RE: Torrefied-densified biomass

[Weststeijn A <A.Weststeijn@epz.nl>]

Hello Mr Tom Reed and Mr Harry Parker,

Harry writes:
> Why Torrefication?   "Mother Nature" has accomplished the task of
> densification and increasing the fuel value of biomass very effectively.
> The resulting improved biomass is conveniently stored in fireproof bunkers
> for our use for many many years.   We call the more convenient and higher
> energy form biomass lignite and coal. 
> 
Is clear to those of us who actually work with coal (including yours truly).
Fact of the matter is that those coal plants -at least overhere- are forced
to partially convert to "green coal" in order to partially switch from a
long to a short carbon cycle etc. Those 500 odd US coal plants will not stay
unaffected either.

I don't want to debat the GHG carbon cycle here (again), but I do like to
point to the practical aspects of bulk biomass usage in PC-cofiring service.
This is a straightforward technical issue, being limited, among other things
and given an existing plant, quite simply by the unwieldy volume per
GigaJoule of biomass energy to be fed into that system.

So, whereas torrefaction upgrades the very energy content per kg (very
good!), densification will help reduce that volume (great!). 

Let's see whether torrefaction+densification will come out more economical
than Harry's storage of CO2 in deep saline aquifers. 

regards,
Andries Weststeijn
EPZ
Netherlands


 


The Bioenergy List is sponsored by:
David M. Gubanc.P.E. http://www.gubanc.com
dk-TEKNIK ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT http://www.dk-teknik.com
Hazen Research, Inc. http://www.hazenusa.com

Other Sponsors, Archives and Information:
http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/bioenergy-list-archive/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml