Bioenergy power and heat generation

Bioenergy power and heat generation

THEMATIC RESEARCH SUMMARY

Manuscript completed in March 2014© European Union 2014Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Photo credits: iStockphoto

1

This publication was produced by the Energy Research Knowledge Centre (ERKC), funded by the European Commission, to support its Information System for the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SETIS). It represents the consortium’s views on the subject matter. These views have not been adopted or approved by the European Commission and should not be taken as a statement of the views of the European Commission.

The manuscript was produced by Ayla Uslu from the Energy research Centre of the Netherlands. We would like to thank Jaap Koppejan (Procede Biomass BV) and Fabio Menten (BIO-IS) for their review of the manuscript and their support.

While the information contained in this brochure is correct to the best of our knowledge, neither the consortium nor the European Commission can be held responsible for any inaccuracy, or accept responsibility for any use made thereof.

Additional information on energy research programmes and related projects, as well as on other technical and policy publications, is available on the ERKC portal at:

setis.ec.europa.eu/energy-research

2

B i o e n e r g y p o w e r a n d h e at g e n e r at i o n

Executive Summary

This report has been produced by the Energy Research Knowledge Centre (ERKC) funded by the European Commission, to support its Information System of the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SETIS). The ERKC project aims to collect, organise and disseminate validated, referenced information on energy research programmes and projects and their results from across the EU and beyond.

The Thematic Research Summaries (TRS) are designed to analyse the results of energy research projects identified by the Energy Research Knowledge Centre (ERKC). The rationale behind these summaries is to identify the most novel and innovative contributions to research questions that have been addressed by European and national research projects on a specific theme.

The present Thematic Research Summary (TRS) deals with bioenergy systems used to produce heat and electricity. This document reviews the most relevant bioenergy research projects, whether funded by the EU or by Member States, and identifies and traces the development of technologies in the context of energy policy and exploitation.

This document includes a brief analysis of the scope of the theme, and a policy review summarising the main policy developments at EU level. Chapter 4 presents a list of the research projects identified and a synthesis of the main findings. This is followed by a chapter on international developments. Chapter 6 (Technology mapping) describes how the projects summarised contribute to the state of the

Key messages• The R&D needs related to the biomass feedstock supply are mainly analysis of

the feedstock potentials and costs, under different sustainability regimes. Future policyprocesscanbenefitfrommoreaccuratepotentialestimatesthattakeintoaccount other competing uses of biomass feedstocks and their implications to the economy and environment.

• Thereisasignificantamountofstudiesthathaslookedintotheresourcepotential. However, further studies focusing on the prices of feedstocks at the farm, forest and bioenergy plant gate are needed.

• The two pre-treatment technologies, torrefaction and pyrolysis, are at the verge of commercialisation. The majority of the research focuses on clean wood and more R&D is needed to utilise other resources like agricultural residues.

• Thechallengeinco-firingisincreasingthebioenergyratioandthereisawealthof information on the issues that arise with increased percentages of biomass co-firing.

• GasificationtechnologyhasattractedasignificantamountofR&Dandseveralhurdlestoadvancedbiomassgasificationhavebeenaddressed.ThereisawiderangeofR&Donsyngaspurificationtechnologies,however,demonstrationsareonlaboratoryscaleandsignificantlymoreRD&Disneededtodevelop,demonstrate and commercialize these systems.

3

art, with their expected developments and policy implications. Chapter 7 (Capacities mapping) elaborates on the specific contribution of the TRS projects to RD&D funding.

Interest in bioenergy has been increasing in response to concerns about the security of energy supply and the climate impacts associated with use of fossil fuel energy. Bioenergy is also seen as a tool to stimulate rural development and provide new markets for agricultural and forestry sectors. European Union policies on renewable energy have increased the demand for bioenergy. The Renewable Energy Directive (RED), approved in 2009, sets mandatory national renewable energy targets for 2020 to supply 20% of total EU final energy consumption from renewable energy sources. Bioenergy is expected to make a substantial contribution to supplying Europe’s renewable energy demand.

Although biomass is a renewable resource, there are increasing concerns related to its sustainability. While sustainability concerns are reflected in the RED and the EU Directive on Fuel Quality, the EU issued non-binding recommendations to Member States regarding the sustainability criteria for biomass used in electricity, heating and cooling.

Future development of bioenergy systems depend chiefly on the economic framework created by Member States. The National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) of the Member States and the EU Energy Roadmap 2050 indicate the potential role of bioenergy in addressing climate and energy policy objectives. The European Industrial Bioenergy Initiative (EIBI), launched under the SET-Plan, supports demonstration or reference plants for innovative bioenergy value chains that are not yet commercially available and which could be deployed at large scale.

The projects identified in this document are grouped under three sub-themes: biomass feedstock supply; pre-treatment technologies (pyrolysis and torrefaction); and final conversion technologies (combustion, co-firing, anaerobic digestion and gasification). Each sub-theme includes background, research objectives and research results.

Sub-theme 1, ‘Biomass feedstock supply’, focuses on projects that help to define the resource potential in Europe. Projects such as BEE and CEUBIOM, EU Wood and Biomass Futures address the EIBI’s Resource-Specific Value Chain Key Performance Indicator (KPI). However, more in-depth research is needed to define the costs and prices of biomass resources as they leave the farm or forest, and at the bioenergy plant gate. A deeper analysis is needed of the impacts of competition among different industries using the same feedstocks and the biomass availability post-2020 under various sustainability criteria.

Sub-theme 2, ‘Pre-treatment technologies’, reviews projects related to pyrolysis and torrefaction. Both technologies are on the verge of commercialisation. The EMPYRO study plans to demonstrate a 25 MW pyrolysis plant. The national projects TorTech, TorrChance and STOP support scaling–up of torrefaction technology. The SECTOR

4


project concentrates on large-scale demonstration of torrefaction and densification. As such, these projects address the technology-specific value chain KPIs, but since they are not yet finalised it is not possible to assess their success in terms of achieving their planned output over an agreed demonstration period.

Sub-theme 3, ‘Final conversion technologies’, reviews more than 20 projects. Two of these (BIOASH and Ashmelt) focus on R&D into ash-related problems: BIOASH investigates the release of ash-forming compounds from biomass fuels in fixed-bed and pulverised combustion system, while Ashmelt is studying the melting characteristics of ash from solid biofuels. The ENERCORN project aims to design, develop, construct and operate a grid-connected 16 MWe demonstration power plant in Spain with net efficiency up to 30.5%, burning 100% corn stover. This project will address the technology-specific value chain KPI once it is demonstrated. Another project, under the Small Scale Combustion Joint Call in the ERA-NET Bioenergy framework, is developing, modelling and testing a small-scale (2 kWe) biomass-fired combined heat and power (CHP) system based on an Organic Rankine cycle (ORC). The experimental results show that the total efficiency of the CHP system can be 80% or higher.

Biomass co-firing is widely used but at present is limited to 5–10% of biomass in the feedstock. Ongoing R&D aims to achieve higher ratios: up to 50%. The DEBCO project focuses on large-scale demonstration and long-term monitoring of key co-firing concepts to achieve higher proportions of biomass.

R&D on anaerobic digestion technologies is carried out mostly at national level. However, two FP7 projects – Agrobiogas and VALORGAS – focus on biogas production. Agrobiogas is developing tools to help farmers optimise the production and economics of biogas, while VALORGAS concentrates on food waste and presents some solutions to ammonia toxicity. Although neither project is a demonstration, both provide information on the stability of their respective processes.

Current R&D focuses mainly on technologies for minimising tar formation and for gas purification in gasification processes. The UNIQUE project has shown that a new catalyst can reduce tar content by 45% and increase gas yield by 50% in bench- and pilot-scale gasification tests. Catalyst production at large scale is also being studied. The combination of syngas with solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) has shown very good results. The GreenSyngas project demonstrated good results at laboratory scale with a particulate cleaning system based on physical separation and chemical conversion. ERA-NET projects also focus on improving the quality and composition of product gas, using online detection and cleaning technologies to enable integrated and energy-efficient operation with downstream equipment and subsequent conversion processes. In summary, there is a wide range of R&D on syngas purification technologies; this work is still at the laboratory scale, however, and significantly more RD&D is needed to develop, demonstrate and commercialise these systems.

5

Table of contentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 SCOPE OF THE THEME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 POLICY CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.1 EU policy framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.1.1 Current policy issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.1.2 Relevant policy initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2 Goals, progress and incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173.3 Bioenergy outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4 RESEARCH FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.1.1 Relevant policy initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204.1.2 List of projects sorted by sub-themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.2 Sub-theme 1: Biomass feedstock supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.2.1 Research objectives and R&D challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.2.2 Research projects and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.3 Sub-theme 2: Generation of bioenergy carriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254.3.1 Pyrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.3.1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264.3.1.2 Research objectives and R&D challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274.3.1.3 Research projects and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.3.2 Torrefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294.3.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294.3.2.2 Research objectives and R&D challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294.3.2.3 Research projects and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.4 Sub-theme 3: Conversion to heat and electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.4.1 Biomass-to-heat technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.4.2 Biomass-to-power technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.4.3 R&D challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.4.3.1 Research projects and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334.4.4 Co-firing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35


4.4.5 Anaerobic digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374.4.5.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374.4.5.2 Research objectives and R&D challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

6


4.4.5.3 Research projects and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374.4.6 Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39


4.5 KPI analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456 TECHNOLOGY MAPPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

6.1 Bioenergy resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506.2 Pre-treatment technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516.3 Combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526.4 Biomass co-firing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536.5 Anaerobic digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536.6 Thermal gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

7 CAPACITIES MAPPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60ANNEXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Annex 1: Acronyms and abbreviations used in the TRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Annex 2: List of projects relevant to the theme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Annex 3: IEA RD&D public funding database, definition of terms . . . . . . . . 70

7

List of tables and figuresTable 1: ERKC priority areas and themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Table 2: Sub-themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Table 3: List of relevant policy documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Table 4: Innovative bioenergy value chains, with their complementary

measures and activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Table 5: Projects sorted by sub-themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Table 6: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for bioenergy in Europe . . . . . . . 42Table 7: KPIs for the projects discussed in this Thematic

Research Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 1: EERA Joint Programme schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Figure 2: Bioelectricity figures for 2010 compared to

NREAP 2010 and 2020 targets (Uslu & van Stralen, 2011) . . . . . . . 17Figure 3: Bio-heat figures for 2010 compared to

NREAP 2010 and 2020 targets (Uslu & van Stralen, 2011) . . . . . . . 18Figure 4: Energy production from biomass and waste based

on the EU Energy Roadmap 2050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Figure 5: Public R&D on bioenergy for selected countries (IEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

8


1 IntroductionThis publication has been produced as part of the activities of the ERKC (Energy Research Knowledge Centre), funded by the European Commission to support its Information System of the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SETIS).

The ERKC collects, organises and analyses validated, referenced information on energy research programmes and projects, including results and analyses from across the EU and beyond. Access to energy research knowledge is vastly improved through the ERKC, allowing it to be exploited in a timely manner and used all over the EU, thus also increasing the pace of further innovation. The ERKC therefore has a key role in gathering and analysing data to monitor progress towards the objectives of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan). It also brings important added value to the monitoring data by analysing trends in energy research at national and European levels and deriving thematic analyses and policy recommendations from the aggregated project results.

The approach to assess and disseminate energy research results used by the ERKC team includes the following three levels of analysis:

• Project analysis, providing information on research background, objectives, results and technical and policy implications on a project-by-project basis;

• Thematic analysis, which pools research findings according to a classification scheme structured by priority and research focus. This analysis results in the production of a set of Thematic Research Summaries (TRS);

• Policy analysis, which pools research findings on a specific topic, with emphasis on the policy implications of results and pathways to future research. This analysis results in the compilation of Policy Brochures (PB).

The Thematic Research Summaries are designed to provide an overview of innovative research results relevant to the themes which have been identified as of particular interest to policymakers and researchers. The classification structure adopted by the ERKC team comprises 45 themes divided in 9 priority areas. Definitions of each theme can be found on the ERKC portal at:

setis.ec.europa.eu/energy-research

9

The purpose of the TRSs is to identify and trace the development of technologies in the context of energy policy and exploitation.

TRSs are intended for policymakers as well as interested readers from other stakeholders and the academic and research communities.

The present TRS deals with bioenergy. Its aim is to provide a structured, albeit not necessarily comprehensive, review of research activities relating to bioenergy, carried out at European level within programmes funded either by the EU or by Member States. Research related to biofuels and bio-refineries is not included in this study.

Bioenergy is the second sub-theme in ERKC Priority Area 1, ‘Low-carbon heat and power’, which covers a large number of low-carbon technologies.

The present TRS focuses on those bioenergy research projects whose results are sufficiently documented to demonstrate technological achievements. The total number of projects mentioned here is 39.

Specifically, the TRS covers R&D projects that have been recently completed, or are not yet complete but have significant partial results available (20 EU projects from FP6/FP7, 3 Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) and 16 national projects). For completeness, references

Table 1: ERKC priority areas and themes

Priority area 1: Low-carbon heat and power suplly

Bioenergy / Geothermal / Ocean energy / Photovoltaics / Concetrated solar power / Wind / Hydropower / Advanced fossil fuel power generation / Fossil fuel with CCS / Nuclear fission / Nuclear fusion / Cogeneration / Heating and cooling from renewable sources

Priority area 2: Alternative fuels and energy sources for transport

Biofuels / Hydrogen and fuel cells / Other alternative transport fuels

Priority area 3: Smart cities and communities

Smart electricity grids / Behavioural aspects - SCC / Small scale electricity storage / Energy savings in buildings / ITS in energy / Smart district heating and cooling grids -

demand / Energy savings in appliances / Building energy system integration

Priority area 4: Smart grids

Transnission / Distribution / Storage / Smart district heating and cooling grids - supply

Priority area 5: Energy efficiency in industry

Process efficiency / Ancillary equipment

Priority area 6: New knowledge and technologies

Basic research / Materials

Priority area 7: Energy innovation and market uptake

Techno-economic assessment / Life-cycle assessment Cost-benefit analysis / (Market-) decision support tools / Security-of-supply studies / Private investment assessment

Priority area 8: Socio-economic analysis

Public acceptability / User participation / Behavioural aspects

Priority area 9: Policy studies

Market uptake support / Modeling and scenarios / Enviromental impacts / International cooperation

10


to significant past research projects from previous Framework Programmes have been taken into account, since these appear to be particularly fruitful in terms of industrial outcome.

The report is organised as follows. Chapter 2 introduces the general characteristics of this theme and describes the current stage of development, plus current and future R&D challenges. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the relevant policy priorities at EU and national levels. Chapter 4 reports on the results from specific research projects and provides an overview of the gaps and topics for future research, as identified by the projects examined.

Chapter 5 introduces IEA Bioenergy Tasks, the international programme most relevant to bioenergy. Chapter 6 provides an updated picture of the state of the art and the technology perspective described in the technology map of the SET-Plan, based on the analysis of research results carried out in chapter 4. Chapter 7 gives an overview of public funding for RD&D, according to the IEA’s statistics for public funding of RD&D.

Finally, chapter 8 sets out key issues and recommendations.

The research projects identified for each of the sub-themes are set out in a table in Annex 2, including links to project websites (if available). In some cases these websites provide public project documentation, including final reports and selected deliverables.

11

2 Scope of the themeBioenergy is derived from the conversion of materials of biological origin. These include biomass feedstocks such as wood, wood waste, straw, manure, sugarcane and by-products from agricultural processes, as well as dedicated energy crops such as those from short-rotation forestry/short-rotation coppice (SRF/SRC), and energy grasses. Municipal waste and sewage are also considered feedstocks for bioenergy.

There are several conversion technologies at different stages of development, ranging from demonstration to commercial. They are based on thermochemical (combustion, pyrolysis and gasification) and biological (anaerobic digestion and fermentation) processes.

Bioenergy production involves a chain of activities from production of feedstocks to final conversion. Each activity poses different challenges. Sustainable production and use of feedstocks, particularly the issue of land use change, have been heavily debated within the context of biofuels for transport, yet are still to be resolved.

