reactor types are considered. Screw
reactor was one of the options since it was used in the SOTA process (Pechiney). The second
option was the directly heated rotating drum technology due to its many applications as a dryer
and the third option was the directly heated moving bed. Directly heated moving bed gains from
its compactness (high fill percentage), simplicity in construction, high heat transfer rates and
small reactor size requirement. Another advantage of the moving bed reactor is that there is not a
specific feedstock shape requirement. It can handle non-free flowing materials. In fact, design
studies in ECN resulted in favour of the moving bed reactor as the most promising technology.
The three reactor comparison is summarised in the following table (Table 2).

Table 2 Comparison of the three evaluated reactor types for 150 MWth output torrefaction
process
Heat transfer Total Fill Shape of Costs 2
coefficient 1 residence time material input
2
W/m /K minutes %
Indirectly 30 34 60-70 Free-moving expensive
heated screw
Directly 41 55 10-15 Free-moving medium
heated
rotating drum
Directly 200 20 100 flexible cheap
heated
moving bed
1 Estimated heat transfer coefficient is based on m2 exchange area for the screw reactor, on m3 reactor volume for
the rotating drum and on m2 particle surface area for moving bed.
2 Equipment purchase costs are compared with each other; moving bed reactor is roughly 6 times cheaper than the
screw reactor. Source: Bergman et al, 2005.

Cooler
The torrefied biomass was cooled down to 50 oC by an indirectly heated rotating drum
technology. Water was chosen as a coolant.

2.1.2.5 Torrefied biomass densification

In the 2.1.1.3 section torrefied biomass is defined as a porous product, with a low density.
However, torrefied biomass is fragile which makes it relatively easy to grind. On the other hand
decreased mechanical strength and increased dust formation capacity in addition to low
volumetric density makes a densification stage necessary. Besides, when the long distance

20
transport is considered, especially the shipment, pelletising the torrefied biomass is inevitable.
This subject is discussed further in the biomass supply chain chapter.

The mass density of torrefied biomass pellets is about 22 MJ/kg whereas the energy density
reaches up to 18 GJ/ m3. Although this energy density is less than that of coal (20.4 GJ/m3), it is
still 20% higher than commercial wood pellets (Lipinsky et al, 2002; Bergman et al, 2005). So,
torrefaction in combination with pelletising offers significant advantages when the biomass
logistics are considered.

Densification following torrefaction is considered in several studies (Lipinsky et al, 2002; Reed
and Bryant, 1978; Koukios, 1993; Bergman et al, 2005). Those studies indicate that the pressure
required for densification could be reduced with a factor of 2 at 225 oC, while the energy
consumption of densification could be reduced by a factor of 2 compared to biomass
pelletisation.

Biomass pelletising consists of drying and size reduction prior to the densification. Steam
conditioning is applied to soften the biomass fibres. Following densification bio-pellets are
cooled down. However, when torrefaction is considered, steam pre-conditioning is not required
since torrefied biomass is fragile. Following torrefaction, size reduction, densification and
cooling can be achieved (Figure 6).

Biomass
Drying Torrefaction Size Densification Cooling
Reductio

Torrefied
pellets

Figure 6 General flow diagram of torrefaction in combination with pelletisation

Size reduction: The power consumption for size reduction following torrefaction is reduces
around 70-90 % compared to biomass pelletisation (Bergman, 2005). Besides, production
capacity of a chipper increases with a factor 7.5 to 15 compared to biomass. A simpler type of
size reduction such as cutting mills, and jaw crushers can be deployed instead of hammer mills,
which are used for the conventional pelletising process (Bergman, 2005). The experimental
results of size reduction carried out at ECN (Bergman et al, 2005) are presented in Appendix 4.

Densification: AT ECN, a piston press has carried out torrefied biomass densification
experiments. This press was modified to press in different diameters of various biomass products
under different torrefaction conditions.

The comparison of torrified pellets with torrefied biomass, wood pellets and fresh wood is shown
in Table 3 (Bergman, 2005).

21
Table 3 Wood, torrefied biomass, wood pellets and torrefied pellets property comparison.
Properties Unit Wood Torref.biomass Wood pellets Torref. pellets
Low High Low High
Moisture content %wt 35% 3% 10% 7% 5% 1%
Calorific value
(LHV)
Dry MJ/kg 17.7 20.4 17.7 17.7 20.4 22.7
As received MJ/kg 10.5 19.9 15.6 16.2 19.9 21.6
Mass density (bulk) Kg/m3 550 230 500 650 750 850
3
Energy density GJ/m 5.8 4.6 7.8 10.5 14.9 18.4
Pellet strength - - Good Very good
Dust formation Moderate High Limited Limited
Hydroscopic nature Water Hydro Swelling/ Poor
uptake phobic water swelling/
uptake Hydro
phobic
Biological Possible Impossible Possible Impossible
degradation

Pelletising the torrefied biomass not only increases the mass density but also the energy density.
Besides, mechanical strength improves. According to the experiments at ECN, torrefied pellets
can withstand 1.5 to 2 times the force exerted on conventionally produced pellets before
breakage.
The water intake capacity of the product was determined by immersing them into water for 15
hours. A gravimetric measurement device was employed to measure the water intake contents.
The results showed that torrefied pellet water intake was very limited (up to 10-20% on mass
basis) whereas wood pellets swell rapidly (Bergman, 2005).
Technical performance characteristics of torrefied wood pelletising for sawdust and greenwood
chips are given below (Table 4).

Table 4 Technical performance of torrefied wood pelletisation for sawdust and green wood chips
Item Unit Torrefied wood Torrefied wood
pelletisation pelletisation
(sawdust) (green wood chips)
Feedstock capacity Kton/y 170 170
Moisture content Wt. 57% 57%
LHVar feed MJ/kg 6.2 6.2
Production capacity Kton/y 56 56
MWth fuel 40 40
Product Moisture content Wt. 3% 3%
LHVar product MJ/kg 20.8 20.8
Cooling water m3/ton 16.7 16.7
product
Utility fuel MWth 3.9 4.7

22
Electricity consumption MWe 0.83 1.01
Thermal efficiency 98.5% 96.5%
Net efficiency 93.7% 90.8%
a.r: as received

23
2.1.3 Technology evaluation

2.1.3.1 Objectives & Methodology

The focus in this section is on the technical feasibility of torrefaction process. This technology is
not commercialised yet and most of the demonstrations have been done under laboratory
condition. As a newly emerging technology, it requires technology analysis. In addition, the
exploration of future development options is aimed at.

In the analysis, the data obtained from the ASPEN flow sheet simulation package, which was
created at ECN, is used. Overall mass and energy balances derived from those studies are used to
calculate overall performance of the system. The process conditions are assumed to be the same
as in the ECN torrefaction study (Bergman et al, 2005).

2.1.3.2 Mass and energy balances

According to the ECN study (Bergman et al, 2005) done under 280 oC temperature and 17.5 min
reaction time conditions, the torrefaction reaction mass yield was determined as around 70%
(Figure 7) whereas the mass yield of drying was around 60%. This number corresponds to the
moisture content loss. In fact the biomass input moisture content was 50% and the biomass
moisture content leaving the dryer was 15%.

flue gas(combustables +non combust.)

21.97 kg/s
0.01 kg/s ash
1.03 kg/s
Combustion
3.62 kg/s
torref. gas
biomass 18.97 kg/s 11.16 kg/s 7.54 kg/s
20 kg/s Drying Torrefaction torrefied biomass

HE 14.16 kg/s
flue gas

Figure 7 Net mass flows corresponding with torrefaction of cuttings at 280 oC and 17.5 min
reaction time (HE: Heat exchanger).

The thermal efficiency of the whole process was calculated as 96% while the net efficiency was
approximately 92 %( includes the utility consumption) (Figure 8 and Table 5). The thermal
efficiency of the whole process is mainly determined by the efficiency of the drying. The energy
flow in dryer increases from 135.7 MWth to 152.8 MWth (See Figure 7). The high torrefaction
efficiency takes its roots from the authothermal operation where the produced torrefaction gas is
combusted and the energy demand of the dryer and reactor is met.

24
 Fluegas

14.7
21.4
Combustion
27.7
Torrefaction
gas 7.97 Torrefied
biomass biomass
Drying Torrefaction Cooling
156.1 135.7 152.8 150

22.2 5.47

HE
Fluegas 4.10

Figure 8 Net energy flows (in MWth) corresponding with torrefaction of woodcuttings at 280 °C
and 17.5 min reaction time (HE: heat exchanger).

Table 5 Overall energy balance of the 150 MWth torrefaction process

Utility Unit Value
Thermal output MWth 150
Thermal input MWth 156

Electricity input
Dryer MWth
Reactor MWth
Fired heater/heat exchanger MWth

Axial flow fan MWe 1.28

Product cooler MWe 1
Air turbo blower MWe 0.4
Electricity input MWe 2.68
Thermal equivalent 1 MWth 6.7

Thermal efficiency 2 % 0.96

Net efficiency 3 % 0.92
1 The efficiency of energy conversion is accepted as 0.40
2 Thermal efficiency is calculated as: thermal output/thermal input
3 Net efficiency is calculated as: thermal output/ (thermal input + utility)

25
2.1.4 Economic evaluation

2.1.4.1 Methodology

Economic evaluation is based on the estimations of required capital investment and total
production costs. Factorial method described by Peters and Timmerhaus (1991) is used as the
reference source in the calculation assumptions (See Appendix 1). Direct costs consist of
equipments and their installation, buildings, process and auxiliary, service facilities, yard
improvements and the cost of land. Indirect costs include engineering & supervision, construction
expense/constructer fee and contingencies. Both direct and indirect costs compose the fixed
capital investment.

The torrefied biomass production costs are calculated by dividing the total annual costs of a
system by the produced amount of torrefied biomass. The total annual costs are;
• Annual investment
• Operation and maintenance
• Biomass feedstock
• Electricity demand

The annual investment cost is calculated according to the below equation:

I annul = α * It
r
α=
1 − (1 + r ) − L
where:
Iannual = annual investment cost
α = the capital recovery factor
It = total investment
r = the discount rate
L = the life time or depreciation period of the equipment

The depreciation period was set to 10 years due to the expected lifetime of dryer and reactor.
8000h/year is assumed to keep the operation continuous.

The chain analysis in this thesis is based on the assumption that biomass is imported from Latin
America to West Europe and the biomass pre-treatment step is supposed to takes part in the Latin
American region. Therefore, the parameters assumed for different world regions and used in the
torrefied wood production cost calculation are presented in Table 6. The production cost
breakdown estimations are presented in Appendix 5.

26
Table 6 Local parameters assumed for different world regions
Latin America Western Europe
Electricity price1 €/ MWhe 35 60
Labour price2 €/ Man-hour 6 25
1 Electricity prices are derived from Hamelinck et al (2003), Dutch retail price for industry in The Netherlands are
presented by the IEA(2002) and the average Brazilian price for electricity is 34 €(ANEEL, 2003).
2 Average salary for Western Europe is in the range of 14-40 €/man-hour (Bridgwater et al, 2002; Hamelinck et al,
2003), the labour costs in Latin America ranges around 1.37-6.59 US$ in 1998, depending on the contract type
(Tokman & Martinez, 1999).

Following these steps, the economy of scale is assessed. To do so, 10MWth, 18.7MWth,
37.5MWth, 75MWth, and 150 MWth output capacities are selected. The scale is chosen in the
range of 10 to 150 MWth since the only commercial process’ capacity was 10MWth and 150
MWth was designed at ECN. The cost calculations are done using scale factors per component.
When the maximum unit is reached, it is assumed that parallel units are built to meet the desired
capacity which means that the scale factor is accepted as 1. Cost estimates are done accepting
37.5 MWth process as the base capacity because in ECN 150 MWth plant cost estimates were
based on this capacity due to the fact that maximum unit of the process components are reached
(Berman, 2005). For the 10 and 18.7 MWth processes R- factors are used, however for 75 and
150 MWth the units are paralleled, so the equipment cost are calculated by doubling each unit’s
cost. The R-values (Appendix 6) are obtained from BIG/CC study (Faaij et al, 1998) and from
ECN technical experts (Berman, 2005a).

2.1.4.2 Estimation of the total capital investment

The total capital investment is estimated using the combination of capacity factored, equipment-
based estimates and vendor quotes of the main plant items. The flow rates, heat duty, power
equipment and such as capacity ratios are used in capacity factored estimation. The equipment-
based estimations are done according to detailed design calculations (Bergman et al, 2005).
Finally, the total investment cost for a 37.5 MWth output torrefaction process including drying is
calculated as 6.5 M€ and presented in Table 7 .The major cost is derived from the installation
cost. When it concerns the equipment costs, the dryer is the most expensive equipment followed
by torrefaction reactor (Figure 9 and Figure 10).

27
Table 7 Total capital investment of a 37. 5 MWth torrefaction plant
Costs R-values Base Max.
1
scale scale
M€
I. Direct cost

1. Purchased Equipment
Dryer 2 0,61 0,5 8 25 ton dry/hr
Reactor 0,59 0,72 20 20 MWth
Axial flow fans 0,10 0,7 1 .. MWe
Product cooler 0,48 0,6 3 20 ton dry/hr
Air turbo blowers 0,01 0,65 1 .. MWe
Burners +heat exchangers 0,24 0,6

2. Installation
Main plant items erection 0,14 0,7
Civil 0,20 0,65
Lagging 0,06 0,7
3. Instrumentation and control 0,22 0,3
4. Piping ducting and chutes 0,41 0,7
5. Electrical installation 0,22 0,3

A. continued dryers 0,09 0,65

B. buildings, process and auxiliary 0,45 0,65
C. service facilities and yard improvements - 0,65
service facilities general 0,19 0,7
cooling water system 0,10 0,6
air supply system 0,02 0,65
storage 0,43 0,65
yard improvements 0,07 0,65
D. land 0,06 0,7

II. Indirect costs -

A. engineering and supervision 0,80 0,7
B. construction expense/ contractor fee 0,22 0,7
C. contingency 0,55 0,7
-
Working capital 0,32 0,7

Total Capital Investment 6,53

Specific investment (euro/ton/year) 14,47
1 Cost calculations are based on the 150 MWth torrefaction plant cost estimate (Bergman et al, 2005). Since the 150
MWth plant consists of 4 parallel lines, purchased costs calculations for 37.5 MWth plant are done by dividing the
cost figure into four.
2 Rotary drum dryer is used. According to Calis et al (2002), maximum scale is 25 ton dry/hr.

28
 Heaters
12%
Equipment costs
Indirect costs
Working capital Blowers
5% 31%
25% 1% Dryer
31%
Product cooler
21%

Fans
5% Reactor
30%
Instalation costs
39%

Figure 9 Total capital investment cost breakdown Figure 10 Equipment cost breakdown

2.1.4.3 Estimation of the total production costs

The total production cost for a 150 MWth capacity torrefaction plant is estimated in the range of
40-58 €/ton product when the feedstock cost is excluded (Bergman et al, 2005) (See Appendix 7).
When the operation conditions are optimised, lower production costs can be achieved. In fact
natural gas cost is rather high and when biomass is used as fuel instead of natural gas or a drier
biomass is processed, the total production cost can be decreased.

2.1.4.4 Economies of scale

Usually when the production capacity of a process is increased, a reduction in the average
production cost is expected. Thus, economies of scale are defined as decreasing specific
investment costs while up-scaling a certain technology as a power function (Dornburg and Faaij,
2001). The relationship between costs and capacities are as follows:
R
COSTS SIZE 2  SIZE 2 
= 
COSTS SZE1  SIZE1 
where r is scaling factor ranging between 0 and 1

In this study, economy of scale is based on component level cost data. R-values per component
are obtained from literature (Faaij et al, 1998) and ECN study (Bergman et al, 2005) whereas
base scales, base costs and maximum scales are obtained from the study done by Bergman et al,
(2005). For relatively large capacities (like 150 MWth), multiple units have to be considered.
However, this reduces the economy of scale. Even though purchasing multiple units may cause
some discount, this option is omitted in this study because the discount rate is vendor related. For
the indirect costs, scaling up is not applied since they are the percentages of the capital
investment costs and when the scale effect is applied to capital investment, it influences the
indirect costs.

29
37.5 MWth capacity process is used as the reference scale because rotary drum dryer which
comprises the highest cost compared to other equipments is used in its maximum scale in this
process. When the capacity is exceeded 40 MWth, multiple equipment units need to be used. For
the smaller scale processes R- Values are used to scale down.
Table 8 presents the specific investment cost calculations for different plant scales.

Table 8 Specific investment cost calculations of various capacities.

Production Capacity (MWth) 150 75 37,5 18,5 10,00 R
value
s
M€ M€ M€ M€ M€
I. Direct costs

1. Equipment purchase costs

Dryer 2,45 1,23 0,61 0,43 0,32 0.50
Reactor 2,34 1,17 0,59 0,29 0,19 0.72
Axial flow fans 0,40 0,20 0,10 0,06 0,04 0.70
Product cooler 1,68 0,89 0,48 0,04 0,17 0.60
Air turbo blowers 0,04 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,00 0.70
Burners +heat exchangers 0,94 0,47 0,24 0,27 0,11 0.60
2. Installation
Main plant items erection 0,36 0,22 0,14 0,08 0,05 0.70
Civil 0,50 0,32 0,20 0,13 0,09 0.65
Lagging 0,15 0,09 0,06 0,03 0,02 0.70
3. Instrumentation and control 0,33 0,26 0,22 0,17 0,14 0.30
4. Piping ducting and chutes 1,07 0,66 0,41 0,25 0,16 0.70
5. Electrical installation 0,33 0,26 0,22 0,17 0,14 0.30

A. continued dryers 0,23 0,15 0,09 0,06 0,04 0.65

B. buildings, process and auxiliary 1,10 0,70 0,45 0,28 0,19 0.65
C. service facilities and yard improvements
service facilities general 0,50 0,31 0,19 0,12 0,08 0.70
cooling water system 0,24 0,16 0,10 0,07 0,05 0.60
air supply system 0,04 0,03 0,02 0,01 0,01 0.65
storage 1,05 0,67 0,43 0,27 0,18 0.65
yard improvements 0,17 0,11 0,07 0,04 0,03 0.65
D. land 0,15 0,09 0,06 0,03 0,02 0.70

II. Indirect costs

A. engineering and supervision 2,10 1,30 0,80 0,49 0,32 0.70

B. const. expense/ contractor fee 0,59 0,36 0,22 0,14 0,09 0.70
C. contingency 1,44 0,89 0,55 0,33 0,22 0.70
Working capital 0,83 0,51 0,32 0,19 0,12 0.70

30
Total Capital Investment 1 19,00 11,05 6,53 3,96 2,77
Specific investment (euro/ton/year)2 11,93 12,36 14,47 17,56 23,19
1Total investment cost is multiplied by the recovery factor (α) to obtain annual investment cost.
2 Specific investment cost is calculated by dividing annual investment cost by the production capacity.

2.2 Pyrolysis
2.2.1 Process definition

Pyrolysis can be described as the direct thermal decomposition of biomass in the absence of
oxygen (Yaman, 2004). Temperatures employed in pyrolysis are 400 to 800 oC (Bridgwater and
Evans, 1993). The products of pyrolysis include gas, liquid and solid char. The relative
proportions of products are dependent on the pyrolysis method, the characteristics of the biomass
and the reaction parameters (United Nations, 1994). The process can be adjusted in favour of
solid, liquid or gas production. Depending on the product demand operation conditions are
modified.

In the conventional pyrolysis, equal yields of gas, liquid and solid are produced. However, this is
not a favourable technology due to the multiplicity of products that are difficult to handle and
market. The lower efficiency in gas production and the heat transfer to the reactor are the main
problems.

