EUROPEAN BIOMASS CHP IN PRACTICE

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN BIOMASS CHP IN PRACTICE Kati Veijonen, Technical Research Centre of Finland Anders Evald, FORCE Technology, Janet Witt, Institute for Energy and Environment, Germany Harrie Knoef, BTG Biomass Technology Group, The Netherlands Elvira Lutter, E.V.A. - The Austrian Energy Agency, Austria Johan Vinterbäck, Svebio, Sweden 2 Project partners FORCE Technology, Denmark, coordinator BTG Biomass Technology Group, The Netherlands E.V.A. - The Austrian Energy Agency Svebio, Swedish Bioenergy association Institute for Energy and Environment ggmbh, Germany Technical Research Centre of Finland 1

2 3 BIO-CHP project The BIO-CHP project intends to contribute to an increased - and more efficient - use of biomass for combined heat and power (CHP) production in Europe Means: collecting information from power analysis Information dissemination Start: April 2003 Data collection series: Sept 2003-Aug The Project aims to Promote biomass CHP in Europe and highlight with the best operation Provide e.g. authorities and future plant owners with information about typical plant performance and about best available technologies. Enable benchmarking, identify the improvement potential of the existing European CHP Replicate best practices 2

3 5 6 (+ 2) Countries, 68 Plants 19 biogas and landfill gas 4 gasification 10 CFB (circulating fluidized bed) 11 BFB (bubbling fluidized bed) 15 grate-fired steam boiler using uncontaminated biomass 8 grate-fired steam boiler using municipal solid waste (MSW) as a fuel 1 dust fired steam boiler plant Power output range: MWe Municipal Decentralised Industrial 6 Fuels Forest fuels Forest industry by-products such as bark, sawdust etc. Wood pellets Agricultural residues such as straw, husk etc. Landfill gas Municipal solid waste Heavy fuel oil Natural gas Coal Peat 3

4 7 METHOD Key data plant description Monthly data information on plant operation in one month periods 8 Key Data Details on plant ownership Details on contractor(s) Short description of the plant Commissioning year Year of major reconstruction(s), Technology used for fuel conversion. Technology used for power generation Main biofuels used at plant. Plant control principles (e.g. by heat demand, by electricity demand or other) Total nominal thermal input capacity of plant Gross power output at full load in CHP mode Net power output at full load in CHP mode Heat output at full load, including flue gas condenser Nominal electrical efficiency Nominal overall efficiency Water consumption [m³/year] as planned Operational hours per year as planned Comments on fuel storage Heat usage Details on waste water Details on discharge of ash Details on fuels Description of the fuel feeding system Description of the flue gas cleaning devices Plant investment costs Photograph of the plant and process schemes when available. 4

5 9 Monthly Data The following data was collected (when available): Amount of biofuels used, per fuel Amount of fossil fuels used, per fuel Amount of biogas or landfill gas produced (m3) Electricity produced (MWh), gross and net Heat produced (MWh), gross and net Own heat and electricity consumption (MWh) Steam sold for industrial purposes (MWh) Usable heat cooled off (MWh) Separate heat production from peak and reserve (backup) boiler(s) (MWh) Hours out of operation due to revision, and/or hours out of operation due to unexpected shut-down Tonnes of fly ash and slag discharged Type and amount of chemicals used, and description of usage Emissions to air Comments on operation, such as repair jobs, operating failures, encountered problems. 10 Results of the first 12 months of data collection (Interim report) Based on performance indicators availability utilisation period total efficiency fuel input: biofuels vs. fossil fuels nominal efficiency vs. operational efficiency own power consumption total efficiency on monthly basis 5

6 11 Final report (Feb 2006) + performance indicator as in interim report, analysis of 24 months of operation analysis based operational comments provided by the plant operators environmental performance but no economic data 12 Results of the first 12 months of data collecting Biogas and landfill gas Gasification CFB BFB Plants Grate fired boiler MSW grate fired boiler Dust fired steam boiler Utilisation period and availability versus plant size Energy production versus efficiency Biogas production versus plant size Practice versus theory for efficiencies Efficiency over time Efficiency versus size (only for biogas 6

7 13 Example: Plants with circulating fluidised bed boiler Austria Switzerland Finland (2) Sweden (4) Denmark Germany 14 Example: Plants with circulating fluidised bed boiler Availability and utilisation period 1.00 utilisation period & availability utilisation period availability 7

8 15 Total efficiency, electric efficiency * * * 1.0 energy production [MWh/a] * efficiency heat production power production total efficiency electric efficiency 16 Efficiency vs. planned efficiency efficiencies [%] operational electric efficiency nominal electric efficiency operational heat efficiency nominal total efficiency 8

9 17 Technology Comparison Biogas and landfill gas Gasification CFB (circulating fluidized bed) BFB (bubbling fluidized bed) Grate-fired steam boiler using uncontaminated biomass Grate-fired steam boiler using MSW as a fuel Power output Availability Utilisation period Total efficiency Electric Efficiency 18 Power Output MW Biogas and landfill gas Gasification CFB BFB Plants Grate fired boiler MSW grate fired boiler max min average 9

10 19 Availability [%] Biogas and landfill gas Gasification CFB BFB Plants Grate fired boiler MSW grate fired boiler max min average 20 Utilisation period [%] Biogas and landfill gas Gasification CFB BFB Plants Grate fired boiler MSW grate fired boiler max min average 10

11 21 Net total efficiency [%] Biogas and landfill gas Gasification CFB BFB Plants Grate fired boiler MSW grate fired boiler max min average 22 Net electric efficiency [%] Biogas and landfill gas Gasification CFB BFB Plants Grate fired boiler MSW grate fired boiler max min average 11

12 23 Conclusions In general, the plant efficiencies are far from planned There are a lot of operational problems, often related to poor fuel quality Biofuels are more challenging than traditional fossil fuels At this stage only small share of data has been analysed; more results will be available after detailed analysis of all the data covering 24 months. 24 Coming soon EU-SPONSORED WORKSHOP EUROPEAN BIOMASS CHP IN PRACTICE March 2006 Vienna, Austria 12

13 25 More information On the project on Workshop Newsletters 13