Beneficiation of Chipped and Ground Woody Biomass

Transcription

1 Beneficiation of Chipped and Ground Woody Biomass Cleaning dirty biomass to produce quality feedstocks Jim Dooley This presentation is based upon research and development that was supported inpart by the U.S. Department of Agriculture NIFA - Small Business Innovation Research Program Contract No

2 Agenda Forest Concepts Supply Chain R&D Characterization of Low-Grade Woody Biomass Pathways to Achieve User Specifications Results and Discussion Final Thoughts

3 Who we are Started in 1995 to create new uses for roundwood ELWd engineered large woody debris habitat (1998) FlowCheck engineered log erosion barriers (2000) USFS R4, Boise NF Transportable Roundwood Processing System (2002) National Fire Plan, USFS R6, Mason Conservation District WoodStraw erosion control material (2005) USDA/NIFA, USFS-RMRS, BLM Woody Biomass and Brush Baler (2008) Street legal baler to replace small chippers Beneficiation of Chipped and Shredded Woody Biomass Precision Cellulosic Biofuel Feedstocks (DOE funded)

4 Biomass Supply Chain & Forest Concepts Collection Bale Aggregation Transport Storage Pre-processing Conversion Woody Biomass Baling Managed Drying and Bale Handling Energy and Payload Managed Drying and Bale Handling Bale Optimized for Horizontal Grinders Pre-Processing Hog Fuel Beneficiation Low Energy Comminution Precision Particles

5 Biomass Feedstock Quality Matters Ash content is a major issue for pellet fuel feedstocks Soluble minerals (e.g. alkanes, iron oxide, calcium carbonate, sodium, potassium, ) greatly reduce yield of biofuels due to catalytic reactions Particle shape, size, and surface-to-volume ratios affect reaction kinetics, drying rates, materials handling, Quality and value can be improved by: Anatomical fractionation (bark, leaves, ) Cleaning to remove soil, gravel, metal, grit, Washing to reduce extractives Size sorting Comminution methods and equipment

6 Biomass Feedstock

7 The problem with Hog Fuel Dirt and grit Bark Fines Overs Debris 0% Fines 10% Grit 22% Leaves 2% Bark 11% Wood + (Bark Fraction) 1% Cumulative Material Composition Wood Fiber 54% Clean Wood 48% Wood + (Wood Fraction) 6% Clean Wood Wood + (Wood Fraction) Wood + (Bark Fraction) Bark Leaves Fines Debris Grit Distribution by Size & Class 100 million tons per year available % of Total Mass 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% Cumulative Catagorized Materials Washable Grit Debris Fines Leaves Bark W+ CW 1 1/2 1 1/2 #4 #8 #16 Pan 6/20/ % Sieve Size (Containing the Material)

8 The OPPORTUNITY with Hog Fuel 50% wood Low cost Abundant Debris 0% Fines 10% Grit 22% Leaves 2% Bark 11% Wood + (Bark Fraction) 1% Cumulative Material Composition Wood Fiber 54% Clean Wood 48% Wood + (Wood Fraction) 6% Clean Wood Wood + (Wood Fraction) Wood + (Bark Fraction) Bark Leaves Fines Debris Grit 50 million tons of wood fiber IF you can separate it from the rest % of Total Mass 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% Distribution by Size & Class Cumulative Catagorized Materials Washable Grit Debris Fines Leaves Bark W+ CW 1 1/2 1 1/2 #4 #8 #16 Pan 6/20/ % Sieve Size (Containing the Material)

9 The problem with Urban Chips Dirt and grit Bark & Leaves Fines Fines 21% Leaves 10% Debris 0% Northwest Tree Service Chipper Material Composition Grit 10% Wood Fiber 45% Clean Wood 34% Clean Wood Wood + (Wood Fraction) Wood + (Bark Fraction) Bark Leaves Fines Debris Grit Bark 11% Wood + (Bark Fraction) 3% Wood + (Wood Fraction) 11% 30 million tons per year available 30.00% Distribution by Size & Class Northwest - Tree Service - Chipper % of Total Mass 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% Washable Grit Debris Fines Leaves Bark W+ CW 0.00% 1 1/2 1 1/2 #4 #8 #16 Pan 6/20/ Sieve Size (Containing the Material)