Another method that captures a lot of attention is fast pyrolysis where very high heating rates at
moderate temperatures and rapid product quenching are employed. The main product is liquid,
the so called pyrolysis oil. At high reaction temperature, however, the main product is gaseous.
The by-product in both conditions is char. The focus of this study is based on fast pyrolysis since
the product aimed at in this study is liquid. Fast pyrolysis technology has received much attention
in the last decades as a solution to convert biomass to a liquid fuel. In fact, liquid fraction can be
maximized up to 75% wt on a dry biomass feed basis (Bridgwater et al, 2002)

2.2.1.1 Pyrolysis decomposition mechanism

As previously mentioned, biomass consists of cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin. Cellulose and
hemicellulose degrades rapidly whereas lignin decomposes over a wider temperature range. Fast
pyrolysis occurs around 500 oC in which biomass is rapidly heated in the absence of oxygen. It
generates mostly vapours and aerosols where a rapid quenching of the pyrolysis vapours is
needed to minimize secondary reactions. The vapour residence time is typically 1 s. Fast
pyrolysis technology is in favour of high liquid production.

The necessary conditions for fast pyrolysis are:

• High heating and heat transfer rates at the reaction interface;
• Finely ground biomass feedstock;
• A moderate reaction temperature (around 500 oC);
• A vapour phase temperature of 450 –500 oC;
• Short vapour residence times (less than 2 seconds)
• Rapid cooling of pyrolysis vapour to produce bio-oil

31
2.2.1.2 Products

Pyrolysis process yields 3 main products that are liquid, char and gas. Generally, the yields from
fast pyrolysis are between 40-65 wt% organic condensate, 10 to 20% char, 10-30% gases and 5-
15% water based on dry feed (Diebold and Bridgwater, 1999) depending on the biomass feed
characteristics and reaction conditions.

The LHV of gases are expected to be around 15 MJ/nm3 (Diebold and Bridgwater, 1999), when
the fast pyrolysis reactor operation is in favour of maximum liquid production with a minimum
of vapour cracking. When it concerns the LHV of chars, it has been reported to be around 32
MJ/kg (Diebold and Bridgwater, 1999). The char produced in fast pyrolysis is very flammable
due to its small size and high volatility, therefore hot char from the process should be properly
handled to avoid ignition.

Pyrolysis oil, the desired product, is a dark brown liquid with a distinctive odour. The liquid
fraction consists of two parts: an aquatic phase and a non-aquatic phase. While the aquatic phase
consists of organo-oxygen compounds, the non-aqua phase consists of insoluble organics, mainly
aromatics. The general characteristics of this bio-oil is summarised in Table 9. However, the
properties of bio-oil depend on the type of process, the feedstock and its moisture content. In
their study, Raveendran and Ganesh (1996) indicate the higher heating values for several biomass
types (See Appendix 8).

Table 9 Typical properties of wood derived crude bio-oil

Typical value Unit
Moisture content 20-30 %
pH 2.5
Specific gravity 1.2 Kg/lt
Element analysis
C 55-58 %
H 5.5-7.0 %
O 35-40 %
N 0-0.2 %
Ash 0-0.2 %
HHV as produced 16-19 MJ/kg
LHV 15-18 MJ/kg
Viscosity (40 C and 25% 40-400 Cp
water)
Solid (char) 0.1-0.5
Source: Pyne, 2005

32
2.2.2 Production technology
2.2.2.1 Current status

Fast pyrolysis of biomass is on the verge of development and demonstration stage (in power
production). Bio-oil production has been demonstrated in North America at a scale up to 2 ton/hr
throughput, whereas pyrolysis plants are being marketed up to 10 ton/hr throughputs in Canada
(Ensyn, 2005). Ensyn has started its fundamental fast pyrolysis experiments in 1981 at the
University of Western Ontario. The first commercial application of the Ensyn Technology was a
100 kg/hr unit to produce chemicals and fuel oil at Red Arrow Products in Wisconsin, USA. The
product yields were 67% bio-oil, 26% gas and 0.8% char (kg/kg feed basis). In 1995 Resource
Transforms International Ltd. (RTI) began bench scale production of bio-oil. Dynamotive Corp.
has achieved a commercial version of RTI process so named “BioTherm TM Technology”. The
pilot plant was operated at a capacity of 2 ton/day on a continuous feed basis and it processed
more than 35 tones of feedstock (Dynamotive, 1999) and in 2000 they designed and built a 10-
ton/day bio-oil commercial demonstration plant. In 2003 Dynamotive launched the construction
of a 100 ton/day plant at Erie Flooring and Wood Products, Ontario. Currently Ensyn has got a
fast pyrolysis plant with a capacity of 75 ton/day (wet bases), which is operating commercially.
This facility was built in Wisconsin in 1996 and has operated with a commercial availability of
over 94 % (Ensyn, 2005).

Europe on the other hand has recently involved in the production of liquid fuels from biomass.
However, a commercial pyrolysis demonstration plant was constructed in Edenhausen (Germany)
with a capacity of 5000 ton/year and was operational until 1989. The aim in this process was the
pyrolysis of plastic wastes, rubber wastes, oil wastes or other organic waste materials
(Karminsky, 1985). A second demonstration scale of 600 kg/h plant was built at the Grimma
machine factory, East Germany for the extraction of aromatic chemicals from the whole tires but
this plant is also not operational (Kaminsky, 1985). In Italy, ENEL have installed a pilot plant,
designed and built by Ensyn of Canada, to produce a fuel for co-firing in oil fired power plant. A
500-kg/h pyrolysis plant was planned to be demonstrated in Italy in 1989 with a liquid and char
yield of 25% for each (Bridgewater et al, 2000). In fact, Enel Produzino is operating a pilot
facility and currently the aim is to improve its operability and the product quality (Bio-energy
projects, 2004). In mid 1993 Union Fenosa (Spain) constructed a 200-kg/h fast pyrolysis pilot
plant, which is based on the University of Waterloo (Canada) process. Another 200-kg/h pilot
plant was demonstrated in Belgium in 1991 and operated until 1992. The bio-oil yield of the
plant was 39.9%wt., the gas yield was 16.2% wt. and the char yield was determined as 29%wt
(Egemin). The most recent pilot plant was installed in Italy at Bastorda in mid 1996. It was a 15
ton/day Ensyn RTP3 pilot plant.

2.2.2.2 State-of-the-art-technology

Ensyn patented Rapid Thermal Processing (RTP™) technology is accepted as the state of the art
technology because it is commercialised (Figure 14). In this technology, biomass from the hopper
passes through a metering screw and feed screw into the vessel reactor where biomass is
contacted with a stream of hot sand. Following this section, sand is separated from the product
vapour in a primary cyclone, re-heated and re-circulated to carry the heat to the fresh biomass. A

33
secondary cyclone removes the char and inorganic fines consisting of ash and entrained sand
(Bridgwater and Bridge, 1991). Several condensers, filters and demisters are used to condense
and recover the liquid product.

This process necessitates a feedstock with moisture content less than 10% on wet basis and a
particle size less than 5mm, preferably 3mm.

The liquid product is 67%, daf, 74% as received

biomass

gas off gas

Biomass feeder
secondary cyclone

primary cyclone condensor column

bio oil

Reactor char chatchpot packet condenser column

heat for

pyrolysis

gas recirculation

Figure 11 State of the art Ensyn RTP plant flow diagram (Source)

2.2.3 Technology evaluation

2.2.3.1 Methodology

Pyrolysis technology requires a lot of interest due to its significant logistical and hence economic
advantages. It is possible to obtain detailed technical data for various reactor types but in this
study an overall technology assessment which consists of mass and energy balances are
presented.
When the existing fast pyrolysis technologies with various reactor specifications are considered,
fluid bed configurations are the most popular reactors from the commercial point of view due to
their ease of operating and ready scale up (Bridgwater, 1999). On the other hand ablative reactors
offer the advantage of smaller downstream equipments and more intensive reaction. The
overview of current technologies are summarised in Appendix 9.
In this study rotating cone pyrolysis process is used as a reference technology due to its being
compact and good integration of heat. This technology has been designed and demonstrated by
BTG. The detailed data are obtained from BTG Biomass Technology Group BV, The
Netherlands (Gansekoele et al, 2000).

Even though state-of –the-art-technology is chosen different in the techno-economic calculation

steps rotating cone technology is used as the reference process. As seen in the flow diagram,
particles are heated rapidly by mixing sand, which is used as a heat carrier. The products are non-
condensable gases, bio-oil and char. Char is combusted in a fluid bed together with sand where
heat is conveyed to the sand. The produced gas is cleaned in a filter and fed in the condenser.

34
Circulating bio-oil is used as a cooling medium, which is cooled down by water from a cooling
tower.

2.2.3.2 Mass and energy balances

The process diagram of the 5.5 ton/hr rotating cone reactor is given in Figure 12 where the mass
and energy balances are demonstrated (Gansekoele et al, 2000). In addition to this, detailed mass
balance of a 200 kg/hr pyrolysis plant is presented in Appendix 10.

The mass yield of the main product, bio-oil is 70%, where as non-condensable gas mass yield is
20% and char yield is 10%. It is assumed that the gas leaving the condenser can be combusted in
a gas engine for electricity generation and flue gases can be used for heating application.

0.7 kg/hr
fluegas

bio-oil 4 tons/hr
7.5 tons/hr 5.5 tons/hr 5.5 tons/hr 16.5 MWLHV
25 MWLHV 25 MWLHV 25 MWLHV
gas 0.75 tons/hr
Dryer Hammer mill Pyrolysis unit 2.1MWLHV

ash
0.05 tons/hr
Figure 12 A schematic presentation of the mass and energy balance of a 5-ton dry feed per hour
pyrolysis plant

The char that is created in the pyrolysis plant is combusted and reused in the reactor. Since the
char combustion energy is more than what is required to run the reactor, the system works in
authotermal mode (Gansekoele et al, 2000). As it can be seen in Figure 12, the energy yield of
the pyrolysis technology is approximately 66%.

2.2.4 Economic evaluation

When international bio-energy transport is considered, pyrolysis pre-treatment option seems

attractive. The liquid product can be either stored or readily transported depending on the
requirement. Due to its relatively high energy content and bulk density, it can be economically
advantageous compared to pellet transport. In addition to this when the final conversion stage is
considered, converting bio-oil into energy or FT liquid is supposed to be easier than pellets.
These assumptions are investigated later in the bio-energy chain analysis chapter.

Even though the pyrolysis technology attracts a lot of attention and gets more commercialised, it
still necessitates a detailed economic evaluation due to lack of publicly available economic data.

35
2.2.4.1 Methodology

The economic data obtained in this study for fast pyrolysis technology varies from each other.
Therefore, in this section, first the reference pyrolysis plant cost data is presented and compared
to the data obtained from Hamelinck et al (2003). Second a literature review (Bridgwater and
Evans, 1993; Bridgwater et al, 2002; Calis et al, 2002; Solantausta, 2001; Hamelinck et al, 2003)
is conducted and finally the results are compared.

2.2.4.2 Reference case

Before biomass is fed to the pyrolysis system, it needs to be prepared. In fact pyrolysis reactors
require stringent feedstock particles and moisture content. When the rotating cone reactor is
considered it demands a feedstock that has got a 2 mm particle size and moisture content below
12% (Gansekoele et al, 2000). Therefore, the plant consists of dryer, hammermill and storage as
preparation phase. Following this process, the feedstock enters the pyrolysis plant. Investment
cost of a 25 MWth process is presented in Table 10. In addition to this, another process is
designed where mainly Hamelinck et al (2003) data are used.

36
Table 10 25 MWth-input capacity pyrolysis process investment cost calculations (sawdust as
feedstock)
Item Rotating cone pyrolsysis Reference plant
plant
(Gansekoele et al, 2000)
Costs (M€) Costs (M€)
I. Direct costs
Rotary dryer 0.36 0.81 1
Hammermill 0.07 0.08 2
Silo 0.10 0.08 3
Installation cost (20%)4 0.11 0.19
5
Buildings 0.12 0.21
Wood yard conditioning 0.03 -
Sub-total 0.79 1.58

II. Indirect costs

Engineering and supervision 0.04 0.08
(5% of direct costs)
Const. expense and contractor’s 0.04 0.08
fee
(6% of direct costs)
Pyrolysis plant 6 3.5 7 8.5 78

Fixed capital investment 4.37 11.61

1 A 100 ton/hr Van den Broek rotary drum with 5 M€ capital cost is scaled down by the 0.7 scale factor (Hamelinck
et al, 2003).
2 50 ton/hr hammermill with 0.37 M€ base capital is scaled down with a 0.7 scale factor (Hamelinck et al, 2003)
3 5000 m3 silo capital cost is mentioned 0.331 M€ (Hamelinck et al; Suurs 2002).
4 Instalation costs are estimated to be the 20% of direct costs
5 Building costs are assumed to be the 22% of purchased equipment costs (Peters and Timmerhaus, 1990).
6 Cost data assumed to include engineering & construction expenses.
6 The rotating cone technology includes biomass feed system, sand circulation system, char combustion, reactor and
bio-oil condensing system Pyrolysis plant cost estimation details are confidential.
7 Calculation is based on equation 1.

37
In this study, production cost breakdown (See Table 12) is processed. The economic parameters
used in this calculation are shown in

Table 11 Economic parameters for a 25 MWth biomass pyrolysis plant

Factor Value Unit
Biomass type wood
Moisture content 50% wt% d.a.f.
Ash content 1 wt% d.a.f.
Particle size 10 mm
Biomass input 5 ton dry/hr
Annual 7500 Hr/yr
availability
Bio-oil yield 70 %
Bio-oil LHV 17.5 MJ/kg
Biomass cost 35 €/ton d.a.f
Depreciation 6.7 %/year
Pyrolysis plant 3.5 M€
cost
Pre-treatment 0.8 M€
cost
d.a.f.= dry ash free

Table 12 Production cost of a 25 MWth rotating cone pyrolysis plant

I. MANUFACTURING COSTS M€
A. Direct Product Cost
1. Raw Materials 1.39
2. Operation Labour 0.38
3. Direct Supervisory and clerical labour 0.08
4. Utilities
Electricity 0.15
5. Maintenance and Repairs 0.14
6. Operating Supplies 0.02
7. Laboratory Charges 0.15
8. Patents and Royalties
B. Fixed Charges
1. Depreciation 0.31
2. Local Taxes 0.14
3. Insurance 0.04
4. Rent 0.01
C. Plant Overhead 0.35
II. GENERAL EXPENSES
A. Administrate Costs 0.09
B. Distribution and Selling Costs 0.80
C. Research and Development Cost 0,2

38
III TOTAL PRODUCT COSTS 4.22
Bio-oil production cost €/ton- 112.65
feed 9.20
€/GJ

The production cost is estimated around 112 €/ton (9 €/GJ) when the feedstock cost is accepted
as 35 €/ton d.a.f for the reference case. On the other hand when the feedstock price is accepted as
0, the bio-oil production cost is approximately 75 €/ton (~6 €/GJ). The calculation results are
consistent when compared to literature studies (Bridgwater et al, 2002; Solantausta, 2001).

2.2.4.3 Literature review and study comparison

Even though there have been many demonstrated pyrolysis plants, the related cost figures are
being kept confidential. Therefore, this part of the study is based on literature reviews in
combination with the obtained cost figure data evaluations.

In Figure 14 and Figure 15 pyrolysis plant investments of several studies are summarised (VTT
(Fin), Aston University (UK) & Kemmiinformation AB (Se)).The data used by Aston University
is reported as manufacturer’s data whereas VTT used literature with in-house data, and
Kemiinformation data used industrial data.

In Figure 14, the pyrolysis plant investment cost data between 40- 60 MWth varies substantially,
which creates discrepancy. Even though the cost data is from the same source, it differs. For
instance, in 2003, the specific investment cost of a 37.5 MWth liquid capacity was estimated
around 350 kUS$/MWth, while it was estimated around 410 US$/MWth in 2002 for 48 MWth
capacity (See Figure 14). Even for the similar capacities, the ranges of the cost estimates are
different. According to the VTT study results, a pyrolysis plant costs around 34.5 € in 1999 with
a capacity of approximately 56 MWth, while it costs around 25 M€ for 53 MWth capacity in
2002. Because of lack of information about the estimate details, it is not possible to clarify the
variations.

39
Figure 13 Specific Pyrolysis Plant Investments 1987-2003 (Solantausta, 2001)

Figure 14 Specific Pyrolysis Plant Investments (Historic data from1987 to 2003 (Solantausta,
2001)

In another study Bridgwater et al, (2002) has compiled a number of fast pyrolysis systems to give
a financial scope. 14 data point for fast pyrolysis module was used, and the below figure was
obtained (Figure 15).

40
Figure 15 Fast pyrolysis total plant costs versus feedstock (dry) input (Bridgwater et al, 2002).

The equation to calculate the cost of fast pyrolysis system was determined from the figure as;

TPCconv, pyr, kECU2000 = 40.8× (Q h, pret, dry×1000)0.6194 Equation 1

where,

TPCconv, pyr = the total plant cost of the pyrolysis reactor system,
Qh, pret, dry = the mass flow rate of prepared wood feed into the reactor, ton dry/hr

However, the cost data of this curve could not be obtained. Therefore, a new curve is produced
which consists of available cost estimates (Bridgwater and Evans, 1993). Five different pyrolysis
plant capital investment cost data are plotted into a graph (Figure 16). The data distribution is
reasonable excluding point 3. The data in point 3 (Bridgwater and Evans, 1993) is outside the
expected range and this can be interpreted as the result of low process efficiency (30.62%).
Detailed information about the cost data is included in Appendix 11. When the graph is compared
to the VTT study (Figure 13 and Figure 14), the cost data differ. The reason can be that the cost
data in VTT study include drying, which increases the capital cost significantly. However, it is
not possible to give further clarification since detailed information related to the investment costs
in VTT study is not available.
th )

3500
Spec. Investment (kUS$,2004/MW

3000
2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 41
0 5 10 15 20
MW th -output (LHV)
Figure 16 Specific investment cost versus capacity (MWth LHV) data of 5 different pyrolysis
plants

When the total capital investment costs versus feedstock amount are plotted in a graph (See
Figure 17), an equation (Equation 2), different from Bridgwater et al (2002) is obtained. Different
calculation methods may cause this difference. Bridgwater et al, (2002) has collected normalised
plant costs for a number of fast pyrolysis and gasification systems to give the same equipment
and financial scope while in this study five different pyrolysis plant investment cost data
estimation is plotted to the graph.

On the other hand, in the Shell study, a simpler approach was followed (Calis et al., 2002). The
investment cost for the pyrolysis system was calculated using the scale factor. A scale factor of
0.6 was accepted for pyrolysis plants. As an example, a maximum size of 10 ton/hr plant
investment cost was derived from the 2 ton/hr system, which was under design and for which a
price of 2.27 M€ was estimated. The installed investment cost of a 10 ton/hr plant was calculated
as 5.96 M€ for 2002(6.19M€2004) (Calis et al, 2002). When a 10 ton/hr plant is calculated
according to Equation 1 the total plant cost is calculated as 12.25 M€2000(13.36 M€2004) whereas
it is calculated as 5.01 M€, 2004 by Equation 2.

It is rather difficult to clarify the reasons beneath the cost figure differences without knowing the
detailed information related to the data used in those studies. It might be derived from the
characteristics of the pyrolysis plant, the reactors used and the definition of the pyrolysis plants.
In case the pyrolysis plant cost figures include dryer costs, it is reasonable to obtain such high
cost figures. Another point, which needs to be emphasized, is that the total plant cost mentioned
in Bridgwater’s study is different than total plant investment. It requires adjustment for interest
and inflation.

42
 Capital investment cost of pyrolysis plants
6000
Total Capital Investment (kEuro-200

0.4316
y = 94.126x
5000 2
R = 0.8164
4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Feed input (kg/hr)
Figure 17 Total capital investment cost versus feedstock (ton dry/hr) of 5 different pyrolysis plants
(Graph uses the same data as Figure 16).

TCI, k€2004 = 94.126 *Qdry(kg/hr)0.4316 Equation 2

43
2.3 Pelletisation

2.3.1 Process definition

Pelletising can be defined as drying and forming of biomass under high pressure to produce
cylindrical pieces of compressed and extruded biomass with a maximum diameter of 25 mm. The
aim in pelletising is to densify the biomass to produce a significant smaller volume and a higher
volumetric energy density fuel that is more efficient to store, ship and convert into electricity or
other chemicals (AEAT, 2003). By pelletising not only a uniform and stable fuel is obtained but
also the amount of dust produced is minimized. Another advantage of pelletising is that it enables
free flowing2, which facilitates material handling and rate of flow control (Koppejan and
Meulman, 2001).

In 1880, the first patent for densification was issued in the U.S. (Reed and Bryant, 1978).The
sawdust or other wood residues were heated to 150 oF (65.5 oC) and then compacted with a steam
hammer. Those processes at first were used to produce animal feed and then it shifted into
densified fuel production for energy market.

Densification in terms of pelletising has been commercialised. As an example, a 120-ton/day

plant has been operating since 1976 in Oregon (Reed and Bryant, 1978). In addition, Finland and
Sweden are the two leading countries in pelletising technology in Europe. The pellet production
in 2001 exceeded 700,000 tons (Hirsmark, 2002).

The production of pellets requires small feedstock particles, maximum 3-20 mm (Pierik and
Curvers, 1995) and the moisture content below 10-15 %. However, piston press can compensate
for up to 20 % moisture content.

Pelletising process consist of the following stages.

• Feedstock reception
• Chipping
• Final drying
• Size reduction (typically to 3 mm)
• Pelletising
• Cooling
• Storage

The flow line of the process depends on the characteristics of the biomass received. For example
if the feedstock material is exclusively sawdust there will be no requirement for chipping.

2
Free flowing means that the particles have got the same shape that they can flow through freely.

44
2.3.1.1 Pelletising decomposition mechanism

Biomass densification in the form of pelletising occurs around a temperature of 150 oC .

Cellulose is stable at temperatures below 250 oC. However, lignin, which holds the cellulose
together like glue, begins to soften at 100 oC and permits the moulding of the wood. Water plays
an important role in densification. If the feedstock is either too dry or too wet, the pressure
required for densification increases dramatically. In fact, moisture content of 10% to 25% is
mentioned as optimal (Reed and Brytant, 1978). Thus, the feedstock is heated to 50 to 100 oC to
soften the lignin and obtain the desired moisture content and at approximately 150 oC mechanical
densification is applied.

2.3.2 Production technology

2.3.2.1 Current status

As mentioned above pelletising technology is fully commercialised. The use of wood pellets has
increased in the 1990s in Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Austria and earlier in the North
America. In the recent years, several pellet production plants have been established and the
utilization equipment has improved (Alakangas and Paju, 2002).

2.3.2.2 State of the art system (SOTA) description

Pellet production basically consists of at least four steps. These steps are drying, milling
(grinding), pelletising and cooling (Figure 18).

pelletisation

biomass
screening

drying

cooling pellet storage

grinding

Figure 18 State-of-the-art pellet production process diagram

Drying: The moisture content of fresh biomass is around 50 %. In the pelletising process biomass
is dried to 10-15% moisture content. This not only increases energy density but also eases the
handling and transportation since the biomass weight is reduced. Another advantage is that dried
biomass is less susceptible to mould and insect attacks during storage (Stahl et al, 2004).

45
There are many biomass dryer types developed. Drum dryer, steam dryer (direct or indirect) and
hot air dryer are the commonly used technologies (Malisius et al, 2000).

Grinding: In general hammer mills are used in this step. They grind biomass into fine fractions
not bigger than 3mm. However, the screen size depends on the diameter of the pellets to be
produced. Grinding is necessary to produce uniform materials for feeding to the pellet mill. The
hammer mill is in general powered by an electric motor, which is converted into heat. This heat is
also used to extract further moisture from the raw material at this stage.

Pelletising: There are two main types of pelletisers: flat die pelletisers or ring die pelletisers
(MacMahon and Payne, 1982). Loose materials are fed into pelletising cavity. Die rotation and
roller pressure force the material through die, compressing it into pellets. Adjustable knifes cut
the pellets to the desired length. To increase the abrasion resistance and bind the biomass,
additives or binding agents can be used in this stage. They are usually added at approximately 1
wt% of the pellet mass (MacMohan and Payne, 1982).

Cooling: The pressure exerted during the pelletising process can break up the pellets. Therefore,
the cooling process is necessary to stabilise, harden and form the pellets (Viak et al, 200).
Counter-flow coolers are mostly used for this process.

2.3.2.3 Products

The produced pellets have a net calorific heating value in the range of 16.9 - 16 MJ/kg. The
actual value depends on the moisture content that varies between 5 to 10%.

Table 13 Characteristics of wood pellets (Sawdust, cutter shavings, and wood-grinding dusts as
raw materials
Variables Unit Value
Size
diameter mm 6-10
length mm 10-13
Energy content MJ/kg 16.9-18.0
Moisture content % 7-12
Ash content % 2
Bulk density kg/m3 650-700
Space demand m3/ton 1.5
Source: Alakangas and Paju, 2002

2.3.2.4 Improvements in the pelletising technology

Currently there are two different processes, which are under development in order to improve the
quality of the pellets and to decrease the energy consumption during pelletisation process. One of
them is a steam explosion process where experimental pellet production plant is being carried
out. The aim is to produce pellets which are much harder, have a higher specific weight (with a
bulk density of 850 kg/m3) and are less sensitive to moisture and separation of fines. The research
is being carried out in Norway at the Cambi Bioenergi Vestmarka. The raw material is
preconditioned in this technology by heating a steam-compression reactor to release the natural

46
lignin. After a certain exposure time, the pressure is reduced, which causes the material to
explode. In the literature it is mentioned that the preconditioning process also doubles the pellet
production capacity.However, the plant in Norway is a prototype plant and is not yet commercial.

The second technology has been developed by the Italian company EcoTre System. The aim of
this development was to minimize energy consumption. In this new technology, the electricity
consumption ranges between 0.025 kWh/kg-0.045 kWh/kg, depending on the type of wood (in
Hamelinck et al (2003) the electricity consumption is mentioned at the range of 15-40 kWhe/ton
with a moisture content of 8%). The process operates at low temperatures (55-60 oC) and without
any additives. The main advantage of this system is its simplicity and lower investment costs.
The pelletiser in this process can handle biomass with 30% to 35% moisture content, which
means that a simple dryer can be employed or a dryer might not be required et al. In fact, there is
significant energy consumption and investment cost reduction in this technology. Hamelinck et al
(2003) mentioned the energy consumption of a rotary drum dryer 20 kWhe/ton.

2.3.2.5 Reliability

Even though pellet production technologies are commercialised, the production of sufficiently
strong pellets that can endure mechanical wear caused by storage and transport is still a challenge
(Alakangas and Paju, 2002). There are various standard values for fuel pellets in Europe and US
(AEAT, 2003) (See Appendix 12). However; those standards do not usually define durability or
mechanical stability. Pellet standards and the quality marking are important in order to guarantee
high quality pellets.

2.3.3 Techno-economic evaluation

2.3.3.1 Objectives & Methodology

This part includes a general overview of the technology in relation to the technical and economic
data. The aim is to present the data which is used in the chain analysis

In the economic evaluation part, an Austrian case study (Thek and Obernberg, 2004) with a 24
000-ton pellet product/year is presented in order to include the recent improvements in the costs
figures. The plant is assumed to operate 7884 h/year. The investment cost consists of equipment
costs (drying, grinding, pelletisation, cooling, storage and peripheral equipments) and general
investment costs, which include electrical installation, and construction costs.

The annual capital cost is calculated by multiplying the capital recovery factor with the
investment cost. Since the utilization period varies per equipment, annual capital cost is first
calculated per item and then added up to find the final capital cost. In the production cost
calculations the operation costs differ depending on the location of the plant. This is due to the
difference between labour cost in Europe and Latin America and between electricity costs.

47
 2.3.3.2 Mass and Energy balance

Most of the time the fresh biomass moisture content is around 50%, while the produced pellet
moisture content is 10%. Since no volatilisation has occurred during pelletising process, the total
mass loss is caused by the moisture content evaporation (Figure 19).

44.45 water evaporation

biomass pellets

100 M (50% mc) 55.5 M (10% mc)

Figure 19 Mass balance of the pelletising process

When it concerns the energy balance, not only the energy density of feedstock and the product
but also the energy consumed during the process has to be evaluated. A complete energy balance
of a 24 000 ton pellet /year process is presented in Figure 20. The thermal efficiency is calculated
approximately 94%, whereas net efficiency is 87%.

34000 ton/year Drying Grinding Pelletisation Cooling 24000 tonpellet/year

12.66 MWth 12 MWth

0.19 MWth 0.27 MWth 0.58 MWth 0.03 MWth

Figure 20 Energy balance for a 24000 pellet production process (Cost data is obtained from Thek
and Obernberg (2004)).

48
2.3.3.3 Estimation of total capital investment and production costs

In this part, recent studies carried out by Thek and Obernberg (2004) and Hamelinck et al, (2003)
are used as reference literatures. The data in Thek and Obernberg (2004) study are based on the
already realised plants, questionnaire survey of pellet producers in Austria, South Tyrol and
Sweden. On the other hand, the data used in the other study consist of literature survey and
manufacturing data. A 24000 ton/year pellet production plant total investment cost is mentioned
as 2 M€ (Thek and Obernberg , 2004).

Specific investment costs mentioned in those studies are summarised in Table 14. The dryer cost
data differs significantly. The tube bundle dryer is given for a 6 ton/hr capacity, whereas rotary
drum dryer capacity is mentioned as 100ton/hr (Hamelinck et al, 2003)

49
Table 14 Cost data of pelletisation process
Thek and Obernberg, 20041 Hamelinck et al, 2003
Type Specific O& Life Energy Type Specific O& Life Energy-e
Invest M time Invest. M time
2
Costs Costs

k€/MWthinp % year kWhe/to k€/MWthinp % years Kwhe/ton

ut n ut
Drying 3 Tube bundle Rotary
4
dryer 15.8 2.5 15 13 Drum 29.4 5 3 15 20
Grinding Hammer 8.26 18 10 36.67 Hammermi 4.34 20 15 0.26(kwh.√mm/to
mill ll n)8
Pelletisation7 Ring die Pellet press 8 197 10 28
pellet mill 40.7 10 10 77.67
Cooling Counterflow
cooler 1.08 2 15 4
General
investments9 48.34 1
Peripheral
equipment 10 0.083 2 10 30

Total 100.5 41.74 11

1 The capacity of the plant is 47304 tonfresh/year with a 7884 hr/year operation load. The LHVar is considered as 6.2 GJ/ton, 55% w.b.
2 Specific investment costs are calculated by dividing the total investment cost with the input capacity
3 Tube bundle dryer and the belt dryer are mentioned as the most common dryers in Austria and the specific costs of dryers are in the range of 16.85-26.16
€/tonpellets (Thek and Obernberg, 2004). The capital cost of a dryer with 3 ton/h water evaporation rate is mentioned to be in the range of 40000-55000
€/year (Thek and Obernberg, 2004). The capacity of tube bundle dryer is given as 6 ton/hr. In the table it is scaled up to 100 ton/hr to be comparable
with rotary drum dryer.
4 In the literature the investment cost of tube bundle dryer is mentioned as 375 k€ and the input capacity 6 ton/hr (Thek and Obernberg, 2004)
5 In Hamelinck et al, (2003), the rotary drum dryer is assumed to be the most conventional and proven technology for drying. The evaporated water is
calculated as 72.8 ton for a 100 ton/hr capacity dryer. In Bergman (2004), rotary drum dryer for 20 MWth is mentioned as 434 k€.
6 Grinding investment cost is mentioned as 62 000€ for hammermill (Thek and Obernberg, 2004).
7 The biomass moisture content is accepted as 15% before entering the pelletiser.

50
8 The energy consumption of chipping is calculated depending on the diameter of the product. Energy consumption in Hamelinck et al, (2003) is given as
a bond index (See details in Hamelinck et al, 2003).
9 General investment costs include mainly construction costs.
10 Peripheral equipment cost consists of conveying systems, intermediate storage, and steel constructions.
11 the total costs can not be compared with each other, since the first column gives the total plant cost, wheras the second coloum gives only the equipment
costs.

51
As shown in Figure 21, the total capital investment costs are dominated by the peripheral
equipment costs, general investment costs and the dryer costs.

250.000
Capital costs (Euro2004 /year)

200.000 Perip. Equipm.

Storage
150.000 Cooling
Pelletisetion
100.000 Grinding
Drying
50.000 General investment

0
Pellet process

Figure 21 Cost breakdown of the total capital investment cost of a 24 000 ton pellet process (data
from Thek and Obernberg, (2004) is used).

The specific pellet production cost is approximately 90.7 €/ton with the 36 €/ton dry raw material
cost. The annual operating time is considered as 7884 hr/year and the electricity price is 50.87
€/MWh (Thek and Obernberg, 2004). When biomass cost is considered o, the production cost is
approximately 58 €/ton.

2.4 Comparison of processes

The technical and economic comparison of the pre-treatment processes mentioned in this study
are presented in Table 15 and Table 16.

52
Table 15 Technical comparison of torrefaction, TOP, pyrolysis and pelletisation pre-treatment processes.
Unit Torrefaction TOP Process Pyrolysis Pelletisation
Feedstock type Woodcuttings chips Sawdust 1 Green wood chips Clean wood waste2 Sawdust Greenwood chips

Input Cap. MWth 25 25 25 25 25 25

Moist. content %wt 50% 57% 57% -- 57% 57%
LHV a.r MJ/kg 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2
Product type Torr. biomass Pellets Pellets Bio-oil Pellets Pellets
Product m.c. %wt 3 5-1 5-1 20-30 (~22%) 10-7 10-7
Product LHV - MJ/kg 19.9 19.9- 19.9-21.6 17 15.8 15.8
ar 3 20 4 21 6 0 20 4 22 7 17 7 17 7
Mass density Kg/m 230 750-850 750-850 1200 500-650 500-650
(bulk)
Energy GJ/m3 4.6 14.9- 14.9-18.4 20-303 7.8-10.5 7.8-10.5
density(bulk) 18 4
Production MWth 24 24.63 24.12 16.5 23.48 23.05
capacity
Thermal LHV 96.1% 98.5% 96.5% 66% 93.9% 92.2%
efficiency 3
Net efficiency4 92.3% 93.7% 90.8% 64% 5 87% 84%
1 Sawdust is generally know with a relatively lower moisture content (around 35%), however in this study the moisture contents and the energy contents are
obtained from ECN literature (Bergman et al, 2004)
2 3mm pine wood, sawdust residues from wood waste supplier, poplar, beech, wheat straw, rice husks, beech/oak and several organic waste materials have been
successfully converted to bio-oil
3 Thermal efficiency indicates the efficiency where utility use is not included (energy cap. product /energy cap. feedstock)
4 Net efficiency includes the utility consumption
5 Pyrolysis electricity consumption is accepted as 0.0150 Mwe/MWth, in (Shell study-Calis et al, 2003), electricity is assumed to be generated with 40%
efficiency.

53
Table 16 Economic comparison of torrefaction, TOP, pyrolysis and pelletisation pre-treatment
processes
Torrefaction TOP process 1 Pyrolysis Pelletisation 1
1

Specific M€/MWthinput 0.17 0.13(sawdust) 0.19- 0.09(sawdust)

Capital 0.19(greenwood) 0.42 2 0.15 (greenwood)
investment
O&M % 5 5 48 5
Production €/ton 58 45 (sawdust) 108 41(sawdust)
costs 3 50(green wood) 54(green wood)
€/GJ 3.2 2.5 5.86 3.4
Energy –e kWh/ton 92 4 91(sawdust) 75 6 129(sawdust)-
110(greenwood) 201(greenwood) 7
5

1
Data is obtained from Bergman, (2005). Cost data includes drying, sizing, pelletisation and cooling equipments.
Scale for torrefaction, TOP and Pelletisation are 37.5 MWth input, 44 MWth input, and 44 MWth input, respectively.
2
The cost data is derived form the rotating cone reactor study and from the calculation where equipment costs data is
mainly obtained from Hamelinck et al (2003).Details of cost calculations can be found in Pyrolysis section.
3
The production cost assumptions are based on the 0 feedstock cost, 8000 hr load factor and 10 years life time for
torrefaction, TOP and pelletisation, and 15 years for pyrolysis.
4
The energy consumption of the Moving Bed torrefaction process is 92 kWh (Bergman, 2005.
5
Data include drying, torrefaction, size reduction and densification; in fact steam for drying is obtained from the
torrefaction gas.
6
Calculation is done based on shell study; spec. electricity consumption is accepted as 0.0150 Mwe/MWth, in and
the MWth, in is accepted as 25 MWth (Fig.23) or a 5 ton dry/hr pyrolysis plant. This value is accepted as 40
kWh/ton feed in Hamelinck’s study (2004).
7
Data include drying, sizing and densification process.
8
Data is obtained from Hamelinck et al, (2003).

54
2.5 Sensitivity analyses for pre-treatment technologies

The parameters that affect the torrefied biomass and bio-oil production costs are analysed. In the
total production cost concept, biomass cost, capital cost, load factor, interest rate and depreciation
period are the factors that affect the production costs significantly. Therefore, sensitivities of
production costs based on these factors are investigated. Table 13 shows the parameters and the
ranges these parameters may vary.

Table 17 Main parameters used and ranges for sensitivity analysis

Torrefied Bio-oil Pellet
biomass
Parameters Value Range Value Range Value Range
Biomass costs(€/tondry) 20.4 14-32.5 37 30-43 36 20-45
Capital costs (M€) 25 12.5-43.75 3.5 2.75-4 0.24 50%-150%
Discount rate (%) 8 8-18 5 4-10 7 5-15
Load factor (h/year) 8000 7500-8560 7500 7000-8760 7884 7500-8760
Depreciation 10 6-16 20 10-25 15 10-20
period(years)

Torrefied biomass production costs are highly sensitive to the capital costs. Increasing capital
investment 40 % increases the product cost 17%. Following to capital cost, discount rate
influences the production cost. In fact, discount rate determines depreciation of the capital costs.

Sensitivity analysis of torref. biomass production cost

65
Torrefied biomass production costs

60
(euro/ton pr.-year)

55

50

capital costs
interest rate
45
depreciation period
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
biomass costs
parameter variation
load factor

Figure 22 Sensitivity of torrefied biomass production

55
Bio-oil production cost is influenced by biomass costs, capital costs and load factor significantly.
When the raw materiel is increased from15 €/ton to 50 €/ton, the bio-oil production cost increases
around 30%. The bio-oil production cost is hardly affected by the capital investment cost of the
pyrolysis plant which is different than torrefied biomass production cost. The reason might be
that drying and size reduction is not included in the pyrolysis process which accounts a high
percentage in the total capital cost. Increasing load factor from 80% to 100% decreases the
production cost approximately 15%. The bio-oil can be produced as cheap as 8 €/GJ in the full
load.

