CFB Technology for Biomass Utilization in Heat and Power Generation

CFB Technology for Biomass Utilization in Heat and Power Generation

5 Jun 2013, Belgrade, Biomass for District Heating Systems in SerbiaVesna Barišić

2

• Biomass as Energy Source

– Advantages of CFB Technology

• Challenges in Biomass Combustion

– Advanced Biomass CFB (ABC) Technology

• Selected Foster Wheeler References

Presentation outline

3

Biomass as Energy Source

4

• Incentives against CO2 emissions promote renewable fuels => biomass

• Public institutions subsidize and support biomass projects

• Regulatory organisms do not release permits to fire fossil fuels

investors look into biomass

• Traditional biomass (wood-based) is costly and unavailable

• Agriculture residues are locally/globally available, and more economic

• CFB is IDEAL TECHNOLOGY for large scale power

generation for broad range of biomass alone, or co-firing

in larger fossil fired power plants!

Growth in Biomass Utilization in Energy Production

5

• Fuel flexibility and multi-fuel firing– Simultaneous and/or alternate use of broad range

of fuel qualities

• Excellent emission performance– DeSOx /DeNOx plants typically

not required

• High availability & competitive price

• Longer boiler life and improved reliability due to low even combustion temperature

Advantages of CFB Technology

6

CFB Technology Offers Wide Fuel Flexibility

Coal

• Anthracite• Bituminous• Subbituminous• Lignite

Waste Coal

• Anthracite Culm• Bituminous Gob• Coal Slurry

Oil Shale

Peat

Woody Biomass

• Bark • Wood Chips• Sawdust• Forest Residues• Willow/Salix

Agricultural Residues

• Olive Waste• Straw• Bagasse• Rice Husk• Sunflower• Dried Fruits• etc.

Waste Derived Fuels

• Recycled Wood/Paper/• Plastics• Solid Recovered Fuel • Tire Derived Fuel

Sludge

• Pulp and Paper Mill• Municipal

Gas

Oil

Petroleum Coke

CFB Technology Opens the Door to Fuel Flexibilityand Carbon Neutral Fuels

7

Challenges in Biomass Combustion

8

Compared to Fossil Fuels Biomass Ash Chemistry is More Complex

Ash 279 g/kg

0

40

80

120

160

Coal Peat Stem Wood

Forest Residue

Sunflower Husk

Wheat Straw

Olive Waste

Rapeseed Waste

Recycled Wood

RDF

Fossil Fuel Biomass Fuel Waste Fuel

Conc

entr

ation

[g/

kg fu

el, d

ry]

Si Al Fe Ca Mg K Na P S Cl Ash concentration

02468

10121416

Stem Wood

Forest Residue

Recycled Wood

Conc

entra

tion [

g/kg

fuel,

dry] Si Al Fe Ca Mg K Na P S Cl

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Coal Peat Stem Wood Forest Residue

Sunflower Husk

Wheat Straw

Olive Waste

Rapeseed Waste

Recycled Wood

RDF

Fossil Fuel Biomass Fuel Waste Fuel

Prob

abili

ty In

dex

Agglomeration Fouling Corrosion

Challenges Associated with Biomass Combustion are Well Understood- Foster Wheeler Fuel Model -

Agglomeration Fouling Corrosion

10

Technical Solutions for Biomass Combustion

Advanced Biomass CFB (ABC) Technology

Control of Fouling & Corrosion

Control of Agglomeration & Fouling

Empty pass before conv. HX - Flue gas temperature

- Wider spacings in width - Flue gas velocities - Fully recractable sootblowers- Austenitic convection SH&RH

Conservative flue gas velocity

Integrated Steam Cooled Solid Separator and Return Leg

Step Grid Final SH & RH as INTREX

Active Bed Material- Normal sand + PC ash

During Operation:- Fuel quality management- FW SmartBoiler datalog & Diagnostic tools

Recirculation gas utilization for temperature control

Additives

11

Selected References

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2015

2015

2013

2012

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2008

2007

2007

2005

2005

2004

2003

2002

2000

1998

1998

1996

1995

1994

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1986

1983

Cum

ulati

ve T

herm

al C

apac

ity [

GW

]

Delivery year

Foster Wheeler CFB Reference – 414 units –

Coal70 %

Biomass10 %

Waste3 %

Peat5 %

Petcoke11 %

Oil-shale1 %

Polaniec

KaukasJyväskylä

Igelsta

Samcheok

Fortum Częstochowa

13*only at 100% load with Mix 1, 2, and 3

Total plant efficiency ~110%LHV 90%HHV

240 MWth, 73 MWe-net, 209 MWDH, 92 kg/s, 90 bar, 540°C

Multifuel CFB for Clean Biomass and Waste (CHP)