The different physical and chemical characteristics of bioenergy feedstocks are a major development challenge, since they can pose difficulties in handling, transport and final conversion. To make handling, transport and conversion more efficient and reduce the associated costs, biomass can be pre-treated. The most common forms of pre-treatment include drying, pelleting and briquetting. More advanced thermo-chemical pre-treatment technologies such as torrefaction and pyrolysis are in the R&D phase. These technologies increase the energy density of biomass feedstocks, benefiting both transport and final conversion.

Technologies for producing heat and electricity from biomass are well developed in many applications. Biomass combustion systems range from small domestic stoves rated at a few kilowatts up to more than 100 MW for boilers used in power and combined heat and power (CHP or cogeneration) plants. Co-firing in fossil-fired power plants is the most cost-effective and efficient option for electricity production. Direct co-firing with up to 10% biomass (measured on an energy basis) in pulverised-fuel and fluidised-bed boilers is successfully demonstrated and commercially available. However, issues related to feeding, fouling and ash disposal often require to be solved afresh for each project. State-of-the-art biomass combustion and co-firing systems achieve low emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and total organic carbon (TOC) (compared to fossil-fuel systems). Depending on biomass composition and plant configuration, however, ash-related problems can increase particulate emissions from biomass combustion units and cause internal problems due to slagging, deposit formation and corrosion. Moreover, technical developments are needed to enable a wide range of feedstocks – such as straw, grasses – to be used.

12


Anaerobic digestion – conversion of organic material to biogas in the absence of air – is a commercial technology for several feedstocks. This technology produces methane-rich biogas from wet biomass such as manure and crop residues, typically at decentralised sites close to the resources. Biogas can be used for local heating, district heating or CHP in small boilers, internal combustion engines and gas turbines. Biogas can also be upgraded in quality for injection into the natural gas network as biomethane – synthetic natural gas (SNG) – or for direct use in vehicles powered by gas engines. A number of upgrading technologies operate commercially, including absorption and pressure swing adsorption (PSA). New systems using membranes and cryogenics are at the demonstration stage. Research (on technology optimisation, pre-treatment, etc.) is being carried out to improve technical performance and economics.

In recent decades biomass gasification has been regarded as a promising technology because of its large potential and the option of advanced applications at high temperatures. Although ongoing research and development (R&D) into gasification techniques is extensive, at both national and international levels, large-scale biomass gasification for power generation is associated with technical and economic risks. The technical hurdles include handling of mixed feedstocks, high-pressure solids feeders and ash discharge systems; real-time monitoring and timely control of critical gasifier operating parameters; minimising tar formation in gasification; removal of hot gas particulates, tar, alkali, chlorides and ammonia; heat recovery; conventional gas cleanup, wastewater treatment and effluent management; and process scale-up.

Though there has been significant progress in bioenergy production and use, further R&D will be necessary to accelerate the penetration of bioenergy applications into the energy market. This report looks at the current stage of development and future R&D challenges related to supply of sustainable feedstocks, pre-treatment, and final conversion technologies. The report is limited to electricity and heat production; biorefineries and biofuels for transport are covered in another dedicated TRS.

The report is organised on the basis of several sub-themes (Table 2):

Table 2: Sub-themes

Sub-theme Description1 Biomass feedstock supply and sustainability2 Pre-treatment technologies

2.1 Torrefaction2.2 Pyrolysis3 Final conversion technologies

3.1 Combustion3.2 Co-firing3.3 Anaerobic digestion3.4 Gasification

13

3 Policy context

3.1 EU policy frameworkThe principles of EU energy policy are based on the need for sustainable, competitive and secure energy. In 2007, the EU committed to become a highly energy-efficient, low-carbon economy. In 2009 a climate change and energy package was adopted, with a set of binding legislation which aims to ensure that the EU meets its ambitious targets: a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; raising the share of energy produced from renewable resources to 20%; and a 20% improvement in energy efficiency. Consequently, bioenergy is promoted at EU-level with a view to reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels, reducing GHG emissions, and supporting competitive energy systems. Furthermore, bioenergy policies are also directed towards generating employment in agricultural and rural areas, and promoting innovation and technology development.

The Renewable Energy Directive (RED, EC, 2009) sets national renewable energy targets for all Member States in order to achieve an EU-wide 20% share of energy from renewable sources by 2020 and a national 10% share of renewable energy in the transport sector. Bioenergy is expected to make a substantial contribution to supplying Europe’s renewable energy demand. According to the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP) submitted to the Commission by each Member State, biomass is projected to account for almost 19% of final renewable electricity demand by 2020 and 80% of final heat demand from renewable energy. The contribution of bioenergy to gross electricity and heat consumption is expected to increase from the current 9% to 13% in 2020, with a significant increase in absolute values (Beurskens and Hekkenberg, 2011).

More recently, the European Commission Communication A Policy Framework for Climate and Energy in the Period From 2020 to 2030 considers a 40% reduction in GHG emissions below the 1990 level, an EU-wide binding target for renewable energy of at least 27%, renewed ambitions for energy efficiency policies, a new governance system, and a set of new indicators to ensure a competitive and secure energy system.

Among the Commission’s long-term policy plans, the Roadmap for Moving to a Competitive Low-Carbon Economy in 2050 and the Energy Roadmap 2050 (EC, 2011) intend to facilitate the sustainable use of resources in. The Energy Roadmap 2050 foresees an important role for bioenergy in delivering an 80–95% reduction in EU GHG emissions by 2050 compared to 1,990 levels.

14


The Strategic Energy Technologies Plan (SET-Plan), launched by the Commission in 2007, establishes an energy technology policy for Europe to accelerate the development and deployment of cost-effective low-carbon technologies.

Supply of bioenergy from agriculture and forestry and its use on farms and in rural areas is also encouraged by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The rural development policy provides a variety of measures to support bioenergy production and consumption.

Table 3 lists some of the most important policy documents.

Table 3: List of relevant policy documents

Relevant policy documents

1. COM(2014) 15 final. A Policy Framework for Climate and Energy in the Period from 2020 to 2030

2. COM(2013) 169 final. Green Paper. A 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy Policies

3. COM(2012) 271 final. Renewable Energy: A Major Player in the European Energy Market.

4. COM(2011) 21. A resource-efficient Europe – flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 strategy

5. COM(2011) 112 final. A Roadmap for Moving to a Competitive Low-Carbon Economy in 2050.

6. COM(2011) 885 final. Energy Roadmap 2050

7. COM(2011) 571. The Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe

8. COM(2010) 639 final. Energy 2020 - A strategy for competitive, sustainable and secure energy

9. COM(2008) 306 final. CAP Health Check

10. DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC. Renewable Energy Directive (RED)

11. DIRECTIVE 2009/30/EC. Fuel Quality Directive

3.1.1 Current policy issuesSustainability issues around biofuel production for the transport sector have been addressed under the RED (EC, 2009). This sets out mandatory criteria to achieve GHG reductions compared to fossil fuels and to mitigate risks related to areas of high biodiversity value and areas of high carbon stock. The mitigation criteria cover emissions related to direct land-use changes.

The European Parliament and Council asked the European Commission to examine the issue of indirect land-use change and how to avoid it. In 2012 the Commission presented its proposal (EC, 2012) for

15

amendments of the RED and Fuel Quality Directives. The proposal aims to limit the contribution of food-based biofuels to 5% within the overall 10% renewable transport target. On September 11, 2013, the European Parliament adopted the amendment with a number of revisions. Final adoption is expected in 2014.

In 2010, the European Commission presented a report on sustainability requirements for the use of solid biomass and biogas in electricity, heating and cooling. The report recommends sustainability criteria to be used by those Member States that wish to introduce a scheme at national level, to avoid obstacles to the functioning of the internal market for biomass. The Commission is currently finalizing a new analysis on the issue of biomass sustainability.

3.1.2 Relevant policy initiativesThe European Industrial Bioenergy Initiative (EIBI) is one of six European Industrial Initiatives launched by the SET-Plan in 2009. It aims to boost the contribution of sustainable bioenergy to EU 2020 climate and energy achievements, with a focused approach that will use public-private partnership to share financing and manage the risks. The EIBI will support demonstration and reference plants for innovative bioenergy value chains that are still not commercially available and that could be deployed at large scale. The EIBI covers four thermochemical and three biochemical value chains (Table 4).

Table 4: Innovative bioenergy value chains, with their complementary measures and activities

Generic value- chains Main marketsThermochemical pathways1. Synthetic fuels/hydrocarbons from

biomass via gasificationRenewable transport fuels

2. Biomethane and other gaseous fuels from biomass gasification

Substituting natural gas and other gaseous fuels

3. High-efficiency power generation via gasification of biomass

Power and heat

4. Bioenergy carriers via other thermochemical processes (e.g. pyrolysis, torrefaction)

Fuels for heating and power generation, and intermediates for upgrading into transport fuels

Biochemical pathways5. Ethanol and higher alcohols from

sugar via fermentationRenewable transport fuels

6. Renewable hydrocarbons from sugar-containing biomass via biological and/or chemical processes

Renewable transport fuels

7. Bioenergy carriers from CO2 and light via microorganisms, and the upgrading of these into transport fuel and valuable bioproducts

Renewable transport fuels

16


Complementary measures and activitiesBiomass feedstocks for bioenergyLonger-term RD&D activities on emerging and innovative bioenergy value chains

In parallel, the European Energy Research Alliance (EERA) has been working to align the R&D activities of individual research organisation with SET-Plan priorities to determine a joint programming framework at EU level. The Joint Programme on Bioenergy, launched in 2010, will develop new technologies and improve the competiveness of next-generation biofuels through four main sub-programmes:

Figure 1: EERA Joint Programme schematic

Source: EERA, 2013.

Eight EU Member States and Associated Countries, including the UK, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland, are also implementing the ERA-NET Plus activity Bioenergy Sustaining the Future (BESTF). This activity will provide funding and support to collaborative bioenergy projects that demonstrate one or more innovative steps resulting in demonstration at a pre-commercial stage. BESTF funds will be used to support bioenergy demonstration projects that fit into one or more of seven EIBI value chains. The original BESTF call for bioenergy demonstrations is closed, but there is a new call known as BESTF2. This will encourage collaboration across the EU by bringing partners together to deliver demonstration projects, and encourage commercialisation by ensuring strong industry leadership.

17

3.2 Goals, progress and incentivesArticle 4 of the RED requires each Member State to adopt an NREAP and submit it to the European Commission.

These plans set out each Member State’s national targets for the share of energy from renewable sources to be used for transport, electricity and heating and cooling in 2020, and so demonstrate how the Member States will meet their overall national targets established under the Directive. While the goals set for each renewable energy source may change over time, they show the ambitions of the Member States and the roles foreseen for different renewable energy resources. In this regard, comparing the 2010 and 2020 bioenergy goals of the Member States with current figures can shed some light on how far the EU27 countries have moved towards their policy ambitions.

Figure 2 and Figure 3 compare progress in 2010 with NREAP data for 2010 and 2020. The figures clearly show that the EU27 as a whole have met their 2010 NREAP goals and are already more than half-way to their 2020 targets for bioenergy production.

Figure 2: Bioelectricity figures for selected Member States: 2010 achievements compared to NREAP 2010 and 2020 targets (Uslu & van Stralen, 2011)

18


Figure 3: Bio-heat figures for selected Member States: 2010 achievements compared to NREAP 2010 and 2020 targets (Uslu & van Stralen, 2011)

The national support schemes consist of varying combinations of feed-in tariffs, feed-in premiums, quota obligations, investment grants, tax incentives and other fiscal incentives. Countries such as Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Spain, and the Netherlands use feed-in tariffs or feed-in premiums. In Germany the feed-in tariff is in the range 6.0–14.3 €cent per kWh, depending on the plant size, whereas in Austria it is 10.94–20.0 €cent per kWh (for applications submitted in 2013). Tax regulation mechanisms (subsidy combined with tax exemption) are also applicable in countries including the Netherlands, France, Greece, Italy, Spain and the UK. In the UK biomass is promoted through a quota system (RES LEGAL, 2013).

3.3 Bioenergy outlookThe future development of bioenergy systems depends on the economic frameworks created by Member States. Sustainability, efficiency and cost-competiveness are the key requirements for further development. The NREAPs of the Member States and the EU Energy Roadmap 2050 together indicate how EU bioenergy production may develop in the coming decades.

The NREAPS present the bioenergy deployment ambitions of each Member State up to 2020. Alongside these, the EU Energy Roadmap 2050 acknowledges the importance of bioenergy in decarbonising the EU energy system. It states that ‘decarbonisation will require a large quantity of biomass for heat, electricity and transport’. Error! Reference source not found. presents the bioenergy demand in each scenario of

19

the Roadmap. The reference scenario reflects NREAP demands up to 2020, with growth stabilising thereafter. The ‘High RES’ scenario, on the other hand, assumes increasing demand up to 2050.

Figure 4: Energy production from biomass and waste based on the EU Energy Roadmap 2050

20


4 Research findings

4.1 IntroductionR&D on the sustainable and reliable supply of biomass feedstocks includes methodologies for assessing biomass availability, sustainable production, management, and technologies for harvesting and transport.

When it comes to energy conversion technologies, R&D efforts focus on feedstock-flexible thermochemical and biochemical pathways. Advanced pre-treatment technologies such as torrefaction and pyrolysis can help to overcome downstream technical issues caused by the varying characteristics of biomass feedstocks. Furthermore, they can convert raw biomass into fuels that are easier to handle, denser and more homogeneous; this reduces supply-chain costs and increases the efficiency and reliability of downstream processes.

R&D related to final conversion technologies in general focuses on improving energy efficiency, decreasing capital costs, and scaling up the most efficient technologies by overcoming techno-economic hurdles.

The three sub-themes referred to in this chapter cover the whole bioenergy chain, from biomass supply to final conversion. Sub-section 1, ‘Biomass supply’, focuses on the projects dedicated to assessment of sustainable biomass production. Sub-section 2, ‘Pre-treatment technologies’, includes research projects on novel technologies such as torrefaction and pyrolysis. Sub-section 3, ‘Conversion to heat and electricity’, focuses on final conversion technologies to convert biomass into heat and electricity.

4.1.1 Relevant policy initiativesThe main sources of information for this chapter are the EU-funded bioenergy projects themselves. We have assessed FP6, FP7, IEE, and national projects covering heat and electricity production from biomass. Programmes such as ERA-NET Bioenergy, Network of Excellence (NoE), IEA Bioenergy, CENBIO and Bioenergy 2020 are also included.

The selection criteria for the projects are:

• Published after 2007;• Has significantly influenced the development of bioenergy

technologies; and• Finalised, and with publicly available results.

21

4.1.2 List of projects sorted by sub-themesTable 5: Projects sorted by sub-themes

Project acronymProject budget (EUR)1

Sub

-the

me

1: B

iom

ass

feed

stoc

k su

pply

CEUBIOM 1,340,827BEE 2,820,807BIONORM II 3,989,476Biomass Futures 1,490,386ERA-NET Bioenergy CREFF 774,000ERA-NET RATING-SRC 830,000ERA-NET BREDNet-SRCEU Wood

Sub

-the

me

2:Pr

e-tr

eatm

ent Pyrolysis

BIOBOOST 7,252,194EMPYRO 9,155,978TEKES BioRefineBIOLIQ-CHP 4,309,697

Torrefaction

TorTechSECTOR 10,288,836TorrChanceSTOP

Sub

-the

me

3:

Fina

l con

vers

ion

CombustionCo-firing

EU-UltraLowDust 4,208,780BioCAT 1,494,176BIOASH 2,921,305Ashmelt 2,021,975ENERCORN 10,820,598ERA-NET Development of Test Methods for Non Wood Small-Scale Combustion Plants

347,099

ERA-NET BIOMASS-PM 571,104ERA-NET Small Scale Biomass-Fired CHP Systems

3,550,153

ERA-NET COPECOM 295,870DEBCO 7,129,045

Anaerobic digestion

VALORGAS 4,657,517BIOGAS CASTILLA LA MANCHA 350,667Agrobiogas 2,891,939BiogasIN 1,508,188ERA-NET Small But EfficientERA-NET AmbiGAS

1 Project budgets are stated where available.

22


Gasification

UNIQUE 3,721,305GreenSyngas 4,089,167ERA-NET Tar removal from low-temperature gasifiers

744,000

Gasification Guide 1,041,163ERA-NET Energy Efficient Selective Reforming of Hydrocarbons

738,158

ERA-NET EMF 856,133ERA-NET Synclean 940,116ERA-NET Proof of Principle

4.2 Sub-theme 1: Biomass feedstock supply4.2.1 Research objectives and R&D challengesA sufficient and secure supply of affordable, high-quality and sustainable feedstock is one of the most critical steps in enabling a bioenergy industry. As such a large number of studies have focused on assessing biomass supply potentials. In their report the BEE consortium (see below) compiled a database of about 250 types of assessment, with a large variation of supply potentials (BEE, 2010). These differences are due to the different approaches applied in the assessments – such as demand for food, soil and water constraints, biodiversity and nature preservation requirements, and a variety of other sustainability issues. While such different approaches reflect the complexity of user needs and the corresponding boundary conditions, a harmonised methodology for assessing bioenergy is needed to support the policy-making process.

Currently most common bioenergy feedstocks are wood, agricultural wastes and residues, and conventional food crops (for biofuel production). In the longer term, lignocellulosic crops – both perennial herbaceous crops such as switchgrass and Miscanthus, and woody crops, such as willow, poplar and eucalyptus species, are likely to play an important role. Their farming practices, harvesting technologies, storage and transport are in the scope of current R&D.

4.2.2 Research projects and resultsThe CEUBIOM (Classification of European Biomass Potential For Bioenergy Using Terrestrial and Earth Observations) project focuses on a common methodology for gathering data on biomass potential using terrestrial and earth observation (EO) techniques. It includes existing data from European, national and regional records, together with information collected in the field. The initial goal was to develop a single harmonised approach to European biomass assessment for energy, with special emphasis on south-eastern Europe and the western Balkans. During the course of the project it was decided to

23

define two approaches instead of the original single approach. The basic approach focuses on costs, providing options to integrate data produced for other purposes or in other projects. Spatial thematic details are covered in the advanced approach, which considers more advanced remote sensing tools and methods. The suggested assessment method does not take economic boundary conditions into account, but it does enable the calculation of technical-sustainable potential. The project outcome is considered to be the first proposal for a European harmonised biomass potential assessment framework. It should be considered as a basis for discussions and a guideline for implementation.

The Biomass Energy Europe (BEE) project also aims to increase the accuracy and reliability of biomass assessments by establishing a common methodology. The project identifies best practices applied in different regions and to different biomass types. The major focus of the project has been on harmonising methods and datasets. The sectors investigated are forestry, energy crops, residues from traditional agriculture, and waste. A database of around 250 bioenergy potential assessments was compiled, out of which 28 studies were selected for detailed analysis.

The main product of this project is a two-volume handbook. The first volume, Best Practices and Methods, provides best practice methods for determining biomass resource potentials, and gives terms and definitions to guide the transparent presentation of results. The second volume, Data Sources Handbook, provides information on the datasets needed to conduct a biomass resource assessment.

While the first two projects concentrate on methodologies for assessing the availability of biomass feedstocks, the FP6 BIONORM II project focuses on providing a scientific background for the European standardisation of solid biofuels. The project supports standardisation efforts for the development of improved solid biofuel specifications to meet the requirements of combustion processes. This project acknowledges that further research is needed on fuel classification, quality assurance, sampling and testing methods and procedures. Recommendations on further work are to:

• Improve the accuracy of data on sampling and testing methods;• Extend sampling and sample preparation to a broader range

of solid biofuel materials, i.e. less common biomass with high variations in fuel properties, such as olive and grape residues, fruit shells and stones, and roadside vegetation;

• Extend testing to other fuel parameters such as particle size and shape, bridging behaviour, impurities and fungal contamination;

• Improve and develop both reference and rapid test methods (e.g. for ash melting behaviour, chlorine, potassium, nitrogen, sulphur and heavy metals); and

• Investigate the effects of companies’ quality planning and quality control systems.

24


The Biomass Futures (IEE) project has carried out a comprehensive strategic analysis of biomass supply options and their availability in response to different demands from 2010 to 2030. Biomass supplies and costs are presented for 2010, 2020 and 2030. The potential assessments are based on two different scenarios. Scenario 1, the reference scenario, considers the sustainability criteria as laid down in the RED Directive (sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids), the second scenario - the so-called sustainability scenario - applies binding sustainability criteria to all bioenergy consumed in the EU. It sets a 70% mitigation target for bioenergy as compared to the fossil fuel comparators in 2020. In 2030 this target increases to 80% . Furthermore, the limitations related to the use of biomass from biodiverse land and land with high carbon stock apply to all bioenergy sectors. This study calculates bioenergy potential to be in the range of 375-429 Mtoe in 2020 and 353-411 Mtoe in 2030 (the lower figures representing the results of the sustainability scenario and the higher figures - the reference scenario).

A Joint Call on Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) for woody species, launched within the framework of ERA-NET Bioenergy, aims to generate joint European R&D activities on three topics:

1. Genetic improvement of Salix and other woody short rotation coppice (SRC) species;

2. Improving the SRC value chain; and3. Environmental aspects of SRC.

So far three projects have been funded: CREFF, BREDNet-SRC and RATING-SRC.

• The ERA-NET project CREFF (Cost Reduction and Efficiency Improvement of Short Rotation Coppice) aims to implement cost-efficient SRC value chains in regions with unfavourable conditions. The project covers all the process steps in the value chain. Its results include recommendations to optimise the management of the plantation as a whole (producer-consumer co-operation, products, plantation design, plant material, fertilisation, harvest and logistics, fuel quality and conditioning methods). Some tools have been developed to help stakeholders in their decision-making. A technical guide (in French) has been developed for interested farmers, explaining every step involved in running an SRC plantation. A spreadsheet model, the ‘KUP Ernteplaner’ (in German) allows SRC farmers to accurately plan their harvesting operations and related logistics.

• BREDNet-SRC addresses our understanding of the genetic basis of yield across varied European environments through breeding programmes, and provides molecular tools for selection. The research will focus on a Salix viminalis association mapping population generated from the unique germplasm resources held by Rothamsted Research and by the project’s Swedish partners.

25

After first assessing population structure in the germplasm, suitable material (~400 genotypes) will be planted at seven contrasting sites across Europe and key biomass-related traits will be assessed.

• RATING-SRC (Reducing Environmental Impacts of SRC Through Evidence-based Integrated Decision Support Tools) aims to evaluate the impact of SRC – positive and negative – on soil, water, biodiversity and landscape issues, and to propose ways to mitigate negative and increase positive impacts.

EUWood, on the other hand, focuses on woody biomass. It brings together data and analyses from a wide range of sources in a comprehensive and structured framework known as the Wood Resource Balance. The project also offers a detailed and transparent estimate of future potential wood supply in Europe. The analyses show that there is a large potential supply of wood from forests and other sources. It is not, however, possible to assess whether this potential could become economically available. The present study compares the potential demand for wood with the potential supply. However, it is not clear whether the different types of wood that could be supplied are suitable for the needs of forest-based industries and energy use. The potential supply from forests is estimated for three mobilisation scenarios (high, medium, low). On the demand side, two developments of gross national product (GDP) are calculated which are in line with the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scenarios A1 and B2. The potential in 2010 (994 M m³) is considerably higher than the demand (826 M m³) indicating that the wood supply in Europe is not being over-exploited at present. In the medium mobilisation scenario potential demand will overtake potential supply between 2015 and 2020. To a significant extent, growth in potential woody biomass supply goes hand in hand with the prosperous development of the wood industry. The most significant change is the higher demand for energy wood to achieve the target of “20% by 2020”. As pointed out in the EUWood Report: “even if all measures for increased wood mobilisation are implemented, wood industry demand and renewable energy targets can hardly be satisfied from domestic sources in 2020”. The total demand for woody biomass is estimated to increase from almost 800 M m³ to nearly 1,400 M m³ in the A1 scenario and to about 100 M m³ less in the B2 scenario.

4.3 Sub-theme 2: Generation of bioenergy carriersCompared to fossil fuels, biomass has a lower energy density and is more variable in its physical nature, making handling, transport and storage more complex and expensive. The chemical composition and moisture content of biomass feedstocks vary considerably. For these reasons biomass pre-treatment techniques are used to convert

26


raw biomass into fuels that are easier to handle, denser and more homogeneous. This reduces supply chain costs and increases the efficiency and reliability of downstream processes.

Technologies such as pelletisation and briquetting have been widely used, but only with a narrow feedstock base that includes wood chips and sawdust. Among a number of technologies, pyrolysis and torrefaction stand out as promising technological options, attracting significant interest and financial resources for further technological development and commercialisation.

4.3.1 Pyrolysis4.3.1.1 OverviewPyrolysis is the thermal decomposition of biomass that occurs at high temperatures (around 400–450 °C) in the absence of oxygen. This technology produces a liquid (commonly called pyrolysis oil or bio-oil), a solid (charcoal) and gas. The proportions of these three co-products depend on the temperature and the residence time of the hot vapour used in the process. There are two types of pyrolysis; slow and fast. Slow pyrolysis takes place over longer residence times and the main product is charcoal. Fast pyrolysis, on the other hand, uses short residence times (less than two seconds) and aims to produce bio-oil.

The main product of fast pyrolysis, bio-oil, is obtained at yields of up to 75% wt. on a dry feed basis, together with by-product char and gas. The latter are used within the process to provide the heat required, so there are no waste streams other than flue gas and ash. Fast pyrolysis requires the feed to be dried to typically less than 10% water to minimise the amount of water in the product bio-oil (although up to 15% can be acceptable), and ground to around 2 mm in the case of fluidised-bed reactors to ensure rapid reaction. The remaining process steps are the pyrolysis reaction itself, separation of solids (char), quenching and collection of the bio-oil. Any form of biomass can be considered for fast pyrolysis. While most work has been carried out on wood due to its consistency, and for comparability between tests, nearly 100 different biomass types have been tested by many laboratories. These range from agricultural wastes such as straw, olive pits and nut shells to energy crops such as Miscanthus and sorghum, forestry wastes such as bark, and solid wastes such as sewage sludge and leather wastes.

A key advantage of this technology is that it converts a bulky feedstock into a higher-value, energy-dense product that is easily transportable. Pyrolysis oil has a calorific value of about 17.5 MJ/kg and an energy density of 20–30 GJ/m3 – about twice that of pellets, though still only half that of biodiesel.

Investment costs for CHP (5 MWe) based on pyrolysis with an internal combustion engine or gas turbine are given as 2 100–2 400 €/kWe (Thornley et al. 2009).

27

4.3.1.2 Research objectives and R&D challengesFast pyrolysis has seen extensive development efforts over the last 30 years (IEA, 2009). The technology has been demonstrated at small scale, and large pilot plants or demonstration projects (up to 200 tonnes/day biomass feed capacity) are in operation or at an advanced stage of construction (Pyne, 2013). However, commercialisation of pyrolysis technology faces economic and other non-technical barriers.

One of the key challenges is to improve the quality and consistency of the pyrolysis oil in terms of moisture content, contaminants, corrosiveness, viscosity and stability (bio-oil tends to degrade and separate over time).

Another challenge is that current technology produces a bio-oil composed of more than 300 chemicals. New techniques for improving the control of bio-oil composition are required to make this technology more attractive.

There is also a need for standardised bio-oil grades for combustion applications, allowing the creation of reliable bio-oil combustion systems that operate at high efficiency. International standards, norms, specifications and guidelines should be defined and created.

In terms of reactor technologies, fluidised-bed reactors offer robustness and scalability, but heat transfer at large scales may be an issue. Circulating fluidised-bed and transported-bed reactors may overcome the heat transfer problem, but scaling with these reactors is not yet proven and there is a char attrition problem. Intensive mechanical devices such as ablative and rotating cone reactors are more compact and do not require fluidising gas, but may suffer from scaling problems (Pyne, 2013).

There are also technical challenges relating to scale-up, particularly concerning heat transfer. Several types of reactors are under investigation, but no prevailing design has emerged yet (IEA, 2009).

Finally, the cost of bio-oil production is still uncertain and requires further research.

4.3.1.3 Research projects and resultsThe BIOLIQ-CHP project aims to create knowledge and technology know-how on pyrolysis, upgrading of the resulting bioliquids to fuels and subsequent electricity generation in engines and gas turbines. The work focuses on identifying and implementing modifications that would enable the use of bioliquids, including two internal combustion engines, a newly developed external combustion engine and a micro gas turbine.

Several fuel batches have been produced or purchased, characterised and upgraded. These bioliquids include pyrolysis oil made from pine and straw, straight vegetable oil (i.e. sunflower oil), and biodiesel. The bioliquids obtained have been characterised and their ageing behaviour monitored. Research activities focus on preparing upgraded

28


blends or emulsions that can be used in engines and gas turbines. For pyrolysis oil, different upgrading approaches have been investigated.

The main results from the project can be categorised into three groups: fuels, engine components and engines. The knowledge generated on removing solids from pyrolysis oil is valuable for nearly every pyrolysis oil application. This knowledge has already been incorporated in the design of the fast pyrolysis demonstration plant that is being implemented in Hengelo (NL) by the FP7-supported EMPYRO project. It is the intention that pyrolysis oil will be used to substitute natural gas or fuel oil, and these applications also require low-solid pyrolysis oil. Aston University will continue its work on fuel blends and will try to valorise its patent.

The 40-hour test run of the single-cylinder diesel engine is considered a major step forward, justifying further development work. Long-duration engine tests are in preparation, as well as the development of a 50 kWe four-cylinder prototype. A similar approach will be followed for the micro gas turbine. This requires further development of the fuel pump to achieve stable operation. The new heat engines, which will also require further development and demonstration, may be suitable for small-scale combustion of bioliquids. In addition, they can be profitably used for direct biomass / residue combustion.

Successful testing opens a huge, existing market of CHP units in the capacity range 50–1,000 kWe.

As mentioned above, the EMPYRO project aims to build and demonstrate a 25 MWth polygeneration pyrolysis plant to produce electricity, process steam and fuel oil from woody biomass. All the necessary permits were issued by the appropriate authorities in 2012. The project includes tests to characterise the operating window and performance of a standard oil-gas burner firing pyrolysis oil. The tests performed to date have generated valuable information on the handling and combustion of wood-based pyrolysis oil for heat generation. Preparations for the start of construction of the Empyro plant have entered their final stage. Empyro BV has contracted Zeton2 for the next step towards the creation of the fast pyrolysis plant in Hengelo. Zeton will provide the detailed design, procure the necessary equipment and manufacture the core components.

As part of the TEKES BioRefine research programme a bio-oil plant connected to a CHP plant is presently being constructed in Finland. The integrated CHP plant will produce heat, electricity and 50 000 tonnes/year of bio-oil. The raw materials will include forest residues and other wood-based biomass. This new technology has been developed into a commercial-scale concept as part of the research programme. The plant was expected to be in production in 2013.

2 Zeton is a company that designs and builds innovative lab scale systems, pilot plants, demonstration plants and small modular plants for process industries.

29

Parallel to the above demo plants and research, the BIOBOOST project is studying the conversion of dry and wet residual biomass and wastes into synthetic oil, coal or slurry via several routes: fast pyrolysis, catalytic pyrolysis and hydrothermal carbonisation. Major activities include analysis of the economic efficiency of the complete production pathways, optimisation of the logistic chains, and investigation of environmental compatibility. So far, several different types of biomass have been sourced and characterised as feedstocks for energy carrier production by each technology, and the energy carrier specifications which need to be met for final conversion have been published. The project started in 2012, so the bulk of the work is yet to be carried out.

