Acknowledgements. Acknowledgements

Transcription

1

2 Acknowledgements It has been a wonderful opportunity and thrilling learning experience for our team at The University of Western Ontario Research Park, Sarnia-Lambton Campus, to research and write our second study f o r Ontario Power Generation examining a g r i cultural biomass as a coal replacement. This s e c ond report, Assessment of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel for Ontario Po w e r G e n e r a t i o n, follows and complements our first report, Energy Crop Options for Ontario Power Generation. Responding to today s concern for sustainable energy and minimization of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, requires very large projects with unprecedented levels of individual and organizational collaboration. The research team and extensive network led by Dr. Aung Oo and Dr. Katherine Albion exemplified productive collaboration, networking, cooperation, and the required maintenance of focus of large projects with diverse stakeholders. The success of this project creates optimism for the development of sustainable energy resources for Ontario and Canada and the world. The finding that 4.5 million metric tonnes (4.5X10 9 kg) of above ground agricultural residuals can be annually harvested in 2014, without depleting soil organic matter, is very encouraging. This compares well with Ontario Power Generation s predicted annual need of 2 million metric tonnes. The maintenance of soil organic matter is a core concept in the use of agricultural residuals. Several opinions have been put forth that the world is already beyond Peak Soil, a word play on M.K. Hubbert s peak oil, but conceptually identical. The use of agricultural residuals is sustainable only if soil organic matter is sustained. On behalf of the entire research team at the Park, I gratefully acknowledge the following individuals and their affiliated organizations for their enormous contributions to this project. At Ontario Power Generation -- Phil Reinert and Rob Mager provided a detailed scope of work that kept our project on track. OPG s Steve Repergel helped with media, and Nancy Wilson helped with the proposal phase of this project. Our project guest specialists and contributors -- Professor Paul Voroney, University of Guelph; Andrew Graham, Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association; Dale Cowan and Jim Campbell, AGRIS Co-operatives; S c o t t A b e r c r o m b i e, Gildale Farms; Dr. Art Schaafsma, University of Guelph; and Andy Keir, A ECOM. T h e Park s r e searchers -- Dr. Aung Oo and Dr. Katherine Albion. Contributors -- Tim Barkhouse, l o c a l f a r m e r ; Te d Cowan, Ontario Federation of Agriculture; Matt McLean, SOBIN; Mahendra Thimmanagari, OMAFRA; Marshall Kern, formerly DOW Chemical; D o n N o t t, N o t t F a r m s ; E d VanDeWynckel, Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association; Harold Rudy, OSCIA; Don McCabe, Ontario Federation of Agriculture; Jim Abercrombie, Gildale Farms; Geoff Whitifield, Queen s Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy; Stelios Arvelakis, University of North Dakota; Ian Moncrieff, Canadian Biofuel; Jagjit Singh, Uni versity of Guelph; Nick Ruzich, Cennatek Bioanalytical Services; Professor Franco Berruti and Professor Cedric Briens, ICFAR; Joel Adams, Sara Bigelow, Caroline Craig and John Kabel, The Re search Park, and James Tost, RoundTable Creati ve G r o u p I n c. We a l s o a cknowledge support of the NCE CECR Centre of Excellence, The B ioindustrial Innovation Centre, and Dr. Murray McLaughlin of the Sustainable Chemistry A l liance during the proposal development stage of this work. Sincerely, Dr. Don Hewson Managing Director Industrial Liaison University of Western Ontario Research Park, Sarnia-Lambton Campus Adjunct Research Professor Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, University of Western Ontario Acknowledgements

3 Contents Acknowledgements Executive Summary i iii Chapter I Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals 1 Chapter 2 Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies 14 Chapter 3 Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals 36 Chapter 4 Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers 48 Chapter 5 Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel 63 Chapter 6 Potential Issues in the Agricultural & Political Arenas 83 Chapter 7 Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations 88 References 95 Appendices Appendix A OPG Agricultural Residuals Study Outline 100 Appendix B Ontario Agricultural Census Regions & Constituents 103 Appendix C Summary of Agricultural Statistics for Ontario 105 Appendix D Determination of Water-Soluble Alkali 109 Appendix E CEN/TC 335 Biomass Standards 110 Appendix F Inspection Procedure for Ships that Carry Grain and Grain Products 112 Contents Appendix G Experimental Results on the Use of Fuel Improvement Additives 115

4 Executive Summary This study examines the sustainable removal of agricultural residuals from Ontario farms for use as a fuel alternative to coal by Ontario Power Generation (OPG). The quantity of agricultural residuals which can be sustainably harvested from Ontario farms was estimated based on the preservation of soil organic matter (SOM) and the minimization of soil erosion. Chemical characteristics of agricultural residuals, fuel improvement options and harvesting technologies were investigated and assessed. The development of the supply chain was analysed and included the identification of stakeholders and recommended features. The cost of biomass fuel from agricultural residuals in various forms was estimated at the OPG gate. Potential issues in the agricultural and political arenas were identified, which may arise due to a development of the bioenergy sector based on residuals. Conclusions regarding the feasibility of the utilization of agricultural residuals as biomass fuel at OPG generating stations were drawn and recommendations are provided for the implementation of the biomass fuel industry in Ontario. A total of 4.5 million tonnes of agricultural residuals can be sustainably harvested for energy applications in Ontario in 2014.The sustainably harvestable amount of residuals represents approximately 20% of the total above ground agricultural residual biomass produced in Ontario. This 20% quantity is based on the soil organic matter budget analysis and soil erosion calculation. The current provincial crop mix and yields suggest that a total of 2.8 million tonnes of residuals could have been sustainably harvested in For a conservative average crop yield improvement of 1% annually, the sustainably removable quantity of residuals would increase to 4.5 million tonnes by 2014, when OPG may require the biomass fuel. Corn stover and cobs, cereal straws and soybean stover altogether represent approximately 90% of the total above ground residuals produced by Ontario field crops. The sustainably harvestable quantity and type of residual is farm-specific and depends on the crop rotation, tillage practices, slope of the land, availability of off-farm organic materials, SOM level of the land a n d t h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f a d d i tional best farm management practices. In Ontario, corn stover and cereal straws are expected to be the major biomass fuels from agricultural residuals due to their higher residual yields per hectare. The nutrient content of agricultural residuals in their natural state pose challenges to the combustion process. However, a number of relatively simple fuel improvement options are available which include over-wintering, natural or controlled washing and the use of additives. Corn cobs provide the best fuel quality of the major agricultural residuals in the province, whereas corn stover and wheat straw contain higher potassium and silicon contents, respectively. Natural rain washing of agricultural residuals in the field is an attractive option for fuel improvement and returns NPK (Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium) to the soil. NPK and other nutrients in agricultural residuals may also be recovered by existing and emerging technologies. Phosphorus recovery techniques for municipal wastes have the potential to recover NPK from agricultural residuals. Chemical additives could also help improve the fuel quality of residuals during combustion. A promising fuel improvement process is the torrefaction of biomass which produces a high quality fuel and can be used in combination with other fuel improvement options. Fuel improvement technologies are expected to be commercialized once a strong market for biomass fuel from agricultural residuals has been established. There is a need to develop the residual biomass fuel supply chain, specifically fuel aggregators and processors across Ontario, to meet the OPG demand in Agricultural residuals are presently available as a feedstock since Ontario s farmers produce these materials as a co-product of their crops each year. Executive Summary

5 Executive Summary Cereal straws and soybean stover can be harvested using existing farm equipment. Specialized farming equipment, which is soon to be commercialized, to harvest corn residuals is necessary for greater feedstock supply. Construction of fuel aggregators and processors may take up to 18 months. This fits within the 4 years required to establish the entire biomass fuel supply chain. Participation of farm co-operatives, existing or new generation, in the biomass fuel business is the preferred option, since it maximizes local community involvement. Contracting with independent operators diversifies the supplier base for OPG. This option can be coupled with farm co-operative suppliers. Third party harvesting can play an important role in the O n tario biomass supply chain due to the narrow harvesting time window for grain corn, the largest residual producing crop. The total costs of cereal straw and corn stover pellets at the OPG gate are $6.00/GJ and $6.57/GJ, respectively, with a total potential supply of 4.5 million tonnes in Pellets from cereal straws offer the lowest cost, however, the total supply of cereal straw at this lower price is limited to 0.75 million tonnes due to existing demands. Biomass fuel from agricultural residuals is approximately 20% cheaper than from energy crops due to lower raw feedstock costs. Pellets from corn cobs and soybean stover have higher costs compared to pellets from cereal straws and due to lower yields per hectare. These economics may result in farmers leaving low yielding residuals in the field for SOM replenishment. Torrefied pellets are gaining attention from biomass fuel consumers due to their superior fuel quality along with better fuel handling and storage properties. The establishment of commercial scale torrefaction plants in Europe are expected to lead to the deployment of this fuel improving and processing technology in North America. The cost of torrefied biomass from agricultural residuals at the OPG gate could be approximately 10% lower than un-torrefied pellets, if the biomass is torrefied prior to the pelletization process. This lower cost is due to the reduced grinding, pelletization and transportation costs of torrefied biomass. If the biomass must be pelletized before it is torrefied, the cost of torrefied pellets will be higher than untorrefied pellets at the OPG gate. Adoption of conservation tillage, use of best farm management practices, and understanding the relationship between different crop rotations and the quantity of residuals sustainably removed, are critical to the use of residuals in energy applications. To ease concerns regarding soil degradation due to the removal of residuals from the field, OPG should collaborate with organizations such as the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) to develop guidelines and monitoring processes for sustainable harvesting of agricultural residuals. Potential stakeholders are aware of the risks associated with investing in fuel aggregators and processors due to the current low price of natural gas and the over capacity situation of the Canadian biomass densification industry. Investors, which may be farm co-operatives, need a guaranteed market with long-term contracts and attractive pricing to develop the new industry. Trade agreements between the provinces and territories of Canada as well as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) may require that OPG considers biomass fuels sourced from outside the province. This could be a potential trade dispute issue, if the biomass fuels are sourced only from Ontario. The benefits of utilizing agricultural residuals as a biomass fuel includes the continued viability of the agricultural sector, rural development and job creation, enhanced income distribution, greenhouse gas emission reductions and a basis for future

6 biorefinery infrastructure. These benefits should be quantified and communicated to policy makers. Biomass supply contracts should be in place approximately 4 years before the biomass supply is required. This allows the development of the biomass supply chain, especially biomass processing facilities. Some risk-sharing mechanisms, such as linking a portion of the biomass fuel supply to the price of crude oil, may be required during the initial stages of supply development. A biomass fuel specification should be developed and modified in stages to allow for the utilization of emerging fuel improvement technologies. A number of fuel aggregators and processors can be constructed with concerted efforts by all stakeholders to meet the demand in However, there will likely be a price premium associated with the rapid establishment of this new industry. OPG should explore the option of acquiring biomass from sources outside the province during the initial stage of industry development. This will also allow for the continued development of the residuals biomass supply chain in Ontario. Dr. Don Hewson Managing Director, Industrial Liaison The University of Western Ontario Research Park Sarnia-Lambton Campus Dr. Aung Oo Project Researcher Commericalization Consultant The University of Western Ontario Research Park Sarnia-Lambton Campus Dr. Katherine J. Albion Project Researcher Commercialization & Research Engineer The University of Western Ontario Research Park Sarnia-Lambton Campus Executive Summary

7 Chapter1 Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals Agriculture is an important economic sector in Ontario. Approximately 50% of Canada s Class I and II lands are located in the province. Farming activities produce human food and animal feed, and generate significant quantities of agricultural residuals each year. In this chapter, a global review is provided on the use of agricultural residuals for power generation. The current demand for residuals in Ontario, generally used for agriculture and livestock production, was determined, and emerging technologies expected to incorporate residuals as a feedstock were identified. The current production of residuals in Ontario was determined, and the major residual producing crops were identified and evaluated as a potential biomass fuel. 1.1 Overview of the Use of Agricultural Residuals in Power Generation Biomass combustion is an emerging technology around the globe. In many countries there are power stations co-firing biomass with coal to generate electricity. A number of generating stations are currently in the process of conducting test burns of various types of biomass and in different ratios with coal. There are few dedicated biomass generating stations, and these are generally small plants. The majority of the power stations operate using a small quantity of biomass combined with coal. Large facilities often have the goal of complete conversion to dedicated biomass facilities Drax Power Station The Drax Power Station has the largest power generation capacity in Western Europe, and produces 7% of the United Kingdom s electricity supply. The power station is located near the town of Drax, in North Yorkshire, England. Drax has a total generation capacity of 3,960 MW, including co-fire generation (Drax Group plc, 2010a). In 2009, Drax burned 381,000 tonnes of biomass as a 10% replacement of coal in co-firing operations. Biomass burned consisted of pelleted wheat straw, willow, miscanthus and wood chips. Total power production from biomass was 475 GWh. (Drax Group plc, 2010a). Drax has proposed the construction of three dedicated biomass generating facilities, each with a generating capacity of 290 MW. Two of these plants will be located in the Port of Immingham with the third adjacent to the existing Drax coal fired plant. It is expected that 1.3 million tonnes per year will be required to support each dedicated biomass facility. Drax plans to source biomass in the form of sustainable wood-based products, forestry residues and residual agricultural products. Drax has secured a ready and flexible supply of raw materials from producer groups in the forestry, farming and agricultural industries. Biomass is expected to be acquired from within the United Kingdom as well as imported. A policy has been developed to ensure that the imported biomass has been produced in a sustainable manner (Drax Group plc, 2010b). The total renewable generation capacity of the Drax biomass combustion operations will be 1,400 MW, which includes co-firing operations and the construction of new facilities (Drax Group plc, 2010a). It was anticipated that by the end of 2010, that three new 290 MW biomass dedicated plants would be approved. However, in February 2010, it was reported that these initiatives were on hold due to low government subsidies, low prices of coal and natural gas and decreased revenues. It was less expensive to run gas-fired stations due to a lower electricity demand (Mason, 2010).

8 1.1.2 Elean Power Station The Elean Power Station is the world s largest straw fired power plant, located in Ely, Cambridge, UK, and is owned by Energy Power Resources (EPR) Ely Ltd. This power plant began commercial operation in It is a 38 MW plant with an electrical output of 270 GWh annually (EPR, 2010). It burns 200,000 tonnes of cereal straw and a small amount of natural gas annually. The main feedstock is straw from wheat, oats, rye and barley, however, test burns have been conducted using miscanthus and oil seed rape Show Me Energy Show Me Energy Co-operative is a non-profit, producer-owned co-operative formed to support the development of renewable biomass applications in Centerview, Missouri. The co-operative was initially founded with 400 members to construct a biomass pelletization plant. Approximately $8 million was capitalized to build the plant with the capacity to process 75,000 tons per year, and was subsequently expanded to produce 150,000 tons per year of biomass pellets. Construction of the plant began in May 2007, and the first pellets were shipped in July The co-operative membership expanded in early 2010 to approximately 650 members. The increase in membership was to generate capital for the increased production of biomass pellets and for future production of cellulosic biofuels (Tietz, 2010). The biomass pelletized by Show Me Energy Co- operative includes switchgrass, native grasses, corn stover, sorghum residue and weeds. Essentially, the co-operative accepts all biomass materials, however, the payment made to farmers for the materials is based on the energy value of the biomass. Generally, the price paid to farmers ranges from $45-60 per ton of biomass. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has developed the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) to encourage farmers and landowners to develop the biomass supply chain as well as accelerate energy independence, rural e c o nomic development and renewable sources of energy. BCAP through the USDA Farm Service Agency assists biomass producers by providing matching payments for the collection, harvest, storage and transportation of eligible biomass delivered to approved facilities for conversion into biofuels. Show Me Energy was the first facility in the United States to receive matching payments for biomass acquisition (Library USDA, 2010). This program provides farmers with a total of $ per ton for their biomass. S h o w M e E n e r g y w i l l o n l y a c c e p t b i o m a s s i f sustainability practices are implemented. For agricultural crop residuals such as corn stover, 30% of the residual materials must remain on the field. For prairie grasses, a killing frost must occur before the harvest, and grasses must not be harvested around water courses to minimize soil erosion (Ebert, 2008) Large customers of Show Me Energy include Northwest Missouri State University with installed commercial biomass burners for campus heating. The biomass pellets have also been tested by a local electrical utility for co-firing with coal to produce electricity (Tietz, 2010). The Kansas City Power and Light Sibley Generating Station has conducted co-firing tests of Show Me Energy s pellets at co-firing concentrations of up to 40-50% biomass with coal (Flick, 2009) Global Biomass Combustion There are more than 200 generating stations around the world using biomass as a fuel. The majority of these plants burn wood and wood residuals to generate electricity and have a capacity of less than 50 MW. In Canada, there are more than 20 independent power Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals

9 Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals producers, mainly in pulp and paper mills which process spent liquor, bark and wood residuals. In Ontario, there are 4 co-generation plants which combined produce 56 MW of power from wood biomass. In the United States, there are more than 60 power plants co-firing biomass and coal with a total co-firing capacity of 5,080 MW. The fuel sources are mainly paper, wood products, corn, sugar and agricultural residuals. In Europe, there are more than 100 generating stations co-firing biomass and coal (Bradley, 2009). As part of power generation initiatives, a number of operations are incorporating a small percentage of biomass, generally 10-30%, into the coal operations. The fuel most widely used is wood and wood based materials. Agricultural residuals and energy crops have mainly been utilized in small quantities or in test burns. There is a small scale power plant in the United Kingdom which uses cereal straws as the feedstock to generate electricity. There are no large scale dedicated biomass power plants burning agricultural residuals worldwide. 1.2 Current and Emerging Demands The bio-based industry is an emerging business due to the development of many new products and business processes that focus on the use of biomass as a raw material. Along with these new developments, are the traditional uses of biomass such as animal bedding, animal feed and crop production. All these uses are important to consider when determining all the amount of agricultural residual material available in Ontario, without depletion of the supply for traditional uses Current Uses of Agricultural Residuals Currently, wheat straw is the most widely used agricultural residual in Ontario. Wheat straw has traditionally been used by livestock and in agriculture. Other residuals, such as corn stover or corn cobs, are not currently used on a large scale. Straw supply and price fluctuations depend on the demand, availability, and intended use in specific geographical regions. Wheat straw has also recently become a feedstock for the production of cellulosic ethanol in the Ottawa region for Iogen Corporation. Table 1.1 highlights specific applications and quantities of wheat straw currently used in Ontario. The estimates provided indicate that approximately 1.5 million tonnes of wheat straw are consumed in Ontario each year, mainly in the agricultural and livestock sectors. The values presented in Table 1.1 are based on data provided by Statistics Canada for the Province of Ontario, statistics on the OMAFRA web site as well as personal communication with stakeholders in the agricultural community. Table 1.1 Applications and Quantities of Wheat Straw Used in Ontario Livestock Cattle Bedding Horse Bedding Cattle Feed Sheep Feed Use Agriculture & Horticulture Ginseng Production Strawberry Production Mushroom Production Biofuels Cellulosic Ethanol Total Wheat Straw Usage in Ontario Quantity (tonne/year) 1,154, ,600 48,800 1,300 51,500 11,500 2,400 9,125 1,527, Agricultural Residuals Consumption by Animals As of January 2010, the inventory of cattle in Canada was at the lowest level in 15 years. However, in 2009, the number of cattle increased in Ontario by 2.2%

10 from the 2008 inventory. The number of sheep in Canada also declined between 2009 and The reduction in cattle is due to market uncertainty and rising input costs over the years. Draughts early in the decade affected water and forage supplies and damaged pastures. The discovery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ( mad cow disease ) in 2003 stalled the Canadian cattle industry, and resulted in a slow recovery of export markets, increased processing and testing costs and low market prices for beef cattle. In 2007, the production of grain ethanol resulted in higher prices of feed grain which increased the cost of feed for livestock producers. The export market for Canadian livestock was reduced due to the introduction of the Country of Origin Labelling regulations and the appreciation of the Canadian dollar (Statistics Canada, 2010). The statistics in Table 1.1 were used to determine the amount of residuals used by livestock and other animals as bedding and feed. The trends and factors influencing the number of animals in Canada, and specifically Ontario, can be used to predict the future quantities of residuals that may be required by animals. It is expected that the number of cattle in the province will stabilize following the decline of the last 15 years. (i) Agricultural Residuals as Animal Bedding Animal bedding provides two essential purposes for cattle and horses. The first is as protection from severe weather including snow, ice and wind, and allows the animal to reduce its surface area exposed to the elements to minimize the risk of hypothermia and frostbite in the winter months. Bedding is important throughout the life of the animal and it is essential for protection and survival of the calf. Secondly, the use of bedding lowers the nutritional requirements of the animal. Alternative bedding materials have been used for cattle which include soybean stover, corn stover and barley and oat straws. The best steer weight gain occurred when wheat straw was used as bedding, whereas for heifers, all bedding materials resulted in similar weight gain (Ringwall, 2009). Industrial waste materials have also been considered for use as animal bedding as well as forestry by-products such as wood chips and wood shavings, and switchgrass. OMAFRA suggests that beef cattle require approximately 4 lb/head/day of bedding (Kains et al., 1997). This quantity was assumed also for dairy cattle to determine the total amount of bedding required for all Ontario cattle. Bedding impacts the cost of housing the animals, the labour involved in stall cleaning, manure storage capacity and nutrient management. A number of bedding materials are available for horses including pine shavings, wheat straw, peat moss and coir. Ultimately, it is the disposal cost of the bedding material that governs the material choice. Straw bedding is recycled to the mushroom industry. Wheat straw also keeps horses clean and does not produce a large amount of dust compared to other bedding materials (Molnar and Wright, 2006). (ii) Agricultural Residuals as Animal Feed Small quantities of agricultural residuals are used as animal feed, specifically for cattle and sheep. Small amounts of wheat straw have been included in horse feed. Straw contains little nutritional value for horses, but is a source of fibre. Straw bedding allows the horse to chew and reduces wood-chewing behaviour, if all other nutritional requirements are met (Ralston and Wright, 2005). Animals have a diet of grains and forages. Some animals, including cattle and sheep will also consume residuals as feed. Statistics Canada has provided an estimate of livestock feed requirements, which Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals

11 Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals includes roughages. Roughages consist of straw, by-products, beet pulp and vegetables wastes. For the purpose of this study, 75% of mass of the roughages was assumed to be straw, in order to determine the amount of straw consumed by animals. Beef cattle were found to consume the greatest amount of roughages, followed by dairy cattle and sheep (Statistics Canada, 2002). In the winter months, straws and stovers can be used as a component of cattle feed as these residuals are available at fractions of the cost of hay and can be used to dilute high quality forages to meet the nutritional requirements of pregnant cows. Cereal straws can be used as a filler and energy for beef cows. This is applicable to cows that are healthy and are more than 6 weeks away from calving since they have the lowest nutritional requirements of the herd. Oat and barley straws have the highest energy contents and are preferred by cows, followed by wheat straw. OMAFRA recommends that a straw-hay mix can be supplied as feed, and supplemented by energy and protein (Hamilton, 2009). Corn stalkage has similar nutritional content and fibre digestibility to wheat straw and is under utilized as a low quality feedstuff in beef cow feed. OMAFRA does not advise the use of a high quantity (40% dry matter of the feed or greater) of corn stalkage included in the feed for beef cows as it is not palatable resulting in less feed consumption by cows and reduced body weight (Wood and Swanson, 2009) Use of Agricultural Residuals in Agriculture and Horticulture Historically, wheat straw has been the widely used residual in agriculture and horticulture. Recently in Ontario, with the emergence of ginseng production, this has become the major application of straw for crop production. Wheat straw is used as a mulch and bedding medium in horticulture and for specialty crops. Ginseng is a slow-growing herbaceous perennial plant which is harvested 3-5 years after seeding. Ginseng is cultivated for its root which is dried and sold whole, powdered or sliced. It is one of the most widely used medicinal herbs in the world. The ginseng root is used in a wide range of products, including tea, candies, beverages, tablets and capsules. One reason for the increased demand is due to its use as a natural supplement to help prevent the common cold and flu. North American ginseng is also exported to Asian markets to complement the benefits of Asian ginseng (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2007). Commercial cultivation of North American ginseng began in Canada in the late 1890s, but it was not until the early 1980s that ginseng production experienced exponential growth due to lucrative profits. Ginseng is an emerging crop in southern Ontario, specifically in the sand plains north of Lake Erie where tobacco was traditionally grown. Ginseng production has increased dramatically in recent years to 2,896 ha in 2006, from 1,813 ha in More than half of the ginseng producing land is in Haldimand-Norfolk County with Brant and Oxford Counties being the next largest producers respectively (Statistics Canada, 2007). Production of ginseng requires significant quantities of straw. One acre of ginseng production requires approximately 7 tonnes of wheat straw, in order to cover the crop with 2 to 4 inches of straw. This straw is used as a mulch for moisture retention and protection of the ginseng root (Schooley, 2009). Strawberry production in Canada has remained relatively stable since 1995, at approximately 25,000 30,000 tonnes per year. Ontario produces 31% of Canada s strawberry crop, and can be grown throughout the province (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2008). Strawberries are a shallow rooted perennial plant that

