Post on 27-Jun-2020
Eduardo Silva Lora1, York Castillo Santiago1, Quelbis Román Quintero Bertel2, Osvaldo José Venturini1, José Carlos
Escobar Palacio1, Vladimir Melián Cobas1, Albany Milena Lozano Násner3, Oscar Almazan del Olmo4
San Salvador de Jujuy, 11 al 14 de noviembre de 2019
Conferencia:“BIOMASS ELECTRICITY GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: A REVIEW, TECHNOLOGY
SELECTION PROCEDURE, AND POWER CAPACITY CALCULATION “
What is new at NEST/UNIFEI?New facilities: building and a shed- A PETROBRAS PROJEC
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
NEST Laboratories
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Bubbling bed gasifier
Biomass combustion laboratory
Gas microturbines and chiller
Fuel and gases characterization laboratory
Traning center forpower plants operators
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
RDF briquettes production and gasification
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
HELIOTHERMAL LAB
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Biomass power plants in the world and
in Brazil (ECOPROG, 2017)
The present state of the art of the electricity generation from
biomass and future prospects are described in [6]:
- In 2017 there were 3520 biomass generation plants with an
installed capacity of 52.5 GWe.
- In 2026 this number will increase up to 5400 and the installed
capacity up to 76 GWe to be commissioned by the end of this
year.
Brazil has a capacity of 14.02 GWe (244 biomass power
plants), where the sugarcane biomass sources represents
78.2% of the total with 11.01 GWe. Other biomass sources,
such as animal waste, urban solid waste, liquid biofuels, and
other agro-industrial goods, share 11.8% [6].
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Arising questions?
IS IT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY?
LCOE? NPV? IRR ?
BIOMAS AVAILABILTY AND PROPERTIES??
WHICH PRETEATMENT TECHNOLOGY TO USE?
WHICH POWER CAPACITY, KWE, CAN I HAVE?
WHICH TECHNOLOGY IS MORE SUITABLE?
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Biomass electricity Generation Technologies
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Biomass electricity Generation Technologies
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Classification of Biomass fuelled power
plants
Industrial> 3 MWe.
Conventional Rankine Cycle.
BIGCC
Medium-scale generation 0.1 to 3.0 MWe
Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC),
Gasifier / ICE, Conventional Rankine Cycle
Radial Turbine
Screw Expander,
Piston Steam Engine.
Small-scale generation <0.1 MW
Stirling Engine,
Rankine Organic Rankine Cycle,
Radial Turbine
Screw Expander.
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Particularities and constrainst in modern biomassgeneration units
• Use of biomass with variable size distribution andmoisture; its transport and feeding.
• Biomass pretreatment is specific for each technology andcapacities.
• Problems related to the combustion process: slagging andcorrosion.
• Definition of parameters and thermal scheme during thesystem design depending on a cost benefit analysis.
• Uncertainties in relation to the cost of some types ofgeneration technologies.
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
CONVENTIONAL STEAM RANKINE CYCLE
• The Rankine cycle has a relatively low efficiency - for conventional pressures of
20 bars, efficiencies in the range of 7-15 %, depending on the type of turbine
used: backpressure or condensing one [15].
• The efficiency increase of conventional Rankine cycles can be attained through
the use of higher steam parameters and/or steam reheating (line 7) and the
regenerative heating of the condensates (line 9). All these improvements require
of a techno-economic analysis to compare the necessary additional investment
with the profit obtained due to efficiency increase.
• Some biomass plants now use reheating and regenerative heating, such as
Bishoferode in Germany, which achieved an efficiency of 36% at 540 °C and
13.0 MPa as steam parameters [16].
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
A general scheme of a Rankine steam cycle
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
BIGCC – Combined cycle
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
• In the 80’s many projects like the Varmano´s plant in Sweden (11 Mwe), operated for a long period of time.
• Today those projects are forsaken and the plants are on a standstill state, due to technical and economic reasons.
• Foreseen theoretical efficiency of 43% was never reached, not over passing 32%.
• Problems with the gas cleaning, difficulties with processes integration, financial limitations, etc.
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
BIOMASS ORC PROCESS DIAGRAM
TRIOGEN
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
SCREW EXPANDER
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
SCREW EXPANDER: HELIEX POWER
HP145: 1700 – 1100 Euro/kWe (75 – 160 kWe)
HP204: 1400 – 1000 Euro/kWe (160 – 400 kWe)
HP204: 1000 – 900 Euro/kWe (400 – 630 kWe)
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Electricity generation though biomass gasification and the gas cleaning stage.
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
GASIFIER/ICE systemsGraz, Austria
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Gasifier / Gas microturbine
The idea of feeding a gas microturbine with biomass gasification gas (lean gas and product gas) is extremely interesting due to it high weight/power ratio and low emissions.
