PROJECT FINAL REPORT - EUROPA - SETIS · PROJECT FINAL REPORT ... project included in the framework...

PROJECT FINAL REPORT

Grant Agreement number:TREN/FP7EN/218968

Project acronym: DEBCO

Project title: DEmostration of Large Scale Biomass CO‐Firing and Supply Chain Integration

Funding Scheme: Collaborative project

Period covered: 60 months from 01/01/2008 to 31/12/2012

Name of the scientific representative of the project's co‐ordinator1, Title and Organisation:

Silvia Gasperetti, Enel Engineering and Research

Tel: +39 050 6185903

Fax: +39 050 6185651

E‐mail:[email protected]

Project website address: www.debco.eu

1 Usually the contact person of the coordinator as specified in Art. 8.1. of the Grant Agreement.

4.1 Final publishable summary report

4.1.1 Executive summary

DEBCO (Demonstration of Large Scale Biomass Co‐Firing and Supply Chain Integration) was a 60 months collaborative project included in the framework program FP7 involving seventeen Partners from eight different EU Countries. DEBCO involved an extensive programme of research, component testing and demonstration to further develop the co‐firing of biomass materials with coal as a means for using renewable fuels in the near term. Co‐firing of biomass is an important technology for CO2‐neutral electricity generation. In many countries biomass co‐firing is one of the most economic ways to save CO2. The major advantages of co‐firing are the common utilization of existing plants, fuel flexibility, a wide range of usable fuels and the attainment of higher overall efficiencies for power generation from biomass. Therefore, co‐firing in large thermal power stations can lead to an overall saving of fuels in comparison with independent fossil and biomass fired plants. The general purposes of the DEBCO project were achieved through a program including research activities, large‐scale demonstrations and long‐term monitoring of the key co‐firing options. This research and testing provided key insights into the following areas:

• The reliability and sustainability of biomass supply chain and quality of biomass; • The retrofit and optimisation of biomass co‐firing technologies to existing pulverised coal‐fired

boilers; • The measurement of the key boiler performance parameters of power boilers when co‐firing

biomass; • The measurement of the performance of the air pollution control devices when

co‐firing biomass; • The characteristic and utilisation/disposal of the ash discards from coal boiler co‐firing biomass.

The following six co‐firing configurations employing different proportions of biomass firing and fuels were evaluated:

• Rodenhuzie PP, Advanced Green configuration co‐firing wood pellet and hard coal up to 50% of biomass thermal input (285 MWel)

• Rodenhuize PPMax Green configuration 100% wood pellet combustion (180 MWel) • Kardia PP, Cardoons and lignite co‐firing at up to 10% of biomass thermal input (300 MWel) • Fusina PP, RDF and hard coal co‐firing up to 5% of RDF thermal input (320 MWel) • Dorog PP, Biomass (Saw dust, sunflower hull, sunflower pellets, wood chips) and hard coal co‐firing

up to >50% of biomass thermal input (40 MWel) • Rokita PP, Biomass (wood, agriculture by‐products as rape seed and liquid biomass‐crude glycerol

and SRF were used) and hard coal co‐firing up to 36% of biomass thermal input (22 MWel) The successful outcome to the DEBCO project provides the electricity supply industry in Europe and elsewhere with very valuable, and well documented, plant experience of a number of the key technical options available for increasing the share of biomass co‐firing in large coal‐fired power plants, and for the diversification of the range of biomass feedstock types that can be co‐fired. The experience achieved is relevant for future co‐firing projects involving both the retrofit of existing plants and for new advanced power coal‐fired power plants. This assists the ongoing efforts in most European countries to increase the portion of electricity supplied from renewable sources.

4.1.2 The main results are summarised in the Guidebook which is the result of a techno‐economic analysis and outlines the efficient use of biomass in fossil fired power plants. Project context and objectives

DEBCO (Demonstration of Large Scale Biomass Co‐Firing and Supply Chain Integration) was a collaborative project included in the framework program FP7 involving seventeen Partners from eight different EU Countries. The Consortium included: four Energy providers, three engineering and manufacture companies, six R&D institutions, four SMEs and other organisations (Figure 1a). Project coordination was assigned to Enel Engineering and Research (Italy). The duration of the Project was 60 months from January 2008 to December 2012.

Figure 1 – a) DEBCO Consortium b) Scheme of project organization The main focus of DEBCO project was the development and demonstration of innovative approaches to the co‐utilisation of biomass with coal for large‐scale electricity production and/or CHP at reduced costs and/or improved energy efficiency. The utilisation of biofuel shares in existing coal fired power plants is widely recognised as a relatively efficient solution to reduce the CO2 emissions in the power generation with contained capital expenditures. Thereby, the project outcomes contribute in fulfilling the international targets for the reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions. The general purposes of DEBCO project were achieved through a program including research activities, large‐scale demonstrations and long‐term monitoring of the key co‐firing options. A scheme of the project organization is shown in Figure 1b. The program had the following objectives:

• Increase the biomass share in large‐scale pulverised‐coal power plants from the already operating 3‐10% up to 50% on thermal basis and even more, depending on the fuel quality and plant related limitations (activity including short combustion trials and plant and boiler modifications – WP2);

• Monitor and assess the advanced co‐firing techniques in the long term, with particular attention to the critical points, i.e. fuel handling and injection, combustion and boiler performance, boiler integrity (fouling, slagging, corrosion), performance of flue gas cleaning devices, overall electricity net efficiency, utilisation of the ash residues (WP 3‐4‐5‐6);

• Monitor and assess the reliability and sustainability of biomass quality and supply in the long term, with focus to both locally grown and imported fuels (WP3);

• Extend, through long‐term demonstrations, the possible biomass fuels for electricity and heat production in co‐fired power plants to more problematic materials, i.e. locally available agricultural residues, residues with high organic fraction, energy crops (WP3);

1, 8, 11, 13

2, 4, 7

16, 17

5

3, 10

6, 12, 15

9

14

Partners:1.Enel Ingegneria e Ricerca (coordinator)2.Electrabel3.PPC4.Tractebel5.Matuz6.University of Stuttgart (IFK)7.Laborelec8.RSE9.ECN10.CERTH11.Agriconsulting12.VGB PowerTech13.IFRF14.Doosan Babcock15.Alstom Power16.Wroclaw University of Technology17.PCC Rokita

• Demonstrate the advanced key co‐firing technologies in the long term, representing a cost‐effective approach to the reduction of the overall CO2 emissions from the electricity supply industry (activity including the techno‐economic analysis of the long term monitoring – WP7);

• Enhance the technical know‐how on advanced biomass co‐firing techniques, with a view on a future implementation in advanced coal boilers operating at steam temperatures up to 700°C and provided with CO2 capture system (activity including tests on pilot scale ‐ WP1);

• Enhance the technical know‐how and the competitiveness of European utilities, equipment suppliers, SME´s, and R&D centres (exploitation activity – WP7);

• Plan advanced co‐firing activities in Eastern European countries, characterized by high dependence on coal‐fired generation and high biomass production potential (exploitation activity – WP7);

• Report the practical experience and technical know‐how developed within DEBCO project in a series of guidebooks and present the major project results to stakeholders, legislative bodies, utility and fuel supplier associations, R&D centres (exploitation and dissemination activities – WP7‐8);

• Increase the public awareness, knowledge and acceptance of the concept of biomass co‐firing in existing and new coal fired power plants, by disseminating the relevant information and results to technical and non‐technical audiences (dissemination activities ‐ WP8).

Three demo plants were selected for the long‐term monitoring and assessment of the most relevant applications such as different fuel supply chain scenarios, fuel quality (agriculture residues, energy crops, wood pellets, RDF – Refused Derived Fuel), and process and plant performances. The power plants are:

• Rodenhuize Power Plant, owned by GDF Suez (Belgium), with a 285‐MWel steam generator used for demonstration of wood pellet co‐firing at increasing share up to 50 and, then, 100% thermal input. The unit started up at 100% biomass after conversion in May 2011 and it has been normally operating since September 2011 (Figure 2a).

• Fusina Power Plant, owned by Enel (Italy), where the demonstration activity has been focused on Refused Derived Fuel (RDF) containing large share of biodegradable fraction. Since 2004 RDF has been co‐fired continuously in the two 320 MWe boilers (units 3 and 4); RDF is supplied by a local public utility involved in municipal waste management and disposal in the Venice area. In February 2009, the permitting procedure to double RDF annual amount up to 70000 tons was completed and, as a consequence, RDF has been increased up to 9 t/h in each unit at full load. (Figure 2b).

• Kardia Power Plant, owned by PPC (Greece), with a 300‐MWel steam generator, where the demonstration was aimed at evaluating the possibilities of using biomass (i.e. Cardoon) or other secondary fuels typical of the Greek region for large co‐firing applications with local lignite (Figure 2c).

Three pilot plants were selected for short term test at high biomass share.

• Dorog Power Plant , owned by Eromu PPC (Hungary), with a 40 MWel steam generator, used for short term test with agricultural by‐products at different shares up to 100% of biomass (Figure 3a).

• Brzeg Dolny Power Plant, owned by PCC Rokita (Poland), with a 22 MWel steam generator. Co‐firing tests with 10% and 36% share of wooden and seed rape biomass were carried out, as well as coal/glycerol co‐firing tests with and without urea addition about 30% by mass (Figure 3b).

• Meliti Power Plant, owned by PPC (Greece), 300 MWel Short term milling test up to 10% thermal share with wood and maize residues pellets were performed (Figure 3c).

DEBCO was characterised by a synergic engagement in demonstration, R&D and engineering activities combined with socio‐economical analyses. The successful outcomes are very helpful in increasing the share of biomass in large coal‐fired power plants and in diversifying the biomass feedstock typologies. The experience acquired within DEBCO is of remarkable importance for future co‐firing projects involving both the retrofit of existing plants and the development of green‐field advanced technologies. This fact will play an outstanding role in enhancing the future use of biomass, facilitating the creation of a sustainable energy market across Europe and assisting the ongoing efforts in most European countries in increasing the electricity portion supplied by renewable resources.

Figure 2 – a) Rodhenuize PP b) Kardia PP c) Fusina PP

Figure 3 – a) Dorog PP b) Brzeg Dolny PP c) Meliti PP

4.1.3 Main S&T results/foregrounds

The main scientific and technological results achieved within the DEBCO Project are summarised by Work Package.