Sensitivity analysis of bio-oil production cost

10
Bio-oil cost (Euro/GJ

9,5

8,5

Biomass costs

8 Capital costs

1 2 3 4 5 6 Depreciation
period
Variables Load factor

Figure 23 Sensitivity analysis of bio-oil production costs

When pelletisation process is considered, load factor can decrease pellet production cost to 83
€/ton. But still the load factor considered is more than 80%.
Pelletisation sensitivity analysis

100
Pellet production costs

95
(euro/ton pellet)

90

85
Biomass cost
Capital cost
80
1 2 3 Int. rate
Depreciation
Variable
Load factor

Figure 24 Pellet production sensitivity analysis

56
Another important factor that needs further investigation is the scale effect. Economies of scale
have a considerable influence on the production costs. The torrefaction and pyrolysis processes
are capital-intensive; hence investment costs are key to the establishment of production costs.
Unless the maximum scales of the equipments are excesses, cheaper investment cost can be
achieved by larger conversion units. In Figure 25, the economy of scale on capital investment
costs are displayed. The cost data plotted to the graph can be found in section 2.1.4. After 40
MWth input, the specific investment cost is constant. In this repect, capacities larger than 40
MWth does not decrease the production cost. On the other hand, when the capacity is smaller
than 40 MWth, production costs will be more expensive due to higher investment costs

Torrefaction economy of scale

60,00
Specific Investment Costs (Euro/ton)

50,00

40,00

30,00

20,00

10,00

0,00
0,00 50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00

MWth output

Figure 25 Effects of scale on torrefaction investment costs

On the other hand, when pyrolysis process is considered, smaller scales are needed. According to
Figure 26, capacities larger than 20-25 MWth input don’t benefit much from economies of scale.
For the pelletising process, economy of scale increases above 20 MWth input capacities.

57
 Pyrolysis economy of scale

300,00
Specific production cos

250,00

200,00
(Euro/ton)

150,00

100,00

50,00

0,00
0,00 20,00 40,00 60,00 80,00

MWth

Figure 26 Effect of scale on the bio-oil production costs.

Economy of scale

80
Specific production cost (Euro/ton

70
pellet)

60

50

40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
MWth

Table 18 Effects of scale on pellet production costs.

58
2.6 Final conversion

The objective of this chapter is to identify the effects of torrefied biomass, and pyrolysis oil on
the final conversion stage in terms of technology and economy. In this study biomass is
eventually assumed to be used for electricity generation and transportation fuel production.
Therefore, combustion, co-firing, biomass integrated gasification combined cycle (BIGCC), and
Fischer Tropsch technologies are addressed where the final conversion is applied in the chain
analysis.

The cost data considered in this study is presented in Table 19.System descriptions and
information about the cost data can be found Appendix 13.

Table 19 Cost figures for final conversion step

Unit BIGCC1 FB- Co- EF
Combustion2 firing 3 gasification4
Base scale MWth 105 200 100 1000
Maximum scale MWth 408 200 100 -
R factor 0.61 0.77 0.7 0.5
Efficiency % 57 35 40 71%
Life time year 25 25 10 25

Total capital req. M€ 90 124 16.7 41-45

Spec. capital req. M€/MWth- 0.86 0.62 0.16 0.041-0.045
input
O&M % 4 4 0 4
1 Cost data is obtained from Faaij et al, 1988
2 Data is based on Dornburg, 1997
3 Data is based on Hamelinck et al, 2003. Extra (non fuel) costs for coal load are mentioned as 13.7 €/MWhLHV for
pellets and 6.3 €/MWhLHV for pyrolysis oil. This cost is accepted as capital cost and O&M accepted as 0. The
depreciation is done for 10 years.
4 The investment of an entrained flow gasifier includes fuel feeding system and syngas cooler. The investment cost
is increased 10% when the feedstock is solid (Calis et al, 2003)

Impact of pre-treated biomass on gasification systems

When torrefaction is applied to the biomass several advantages are foreseen. In the gasification
pre-treatment step, electricity consumption for milling decreases significantly. The fibrous
structure and the tenancy of biomass are reduced by hemicelluloses decomposition together with
the depolymeristation of cellulose during the torrefaction reaction. The power consumption in
size reduction is significantly reduced when the biomass is first torrefied. 85% power reduction
can be achieved. According to a study carried out at ECN (van der Drift et al, 2004), milling
biomass into 100µm consumes 0.08kWe/kWthdry. However, when torrefaction is applied, the
consumption decreases to 0.01-0.02 kWe/kWth. In the same study the relationship between the
particle size and chipper capacity are determined for untreated, dried and torrefied willow. The
capacity of the mill increases in proportion to the particle size. When the 0.2 mm particle size is

59
considered, the chipper capacity for torrefied willow is up to 6.5 times the capacity of untreated
willow. In Appendix 14 the detailed study definitions can be found.

In the case of bio-oil, the pre-treatment section needs to be adjusted depending on the bio-oil
characteristics. In fact, sizing is not necessary anymore and the feeding system can be similar to
the liquid fuel feeding systems instead of the ones that are suitable for solid feed in.

Impacts of pre-treated biomass on combustion

Combustion reactivity of the torrefied biomass was evaluated at ECN (Bergman et al, 2005). In
this study, it was observed that the carbon conversion of torrefied biomass is comparable to that
of woodcuttings and significantly higher compared to low- or high volatile coal (Bergman et al,
2005).

In the case of bio-oil combustion, the quality of the bio-oil influences the combustion efficiency
significantly. In fact, when the oil quality is poor, even the modifications to the burner and boiler
cannot be enough. The most important parameters for bio-oil combustion are viscosity, water
and particulates content, bio-oil raw material, bio-oil age and amount of methanol addition (up to
10% wt%) (Pyne, 2005). Methanol addition homogenises poor quality oil and decreases
particulate emissions.
The effects of the pyrolysis-oil quality on combustion is summarised as (Pyne, 2005):
- it may cause blockage in the feed line due to the various reactivity of oil
components,
- oil age and/or in homogeneity gives uneven combustion,
- methanol edition homogenizes the poor quality pyrolysis oil and improves its
combustion,
- solid content affects the amount of incombustibles,
- The increase of pyrolysis oil water content causes NOx reduction but on the other
hand it increases the particle and soot emissions.

The high viscosity of the bio-oil causes blockages of the burner pipe and the high water content
of bio-oil makes it barely possible to ignite (Gansekoele et al, 2000).Therefore the bio-oil needs
to be pre-treated before it is combusted. Different than a regular biomass pre-treatment section,
which is mainly biomass sizing; the bio-oil pre-treatment step consists of filtering and pre-
heating the bio-oil.

Filtering

The oil is filtered to reach a maximum particle size of 40 µm. The equipment used for filtering
needs to be stainless steel, due to the aggressive characteristics of bio-oil. According to a study
done by Gansekoele et al, (2000), following remarks regarding filtering are made:
1) The entire system has to be cleaned with methanol after filtering.
2) Bio-oil charges of less than 30 cSt viscosity do not have to be preheated.

Pre-heating of bio-oil

60
Following the filtering stage, bio-oil was prepared for combustion at constant temperature in a
heating and stirring device in the BTG test study. The pre heat temperature was set to roughly 60
o
C, depending on the bio-oil quality. The tests run by BTG showed that the preheating of the
flame tunnel to reach wall temperature above 500 oC is very important for a stable combustion of
bio-oil. In addition to this, preheating the bio-oil up to 60-70 oC improves the combustion.

For a stable combustion of bio-oil, the flame tunnel has to be preheated to reach wall
temperatures above 500 oC.

Another experimental study was carried out by Juste et al, (2000) to analyse the combustibility of
pyrolysis oil. This study also showed that some important modifications need to be done in the
injection system of the gas turbine due to the high viscosity of bio-oil.

61
3 Chain analysis
3.1 Approach and methodology

In order to achieve sustainable energy targets in terms of bio-energy production, the biomass
derived energy production costs have to be competitive. When the international bio-energy trade
is considered; there are several factors, which influence the overall production cost. In fact the
means of biomass plantation, the transportation type and distances, the pre-treatment methods
and their locations, and the final conversion technologies affect the production costs significantly.

Hamelinck et al (2003) developed a tool that with which the possible bio-energy chains can be
compared and the influence of key parameters can be assessed. However, torrefaction pre-
treatment option was not considered in Hamelinck et al (2003) study.

This chapter covers performance evaluation and further optimisation of long distance bio-energy
supply and final conversion stage with a special focus on the pre-treatment technologies, namely
torrefaction and pyrolysis whereas pelletising is used as a reference process. Different pre-
treatment scales are applied to the bio-energy chains in order to see their impacts on technical and
economic performances of the total chain.

Several bio-energy chains are considered to obtain the most efficient transport chain design and
the techno-economic evaluation of the overall chain is achieved by using Hamelinck’s logistic
tool (Hamelinck et al, 2003).

The biomass chains considered in this study generally consist of production, pre-treatment,
transport and energy conversion steps. An important parameter in the chain design is the
locations where the pre-treatment options are situated. In this study five transfer points are
considered. Namely, these are:

-Production site
-Central gathering point (CGP)
-Export terminal
-Import terminal
-Conversion unit

Figure 27 visualises these transfer points.

62
 producttion

producttion
Biomass

Biomass
producttion
Biomass
Central Gathering

(Harbour)
Terminal
Point( CGP)
producttion

Import
(Harbour)
Terminal
Biomass

Export
Conversion
Unit
producttion
Biomass

Figure 27 Biomass transport overview

3.2 Logistic operations

3.2.1 Biomass source, storage, sizing and drying

Latin American energy crops are chosen as the biomass source in this study since Latin America
offers high yield biomass with low production costs (Hamelinck et al, 2003). Argentina, Brazil,
and Chile are the countries where biomass plantations exist commonly. In Brazil 6 Mha of
plantation area is used for pulpwood and energy production (Damen, 2001). In the northeast part,
there is a potential of 8-13 EJ/yr of Eucalyptus energy. Plantations in Argentina amounts up 0.85
Mha whilst it is 2.3 Mha in Chile (Bonita et al, 2002). The characteristics of Latin American
energy crops are presented in Table 20.

63
Table 20 Characteristics of Latin American energy crops considered in this study (Ranges
indicate short and long term,)
Type Logs
Position Roadside
Biomass (€/tonw.b) 16.8-10.2
(€/GJ) 1.8-1
Energy fuel (MJHHV/ton) 60-49
Distribution (ton/km2) 467-583
Avg ps(mm) 1000
Density (kg/m3bulk) 324
HV (GJHHV/tondry) 19.4
Dm loss/month 0.5%
Supply Whole year
Source: Hamelinck et al, 2003
w.b: wet bases; Dm: dry matter; Avg ps: Average particle size HV: heating value

Harvest bundlers are employed as a harvesting technology because it is assumed that there are
dense plantations and a machine which cuts and bundles the stems directly is more efficient,
especially for transportation. The harvested biomass is considered to be stored in the field for up
to six weeks so that natural drying is achieved without any extra cost. Further in the transport
chain several other storage options are applied depending on the biomass type. When the biomass
is in the form of pellets, silos, when it is in the form of bio-oil, special lined carbon steel tanks are
considered.

3.2.2 Sizing

Following to the harvesting operation biomass is cut to the desired feedstock particle size
depending on the pre-treatment process type. From bundles (3000 mm) to chips (30 mm), roll
crushers are employed. Due to the smaller size requirements for the pre-treatment technologies (2
mm for pyrolysis and 3-10 mm for pellets) hammer mills are required. Costs and other related
operational data are based on the Hamelinck et al, (2003) study.

3.2.3 Drying

Drying in this study is done to increase the efficiency of pre-treatment technologies, to produce
better quality energy carriers, to decrease the capital costs of conversion technologies and to
avoid biomass decomposition. A rotary drum dryer is employed in this study due to its
commercial availability. In the torrefaction technology, biomass is dried to 15% moisture content
whereas in pyrolysis it is done to 7%. The cost data for drying is included in the pre-treatment
cost figures because the drying technology is integrated.

3.2.4 Pre-treatment

64
As mentioned before, biomass feedstock is either converted into pyrolysis oil or into torrefied
biomass. Following to the torrefaction, feedstock is pelletised due to its low bulk density. In the
base case scenario, biomass is directly pelletised without being converted into an intermediate.

65
3.2.5 Final conversion

As mentioned in the previous chapter, gasification (FB) combined cycle (BIGCC), EF

gasification, combustion and co-firing technologies are applied in the end of the chain with the
purpose of either electricity production or syngas production.

3.2.6 Transportation

Transport distances are determined depending on the pre-treatment process capacities, the
percentage of the land occupied with crops and the biomass yield. In fact, pre-treatment plants are
located at the centre of the farming areas in order to provide sufficient amount of feedstock to the
process unit. It is assumed that the percentage of the land used for energy farming is between 10
and 30 %( Faaij et al, 1998). In this study, 20% of land under energy cropping and 5.74
tonfresh/ha.yr yield is accepted. Farming areas are assumed as circle areas. The pre-treatment unit
is located in the centre of the circle, so that the biomass delivery area provides sufficient amount
of biomass to the unit. The first truck transport distance is accepted as the radius of the circle (See
Figure 28) (Dornburg and Faaij, 2001; Faaij and Meuleman, 1998; Bothwel 2005). The total
transport distance to the harbour is accepted as 100 km. So the second transport distance varies
depending on the size of the pre-treatment unit.

R1 R2
X
Pre-treat. unit Harbour

Biomass delivery area Harbour

Figure 28 Schematically presentation of transportation distances

The first transportation distances from the place of harvesting to the transfer point in relation to
the capacity of pre-treatment unit is illustrated in Table 21.

Following the pre-treatment step, biomass is transported to the harbour. Shipment distance from
Latin America to West Europe is assumed as 11,500 km. Suezmax tanker (125000 ton) is
considered for bio-oil shipment and Suzemaks bulk carrier or tank is employed for pellets.
Another assumption made is that the distance from the import harbour to the final conversion unit
is accepted as 100 km for which a truck is considered.

66
Table 21 Logistics of biomass from harvesting to the pre-treatment process point.
Pre-treatment Capacity MWth input 19,13 25,00 40,82 76,53 153,06
Biomass LHVdry(MJ/kg) 17,70 17,70 17,70 17,70 17,70
Fuel input plant (kton wet/year) 47,89 61,54 102,17 191,58 383,15
Moisture content 35% 35% 35% 35% 35%
Fuel input plant (kton dry/year) 31.13 40.00 66.41 124.52 249.05
Yield (ton /ha/yr) 5,74 5,74 5,74 5,74 5,74
Number of ha energy crops 8343.90 10720.99 17800.32 33375.61 66751.21
Land available for energy farming 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Number of square km energy crops
with 20% occupation 417.20 536.05 890.02 1668.78 3337.56
Distance to transfer point(km, one way) 11.53 13.07 16.84 23.05 32.60
Av. distance to transfer point(km, one way) 8 9 12 16 23

3.3 Designed Chains

Depending on the harvesting methods, pre-treatment technologies, pre-treatment capacities and

final conversion processes, several bio-energy chains from Latin America to West Europe can be
modelled. In Figure 29, chain options that are modelled in this study are illustrated. In the local
processing steps, smaller pre-treatment units (19MWth) are assumed whereas in the central
gathering points relatively bigger pre-treatment options (150 MWth) are considered. The
mentioned pre-treatment processes consist of further sizing, drying, conversion, and cooling.
Therefore, these options are not renamed in the designed chains. The 1st and the 2nd chain are
considered to show the transport cost differences between torrefied biomass and torrefied +
pelletised (TOP) biomass. The last chain is considered as the reference scenario. The chains are
analysed assuming that the biomass input is 600MWth.

67
 Harvesting (felling)

Base Case Scenario

Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage

Open air pile (bales) Open air pile (bales) Open air pile (bales) Open air pile (bales) Open air pile (bales) Open air pile (bales)
truck transp. truck transp. truck transp. truck transp. truck transp. truck transp.

Chipper Chipper Chipper Chipper

local
Torrefaction Torrefaction Hammermill Hammermill
local

Storage (Silo) Pelletisation Chipper Pyrolysis Chipper Pelletisation

central

Storage (Silo) Torrefaction Storage (Tank) Hammermill Storage

central
Peletisation Pyrolysis
Storage (Silo) Storage (Tank)
truck transp. truck transp. truck transp. truck transp. truck transp. truck transp.

Export Harbour

ship transport

Import Harbour
truck transp.

Storage(silo/tank)
Preparation BIGCC
Final conversion Co-firing
Combustion
EF-Fischer Tropsch
Figure 29 Modelled bio-energy chains from Latin America to West Europe

68
In the analysis section, every chain is given a name depending on the pre-treatment type, scale
and final conversion type. The codes of the chains are shortly summarised in Table 22.

Table 22 Designed chains.

Code Pre-treatment type Pre- Final conversion type
treatment
Scale
LA1-torr(18.75)-ship Torrefaction 18.75
MWth
LA1-torr+pellet(18.75)- 18.75
ship Torref. + Pellet. MWth
LA1-TOP(40)-ship 40 MWth
LA1-torr+pellet(75)-ship 75 MWth No final conversion, delivery
LA1-torr+pellet(150)- 150 MWth to Rott. harbour
ship
LA1-pellet(40)-ship Pelletisation 40 MWth
LA1-pyro(rot. cone)-ship Pyrolysis 25 MWth
LA1-pyro (10)- ship 10 MWth
LA1-TOP-ship-FT(EF) Torref. + Pellet. 40 MWth
Fischer Tropsh (Entrained
LA1-pellet-ship-FT(EF) Pelletisation 40 MWth flow) in Rotterdam
LA1-pyro-ship FT(EF) Pyrolysis 25 MWth
LA1-TOP-BIGCC Torref. + Pellet. 40 MWth
LA1-pellet-BIGCC Pelletisation 40 MWth BIGCC (Fluidised bed)
LA1-pyro-BIGCC Pyrolysis 25 MWth
LA1-TOP-combustion Torref.+pellet. 40 MWth Combustion
LA1-pellet-combustion Pelletisation 40 MWth
LA1-pyro-combustion Pyrolysis 25 MWth
LA1-TOP-co-firing Torref. +pellet. 40 MWth Co-firing
LA1-pellet-co-firing Pelletisation 40 MWth
LA1-pyro-co-firing Pyrolysis 25 MWth
LA1: Latin American energy crops

3.4 Chain analysis

3.4.1 Cost data

3.4.1.1 Chains delivering solid energy carriers

The size of the pre-treatment unit plays a significant role in biomass logistics since it influences
both the first truck transport distance, and the costs of the transportation. In Figure 30, the
torrefaction pre-treatment option is compared for different scales. At first, the logistics of
torrefied biomass for a smaller scale (18.75 MWth) is analysed to see the difference between
transporting it as pellets or as torrefied biomass. In fact, the cost difference is significant. The

69
main cause is the shipment. Torrified biomass bulk density is very light (230 kg/ton) compared to
torrefied and pelletised biomass (750 kg/ton).Transportation of torrefied biomass in the form of
pellets is much cheaper. Therefore, further in the chain design, torrefaction is considered in
combination with pelletisation and named as TOP.

Second, the different torrefaction scales are compared with each other to estimate the optimum
scale of torrefaction unit. When 18,75 MWth-40MWth-75MWth and 150 MWth are compared ,
it is seen that the delivery costs of smaller scales are relatively cheaper, however, in the 40 MWth
system (named as TOP process), the cost can be as cheap as 75,5 €/ton dry delivered. Actually, in
the torrefaction technology section 40 MWth is defined as the optimal scale because of economy
of scale (See 2.1.4.4). Furthermore, this process is compared to the base case scenario where
biomass is converted into pellet and transported. In addition to this, scale effect of pelletisation is
also investigated.

The analysis shows that the cost of delivering biomass in the form of TOP is very close to the
form of pellets. The delivery cost of TOP to pellet is 73.5 €/ton dry delivery to 69.7 €/ton dry
delivery. However, when the cost data is considered for the energy content, the TOP delivery cost
is cheaper than the pellet (3.34 €/GJLHV to 3.94 €/GJLHV, respectively). The major steps
contributing to the overall delivery cost are biomass source, truck transport and pre-treatment
step. Pre-treatment step contributes to 26% of the total delivery cost, while truck transport
contributes to 24% and biomass to 26 %.

Costs of chains delivering pellets

120
Torrfaction
Torrefaction+pelletisation Referance (pelletisation)
100
Storage
Costs (€/tonne dry delivered)

Drying
Densification
80
Sizing
Ship
Train
60
Truck
Wire
Biomass
40

20

0
LA1-t orr(18,75)-ship LA1-torr+pellet (18,75)-ship LA1-TOP(40)-ship LA1-torr+pell(75)-ship LA1-t orr+pell(150)-ship LA1-pellet (40)-ship LA1-Pell(20)-ship

Figure 30 Cost data of chains delivering pellets in €/ ton dry delivered.

3.4.1.2 Chains delivering liquid energy carriers

10 and 25 MWth capacity pyrolysis plants are considered in the bio-oil delivery concept in order
to see the effect of scale on delivery costs. However, the pyrolysis plant cost data differs
significantly in literature, which causes discrepancy. Therefore, in Figure 31, bio-oil delivery cost
is analysed for two different cost data obtained for the same scale (See Table 10). In addition to
this, pre-treatment scale effect is evaluated by considering a smaller plant scale (10 MWth).

70
 The delivery cost of bio-oil ranges between 4.7 €/GJHHV – 5.3 €/ GJHHV for a cheaper investment
cost figure, whereas it increases to 6.6 €/ GJHHV when the investment cost is calculated depending
on other references (Hamelinck et al, 2003; Solantausta 2001). As mentioned before, inconsistent
pyrolysis plan cost data causes inconsistency in the chain analysis.

The cost of bio-oil delivery contributes to biomass, transportation, storage and pre-treatment
costs. Approximately 30-50% of the cost counts for pre-treatment.

Cost of chains delivering bio-oil

8
Comparison
Rot. Cone 10 MWth
7
25 MWth

6
Costs (€/GJHHV Liquids)

10 MWth
25 MWth Storage
5 Densification
Ship
4 Truck
Biomass

0
LA1-pyro(rot .cone)-ship LA1-pyro(10)-ship LA1-pyro(25A)-ship LA1-pyro(10MWt h-A)-ship

Figure 31 Cost of bio-oil delivered to West Europe in €/GJHHV

On the other hand when Fishers Tropsch liquid production is considered, the conversion to FT
liquid stage is assumed to be applied in West Europe. The FT liquid cost around 6.44 €/GJHHV for
TOP whereas it costs approximately 9.42 €/GJHHV for bio-oil (See Figure 32). However, the
liquid cost in the reference case, where pelletisation is considered, is 6.97 €/GJHHV. Fischer
Tropsch conversion unit is considered in West Europe with a large scale (1000MWth) since FT
liquid production is cost effective at large scales (Hamelinck et al, 2003; Bathdizdai, 2004; Calis
et al, 2003).

Cost of chains delivering FT-liquids

10

9
Referance
8 C onversion
Costs (€/GJHHV Liquids)

Storage
7
Pre-treat.+conv.

Densification
Drying
6 Sizing
Ship
5 Train
Truck
4 Wire
Biomass
3

0
LA1-TOP-ship-FT(EF) LA1-Pellet -ship-FT(EF) LA1-pyro-ship-FT(EF)

71
Figure 32 Costs of FT liquid for different pre-treated feedstock (Conversion in the graph
comprises pre-treatment and FT processes).

72
3.4.1.3 Chains producing electricity

Electricity is assumed to be produced either in BIGCC or in FB combustor –steam turbine or in

PC boiler. However, application of bio-oil in BIGCC and FB-combustor is not considered in this
study because technical possibility of bio–oil in fluidised bed has not researched.

The electricity cost for TOP and pellet chain are 13.05 €/GJ (4.6 €cent/kWhe) and 15.24 €/GJ
(5.5 €cent/KWhe) respectively, when BIGCC option is considered (Figure 33). The conversion
step contributes approximately 50% of the total power cost while the second major contributor is
transportation (~25%). However, the conversion step in Figure 33 not only comprises the BIGCC
system but also the biomass pre-treatment steps. The storage costs shown in the figure for TOP
process can be omitted since torrefied biomass has got a hydrophobic characteristic, so instead of
storing them in silos, they can be stored in open air.

Costs of chains delivering electricity (BIGCC)

16
Referance
14
Costs (€/GJ power delivered)

12
Conversion
10 Storage
Densification
8
Drying

6 Sizing
Ship
4 Train
Truck
2
Wire

0 Biomass
LA1-TOP-BIGCC LA1-pellets-BIGCC

Figure 33 Cost of the chains delivering electricity by means of BIGCC

In the case of using FB-combustion, cost of chains delivering electricity are; 21.64 €/GJ (7.7
€cent/kWhe) for the TOP chain, and 22.84 €/GJ (8.2 €cent/kWhe) for the reference chain. Similar
to the electricity production by BIGCC, the costs of the chains in Figure 34 are mainly influenced
by conversion steps followed by transportation and biomass harvesting steps. Conversion step
here also includes both pre-treatment and final conversion to electricity step. It accounts for
approximately 60% of the total cost.

73
 Costs of chains delivering electricity (FB-combustion)
25
Referance

20
Costs (€/GJ power delivered)

Conversion
15 Storage
Densification
Drying
10 Sizing
Ship
Train
5
Truck
Wire

0 Biomass
LA1-TOP-combustion LA1-pellet-combustion

Figure 34 Cost of power obtained by combustion for various bio-energy chains

On the other hand, when the chains are analysed assuming the final conversion step as co-firing,
the electricity costs are in the range of 12.2 €/GJ (4.4 €cent/kWhe) – 16.2€/GJ (5.8 €cent/kWhe)
for TOP chain and pyrolysis chain, respectively. Approximately 10-15% wood pellets can be co-
fired by mass (Hamelinck et al, 2003) and the feedstock handling accounts 6.3 €/MWhLHV for
bio-oil and 13.7 €/MWhLHV value for pellets (Hamelinck et al, 2003).

Cost of chains delivering electricity (co-firing)

18

16

14
Costs (€/GJ power delivered)

12

10 Conversion

8
Storage
Sizing
6 Ship

4
Truck
Biomass
2

0
LA1-TOP-co-f i r i ng LA1-pel let-co-f ir ing LA1-pyr o-co-f i r i ng

Figure 35 Cost of power obtained by co-firing for various bio-energy chains

74
3.4.2 Energy use

3.4.2.1 Chains delivering solid energy carrier

Figure 36 shows the primary energy use for the considered chains in this study. Energy use for
chains delivering biomass range from 1.98 GJ/ton dm for TOP process with a relatively small
scale (18.75 MWth) to 2.46 GJ/ton dm for torrefied biomass without pelletisation. This difference
occurs due to the energy use during shipment. Total energy use of a Suezmak bulk carrier is 4516
MJ/km (Hamelinck et al, 2003) and a ship is filled volumetrically before it is filled down to its
load mark by weight due to light load of torrefied wood which explains such a high energy use in
torrefied biomass shipment. The primary energy use for TOP delivery is approximately 8.5% of
the delivered LHV. On the other hand only torrefied and delivered biomass requires 12% of the
delivered LHV. Reference case primary energy requirement for energy is 11% of delivered
biomass (LHV).

Energy use of chains delivering biomass

3,0
Energy use (GJ/tonne dry delivered)

2,5

2,0
Storage
Densification
1,5
Drying
Sizing
1,0
Ship
Train
0,5
Truck
Wire
0,0
LA1-torr(18,75)-ship LA1-torr+pellet(18,75)-ship LA1-TOP(40)-ship LA1-torr+pell(75)-ship LA1-torr+pell(150)-ship LA1-pellet(40)-ship LA1-Pell(20)-ship
Biomass

Figure 36 Energy use of chains delivering biomass to the Rotterdam harbour in GJ/ ton dry
delivered.

75
3.4.2.2 Energy use of chain delivering liquid

The energy use in bio-oil delivery to West Europe is approximately 8% of the delivered bio oil
HHV. The energy is mainly required in the pre-treatment step and transportation step.

Energy use of chains delivering bio-oil

0,09
Energy use (GJ/GJHHV liquids delivered)

0,08

0,07
C onversion
0,06 Storage
Densification
0,05
Drying
0,04 Sizing
Ship
0,03
Train
0,02 Truck

Wire
0,01
Biomass
0,00
LA1-pyro(rot.cone)-ship LA1-pyro(10)-ship

Figure 37 Energy use of bio-oil delivered to West Europe in GJ/GJHHVbio-oil

On the other hand, the primary energy use of FT liquid production chain is 26 % of the delivered
HHV for reference case, whereas it is approximately 16 % for the chain where bio-oil is
converted in to FT liquid. TOP process also uses primary energy of its 17% energy content. The
pellet chains require further sizing to be fed to the gasifier whereas bio oil does not need to be
pulverised

Energy use of chains delivering FT-liquids

0,30
Energy use (GJ/GJHHV liquids delivered)

0,25

C onversion
0,20 Storage

Densification

0,15 Drying
Sizing
Ship
0,10
Train
Figure 38 Energy use of the chains delivering FT liquid Truck
0,05
Wire

Biomass
0,00
LA1-TOP-ship-FT(EF) LA1-Pellet-ship-FT(EF) LA1-pyro-ship-FT(EF)

Figure 39 Primary energy use of chains delivering energy

76
3.4.2.3 Energy use of chains delivering electricity

The primary energy use is in the range of 15% to 25 % to deliver 1 GJ power. The main steps that
use primary energy are the energy requirement for densification and fuel consumption. In fact,
approximately 40% of the energy use contributes to the pre-treatment (mentioned as
densification) step.

Energy use of chains delivering electricity

0.3
Energy use (GJ/GJ power delivered)

0.25

0.2

0.15
Sizing
0.1
Desnification

0.05
Ship

0 Truck
LA1-TOP- LA1-pellet- LA1-TOP- LA1-pellet- LA1-pyro- LA1-TOP- LA1-pellet-
BIGCC BIGCC co-firing co-firing co-firing com. comb Biomass

Figure 40 Primary energy use for chains delivering electricity.

3.4.3 CO2 emissions

3.4.3.1 Delivering solid energy carriers

CO2 emission for the designed chains follow a similar path as energy use since the CO2 emission
is the highest for the chain of 18,75 MWth torrefied biomass and lowest for TOP for the same
scale(18.75MWth)process. The amount of emissions of the torrefied biomass reaches 138.16
kg/ton dm, which is mainly caused by the shipment and followed by the electricity consumption
for pelletisation. The CO2 emission in biomass harvesting is mainly caused by the electricity
consumed for harvesting equipment and the fuel used to forward the harvested biomass. The CO2
caught in the harvested biomass at the beginning of the chain is not considered in the below
figures. The lowest CO2 emission (4 kg/GJ) happens in the TOP chain, where a 40 MWth
torrefaction and pelletisation pre-treatment is considered

77
 CO2 emissions of chains delivering biomass
150
Emissions (kg CO2/tonne dry delivered)

Storage
Densification
100
Drying
Sizing
Ship
Train
Truck
50
Wire
Biomass

0
LA1-torr(18,75)-ship LA1-t orr+pellet (18,75)-ship LA1-TOP(40)-ship LA1-torr+pell(75)-ship LA1-torr+pell(150)-ship LA1-pellet (40)-ship LA1-Pell(20)-ship

Figure 41 CO2 emission of chains delivering biomass to West Europe in kg CO2/ ton dry
delivered

3.4.3.2 Chains delivering liquids

Figure 42 presents the CO2 emissions of each chain in which biomass is converted into bio-oil
and delivered to West Europe harbour. CO2 emitted to the atmosphere is mainly because of the
electricity used during bio-oil conversion step and the fuel used in transportation. The Latin
American electricity mix contains 49% natural gas, which causes 0.056 ton CO2/GJgas. Average
CO2 emission is around 4.1 kg per 1 GJ bio-oil delivered to the west Europe harbour.

CO2 emissions of chains delivering bio-oil

5
Emissions (kg CO2/GJ liquids)

4 Conversion
Storage
Densification
3 Drying
Sizing
Ship
2 Train
Truck
Wire
1 Biomass

0
LA1-pyro(rot.cone)-ship LA1-pyro(10)-ship

Figure 42 CO2 emission caused by bio-oil delivery from Latin America to West Europe.

78
In the case of FT chains, similar to the energy use, reference case CO2 emission is the highest
(11.90 kg CO2/GJ liquid). Delivering biomass in the form of TOP and bio-oil and converting
them into FT liquid causes approximately 8.5 kg CO2/GJ liquid.

CO2 emissions of chains delivering FT liquids

14

12
Emissions (kg CO2/GJ liquids)

Conversion
Storage
10
Densification
Drying
8
Sizing
Ship
6
Train
Truck
4
Wire
Biomass
2

0
LA1-TOP-ship-FT(EF) LA1-Pellet-ship-FT(EF) LA1-pyro-ship-FT(EF) LA-pyro(10)-ship-FT

Figure 43 CO2 emissions of chains delivering FT liquid.

3.4.4 Comparison of the chains delivering power and chain optimisation

One of the aims of this study was to obtain the optimal chain. In this respect, the chain that
delivers electricity and FT liquid cheaper with less energy use during the cycle and that emits less
CO2 needs to be identified. In order to find this out, all the designed chains delivering power are
compared in terms of power delivery cost, FT delivery costs, energy use and CO2 emissions.

According to the Figure 44, electricity can be delivered as cheap as 12.2 €/GJ (4.4 €/kWhe) from
an existing co-firing plant. On the other hand it costs 13.05 €/GJ (4.6 €cent/kWhe) when the
BIGCC is considered. Even with high capital investment cost, BIGCC is compatible to the
existing co-firing plants because of its high efficiency.

79
 Cost of chains delivering electricity
25
Pelletising

20
Costs (€/GJ power delivered)

BIGCC Co-firing
15

Conversion
Storage
10
Ship
Truck
5 Biomass

0
LA1-TOP-BIGCC LA1-pellets-BIGCC LA1-TOP-co-firing LA1-pellet -co-firing LA1-pyro-co-firing LA1-TOP-combust ion LA1-pellet-combustion

Figure 44 Comparison of the power cost delivery figures for every chain.

When the greenhouse gas emissions are considered, the least environmental friendly chain is the
one with pellet combustion. It emits 22.93 kg CO2/GJ (Figure 45). TOP –BIGCC chain emits
9.5kg CO2/GJ.

CO2 emissions of chains delivering electricity

25
Emissions (kg CO2/GJ powere delivered)

20 Conversion
Storage
Densification
15 Drying
Sizing
Ship
10 Train
Truck
Wire
5 Biomass

0
LA1-TOP-BIGCC LA1-pellets-BIGCC LA1-TOP-co-firing LA1-pellet-co-firing LA1-pyro-co-firing LA1-TOP-combustion LA1-pellet-combustion

Figure 45 CO2 emissions of the chains delivering electricity (conversion in this graph means the
pre-treatment steps and emissions count for the electricity utilised during pre-treatment).

80
However when the FT liquid delivery is considered, TOP chain delivering liquid costs as cheap
as 6.44 €/GJHHV. CO2 emission of TOP chain and pyrolysis chain are less compared to pellet
chain. However, pyrolysis chain cost is 9.42 €/GJHHV.

As a conclusion, the TOP chain with BIGCC and Entrained flow Fischer Tropish liquid
production chains are accepted as the optimal chains by means of production costs and
environmental factors. BIGCC efficiency is higher (56%) compared to combustion (35%) and
co-firing (40%) and it gains from bigger scales (105MWth-408MWth) whereas entrained flow
gasification efficiency is considered as 71% with a 1000 MWth capacity.

3.5 Sensitivity Analysis

For biomass supply to Western Europe, plantation yield, interest rate, and load factor are
determined as the key uncertainties. The base values and the ranges sensitivity analysis done, is
presented in Table 23.

Table 23 Parameter used for sensitivity analysis and ranges

Parameters Base value Range
Interest rate 10% 5%-20%
Yield (ton/ha.year) 5.74 1.43-11.48
Harvest operation period 8 3-12
(OW)(months)

Figure 46 shows the results of sensitivity analysis. Torrefied and pelletsised (TOP) biomass
delivery cost is very sensitive to harvest operation period and interest rate. Changing the
operation period form 8 months to 6 months increases the TOP delivery cost 14%. On the other
hand, when operation period is increased to 12 months, TOP delivery cost decreases about 16%.
The cost changes depend on the storage and operational costs. In fact, the number of storage unit
increases significantly, when the biomass is harvested for a shorter period of time. And operation
cost decreases because the equipment is not fully utilised throughout the year. The cost of TOP
delivered is 73.5 €/ton for 8 months harvesting and it decreases to 61.9 €/ton for 12 months
harvesting.

Interest rate also plays an important role in delivered TOP cost. An increase of interest rate from
10 % to 20 percent, increases the intermediate cost from 73.5€/ton to 90.3 €/ton. The cost
difference is related to the capital investment cost of the equipment employed in the chain.

When the biomass yield is considered, there is a variation in the transportation costs. When the
land yield is increased, the needed biomass harvesting area decreases, which causes a decrease in
the first truck transport (the first truck transport calculation is presented in Table 21). The first
truck distance decreases 30%, when the biomass yield is doubled. But the cost reduction is as
small as 1% since biomass yields in Latin America is high and the first truck transports are

81
relatively short. The biomass yield increase logically decreases the biomass costs; however, since
the biomass plantation and harvesting is not in this study boundary, this cost difference is not
included. According to Batidzirai (2005), changing biomass yield from 60% to 140% of base
value results in 21% fuel cost change.

Sensitivity analysis for TOP supply

120

110
Costs (Euro/ton delivered )

100

90 OW
Int. Rate
80 Yield

70

60

50
1 2 3 4 5
Variation

Figure 46 Sensitivity analysis for TOP process (OW: harvest operation period)

The torrefaction process is capital intensive. Therefore, scale effect plays an important role in the
fuel delivery cost. When the pre-treatment unit is considered as small as 10 MWth, the delivery
cost is 82.9 €/GJ. Increasing the unit scale to 40 MWth, causes 11% delivery cost decrease. On
the other hand, when the unit scale exceeds 40 MWth, the delivery cost does not influence from
the scale effect. Besides, the delivery cost increases0.28%, mainly because of longer first
transport distance.

82
 TOP delivery cost for different TOP process
scales
85
Euro/ton dry delivered

80

75

70
10 20 40 150
MWth

Figure 47 Sensitivity analysis of TOP delivery versus pre-treatment unit scale.

4 Discussion and conclusion

The main research question in this study was: Which pre-treatment method(s), at what point of
the chain, with which conversion technology (ies) would give the optimal power and syn-fuel
production costs for the intercontinental biomass supply chain? In this chapter, the main
outcomes of this study are discussed and an answer to the research question is presented.

4.1 Pre-treatment technologies

The three different pre-treatment technologies, torrefaction, pyrolysis and pelletisation were
evaluated in terms of their technical and economic performances. In the following table, the study
results are summarized.