4.3.2 Torrefaction4.3.2.1 OverviewTorrefaction is a thermochemical process in which biomass is heated in the absence of oxygen to a temperature of 200–300 °C. Compared to the original biomass, the torrefied product has a higher energy density, is easier to grind, and is more water-resistant, reducing the risk of biological degradation and consequent self-heating. The combination of torrefaction and pelletisation converts biomass into a solid bioenergy carrier with high energy density.

The net process energy efficiency of an integrated torrefaction process is approximately 70–98%, depending on the reactor technology, heat integration system design and biomass type. Torrefied biomass can be used for various applications; the most likely of these are co-firing with coal in pulverised coal-fired power plants and cement kilns, dedicated combustion in small-scale pellet burners, and gasification in entrained-flow gasifiers that normally operate on pulverised coal.

While the technology is not commercially available, a number of torrefaction initiatives have currently prompted construction and commissioning of the first commercial torrefaction plants.

4.3.2.2 Research objectives and R&D challengesThe most important technical challenges in the development of torrefaction technologies are related to process gas handling and contamination, process scale-up, predictability and consistency of product quality, densification of torrefied biomass, heat integration, and flexibility in using different input feedstocks (Koppejan et al., 2012). The single most significant challenge is to create a durable product that can withstand large-scale handling, which still remains to be proven. Another issue is that dust from torrefied material is explosive in high concentrations. Issues related to outdoor storage and the effects of dust leakage require further research.

Another important topic is the quality standardisation of products. This would accelerate market development and provide confidence to end-users.

30


The research objectives within this sub-theme can be summarised as:

• Convert residual biomass to optimised, high-energy-density carriers suitable for large-scale applications;

• Increase flexibility in the feedstocks used to produce energy;• Analyse the economic efficiency of the complete production

pathway, and optimise logistical chains; and• Support the market introduction of bioenergy carriers, further

develop technologies up to pilot scale and beyond, develop and standardise dedicated analysis and testing methods, and assess the sustainability of the complete value chains.

4.3.2.3 Research projects and resultsThe SECTOR research project focuses on further development of torrefaction-based technologies for the production of solid bioenergy carriers up to pilot-plant scale and beyond. In parallel to this, the project involves the assessment of selected logistics aspects and the use of torrefied products in existing conversion options, as well as fuel specification and testing methods. The project provides information on biomass properties and suitability for torrefaction, critical logistic steps when switching from coal to torrefied biomass, existing gaps in our knowledge of torrefied material, and the development of a material safety data sheet (MSDS) for torrefied material as fuel. SECTOR has conducted a validation exercise as a first step towards including torrefied biomass in international standards for solid biofuels. The project is also looking into optimisation opportunities by integrating torrefaction into existing industries.

At a national level the TorTech project in the Netherlands focuses on technology development for a variety of biomass and mixed biomass/waste feedstocks. The project comprises basic research, in which important aspects of torrefaction and pelletisation are investigated, the design, construction and initial operation of a pilot plant incorporating ECN’s torrefaction technology concept, small- and semi-industrial-scale pelletisation, and an economic and environmental (in terms of CO2 emissions) evaluation of the biomass-to-end-use value chain. The extensive torrefaction and pelletisation test work up to pilot-plant scale now forms a solid base for the scale-up and demonstration of the ECN technology. ECN has teamed up with industrial partners to first demonstrate the technology at a scale of several tonnes/hour, and then to pursue global commercial market introduction.

The TorrChance project, funded by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency, aims to analyse and assess the restraints and drivers for torrefied biomass on the Austrian energy market, and to identify minimum standards for the fuel in terms of logistics, storage and combustion. The focus is on costs along the value chain. The project has yielded new findings on fuel specifications for torrefied pellets, technology costs, pelletisation studies in a laboratory pellet press, storage and combustion experiments (Ehrig et al, 2013).

31

The STOP project, co-funded by the Norwegian Research Council, is looking into improved control of operating conditions in biomass and biomass residue combustion plants through the utilisation of more homogenous fuel with minimal seasonal variation. Other aims are to optimise the fuel in terms of pollutant emissions, and to improve fuel quality through torrefaction.

4.4 Sub-theme 3: Conversion to heat and electricity4.4.1 Biomass-to-heat technologiesThe direct burning of wood and other biomass feedstocks for domestic heating and cooking is the oldest energy technology used by mankind. Domestic biomass combustion technologies range from very inefficient devices (such as open fireplaces) to modern woodchip burners and pellet boilers with efficiencies up to 90% (IEA, 2008).

A range of biomass combustion systems is available for industrial purposes or district heating. Grate boilers and underfed stokers are the most common technologies for small-to-medium applications (200 kW–20 MW). Fluidised-bed technologies offer higher thermal efficiency and lower emissions of CO and NOx than fixed-bed furnaces, due to better control over combustion. Fluidised-bed technologies are also more tolerant of moisture content and the type of biomass used. Fluidised-bed technologies have higher capital and operating costs, though they yield significant economies of scale (IEA, 2009).

Production costs of biomass-based heating systems vary widely with size and fuel costs. District heating systems can be economic provided there is a high annual utilisation rate (>75%), since the cost of the heat distribution network accounts for 35–55% of the total. This can be difficult, as demand is rarely constant throughout the year. Thermo-economic optimisation of the network efficiency is also necessary (IEA, 2008).

The capital cost of biomass heat plants is in the range 300–700 €/kWth (Technology Map, 2011). Production costs of biomass-based heating systems are in the range of 8–99 €/GJ (the variation is due to differences in system size and fuel costs), with an average of 26 €/GJ. Around 4–5% cost reduction is expected through to 2030 as plant lifetime and efficiency increase (IEA, 2009).

4.4.2 Biomass-to-power technologiesSteam turbines and engines can convert the heat produced by direct combustion in boilers into electricity. However, the overall electrical efficiency is limited by the low efficiency of the steam cycle. The efficiency of electrical generation alone typically ranges from about 10% for small CHP plants (<1 MWe steam engine) up to 40% (<50 MWe) for steam turbines combined with the most advanced fluidised-

32


bed combustion technology (IEA, 2008 a). The rest of the energy from the combustion is lost as waste heat to air or water. By making use of waste heat, CHP (cogeneration) plants have typical overall efficiencies of 80–90%, provided that a good match can be found between heat production and heat demand (IEA, 2008 b).

Municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration plants are generally large in scale, but corrosion problems limit the process steam temperature and so reduce the electrical conversion efficiency to about 22%. New-generation CHP plant designs using MSW are, however, expected to reach 28–30% electrical efficiency (IEA, 2007; IEA, 2009).

Dedicated biomass power plants can be competitive when they can use large quantities of free waste, such as black liquor from pulp mills, MSW or bagasse. Cogeneration has been shown to reduce the cost of power production by 40–60% for standalone plants in the range 1–30 MWe. As indicated above, the scale of biomass CHP plants is often limited by the local heat demand and its seasonal variation, which can significantly affect economic return unless absorption cooling is also considered (IEA, 2009). Investment costs for biomass-based power generation vary significantly by technology and country. The total capital cost of a stoker boiler was 1,412–3,216 €/kWe in 2010, while costs for circulating fluidised-bed boilers were in the range 1,638–3,397 €/kWe (IRENA, 2012). CHP technologies had capital costs of 2,680–5,148 €/kWe in 2010. The wide range of biomass-fired power generation technologies and feedstock costs results in an even greater spread in the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) of biomass-fired power generation, from a low of 4.53 €cent/kWh to a high of 21.89 €cent/kWh (IRENA, 2012).

The ORC engine can offer technical and economic advantages (e.g. low process temperatures, allowing the use of a thermal oil heater instead of a more expensive high-temperature steam boiler, and low operating cost) (Obernberger and Biedermann, 2005). The gross efficiency of ORC engines can reach 17%. However, the net efficiency can be significantly lower due to the relatively high power consumption of ORC units (IEA, 2008). Even though the ORC is a well-proven technology (e.g. in geothermal applications) only a few ORC plants operate on biomass (e.g. in Austria and the Netherlands). The efficiency and reliability of this technology still need some improvement. The specific investment costs of ORC processes are in the range 6,000–9,000 €/kWe (Technology Map, 2011).

Another technology, the Stirling engine, is promising for domestic cogeneration. This technology is at the pilot-to-demonstration stage and requires further improvements, in particular to improve the conversion efficiency (from 12–20% up to 28%) and scale up to 150 kWe (IEA, 2009). Research projects on biomass-powered Stirling engines are very few, with some efforts under way in Germany with pellets. Both Stirling engine and the ORC are promising technologies for small CHP systems.

33

4.4.3 R&D challengesR&D on combustion technologies focuses on increasing thermal efficiency and developing small-scale technologies that can burn biomass types other than wood. The broad variety of properties of solid biomass poses a big challenge to combustion technologies. Apart from emissions and problems related to corrosion, ash melting and slag formation in the grate section of combustion units are issues that require further R&D. Another important R&D effort is on further reduction of emissions of volatile compounds to meet environmental regulations, particularly for small-scale combustion units. Although biomass is considered a low-impact fuel in terms of its net carbon balance, biomass combustion systems do emit pollutants such as particulates (PM), carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOC or OGC). There are also concerns regarding the production of persistent organic pollutants (POP) as they are suspected to bio-accumulate throughout the food chain, leading to concerns about human toxicity.

4.4.3.1 Research projects and resultsThe BIOASH project focuses on R&D concerning ash-related problems in biomass combustion and co-firing of biomass in coal-fired plants. The main objectives of the project are to investigate the release of ash-forming compounds from biomass fuels in fixed-bed and pulverised-fuel combustion systems, to investigate the melting behaviour of ashes rich in sodium, zinc and lead, to further develop simulation tools for aerosol and deposit formation, and to develop and test a new technology (an aerosol condenser) for efficient and cost-effective aerosol precipitation in small biomass combustion units. The project is also investigating the influence of particulate emissions from biomass combustion and co-firing plants on regional air quality and other health-related parameters. Still being studied are:

• The release of ash-forming elements in fluidised-bed combustion;• ‘New’ biomass fuels such as agricultural fuels and agro-industrial

residues;• Investigation of the influence of fuel blending and the use of

additives on ash formation and melting;• Further work on the corrosive potential of aerosols and fly ash;• Further development and validation of models;• Long-term testing of the aerosol condenser; and• The influence of combustion quality on health effects caused by

particulate emissions from residential heating systems.

Ashmelt is looking into the ash melting characteristics of solid biofuels. The project aims to develop a test method for the assessment of ash melting characteristics, to specify ash melting classes for solid biofuels, and to work out a proposal for a European standard for the chosen test method. 15 different biomass fuels, including both wood and non-wood materials and covering a broad range of slagging

34


behaviour, were selected for laboratory and larger-scale testing. The slagging behaviour and suitability of each fuel was then determined for the various combustion systems being studied. Three pre-selected testing methods were evaluated by using them to determine the slagging behaviour of each of the different biofuels, and the ash fusion temperatures of all the fuels was determined. All the lab tests are now finished and the basis for the decision on the final choice of method is being prepared.

Clean Air Technology for Biomass Combustion Systems (BioCAT) focuses on emissions from small-scale biomass combustion systems. The project aims to develop a new generation of biomass-based room heating appliances. By adding a new oxidation catalyst system to existing or newly developed appliances, the researchers aim to reduce emissions from small log-fired combustion systems. In the course of the project, four different direct heating appliances have been developed by implementing tailored primary measures as a first step; the second step then involves adding an oxidation catalyst as an emission abatement technology. Extensive pre-tests of the catalytic material have been carried out. A third step will evaluate how the presence of the catalyst affects the primary combustion conditions.

The main objective of the ENERCORN project is to design, develop, construct and operate a grid-connected 16 MWe high-energy-efficiency demonstration power plant in Spain to be 100% fuelled by corn stover. This project will demonstrate high availability (over 8 000 hours/year), overall economics and technical feasibility, and encourage the development of similar power plants in Europe. This project aims to increase net efficiency to 30.5% (from the typical range of 25–30% ) and to produce steam at high temperature and pressure from its boiler. It will also develop a steam turbine with three steam bleeding stages to provide thermal energy to three different parts of the process; conventional steam turbines in the 10–20 MW range, in contrast, have just one bleed point or none at all, thus wasting much of the steam’s thermal energy. The project’s web page does not show the current status.

The Small Scale Combustion Joint Call of the ERA-NET Bioenergy framework covers four projects:

• Development of Test Methods for Non Wood Small-Scale Combustion Plants: A best practice guideline is prepared as a proposal for an international standard for the testing of automatically stoked boilers up to 400 kW burning non-wood solid biomass fuels. It is recommended that a European standard regulating the requirements for testing small-scale furnaces for non-wood biofuels should be established.

• BIOMASS-PM, Clean Biomass Combustion in Residential Heating: Particulate Measurements, sampling and Physicochemical and Toxicological Characterisation: A best practice guideline for particle measurement is being developed. Common requirements

35

for toxicological studies – aerosol exposure as well as particulate collection methods – are given. Toxicological studies related to chemical composition of particles can be used to identify incorrect operation of devices.

• Small Scale Biomass-Fired CHP Systems: A small-scale biomass-fired CHP (2 kWe) with ORC is developed, modelled and tested. Power generation with the experimental system indicated that ORC-based power generation can be applied to biomass-fired CHP in the 1–10 kWe range. Both modelling and laboratory testing indicates that the total efficiency of the CHP system can be 80% or higher. The highest achievable electrical efficiency of the CHP system is in the range 4.3–8.5%. The electrical efficiency of the CHP system achieved with the existing turbine-pulley-alternator set is only about 1.1%.

• COPECOM, Control Potential of Different Operating Methods in Small-Scale Wood Pellet Combustion: The aim of this project is to compare the control potential of different domestic wood pellet burners (<20 kW) based on direct combustion and on gasification. A comprehensive monitoring method for small-scale wood-pellet combustion is achieved, which provides upgraded information on how to control the process to achieve higher efficiency with minimised emissions. However, a lot of work is still necessary to make such a concept for estimating efficiency, flue gas and air flow based on physical and data-based models commercially available in combustion units.

4.4.4 Co-firing4.4.4.1 OverviewBiomass co-firing (or co-combustion) is the use of biomass feedstock in existing fossil-based power plans (mostly pulverised coal). The simplest method is to feed biomass directly into the existing coal furnace (direct co-firing). Another option is for the biomass to undergo preliminary gasification, and to burn the resulting syngas (indirect co-firing). The third option is parallel co-firing, where the biomass is combusted in a dedicated boiler and the resulting steam is used alongside that from the coal boilers.

Direct co-firing is a commercial operation widely used around the world. The main biomass feedstocks used are wood and herbaceous biomass, crop residues and energy crops. This technology is currently the most cost-effective way of producing electricity from biomass. Minor investment is required to adapt handling and feeding equipment, provided that the biomass is not too wet and has been pre-milled to a suitable size. The biomass co-firing ratio is, in most cases, limited to around 5–10% (on a heat input basis). The capital cost for retrofitting an existing coal power plant for biomass co-firing is estimated at 106–642 €/kWe, while the LCOE is calculated to be in the range of 3.0–9.8 €cent/kWh (IRENA, 2012).

36


4.4.4.2 Research objectives and R&D challengesThe properties of biomass pose a number of challenges to coal plants. Biomass ash may be very different from coal ash, and this poses technical risks especially at high co-firing ratios. Ash deposits on boiler surfaces and selective catalytic reduction catalysts reduce the efficiency of the system.

Indirect and parallel co-firing technologies avoid such biomass-related contamination issues but are much more expensive, since additional infrastructure is needed. With indirect co-firing the cooling and cleaning of the syngases is problematic. Indirect co-firing with pre-gasification has been demonstrated in both pulverised coal plant and in coal gasification plants (there are demonstration projects in Austria, Finland, and the Netherlands).

Co-firing with pre-pyrolysis of biomass and torrefied biomass is in its early stages. These techniques could be promising for countries with large distances between the power plants and the regions of biomass production.