10 Woody Biomass Beneficiation USDA SBIR Objective: Increase the supply of wood fiber to reduce conflicts and competition for traditional mill residuals This was 3 years before BCAP! Develop technologies to reprocess hog fuel and urban chips into fractions suitable to replace traditional mill residuals Reduce bark content to 1, 3, or 6 % targets Deliver clean streams of wood and bark that meet industry sector standards for ash and grit content

11 Allowable Ash by End Use DOE Design Case 1% Ash

12 Beneficiation Operations Screening Overs, unders, fines, soil Mechanical Beating Break up non-wood Wet or dry Rinsing sand, silt, clay, fine organic Air Separation -rocks Flotation Separation rocks and clays Dewatering or drying Specific gravity separation gravel, sand

13 USDA-SBIR Validation System 1-ton (od) per hour

14 Ash Content by Sieve Fraction for Land Clearing Woody Biomass Sample: Sieve ID Opening (mm) Ash Content % 1 1/ % % 1/ % 1/ % 1/ % No % Pan 40.11% Ash Content 12.3 % Note: Clean wood is ~ 0.3% ash

15 Mass 100% Pile SBIR Beneficiation Validation Test Ground Land Clearing Debris - Seattle 66 % Wood 13 % Bark 21 % Other 12.3 % Ash 67% 60% Initial Screen 80 % Wood 13 % Bark 7 % Other 2.1 % Ash Dry Flail 67 % Wood 15 % Bark 18 % Other 1.4 % Ash 61% Wet Flail 57% Note: This experiment sought to minimize ash while maximizing total biomass retained. Thus, the bark content was higher than we wanted. Removing more bark would substantially reduce the mass yield of clean biomass. 77 % Wood 11 % Bark 13 % Other 1.1 % Ash Floatation Tank 79% Wood 18 % Bark 3 % Other 0.6 % Ash Final Screen

16 Ground Land Clearing Debris Sample: After Wet Flail 77 % Wood 11 % Bark 1.1 % Ash Raw Material 66 % Wood 13 % Bark 12.3 % Ash

17 Mass 100% SBIR Beneficiation Validation Test Urban Arborist Chips Auburn, WA Pile 26 % Wood 22 % Bark 52 % Other 3.2 % Ash 43% 27% Initial Screen 48 % Wood 20 % Bark 32 % Other 2.6 % Ash Dry Flail 65 % Wood 22 % Bark 13 % Other 2.6 % Ash 34% Wet Flail 59 % Wood 23 % Bark 18 % Other 2.4 % Ash Floatation Tank na Note: This experiment sought to minimize ash while maximizing total biomass retained. Thus, the bark content was higher than we wanted. Removing more bark would substantially reduce the mass yield of clean biomass. Final Screen

18 Conclusions from Validation Tests Land Clearing Debris Screening alone can often get the ash content below 3% Dry or wet flail processing can further reduce ash to less than 1.5% Bark content was not appreciably reduced More work to be done! Approx. 60% of mass could be redirected to fuel pellets or furnish Arborist Ponderosa Pine Chips Screening and dry flail increased wood content from 26% to 65% More than 65% of mass was removed by processing Total ash remained approx. 2.5% throughout testing This sample would be uneconomical to upgrade

19 Market Implications Reprocessing ground forest residuals and other woody biomass can contribute substantial new sources of fiber to select existing and new uses Composite panel core stock Densified solid biofuels (export pellets) Advanced biofuel feedstocks Polymer composite products

20 Final Thoughts Forest Concepts demonstration scale portable system is available for use 1 bdt per hour Forest Concepts biomass lab is open! Particle size and shape Anatomical and debris content analysis Ash content Bulk density Flowability Our technical team will consult with engineering providers, plant operators, and biomass suppliers to improve feedstocks

21 Thank You! Jim Dooley Forest Concepts 3320 West Valley Hwy. N. D110 Auburn, WA p / jdooley@forestconcepts.com / Development was supported in-part by the NIFA Small Business Innovation Research program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, grant numbers and