Table 24 Techno-economic comparison of torrefaction, TOP, pelletisation and pyrolysis

Torrefaction TOP Pelletisation Pyrolysis

Process efficiency % 92% 90.8% 84%-87% 66%-70%

Product
Energy MJ/kg 20.4 20.4- 17.7 17
content(LHVdry) 22.7
Mass density Kg/m3 230 750-850 1200 500-650
Energy density GJ/m3 4.6 14.9- 7.8-10.5 20-30
18.4

83
Specific capital M€/MWth 0.17 0.19 0.15 0.19-0.42
investments
Production costs €/ton 58 50 54 75-104

Table 24 indicates that torrefaction, TOP (torrefaction in combination with pelletisation) and
pelletisation process efficiencies are quite high compared to pyrolysis technology. The product
energy content of TOP process is also significant. Combining torrefaction with pelletisetion
eliminates the low bulk density of torrefied biomass, thereby increasing the energy density of the
intermediate product. Energy density of the TOP pellet is approximately 1.75 times higher than
conventional pellets and 3 times higher than torrefied biomass.

When the economics of the three pre-treatment technologies are compared, pelletisation has the
lowest specific capital investment costs. Adding the densification step after the torrefaction
process increases the specific investment cost by only 10%, which includes both sizing and
pelletisation processes. The reason for such a low extra investment is that torrefied biomass is
easily grinded. Thus, the power consumption for sizing decreases by approximately 50%-75 %
compared to fresh biomass.

When the specific capital investment of pyrolysis technology is considered, there is a significant
variation between the cost figures found in scientific literature. This variation could have been
explained by assuming that different technologies were used. However, the cost data even from
the same source was inconsistent. Therefore, in this study, two scenarios were considered, one
each with low and relatively high capital investment costs. Depending on those scenarios, the
pyrolysis liquid production cost estimates are in the range of 6-12 €/GJHHV in the Western Europe
conditions.

Economy of scale plays a significant role in the specific capital investment costs. This study
showed that torrefaction plant capacity exceeding 40 MWth did not gain from the economy of
scale anymore. A similar conclusion can be reached for the pelletisation process. Pelletisation
process exceeding 35-40 MWth, does not gain much from the economy of scale. The detailed
information can be found in the economy of scale section. Pyrolysis technology benefits from
economy of scale in smaller capacities. Above 25 MWth, economy of scale advantages disappear
for pyrolysis.

Consequently, this study indicates that torrefaction in combination with pelletisation pre-
treatment process is comparable and even more advantageous than pelletisation. The, pyrolysis
process, as an alternative, has serious drawbacks in terms of process efficiency and economy,
when compared to the other technologies. However, their performances as part of the overall
bioenergy chain determines their desirability, which is discussed below.

4.2 Chain analysis

In this study, various biomass supply chains were envisioned. Biomass supply chain logistics for
torrefied and pelletised (TOP) biomass, pellets and pyrolysis oil included harvesting, storage,
pre-treatment, transportation and final conversion. The final conversions considered were to

84
Fischer tropsch (FT) fuels and also power production by means of biomass integrated gasification
combined cycle (BIGCC), combustion and co-firing. Latin American energy crops (eucalyptus)
were assumed to be imported to the Netherlands. In order to investigate the optimal location for
the pre-treatment processes, different scales and, parallel to these, different locations were
applied in the chains. These chains were then compared with each other. The chains were named
depending on the pre-treatment technology applied. The calculation results are summarized in
Table 25.

Table 25 Costs of chains delivering fuel and power

Intermediate FT-Liquid Power Power Power
delivered to fuel (BIGCC) (Combustion) (Co-firing)
harbour €/GJHHV €/kWh €/kWh €/kWh
€/GJHHV
TOP 3.34 6.44 4.6 7.7 4.6
Pellet 3.94 6.97 5.5 8.2 4.8
F.Pyrolysis 4.7 -6.6 9.50 5.9

As seen in Table 25, TOP pellets can be delivered as low as 73.5 €/ton (3.34 €/GJ). One of the
reason for such a low delivery cost is the approximately 15% higher bulk density compared to
conventional pellets, which lowers the first truck transport costs. Another reason is the plant scale
applied. As mentioned before, with a 40 MWth plant scale, it was possible to obtain low
production costs. In fact, when TOP is considered for smaller scales, such as 18.75 MWth, the
delivery cost increased by 16%. On the other hand, when the base scale is increased by 87.7%,
the delivery cost increases by 10% because of longer first truck transport. In fact, the truck
transport contributes 24 % of the biomass delivery cost. In addition to these, the amount of
storage steps is reduced at an optimal scale level.

Pyrolysis oil delivery costs are in the range of 4.7 -6.6 €/GJ, depending on the scenarios
mentioned above. This study shows that it is possible to deliver 89% of an 17.22 PJ initial
amount of biomass to Rotterdam harbor by means of TOP pellets, whereas it is 80% for pellets
and 66% for pyrolysis oil. These efficiencies are influenced by the pre-treatment process
efficiencies and the dry matter losses during transport.

When the final conversion is applied at large centralised facility, Fischer Tropsch fuel production
cost can be as low as 6.44 €/GJHHV. The entrained flow gasifier assumed here had a 1000 MWth
capacity. When pyrolysis oil is converted into FT liquid, the delivery cost is 9.40 €/GJHHV. The
truck transport, the storage and the pre-treatment costs are the major costs in the overall chain.

Table 25 indicates that power production costs can be as low as 4.6 €/kWh either with a large
scale biomass integrated gasification combined cycle facility or with an existing co-firing plant.
BIGCC benefits from its high efficiency, which is assumed to be 57% whereas it is 35% for
combustion and 40% for co-firing. As mentioned, cost data for co-firing does not include the
facility capital investment cost but it includes extra costs for pellets and pyrolysis oil handling. It
means that when a new facility is considered the cost will be higher.

85
Energy use and CO2 emissions are the aspects that indicate the sustainability of the chains. The
primary energy required to deliver the fuel to the Rotterdam harbour is, 8 % for delivered TOP,
10% for pellet and 8%-9% for pyrolysis oil (HHV) of their initial energy content. Conversion to
FT fuels requires 16 to 26% while it is in the range of 15% to 25% for power production. The
CO2 emissions are caused mainly by the transportation fuel and the external power used for
densification. Latin American power and fuel mixes and efficiencies were used to calculate the
CO2 emissions. The study results show that the CO2 emission for TOP supply is 4 kg CO2/GJ
delivered, while it is 5.5 kg CO2/GJ delivered for pellet supply to the Rotterdam harbour. On the other
hand, the pyrolysis oil supply chain emits 4.1 kg CO2/GJ delivered.

FT chains emits in the range of 8.5 kg CO2/GJ delivered -11.90 kg CO2/GJ delivered, where the former
data is for TOP pellet delivery and conversion and the latter for pellet deliver and conversion in
the Rotterdam harbour. The CO2 emission for power production is in the range of 9.5 CO2/GJ
power delivered with TOP pellet-BIGCC system and 22.9 CO2/GJ power delivered with pellet combustion.
For the comparison, the CO2 emission from coal combustion is 95kg CO2/GJLHV and natural gas
combustion is 56 kg CO2/GJLHV.

Consequently, according to this study, the following answers to the research question can be
given:

•Torrefaction in combination with pelletisation(TOP), in plants with a scale of 40 MWth, is

the optimum supply chain,
• TOP supply converted to the FT-liquid is the optimal synfuel production chain and,
• TOP supply converted to power either by BIGCC or existing co-firing facility are the
optimal chains.
Another striking conclusion of this study is that pyrolysis facility, even with the optimistic data,
can not compete with the TOP and pelletisation pre-treatment technologies in the context of
intercontinental bioenergy logistics.

4.3 Recommendations

This study shows that converting biomass into TOP intermediate decreases the long distance
transport costs compared to pellets. The plant capacity considered is 40 MWth. Since there is no
current torrefaction plant demonstration, considering such a large scale brings its risks. On the
other hand, pelletisation has already been commercialised and there is a room to improve the
technology. Pyrolysis technology, on the other hand fell short. Even though pyrolysis technology
keeps it is popularity, lack of information is a bottleneck which needs to be overcome.

The pre-treatment technologies in this study consider a high load factor to keep the system
continuous. However, it creates the risk in meeting the feedstock requirements. This necessitates
several storage and extensive biomass production areas. Besides, the bioenergy supply chain is
very sensitive to the harvest operation period. In this study, 8 months harvesting is considered,
however, investors should keep in mind the risk of shorter harvesting periods, which in return
increases the delivery costs.

86
Consequently, this study indicates that intercontinental bioenergy transport is economically and
energetically feasible, when the pre-treatment is considered in the chain. Furthermore,
torrefaction in combination with pelletisation is a very promising technology that requires further
interest from investors and policy makers.

87
5 Reference list
[AEAT, 2003]
[Agbert and Faaij 1998]
[Alakangas and Paju, 2002]
[Batidzirai B, 2005]
[Bergman, 2004a]
[Bergman et al., 2004]
[Bergman et al, 2005]
[Bergman, 2005]
[Bergman, 2005b]
[Bioenergy, 2002]
[Bioenergy, 2000]
[Bio-energy projects, 2004]
[Bridgwater and Bridge, 1991]
[Bridgwater and Evans, 1993]
[Bridgwater, 1995]
[Bridgwater, 1999]
[Bridgwater et al, 2002]
[Bonita et al, 2002]
[Damen, 2001]
[Diebold and Bridgwater, 1999]
AET, “Wood Pellet Manufacture in Scotland-A report produced for Scottish
Enterprise Forest Industries Cluster”, Issue 1, 2003.
Agbert AA, Faaij APC, “bio-energy trade: possibilities and constraints on short
and longer term”, Report EWAB 9841, Novem, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1998.
Alakangas E & Paju P, “Wood pellets in Finland-technology, economy and
market”, OPET Report 5, Jyvaskyla. VTT Processes 64 p. +app.21p. , 2002.
Batidzirai B, “Optimisation of bioenergy supply chain Logistics-
Mozambique Case Study, Department of science, technology and society,
Utrecht University, The Netherlands, Msc. Thesis, 2005.
Bergman PCA, “Design of Rotary Drum Dryers- Model development and
evaluation”, ECN Report, 2004.
Bergman PCA, Boersma AR, Kiel JHA, “Torrefaction for entrained-flow
gasification of biomass”, The 2nd World Conference and Technology Exhibition
on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection, Rome, Italy,2004.
Bergman PCA, Boersma AR, Kiel JHA, Zwart RWH, “ Development of
torrefaction for biomass co-firing in existing coal-fired power stations”,
BIOCOAL concept version, ECN Report, 2005.
Bergman PCA, “Combined torrefaction and pelletisation – The TOP process”,
ECN Report, The Netherlands, July 2005.
Communication with Bergman PCA.
Arcate JR, “ Torrefied wood, en enhanced fuel”. Paper presented at Bioenergy
conference, Idaho, 2002.
Bioenergy, “A new process for Torrefied wood manufacturing”, General
Bioenergy, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2000.
European Bioenergy projects, “Pyrolysis oil for heat generation: verification of a
second-generation pyrolysis process”, 2004.
http://www.biomatnet.org/secure/FP5/F1580.htm
Bridgwater AV, Bridge S, “Review of Biomass Pyrolysis Technologies in,
“Biomass Pyrolysis Liquids Upgrading and Utilisation, Bridgwater AV, Grassi
G., Commission of the European Communities, pp11-92, Elsevier, 1991.
Bridgwater AV, Evans GD, “An assessment of thermochemical conversion
systems for processing biomass and refuse”, Aston University & DK Teknik
(Denmark), ETSU B/T1/REP1993.
BridgwaterA.V, 1995, “The technical and economic feasibility of biomass
gasification for power generation”, Fuel Vol 74 No.5 pp.631-653, 1995.
Bridgwater A.V., “An introduction to fast pyrolysis of biomass for fuels and
chemicals”, Fast pyrolysis of biomass: a handbook, cpl press, 1999.
Bridgwater A.V, Toft AJ, Brammer JG, “A techno-economic comparison of
power production by biomass fast pyrolysis with gasification and combustion”,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Birmingham, UK, 2002.
Bonita M., Correa F., Veijalainen P., Ahveninen H., Forest Clusters: A
Completive Model for Latin America, Inter-American Bank, sustainable
Development Department environment Division2002.
Damen K, “ Future prospects for biofuel production in Brazil-a chain comparison
of ethanol from sugarcane and methanol from eucalyptus in Sao Paulo State”,
Department of Science Technology and Society, Utrecht University, 62 pp+
annexes, 2001.
Diebold J.P. &Bridgwater AV ‘Overview of fast pyrolysis of biomass for the
production of liquid fuels, Fast pyrolysis of biomass: A handbook”, PyNe, UK,
1999.
88
[Calis et al., 2002] Calis HPA, Haan JP, Peppink G,Boerrigter H, Van Der Drift B, Venderbosch RJ,
Faaij APC, Van Den Broek R, “Technical and economic feasibility of large scale
synthesis gas production in the Netherlands from imported biomass feedstock- a
strategic decision analysis study” , Agency for Research in Sustainable Energy,
the Netherlands , 2002.
[Craig and Mann, 1996] Craig KR, Mann MK, “ Cost and performance analysis of biomass based
integrated gasification combined-cycle (BIGCC) power system”, National
Renewable Laboratory of the US Department of Energy Managed by Midwest
Research Institute for the US Department of Energy , 1996.
Damen et al, 2003 Damen KJ and Faaij APC, A life cycle inventory of existing biomass import
chains for "green" electricity production, Utrecht University>Copernicus
Institute>Science Technology and Society, Utrecht the Netherlands, 61 pp +
annexes, 2003.

[Dornburg, 1999] Dornburg V, “ A system analysis of biomass energy systems in relation to scale
– optimising economics and energy yields of heat and power generation with
biomass combustion and gasification technologies”, Department of science,
technology and society, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, 1999.
[Dornburg and Faaij, 2001] Dornburg V, Faaij APC, “ Efficiency and economy of wood fired biomass
energy systems in relation to scale regarding heat and power generation using
combustion and gasification technologies”, Department of science, technology
and society, Utrecht University, Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 21, p. 91-108,
2001.
[Duijn, 2004] Duijn C, “Torrefied wood unit resthout en andere biomassstromen”, presentation
held at Praktijkdag Grootschalige Bio-energy Projecten” , Senter Novem, The
Netheralns, 2004
[EU Report, 1989] Commission of the European Communities directorate-general for energy, wood
roasting demonstration unit report, Luxemburg,Commission of the European
Communities, 1989.
[DynaMotive, 1999] DynaMotive Energy Systems Corporation,” BioTherm TM A system for
Continuous Quality, Fast Pyrolysis BioOil”, 4th biomass Conference of the
Americans, Oakland, California, 1999.
[Ensyn, 2005] http://www.ensyn.com/info/23102000.htm
[Faaij and Meuleman, 1998] Faaij A, Meuleman B van Ree R, “Long term perspectives of biomass integrated
gasification/combined cycle (BIG/CC) technology; costs and electricity
efficiency”, Department of science, technology and society, Utrecht University,
The Netherlands, 1998
[Gansekoele et al, 2000] Gansekoele E., Wagenaar B, Pascual LSE, Van de A B, Strenziok R, “Scaling –
up and operation of a flash pyrolysis system for bio-oil production and
application on the basis of rotating cone technology”, BTG Biomass Technology
Group BV, The Netherlands, KARA Energy Systems BV, The Netherlands,
Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas, Medioambientas y Tecnologicas, Spain,
Rostock University, Germany, Contract FAIR-CT97-3203, 2000
[Girard and Shah, 2005] Girard P & Shah N, “Developments on torrefied wood- an alternative to charcoal
for reducing deforestration”, FAO paper, Centre Technique Forestier Troical,
France, 2005 http://www.techtp.com/tw%20papers/fao_paper.htm
[Hamelinck et al, 2003] Hamelinck CN, Suurs RAA, Faaij APC, “ International bioenergy transport costs
and energy balance”, Department of Science Technology and Society, Utrecht
University, Report, August 2003
[Hamelinck, 2004] Hamelinck C, “Outlook for advanced biofuels” Department of Science
Technology and Society, Utrecht University, PhD thesis, June 2004
[Hirsmark, 2002] Hirsmark J, “ Densified biomass fuels in Sweden: Country report for the
EU/IBDEBIF project”, Msc. Thesis, Swedish Iniversity of Agriculture Sciences
Department of Forest Management and Products, Upsala, Sweden, 2002.

89
[Hoogwijk et al, 2003]
[Prins, 2004]
[Juste et al, 2000]
[Karminsky, 1985]
[Koppejan and Meulman, 2001]
[Koukios et al, 1982]
[Koukios, 1993]
[Lappas et al., 2002]
[Lipinsky et al., 2002]
[MacMahon and Payne, 1982]
[Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000]
[Peters and Timmerhaus,1990]
[Pierik and Curvers, 1995]
[Pyne, 2005]
[Raveedan and Ganesh, 1996]
[Reed and Bryant, 1978]
[Scott et al, 1999]
[Solantausta, 2001]
[Stahl et al, 2004]
[Suurs, 2002]
[Thek and Obernberger, 2004]
[Tokman and Martinez, 1999]
Hoogwijk M, Faaij APC, van den Broek R, Berndes G, Gielen D and
Turkenburg WC, 2003, Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of
biomass for energy, in press, Biomass and Bioenergy.
Prins MJ, “Thermodynamic analysis of biomass gasification and torrefaction”,
pHD thesis, Eindhoven Technical University, The Netherlands, 2004
Juste G. L., Monfort J.J.S, “preliminary test on combustion of wood derived fast
pyrolysis oils in a gas turbine combustor”, Biomass and Bioenergy Vol.19, pg:
119-128, 2000
Kaminsky W., “Thermal Recycling of Polymers”, Journal of Analytical and
Applied Pyrolysis, 8, pp. 439-448, 1985
Koppejan J & Meulman PDM, “The market for fuel pellet produced from
biomass and waste in the Netherlands”, EWAP report, The Netherlands, 2001.
Koukious EG, Mavrokoukoulakis J, Abatzoglou N, “ Energy densification of
biomass”, Proc 1st National Conf. on Soft Energy Forms, Thessaloniki, 1982.
Koukios EG, “Progress in thermochemical, solid-state refining of biofuels- from
research to commercialization”, Advances in thermochemical biomass
conversion, Vol 2, Bridgwater 2003.
Lappas AA, Samolada MC, Iatridis DK, Voutetakis SS, Vasalos IA, “Biomass
pyrolysis in a circulating fluid bed reactor for the production of fuels and
chemicals”, Chemical Process Engineering Research Institute (CPERI) and
Department of Chemical Engineering, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki,
Greece, 2002.
Lipinsky ES, Arcate JR, Reed TB, “Enhanced wood fuels via torrefaction”, Fuel
Chemistry division preprints, 2002.
MacMahon, M. J. & Payne J. D. Holmens pelleterings
handbok. Holmen Chemicals Limited, 1982.
Nakicenovic N. and Swart R., “Intergovernmental panel on climate change,
special report on emission scenarios, a special report of IPPS working group III”,
Cambridge university press, Cambridge UK,612 pp., 2000.
Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD, “Plant design and economics for chemical
engineers”, 4th edition, MacGrawHill Book Co, Singapore, 1990.
Pierik JTG, Curvers APWM, “ Logistics and pre-treatment of biomass fuels for
gasification and combustion”, ECN, the Netherlands, 1995.
http://www.pyne.co.uk/?_id=73
Raveendran K and Ganesh A, “Heating value of biomass and biomass products”,
Energy Systems Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India,
1996.
Reed T, Bryant B, “Densified Biomass a new form of solid fuel”, Solar Energy
Research Institute, US department of energy division of solar technology, 1978.
Scott DS, Majerski P, Piskorz J, Radlein D,”A second look at fast pyrolysis of
biomass-the RTI process”, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 51pp 23-
37 , Waterloo, Canada, 1999,
Solantausta Y, “Techno-economic assessment, the Finish case study”, COMBIO-
A new competitive liquid biofuel for heating, work package 5, project no:
NNE5-CT-2001-00604, 2001
Stahl M, Granstro¨ m K, Berghel J, Renstro¨ m R. Industrial
processes for biomass drying and their effects on the quality properties of wood
pellets. Journal of Biomass and Bioenergy, 2004.
Suurs RAA. “Long distance bioenergy logistics”, Department of Science
Technology and Society, Utrecht University, Report,2002.
Thek G, Obernberger I, “Wood pellet production costs under Australian and in
comparison to Swedish framework conditions”, Biomass & Bioenergy, V.27, p.
671-693 Graz, Austria, 2004.
Tokman VE, Martinez D, “ Labour costs and competitiveness
in the Latin Amerian manufacturing sector, 1990-1998”, Cepal review 69, 1999.
http://www.eclac.cl/publicaciones/SecretariaEjecutiva/7/lcg2067I/tokman.pdf
90
[United Nations, 1994] United Nations, Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome,
1994.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T4470E/t4470e00.htm#Contents
[Mlisius et al, 2000] Malisius U, Jauschnegg H, Schmidl H, Nilson B, Rapp S, Strehler A, Hartman
H, Huber R, Whitfield J, Kessler D, Geislhofr A, Hahn B, “ Wood pellets in
Europe-state of the art technologiss, activities, market”, Industrial Netwok on
Wood Pellets, Thermie B DIS/ 2043/98-AT, 2000.
[Wagenaar et al., 1994] Wagenaar BM, Prins W, Van Swaaij PM, “Pyrolysis of biomass in the rotating
cone reactor: Modelling and experimental justification”, Chemical Engineering
Science, Vol. 49 pp. 5109-5126, The Netherlands, 1994.
[Yaman, 2004] Yaman S, “Pyrolysis of biomass to produce fuels and chemical feedstocks”,
Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering Faculty, Chemical Engineering
Department, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey,2003.
[UNDP, 2005] http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/ch_9.htm
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T4470E/t4470e0a.htm

91
6 Appendices
Appendix 1 Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD, plant design and economics for chemical engineers,
fourth edition, university of Colorado,

Estimation of capital investment cost (showing individual components)

The percentages indicate in the following summary of the various costs constituting the capital investment
are approximations applicable to ordinary chemical processing plants. It should be realized that the values
given can vary depending on many factors, such as plant location, type of process, complexity of
instrumentation, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Direct costs = material and labour involved in actual installation of complete facility (70-85%
of fixed-capital investment)
A. Equipment+installation+instrumentation+piping+electrical+insulation+painting (50-60%
of fixed-capital investment)
1. Purchased equipment (15-40& of fixed-capital investment)
2. Installation, including insulation and painting
3. Instrumentation and controls, installed (6-30% of purchased equipment cost)
4. Piping, installed (10-80% of purchased-equipment cost)
5. Electrical, installed (10-40% of purchase-equipment cost)
B. Building, process and auxiliary (10-70% of purchased-equipment cost)
C. Service facilities and yard improvements (40-100% of purchased-equipment costs)
D. Land(1-2% of fixed-capital investment or 4-8% of purchased-equipment cost)

II. Indirect costs = expenses which are not directly involved with material and labour of actual
installation of complete facility (15-30% of fixed-capital investment)

A. Engineering and supervision (5-30% of direct costs)

B. Construction expense and contractor’s fee (6-30% of direct costs)
C. Contingency (5-15% of fixed-capital investment
III. Fixed-capital investment = direct costs +indirect costs
IV. Working capital (10-20% of total investment)
V. Total capital investment = fixed-capital investment + working capital
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimation of total product cost (showing individual components)

The percentages indicated in the following summary of the various costs involved in the complete
operation of manufacturing plants are approximations applicable to ordinary chemical processing
plants. It should be realized that the values given can vary depending on many factors, such as plant
location, type of process, and company policies.
Percentages are expressed on annual basis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Manufacturing cost= direct production costs +fixed charges +plant overhead costs
A. Direct production costs (about 60% of total product cost)
1. Raw materials (10-50% of total product cost)
2. Operation labour (10-20% of total product cost)
3. Direct supervision and clerical labour (10-25% of operation labour)

92
 4. Utilities (10-20% of total product cost)
5. Maintenance and repair (2-10% of fixed-capital investment)
6. Operating supplies (10-20% of cost for maintenance and repairs, or 0.5-1% of fixed
capital investment)
7. Labour charges (10-20% of operating labour)
8. Patents and royalties (o-6% of total product cost)
B. Fixed charges (10-20% of total product cost)
1. Depreciation (depends on life period, salvage value, and method of calculation-about 10%
of fixed-capital investment for machinery and equipment and 2-3% of building value for
buildings)
2. Local taxes (1-4% of fixed-capital investment)
3. Insurance (0.4-1% of fixed-capital investment)
4. Rent (8-12% of value of rented land and buildings)
C. Plant overhead costs (50-70% of cost for operating labour, supervision, and maintenance,
or 5-15% of total product cost); includes costs for the following: general plant upkeep and
overhead, payroll overhead, packaging, medical services, safety and protection, restaurants,
recreation, salvage, laboratories, and storage facilities.
II. General expenses= administrative costs+ distribution and selling costs + research and
development costs.
A. Administrative costs (about 15% of costs for operating labour, supervision, and
maintenance, or 2-6% of total product cost); includes costs for executive
salaries, clerical wages, legal fees, office supplies, and communications.
B. Distribution and selling costs (2-20% of total product cost); includes costs for
sales offices, salesman, shipping, and advertising
C. Research and development costs (2-5% of every sales dollar or about 5% for
total product cost)
D. Financing (interest) 1 (0-10% of total capital investment)
III. Total product cost2 = manufacturing cost+ general expenses
IV. Gross-earning cost (gross earning = total income – total product cost; amount of gross
earnings cost depends on amount of amount of gross earnings for entire company and income-
tax regulations; a general range for gross earning cost is 30-40% of gross earnings)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
interest on borrowed money is often considered as a fixed charge
2
if desired, a contingency factor can be included by increasing the total product cost by 1-5%.

93
Appendix 2 OECD Deflator
Deflators for Resource Flows from DAC Donors a (2003 = 100)

1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Australia 17.04 17.18 17.31 17.86 18.34 18.84 19.46 20.08 20.82 21.98 22.90 24.87 27.96 37.79 44.98 46.86 49.28 48.99 54.69 58.51 65.49 72.72 71.80 69.30 71.53 59.86 60.94 68.85 83.44 90.45 93.59 95.56 91.29 85.46 92.79 95.64 103.39 99.58 84.54 87.43 81.85 75.46 81.50 100.00 117.45 Australia
Austria 9.90 10.39 10.83 11.21 11.57 12.19 12.55 12.97 13.27 13.73 14.26 15.73 18.24 23.25 26.69 30.48 31.27 35.77 43.20 48.83 53.02 45.94 45.08 44.25 41.59 41.44 57.75 71.24 73.88 71.14 85.30 86.25 94.89 92.12 96.35 111.25 107.06 92.82 91.79 88.51 77.91 77.03 82.14 100.00 112.22 Austria

Belgium 13.06 13.21 13.45 13.83 14.51 15.30 15.87 16.43 16.78 17.39 18.38 19.83 23.29 28.17 31.71 37.66 38.60 44.69 53.10 59.64 62.20 51.51 45.04 42.51 39.69 40.34 55.16 67.12 69.65 68.13 82.55 83.08 91.31 88.36 93.14 106.96 103.03 90.54 90.68 88.15 77.21 76.35 81.81 100.00 112.46 Belgium
Canada 22.29 21.33 20.53 20.79 21.37 22.14 23.26 24.26 25.19 26.35 28.49 30.47 32.91 35.69 41.85 44.37 49.97 49.49 49.17 52.47 58.29 63.09 66.52 70.19 68.99 67.44 68.31 74.86 84.26 91.59 95.87 100.52 96.55 91.77 87.68 89.23 91.25 90.94 84.54 85.89 89.47 86.77 86.44 100.00 111.35 Canada

Denmark 11.72 11.70 11.71 11.71 11.68 11.69 11.70 12.27 12.24 12.99 14.05 15.36 17.91 22.94 25.85 31.19 32.30 35.74 42.61 48.17 48.83 43.20 41.01 40.51 37.93 38.89 52.96 65.86 68.62 66.48 81.43 80.98 88.22 83.32 86.38 99.76 98.81 88.65 88.31 86.29 76.69 76.07 81.58 100.00 111.93 Denmark
Finland 12.45 13.12 13.64 14.25 15.28 16.05 16.80 16.93 15.46 16.11 16.72 18.00 19.72 24.53 30.48 35.41 38.48 40.23 42.37 48.71 55.87 53.54 52.05 48.80 49.00 50.01 63.66 76.56 87.18 90.44 107.56 104.05 95.57 76.66 85.47 107.04 101.40 91.67 92.07 88.17 78.46 78.60 83.42 100.00 110.80 Finland

France 15.47 15.47 15.49 15.49 16.13 16.57 17.00 17.52 18.15 18.42 18.30 19.52 22.82 28.03 29.04 36.80 36.68 38.99 46.75 54.60 61.18 52.92 48.83 46.07 43.08 44.20 60.27 71.46 74.41 71.73 86.48 85.97 93.43 89.48 92.89 105.10 103.99 92.29 92.08 88.60 77.21 76.29 82.23 100.00 112.03 France
Germany 10.51 11.42 11.93 12.33 12.75 13.15 13.59 13.85 14.15 14.99 17.38 19.52 22.44 28.56 31.64 35.08 35.56 39.98 48.15 54.69 57.79 48.47 47.28 46.39 42.46 41.95 58.70 72.20 75.00 71.70 86.11 85.48 95.35 93.39 97.52 112.69 108.42 94.70 94.37 90.90 78.42 77.22 82.49 100.00 110.99 Germany

Greece 11.62 11.75 12.30 12.43 12.86 13.38 14.04 14.34 14.56 15.02 15.59 16.05 16.86 20.63 25.03 26.53 27.07 30.54 34.84 41.51 43.01 40.30 42.56 38.93 37.03 35.97 42.32 50.33 56.04 56.08 69.33 72.17 79.20 75.36 79.23 90.99 94.02 88.53 86.13 85.70 74.10 73.66 80.59 100.00 113.22 Greece
Ireland 10.07 10.31 10.83 11.09 12.13 12.69 13.24 13.42 12.21 13.30 14.63 16.49 19.12 21.61 21.89 24.89 24.44 26.89 32.67 39.64 45.64 41.96 42.66 41.34 38.35 39.36 53.12 60.27 63.71 62.58 72.50 71.80 78.07 70.63 73.28 80.84 82.30 81.34 81.29 80.20 72.71 74.67 82.07 100.00 113.79 Ireland

Italy 10.15 10.43 11.03 11.95 12.67 13.19 13.50 13.88 14.14 14.62 15.62 16.94 19.04 21.56 23.19 26.91 24.88 27.84 32.86 38.92 45.82 41.10 40.46 41.47 39.97 40.05 55.35 67.56 71.88 72.62 89.95 93.47 98.40 80.16 80.85 84.06 93.43 86.68 87.32 84.74 74.90 74.71 81.03 100.00 113.05 Italy
Japan 7.37 7.93 8.29 8.70 9.20 9.70 10.19 10.75 11.43 12.07 12.90 13.96 16.71 21.36 24.01 25.30 27.35 32.24 43.04 42.45 43.17 46.33 41.91 44.99 46.41 47.28 68.07 79.55 90.48 85.93 83.86 92.94 100.27 114.85 125.08 135.15 116.00 104.60 96.61 109.37 113.30 98.99 94.96 100.00 104.79 Japan

Luxembourg 12.01 11.57 12.05 12.40 13.15 13.55 14.03 14.13 14.76 15.48 17.99 18.24 21.30 27.00 31.59 33.16 35.46 38.65 46.23 52.83 57.14 48.24 43.44 41.47 38.33 38.41 51.04 61.11 63.78 61.92 74.83 74.54 82.17 81.02 86.62 100.55 97.67 86.87 87.91 86.13 77.59 76.84 81.73 100.00 112.38 Luxembourg
Netherlands 8.86 9.69 9.84 10.31 11.18 11.89 12.54 13.12 13.61 14.46 15.39 17.21 20.50 25.67 29.12 34.10 35.55 40.85 48.79 54.79 58.34 48.98 48.24 46.09 41.56 40.86 55.48 66.61 68.91 64.95 77.35 77.48 84.31 81.32 84.90 98.19 94.58 83.38 83.37 81.24 73.04 74.68 81.02 100.00 110.80 Netherlands

New Zealand 16.11 16.08 16.10 16.74 17.34 18.08 17.06 18.06 16.18 15.97 17.88 20.55 24.06 30.37 31.18 30.36 30.03 34.25 42.13 47.89 52.80 54.85 53.18 49.48 44.44 44.72 54.50 69.76 83.15 79.80 82.24 80.18 75.61 78.25 86.74 98.33 105.60 101.99 83.54 82.72 72.85 70.56 78.04 100.00 117.55 New Zealand
Norway 10.87 11.15 11.68 12.06 12.62 13.23 13.76 14.17 14.81 15.43 17.40 18.83 21.14 26.47 30.36 35.32 36.34 40.36 43.56 47.64 55.26 53.71 52.68 49.83 47.38 47.33 54.53 63.98 69.43 69.23 79.25 78.19 81.08 72.65 72.98 83.58 85.37 80.19 74.61 77.00 79.07 78.22 86.66 100.00 110.95 Norway

Portugal 10.87 11.08 11.08 11.31 11.48 11.94 12.57 13.05 13.30 14.34 14.61 15.55 17.51 21.24 24.37 28.07 27.58 27.49 29.28 31.41 37.14 35.49 33.20 29.65 27.97 29.33 40.52 46.95 51.05 51.69 64.57 70.07 83.63 75.35 78.21 89.58 89.73 81.97 82.72 81.64 73.06 74.09 81.50 100.00 111.90 Portugal
Spain 7.70 7.83 8.25 8.90 9.56 10.43 11.28 12.01 11.11 11.68 12.39 13.45 15.78 19.52 22.84 26.78 26.76 29.07 34.76 46.42 49.30 43.05 41.09 35.17 34.80 35.74 48.15 57.80 64.93 68.28 85.11 89.28 96.69 81.34 80.26 90.49 92.19 81.62 81.92 80.52 72.03 72.93 80.20 100.00 113.42 Spain

Sweden 14.50 14.93 15.56 15.89 16.71 17.69 18.73 19.78 20.22 20.91 21.18 23.58 27.37 32.12 33.49 40.53 43.99 48.65 53.34 59.40 68.30 62.49 54.42 49.11 48.96 50.17 64.54 76.03 83.65 85.89 101.77 108.59 113.98 87.82 90.78 101.33 109.05 97.14 93.99 91.24 83.30 75.31 81.33 100.00 111.12 Sweden
Switzerland 9.11 9.11 9.10 9.11 9.11 9.09 9.54 9.96 10.29 10.56 11.08 12.67 14.98 19.53 22.22 27.46 29.14 30.38 42.31 46.40 47.28 42.63 44.10 43.77 40.48 39.62 55.81 69.17 72.48 66.83 82.06 84.00 87.53 85.27 93.57 109.13 104.30 88.79 88.58 86.01 77.18 77.71 85.63 100.00 109.40 Switzerland

United Kingdom 11.45 11.80 12.25 12.38 12.77 13.50 14.07 14.22 12.90 13.59 14.64 16.32 18.03 18.98 20.80 24.99 23.36 25.76 31.62 39.99 52.38 50.38 47.06 43.10 39.52 40.27 47.54 55.82 64.57 63.79 74.52 78.90 81.64 71.73 74.25 78.59 80.23 86.62 90.07 89.95 85.28 82.97 89.18 100.00 114.60 United Kingdom
United States 19.85 20.08 20.35 20.56 20.88 21.26 21.87 22.54 23.50 24.67 25.98 27.27 28.46 30.05 32.76 35.85 37.92 40.33 43.17 46.74 50.98 55.77 59.17 61.52 63.83 65.77 67.22 69.05 71.41 74.11 76.97 79.66 81.50 83.38 85.15 86.89 88.54 90.01 91.01 92.33 94.34 96.60 98.20 100.00 102.04 United States

TOTAL DAC 16.08 16.25 16.74 17.10 17.47 17.83 18.24 18.12 18.93 19.24 20.30 21.53 24.11 26.91 29.96 34.11 35.21 38.27 43.94 48.95 53.24 51.63 50.93 50.72 49.71 50.39 61.38 70.57 75.87 75.23 83.59 86.58 91.61 89.54 93.66 103.85 99.17 92.40 90.53 92.04 88.23 84.50 88.03 100.00 108.76 TOTAL DAC

EC 13.33 13.33 13.33 13.33 13.95 14.53 15.06 15.53 16.04 16.85 17.93 19.15 20.41 22.28 24.98 29.56 27.39 30.70 37.30 43.64 48.86 43.09 41.69 41.02 38.78 39.55 53.80 65.27 69.40 67.41 81.45 82.68 90.35 84.72 88.50 99.92 99.12 89.86 90.21 86.88 76.18 75.79 81.76 100.00 112.03 EC

a) Including the effect of exchange rate changes, i.e. applicable to US dollar figures only.

94
Appendix 3 The relationship between authotermal operation of the process in relation to the
moisture content and energy yield of torrefaction

1.00

0.95
energy yield (LHVdaf)

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

MCA (% wt. Biomass feedstock)

Figure 48: Relation between the MCA and the energy yield of torrefaction. Values are taken from
the main design matrix. The error bars represent the possible inaccuracy in the HHV
measurement.

Appendix 4 Size reduction results of various torrified biomass and feed biomass

90 360
C(270,21)
80 C(280,18) 320
C(290,12)
70 W(290,24) 280
Power consumption (kWe/MWth)

W(260,24)
60 Willow (10-13% moist) 240
chipper capacity (kWth)

Willow (<1% moist)

Woodcuttings (14% moist)
50 AU bituminous coal 200
TW borssele run
40 demolition wood 160
(D,300,10)
30 (D,280,10) 120
(W,265,10)
20 80

10 40

- -
- 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 - 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
average particle size (mm, volume based) average particle size (mm, volume based)

Net power consumption curves Capacity curves

Figure 49: Size reduction results of various torrefied biomass and feed biomass (Bergman et al,
2004)

95
Appendix 5 Torrefied biomass production cost breakdown

I. MANUFACTURING COSTS
1. Raw Materials
2. Operation Labour 1 25 €/man-hour for Western 60% of the employee is
Europe accepted as Latin American
6 euro/man-hour Latin employee
America
3.Direct Supervisory & 15% of Operation labour
clerical labour
4. Utilities
5. Maintenance and Repairs 2% of Total capital investment
6. Operating Supplies 15% of Maintenance & repair
7. Laboratory Charges 10% of Operation labour
8. Patents and Royalties 3% of Total capital investment
B. Fixed Charges
1. Depreciation 18% of Total capital investment
2. Local Taxes 1% of Total capital investment
3. Insurance 0.5% of Total capital investment
4. Rent
C. Plant Overhead 60% of Operation labour
II. GENERAL EXPENSES
A. Administrate Costs 15% of Operation labour
B. Distribution and Selling 3% of Total production cost
Costs
C. Research and 3% of Total production cost
Development Cost
Source: Peters&Timmerhaus, (1991) fourth edition
1 In the calculations, it is assumed that 40% of the employees are at the management position and they are being
paid according to the West European labour cost, 60% of the employees are assumed to work as the general staff and
their salaries are calculated on the basis of Latin American labour price. In Hamelinck, Latin American labour price
is mentioned as 1 euro/man-hour. In this study this price is increased to 2.5 euro/man-hour taking the labour
education level and necessary specialisation for the plant into consideration.