Low heating value value of the gas and its composition, quite different from the natural gas, make the operation of gas microturbines (MTG) with gas from biomass to present problems such as pressure drop, flame instability, need to refurbish the combustion chamber and to solve the arising compressor and turbine mismatch.
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Biomass Stirling Engine
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Power capacity and efficiency ranges for biomass to electricity technologies.
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Technology and market maturity of biomass electricity generation technologies
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
BIOMASS PRETREATMENT
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Pretreatment schematic typologies for biomass electricity
generation commercial technologies.
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Biomass pretreatment requirements for different thermochemical conversion
technologies (own elaboration using data from Koppejan and van Loo (2012),
e4TECH (2009), Naimi et al. (2006), Worley and Yale (2012), Mahr (2011).
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Based on biomass availability and properties such as low
heating value, moisture and size distribution a methodology is
proposed for the calculation of the power capacity and the
selection of the conversion technology
(1) An initial value of the conversion efficiency is assumed and
a first approximation of the power capacity is obtained based
on biomass availability.
The conversion technology definition (Primary Energy
Conversion + Prime mover) is carried out based on the
information available in the efficiency versus power range
graphic, assuming a linear dependence of electricity
generation efficiency from power capacity (We are refining
these data).
A corrected efficiency value results from this step.
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Iterative method for efficiency and power capacity calculation while using
commercial generation technologies: CRC, ORC and G/ICE
Starting point
calculated
from biomass
availability
and EFF=20%
New EFF
value
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
2) Pretreatment technologies are selected according to
the moisture and particles size requirements for each of
the selected primary conversion technologies.
3) Efficiency values are corrected by considering the
energy consumption of the pretreatment equipment.
4) After that, this set of calculations is repeated until theefficiency values will differ by only 0.5%. It can occur a
change of generation technology.
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
5) Cost of biomass: including agricultural practices in
the case of energy crops, and collecting in the case of
residues. Logistics costs to deliver biomass up to the
generating unit should be considered also. These are
the main components of the biomass cost at the gate
of the generation plant.
6) LCOE is calculated using available investment data
and operation and maintenance cost of main
pretreatment primary conversion equipment and prime
movers.
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
Methodology for power
capacity calculation
and technology
selection in biomass
electricity generation
units.
Biomass availability, calorific value, moisture,
size distribution
Selection of potential conversion technologies for electricity generation based on defined power capacity
ranges
Real conversion efficiencies refinement
Start
Assumption of an initial conversion efficiency value
of 20%
Power capacity calculation (operating hours should be
assumed)*
Definition of pretreatment technologies
Power capacity calculation
LCOE, VPL, payback
Technology selection
Selection of the combustion and gasification reactor type
and its efficiency
Real conversion efficiencies calculation
*Changes in generation range and
technology can happen
Technical and market maturity assessment
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
APPLICATION EXAMPLE: Power capacity vs biomass availability
(40% moisture) for ORC, G/ICE, and CRC technologies.
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION – TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF
BIOMASS ELECTRICITY IN MINAS GERAIS STATE
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
COSTS!!!
The information related to the specific costs of different
installed generation systems is poor and imprecise; the higher
values are referred to as complete installations (IRENA, 2012;
Kosmadakis et al., 2013; Preto, 2014).
It varies in wide ranges:
1) Steam cycle: approx. 6500 USD/kWe,
2) ORC: from 6200 to 10700 USD/kWe,
3) Steam engine: 6100 USD/kWe
4) Gasification/ICE: 5300 to 8000 USD/kWe.
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
CONCLUSIONS
• The technologies already at commercial scale are the CRC, ORC and thegasification/engines systems. The generation efficiencies are in the range of 10 to 36%,being the most efficient systems the CRC with reheating and regenerative heating and thegasification / internal combustion engine units.
• In relation to the costs, for most of the technologies, it was not possible to find coherent,reliable and solid information, due to the fact of a reduced number of manufacturers and alimited trading volume, that drives to the situation that every project is customized.
• A methodology is being proposed for calculating a proximate value of the electric capacitystarting from biomass availability in ton/h, while defining the most feasible technology to beused.
• Data are provided for the adequate selection of pretreatment equipment consideringrequirements linked with the fluid dynamics of the combustion and gasification reactors,which selection also depends on the quantity of available biomass.
• Recommendations are included about references indicating how to calculate the cost andelectricity consumption of pretreatment equipment an how to consider them in efficiency andLCOE calculations.
• The information provided in the paper allows applying a logical approach to the preliminarydesign of biomass electricity generation systems.
ReBiBiR (T)-Programa CYTED
GRACIAS, MUITO OBRIGADO
silva.electo52@gmail.com.br