Igelsta, Söderenergi AB, Södertälje, Sweden

Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3

Biomass [%LHV] 75 30 100

Recycled Wood [%LHV] 0 70 0

RDF [%LHV] 25 0 0

Moisture [%ar] 44.3 35.6 50.0

Ash [%dry] 6.5 4.7 4.0

Nitrogen [%dry] 0.6 0.8 0.5

Sulfur [%dry] 0.09 0.08 0.06

Chlorine [ppmdry] 1200 800 200

LHV [MJ/kgar] 9.7 11.0 8.3

Performance Emissions, @ 6% O2, dry

NOx [mg/MJ] 35*

SO2 [mg/m3n] 75

CO [mg/m3n] 50*

Dust [mg/m3n] 10

NH3 ppm 10

TOC [mg/m3n] 10

HCl / HF [mg/m3n] 10 / 1

Cd+Tl / Hg / HMs [mg/m3n] 0.05 / 0.05 / 0.5

PCDD+F [ng/m3n] 0.1Commercial operation: 2009

14

Large Scale CFB for Clean Biomass (CHP)Kaukas, Kaukaan Voima Oy, Finland

385 MWth, 125 MWe-net, 110 MWDH, 149 kg/s, 115 bar(a), 550 °C

Fuel Biomass Peat

Moisture [%ar] 48 50

Ash [%dry] 2.5 5

Nitrogen [%dry] 0.6 1.9

Sulfur [%dry] 0.05 0.2

LHV [MJ/kgar] 9.2 8.5

Performance Biomass

Flue gas Texit [°C] 149

Boiler efficiency [%] 91

NOx [mg/m3n] 150

SO2 [mg/m3n] 200

CO [mg/m3n] 200

Dust [mg/m3n] 20

Commercial operation: 2010

15

Large Scale CFB for Biomass with 20 wt-% AgroPolaniec, GFD Suez Energia Polska S.A, Poland

Fuel Wood Chips 80% + Agro 20% (Straw, Sunflower, Dry Fuits,

PKS, ...)

Moisture [%ar] 35.9

Ash [%dry] 2.8

Nitrogen [%dry] 0.25

Sulfur [%dry] 0.05

Chlorine [ppmdry] <396

LHV [MJ/kgar] 10.5

Performance Emissions@ 6% O2, dry

NOx [mg/m3n] 150

SO2 [mg/m3n] 150

CO [mg/m3n] 50

Dust [mg/m3n] 20

World’s Largest Solid Biomass Fired Power Plant

447 MWth, 205 MWe, 127/20 bar(a), 535/535°C

Commercial operation: 2012

16

Co-firing Biomass and Coal

17

• Smaller investment cost per MWe than in smaller units

• Higher plant efficiency than in smaller units

• Not dependent on biomass availability

• Technical challenges (AFC) reduced in co-firing

Benefits of large scale biomass co-firing in CFB

100% coal

Thermie Ultimo

Thermie SR

Average Europe

CFB today

10% biomass

20% biomass

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60Net efficiency (lhv, %)

2 CO emission (g/kWh)

% biomass on LHV

37%

21%

18

Medium Size CFB for Cofiring Biomass/Coal (CHP)Fortum, Częstochowa, Poland

Fuel Coal Wood Residue

Willow

Mix % heat in. 75 15 10

Moisture [%ar] 12.0 45.0 45.0

Ash [%dry] 20.0 1.0 3.0

Nitrogen [%dry] 2.0 0.2 0.3

Sulfur [%dry] 0.5 0.0 0.0

LHV [MJ/kgar] 22.5 9.0 7.8

182 MWth, 66 MWe, 77.2 kg/s, 111 bar(a), 515°C

Performance Emissions@ 6% O2, dry

NOx [mg/m3n] 200

SO2 [mg/m3n] 200

Dust [mg/m3n] 30

Commercial operation: 2010

19

Large Scale CFB for Cofiring Peat/Coal and Virgin Biomass (CHP)Jyväskylä, Jyväskylän Energia Oy, Finland

Fuel Peat Coal Forest Residues

Moisture [%ar] 50.0 9.2 50.0

Ash [%dry] 5.0 14.1 2.0

Nitrogen [%dry] 1.2 2.3 0.3

Sulfur [%dry] 0.3 0.4 0.0

Chlorine [ppmdry] <500 <2000 <200

LHV [MJ/kgar] 8.3 25.7 7.3

Performance Peat

Flue gas Texit [°C] 90

Boiler efficiency [%] 94.1

NOx [mg/m3n] 150

SO2 [mg/m3n] 200

CO [mg/m3n] 200

Dust [mg/m3n] 30

455 MWth, 200 MWe, 160/143 kg/s, 164/40.5 bar(a), 560/560°C

Commercial operation: 2010

20

Coal & Biomass Co-Fired Supercritical CFB ProjectSamcheok 4 x 550 MWe

– 437/356 kg/s, 25.6/5.4 MPa, 603/603 °C

– Efficiency 42.4% (net)

• Fuel flexibility:

– Lignite/Subbituminous coal

– Wood Pellets max 5%

• KOSPO, Korean Southern Power Co. Ltd

• Foster Wheeler scope: Basic design of boiler plant and delivery of hot loop pressure parts etc.

• Contract Signed (NTP): June 2011

• Commercial operation: 2015

4 x 550 MWe supercritical OTU – CFB to feed 2 x 1100 MWe turbines

21

• Biomass has an important role in reducing the environmental effects of energy production both in pure biomass plants and in coal and biomass co-combustion

• CFB technology is an ideal Technology to be used for large scale power generation with broad range of solid biomass fuels

• CFB Technology with pure biomass firing available up to 600 MWe scale and with coal co-firing up to 800 MWe scale

Summary

www.fwc.com