4.4.4.3 Research projects and resultsThe DEBCO project aims to develop, demonstrate and evaluate innovative and advanced co-firing technologies. Its focus is on large-scale demonstration and long-term monitoring of key co-firing concepts to achieve higher shares of biomass – up to 50% or more on a thermal basis. The demo plants are located in Belgium (Electrabel-Rodenhize), Italy (ENEL-Fusina) and Greece (PPC-Kardia). R&D activities concern how co-firing will affect the performance and integrity of six power plants employing different proportions and types of biomass. The project also includes a study of the technical and economic aspects of a number of co-firing activities in Poland and Hungary, both new and ongoing, with a view to increasing the co-firing ratio.

According to the research, co-firing up to 5–10% biomass or RDF (Refused-derived fuel) (thermal basis) has only a modest impact on the performance and integrity of the plant. With clean biomass materials, the impacts may even be negligible. At higher co-firing levels the impacts are more significant, and plant modifications or new equipment are required; this applies particularly to fuel handling, feeding and firing systems, and to the boilers. The long-term storage and the handling of large amounts of biomass fuel presents a number of significant new challenges to power plant operators, particularly in relation to plant safety and biomass storage, conveying, milling and feeding. Biomass co-firing and 100% biomass combustion in large combustion plants requires a flue gas cleaning system that meets the requirements for best available technology (BAT). This involves NOx control, de-dusting and desulphurisation equipment. Ash resulting from co-firing of different materials in coal-fired power plants can be used as a raw material in some cases, but the chemical composition of the fuels and that of the specific mix of co-firing material have to be considered in detail.

37

4.4.5 Anaerobic digestion4.4.5.1 OverviewAnaerobic digestion applies to any biodegradable waste material (such as grass clippings, leftover food, sewage, animal waste and industrial waste) and produces biogas, a mixture of methane and CO2. The biogas is either cleaned for direct use in heat and power generation units, or compressed and injected into the natural gas network.

Two types of technologies are used: thermophilic digestion, which occurs at temperatures of 50–70 °C, and mesophilic digestion, which requires temperatures of around 25–40 °C. Thermophilic digestion systems offer faster throughput and better pathogen and virus reduction, but require more expensive technology.

Germany is the largest biogas producer in Europe, followed by the UK, Italy and France (Eurobserver, Biogas Barometer, 2012). In Germany farm-scale biogas plant systems are stimulated through feed-in tariffs, whereas the UK, Italy and Spain support biogas production from landfill.

The capacity of biogas plants with CHP typically ranges from 250 kWe to 2.5 MWe, with electrical conversion efficiencies of 32–45% . For anaerobic digestion, the capital cost range is given as 1 943–4 608 €/kWe in 2010 (IRENA, 2012). Depending on the feedstock costs, the LCOE is in the range 4.53–11.32 €cent/kWh (IRENA, 2012).

4.4.5.2 Research objectives and R&D challengesAlthough anaerobic digestion is a commercially proven technology and is widely used, technological optimisation and cost reductions could improve the economic viability of smaller units. The main areas of research need are to improve biomass pre-treatment to reduce fermentation time, to reduce the costs and improve the reliability of two-stage technologies, to improve biogas cleaning processes, and to increase the robustness of the thermophilic process (IEA, 2009). Techniques to improve the biological digestion process (through ultrasonic treatment or enzymatic reactions) are at the R&D stage; these could increase biogas output by several percentage points.

Another research area is the co-product (digested fibres) of anaerobic digestion and the cleaning processes tailored to this co-product.

In the concept known as microbial fuel cells, the micro-organisms that digest the biomass are selected to generate hydrogen-rich biogas that can in turn be used in fuel cells. This is at an early stage of development, and the technology requires further R&D.

4.4.5.3 Research projects and resultsMost of the current research activities on biogas (via anaerobic digestion) are funded by national programmes. European co-ordination of research activities on biogas production is limited.

38


The overall objective of the Agrobiogas project is to enhance the European development of farm-based anaerobic digestion plants using agricultural waste materials to produce renewable energy. The Agrobiogas consortium has developed a number of different decision support tools to be used at the planning phase by farmers considering investing in a biogas plant. These tools can also be used by owners of existing biogas plants to optimise process operation and economics.

The VALORGAS project explores the ways in which the potential of food waste, which makes up around 20% of the domestic waste stream in the EU, can be realised through effective collection, pre-processing and optimisation of the fuel conversion technology. It also looks into methods of upgrading the gaseous fuel product. The project combines the techniques of waste auditing, feasibility study, laboratory investigation, technical-scale trials, plant monitoring, process modelling, life cycle assessment and energy footprinting.

One of the outcomes of this project is a publicly available software tool that optimises food waste collection systems. Some solutions to ammonia toxicity of the food waste are presented (supplementation with cobalt and selenium creates a more ammonia-tolerant population of bacteria that can convert hydrogen to methane). Process stability of this approach is demonstrated in a full-scale digestion plant.

Mass and energy balances at two full-scale digestion plants, in England and Portugal, both give positive energy balances. Data from these and other anaerobic digestion plants, together with a wealth of published information on digestion systems, is used to develop a tool for comprehensive assessment of the energy and carbon balance of a digestion scheme: this is now publically available in a spreadsheet version, and will be released as a software package once beta testing is complete.

The main objective of the BiogasIN project is the removal of barriers to biogas sector development in the seven countries of Central and Eastern Europe: Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Latvia, Romania and Slovenia.

The ERA-NET Joint Call on Biogas and Energy Crops recently approved four projects (SE Biomethane, ORNATE, AmbiGAS and ERA-NET-GAS) funded by Germany, Ireland, Poland, Sweden and the UK. The projects started in March 2013. Two projects are directly related to anaerobic digestion:

• Small But Efficient – Cost and Energy Efficient BioMethane Production (SE Biomethane) (DE, SE, PL), coordinator: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)

• Biogas Production From High Volume Industrial Effluents at Ambient Temperatures (AmbiGAS) (UK, IR, DE, SE), coordinator: University of Southampton (UK).

39

BIOGAS CASTILLA LA MANCHA is a project focusing on the anaerobic digestion of organic residues produced in Castilla-La Mancha in Spain. This region has the potential to produce large amounts of biogas from its 9 million tonnes/year of livestock, vegetable and dairy wastes. The project is dedicated to the development of a biogas model adapted to this region, and featuring adequate pre-treatment, optimised co-digestion, effective gas cleaning, and proper commercial use of digestates. The project outcomes are two distribution maps of raw materials and potential biogas production, more than 70 lab-scale evaluation of biogas production from several organic residues, design of a pilot plant with a 500-litre digester, and the valorisation of digestates in agriculture and energy use.

4.4.6 Gasification4.4.6.1 OverviewIn recent decades biomass gasification has been seen as a promising technology because of its large potential and the option of advanced applications at high temperatures. This technology has the advantage of converting any (dry) biomass into a fuel gas. The fuel gas can then be used to produce electricity directly via gas engines, which are more efficient than boilers and steam turbines, particularly in small-scale plants. Gasification systems can also be coupled with combined gas and steam turbines (in sizes >30 MWe) to increase efficiency compared to direct combustion.

Alternatively the gas can be further processed into a methane-rich gas (also called synthetic natural gas (SNG)) that is suitable for injection into natural gas networks or as a feedstock for the production of synthetic liquid fuels such as diesel, naphtha and kerosene.

Although there is extensive ongoing R&D into gasification techniques, at both national and international levels, large-scale biomass gasification for power generation is associated with technical and economic risks. Some examples of projects in northern Europe are (Held, 2012):

• A plant in Harboøre, Denmark, has a capacity of 3.5 MWth and an electrical efficiency of 27–29% .

• Finland has an air-blown circulating fluidised-bed (CFB) gasifier with a capacity of 40–70 MWth; the gas is burned together with pulverised coal in a boiler.

• In Austria, a plant has demonstrated indirect gasification and electricity production through both gas engines and an ORC. The plant has a capacity of 8.8 MWth and generates 2.8 MWe, giving an electricity efficiency of 32% .

Various technologies are employed for the gasification of solid biomass, based on the gasification medium (air, oxygen or steam), operating pressure (atmospheric or pressurised) and type (fixed-bed, fluidised-bed or entrained-flow).

40


The capital costs of gasification technologies were in the range 4 205–4 941 €/kWe in 2010, whereas the LCOE range is much wider. This is, in part, due to the range of feedstock costs, but also due to the fact that fixed-bed gasifiers are a more proven technology that is cheaper than CFB or bubbling fluidised-bed (BFB) gasifiers. The LCOE for gasifiers ranges from 4.90 €cent/kWh for a fixed-bed gasifier with low-cost biofuel to 18.11 €cent/kWh for a small-scale gasifier supplying a 600 kW internal combustion engine (IRENA, 2012).

4.4.6.2 Research objectives and R&D challengesCurrent RD&D efforts have addressed and resolved several hurdles to advance biomass gasification. However, progress in scale-up, exploration of new and advanced applications, and efforts to improve operational reliability face new challenges to overcome.

The technical hurdles include handling of mixed feedstocks, high-pressure solids feeders and ash discharge systems; real-time monitoring and timely control of critical gasifier operational parameters; minimising tar formation in gasification; hot gas particulates, tar, alkali, chlorides and ammonia removal; heat recovery; conventional gas cleanup, wastewater treatment, and effluent management; and process scale-up (Babu, 2005).

4.4.6.3 Research projects and resultsThe aim of the UNIQUE (FP7) project is the development of a gasifier that integrates the fluidised-bed steam gasification of biomass with hot gas cleaning and conditioning in a single vessel. The main objective is the cost-effective production of high-purity syngas for the requirements of high-efficiency conversion technologies such as fuel cells, with high thermal efficiency for the whole process.

A new catalyst for in-bed primary reduction of heavy hydrocarbons (tar) has been shown effective in reducing tar content by 45% and increasing gas yield by 40% in bench- and pilot-scale (100 kWth) gasification tests. Catalyst production at large scale (1 tonne) is also being developed. This material removes completely the problem of heavy metals to be disposed of in the ash. The solid ovide fuell cell (SOFC) performance obtained with the syngas from the steam gasifier is comparable to or better than that measured with a reference fuel. Scale-up of the process allows the manufacture of commercial-size catalytic candle filter elements with guaranteed filtration properties (particle removal efficiency >99.9% of particulates present in the raw syngas). Catalytic filtration tests performed at Güssing industrial plant (8 MWth) confirmed the excellent potential for hot gas cleaning, although further work is needed to prove the overall technical feasibility, and long-term performance remains an outstanding issue.

The GreenSyngas project aims to develop and demonstrate advanced cleaning technologies for bio-based syngas based on physical separation (a combination of a cyclone and a sintered metal filter) and chemical conversion (in situ capture). The purified syngas would then be suitable for a number of downstream applications including

41

conversion into synthetic biofuels for the transport sector, hydrogen, or electricity generation with carbon capture and storage (CCS). The particulate cleaning system was demonstrated on a laboratory scale with excellent results, but due to shortage of time the pilot demonstration was not carried out.

Gasification Guide is a project within the framework of Intelligent Energy Europe covering health, safety and environmental aspects of biomass gasification. The project developed a software tool called Risk Analyser which can be downloaded, along with a manual, from the project website.

As part of ERA-NET Bioenergy the Joint Call Gasification focuses on treatment and cleaning of product gas from biomass gasifiers. Countries involved in this Joint Call are Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK. Three of the projects funded aim to improve the quality and composition of product gas through online detection and cleaning technologies, and so enable integrated and energy-efficient operation with downstream equipment and subsequent conversion processes. Research efforts focus on both high-temperature and low-temperature technologies, including the use of oil to wash tars from product gas. All the projects focus on gas cleaning and conditioning to overcome application hurdles. Specific attention is given to catalysis and synthesis.

• Tar Removal From Low-Temperature Gasifiers focuses on gasification processes below 800 °C. These low-temperature biomass gasification processes have certain advantages compared to gasifiers operated at 800–900 °C: they are suitable for fuels with low ash melting points; they have a high cold gas efficiency and low tar dewpoint; gas cooling and cleaning are easier; the gasifier provides longer residence times; and heat transfer limitations are less. The main disadvantage of low-temperature gasification is the relatively high tar level in the gas. This project will adapt and test two gas cleaning technologies: the OLGA tar removal technology developed by the Dutch partners, and the cooling, filtration and partial oxidation process developed by Danish partners. The results show that at operating temperatures below 650 °C the OLGA technology, with some modifications, can remove tars to low enough levels that a gas engine should run. Evaporative coolers may need to be used to reduce gas temperatures.

• The research project Energy Efficient Selective Reforming of Hydrocarbons, funded by the Swedish and Danish energy agencies, investigated an innovative method for tar removal and reforming of hydrocarbons. The study showed that chemical looping reforming (CLR) technology is a possible solution to the tar problem, both technically and economically.

• Another project within ERA-NET resulted in the Proof of Principle of an online tar analyser based on photoionisation detection. However, there are technical problems to be solved.

42


• The project EMF showed that proper gas cleaning and conditioning in smaller gasification plants can be achieved by combining innovative components.

• The Intensification of Syngas Cleaning and Hydrogen Separation (Synclean) project resulted in the development and patenting of a number of technologies related to tar formation, tar removal, redesign of the gasifier and process conditioning to generate low-tar, high-energy syngas, and syngas cleaning.

4.5 KPI analysisThe EIBI has defined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to guide the development of bioenergy in Europe (Table 6).

Table 6: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for bioenergy in Europe

General KPIs for the EIBI1.1 Number of final investment decisions (FIDs) per value chain

specified in the EIBI1.2 Cumulative number of final investment decisions (FIDs) based on

technologies specified in the EIBI for all value chains1.3 Gross installed output capacity of bioenergy plants based on the

EIBI value chains across Europe (MW)1.4 Gross installed output capacity of plants based on the EIBI value

chains and supported by the EIBI projects by 2020 (MW)1.5 Availability during the agreed final period for demonstration/

flagship plants in operation (%)Technology-specific value chain KPIs2.1 Plant at demonstration/flagship scale capable of achieving

planned output capacity during its agreed final period2.2 Plant at demonstration/flagship scale capable of operating at

planned cost2.3 Greenhouse gas saving for each project compared to fossil fuel

reference (%)2.4 Net efficiency (based on LHV) for the conversion of biomass

feedstock from plant gate to commercially marketable bioenergy product (%)

2.5 Capital intensity of the project (M€/MW)2.6 Cost per tonne of greenhouse gas saved (€/CO2-equivalent)Resource-specific value chain KPIs3.1 Cost of biomass resource delivered to the bioenergy plant gate

(€/tonne)3.2 Price of biomass resource at farm, forest, or market gate (€/tonne)3.3 Annual quantity of biomass consumption delivered to the plant

gate (tonne)

43

3.4 Net efficiency from biomass production to commercially marketable bioenergy products (%)

3.5 GHG emissions for value chain 7 (algae) from resource production to plant gate (kg CO2-equivalent/MWh)

Health, safety and environment KPIs4.1 Number of deviations and licence suspensions with respect to

prevailing emissions regulations along the whole value chain4.2 Number of accidents and near-accidentsSocio-economic KPIs5.1 Number of permanent jobs created by the demonstration/flagship

project

Table 7 shows which KPIs are covered by the different projects discussed in this TRS. The KPIs were determined in the last couple of years, whereas nearly all the projects started earlier. As a result, the KPIs are only moderately covered by the project objectives.

Table 7: KPIs for the projects discussed in this Thematic Research Summary

Sub-theme Project

Key performance indicator (KPI)

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

4.1

4.2

5.1

1: B

iom

ass

feed

stoc

k su

pply

CEUBIOM

BEE

BIONORM II

Biomass Futures

ERA-NET Bioenergy CREFF

ERA-NET RATING-SRC

ERA-NET BREDNet-SRC

EU Wood

2: P

re-t

reat

men

t

Pyro

lysi

s EMPYRO

BIOBOOST

TEKES BioRefine

BIOLIQ-CHP

Torr

efac

tion TorTech

TorrChance

SECTOR

STOP

44


3: F

inal

con

vers

ion

Com

bust

ion

Co-fi

ring

BioCAT

EU-UltraLowDust

BIOASH

Ashmelt

ENERCORN

ERA-NET Development of Test Methods for Non Wood Small-Scale Combustion Plants

ERA-NET BIOMASS-PM

ERA-NET Small Scale Biomass-Fired CHP Systems

ERA-NET COPECOM

DEBCO

Anae

robi

c di

gest

ion

VALORGAS

Agrobiogas

ERA-NET Small But Efficient

ERA-NET AmbiGAS

BIOGAS CASTILLA LA MANCHA

BiogasIN

Gas

ifica

tion

GreenSyngas

UNIQUE

Gasification Guide

ERA-NET Tar Removal From Low-Temperature Gasifiers

ERA-NET Energy Efficient Selective Reforming Hydrocarbons

ERA-NET Proof of Principle

ERA-NET Synclean

ERA-NET EMF

45

5 International developmentsMany international organisations and initiatives are working to develop sustainable bioenergy systems. The IEA Bioenergy Implementation Agreement (‘IEA Bioenergy’), for instance, is an umbrella organisation set up by the International Energy Agency (IEA) with the aim of improving cooperation and information exchange between countries that have national programmes in bioenergy research, development and deployment. The work is structured in a number of Tasks covering aspects related to biomass resources, supply systems, conversion technologies and end products. As well as 12 EU Member States, countries including Australia, Canada, Japan, Brazil and the USA have signed up to this agreement. As such, the EU bioenergy research agenda shapes most of the activities within this agreement. Many EU national research projects feed into the IEA Bioenergy Tasks. The relevant ongoing tasks are briefly introduced below. Taskforces have been set up to foster cooperation and information exchange. The work of these taskforces includes producing country reports that present up-to-date information on each participating country, reports from national research projects, newsletters and annual reports presenting the progress of each taskforce.

The IEA Bioenergy Task 32: Biomass Combustion and Co-firing, led by the Netherlands, involves Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, the UK, Japan, South Africa and Switzerland. This task aims to increase acceptance and performance in terms of environmental impact, costs and reliability, and to support market introduction of improved combustion and co-firing systems in participating countries. The specific tasks comprise the following:

• Increasing biomass co-firing percentages;• Enabling combustion of challenging fuels;• Progress in torrefaction technologies;• Design of high-efficiency and clean stoves and boilers;• Standardisation in particule emission measurement techniques;• Health impacts of combustion aerosols; and• New options for higher superheater temperatures in biomass

boilers.

This specific task addresses and complements the EU research priorities. For instance, the progress in torrefaction technologies is led by the Netherlands and used as a direct input to Task 32. This report

46


has already been included in Chapter 4, sub-theme 2, generation of bioenergy carriers. Another study - health and safety aspects of solid biomass storage, transportation and feeding, involves the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, Denmark and the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.

This Task includes Biobank -a set of three databases on the chemical composition of biomass fuels, ashes and condensates from flue gas condensers from real-life installations. It currently contains approximately 1 000 biomass samples, 560 ash samples and 30 condensate samples. This Task has also compiled a database of biomass co-firing initiatives to provide an overview of existing experience.

Task 33: Thermal Gasification of Biomass, led by the USA, involves Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Turkey, New Zealand and Switzerland as participating countries. This Task aims to monitor the current status of the critical unit operations that underpin biomass gasification processes, identify hurdles to further development and advances in operational reliability, and reduce the capital cost of biomass gasification systems.

Most of the studies included in this Task are conducted by EU Member States.

Task 34: Pyrolysis of Biomass is dedicated to pyrolysis technology. Current participants in the Task are Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, the UK, and Sweden with leadership provided by the USA. The overall objectives of this Task are to improve the rates of implementation and success of fast pyrolysis for fuels and chemicals by contributing to the resolution of critical technical areas. Priority topics are a review of bio-oil applications, bio-oil standardisation, a round-robin for validating analytical methods, and techno-economic assessment of technologies.

Task 37: Energy From Biogas, led by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, involves Austria, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, South Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. It aims at the deployment of anaerobic digestion technology for energy production and environmental protection and the provision of expert scientific and technical support to policymakers in participating countries. It covers the biological treatment of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and the anaerobic treatment of organic rich industrial waste water. The main interests are the production of biogas and a high-quality digestate. Collection, sorting, gas upgrading and gas utilisation are topics covered by this taskforce and biogas production optimisation is aimed at reducing both investment and operation costs. Task 37 addressed GHG emissions from the biogas production chain in the 2010-2012 work programme and focused on environmental sustainability of biogas production and utilisation in recent years. Best practices are presented in this Task.

47

Task 40: Sustainable Bioenergy Markets and International Trade consists of five topics:

1. Mobilisation of sustainable biomass resources for the international market across different regions of the world;

2. Analysis of the future market demand for biomass from the broader bio-based economy perspective;

3. Sustainability and certification;4. Support of business model development for biomass supply and

value chains; and5. Assisting the development and deployment of advanced analysis

tools to improve the understanding of potential future market developments, implications and impacts of policies.

Task 43: Biomass Feedstocks for Energy Markets is led by Sweden. The participating countries are Australia, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, the UK, and the USA. The European Commission is also participating in this taskforce. The Task addresses issues critical to mobilising sustainable bioenergy supply chains, including biomass markets, interaction with food and fibre production, and the social, economic and environmental aspects and drivers of different strategies for producing bioenergy feedstock. It has a global scope and includes commercial, near-commercial and promising production systems in agriculture and forestry. Task 43 seeks ways to integrate biomass feedstock production with agriculture and forestry to stimulate productivity, local development and sustainable land use practices. The challenges to resolve in mobilising sustainable bioenergy supply chains are listed as (i) developing competitive feedstock supply and value chains, (ii) quantifying the positive and negative environmental and socio-economic consequences, (iii) assessing the effects of adopting sustainability risk mitigation techniques, and (iv) developing governance of sustainable supply chains that provide sound operating conditions for participants along the supply chain.

The Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) is an intergovernmental initiative aiming to develop a methodological framework that policymakers and stakeholders can use to assess the sustainability of bioenergy systems. The priority areas are:

• Facilitating the sustainable development of bioenergy. In May 2011 GBEP launched a set of 24 voluntary indicators whose applicability is currently being tested in different countries (GBEP, 2011).

• Testing a common methodological framework on GHG emission reduction measures from the use of bioenergy. The partnership has released a report containing a common methodological framework for policymakers and stakeholders to use when assessing GHG impacts, by which the results of GHG lifecycle assessments can be compared on an equivalent and consistent basis.

48


• Facilitating capacity building for sustainable bioenergy. The activities and projects developed within the working group are country-driven. Its main focus is to facilitate collaboration among GBEP partners and observers for capacity-building projects and related activities.

• Raising awareness and facilitating information exchange.

GBEP and its partners comprise 23 countries and 14 international organisations and institutions. From the EU, in addition to the European Commission, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden are among the partners.

Next to the EU, countries like the United States, China and Brazil support the development of modern bioenergy supply. Below, priority areas related to biomass research and development are briefly introduced. These countries mainly focus on biofuel production for transport and biorefinery technologies. Current and future RD&D needs related to biofuels for transport and biorefineries are not dealt with in this TRS, but can be found in a dedicated TRS on Biofuels (ERKC, 2014). Nevertheless, it is clear that the developments in these countries will contribute to EU research and development, particularly technology developments in the area of advanced biofuels.

United States The Roadmap for Bioenergy and Biobased Products in the United States (2007), drafted by the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee, is used to guide research funded jointly by the Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture under the Biomass R&D Initiative joint solicitation. According to this Roadmap the R&D needs related to feedstocks are advanced harvesting methods to enable greater amounts of biomass feedstocks to be harvested at a lower cost. When it comes to processing and conversion, the main focus is on biofuel production for transport and biorefineries. Although improvements have been made in enzyme technology, significant improvements must be made to further cut enzyme costs, increase the speed of reactions, and increase the cost effectiveness of fuels and product manufacture (Roadmap for bioenergy and biobased products, 2007). The priority research areas presented in this Roadmap include accelerated R&D in the production of biofuels from cellulosic feedstocks with a view to reducing costs; thermochemical research to produce renewable gasoline, diesel and higher-value chemicals; scaling-up of cellulosic biofuels; R&D to increase crop yields (including conventional crop breeding, genetic modification of crops and improved agronomic practices) and, finally, transportation of feedstocks and biofuels.

At the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) research is carried out on biomass characterisation, biochemical conversion, thermochemical conversion and chemical & catalyst science. Work is being conducted to improve the efficiency and economics of biochemical conversion processes by focusing on pre-treatment (the main focus is

49

on a process involving dilute acid hydrolysis of hemicellulose to xylose and other sugars); conditioning and enzymatic hydrolysis; enzyme development; microorganisms for fermentation; further processing to produce fuel-grade ethanol and other fuels, chemical, heat and electricity.

Thermochemical conversion capacities include gasification and fuel synthesis R&D, pyrolysis R&D and thermochemical process integration. Again the main focus is on producing biofuels. Research on pyrolysis focuses on understanding the chemistry of biomass pyrolysis, including stabilisation and upgrading of bio-oil, the potential applications of pyrolysis liquid and the requirements to produce fuels and chemicals via biomass pyrolysis on a large scale (NREL is developing a technically sound and cost-effective method for bio-oil deoxygenation, creating a bio-oil that can be upgraded to clean fuel).

ChinaChina is proactively promoting the production and use of renewable energy and reductions in energy consumption. It has set a goal of replacing 15% of conventional energy with renewable energy by 2020, with parallel goals of increasing energy efficiency and reducing energy consumption (Shi, 2010). With regard to biofuels and biobased chemicals, most of China’s activities and policies relate to biofuels despite significant domestic production of biobased chemicals. Ongoing industrial and academic research in China addresses a wide variety of topics, ranging from feedstocks to process development (Lin, 2010). Substantial research is underway on production of 2nd generation ethanol from non-grain and cellulosic biomass feedstocks, including development of biomass pre-treatment; enzyme systems and microorganisms (e.g., those metabolising a variety of sugars besides glucose); and fermentation processes (Nesbitt et al., 2011).

Family-scale biogas production and consumption has been promoted since the 1960s making biogas a small, but significant, source of energy in rural China. Large-scale commercialisation of biogas is only now occurring, as a few large projects came on stream in 2009 and 2010 (Huang, 2010).

BrazilBrazil is one of the world’s most competitive biofuel producers because of its comparative advantage in producing ethanol and soybeans. The current R&D focus is on management of new sugar cane varieties and improvement of agricultural machinery, the development of short-cycle biomass cultures which can be planted during the sugar cane off-season, such as sorghum and elephant grass, and sustainable biofuel production (cellulosic ethanol from bagasse).

50


6 Technology mapping

6.1 Bioenergy resourcesTwo FP7 studies, CEUBIOM and BEE, have looked into the harmonisation of methodologies to assess biomass resource potential for energy. As such they address (indirectly) the KPI related to defining annual biomass consumption.

Another resource-specific KPI for bioenergy is the cost of biomass resources delivered to the bioenergy plant gate, and their market prices. The Biomass Futures project estimates biomass feedstock costs at the gate and produces cost-supply curves for each feedstock. However, further research is needed to provide a better understanding of feedstock costs and the factors affecting them.

However, support for the policy process requires a finer-grained assessment of feedstock cost-supply information – down to level 3 of the EU’s Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS 3). This should include more precise cost data related to production, gathering, transport and storage. Some newly started and ongoing projects (such as LogistEC, EMPYRO and S2BIOM) are looking into these aspects.

The market price of resources is another area that is not covered by the existing research projects. Increasing demand from energy sector and other sectors such as bio-plastics and bio-materials are likely to influence the future bioenergy market. It is therefore essential to elaborate on the implications of such competition for the availability and economics of resources, and for the environment (including GHGs, air pollutants and water consumption).

Sustainability issues around production of biofuels for the transport sector have been addressed under the RED (EC, 2009) through a set of mandatory sustainability criteria. The Commission is currently assessing the sustainability issues related to solid and gaseous biomass and analysing whether they are sufficiently addressed by existing measures or whether additional EU measures are needed.

Both the nature (whether mandatory or not) and the details of the sustainability criteria will be decided in the coming months. These decisions will have significant consequences for the bioenergy sector. The likely implications of sustainability criteria are covered in the Biomass Futures project. The results indicate that stringent sustainability criteria (including for instance the iLUC (indirect land use change) effect) are likely to paralyse the biofuels sector and put the 2020 10% renewable transport target out of reach. Sustainability constraints on cropping are significant both inside and outside the EU and will have important effects on the availability of biofuels. There

51

is a clear need to focus studies on estimating the iLUC per land type inside and outside the EU. One of the conclusions of this study is that stricter sustainability criteria reduce the total potential by 32%.

In summary, the key research needs identified in the sub-task are:

• Research in NUTS 3 level including more precise cost-supply data;• Analysis of the implications of competition for the availability and

economics of biomass feedstocks; • Techno-economic implications of expanding sustainability criteria

for all bioenergy sectors; and• Methods to avoid iLUC effects and their likely implications for the

bioenergy sector.

6.2 Pre-treatment technologiesBiomass feedstocks show great variability in their physical and chemical properties, and this variability poses technical and economic challenges to transport, storage and feeding systems. To overcome these challenges, pre-treatment technologies are needed. Pelleting and briquetting are commercial technologies, whereas torrefaction and pyrolysis are at the early commercialisation stage.

The companies currently pushing for the commercialisation of bio-oil for energy applications are Ensyn/Envergent Technologies, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe (KIT), BTG, Fortum, Metso and Green Fuel Nordic (GFN); the latter have the most advanced initiatives in pursuing larger-scale operations (VTT, 2013). Fortum is currently investing in the commercialisation of integrated fast pyrolysis technology combining CFB and BFB technology by building a bio-oil plant connected to a CHP plant in Finland. The plant will produce heat, electricity and 50 000 tonnes/year of bio-oil. The plant was expected to be in production by late 2013. Among the projects reviewed in this report, EMPYRO is considering a 25 MWth (~120 tonnes/day) polygeneration pyrolysis plant to produce electricity, process steam and fuel oil from woody biomass in the Netherlands.

There are a number of torrefaction demonstration plants in Europe. Topell BV built its first full-scale torrefaction demonstration plant, with a capacity of 60 ktonnes/year, in 2010 in the Netherlands. Another demonstration installation with a capacity of 45 ktonnes/year is being constructed in the Netherlands by the Green Investment (SGI) company. Torr-Coal has built a torrefaction installation in Dilsen-Stokkem (Belgium) with a capacity of 35 ktonnes/year. Andritz and ECN have developed a 1 tonne/hour demo plant in Stenderup, Denmark; this technology can be scaled up to large capacities in a single line. The TorTech project carried out at ECN forms a solid base for scale-up and demonstration of the company’s technology, first at a scale of several tonnes/hour and subsequently at commercial scale for the global market.

52


For both technologies the feedstocks used are wood chips or forest residues. Given the importance of other feedstocks such as agricultural residues and wastes, further RD&D is needed to utilise these feedstocks.

6.3 CombustionR&D requirements for developing small-scale technologies that can burn biomass other than wood are increasing thermal efficiency, overcoming emissions (PM, CO and VOCs) and corrosion-related problems, ash melting and slag formation, and avoiding production of persistent organic pollutants (POP).

The Ashmelt and BIOASH projects investigate the ash melting issue. Ashmelt focuses on the ash melting characteristics of solid biomass feedstocks and methods of assessment, while BIOASH studies the downstream effects of ash and the impacts of ash-forming compounds on fixed-bed and pulverised fuel combustion systems.

The ENERCORN and Small Scale Biomass-Fired CHP Systems (ERA-NET) projects are looking into efficiency improvements. ENERCORN aims to increase net efficiency up to 30.5%. The Stirling engine (10–100 kWe) and ORC (50–1,500 kWe) are promising technologies for future small-scale and microscale CHP distributed cogeneration. ORC engines offer technical and economic advantages for small plant capacities and low operating costs, but their low operating pressure limits electrical efficiency to about 16–20%, and specific investment costs are high (6,000–9,000 €/kWe) (Technology Map, 2011). One of the ERA-NET projects is running laboratory tests of ORC-based power generation, but more R&D is needed to increase the energy efficiency and decrease the costs of such systems.

Health impacts of combustion systems (air pollutant emissions) are covered by the BioCAT project and a number of projects under the ERA-NET platform. An ongoing project, EU-UltraLowDust, aims to demonstrate a European approach for ultra-low-emission small-scale biomass combustion based on three novel technologies which cover the whole range of residential biomass heating applications. For burning pellets and woodchips a new ultra-low-emission boiler technology operating at almost zero CO, OGC and PM emissions is demonstrated. A new stove technology based on optimised air staging and an automated control system which shows significantly decreased PM, CO and OGC emissions compared with present stoves is introduced. For PM emission reduction in old and new log-fired boilers, old stoves and boilers for non-wood biomass fuels, a new electrostatic precipitator (ESP) system is demonstrated.

53

6.4 Biomass co-firingDirect co-firing with up to about 10% biomass (energy basis) has been successfully demonstrated in pulverised fuel and fluidised-bed boilers. The DEBCO project aims to develop, demonstrate and evaluate innovative and advanced co-firing technologies. Its focus is large-scale demonstration and long-term monitoring of key co-firing concepts to achieve higher shares of biomass: up to 50% or more on a thermal basis. The demo plants are located in Belgium (Electrabel-Rodenhize), Italy (ENEL-Fusina) and Greece (PPC-Kardia).

DEBCO’s R&D activities concern the details of the impact of co-firing on the performance and integrity of six power plants employing different proportions and types of biomass. The results indicate that at higher co-firing levels the impacts are more significant, requiring modification of existing equipment or installation of new equipment, particularly in boilers and fuel handling, feeding and firing systems. The long-term storage and handling of large amounts of biomass fuel also present a number of significant new challenges to power plant operators, particularly in relation to plant safety and biomass storage, conveying, milling and feeding.

Biomass co-firing and 100% biomass combustion in large combustion plants also need flue gas cleaning systems that meet the requirements for best available technology (BAT). This involves NOx control, de-dusting and desulphurisation equipment. Ash from biomass co-firing in coal-fired power plants can be re-used in some cases, but the chemical composition of the fuels and that of the specific co-firing mix have to be considered in detail.

6.5 Anaerobic digestionAlthough anaerobic digestion is a commercially proven technology and is widely used, technological optimisation and cost reductions could improve the economic viability of smaller units. The research need focuses on biomass pre-treatment to reduce fermentation time, reduce costs, improve reliability of two-stage technologies, and improve biogas cleaning. Technologies such as ultrasonic treatment or enzymatic reactions are at the R&D stage.

The Agrobiogas project has developed tools to optimise the economics of biogas produced by farmers. The VALORGAS project, on the other hand, focused on food waste and presented some solutions to ammonia toxicity of food waste. The stability of these processes is demonstrated in a full-scale digestion plant. This project also developed an anaerobic digestion tool to assess the energy and carbon balance of a digestion scheme. The toolset is publicly available.

The production and use of biogas and its upgrading to biomethane have great potential, since biogas can be used both for electricity generation or cogeneration and for injection into the gas grid. However, overall efficiencies need to be improved.

54


The economic benefits of anaerobic digestion of agricultural residues are limited because manure has a low energy density and many fibrous residues are poorly degraded. This results in a low biogas yield. Low methane yields are mainly the result of high proportions of lignin that cannot be digested. High proportions of carbon to nitrogen (straw, for instance, has a carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio of 80) also inhibit the activity of microbes. These problems can be reduced when biomass (i.e. straw) is pre-treated (e.g. by milling, steam, microwaves, chemicals or enzymes) and by co-fermentation with manure (low C/N ratio) or other crops. However, combining multiple wastes will bring the challenge of maintaining proper chemical and biological activity, plus physical handling issues. Currently, countries including Sweden, Denmark and Germany are looking into this topic.

The R&D needs can be summarised as enhancing biogas productivity (higher yields from volatile solids), biogas quality (higher methane yields), effluent processing and co-product optimisation, cheaper methane splitting and cleanup, fuel cell integration, and integration into biorefinery concepts.

6.6 Thermal gasificationCurrent RD&D efforts have addressed and resolved several hurdles to advance biomass gasification. However, progress in scale-up, exploration of new and advanced applications, and efforts to improve operational reliability all face new challenges to overcome.

There is extensive R&D on gasification technologies at both national and international levels. While small gasifier and gas engine units (100–500 kWe) are available on the market, large-scale biomass gasification for power generation is associated with technical and economic risks. Progress in scale-up, handling of mixed feedstocks, minimising tar formation and gas purification for hot gas particulate and tar removal face challenges to overcome.

Most of the projects reviewed focus on minimising tar formation and on gas cleaning technologies. Within the UNIQUE project a new catalyst has been demonstrated that reduces tar content by 45% and increases gas yield by 50% in bench and pilot-scale tests. Catalyst production at large scale (1 tonne) has also been developed. Promising results are obtained when the resulting syngas is used to power fuel cells (SOFCs).

Another project, GreenSyngas, demonstrated a particulate cleaning system based on physical separation (a combination of an optimised cyclone and sintered metal filter) and chemical conversion (in situ capture) at laboratory scale with good results.

Some ERA-NET projects also focus on improving the quality and composition of product gas through online detection and cleaning technologies. These will facilitate integrated and energy-efficient operation with downstream equipment and subsequent conversion processes.

55

In summary, although there is a wide range of R&D on syngas purification technologies, much current work is still at the laboratory scale, and significantly more RD&D is needed to develop, demonstrate and commercialise these systems.

More innovative technologies include the combination of bioenergy equipment with other methods of heat and electricity production, including solar systems, heat pumps and district cooling systems. These have not been covered in any of the projects studied here.

56


7 Capacities mappingThe IEA has been collecting data on the public funding of energy RD&D. The biofuels section of the IEA database considers liquid, solid and gaseous fuels derived directly or indirectly from biomass. This TRS mainly focuses on bioelectricity and heat and excludes RD&D related to biofuels for transportation. Therefore, data related to liquid biofuels (bio-gasoline, biodiesel, bio-kerosene for jet engines and other liquid biofuels) is excluded and only the RD&D expenditure relevant to bioelectricity and bio-heat are presented. Biofuels are covered in a separate TRS (ERKC, 2014).

The terms used in the database are presented in Annex 3.

The statistics indicate that overall public R&D expenditure for bioenergy systems in 2011 amounted to EUR 591 million3, representing around 57% of the total European public budget for R&D activities in the RES sectors (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Public R&D on bioenergy for selected countries (IEA)

3 2012 prices and exchange rates.

In 2011, Finland was a major investor, followed by Germany, Denmark and France. R&D investment in Finland followed a fluctuating trend over the period 2007–2011. While bioenergy received only 45% of the total national RES R&D budget in 2009, this increased to 73% in 2011. According to the IEA statistics, Finland has mainly invested in R&D focusing on: (i) improving the performance, reliability and environmental footprint of the boilers to produce heat; and (ii) designing appropriate thermodynamic and mechanical systems to efficiently produce electricity from biomass resources.

Germany has supported renewable energy technologies extensively. In 2009 the total RD&D funding for renewable energy sources was around EUR 189 million, increasing to EUR 247 million in 2011. The

57

share of this devoted to bioenergy was modest, however: around 15% in 2009, increasing to 16% in 2011. It is difficult to assess accurately the R&D investment for specific bioenergy technologies or the sub-categories included in this report, since the government figures do not specify these.

Denmark increased its R&D funding for bioenergy from EUR 21 million in 2010 to EUR 32 million in 2011. Around 41% of the total funding for renewables R&D was received by the bioenergy sector. Most if the money went to improve the performance and reliability of heat and electricity conversion technologies. In 2011, biogas technologies also received substantial funding in Denmark.

In France, the activity which received the majority of bioenergy R&D funding between 2007 and 2009 was the production of solid biomass with higher energy density. Since 2009, funding has been allocated to technologies producing and upgrading biogas, to heat and electricity production technologies, and mainly to the ‘unallocated biofuels’ category4. The share of public R&D spent on bioenergy increased from 9% to 19% between 2009 and 2011.

The UK, on the other hand, has followed a downward trend. Bioenergy funding has been halved, whereas in 2007 this sector had the highest renewable energy R&D support at country level. In 2011, bioenergy received 35% of UK renewable energy R&D funding. In absolute terms, funding has decreased from EUR 57 million in 2007 to EUR 35 million in 2011.

4 Refers to techniques, processes, equipment and systems related to biofuels that cannot be allocated to one specific area of category and where it is not possible to estimate the split between two or more of the sub-categories.

58


8 Conclusions and recommendationsThis TRS looked into 39 projects and analysed further R&D needs and policy implications. Their contributions to the KPIs set by the EIBI are highlighted.

R&D needs related to biomass feedstock supply mainly concern the analysis of criteria for the sustainability of feedstock potentials and costs. Increasing demand for bioenergy is mainly driven by energy policy. Future policymaking can benefit from more accurate estimates of biomass potential that take into account other competing uses of biomass feedstocks and their implications for the economy and environment. The projects analysed in this sub-theme contribute to the KPI on resource-specific value chains, but there is a lack of studies focusing on the cost of biomass delivered at the plant gate and the prices of feedstock. There is an extensive amount of study focusing on resource assessment both nationally and internationally. These studies focus on quantifying the potentials based on a number of assumptions. However, likely future costs and prices of biomass feedstocks are either not included or not presented. Only one study in this TRS (Biomass Futures) presents the cost and the methodologies applied to calculate these costs/prices. In this study prices are presented as national averages, while large differences may occur between regions. Long term bioenergy projections are extremely sensitive to costs and price projections. Furthermore, it is necessary to assess price elasticity of demand to see how sensitive the demand is to a price change given the increasing demand from other non-energy sectors.

Torrefaction and pyrolysis technologies have been promoted as ways to ease the handling and transport of a wide range of biomass feedstocks. The projects included in this report indicate that most research focuses on clean wood; more R&D is needed on other resources like agricultural residues. Among the studies discussed here, EMPYRO will contribute to the technology-specific value chain KPIs – but this project has yet to demonstrate its pyrolysis plant.

R&D on combustion technologies focuses on increasing thermal efficiency and developing small-scale combustion technologies that can burn biomass types other than wood. Ash melting and slag formation issues are covered in the Ashmelt and BIOASH projects, whereas air pollutant emission problems are studied in the BioCAT project. Projects that can potentially contribute to the KPIs are ENERCON, which plans to demonstrate a 16 MWe high-efficiency power plant, and the Small Scale Biomass-Fired CHP (2 kWe) Systems studied under ERA-NET.

59

The challenge in co-firing is to increase the proportion of bioenergy. The DEBCO project aims to demonstrate innovative and advanced co-firing technologies. The results present a wealth of information on the issues that arise with increased percentages of biomass co-firing.

There are not many European R&D projects on anaerobic digestion. The two projects identified in this TRS, Agrobiogas and VALORGAS, are looking respectively at process optimisation and tools to assess the energy and carbon balance of digester systems.

Gasification technology has attracted a significant amount of R&D, and several hurdles to advanced biomass gasification have been addressed. However, large-scale biomass gasification for power generation is yet to be commercialised. The projects reviewed in this TRS mainly focus on tar formation and gas purification technologies. Innovative concepts include a new catalyst demonstrated within the UNIQUE project that reduces tar content by 45%. The combination of biogas with SOFC generating systems is also being studied. Physical separation and chemical conversion systems to remove particulates were the focus of the GreenSyngas project. ERA-NET also contributed extensively to research on improving gas quality and composition.

More innovative ideas, such as combining bioenergy with other methods of heat and electricity production – such as solar systems, heat pumps and district cooling systems – have not been covered in any of the projects studied here.

60


References• Babu, Suresh P., Observations on the Current Status of Biomass

Gasification, IEA Bioenergy Task 33: Thermal Gasification of Biomass, 2005. http://www.ieatask33.org/app/webroot/files/file/publications/58_BiomassGasification.pdf.

• BEE, Status of Biomass Resource Assessment Version3, Biomass Energy Europe 2010. http://www.eu-bee.com/GetItem.asp?item=digistorefile;247973;837.

• Beurskens, L., Hekkenberg, M. Renewable Energy Projections as Published in the National Renewable Energy Action Plans of the European Member States Covering all 27 EU Member States. ECN-E--10-069. 2011.

• Ehrig, R. et al., Economic Comparison of Torrefaction-Based and Conventional Pellet Production-to-End-Use Chains, 21st European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, Copenhagen 2013. http://www.bioenergy2020.eu/files/publications/pdf/3DO.2.1_Ehrig_etal_paper_homepage.pdf

• Eurobserver, Biogas Barometer, 2012. http://www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/baro212biogas.pdf

• European Commission, COM(2008) 306 final, CAP Health Check.

• European Commission (2009) European Parliament and Council, Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. 2009.04.23 Off J European Union, L 140 (2009), pp. 16–62.

• European Commission, DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC. Renewable Energy Directive (RED).

• European Commission, Communication COM (2010) 11, Report on Sustainability Requirements for the Use of Solid and Gaseous Biomass Sources in Electricity, Heating and Cooling.

• European Commission, COM(2010) 639 final, Communication Energy 2020 – A Strategy for Competitive, Sustainable and Secure Energy.

• European Commission, COM(2011) 21, A Resource-efficient Europe – Flagship Initiative Under the Europe 2020 Strategy.

• European Commission, COM(2011) 112 final, A Roadmap for Moving to a Competitive Low-Carbon Economy in 2050.

• European Commission, COM(2011) 571, The Roadmap to a Resource-efficient Europe.

61

• European Commission, COM(2011) 885 final, Energy Roadmap 2050.

• European Commission, COM(2012) 595 final, Amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the Quality of Petrol and Diesel Fuels and Amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources.

• European Commission, COM(2012) 271 final, Renewable Energy: a Major Player in the European Energy Market.

• European Commission, COM(2013) 169 final, Green Paper. A 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy Policies.

• European Commission, COM(2014) 15 final, A Policy Framework for Climate and Energy in the Period From 2020 to 2030.

• EERA, Joint Programme on Bioenergy, 2013. http://www.eera-set.eu/index.php?index=26. Last access 2014-04-01.

• ERKC, Thematic Research Summary Biofuels, 2014.

• EU WOOD project: Mantau, U. et al. 2010: EUwood - Real potential for changes in growth and use of EU forests. Final report. Hamburg/Germany, June 2010. 160 p. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/studies/doc/bioenergy/euwood_final_report.pdf

• GBEP Sustainability Indicators, 2011. http://www.globalbioenergy.org/fileadmin/user_upload/gbep/docs/2011_events/12th_TF_Sustainability_WashingtonDC_17-20_May_2011/GBEP_List_of_Indicators.pdf

• Held, J., Gasification – Status and technology. Rapport SGC 240, 1102–7371, ISRN SGC, Svenskt Gastekniskt Center AB, 2012. http://www.sgc.se/ckfinder/userfiles/files/SGC240.pdf.

• Huang, He, Professor, Director, Science &Technology, Nanjing University of Technology, and Director, 2010.

• IEA, IEA Bioenergy Task 33: Thermal Gasification of Biomass. Presentation to ExCo 59 in Golden, Colorado, USA, April 25–27, 2007. http://www.ieatask33.org/app/webroot/files/file/publications/IEA_BRU_11-07.pdf.

• IEA, The Handbook of Biomass Combustion and Co-firing, Van Loo, S. and Koppejan, J. (eds), Earthscan Ltd, 2008 a.

• IEA, Energy technology perspectives: Scenarios and strategies to 2050. International Energy Agency, Paris, 2008 b.

• IEA, Bioenergy – a Sustainable and Reliable Energy Source, 2009. http://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/MAIN-REPORT-Bioenergy-a-sustainable-and-reliable-energy-source.-A-review-of-status-and-prospects.pdf.

62


• IRENA, Biomass for Power Generation, Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost Analysis Series, International Renewable Energy Agency, 2012. https://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/RE_Technologies_Cost_Analysis-BIOMASS.pdf.

• Koppejan, J., Sokhansanj, S., Melin, S., Madrali, S., Status overview of torrefaction technologies. IEA Bioenergy Task 32 report. FINAL REPORT. Enschede, 2012. http://www.ieabcc.nl/publications/IEA_Bioenergy_T32_Torrefaction_review.pdf

• Lin, Hailong, Cellulosic ethanol industry in China, Speaker, August 18, 2010.

• Nesbitt, E.R., Thiers, P., Gao, J. Shoemaker, S., Garcia-Peres, M., Carrier, J., Doran-Peterson, J., Morgan J., Wang, G., Wensel P.C., Chen, S., China’s Vision for Renewable Energy: the Status of Bioenery and Bioproducts Research and Commercialization, 2011. United States Internation Trade Comission. Journal of International Commerce and Economics. http://www.usitc.gov/journals/Nesbitt_etal_ChinaBioenergy.pdf

• Obernberger I. and Biedermann F. Combustion and gasification of solid biomass for heat and power production in Europe, state-of-the-art and relevant future development, Eindhoven University of Technology, 2005.

• Opportunities for Primary Industries in the bioenergy Sector. National Research, Development and Extension Strategy. Priority Area RD&E Implementation Plan Australia. 2014. See https://rirdc.infoservices.com.au/items/14-056

• Pyne, IEA Bioenergy Task 34: Pyrolysis, 2013. http://www.pyne.co.uk/?_id=72. Last access 2013-11-02.

• Biomass Reseach and Development Technical Advisory Committee, Biomass Research and Development Initiative, Roadmap for Bioenergy and Biobased products in the United States, October 2007. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/obp_roadmapv2_web.pdf

• RES LEGAL, Legal Sources on Renewable Energy. http://www.res-legal.eu/compare-policies/. Last access 2013-10-15.

• Shi, Dinghuan, Renewable energy in China: Current developments and prospects, Speaker, August 15, 2010.

• Technology Map, Technology Map of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan: Technology Descriptions, JRC Scientific and Technical Report, 2011. http://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/Technology_Map_2011.pdf.

• Thornley, P., Upham, P., Huang, Y., Rezvani, S., Brammer, J. & Rogers, J., 2009. Integrated assessment of bioenergy technology options, Energy Policy, 37, 890-903.

63

• Uslu, A. and van Stralen, J., Sustainable Biomass for Electricity, Heat and Transport Fuels in the EU27, Biomass Futures, Policy Summary, 2012. http://www.biomassfutures.eu/public_docs/final_deliverables/WP5/D5.4 Summary.pdf.

• VTT, Fuel Oil Quality and Combustion of Fast Pyrolysis Bio-oils, VTT TECHNOLOGY 87, 2013. http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/technology/2013/T87.pdf.

64


Annexes

Annex 1: Acronyms and abbreviationsGeneralBESTF Bioenergy Sustaining the FutureCAP Common Agricultural PolicyCENBIO Bioenergy Innovation Centre of NorwayDG Directorate GeneralEERA European Energy Research AllianceEIBI European Industrial Bioenergy InitiativeERKC Energy Research Knowledge CentreEU European UnionFP6 6th Framework ProgrammeFP7 7th Framework ProgrammeFP7-KBBE

FP7 Knowledge Based Bio-economy

GBEP Global Bioenergy PartnershipIEA International Energy AgencyIEE Intelligent Energy EuropeIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeKPI Key Performance IndicatorNREAP National Renewable Energy Action PlanNREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory (US)NoE Network of ExcellenceNUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for StatisticsPB Policy BrochureR&D Research and DevelopmentRD&D Research, Development and DemonstrationRED Renewable Energy DirectiveRES Renewable energy sourcesRTD Research and Technological DevelopmentSET-Plan Strategic Energy Technologies PlanSETIS Information System for the Strategic Energy Technology

PlanTRS Thematic Research Summary

65

Technical and related to the themeAD Anaerobic digestionBFB Bubbling fluidised bedBAT Best available technologyCCS Carbon capture and storageCHP Combined heat and power (cogeneration)CLR Chemical looping reformingCFB Circulating fluidised bedC/N Carbon/nitrogen ratioCO Carbon monoxideCO2 Carbon dioxideEO Earth observationESP Electrostatic precipitatorGHG Greenhouse gasGJ GigajouleiLUC Indirect land use changekW KilowattkWh Kilowatt-hourLCOE Levelised cost of electricityMJ MegajouleMSDS Material safety data sheetMSW Municipal solid wasteMW Megawatt MWh Megawatt-hourNOx Nitrogen oxideOGC Organic gaseous carbonOLGA Dutch acronym for oil-based gas washerORC Organic Rankine cyclePM Particulate emissionsPOP Persistent organic pollutantsPSA Pressure swing adsorptionRDF Refuse-derived fuelSNG Synthetic natural gasSOFC Solid oxide fuel cellSRC Short-rotation coppiceSRF Short-rotation forestryTOC Total organic carbonVOC Volatile organic compoundswt Weight

66


Annex 2: List of projectsSub-theme 1: Biomass feedstock supplyProject acronym Project title Budget

(EUR)

BEE Biomass Energy Europe – FP7 2008–2010www.eu-bee.com

2,820,807

CEUBIOM Classification of European Biomass Potential for Bioenergy Using Terrestrial and Earth Observations – FP7 2008–2010www.ceubiom.org

1,340,827

Biomass Futures Biomass Futures – IEE 2009–2011www.biomassfutures.eu

1,490,386

BIONORM II Pre-normative Research on Solid Biofuels for Improved European Standards – FP6 2007–2011www.bionorm2.euwww.cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/81405_en.html

3,989,476

EUWood Real Potential for Changes in Growth and Use of EU Forests – IEEwww.ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/studies/doc/bioenergy/euwood_final_report.pdf

ERA-NET CREFF Cost Reduction and Efficiency Improvement of Short Rotation Coppice – ERA-NET Bioenergy / FP6 2008–2012www.creff.eu/creff_eng/

774,000

ERA-NET BREDNet-SRC

Towards Targeted Breeding of a European SRC Willow Crop for Diverse Environments and Future Climateswww.brednet-src.org/index.php

LogistEC Logistics for Energy Crops Biomasswww.logistecproject.eu/pre-treatment-technologies/

ERA-NET RATING-SRC

Reducing Environmental Impacts of Short Rotation Coppice – ERA-NET Bioenergy / FP6 2008–2012www.ratingsrc.eu

830,000

Sub-theme 2: Pre-treatmentProject acronym Project title Budget

(EUR)

Pyrolysis

BIOBOOST Biomass Based Energy Intermediates Boosting Biofuel ProductionFP7-Energy 2012–2015www.bioboost.eu

7 252 194

EMPYRO Polygeneration Through Pyrolysis: Simultaneous Production of Oil, Process Steam, Electricity and Organic AcidsFP7-Energy 2009–2013www.empyroproject.eu

9 155 978

TEKES BioRefinery

TEKES BioRefinery www.pyne.co.uk/Resources/user/COUNTRY%20UPDATE%20Finland%20-%20November%202013.pdf

BIOLIQ-CHP Engine and Turbine Combustion of Bioliquids for Combined Heat and Power ProductionFP7-Energy 2009–2011www.bioliquids-chp.eu

4 309 697

Torrefaction

SECTOR Production of Solid Sustainable Energy Carriers from Biomass by Means of TorrefactionFP7-Energy 2012–2015www.sector-project.eu

10 288 836

67

STOP STable OPerating Conditions for Biomass Combustion Plantswww.sintef.no/Projectweb/STOP/

3.5 mill NOK

TorTech Torrefaction Technology for the Production of SolidBioenergy Carriers from Biomass and WasteEOS-LT / NL 2006–2010www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2011/e11039.pdf

not available

TorrChance Chancen torrefizierter Biomasse auf dem österreichischen Energiemarktwww.ffg.at/sites/default/files/allgemeine_downloads/thematische%20programme/veranstaltungen/ehrig_torrchance_vorstellung.pdf

Sub-theme 2: Pre-treatmentProject acronym Project title Budget

(EUR)

Combustion

EU-UltraLowDust Next Generation Small-Scale Biomass Combustion Technologies With Ultra-Low Emissions FP7 Energy 2011–2013www.ultralowdust.eu

4 208 780

BioCAT Clean Air Technology for Biomass Combustion SystemsFP7-SME 2011–2013http://biocat.bioenergy2020.eu/content/publications

1 494 176

ENERCORN Demonstration of a 16 MW High Energy Efficient Corn Stover Biomass Power PlantFP7-Energy 2009–2013www.enercorn.com

10 820 598

Ashmelt Development of a Practical and Reliable Ash Melting Test for Biomass Fuels, in Particular for Wood PelletsFP7-SME 2012–2014www.ashmelt.eu

2 021 975

BIOASH Ash and Aerosol Related Problems in Biomass Combustion and Co-firingFP6-SUSTDEV 2004–2007www.cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/85623_en.html

2 921 305

ERA-NET Development of Test Methods for Non Wood Small-Scale CombustionERA-NET Bioenergy 2007–2008www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/front?id=4261–6e65742e6572616e65742e53756250616765

www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/download/Test_methods+10_9_2008.pdf?id=11681-6e65742e6572616e65742e46696c65&token=5U3P6ib4sb1lPbH7j1MlDFTlX9PEMM

347 099

ERA-NET BIOMASS-PM

Clean Biomass Combustion in Residential Heating: Particulate Measurements, Sampling and Physicochemical and Toxicological CharacterisationERA-NET Bioenergy 2007–2008www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/front?id=4261–6e65742e6572616e65742e53756250616765

www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/download/P3+Clean+combustion+in+residential+heating+by+Jokiniemi.pdf?id=13722-6e65742e6572616e65742e46696c65&token=SrTeal5pp17SS8STp2CT1uDjG7rMvt

571 104

68


ERA-NET Small-scale Biomass-Fired CHP SystemsERA-NET Bioenergy 2006–2008www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/front?id=13661-6e65742e6572616e65742e53756250616765

www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/download/Biomass-CHP+10_9_2008.pdf?id=11262-6e65742e6572616e65742e46696c65&token=aZIAiq3D3EhH9wi9MN7xKcL3gHf6bC

355 153

ERA-NET COPECOM

Control Potential of Different Operating Methods in Small-scale Wood Pellet CombustionERA-NET Bioenergy 2007–2008www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/front?id=4261–6e65742e6572616e65742e53756250616765

www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/download/COPECOM+10_9_2008.pdf?id=11282-6e65742e6572616e65742e46696c65&token=aZIAiq3D3EhH9wi9MN7xKcL3gHf6bC

295 870

Co-firing

DEBCO Demonstration of Large Scale Biomass Co-firing and Supply Chain IntegrationFP7-Energy 2008–2011www.debco.eu

7 129 045

Anaerobic digestion

VALORGAS Valorisation of Food Waste to BiogasFP7-Energy 2010–2013www.valorgas.soton.ac.uk

4 657 517

BIOGAS CASTILLA LA MANCHA

Biogas: Energy in situ for Castilla-La Mancha (BIOGAS CASTILLA LA MANCHA)AGECAM (ES) 2009–2010setis.ec.europa.eu/energy-research/project/biogas-energy-situ-castilla-la-mancha

350 667

BiogasIN Sustainable Biogas Market Development in Central and Eastern EuropeIEE 2010–2012www.biogasin.org

1 508 188

Agrobiogas www.agrobiogas.eu 2 891 939

ERA-NET Small But Efficient

Small But Efficient – Cost and Energy EfficientBiomethane Productionwww.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/front?id=14361–6e65742e6572616e65742e53756250616765

www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/download/SE.Biomethane_presentation.pdf?id=14364-6e65742e6572616e65742e46696c65&token=YuBQA7zlpHrPehhtPx3X5eTGvk1ZAK

ERA-NET AmbiGAS

AmbiGAS – Biogas Production From High Volume Industrial Effluentswww.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/front?id=14361–6e65742e6572616e65742e53756250616765

www.bioenergy.soton.ac.uk/projects/AmbiGAS 130908.pdf

Gasification

UNIQUE Integration of Particulate Abatement, Removal of Trace Elements and Tar Reforming in one Biomass Steam Gasification Reactor Yielding High Purity Syngas for Efficient CHP and Power PlantsFP7-Energy 2008–2010www.uniqueproject.eu

3 721 305

GreenSyngas Advanced Cleaning Devices for Production of Green SyngasFP7-Energy 2008–2011www.eat.lth.se/greensyngas/

4 089 167

69

Gasification Guide

Gasification Guidewww.gasification-guide.eu

1 041 163

ERA-NET Tar Removal From Low-temperature GasifiersERA-NET Bioenergy 2008–2010www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/front?id=4262–6e65742e6572616e65742e53756250616765

www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/download/5.+Eranet+Tarrem+-+Van+der+Drift+and+Dall+Bentzen.pdf?id=11122-6e65742e6572616e65742e46696c65&token=PcBNKk54ixWhJZaQHSijcD1WhjNAB5

744 000

ERA-NET Energy Efficient Selective Reforming of Hydrocarbons ERA-NET Bioenergy 2008–2010www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/front?id=4262–6e65742e6572616e65742e53756250616765

www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/download/7.+Reforming+of+hydrocarbons+-+Seemann.pdf?id=11161-6e65742e6572616e65742e46696c65&token=PcBNKk54ixWhJZaQHSijcD1WhjNAB5

738 158

ERA-NET Proof of Principle

Development of a Photoionization-detection Technique for On-line Measurement of Biomass Tar Concentrationswww.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/download/3.+On-line+measuremens+-+Van+der+Beld.pdf?id=11121-6e65742e6572616e65742e46696c65&token=PcBNKk54ixWhJZaQHSijcD1WhjNAB5

ERA-NET EMF Mop Fan and Electrofilter: an Innovative Approach to Cleaning Product Gases From Biomass Gasification ERA-NET Bioenergy 2008–2010www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/front?id=4262–6e65742e6572616e65742e53756250616765

www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/download/Executive+summary+EMF.pdf?id=11164-6e65742e6572616e65742e46696c65&token=PcBNKk54ixWhJZaQHSijcD1WhjNAB5

856 133

ERA-NET Synclean

Intensification of Syngas Cleaning and Hydrogen Separation, ERA-NET Bioenergy 2008–2010www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/front?id=4262–6e65742e6572616e65742e53756250616765

www.eranetbioenergy.net/website/exec/download/IMMpubliclyon05051.pdf?id=12701-6e65742e6572616e65742e46696c65&token=HIR2eyZM1a5cGg61451mytGaufcN7x

940 116

70


Annex 3: IEA RD&D public funding database, definition of termsThe production of solid biofuels refers to techniques, processes, equipment and systems to obtain solids fuels derived from biomass. RD&D activities focus on ways to increase the density and the caloric value of solid biofuels, and on ways to separate the biofuels from non-flammable or toxic residues also contained in the biomass.

The production of biogases refers to techniques, processes, equipment and systems to obtain gases arising from the anaerobic fermentation of biomass and the gasification of solid biomass, including biomass in waste. RD&D activities are focused on improving the performance, the reliability and the competitiveness of the production processes, and on upgrading the biogases generated by separating the flammable fraction (mainly methane) from associated inert gases (mainly CO2) and by eliminating toxic or corrosive impurities.

Application for heat and electricity refers to techniques, processes, equipment and systems to generate heat, electricity or both simultaneously from biofuels. RD&D activities focus on: (i) improving the performance, the reliability and the environmental footprint of the boilers generating heat from biofuels; and (ii) designing appropriate thermodynamic and mechanical systems to efficiently produce electricity from biofuels.

Other biofuels refers to techniques, processes, equipment and systems related to biofuels and not elsewhere specified, including genetically modifying the biofuel feedstocks. RD&D activities focus on: (i) assessing biofuel production potential and associated land-use effects; and (ii) genetics and biology to develop new crop varieties or modify certain characteristics of existing varieties.

Unallocated biofuels refers to techniques, processes, equipment and systems related to biofuels that cannot be allocated to one specific area of category 34 and where it is not possible to estimate the split between two or more of the sub-categories.

Bioenergy power and heat generation

Documents

Transcript of Bioenergy power and heat generation