4.1.3.1 R&D support actions (WP1)

WP1 was focused on R&D activities aimed at supporting the large scale demonstration tests and focused on multi‐fuel configurations, high biomass shares up to 100%, advanced steam conditions and further restrictions of emission limits. The main WP1 topics were:

• Combustion and emission behaviour

• Deposition behaviour and ash characteristics

• Evaluation of corrosion potential in advanced co‐firing conditions

Combustion and emission behaviour

Lab‐scale test

Trials on a 20‐kW isothermal flow reactor and lab‐scale combustion simulations were performed for different kinds and shares of biomass in coal co‐firing conditions. The behaviour of two different biomasses (cardoon and wood pellet), coals (lignite and hard coal), and their blends during fast pyrolysis and co‐firing was investigated. The reactivity and kinetics of bio‐chars was determined by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Results The highest value of CO was observed for lignite. Concentration of hydrogen was about 10% lower than concentration of CO. A visible high concentration of hydrogen, above 50%, for coals and for blends of coal with biomass gas was obtained. High oxygen content in biomasses resulted in high concentrations of CO2 in pyrolysis gases. From obtained results we can state that burning velocity is much higher for raw biomass than for bio‐chars; in the case of lignite this difference is low. The co‐firing of hard coal with wooden biomass resulted in a lower emission of sulphur. For most of the co‐firing tests, emission of NOx did not change significantly compared with only coal combustion. Only the co‐firing of 10% by mass cardoon with hard coal exhibited negative effects on NOx and CO emission. The effect of the presence of biomass on degree of burnout was positive, especially for tests with lignite and cardoon. The behaviour of RDF and hard coal and their blends during fast pyrolysis and co‐firing was investigated. The reactivity and kinetics of bio‐chars was determined by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Results For all of the pyrolysis tests, the most uniform composition of volatile matter was observed only for the 50% share of RDF with hard coal. Also, for that sample the highest concentration of hydrogen in the volatile matter was found. The burning velocity is much higher for raw RDF‐ than for chars, except with the blend of RDF with coal (share RDF 50%). The presence of RDF in the mixture with hard coal lowers the emission of NO but the emission slightly depends on the contribution of RDF.

Assessment of general combustion and in specific the deposition behaviour and the ash characteristics from selected coal and biomass blends, using the Lab‐ Scale combustor simulator (LCS) reactor equipped with the horizontal deposition probe under standard air firing conditions, has been carried out. The fuels tested at lab scale were:

• Russian coal and wood residues in blends of 50% biomass and pure 100% biomass, fired at Rodenhuize PP

• Greek Lignite with Cynara Cardunculus (also100% combustion of Cynara was fired)

• Greek Lignite with RDF and SRF at 20% w/w blends. Results Combustion of Rodenhuize wood either in blends with coal or 100% did not pose ash related combustion problems to the boiler, due to the very low alkali and chlorine content of the wood ash. The combustion of Lignite with Cynara did not pose any combustion problems as well, except from the very high ash concentrations in the coal that render advanced particle cleaning absolutely necessary. High Cynara percentages though may create large amounts of fine ash due to increased salt concentration in the ash. Assessment of general combustion and in specific the deposition behaviour and the ash characteristics from selected coal and biomass blends were performed at a 0.5 MW pilot‐scale test facility. The facility is equipped with flue gas cleaning devices such as ESP and a DeNOx catalyst. The fuels tested at the pilot‐scale facility were:

• Configurations of high thermal shares of Greek Lignite with Cynara Cardunculus up to 100% combustion of Cynara was fired.

• 100% wood dust combustion. Results For Greek Lignite with Cynara Cardunculus thermodynamic equilibrium calculations showed that the temperature range where melt formation is completed is also shifted towards higher temperatures. That means that melt formation is a more gradual process when cardoon is dominant in the blend which could facilitate boiler operation as deposit build up would occur less abruptly and there would be more time to plan counter measures as soot‐blowing. Hence herbaceous biomass similar to cardoon could be used to improve the quality of low grade fuels. The XRD‐analysis of the deposit samples collected showed the slagging propensity is reduced from the parent fuels propensity due to the interaction of the fuels during combustion. Thus, a low thermal share of cardoon in the fuel blend has a beneficial effect on the slagging propensity of low quality fuels and facilitates better boiler operations. For the pure wood dust test case, the formation of CaSO4 highlights the self‐desulphurisation propensities of the wood dust fuel. The most problematic deposit was at a level representative of the super‐heater area in a boiler, as they were observed to be severely sintered, almost molten ash deposit on the deposit probe. Severely sintered deposits were also observed from result of the large scale campaign during the Max Green configuration at the Rodenhuize power plant. The most significant deposit build‐up was observed on the deposit probe representing the convection section in a bioler., as it had the thickest ash layer The composition of the ash is not homogeneous. Therefore, the most significant risk with this fuel appears to be fouling within a boiler.

Modeling activities

The capability of 3D combustion simulation code AIOLOS was demonstrated to predict the combustion behaviour of co‐firing a lignite coal with a herbaceous biomass. It was found that the calculated temperature and major species concentrations match most of the experimental data. Furthermore, the results which are classified as the basic simulation were utilized as boundary conditions to predict the fouling tendency in a post processing step.

A method formulated by coupling different modelling tools was developed and applied to predict the impact of coal/RDF co‐firing on the ENEL power plant in Fusina. The main modelled outputs were the concentration of alkali chlorine vapours in the flue gas and the deposition inside the combustion chamber and the convective units. RDF is co‐fired with the pulverized coal, the former accounting for 5% of the thermal input. Three loads were studied:

• high load (310 MWe);

• intermediate load (250 MWe);

• low load (160 MWe).

As for the estimated alkali vapours concentration, the trend results similar for all of the three studied cases, starting from a similar value and decreasing with the residence time in the combustion chamber. The higher the temperature, the more pronounced is the rate of adsorption. Although qualitatively the variation of the deposition rate is similar for all units, the highest rate can be observed for the case of high resistance due to the fact that the surface temperature is lower and this favours the deposition.

Emission formation and burnout behaviours of an energy crop Cynara Cardunculus (cardoon) were tested under pure combustion and co‐fired with a lignite fuel. The work showed that the small addition of cardoon, 10% thermal share, improved the combustion behaviour of the lignite fuel used, as this trial had the better burnout for all the trials tested. Thus, using the lignite as a main fuel and a small co‐firing share of the cardoon will result in a stable enhanced combustion and plant efficiency while having minimal problematic occurrences. The use of 50% thermal share cardoon substitution for the lignite fuel showed a different combustion behaviour than the 10% thermal share trial.

Deposition behaviour and ash characteristics Test were performed on pilot‐scale facility for the evaluation and assessment of deposits and fly ash characterization combusting pure biomass (wood dust), which was used at the Rodenhuize Power Plant and cardoon, which was used at Kardia Power Plant. The following activities were performed:

• Characterization of deposits produced in pilot scale furnaces;

• Correlation and assessment of deposits formed;

• Characterization of ashes produced by standard and advanced pilot scale test conditions;

• Characterization of ashes according to relevant chemical, physical and technological properties specified by EN 450‐1, EN 197‐1, ASTM C618‐08, and the LAGA Assessments - Guidelines from the German-Federal/State Working Group on Waste‐ produced by standard and advanced pilot scale test conditions;

• Characterization of deposits produced in pilot scale furnaces.

Various test configurations were performed, leading to many test scenarios.

Evaluation of corrosion potential by advanced co‐firing conditions

Test on laboratory and pilot scale facilities were performed to evaluate the corrosion and erosion tendency of different materials (austenitic and nickel based) under synthetic atmosphere simulating the following real flue gas co‐firing conditions:

• 5% RDF‐95% coal (thermal basis) at 550°C and 650°C

• Cardoon‐ lignite co firing at different thermal shares, respectively 0, 10, 50 100%

• 100% wood pellet combustion

Results

For the trials with Greek lignite and cardoon, according to ASTM C618 the first three FA samples (from firing scenarios lignite case, 10% biomass and 50% biomass) can be classified as Class C fly ash:

• Pozzolanic properties; • Self‐cementing properties; • Does not require activator (cement industry).

It was shown from test configurations with Greek lignite and cardoon chemical analyses comparisons that the fly ash generated did not meet the requirements for lignite fly ash applications stipulated in ASTM C618‐08, there is no standard in the EU for fly ash generated from lignite or high calcium fuels. On the other hand, observing the chemical oxide contents in the different ESP fractions for each case along with the particle size distribution presented a picture of fly ash that come close to the limits of the standard. This is also supported by the concept of a multi‐component utilization reported (Blissett & Rowson, 2012), giving rise to a dual utilization of fly ashes. That would make them more marketable and likely increase profit for the power plant as sales would generally pay for the beneficiation process with some profit remaining. However, that must be assessed on a case by case basis. Further studies of the different size fractions from fly ashes would lead to a database of results that could ultimately be applied for consideration in new, different types of EU standard for fly ash utilization, increasing its market potential. The fly ashes would not pose any risks to drinking water quality, as leaching values according to the LAGA were met. Furthermore, it was stated that fly ash performance based evaluations are more valuable them chemical analyses, as some ashes will not meet chemical limits but still perform accordingly. Thus, consideration should be given to incorporating other scientific evaluations into standards, such as XRD or CCSEM analyses. Co‐ firing of cardoon with lignite coal is recommended (up to 50%). For the wood dust firing, the mixed fly ash sample was out of specification for ASTM C618‐08. The out of specification for the leaching of chromium according to the LAGA legislation renders the fly ash unusable in backfilling of underground mines or any soil application. This was the same findings from the large‐scale measurement campaign. Further work is needed to clarify this behavior and identify the mechanisms behind the cause. SEM micrograph analyses with varying particle structures and sizes showed that a dual/multi‐component utilization approach to the fly ash would lead to higher market value after some beneficiation process (post processing) of the fly ash.

4.1.3.2 Design and Optimisation of co‐firing configuration at maximum biomass share (WP2)

This work package highlighted major engineering activities to select a fruitful plant and boiler configuration and to optimise such a configuration for a successful long‐term operation period which advanced co‐firing conditions. One major working activity addressed required issues for the plant modifications which focus on aspects of the biomass handling, milling and feeding system, flue gas cleaning devices but also on operation (start‐up, shut‐down), process control and safety issues. Another topic was focused on the necessary modification of the boiler including the burner system. Short term component/combustion test were performed.

The main WP2 topics were:

• Short‐term combustion/components test;

• Plant modification;

• Boiler modification.

Plant and Boiler Modification

Rodhenuize Power Plant

Engineering studies focused on raising the thermal biomass share of 25% to 50% and 100% for unit 4 of Rodenhuize Power Plant owned by GdF Suez. The conversion of the unit 4 to 100% biomass firing was a stepwise process with a gradual increase of the biomass rate.

Conversions: 1989 to coal firing,

2005 to 65MWe pellets co‐firing with coal (“Light Green”)

2008 to 135MWe pellets co‐firing with coal (“Advanced Green”)

2011 to 560MWth/195MWe pellets firing (coal abandoned) (“Max Green”)

The modifications concerned the ship unloading and transportation, storage, milling, fuel feeding, boiler, burners and flue gas treatment systems.

Fusina Power Plant

A Study was carried out by 3D‐CFD code IPSE in order to evaluate separate RDF injection in Unit 4of Fusina Power Plant for co‐firing asset 5%th RDF‐95%th hard coal. The code, developed by ENEL, has been extensively used for the analysis, design and process optimisation of combustion systems for industrial steam generators. The code was validated with experimental measurements.