12 are grown in every province of Canada. Straw is used in the production of strawberries to protect the plant against winter temperatures. Cold temperatures result in damage to the plant roots, crowns and flower buds and soil freezing and thawing lifts plants out of the soil resulting in root breakage. Wheat, oat or rye straws are ideal materials to protect the strawberry plant. The straw requirement for winter protection is between tonnes/acre (Fisher, 2004). Straw is preferred to other mulch materials such as hay and grasses which lead to weeds or smother the strawberry plants. After the winter, three-quarters of the straw is placed between the rows of strawberry plants to prevent weed growth and to keep the berries clean. A small amount of straw, 2-3 inches, can cover the plants during blossoming for frost protection (Ricketson, 2004). Canada has over 100 mushroom farms across the country and produces approximately 105 million kg of mushrooms annually. Approximately 57% of the mushrooms grown are produced in Ontario. The majority of the mushrooms produced are sold fresh in Canada. Fresh mushrooms are also exported to the United States, and canned mushrooms are exported to China (Mushrooms Canada, 2010). Straw is a significant component of mushroom growth medium. The mushroom growing medium is composed of straw, horse and chicken manures and gypsum. Also included in horse manure is the horse bedding which is mainly straw. The growing area of mushrooms has been increasing over the last 10 years from 129,447 m 2 of growing area in 2001 to more than 418,000 m 2 in 2009 (Statistics Canada, 2007, 2010) Use of Agricultural Residuals as a Biofuel Iogen Corporation is a cellulosic ethanol producer with a demonstration facility in the Ottawa region. This small-scale facility was designed to process tonnes/day of feedstock to produce 5,000 6,000 L/day of ethanol. The ethanol produced by Iogen is used by Shell in their fuel applications. The ethanol is also used to partially power Ferrari s Formula 1 Grand Prix race car (Taylor, 2010). The main feedstock used to produce this cellulosic ethanol is wheat straw. The process has also been tested using corn stover, switchgrass, miscanthus, oat and barley straw, sugarcane bagasse and hard wood chips. Wheat straw is collected by Double Diamond Farms from wheat producers in northern and eastern Ontario and shipped to Iogen. A full scale plant is planned to be constructed in Saskatchewan. This plant will use cereal straw as the feedstock and 600 farmers have agreed to supply the facility (Taylor, 2010) Emerging Uses of Agricultural Residuals There are many emerging uses of agricultural residuals that may result in competition for this feedstock material. Many applications are under development to utilize residuals as a feedstock for the production of bioenergy, biochemicals and bioproducts. Currently, corn stover is not widely used for the production of bio-energy or bio-products. Processes are under development for many new products and fuels but are not yet at the large commercial scale. These applications include: Biocomposites: the fibre from corn stover is used in the production of bio-composites for the automotive and building industries. The corn stover fibres reinforce a resin matrix to replace composites of fibreglass, carbon fibre and talc. Bioethanol: ethanol is produced from lignocellulose in the corn stover. This technology is currently expensive, but is expected to become less expensive as the technology is improved and scaled up. Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals

13 Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals Pulp and paper: corn stover fibre is used in the production of paper to replace wood fibre and accounts for 5-10% of the worldwide paper production. There are many disadvantages to using corn stover in the pulp and paper industry including the seasonal availability, chemical recovery challenges, pulp brightness and the requirement of large quantities of water and energy during production. Animal feed: OMAFRA has suggested that ewes and wintering beef cows graze corn fields over the winter months. This allows the animals to eat corn kernels and small cobs that passed through the combine. This provides the animals with increased nutrients early in the season when more crop leftovers are in the field and before the biomass is weathered. Corn cobs are a residual receiving much attention and many applications are under development for this underutilized residual: Chemicals: furfural can be produced from corn cobs. Furfural is a solvent used in the petrochemical industry to produce resins in fibreglass manufacturing. To date, it is the highest valued chemical produced from corn cobs. Sand blasting: corn cobs are reduced to a fine particle size and used as a replacement for sand in sand blasting applications. The ground corn cobs clean and strip wood surfaces and are used as a mulch following the blasting application. Bioethanol: many ethanol producers, such as Greenfield Ethanol, are developing technology to use corn cobs as a feedstock for cellulosic ethanol production. Although not yet at the commercial stage, it is expected that cellulosic ethanol will become mainstream in the future. Wheat straw is widely used in agriculture, however, in addition to ethanol production, bio-based products are also being developed using wheat straw as a feedstock. Automotive components: the automotive industry is using wheat straw in reinforced plastics in side cars, trucks and SUVs. The Ford Motor Company is using 20% wheat straw as a bio-filler in the third row storage bins of their Ford Flex vehicles. These SUVs are built in Ford s Oakville, Ontario, assembly plant and the wheat straw is supplied by 4 southern Ontario farms. Barley straw applications have been developed, however are not widely used. These applications include: Algae control in ponds: barley is the only straw that can control the formation of algae in ponds. Barley must be supplied to the pond prior to algae bloom growth, in an adequate dosage with adequate aeration, proper location and depth, and water circulation. Although the mechanism behind this growth inhabitation is unknown, it is thought that the type of phenolics or lignin is important and effects breakdown or provides a carbon source for increased microbial growth which limits phosphorus update by the algae. Housing insulation: the use of barley straw as an insulation can double the R value of standard homes. Straw bales are stacked in a similar manner to bricks, off the ground. Homes with straw insulation are finished with a common brick or plaster exterior. Two-string bales are the insulation standard, however, if larger bales are used, it provides better insulation. Agricultural residuals can also be used as a feedstock for thermochemical conversion technologies, such as pyrolysis. The pyrolysis process produces bio-oils, bio-chars and syngas. Bio-oils can be upgraded for the production of fuels and the extraction of chemicals, syngas can be used as an energy source and bio-chars may be used as a soil amendment and activated carbon.

14 The future demand for agricultural residuals cannot be predicted with high confidence. There are many technologies that are currently under development and undergoing scale-up and commercialization. Many industries are interested in developing processes that utilize biomass, including agricultural residuals, to produce energy and products to replace or supplement petroleum based feedstocks. 1.3 Above Ground Residuals Production in Ontario Agriculture is a significant economic sector in Ontario. The province is home to approximately 50% of Canada s class I and II lands. Ontario also produces about 75% of the nation s soybeans. Figure 1.1 presents a snapshot of Ontario s agricultural land area and its use. In Ontario, crop land represents 68% of the total agricultural land in the province. The livestock industry also has a critical role and generates close to 50% of the total farm cash receipts (OMAFRA, 2006). The declining livestock industry, which is the major consumer of agricultural residuals, may result in a reduced demand for residuals. This would allow for increased residual use in other applications such as power generation. Total agricultural land in Ontario: 5.38 Mha Crop land: 3.66 Mha Pasture land: 0.75 Mha Christmas trees, woodland, wetland: 0.75 Mha Other: 0.22 Mha Figure 1.1 Agricultural Land Use in Ontario (OMAFRA Statistics) Field crops are the largest share of crop land in the province. Table 1.2 provides the harvested and unharvested hectares of major field crops. These data are the average, sourced from OMAFRA s field crops statistics. There is a small percentage of field crops left unharvested every year due to poor yields or other factors, and these unharvested crops could contribute to bio-energy production. As seen in Table 1.2, hay crops are the most widely grown field crop followed by soybeans, grain corn and winter wheat. Hay crops produce little above ground residuals and do not allow for economic harvesting, therefore, residuals used for energy applications should be sourced from the other major crops. Table 1.3 provides estimates of the residual-to-crop ratio for major field crops. Due to uneconomical harvesting, residuals from hay crops and fodder corn are not expected. Cereal crops such as winter wheat, barley and oats have higher residual-to-crop ratios. Different varieties of a particular field crop, for instance varieties of winter wheat, have a range of residual-to-crop ratios, however, the average values are considered in Table 1.3 to simplify the estimate of the total agricultural residuals produced in the province. Based on the harvested and unharvested acreages of major field crops and the estimated residual-to-crop ratios given in Tables 1.2 and 1.3, the above ground residuals production from each major crop are calculated and presented in Table 1.4. Approximately 13.7 million tonnes of above ground residuals are produced from field crops in Ontario. As highlighted in Table 1.4, grain corn, winter wheat and soybeans are the major residual producing crops, representing almost 90% of the total residuals from field crops. Grain corn generates the largest amount of residuals, nearly half of the total above ground residuals in the province. Field crops, which occupy 3.36 million hectares of a total of 3.66 million hectares of crop land in Ontario, are not the only crops grown in Ontario. Other crops such as field vegetables, apples, grapes and other fruits also produce small quantities of agricultural residuals. Figure 1.2 shows the total hectares of other crops in comparison with field crops and the average above ground residual production estimates in tonne/ha, including the expected moisture content at Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals

15 Table 1.2 Harvested and Unharvested Hectares of Major Field Crops in Ontario Field Crops Hectares Harvested* Un-Harvested Area* (% of Hectares Harvested) Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals Hay Soybeans Grain corn Winter wheat Fodder corn Barley Spring wheat Mixed grain Dry field beans Oats Fall rye Tobacco Canola Total 971, , , , ,788 82,822 61,191 53,499 29,381 37,883 24,586 11,032 17,293 3,364,432 Data acquired from OMAFRA (2010). *Calculations based on Field Crop Statistics from Table 1.3 Crop Yield and Residual-to-Crop Ratio of Major Field Crops in Ontario Field Crops Average Crop Yield (tonne/ha) Residual-To-Crop Ratio Hay 2.49 Soybeans 2.65 Grain corn 8.82 Winter wheat 5.13 Fodder corn Barley 3.29 Spring wheat 3.33 Mixed grain 2.93 Dry field beans 2.15 Oats 2.54 Fall rye 2.37 Tobacco 2.59 Canola 2.02 (OMAFRA publications, Communication with OFA personnel, Helwig et al. (2002)) N/A

16 harvest. As seen in Figure 1.2, other crops represent a relatively small percentage of the total crop land in the province. Field vegetables and greenhouse crops produce higher residual tonnage per hectare. However, the moisture content of these residuals is too high to be processed as a biomass fuel for OPG. These high moisture agricultural residuals can be used to produce compost that can be added to farm land which grows field crops. This addition may allow for the removal of a portion of relatively dry field crop Table 1.4 Estimate of Annual Residual Production from Major Field Crops Field Crops Hay Soybeans Grain corn Winter wheat Fodder corn Barley Spring wheat Mixed grain Dry field beans Oats Fall rye Tobacco Canola Total Major Crops Field crops Fruits Vegetables Greenhouse crops Hectares Harvested 971, , , , ,788 82,822 61,191 53,499 29,381 37,883 24,586 11,032 17,293 3,364,431 Crop Residuals ( 000 tonne) residuals for bio-energy applications. Table 1.5 summarizes the total above ground agricultural residual production in Ontario for all crop lands. An additional potential source of agricultural biomass fuel is pearl millets grown as a pest control measure for potato, tobacco and strawberry crops (Anand Kumer et al., 2009). Since there is a very limited market for millets in Ontario, this pest control crop can contribute to the bio-fuel supply. Pearl millet is a 0 2,601 6,107 3, ,183 Hectares Harvested 3,364,431 24,818 70,971 9,276 3,469,497 Un-harvested Residuals ( 000 tonne) Table 1.5 Total Agricultural Residual Production from Major Crops in Ontario Total Total Residuals ( 000 tonne) Residuals Produced ( 000 tonne) 49 2,624 6,381 3, ,685 13, , ,439 Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals

17 Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals Figure 1.2 Field Crops and Other Crops Hectares in Ontario with Residuals Estimates high biomass yielding cereal crop which requires low chemical inputs, has good draught resistance and is effective in controlling some nematode species. The potential biomass quantity from pearl millet is estimated and given in Table 1.6. It is assumed that millet is grown every three years as a pest control crop and yields 13 tonne/ ha of dry biomass. Potato Tobacco Strawberry Total Field Crops Fruit Crops Vegetable Crops Greenhouse Crops Crop Residual Estimates 4 15% Moisture 2 15% Moisture 50 75% Moisture % Moisture Table 1.6 Potential Biomass Fuel from Pearl Millets in Rotation as a Pest Control Hectare 15,441 12,816 1,717 24, Preliminary Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals As presented in the previous section, three field crops, namely grain corn, winter wheat and soybeans, represent approximately 90% of the total above ground residual production from field crops in Ontario. These 3 field crops should be the agricultural residuals considered for large scale power generation by Millet Hectares in Rotation 5,147 4, ,971 9,276 3,364,432 Biomass Yield (tonne/yr) 66,911 55,536 7, ,883

18 OPG. Each of these three major residual producing crops has advantages and disadvantages when used for bio- energy applications. These advantages and d i s advantages are discussed below through a preliminary evaluation. Detailed analysis and evaluations regarding the sustainability and e c o n o m i c p e r s p e c t i v e s a r e p r o vided in the following chapters. Currently, the most used agricultural residual in Ontario is cereal straw. This includes mainly winter wheat straw and straws from other cereal crops such as barley, spring wheat, mixed grain, fall rye and canola. The total annual production of cereal straw in Ontario is approximately 4.5 million tonnes, which represents about 33% of the total above ground field crop residuals. Advantages of cereal straw as a biomass fuel include the ability to harvest using conventional farming equipment and known market prices. There is a cereal straw surplus in the province, and the declining cattle industry should result in a decreasing straw demand for animal bedding. Farmers usually harvest and sell cereal straw when there is a market demand, therefore, harvesting practices are not new to the farming community. The disadvantage of cereal straw as a biomass fuel includes possible competition with existing consumers. The demand beyond a certain volume could lead to a sharp price increase. Soybeans are the second largest field crop in Ontario following hay crops. The annual above ground residual production from soybeans is approximately 2.6 million tonnes, which represents about 19% of the total residuals production in the province. Advantages of soybean stover as a biomass fuel include a lower moisture content at harvest and limited market competition. Soybean stover can be harvested using existing farm equipment with slight modifications. The market price may be relatively easy to estimate based on the residuals yield and the activities involved in harvesting and bailing. Some farmers harvest soybean stover, although not frequently. Soybean stover may be used as animal bedding when the wheat straw price is high due to imbalanced straw supply and demand in a particular region. Disadvantages of soybean stover as a biomass fuel may include greater dust production during harvesting of the stover, which is brittle. Soybeans are small plants and do not produce a large quantity of above ground residuals. Without incorporating farm management practices such as growing cover crops, the removal of soybean stover for energy applications could lead to greater soil erosion. Grain corn generates the greatest quantity of residuals, 6.4 million tonnes, of all the major field crops. This represents about 47% of the total annual above ground residual production in Ontario, and consists of 5.7 million tonnes of corn stover and 0.7 million tonnes of corn cobs. Advantages of corn residuals as a biomass fuel include limited market competition, high residual yield, and the willingness of farmers to remove a portion if a market exists. In some Ontario regions, excess corn residual biomass in the field prevents c o n servation tillage, since residuals must be incorporated into the soil through conventional ploughing to ease planting in the next growing season. Disadvantages of corn residuals as a biomass fuel include the need for specialized harvesting equipment, specifically for corn cobs, and additional passes to harvest the residuals. Another major issue regarding the corn residuals harvest may be the narrow harvesting time window. Grain corn is usually harvested between late October and early November, where harvesting depends on the moisture content of the grain. A combination of a humid summer and an early snowfall may reduce the harvesting time window for grain corn to a few weeks with a tight time window to collect the residuals. Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals

19 Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals Table 1.7 evaluates the three major residual producing crops in Ontario as a biomass fuel at the commercial scale. Since biomass fuel may be acquired by OPG in the 2014 harvest season, the harvesting technology development timing receives the highest weighting followed by current harvesting practices. Cereal straw receives the highest overall score of the major residual producing crops. However, the amount of cereal straw available for power generation may be limited due to the existing market demand. Soybean stover and corn Table 1.7 Preliminary Evaluation of Major Agricultural Residuals for Energy Use Weighting Cereal straw Soybean stover Corn residuals (stover & cobs) Current Harvesting Practices Biomass Quantity Available Harvesting Technology Development Timing residuals rank similarly in the evaluation as a biomass fuel. As previously mentioned, growing cover crops may be required following the soybean stover harvest to prevent soil erosion. Corn stover and corn cobs provide the largest quantity of agricultural residuals in the province. The time required to develop and deploy new harvesting equipment may be longer for these residuals in comparison with other residual materials. A corn residual supply chain must be developed to ensure a stable supply of biomass fuel. Market Competition Factors Social Acceptability Total Score (Max 85)

20 Chapter2 Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies In Ontario, biomass is a potentially large source of fuel to replace coal for the production of electricity. The fuel characteristics of biomass vary widely, and a consistent fuel supply is necessary to ensure maximum combustion efficiency. Pre-treatment options are under development to modify biomass properties to achieve a set fuel specification. Agricultural residuals vary greatly in terms of chemical properties and the corresponding fuel properties. Each crop residual will have differing chemical characteristics and compositions. Therefore, a combination of various agricultural residuals may provide the best option for use as a biomass fuel. In this chapter, a description of agricultural residuals produced in Ontario and their fuel properties is provided. The various components of residuals are discussed along with their effects on biomass combustion. The challenges of agricultural residuals combustion are identified as well as potential solutions. Current harvesting technologies that can be used for residual collection are reviewed along with developments in residual harvesting technologies. 2.1 Biomass Chemical Analytical Methods Biomass is a complex, heterogeneous mixture of organic and inorganic matter containing solid and liquid materials and minerals of various origins. The composition of each agricultural residual is unique, therefore, each residual has different fuel properties. A number of standard tests have been and are under development to characterize solid biomass fuels. Power generation stations analyse fuels prior to their use in combustion to ensure compliance with specifications such as moisture, ash and heating values. The quality of the biomass fuel is important to determine the expected combustion performance. It is also Table 2.1 ASTM Standard Tests for Biomass Fuels Analysis Higher Heating Value Proximate Analysis Moisture Ash Volatile Matter Fixed Carbon Ultimate Analysis Carbon & Hydrogen Nitrogen Sulphur Chlorine Oxygen Elemental Ash important to determine the chemical content of the biomass to predict ash formation and behaviour in the boilers. ASTM D ASTM E711 1,2 ASTM E871 1,2 ASTM D1102 1,2 ASTM E830 1 ASTM E872 1,2 ASTM E897 1 Test Procedure By difference (percentage of moisture, ash and volatile matter subtracted from 100) 1,2 ASTM E777 1,2 ASTM E778 1,2 ASTM E775 1,2 ASTM E776 1 Measure directly 1 By difference (the percentage of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, sulphur and chlorine subtracted from 100) 2 ASTM D ASTM D Miles et al. (1996) oxygen should be measured directly since other elements such as chlorine may distort the oxygen value 2 ASTM E870 Standard Test Methods of Analysis of Wood Fuels It is critical to have a standard measurement procedure to ensure that fuel analyses are reproducible and unambiguous. Standard tests are under development for the testing of biomass fuels. European countries have developed a series of standard tests, Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies

21 Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies such as the CEN/TC 335 Biomass Standards from the Biomass Energy Centre in the United Kingdom. ASTM International has developed a series of tests for biomass fuels, and Hazen Research Inc. in Colorado has developed the procedure Determination of Water Soluble Alkali to determine water soluble alkalis in biomass. An ASTM Standard for this measurement has not been developed. Examples of relevant fuel quality tests for determining the fuel characteristics of agricultural residuals are shown in Table Fuel Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals Very little chemical composition information is available for agricultural residuals in terms of the biomass and biomass ash. All agricultural materials have high contents of ash, moisture, chlorine, potassium, magnesium, nitrogen, sulphur, aluminum, calcium, manganese and silicon compared fossil fuel sources. The characteristics of biomass are very different from coal. Along with the differing chemical compositions, the higher heating value of residuals is generally lower due to their higher moisture content. The following tables provide the fuel characteristics of a number of agricultural residuals. The average value is provided and the range of values is given in parenthesis Corn Stover Corn is grown for the corn grains on the corn cob. In Ontario, grain corn and sweet corn are produced. Sweet corn is produced for human consumption, however, the quantity produced is small in comparison to grain corn. When corn is harvested in the fall, October to early November, the corn ears are removed from the stalk. Corn stover is the residual material following the corn grain harvest which consists of long leaves and the tall stalk of the plant. At the time of the grain harvest, these materials have a low water content and are bulky. For the analysis in this report, corn stover is considered to be the leaves and stalk materials and does not include the root system or crown. Corn cobs are analysed separately. Figure 2.1 shows the corn plant prior to harvest and Table 2.2 provides the fuel characteristics of corn stover. Figure 2.1 Corn Stover (with unharvested corn cobs)