96
Appendix 6 Component list relevant for BIG/CC systems and their corresponding R-values.

Source: Faaij et al, 1988

97
Appendix 7 Estimation of the total production costs of the torrefied biomass

Cost Items Total production costs

I. MANUFACTURING COSTS Meuro/ton
A. Direct Product Cost
1. Raw Materials
2. Operation Operating labour 5.42
3. Direct Supervisory and cleical labor 0.81
4. Utilities
Electricity 5.88
Natural Gas 13.44
Cooling water 0.66
5. MaintananMaintenance 2.08
6. Operating Supplies 0.31
7. Laboratory Charges 0.54
8. Patents and Royalties 0.87

B. Fixed Charges
1. Depreciation 15.47
2. Local Taxes 1.04
3. Insurance 0.52
4. Rent ..

C. Plant Overhead 3.25

II. GENERAL EXPENSES

A, Administrive Costs 0.81
B. Distribution and Selling Costs 2.17
C. Research and Development Cost 2.17
D. Financing 5.46

TOTAL PRODUCT COSTS 58.18

Source: Bergman et al, 2005

98
Appendix 8 Higher heating values and energy distributions of raw biomass and pyrolysis
products

Source: Raveendran & Ganesh, 1996

Appendix 9 Overview of current fast pyrolysis technologies

Fluid bed reactors

Fluid bed configurations are the most popular reactors from the commercial point of view due to
their ease of operating and ready scale up (Bridgwater, 1999). The liquid production is up to 70%
on a dry feed basis. Biomass needs to be grinded to small particles (<2-3 mm) to achieve high
heating rates. When the volatiles residence time (net empty reactor volume divided by the inlet
gas volume rate at reactor conditions) is in the range of 0.2-0.6 s., it is possible to produce
maximum yield of organic liquid at temperatures of 475-525 oC for nearly all biomass feedstock.
However, it is difficult to design a reactor capable on a large scale of very high heating rates
required for such a short processing time. Besides, it should not be forgotten that the biomass
particle residence time in the optimal temperature should be longer than the apparent volatile
residence time to achieve the complete conversion unless the biomass particles are extremely fine
(around 50 µm). There are 2 types of fluid bed reactors; bubbling fluid bed and circulating fluid
bed.

Bubbling fluid bed reactors

Bubbling bed reactors are easy to construct and operate since they have got a well-understood
technology. Temperature control is easy in this reactor and the efficiency of heat transfer to
biomass particles is high. The bubbling bed reactor configurations are widely used in laboratory
systems. This design produces a good quality bio-oil with minimum char content. Char is eluted
from the reactor since char can act as a catalyst to crack the vapour.

99
When the scaling up of this reactor is considered, heat transfer to bed can be a limiting factor.
Residence time of solids and vapours are controlled by fluidising gas flow rate and it is higher for
char than for vapours. The high gas-to-biomass fed ratio causes thermal efficiency reduction
because the re-circulating gas steam in the bio-oil condensation units requires cooling and
reheating again to reuse it as a heat source for pyrolyser. The thermal efficiency in this
technology ranges from 60 to 70% depending on the design (Scott et al., 1999). The diagram of a
bench-scale pyrolysis unit flow diagram operated in the University of Waterloo is shown in
figure 1.

Figure 1 Bench scale pyrolysis unit flow diagram

According to a study carried on by University of Waterloo and Resource Transform International,

short volatile residence times required for the process can also be achieved in a deep fluid bed
contrary to the necessary condition mentioned as shallow bed depth by other scientists. They
discovered that they could achieve high yields of liquid at relatively low temperatures; moderate
heating rates and relatively long solids and gas residence times (Scott et al., 1999). The shallow
fluid beds were causing transverse temperature and concentration gradients to develop in the fluid
bed, which demanded special design methods, in large sizes. The temperature range applied in
this study ranges from 360 to 490 o C with gas residence times greater than 2 s. up to 5 s. The
liquid yields and the composition obtained in this study was similar to other fast pyrolysis with
higher temperatures and shorter residence times like 0.3 –0.8 s. The experiment results of the RTI
process and Waterloo fast pyrolysis process (WFPP) is presented in table 1. The particle size in
the RTI study was 1 mm maximum with a moister content of 10%.

100
 Table X. Comparisen of yields from waterloo fast pyrolysis process and RTI process
Process Experimental yields (wt.%) mf hardwood sawdust feed
Temperature(oC) Char Bio-oil Gas
WFPP 500 11.8 76.9 5.9
RTI process 430 12.5 74.3 10.1
RTI process with char converter 430 4.5 73 19
Table 1 Comparison of yields from waterloo fast pyrolysis process and RTI process
Source:

Dynamotive Corp. has achieved a commercial version of RTI process so named “ BioTherm TM
Technology”. The pilot plant was operated at a capacity of 2 tonnes of feedstock per day on the
continues feed basis and it has already processed more than 35 tones of feedstock. When pine as
the prepared feedstock (10% mc and small particles) was used in BioTherm to produce 72%yield
rate of bio-oil, around 2.5 MJ/kg of heat is required (including the radiation and exhaust gas
loses). However when the non-condensable gas produced is directly injected into the reactor
burner, the required net heat from an external source is only 1.0 MJ/kg, which represents the 5%
of the total calorific value of the bio-oil (DynaMotive, 1999). The BioTherm process consists of
the following equipments (Fig 2):

Figure 2 BioTherm pyrolysis process flow diagram

Storage hopper and feed system; feedstock is conveyed to a storage hopper with an auger and a
screw feeder supplies feedstock to a lock hopper consists of a two knife-gate valves that in turn
supplies the feed to a metering box. By the help of this metering box, a controlled amount of
feedstock is fed through a constant speed injector screw.

Pyrolysis reactor; the external jacket, surrounding the reactor shell is heated by a natural gas
burner to heat the fluidised sand. The exhaust gas from the jacked is used to preheat the pyrolysis
gas by means of a gas to gas heat exchanger before the pyrolysis gas is re-entered the reactor. In

101
the reactor the feedstock is rapidly heated to temperatures above 450 oC by fluidised sand, in the
absence of oxygen.

Cyclone: The products pass through two mechanical cyclones to remove entrained solid char
particles. The char is collected under the cyclones.

Bio-oil recovery quench system: The gases, vapours and aerosols scrubbed are rapidly cooled
down to below 50 oC in the quenching system by a liquid. The bio-oil condensed are collected in
a product than while the liquid recovered is cooled in a heat exchanger and recycled to the
recovery system.

Electrostatic precipitator: The non-condensable gas and residual biooil aerosol droplets enter to
the electrostatic precipitator. The clean inert gas is then recycled to the bubbling fluid bed reactor.
The excess of the gas is vented from the system.

Product tank:

Figure 3 RTI process for production of bio-oil, bubbling fluidised bed type of reactor.

Circulating fluid bed (CFB) & Transported bed reactors

In this technology the residence time for char and vapour are almost the same and the char
content of the produced bi-oil is higher which may require a post-treatment to reduce char
content. Most circulating fluid beds are dilute phase units; heat transfer rates are not high since
they depend only on gas-solid convective transfer. CFB is suitable for large throughputs. In
general there exists a char combustor, which delivers the heat to the reactor by re-circulation of

102
the heated sand (Figure 4). Ash transfer to the pyrolyser and accumulation in the circulating
solids can be a problem that needs to be worked out in this technology. In fact ash can behave
like cracking catalysts for organic molecules, which can cause loss of volatile bio-oil yield

In this technology either recycling of the partially reacted feed or a very fine particle size is
necessary to achieve the necessary biomass residence time since the particle residence time
would not be uniform and would only be a little greater than volatile residence time.

Figure 4 Circulating fluid bed reactor.

Source: Pyne, 2005

Figure 5 Shematic diagram of the CFB unit for biomass flash pyrolysis
Source: Lappas et al, 2002

103
Ablative pyrolysis

In this technology there is no upper limit in feedstock sizing since the rate of reaction is not
limited by the rate of heat transfer through a biomass particle as it is in other pyrolysis
technologies. In ablative pyrolysis heat is transferred from the hot reactor walls through the
biomass under pressure. Pressure, the reactor surface temperature and the relative velocity of the
biomass on the heat exchange surface influence the rate of reaction. The process is limited in heat
supply to the reactor rather than heat supply to the biomass particles. However in the cyclonic
types, achieving the necessary residence time for the biomass particles can be a problem,
therefore partially reacted solids should be recycled. The char abrasion in this technology is
significant. The cone types or plate types of ablative reactors are mechanically complex since
they require moving parts. Another issue in this type of technology is that there could be high
heat losses because the hot surface must be at a higher temperature than the reaction temperature
(Scott et al, 1999). On the other hand, even though the process equipments are smaller, the
reaction is more intensive. The system scaling is more costly due to process control by surface
area.

Rotating cone reactor:

The schema of a rotating cone reactor demonstrated by BTG is presented below. The wood
particles are fed to the bottom of the rotating cone together with the heat carrier particles (sand).
The rotation in the reactor both achieves the solid mixing and its’ transport to the upward of the
reactor. Since the particles contact to the hot rotating cone wall while being transported, a high
heating transfer rate is achieved (Wagenaar et al, 1994). While the biomass is transported to the
upper part of the cone, the pyrolysis vapour residence time is kept below 1s. In order to avoid the
secondary tar cracking. The ash char and unconverted biomass is being collected in the dead
volume of the reactor. One of the advantages mentioned is that pyrolysis product will be formed
at high concentration since no carrier gas is needed; this in fact might cause cost reduction.
Moreover, gas-phase residence time in the reactor can be reduced due to the possibility of a small
gas phase volume in side the rotating cone. In addition, bio-oil cracking reactions can be reduced.
An advanced version of rotating cone has been developed, where the cone is partly submerged in
a fluid bed. As can be seen from the schematic view of the reactor (Fig. 6) the technology
includes an internal circulation of particles where the sand is flown through the upper part of the
cone and fell down back to the into the fluidised bed an external circulation where the char and
sand are transported through an orifice to the combustor. In the combustor sand is reheated and is
recycled to the reactor by means of a standpipe, riser and cyclone. The advantages of this
technology are its being compact and good integration of heat.

104
Figure 6 Rotating cone reactor

Figure 7 Rotating cone reactor pyrolysis process flow diagram

Source: Btgworld.com, 2005

Vortex reactor:
In this reactor the particle size enters the reactor is more flexible. 13 mm particle size has been
applied in an engineering scale pyrolysis system, where vortex rector was

105
Vacuum pyrolysis

In vacuum pyrolysis solid heating and mass transfer rates are low and the solid residence time is
very high (Bridgwater et al, 2002; Scott et al, 1999). The technology requires large-scale
equipment (Scott et al, 1999). Even though a comparable amount of bio-oil yield can be achieved
by vacuum pyrolysis, a large capacity of vacuum pump is needed to require the vacuum
condition, which makes the system rather expensive (Wagenaar et al, 1994). One of the
advantage in this technology is that short volatile residence times is easy to achieve without
coupling the biomass particle residence time to that of the volatiles.

The general features of the reactors are summarised in the below table.

Table 2 Overview of fast pyrolysis reactor characteristics for bio-oil production

Property Status# Bio-oil Complexity Feed Inert gas Specific Scale
wt% size need size up
Fluid bed Demo 75 Medium Small High Medium Easy
CFB Pilot 75 High Medium High Large Easy
Entrained None 65 High Small High Large Easy
Rotating cone Pilot 65 High V small Low Small Hard
Ablative Lab 75 High Large Low Small Hard
Vacuum Demo 60 High Large Low Large Hard
# Demo = demonstration (200 – 2000 kg h-1)
# Pilot = pilot plant (200 – 200 kg h-1
# Lab = laboratory (1 – 20 kg h-1)
Source: Pyne, 2005

106
Appendix 10 Mass balance of a 200 kg/hr pyrolysis plant (Source: Gansekoele et al, 2000)
380 kg/hr

6000 kg/hr Non condensable gas 40 kg/hr

Combustor

Biomass
200 kg/hr 8640 kg/hr
180 kg/hr Cooling tower 3500 kg/hr
Condensor

Reactor
6020 kg/hr
heat exchanger
120 kg/hr
Air water

Oil
240 kg/hr 140 kg/hr
Air

107
Appendix 11 The pyrolysis plants capital cost and efficiency data
Capacit Remarks
Total capital Reactor
Name y Efficiency Year
costs technology
(ton/hr)
Cost figures include
Entrained
1 Egemin 0.20 40% 500,000 GBP 1992
flow
storage, feeding and
pyrolysis system
Cost estimates are in
the range of
US$800,000-1600,000.
Transported
2 Ensyn 1.04 67% 1,600,000 US$ 1992
bed
These figures don’t
include building, land,
utilities, feed and
product oil storage.
The aim is to pyrolyse
shredder waste. Capital
Vacuum cost includes install.,
3 ASR 4.00 30.62% 5,030,000 US$ 1992
pyrolysis instrumentation, piping,
insulation and
electricity installation
The cost includes
material handling,
pyrolysis system, oil
Interchem handling, char handling
Ablative
4 (NA)Indust 4.17 50% 2,360,000 US$ 1991
pyrolysis
and all the storage
ries systems. However it
does not include
purchase or leasing of
land.
5 BTG 5.00 70% 3,500,000 € 2000 Rotating cone

108
Appendix 12 Wood pellet quality requirements

Source: AET, 2003

109
Appendix 13 Final conversion technologies

1 Biomass Gasification Combined Cycle and Fischer Tropsch Fuel

Biomass gasification is the thermochemical conversion of carbonaceous feedstock into a gaseous

energy carrier, so called fuel gas by partial oxidation at elevated temperatures (Bridgwater,
1995). In the biomass Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (BIGCC), the flue gas produced is
used to fire a gas turbine. Furthermore, a gas turbine is combined with a steam cycle that offers
high electrical efficiencies (Faaij et al, 1998; Bridgwater, 1995). A BIGCC system consists of
pre-treatment, gasification, gas cleanup, gas turbine, heat recovery steam generator and steam
turbine sections (Figure 1). The gasification technologies assumed in this study are entrained
flow gasification and fluid bed gasification. In fact, fluid bed gasification is better suited for
larger scales because of the high specific throughput of the reactors (which keeps the vessel size
limited) and the flexibility for various fuel types (Faaij et al, 1998).On the other hand entrained
flow gasification is one of the most developed and versatile gasification technologies due to its
high operation temperature (up to 1500 oC). There have been many commercially operating
entrained flow gasifiers in Europe; however, their applications with biomass are very little.
Fluidised bed reactor is applied in the BIGCC system while entrained bed gasification is applied
in the Fischer Tropsch fuel production. .

Figure 1 Schematic presentation of a BIGCC system

Source: Faaij et al, 1988

110
Cost data for BIGCC systems and FT fuel

The capital costs of BIGCC systems are estimated in several studies (Faaij A and Meuleman B,
1998; Craig and Mann, 1996; Dornburg, 1999). The data collected from those researches are
plotted into a graph (Figure ). In Figure 2, the trendline for integrated gasification combined cycle
capital costs are presented. The dotes in the figure denote the estimates.

In another study carried out by Faaij et al. (1998), the total capital requirement for the BIGCC
systems are assumed in the range between 112M€-256M€ for the capacity range of 94 MWLHV-
input-364 MWLHV-input in the base year of 2004. When those cost data are compared with Figure , it
can be seen that the cost data for a 94 MWth input is rather consistent whereas for the bigger scales
(around 300 MWth input), Figure offers cheaper capital costs. The reason of this difference can
depend on the trendline. In fact, the estimated capital cost of a 332 MWth input is around 240 M€
which is also consistent with the study of Faaij et al (1998).

Capital costs of IGCC systems

1800
1600
1400
Euro-2004/kWth

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
19 27 40 66 80 144 140 170 250 310 300
MWth

Figure 2 Capital costs of IGCC systems

According to Calis, et al, (2003), the investment of an entrained flow gasifier including fuel
feeding and syngas cooler is estimated using the oil (entrained flow) gasifier 41 €/kWth for a
1000 MWth plant. When the feedstock is solid biomass, a 10% increase on investment is
assumed resulting in 45 €/kWth for an entrained flow gasifier including fuel feeding and syngas
cooler.

111
2 Combustion &Co-firing

In general biomass combustion for 100% biomass applications is either stoker-fired or fluid
designs (Bridgwater et al, 2002). However in the recent years, small proportions of biomass are
being co-fired with coal in large suspension-fired furnaces.

In this study fluid bed boiler combined with a steam turbine is selected due to it’s commercially
availability in larger scales (at capacities ranging from 15 to 715 MWth input (Bridgwater et al,
2003).

Appendix 14 Effects of torrefied biomass on entrained flow gasification

Several experiments were carried out in ECN to manifest the torrefied wood size reduction
improvements. In those experiments torrefaction was done with the 3-6 kg batch reactor and a
heavy-duty cutting mill (1,5kWe) is employed. Figure 1 illustrates the relation between power
consumption and particle size for both fresh biomass and torrefied biomass.

Figure 1 Effect of torrefaction on the power consumption of biomass size reduction. Legend:
biomass type (T (oC), reaction time (min)) Moisture content of fresh biomass was in the range of
10-13% on mass basis, except for the dried willow (<1%wt). Moisture content of the torrefied
biomass ranges from 1.2-6.6%wt.

As seen in the figure, the power consumption is significantly reduced when the biomass is first
torrefied. 85% power reduction can be achieved. However the type of the feedstock influences
the power consumption. For example willow torrifeied decreases the power consumption with
about 50% compared to untreated biomass. When the willow untreated, dried and torrefied are
compared, the related chemical and physical change can be distinguished. For example when the
willow size is cut down to 0.2 mm, the power consumption for torrefied willow is around 8 for
dried willow is 30 and for untreated willow is 55 kWe/MWth So around 45% in power

112
consumption can be related to the physical change, whereas the 40% can be related to the
chemical changes due to torrefaction pre-treatment. Milling biomass into 100µm consumes
0.08kWe/kWth, however when torrefaction is applied the consumption decreases to 0.01-0.02
kWe/kWth (van der Drift et al., 2004).

In the same study carried out by ECN the relationship between the particle size and chipper
capacity are determined for untreated, dried and torrefied willow (Figure 3). The capacity of the
mill increases in proportion to the particle size. When the 0.2 mm particle size is considered the
chipper capacity for torrefied willow is up to 6.5 times the capacity of untreated willow. Another
positive impact of torrefaction is that it acts as a thermal filter, which abolishes the original
differences existing in, untreated biomass and yield a product with similar mechanical properties.

When it concerns the particle size distribution and shape, the experiments indicate that the
particles become smaller in the length to diameter ratio. Besides, the length of particles is reduced
more compared to their diameter. Thus the particles become more spherical. This is an important
feature since it affects the smooth fluidisation. Smooth fluidisation of coal, willow and torrefied
willow are measured and it is concluded that a 100µm torrefied biomass can achieve fluidisation.
When it concerns the untreated biomass, fluidisation is not possible to achieve due to their needle
shape that keeps the particles too large to meet the smooth fluidisation regime.
Another positive impact of torrefaction is that it acts as a thermal filter, which abolishes the
original differences existing in, untreated biomass and yield a product with similar mechanical
properties.

113
Appendix 15 Bio-oil production cost figures

Source: Bridgwater et al., 2002

114