The simulation results highlighted that for 5%th RDF co‐firing no significant improvement in boiler performance has been highlighted by this study to justify the cost of the investment.

Kardia Power Plant

A CFD modelling was performed for the Kardia PP to identify the optimum size of the biomass particles for the co‐firing ratio (10% thermal share). In order to take into account the different properties of the biomass

particles, one of the most important of which is the non‐sphericity, updated models for biomass combustion and equation of motion were implemented in the CFD model. The investigations were mostly focused on the effect of the biomass particle size on fuel burnout. Other operational and environmental parameters, such as NOx emissions, were also considered.

Overall, several important operational parameters are unaffected by co‐firing biomass at low thermal loading: the furnace exit temperature is only slightly increased, so there is no expectancy of intensifying slagging/fouling phenomena related to the lignite particles in comparison with the reference scenario of operation The total heat transfer to the furnace wall is likewise unaffected. CFD analysis suggests that a potential benefit of co‐firing conditions is a decrease of NOx emissions up to 10%, due mostly to the lower nitrogen content of the biomass fuel and the respective mechanism for fuel NOx formation. This trend is well attested by literature and pilot scale testing but not by short term testing in the examined large scale boiler.

The main impact of co‐firing concerns the char burnout for lignite and biomass. Unburnt losses from the hopper are increased for lignite particles under co‐firing, while the burnout of particles exiting through the main outlet is largely unaffected. For biomass particles, the size is of outmost importance; particles with an equivalent diameter of 5 mm do not fall through the hopper unless they enter through the lower main burner, but exhibit very low char burnouts despite increased residence times. Smaller particles, with an equivalent diameter of 1 mm, exhibit very high char burnouts for all burner levels, despite being at least one size category larger than lignite particles. The increased hopper losses during co‐firing of large biomass particle were verified by the experimental results of a co‐firing campaign at Kardia power plant.

Particles entering the furnace through the lower main burner differ significantly in their trajectories compared to all other burner levels. The recirculation zone of the flow field in the upper hopper region tends to increase the trajectories and residence time of several particles, which fall initially into the hopper region and then find their way in the upward current as they gradually loss weight. On the other hand, depending on flow field intensity and particle density, a number of particles leave the furnace from the hopper with relatively high unburnt content.

Biomass particles that have undergone significant size reduction before entering the furnace pose no significant problems in boiler operation. Larger biomass particles, which are not subjected to separate size reduction or for which current size reduction techniques are ineffective, increase the unburnt hopper and fly ash losses. Although the overall boiler combustion efficiency is not greatly decreased due to the low fixed carbon content of the biomass particles, other issues may occur, such as sintering of unburnt fly ash particles at heat exchange surfaces or problems in the fly and bottom ash disposal routes due to higher unburnt carbon content. The intensity of these problems will increase with higher co‐firing ratios.

In conclusion, for the investigated boiler there appear to be two potential co‐firing schemes, which should be further evaluated according to techno‐economic criteria. The first concept ensures adequate biomass size reduction, which can then be mixed with the lignite stream. Combustion is ensured regardless of the burner level of biomass entry. The second concept does not rely so much on milling, although some size criteria must be fulfilled before biomass particles are injected in the boiler. Instead, a separate feeding system is used to inject the biomass at an optimum position for maximum burnout. Based on the above findings, such an injection point should be located between the lower and upper main burner. The retrofitting of one or more oil burner for biomass injection is such a possibility.

Short‐term combustion/component test

Rodenhuize Power Plant

Biomass milling tests were performed and they highlighted that pre‐milling technology with acceptable performances is not available. Particle size and moisture content of the tested agro‐biomass allows screening and fine milling without pre‐milling. The use of hammer mills for wet biomass is not efficient for high MC (15 % and more) and therefore not recommended. Test results show a clogging of the screen, sticking of particles on the mill wall and decrease of the throughput capacity.

Kardia Power Plant

Short term co‐firing trials with olive kernel and baled cardoons were performed (Figure 4).

For the olive kernel trials the following parameters and aspects of operation were measured / monitored :

• optical monitoring of the biomass feeding system;.

• monitoring of operational parameters, such as load and steam temperatures, through the data acquisition system of the power plant;

• monitoring of gas emissions at the stack.

From a technical point of view, olive kernel is a promising candidate for co‐firing especially at the Kardia PP. Some technical modifications should also be implemented, e.g. construction of suitable storage area and fuel weighting for the exact determination of CO2 savings. An investment in a permanent milling and feeding system for biomass might be useful even in the actual situation.

For the baled cardoon trials the following parameters and aspects of operation were measured / monitored:

• the evaluation of the milling performance during co‐firing;

• the overall performance of the feeding system was also investigated;

• operational and environmental parameters although low biomass quantity make the extrapolation of results difficult.

The main result of the co‐milling test with cardoon was that delivery in a bale form is not a suitable option with the existing feeding system. Therefore, for the implementation of co‐firing for the Joint Measurement Campaign, it was decided to use cardoon delivered in smaller particle sizes, so that a homogenized fuel blend with lignite can be prepared in the coal yard.

Figure 4 Loading of olive kernel in the conveyor belt

Meliti I Power Plant

Two potential configurations for the retrofitting of Meliti PP for co‐firing with a 10% biomass thermal share were investigated. Case A was based on handling biomass in the form of pellets, while Case B assumed that biomass would be delivered in bales or as chipped material.

Due to the relatively low biomass thermal share, both systems appear to be capable of implementation with minimal technical impact. CFD modelling suggests a potential for reduction of NOx emissions during co‐firing. The after‐burner grid allows for lower unburned losses in the bottom ash, which was an observed impact of co‐firing at Kardia PP. Both cases exhibit high profit potential for a wide variation of biomass prices and costs of CO2. Overall, the choice between Case A and Case B depends on the strategic priorities and the overall planning of the plant operator.

Dorog Power Plant

Short term test on the Dorog Power (Hungary) Unit were performed using agricultural by‐products including straw‐like materials with special focus on feeding systems, combustion technology, boiler slagging/fouling and operation (Figure 5).

Pellets of barley straw were successfully tried at Dorog Power Plant in a heat input fraction of 50%. The pellets were transported to the Plant by a truck and handled very similarly to coal. The proper feeding rate was worked out by determining the heating value of the fuels and weighed amount of coal and biomass was separately fed conveyed into the bunkers. Two separate fuel lines were used for coal and for the pellet so they did not mix before the flame. One bunker fed two biomass mills and one bunker did one coal mill. The flame of fuels was stable, however some portion of the pellet fell into the slag removal section of the furnace, but the external fuel recirculation (EFR) system recycled the un‐burnt particles into the mill. The EFR work without any problems. There were no problems of producing the nominal steam temperatures and the flue gas temperature at exit of boiler was in the design range, 150oC. With regard to the emission of pollutants, only NOx concentration was higher than that with coal and some combustion optimization will be necessary.

A mixture of wood‐chips, sunflower hull and wheat bran was co‐fired with coal in the heat input proportion of 50%. The trial was successful at boiler load of 85%. Feeding of biomass was not always continuous due to

the non‐homogeneous mixture. Wood‐chips tended to form craters in the bunker and for avoiding plugging, mechanical agitation of the material was necessary. Slagging and fouling was not noticed even before and after the trials due to low furnace flue gas temperatures and careful selection of biomass having high initial deformation temperature of their ashes. By now the biomass co‐firing has become a common technique at this Plant.

Figure 5 test on Dorog Power Unit

Rokita Power Plant

The Polish utility PCC Rokita SA performed short term co‐firing test in a combined heat and power plant (>100 MWth) with major focus on limitations and requirements to upgrade the biomass milling, feeding system up to 50 % and to identify major limitations and risks on the combustion technology, boiler slagging/fouling and operation. Beside wood, agriculture by‐products and SRF were used. Grinding of blend causes no bigger problems with separation of biomass in fan mill. The dust emissions at co‐firing did not change significantly, especially dust emission was rather stable. NOx emission was noticeably lowered, with small increases of SO2 emission. A decreasing of unburned material in ash wasobserved. No problems with fouling and slagging were observed.

Figure 6 Type of biomass in the co-firing test (wood chips /rape waste / glycerine).

4.1.3.3 Assessment of Biomass production, supply and quality control (WP3)

The activities of this Work package were focused on the evaluation of the supply chains and related market structures of solid biofuels for a range of local biomass markets and finally demonstrate concrete examples for the co‐firing applications in Italy and Greece. An investigation of large scale co‐firing in terms of sustainable fuel markets (local, national, and international) was evaluated for several EU countries with different boundary conditions (national legislation and support schemes, power plant portfolio, etc).

An analyses of the prevailing market structures at selected regions in each participating country and definition of the framework under which the supply chains operate in terms of competitive fuels, end‐users requirements and financial mechanisms was carried out. Inventory based on the available quantities and the type of solid bio‐fuels was conducted taking into account the seasonal fluctuations and harvesting conditions. The collected information was used to analyse and evaluate biomass supply chains in the selected regions of the participating countries.

A characterization of selected biofuel sources by standard and advanced physical and chemical methods was performed.


• Analysis of biomass market, supply chain and logistics;

• Characterisation of selected biofuel sources by standard and advanced physical and chemical methods;

• Demonstration and assessment of fuel production and supply chain;

• Socio‐economic assessment on the sustainability of solid bio‐fuels supply chain market.

Analysis of biomass market, supply chain and logistics

The analysis of policy framework shows that the high economic and ecological potential of biomass co‐firing is not fully reflected in the legislation of the European countries. In many countries co‐firing is only considered as an alternative way to produce renewable energy, in some excluded from the incentive system. In addition the national regulations change in short time intervals. Together with light variations in the legal definition of biomass and uncertainties of sustainability criteria these changes lead to insecurities for investment in large scale biomass co‐firing and considerable effort is needed for project planning on a European level. A common approach, at least for incentives and binding sustainability criteria, would lead to a higher security of investments and a higher propensity to invest.

The analysis of the market potential done show clearly that there is a high potential on the European and international market for solid biomass fuels without interfering with food supply. In addition a stimulation or development of local markets for biomass fuel will not only secure employment in the power sector but will secure and even create new jobs in the agricultural sector.

As shown in the demonstration of the supply chain especially, the creation of these local markets is a big challenge. It needs coordination and cooperation between the agricultural sector and the power producing facilities. This cannot be initiated without security of investment for both the local farmer and the power producer. By comparison of the two supply chain demonstrations for Kardia and Meliti it can be seen that

only the Cardoon supply chain for Kardia power plant could be established to provide biomass fuel for a longer test campaign, due to the fact that the cultivation of Cardoon was financially supported by local agricultural authorities. A supply chain based on maize residues for Kardia power plant was established and two companies operated as intermediates between PPC and farmers, which facilitated business operations and the handling of contracts. The supply chain for straw at Meliti power plant could not be established on a large‐scale basis, due to the absence of a local business entity that could provide biomass to the power plant. A short‐term co‐firing trial with wood and straw pellets at Meliti power plant took place with material supplied from a Greek pellet producer.

Characterisation of selected biofuel sources by standard and advanced physical and chemical methods

The quality and composition of the fuel are essential for the operation of power plants. The fuel properties of the biomass/coal blend should fit into the fuel property bandwidth the power plant was designed for to minimize necessary modifications to the existing installations. With higher co‐firing shares the share of the co‐firing fuel on the properties of the fuel mix increases. In either case this leads to a loss in electricity production and in some cases it may lead to critical corrosion effects.

Due to the above mentioned reasons, binding quality standards are required for large scale biomass utilisation. For RDF there are already quality standards in effect from different industry sectors that are either directly applicable or can be adapted for co‐firing. Regarding international traded biomass fuels IWPB 1has defined technical specifications for wood pellets; local biomass supply chains lack such uniform criteria and are usually adapted to each case.

Demonstration and assessment of fuel production and supply chain

Storing of large amounts of biomass is a challenge in either case. There are several standards under development (VGB 2 3, IEA, Laborelec) which will give information about the particularities of fire and explosion prevention and storage of biomass. Besides the differences in fire and explosion characteristics between coal and biomass, the main issue is the tendency of biomass to self‐heating and self‐ignition and in general the biological activity of the material.

Regarding the analysis done, it can be summarised that large scale biomass co‐firing has mostly positive impacts on all affected economic sectors (e.g. job creation, job retention in agricultural and power sector). The main challenges occur in legislation and supply chain integration. The technical challenges regarding fuel quality and biomass storage are present but suitable counter measures and behaviours are existent.

4.1.3.4 Assessment of boiler performance (WP4)

Long term monitoring of boiler performance was carried out on the three demo‐plants in order to assess the boiler performance, corrosion rate, ash deposition, and burn‐out under the co‐firing operating condition at different biomass share.

The main WP4 topics are:

• Combustion performance;

• Corrosion;

• Fouling and slagging;

• Assessment of boiler performance.

Fusina Power Plant

The RDF up to 5%th input has been fired successfully in Unit 3 and 4 of Fusina power plant since 2009, and is still in operation. In this period all the operational parameters were analysed and dedicated measurement campaigns were carried out to evaluate milling, combustion and boiler performance, slagging and fouling, corrosion.

The long term monitoring highlighted:

• An increase in energy consumption for co‐firing. The grate wear is an important phenomenon to be considered and that the maintenance of RDF mills is a key aspect in order to assure good performance of co‐firing process and avoid particle fall in the bottom hopper of the boiler.

• Two short campaigns, in November 2009 and March 2011 were performed to evaluate combustion efficiency The performed analyses indicate no significant differences between the emission values in the only coal and in the RDF/coal co‐firing configurations with the same setting of the burner corner ports.

• In March 2011 one Joint measurement campaign was performed to evaluate slagging and fouling and short term corrosion. The main results are:

o No Cl‐corrosion of all materials and at all sample temperatures. All materials showed no corrosion risk, but also seen was only a little protecting oxide scale due to the rather low O2

content in the flue gas o Regarding the slagging and fouling tendency the RDF/coal configuration is characterized by

TDRs higher than in the pure coal configuration. Higher values of potassium and sodium were obtained in the PC/RDF co‐firing configurations. This result is related to the higher content of sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium in the RDF than in the coal.

• Four long‐term (up to 5700 hours of fire) corrosion monitoring campaigns were carried out exposing samples of different materials (16Mo3 and A105 for the membrane wall of the combustion chamber, AISI 347 and AISI Super 304H for the convective pass) and at different temperatures (current operating conditions and Ultra Super Critical steam cycle simulation). The materials exposed in the convective pass present a negligible corrosion attack. Post‐exposure metallographic analyses confirmed this result. Instead for the combustion chamber zones with higher corrosion tendency have been identified e.g near the PC/RDF nozzles.

Kardia Power Plant

A short term Joint measurements campaign was performed in order to evaluate boiler performance, slagging, corrosion risk, emissions and assessment of ash utilization. Lignite and cardoon in the ratio of 90%/10% on thermal basis were fired.

The campaign highlighted:

• Even though cardoon can be considered a very challenging biomass fuel, its co‐firing with Greek lignite at thermal shares of about 10% did not reveal any significant impacts on boiler operation, while some positive trends, such as NOx reductions, were identified. The most visible impact of co‐firing is an increase in the unburnt losses of the bottom ash; however these do not translate into a significant reduction of the thermal efficiency of the unit, and it is expected that they can be controlled by a careful regulation of the combustion air.

• For a 10% cardoon thermal share, the range of variation in lignite quality appears to be more important than the effect of biomass co‐firing.

• The co‐combustion up to 10%th of the cardoon showed no Cl‐corrosion on all materials tested (10CrMo9‐10 as well as the T92) and at the chosen sample temperatures.

Rodenhuize Power Plant

For Rodenhuize power plant, preliminary tests up to 25% co‐firing (Light Green project) were performed successfully with different types of biomass fuels. The observations during the preliminary tests were taken as the base for the further test program. As a first step Rodenhuize power plant was retrofitted to 50% biomass co‐firing (Advanced Green Project) and short term test were performed in this configuration. Finally the power plant was fully converted to 100% wood pellets operation (Max Green Project).

Advanced Green (50% biomass)

During this phase the existing coal burners and part of the pulverized coal transport system were reused. The wood combustion was problematic due to the large particle size of the biggest particles, the worse particle size distribution and the irregular shape of wood particles compared to pulverized coal particles. The transport was not so easy, the more because of bends in the pipes.

In October 2009 a Joint measurement campaign was carried out to evaluate slagging, corrosion risk, emissions and assessment of ash utilization.

During the corrosion test, the following materials were investigated: 13CrMo4‐5, austenitic steels TP 310N and Sanicro25. The 13CrMo4‐5 formed a continuous but cracked oxide scale of about 50 μm. Sulphur reached already – after 94 h ‐ the metal surface. At temperatures around 550°C, sulphur‐induced corrosion may not be risky, but the temperatures of >600°C of the two austenitic steels TP 310N and Sanicro25 may lead to a corrosion risk because of a missing protective oxide scale

Max Green (100% biomass)

Long term monitoring was carried out from September 2011. In May 2012 a Joint measurement campaign was carried out to evaluate slagging, corrosion risk, emissions and assessment of ash utilization.

The energy consumption of beater mills for grinding wood was higher than the energy consumption for grinding coal. After a few weeks of operation the efficiency of grindability of the beater mills decreased dramatically and the worn out material had to be replaced.

For 100% wood combustion a new low NOx burner was installed with resulting better combustion efficiency, consequently less unburned particles and CO emissions. Slagging was increased considerably, resulting in stops for manual cleaning. The origin of the slagging was probably a decreased pellet quality.

During the corrosion tests sulphur was found in the deposits but not on the metal surface. A risk of sulphur‐corrosion cannot be foreseen. A chlorine‐induced corrosion will not be a problem. The particles show a loose structure, which means an advantage for cleaning the super heater bundles.

4.1.3.5 Assessment of Air Pollution Control Devices impact (WP5)

Long term monitoring and dedicated measurement campaigns were carried out on the demo plants in order to assess the impact of the co‐firing on the Air Pollution Control Device (APCD) performances.


• ESP performance;

• SCR‐catalyst performance;

• Evaluation of gas emissions.

For the assessment of gas emissions against the future legal requirements of the Industrial Emission Directive (IED = Directive 2010/75/EU4) the emission limit values are listed in the following tables for new power plants and for existing power plants.

The results for the monitoring is that for biomass co‐firing and 100% biomass combustion in Large Combustion Plants (LCP) with original pulverized coal firing, it is necessary to have a flue gas cleaning system that meets the requirements for best available technology (BAT). That means a DeNOx, de‐dusting and de‐sulphurisation step. With this equipment it is possible to meet the emission limits for new power plants according to the Industrial Emission Directive. Depending on the fuel constituents in some cases on the de‐sulphurisation step can be omitted but it needs to be examined carefully whether the heavy metal emissions can be met.

Table 1Emission limits of IED for new power plants with permit after 07.01.2013. Emission limits are given as monthly average values and for co‐firing as daily average in mg/Nm³ @ 6% O2.

mg/Nm³ @ 6% O2 IED emission limits for new plants

Compound Thermal input (MW)

1)Coal, 2)Lignite

Biomass Coal‐Waste co‐firing

Biomass‐Waste co‐firing

SO2 50 ‐ <100 400 200 400 200

100 ‐ 300 200 200 200/2503) 200

>300 150/2003) 150/2003) 150/2003) 150

NOx 50 ‐ <100 3001)/4002) 250 300 250

100 ‐ 300 200 200 200 200

>300 150/2002) 150 150/2002) 150

Dust <50 50 50

50 ‐ <100 20 20 20 20

100 ‐ 300 20 20 20 20

>300 10 20 10 20

CO 505) 505)

Cd, Tl 0.056) 0.056)

Hg 0.056) 0.056)

Sb+As+Pb+ Cr+Co+Cu+ Mn+Ni+V

0.56) 0.56)

Dioxins+Furans 0.17) 0.17)

3) Fluidized bed firing 5) Value for waste incineration daily average 6) average values over the sampling period of a minimum of 30 minutes and a maximum of 8 hours 7) ng/Nm³, average value measured over the sampling period of a minimum of 6 hours and a maximum of 8 hours

Table 2Emission limits of IED for existing power plants and power plants with permit before 27.11.2002. Emission limits are given as monthly average values and for co‐firing as daily average in mg/Nm³ @ 6% O2.

mg/Nm³ @ 6% O2 IED emission limits for existing plants

Compound Thermal input (MW)

1)Coal, 2)Lignite

Biomass Coal‐Waste co‐firing

Biomass‐Waste co‐firing

SO2 50 ‐ <100 400 200 400 200

100 ‐ 300 250 200 200 200

>300 200 200 200 200

NOx 50 ‐ <100 3001)/4502) 300 3001)/4002) 300

100 ‐ 300 200 250 200 250

>300 200 200 200 200

Dust <50 50

50 ‐ <100 30 30 30 30

100 ‐ 300 25 20 25 20

>300 20 20 20 20

CO 505) 505)

Cd, Tl 0.056) 0.056)

Hg 0.056) 0.056)

Sb+As+Pb+ Cr+Co+Cu+ Mn+Ni+V

0.56) 0.56)

Dioxins+ Furans

0.17) 0.17)

3) Fluidized bed firing 5) Value for waste incineration daily average 6) average values over the sampling period of a minimum of 30 minutes and a maximum of 8 hours 7) ng TE/Nm³, average value measured over the sampling period of a minimum of 6 hours and a maximum of 8 hours

Fusina Power Plant

The Fusina power plant is equipped with a Low NOx Concentric Firing System (LNCFS) designed by Alstom Combustion Engineering (formerly ABB). The flue gas cleaning system is separated after the boiler in two lines with identical equipment: a Selective Catalytic Reactor (SCR) in high‐dust configuration for final NOx reduction, an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and a Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) system. Both lines are reunited before the stack.

The tests in Fusina were done with pulverized coal and RDF (5% by thermal / 8% by weight).

There was no strong influence on every compound which was measured and that the limit values of the IED could be met. The dust efficiency in dust removal of ESP/FGD was comparable with best available techniques. The combination of pre‐ and main scrubber supports the high removal efficiency for HCl. For mercury the removal efficiency was estimated at 90% so there is no problem to meet the emission limit value of the IED for co‐firing with waste.

Kardia Power Plant

The flue gas cleaning system exists only of an electrostatic precipitator; it does not feature primary or secondary NOx reduction measures, while flue gas desulphurization is achieved naturally due to the high calcium oxide content of the lignite ash.

The tests in Kardia were done with Lignite and Cardoon (10 % by thermal / 3 % by weight input).

With co‐firing of Cardoon, a boiler temperature increase can be observed. This probably influenced the NOx concentration (thermal NOx) in the boiler which increased although the N‐content in the mixture do not show significant higher values. This could be attributed to the higher volatile amount of the Cardoon. Overall though, a slight reduction of NOx emissions at the stack was observed for co‐firing compared with combustion using the same lignite quality.

Gaseous emissions at the stack were recorded for the duration of the campaign by the plant continuous measurement system. Emissions were found to vary widely depending on lignite quality and properties, as well as the unit load. SO2 emissions were varying strongly during lignite firing whereas co‐firing showed more stable conditions. Kardia power plant operators have noticed a trend of decreasing SO2 emissions with increasing dust concentration. Hence, higher SO2 emissions can be attributed to variations in the ash quality and ESP performance, not on the impact of cardoon. Higher dust emissions for the lignite case compared to co‐firing with the same lignite quality were found; a change of lignite quality during the final day of testing resulted in much lower dust emissions, but with a corresponding large increase of SOx emissions. It should be noted that, apart from SO2 emissions which can be kept low by calcium auto‐capture, the NOx and dust emission values are generally beyond the limits of Directive 2010/75/EU (IED) 4

Rodhenuize Power Plant

For the Advanced Green, the Unit was equipped only of ESP, for the Max Green test an upgrading of the flue treatment system was done with the installation of Low NOx burners and Selective Catalytic Reactor (SCR) for NOx reduction.

Advanced Green

Generally the NOx emission for the 50% biomass case was higher than 100% biomass case. This could be the effect of the lower N‐content of the biomass. The same effect could be detected for the SO2 concentrations. For the CO‐emissions it could be shown that there were peaks of CO‐concentration during co‐firing whereas with only biomass the CO‐concentration is more equal and slightly higher. The peaks could be a result of soot blowing. The dust emissions are a little lower for the pure biomass than for the co‐firing case. This can be attributed to the lower ash content in the biomass fuel

Max Green

The dust emissions were very low, due to the very good pellet quality, with an ash content <1% on dry and the high removal efficiency of ESP.

The SO2 emissions were very low, due to the extreme low S content on the biomass used. Moreover if amounts of SO3 would be generated, it will be captured by the CaO abundant present in wood ash.

NOx emissions remained under the ELV, mainly due the low N‐content in the good quality wood pellets, new burners adapted for wood. With a fresh catalyst, the emissions are low. But they may increase over time because of fast catalyst deactivation due to free alkali species in wood.

4.1.3.6 Assessment of ash characteristic and usability (WP6)

Based on the trial combustion in the different power plants, the impact of the different co‐firing materials on the Coal Combustion Products CCP properties was investigated and evaluated. Regarding restrictions in further utilisation limitations and qualification of materials according to standard and new utilization routes, detailed characterisation tests were performed. The main WP6 topics were:

• Periodical monitoring and characterisation of by‐products such as bottom and fly ash during demonstration phase;

• Enhanced monitoring and characterisation of by products during a joint measurement campaign performance;

• Evaluation and assessment of by‐products by co‐utilising biomass/SRF. For the use in or as construction materials, both the European and national standard requirements for the placing on the market of coal ashand were considered. The standards for aggregates, for cement and for concrete consist of definitions, technical requirements and the measures for the internal production control as well as a third party control.

Use in cement (clinker raw material and blended cement)

There are no standards or regulations for the use of coal ash as a raw material for cement clinker production. Ashes are used as consisting mainly in silicon‐, aluminium‐ and iron oxide, but also to correct the alkali‐content of cement raw meal. For this, the raw material situation of a cement plant, i.e. the composition of the limestone and marl resources and the plant technology cause specific requirements on fly ash quality. The definitions and for siliceous and calcareous fly ash for the use as a constituent of blended cements are given in EN 197‐15.

Use in concrete

The standard EN 450 “Fly ash for concrete” was first published in 1994 6 and the revised standards EN 450‐1 “Fly ash for concrete – Part 1: Definition, specifications and conformity criteria” and EN 450‐2 “Fly ash for concrete – Part 2: Conformity evaluation” entered force on January 1, 20077 8. EN 450‐1 deals with definitions, specifications and conformity criteria for siliceous fly ash, which is produced by burning of pulverized coal, with or without co‐firing materials, and collected in a dry state, or which is processed by e.g. classification, selection, sieving, drying, blending, grinding or carbon reduction or by a combination of these processes.

Use in Road construction

For the use of coal ashes in road construction, bound and unbound applications must be considered. Unbound applications cover the use e.g. in base layers as filling material, in dam construction or soil beneficiation. Bound applications cover the use in hydraulic road binders and in concrete for road construction. For these applications European, national and/or country specific regulations of road construction authorities have to be fulfilled.

Furthermore, the European standards for soil beneficiation with fly ash (EN 14227‐139), fly ash bound mixtures (EN 14227 – 3 10) and for fly ash for hydraulically bound mixtures (prEN14227 – 411) have to be considered. The two last European standards refer to siliceous or calcareous fly ash according to the

definitions given in EN 197‐1. In contrary to the requirements in EN 197‐1 the reactivity criteria have to be declared.

For the use in hydraulic road binders the requirements of the European standard prEN 13282 12 must be considered. The revision of that standard resulted in the preparation of three parts. Part 1 is dealing with rapid hardening hydraulic road binders13. These are cement based binders which follow the requirements as already known from prEN13282. Part 2 14 is dealing with normal hardening hydraulic road binders. These binders have lower cements content, the compressive strength has to be tested after 56 days (part 1 at 28 days). A slaking procedure was implemented to guarantee that also lime rich mixtures can be evaluated in the laboratory. Part 3 of the standard deals with the conformity evaluation.

Use as Aggregates

On June 1, 2004 new harmonized European Standards for for aggregates for concrete (EN 1262015) and for lightweight aggregates for concrete, mortar and grout (EN 13055‐116) were introduced. These standards contain requirements regarding the characteristics of aggregates and the conformity criteria. In contrast to the other standards primarily the physical parameter are defined. In addition restrictions on LOI and environmental parameters regarding leaching potential have to be considered. Furthermore, in some member states national regulations exist for ashes from co‐firing.

Results for demo plants

The co‐firing tests performed in laboratories and in power plants demonstrated the variability of biomass as a fuel type. When looking at specific types of biomass the impact on ash characteristics is foreseeable and restrictions in use will be observed. For the three power plants the increase of co‐firing had to be evaluated differently due to the used coals and co‐firing materials.

Rodenhuize – Advanced Green

In the Rodenhuize power plant the amount of co‐firing of wood pellets was increased from 25 to 50% (advanced green) and later 100% wood pellets was fuelled (max green). With wood pellet a more specific type of biomass is co‐fired which still shows a wider range of chemical parameters in the investigated wood pellets and wood chips qualities. The variations may be based on pellets with and without bark. Due to the low ash content the variations do not have that direct impact on the ash quality as the amount of main constituents in the ash from co‐firing is mostly in the same range as the ones for hard coals. At present, the standard for fly ash for concrete EN 450‐1 [29] restricts the amount of co‐firing to 20% by mass. However, due to the experience with co‐firing over the last years the amount will be increased to 40% by mass and 50% by mass in case of green wood. The results of the project for wood pellets co‐firing completely meet the conclusions which led to the revision of the clause on co‐firing in the standard.

Rodenhuize ‐ Max Green‐

With 100% of wood pellet combustion also ashes are produced, but these ashes differ significantly from those originating from coal combustion and from co‐firing. The ashes show comparatively higher amounts of calcium‐ and magnesiumoxide, of alkalis, phosphate and sulphur. Respectively the amount of silicon dioxide, aluminium‐ and ironoxide is lower. Due to the risk of damaging reactions in construction products limit values for alkalis, chlorine, sulfate, free lime and magnesiumoxide have to be considered. The ashes from 100% wood pellets combustion show higher amounts for these parameter which do not allow a use in e.g.

concrete according to existing standards. In addition, the use as raw material for cement production is possible. The ash may be used as a lime or an alkali agent. Furthermore the use in or as fertiliser can be considered. This is already an option in different member states.

Fusina ‐ co‐firing of RDF ‐

The results of samples with 5% RDF co‐firing showed a slight increase of the concentrations of same trace elements as well as alkalis and chlorides. The main conclusion of the fly ash characterisation is that RDF co‐firing up to 5% thermal input has slightly increased the trace elements contents but not affected the main oxide composition normal utilization of the fly ashes in the concrete industry in accordance with EN 450:2006.

Kardia ‐ co‐firing of cardoon ‐

In the Kardia power plant the co‐firing of up to 10% (thermal) of cardoon was tested. The main fuel in Kardia power plant is lignite from nearby lignite mines. Due to the combustion of the different types of lignite a comparatively wider range for chemical parameters have to be considered. The co‐firing of cardoon with an ash content of 9.5 to 14.5% by mass and main constituents partly in the same range as for lignite ash shows a positive effect regarding a smaller band width for some parameters. As ashes from lignite are not covered in the standard for fly ash for concrete and as the variation in the ash from lignite investigated in the project is varying widely for a use as construction material, as e.g. filling material, the physical properties have to be considered more intensively as well as the trace element concentration especially for leaching limit values. If the co‐firing is combined with lignite from a specific seem also ash qualities for the use in cement and concrete may be produced.

4.1.3.7 Exploitation of all project results (WP7)

Major focus was placed on the implementation of an exploitation strategy to ensure that valuable and measurable results could be evaluated by the project partners to enhance advanced co‐firing activities. In addition, with respect to dissemination, the project results were summarised in a guidebook, which, along with workshops, conferences, papers, etc., served to communicate the project output as well as a clear summary of the prospective future needs.

The following technical analyses were done in order to assess the different power plant technologies, the techno‐economic barriers, the effect on plant availability, the cost of production, and the environmental impact:

• Optimisation of co‐firing at maximum biomass share (WP2);

• Assessment of Biomass production, supply and quality control (WP3);

• Assessment of boiler performance (WP4);

• Assessment of APCD impact (WP5);

• Assessment of ash characteristic and usability (WP6).

Feasibility studies were performed for Eastern European, Hungarian and Polish power plants.

A guidebook was written summarizing the results and experiences of the project. These results and experiences were centred around four major topics and resources:

• Detailed assessment results of 3 different demonstration activities where each is representing a relevant technical and social‐economic approach on a European level;

• R&D results of advanced co‐firing applications of highly efficient power plants;

• Feasibility studies of upgrading new and ongoing co‐firing activities to high shares in Poland and Hungary;

• Long‐term know‐how and experiences of project partners (utilities, manufacturer, SME`s,research centres and universities.

4.1.3.8 Dissemination (WP8)

General dissemination activities can be grouped as follows:

• Web based publications and communications;

• Workshop and conference:

• Publications. Web based publications and communications The project website for the DEBCO project is operational and accessible in two layers: one for the general public and one for project partners. The web site link is: http://www.debco.eu/ . The public website provides general information on the project, a partners list and an events calendar, and contains a library of reports and abstracts from conference papers and other publications.. The partner restricted website is accessible after login and serves as a communication platform and for the exchange of documents and/or data (Figure 7). It is also a project repository where all restricted project documents (technical and financial reports, deliverables and internal documentation) were uploaded and made available for downloading and modification. The website will continue to be available to the public after the end of the project and will be reachable for an indefinite time period as a link from the IFRF website. Workshop and conference Four public workshops and one final conference were organised during the life of the project. Two local workshops were organised, one in Rome, Italy and one in Florina, Greece, both focused on supply chain issues and potential markets. Two topic orientated technical Workshops, TOTeM 35 in Italy and TOTeM 37 Poland were organised. TOTeM 37 was jointly organised with the project RECOMBIO. A final international Conference in Brussels was organised by VGB for the presentation of project results. The conference was attended primarily by power plant operators and by experts from utilities and other companies intending to develop technologies using renewable energy sources (particularly for biomass co‐firing.) Publications The practical experience and the technical know‐how developed by activities within DEBCO are documented in: 75 private documents (55 deliverables, 5 technical reports, 15 meeting reports); 36 publications (6 deliverables, 5 technical periodic reports, 1 final summary report, 19 conference papers, 1 article in a scientific journal, 2 articles in international media journals); A guidebook summarizing the results and experiences – published on the DEBCO Web site as well as on the VGB and IFRF web sites. 17 Promotional Articles were published in Monday Night Mail, the fortnightly electronic newsletter of the IFRF. In June 2013, an issue of VGB PowerTech Journal wiII focus on biomass and biomass co‐firing During 2013 several papers will be submitted to international and national conference and workshop.

(Refer to Table A1 for a detailed list of dissemination activities.) Figure 7 and Figure 8show the DEBCO home page and the project logo which was created and integrated into the color scheme of the website and the project templates.

Figure 7 ‐ DEBCO web site

Figure 8 ‐ DEBCO Logo

Table 3 Beneficiary List

Beneficiary number

Beneficiary name Country Contact person

1 (Coordinator) Enel Ingegneria e Ricerca

Italy Silvia Gasperetti [email protected]

2 Electrabel Belgium Lode Smeets [email protected]

3 PPC Greece Charalampos Papapavlou [email protected]

4 Tractabel Belgium Jean‐Paul Mossoux jean‐[email protected]

5 Matuz Hungary Laszlo Barta [email protected]

6 IFK University os Stuttgart

Germany Aaron Fuller [email protected]‐stuttgart.de

7 Laborelec Belgium Yves Ryckmans [email protected]

8 RSE Italy Vincenzo Fantini [email protected]

9 ECN Netherland Michiel Carbo [email protected]

10 ISFTA‐CERTH Greece Panagiotis Grammelis [email protected]

11 Agriconsulting Italy Fabrizio Rossi [email protected]

12 VGB PowerTech Germany Ulrick Langnickel [email protected]

13 IFRF Italy Tracey Biller [email protected]

14 Doosan Babcock UK Bill Livingston [email protected]

15 Alstom Boiler Deutschland GmbH

Germany Markus Michael [email protected]

16 Wroclaw University of Technology

Poland Halina Kruczek [email protected]

17 PCC Rokita Poland Julian Krawczynski [email protected]

4.1.4 The potential impact and the main dissemination activities and exploitation of results

Potential Impact

The aim of the European Commission is to increase the share of renewable energy in the overall energy consumption in Europe to 20% by 2020. This was set as a binding target by the European Commission in spring 2007. At the end of 2010, renewable energy sources accounted for 12.5 % of overall energy consumption. In order to meet the targets, the share of electricity generation from renewable energy sources must increase from 19.8 % in 2010 to around 34 % in 2020.

It was considered that wind energy and biomass in particular should make significant contributions to the achievement of the targets. The EC Biomass Action Plan, which was published at the end of 2005, encourages the EU member States to harness the potential of all cost‐effective forms of electricity generation from biomass. The co‐firing of biomass is one of the more promising technologies.

The co‐firing of biomass in coal boilers is an important technology for CO2‐neutral electricity generation and, as is illustrated in the bar chart below, in many countries biomass co‐firing, particularly as a retrofit to existing power plants, is one of the most economic ways to reduce CO2 emissions. The co‐firing of biomass is practiced in numerous plants, especially in Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands, Poland, Italy and United Kingdom.

Figure 9: CO2 €/tonne % for different technologies.

Different government subsidy schemes as well as other financial instruments provide various national incentives for biomass co‐firing within the European Union.

Typical co‐firing plants in the power plant sector are in the electrical output range of 50‐700 MWel. The majority of the plants are equipped with pulverized coal firing systems, although, biomass co‐firing is also implemented in fluidized bed systems (bubbling and circulated) and in other boiler designs.

The key advantages of biomass co‐firing include:

• the utilization of existing capital equipment, with modest costs and fairly short project times for plant conversion;

• the biomass fuel flexibility, particularly at low co‐firing ratios; • the relatively high overall power generation efficiencies from biomass.

Biomass or Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) co‐firing in large thermoelectric power stations can lead to significant reductions in CO2 emissions in comparison with independent fossil fuel and biomass or RDF power plants. CO2 emissions are even potentially negative if combined with carbon dioxide capture and storage. The law requirements in terms of pollutant emissions are achievable with the installed existing flue gas cleaning devices. Moreover, the power and heat flexibility makes co‐firing attractive in future energy generation scenarios involving further development of the much less reliable and flexible wind and solar energy.

The combustion of pulverised fuel in the existing boiler furnace of a coal power plant is the most effective technology in terms of CAPEX and OPEX for the combustion of biomass in dry pelletised form. In terms of CAPEX, this technology allows the reuse of the pressure parts in the furnace and boiler, except for the modification of the burners and OFA ports. In terms of OPEX, it allows high combustion efficiency in comparison with the fluidised bed technology, which operates at lower furnace temperature. This results in a measured boiler efficiency in excess of 90%.

The DEBCO Project involved an extensive programme of research, component testing and demonstration to further develop the co‐firing of biomass materials with coal as a means for using renewable fuels in the near term. DEBCO (DEmonstration of large scale Biomass CO‐firing and supply chain integration) is a collaborative project included in the framework program FP7 involving seventeen Partners from eight different EU Countries.

The successful outcomes to the DEBCO project provide the electricity supply industry in Europe and elsewhere with very valuable and well documented plant experience of a number of the key technical options available for increasing the share of biomass co‐firing in large coal‐fired power plants, and for the diversification of the range of biomass feedstock types that can be co‐fired. The experience achieved is relevant for future co‐firing projects involving both the retrofit of existing plants and for new advanced power coal‐fired power plants. This assists the ongoing efforts in most European countries to increase the portion of electricity supplied from renewable sources. The Guidebook is the result of the techno‐economic analysis and outlines the efficient use of biomass in fossil fired power plants. Main dissemination activities and exploitation of results The DEBCO consortium adopted the policy to exploit and disseminate the results as widely as possible respecting the commercial right and interest of the partners. Two specific WPs were dedicated to the exploitation and dissemination of the project results and they represent plan for the use of the foreground. Both industrial and academic partners were involved. Dissemination and exploitation of project results were carried out mainly by two partners, International Flame Research Foundation (IFRF), and the VGB PowerTech e.V., both highly reputed internationally. Members of VGB are electricity and heat generating utilities while IFRF‐Members are mainly industrial organisations representing the energy intensive process industry (metals, cement/lime, coal etc.), manufacturers and utilities.

Exploitation of project results WP7 was dedicated to the technical exploitation of the results by means of feasibility studies of applications in Eastern European countries and the organisation of committee meetings where the main technical achievements were discussed. Feasibility studies of biomass co‐firing application (both develop of local supply chain and technical solutions) were performed in Eastern European countries (Hungary and Poland) where biomass use for power generation is poorly exploited. The Guidebook is the result of the techno‐economic analysis and outlines the efficient use of biomass in fossil fired power plants. This includes the evaluation of the different power plant technologies, the techno‐economic aspect, fuel availability, environmental impact. Training activities were provided by the Research institutions and the University, and also post‐graduate stages can be organized by the industrial partners. At IFK, one student’s work has been completed. Ongoing are another student’s work, two masters theses and two PhDs. The student and masters theses will be completed in mid 2013. Dissemination of project results The project results were transferred to an extended audience in Europe as described in Section 4.1.3.8 above. Activities and outputs were continuously disseminated on the webpage (www.debco.eu) . The website will continue to be available to the public after the end of the project and will be reachable for an indefinite time period as a link from the IFRF website. Google statistics reveal a steady level of activity on the DEBCO website with a constant increase in the number of page views per month and also in the average amount of time spent on the site by visitors. Interestingly, the trend also shows a steady increase in the number of visits resulting from searches or referrals. In the 30 day period to 19 February 2013, just over 60% of visits came from these sources compared with 38% from direct traffic. Total visits tripled in the most recent period compared with the previous month, with the major portion of the traffic headed to the proceedings from the final conference. As mentioned elsewhere in this report, the intention of the IFRF is to maintain the DEBCO website as a link from their own home page when the site closes in June 2013.

Partners participated in numerous public events such as professional fairs and workshops oriented towards industrial companies. Talks were given at 19 international conferences and workshops, and one scientific paper was published in a scientific journal. Articles appeared in publications such as the International periodical European Energy Innovation Magazine, the Parliament Magazine issue on EU Sustainable Energy Week, and the international VGB journal as well as IFRF’s fortnightly newsletter “Monday Night Mail”. The final conference of the DEBCO research project took place in Brussels at the 10th and 11th of December 2012. VGB organized this 1 ½ day’s conference with support of GDF Suez/TRACTEBEL. More than 85

participants from 14 countries were present. The results of the research project were imparted to the audience in 18 presentations covering the whole field of biomass utilization in large scale power plants, from incentive systems and supply chains, design and optimization of co‐firing configurations to combustion and boiler performance as well as flue gas cleaning and ash utilization. A guidebook summarizing the results and experiences is to be published on the DEBCO Web site as well as on the VGB and IFRF web sites. An issue of VGB PowerTech Journal with focus on biomass and biomass co‐firing is planned to be issued in June 2013. 1 “Initiative Wood Pellet Buyers (IWPB),” [Online]. Available: http://www.laborelec.be/ENG/initiative‐wood‐pellet‐buyers‐iwpb/. [Accessed 14 01 2013]. 2 VGB Powertech e.V., VGB‐R 108: Fire Protection in Power Plants, Essen, 2009. 3 VGB Powertech e.V., “Fire and Explosion Protection in Biomass fired Power Plants,” Essen, expected in 2012 . 4 “Industrial Emission Directive (IED): Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)”. 5 “EN 197‐1: Cement – Part 1: Composition, specifications and conformity criteria for common cements,” 2011. 6 “EN 450: Fly ash for concrete: Definitions, requirements and quality control,” 1994. 7 “EN 450‐1: Fly ash for concrete – Part 1: Definitions, specifications and conformity criteria,” 2005 + A1 2007. 8 “EN 450‐2: Fly ash for concrete – Part 2: Conformity evaluation,” 2005. 9 “DIN EN 14227‐13: Hydraulically bound mixtures ‐ Specifications ‐ Part 13: Soil treated by hydraulic road binder,” 08/2006. 10 “DIN EN 14227‐3: Hydraulically bound mixtures ‐ Specifications: Fly ash bound mixtures,” 10 / 2004. 11 “DIN EN 14227‐4: Hydraulically bound mixtures ‐ Specifications: Fly ash for hydraulically bound mixtures,” 10 / 2004. 12 “prEN 13282: Hydraulic road binders – Composition, specifications and conformity criteria,” 2000.” 13 “prEN 13282‐1: Hydraulic road binders ‐ Part 1: Rapid hardening hydraulic road binders ‐ Composition, specifications and conformity criteria,” 2009‐04. 14 “prEN 13282‐2: Hydraulic road binders ‐ Part 2 : Normal hardening hydraulic road binders ‐ Composition, specifications and conformity criteria,” 2009‐04. 15 “EN 12620: Aggregates for concrete,” 07 / 2008. 16 “EN 13055‐1: Lightweight aggregates for concrete, mortar and grout,” 02 / 2008.

4.2 Use and dissemination of foreground

Section A (public)

TEMPLATE A1: LIST OF SCIENTIFIC (PEER REVIEWED) PUBLICATIONS, STARTING WITH THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES

NO. Title Main author

Title of the periodical or the series

Number, date or frequency

Publisher Place of

publication Year of

publication Relevant pages

Permanent identifiers2 (if available)

Is/Will open access3

provided to this

publication?

1

Comparative study of

combustion properties of five energy crops and

Greek lignite

Emmanouil Karampinis

Energy and

Fuels Volume 26, Issue 2

American Chemical Society

2012 869–878 doi:

10.1021/ef2014088

No

2

Numerical investigation Greek lignite/cardoon co‐firing in a tangentially

fired furnace

Emmanouil Karampinis

Applied Energy

Volume 97 Elsevier 2012 514‐525 doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.12.032

No

2 A permanent identifier should be a persistent link to the published version full text if open access or abstract if article is pay per view) or to the final manuscript accepted for publication (link to article in repository). 3 Open Access is defined as free of charge access for anyone via Internet. Please answer "yes" if the open access to the publication is already established and also if the embargo period for open access is not yet over but you intend to establish open access afterwards.

TEMPLATE A2: LIST OF DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES

NO. Type of activities4 Main leader

Title Date/Period Place Type of

audience5 Size of

audience Countries addressed

Conference Papers/posters

1

17th European Biomass Conference – Paper

ENEL

RDF Co‐Firing At

Enel Fusina Power Plant

June 2009 Hamburg Scientific

Community European

2 34th Int.Tech. Conf. Clean Coal & Fuel Systems ‐ Paper

WUT

From Lab‐Scale Tests To Full

Scale Operation ‐ Liquid Biofuels Combustion In Pc Boiler Of 200mw Utility

Unit

June 2009 Clearwater, Florida

Scientific Community

International

3

18th Biomass Conference – Paper plus oral presentation

ENEL RSE

Advancements in RDF co‐firing

May 2010 Lyon Scientific

Community European

4 A drop down list allows choosing the dissemination activity: publications, conferences, workshops, web, press releases, flyers, articles published in the popular press, videos, media briefings, presentations, exhibitions, thesis, interviews, films, TV clips, posters, Other.

5 A drop down list allows choosing the type of public: Scientific Community (higher education, Research), Industry, Civil Society, Policy makers, Medias, Other ('multiple choices' is possible).

demonstration project at ENEL Fusina power

plant

4

VGB Workshop – Biomass – Paper

ENEL

DEmonstration of large scale Biomass

CO‐firing and supply chain integration (DEBCO)

1st June 2010 Linkebeek Scientific

Community

5

35th Int.Tech. Conf. Clean Coal & Fuel Systems ‐ Paper

USTUTT

Impact of co‐firing on emission

behavior and ash quality

June 2010 Florida Scientific

Community International

6 IEA 1st International Workshop on Cofiring

Biomass with Coal ‐ Paper

CERTH

Co‐firing biomass with lignite at Greek power plants

Jan 2011 UK Scientific


7

3rd International Conference on Applied Energy ‐ Paper plus

presentation

CERTH

Numerical investigation

Greek lignite/cardoon co‐firing in a

tangentially fired furnace

May 2011 Perugia Scientific


8 BETTER‐PRACTICE‐

EXCHANGE 2011 – Oral presentation

CERTH

Cultivation of energy crops (cardoon) as a substitute fuel

May 2011 Potsdam, Germany

Regional authorities

and stakeholders

European

for lignite‐fired power stations

9

19th Biomass Conference ‐ Paper

CERTH

Current Status and Future of

Co‐Firing in 5 EU countries: Support Schemes,

Sustainability, Markets

June 2011 Berlin Scientific

Community European

10 36th Int. Tech. Conf. Clean Coal & Fuel Systems – Paper

plus presentation USTUTT

Combustion Behavior of an Agricultural

Biomass in 0 5 MW test facility

June 2011 Florida Scientific


11

ECOS 2011 Conference – Paper plus presentation

USTUTT CERTH

Greek lignite/cardoon co‐firing: from cultivation to combustion

trials

July 2011

Novi Sad, Serbia


International

12 International Conference on

Carbon Reduction Technologies

CaReTECH2011, presentation

WUT

Characterization‐ Pyrolisis, Co‐Pyrolisis – Co‐

Firing of biomass and blends of coal with biomass

September 19‐22, 2011

Polish Jurassic Highland Poland


International

13 2nd International Workshop on Bio‐CCS – Oral

CERTH ECN

Greek Lignite / Cardoon co‐

October 2011 Cardiff, Wales


45 European

presentation USTUTT ALSTOM

firing at PPC Kardia PP

14

20th Biomass Conference ‐ Paper

USTUTT WUT ECN

An evaluation of limitations of co‐firing biomass in pulverised fuel

facilities

June 2012 Milan Scientific

Community European

15 20th Biomass Conference ‐

Paper CERTH AGRI

Investigation of wheat straw supply chains for co‐firing

power plants in northern Greece

June 2012 Milan International

16

International Conference on Applied Energy ‐ Paper

CERTH USTUTT ECN

ALSTOM

Greek lignite / Cardoon co‐firing in

pulverised fuel power plants

July 2012 Suzhou, China


International

17 34th INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON COMBUSTION

oral presentation and paper

Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 34 (2013), pp. 2769‐2777 DOI

information: 10.1016/j.proci.2012.08.010

WUT

Co‐combustion of liquid biofuels in PC boilers of

200MW utility unit

30 July/3 August 2012

Warsaw


International

18

Fuel Quality, Power Production & Env.

Conference – Paper and poster

USTUTT

Ash Deposition of co‐firing low grade coal w biomass in a 500KW semi industrial combustion

facility

Sept 2012 Austria Scientific


19 Convegno Uso Sostenibile del combustibile solido

secondario Enel

Cocombustione di combustibili

Solidi Dec 2012

Cologno Monzese Italy

Policy makers

50 Italy

Workshops

1

Workshop in Greece CERTH

Biomass Supply Chain

Organization for Co‐firing

Applications in Lignite‐fired

Power Plants – Perspectives for

the Florina Prefecture

May 2010 Florina

Industry, Civil Society,

Policy makers

50 Greece

2

Workshop in Italy AGRI

Local supply chains

traceability criteria and sustainability

Dec 2010 Rome

Industry, Civil Society,

Policy makers

100 Italy

3

TOTeM 35 IFRF

Co‐firing secondary fuels

in power generation

Sept 2010 Pisa Scientific

Community 50 European

4

TOTeM 37 IFRF

Innovative and advanced co‐

firing technologies

Sept 2011 Wroclaw Scientific

Community 50 European

5

Final Conference VGB Dec 2012 Brussels 100 International

Promotional flyers

1

TOTeM 35

IFRF 2010 European

2

TOTeM 37 IFRF 2011 European

3

Final Conference VGB 2012 European

Promotional Articles in Monday Night Mail

1

TOTeM 35 IFRF

31 May 2010, 19, 26 July

2010, 13, 20, 27 Sept,

4 Oct 2010

IFRF Membership numbering some 1500 individual

representatives from industrial and academic organisations within the

international combustion community

European

2 TOTeM 37 IFRF

27 June 2011, 18, 25 July

European

2011, 5, 12, 19, 26 September 2011, 03

October 2011

3 Final Conference IFRF 11, 25 Nov 2012 European

Other Publications

1

DEBCO Project Silvia

Lattanzi

European Energy Innovation Magazine

April 2011

Scientific Community Industry,

Civil Society, Policy makers, Medias

European

2

DEBCO Project Silvia

Gasperetti

Parliament Magazine issue

on EU Sustainable Energy Week

June 2012

Scientific Community (Industry,

Civil Society, Policy makers, Medias

European

Website IFRF Life of project

4.3 Report on societal implications

Replies to the following questions will assist the Commission to obtain statistics and indicators on societal and socio‐economic issues addressed by projects. The questions are arranged in a number of key themes. As well as producing certain statistics, the replies will also help identify those projects that have shown a real engagement with wider societal issues, and thereby identify interesting approaches to these issues and best practices. The replies for individual projects will not be made public.

A General Information (completed automatically when Grant Agreement number is entered.

Grant Agreement Number: 218968

Title of Project: DEmostration of Large Scale Biomass CO‐Firing and Supply Chain (DEBCO)

Name and Title of Coordinator: Enel Ingegneria e Ricerca

B Ethics

1. Did your project undergo an Ethics Review (and/or Screening)?

• If Yes: have you described the progress of compliance with the relevant Ethics Review/Screening Requirements in the frame of the periodic/final project reports?

Special Reminder: the progress of compliance with the Ethics Review/Screening Requirements should be described in the Period/Final Project Reports under the Section 3.2.2 'Work Progress and Achievements'

No

2. Please indicate whether your project involved any of the following issues (tick box) :

RESEARCH ON HUMANS

• Did the project involve children? NO

• Did the project involve patients? NO

• Did the project involve persons not able to give consent? NO

• Did the project involve adult healthy volunteers? NO

• Did the project involve Human genetic material? NO

• Did the project involve Human biological samples? NO

• Did the project involve Human data collection? NO

RESEARCH ON HUMAN EMBRYO/FOETUS

• Did the project involve Human Embryos? NO

• Did the project involve Human Foetal Tissue / Cells? NO

• Did the project involve Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESCs)? NO

• Did the project on human Embryonic Stem Cells involve cells in culture? NO

• Did the project on human Embryonic Stem Cells involve the derivation of cells from Embryos?

NO

PRIVACY

• Did the project involve processing of genetic information or personal data (eg. health, sexual lifestyle, ethnicity, political opinion, religious or philosophical conviction)?

NO

• Did the project involve tracking the location or observation of people? NO

RESEARCH ON ANIMALS

• Did the project involve research on animals? NO

• Were those animals transgenic small laboratory animals? NO

• Were those animals transgenic farm animals? NO

• Were those animals cloned farm animals? NO

• Were those animals non‐human primates? NO

RESEARCH INVOLVING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

• Did the project involve the use of local resources (genetic, animal, plant etc)? NO

• Was the project of benefit to local community (capacity building, access to healthcare, education etc)?

NO

DUAL USE NO

• Research having direct military use NO

• Research having the potential for terrorist abuse NO

C Workforce Statistics

3. Workforce statistics for the project: Please indicate in the table below the number of people who worked on the project (on a headcount basis).

Type of Position Number of Women Number of Men

Scientific Coordinator 2 14

Work package leaders 1 6

Experienced researchers (i.e. PhD holders) 50 20

PhD Students

Other 30 20

4. How many additional researchers (in companies and universities) were recruited specifically for this project?

NA

Of which, indicate the number of men:

D Gender Aspects

5. Did you carry out specific Gender Equality Actions under the project?

Yes No

6. Which of the following actions did you carry out and how effective were they?

Not at all effective

Very effective

Design and implement an equal opportunity policy

Set targets to achieve a gender balance in the workforce

Organise conferences and workshops on gender

Actions to improve work‐life balance

Other:

7. Was there a gender dimension associated with the research content – i.e. wherever people were the focus of the research as, for example, consumers, users, patients or in trials, was the issue of gender considered and addressed?

Yes‐ please specify

No

E Synergies with Science Education

8. Did your project involve working with students and/or school pupils (e.g. open days, participation in science festivals and events, prizes/competitions or joint projects)?


No

9. Did the project generate any science education material (e.g. kits, websites, explanatory booklets, DVDs)?


No

F Interdisciplinarity

10. Which disciplines (see list below) are involved in your project?

Main discipline6:1, 2, 4 Associated discipline6:1.3, 2.3, 4.1 Associated discipline6:

G Engaging with Civil society and policy makers

11a Did your project engage with societal actors beyond the research community? (if 'No', go to Question 14)

Yes No

6 Insert number from list below (Frascati Manual).

11b If yes, did you engage with citizens (citizens' panels / juries) or organised civil society (NGOs, patients' groups etc.)?

No Yes‐ in determining what research should be performed Yes ‐ in implementing the research Yes, in communicating /disseminating / using the results of the project

11c In doing so, did your project involve actors whose role is mainly to organise the dialogue with citizens and organised civil society (e.g. professional mediator; communication company, science museums)?

Yes No

12. Did you engage with government / public bodies or policy makers (including international organisations)

No Yes‐ in framing the research agenda Yes ‐ in implementing the research agenda

Yes, in communicating /disseminating / using the results of the project

13a Will the project generate outputs (expertise or scientific advice) which could be used by policy makers?

Yes – as a primary objective (please indicate areas below‐ multiple answers possible) Yes – as a secondary objective (please indicate areas below ‐ multiple answer possible) No

13b If Yes, in which fields?

Agriculture Audiovisual and Media Budget Competition Consumers Culture Customs Development Economic and Monetary Affairs Education, Training, Youth Employment and Social Affairs

Energy Enlargement Enterprise Environment External Relations External Trade Fisheries and Maritime Affairs Food Safety Foreign and Security Policy Fraud Humanitarian aid

Human rights Information Society Institutional affairs Internal Market Justice, freedom and security Public Health Regional Policy Research and Innovation Space Taxation Transport

13c If Yes, at which level?

Local / regional levels National level

European level

International level

H Use and dissemination

14. How many Articles were published/accepted for publication in peer‐reviewed journals?

2

To how many of these is open access7 provided? 0

How many of these are published in open access journals? 0

How many of these are published in open repositories? 0

To how many of these is open access not provided? 2

Please check all applicable reasons for not providing open access:

publisher's licensing agreement would not permit publishing in a repository no suitable repository available no suitable open access journal available no funds available to publish in an open access journal lack of time and resources lack of information on open access other8: ……………

15. How many new patent applications (‘priority filings’) have been made? ("Technologically unique": multiple applications for the same invention in different jurisdictions should be counted as just one application of grant).

0

16. Indicate how many of the following Intellectual Property Rights were applied for (give number in each box).

Trademark

Registered design

Other

17. How many spin‐off companies were created / are planned as a direct result of the project?

0

Indicate the approximate number of additional jobs in these companies:

18. Please indicate whether your project has a potential impact on employment, in comparison with the situation before your project:

Increase in employment, or In small & medium‐sized enterprises

7 Open Access is defined as free of charge access for anyone via Internet. 8 For instance: classification for security project.

Safeguard employment, or In large companies Decrease in employment, None of the above / not relevant to the project Difficult to estimate / not possible to

quantify

19. For your project partnership please estimate the employment effect resulting directly from your participation in Full Time Equivalent (FTE = one person working fulltime for a year) jobs:

Difficult to estimate / not possible to quantify

Indicate figure:

I Media and Communication to the general public

20. As part of the project, were any of the beneficiaries professionals in communication or media relations?

Yes No

21. As part of the project, have any beneficiaries received professional media / communication training / advice to improve communication with the general public?

Yes No

22 Which of the following have been used to communicate information about your project to the general public, or have resulted from your project?

Press Release Coverage in specialist press Media briefing Coverage in general (non‐specialist) press TV coverage / report Coverage in national press Radio coverage / report Coverage in international press Brochures /posters / flyers Website for the general public / internet DVD /Film /Multimedia Event targeting general public (festival,

conference, exhibition, science café)

23 In which languages are the information products for the general public produced?

Language of the coordinator English Other language(s)

Question F‐10: Classification of Scientific Disciplines according to the Frascati Manual 2002 (Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development, OECD 2002): FIELDS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 1. NATURAL SCIENCES

1.1 Mathematics and computer sciences [mathematics and other allied fields: computer sciences and other allied subjects (software development only; hardware development should be classified in the engineering fields)]

1.2 Physical sciences (astronomy and space sciences, physics and other allied subjects) 1.3 Chemical sciences (chemistry, other allied subjects) 1.4 Earth and related environmental sciences (geology, geophysics, mineralogy, physical geography and

other geosciences, meteorology and other atmospheric sciences including climatic research, oceanography, vulcanology, palaeoecology, other allied sciences)

1.5 Biological sciences (biology, botany, bacteriology, microbiology, zoology, entomology, genetics, biochemistry, biophysics, other allied sciences, excluding clinical and veterinary sciences)

2 ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY 2.1 Civil engineering (architecture engineering, building science and engineering, construction

engineering, municipal and structural engineering and other allied subjects) 2.2 Electrical engineering, electronics [electrical engineering, electronics, communication engineering

and systems, computer engineering (hardware only) and other allied subjects] 2.3. Other engineering sciences (such as chemical, aeronautical and space, mechanical, metallurgical and

materials engineering, and their specialised subdivisions; forest products; applied sciences such as geodesy, industrial chemistry, etc.; the science and technology of food production; specialised technologies of interdisciplinary fields, e.g. systems analysis, metallurgy, mining, textile technology and other applied subjects)

3. MEDICAL SCIENCES 3.1 Basic medicine (anatomy, cytology, physiology, genetics, pharmacy, pharmacology, toxicology,

immunology and immunohaematology, clinical chemistry, clinical microbiology, pathology) 3.2 Clinical medicine (anaesthesiology, paediatrics, obstetrics and gynaecology, internal medicine,

surgery, dentistry, neurology, psychiatry, radiology, therapeutics, otorhinolaryngology, ophthalmology)

3.3 Health sciences (public health services, social medicine, hygiene, nursing, epidemiology) 4. AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES 4.1 Agriculture, forestry, fisheries and allied sciences (agronomy, animal husbandry, fisheries, forestry,

horticulture, other allied subjects) 4.2 Veterinary medicine 5. SOCIAL SCIENCES 5.1 Psychology 5.2 Economics 5.3 Educational sciences (education and training and other allied subjects) 5.4 Other social sciences [anthropology (social and cultural) and ethnology, demography, geography

(human, economic and social), town and country planning, management, law, linguistics, political sciences, sociology, organisation and methods, miscellaneous social sciences and interdisciplinary , methodological and historical S1T activities relating to subjects in this group. Physical anthropology, physical geography and psychophysiology should normally be classified with the natural sciences].

6. HUMANITIES 6.1 History (history, prehistory and history, together with auxiliary historical disciplines such as

archaeology, numismatics, palaeography, genealogy, etc.) 6.2 Languages and literature (ancient and modern) 6.3 Other humanities [philosophy (including the history of science and technology) arts, history of art,

art criticism, painting, sculpture, musicology, dramatic art excluding artistic "research" of any kind, religion, theology, other fields and subjects pertaining to the humanities, methodological, historical and other S1T activities relating to the subjects in this group]

5 FINAL REPORT ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION

This report shall be submitted to the Commission within 30 days after receipt of the final payment of the European Union financial contribution.

Report on the distribution of the European Union financial contribution between beneficiaries

Name of beneficiary Final amount of EU contribution per beneficiary in Euros

1.

2.

n

Total

5.1.1

PROJECT FINAL REPORT - EUROPA - SETIS · PROJECT FINAL REPORT ... project included in the framework...

Documents

Transcript of PROJECT FINAL REPORT - EUROPA - SETIS · PROJECT FINAL REPORT ... project included in the framework...