22 Table 2.2 Fuel Characteristics of Corn Stover Proximate Analysis (wt% dry basis) Fixed Carbon Volatile Matter Ash Moisture 20.6 ( ) 78.6 ( ) 4.0 ( ) Water Soluble Alkalis % (wt% dry basis) Na 2 O K 2 O CaO Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Sulphur Ash Moisture HHV (BTU/lb) Chlorine % Ultimate Analysis (wt% dry basis) 46.9 ( ) 5.5 ( ) 41.5 ( ) 0.6 ( ) 0.04 ( ) 7942 ( ) Elemental Composition (wt% dry basis) SiO 2 Al 2 O 3 TiO 2 Fe 2 O 3 CaO MgO Na 2 O K 2 O SO 3 P 2 O 5 Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, Phyllis Database ( CO 2 Cl 33.8 ( ) 0.5 ( ) ( ) 3.6 ( ) 0.4 ( ) 30.3 ( ) 1.9 ( ) 5.7 ( ) 5.3 ( ) 4.0 ( ) IEA Bioenergy Task 32, Biomass Database ( Vienna University of Technology, BIOBIB Database ( Alkali (lb/mmbtu) Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies

23 Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies Corn Cob Corn grains are grown on the corn cob. The cob is the tough, central growth support for the corn grains. When corn is harvested in October or early November, the corn grain is gleaned from the corn cob by the combine and the cob is returned to the field. Technologies are under development for the collection of corn cobs. Figure 2.2 shows collected corn cobs, and Table 2.3 lists the fuel characteristics of corn cobs. Table 2.3 Fuel Characteristics of Corn Cob Proximate Analysis (wt% dry basis) Fixed Carbon Volatile Matter Ash ( ) Water Soluble Alkalis % (wt% dry basis) Na 2 O K 2 O CaO Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Figure 2.2 Corn Cobs Ultimate Analysis (wt% dry basis) 47.8 ( ) 5.6 ( ) Elemental Composition (wt% dry basis) SiO 2 Al 2 O 3 Moisture Nitrogen 0.4 ( ) Fe 2 O Sulphur 0.1 CaO 1.3 Ash MgO 2.5 Moisture Na 2 O 1.2 HHV 7695 (BTU/lb) ( ) K 2 O 2.0 Chlorine % SO P 2 O CO 2 Cl Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, Phyllis Database ( IEA Bioenergy Task 32, Biomass Database ( Vienna University of Technology, BIOBIB Database ( TiO Alkali (lb/mmbtu)

24 2.2.3 Wheat Straw In Ontario, the main types of wheat grown are winterwheat and spring wheat. Winter wheat is planted in the fall following the harvest of soybeans or corn. This wheat winters under the snow and the majority of the growth begins in March when the land begins to warm. Table 2.4 Fuel Characteristics of Wheat Straw Proximate Analysis (wt% dry basis) Fixed Carbon Volatile Matter Ash Moisture ( ) Water Soluble Alkalis % (wt% dry basis) Na 2 O K 2 O CaO Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Sulphur Ash Moisture HHV (BTU/lb) Chlorine % Winter wheat has a high grain yield since it is in the ground for nearly a year before the grain is harvested in July. Increased winter wheat performace in the southern region of the province is due to milder winters. Spring wheat is planted in the spring following Ultimate Analysis (wt% dry basis) 44.3 ( ) 5.3 ( ) 39.8 ( ) 0.6 ( ) 0.1 ( ) 7663 ( ) Elemental Composition (wt% dry basis) SiO 2 Al 2 O 3 TiO 2 Fe 2 O 3 CaO MgO Na 2 O K 2 O SO 3 P 2 O 5 Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, Phyllis Database ( IEA Bioenergy Task 32, Biomass Database ( CO 2 Cl 51.5 ( ) 0.8 ( ) 0.1 ( ) 0.4 ( ) 6.6 ( ) 1.7 ( ) 1.9 ( ) 17.1 ( ) 3.7 ( ) 2.1 ( ) 2.0 ( ) 3.3 ( ) Vienna University of Technology, BIOBIB Database ( Alkali (lb/mmbtu) Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies

25 Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies the winter. The majority of this wheat is grown in northern and eastern Ontario and is harvested in the fall. Wheat grains grow on multi-seed heads at the top of grass-like stalks which become the straw. The stalks are cut above the ground during the grain harvest and are left in the field to dry prior to straw baling. Figure 2.3 shows the wheat crop prior to the grain harvest and Table 2.4 provides the fuel characteristics of wheat straw. Figure 2.3 Wheat Straw (with unharvested grain) Figure 2.4 Soybean Stover (with unharvested soybeans) Soybean Stover Soybeans are grown inside pods on the soybean plant, where each pod contains 2-4 seeds. The soybean plant consists of a stalk, leaves, roots and soybean seed pods. The leaves of the soybean plant usually drop off the stalk before the soybeans have matured. The stalk of the soybean plant is the available residual material at the time of harvest. Soybeans are harvested once the moisture level has reached approximately 14%. The current harvesting practice is to cut the soybean plant during harvest of the beans with return of the stalk to the field. Soybean stover is cut into pieces by the combine chopper and returned to the soil. In this analysis, soybean stover is the cut above ground stalk and any remaining leaves on the plant. Figure 2.4 shows a soybean crop prior to harvest and Table 2.5 identifies the fuel characteristics of the soybean stover.

26 Table 2.5 Fuel Characteristics of Soybean Stover Proximate Analysis (wt% dry basis) Fixed Carbon Volatile Matter Ash 6 Moisture Barley Straw Water Soluble Alkalis % (wt% dry basis) Na 2 O K 2 O CaO Barley grows on hollow, cylindrical stems, which become the barley straw. Barley has 1 or 3 spikelets; each spikelet contains 2 rows of kernels resulting in 2 or 6-rowed barley. The stems are cut above the ground during the kernel harvest and are left in the field to dry prior to straw baling. Barley straw is considered to be the barley stems and leaves. Figure 2.5 shows the barley crop prior to harvest and Table 2.6 provides the fuel characteristics of barley straw. Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Sulfur Sulphur Ash Moisture HHV (BTU/lb) Chlorine % Ultimate Analysis (wt% dry basis) 44.3 ( ) 6.0 ( ) 45.7 ( ) 0.7 ( ) ( ) Elemental Composition (wt% dry basis) SiO 2 Al 2 O 3 TiO 2 Fe 2 O 3 CaO MgO Na 2 O K 2 O SO 3 P 2 O 5 CO 2 Cl Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, Phyllis Database ( IEA Bioenergy Task 32, Biomass Database ( Vienna University of Technology, BIOBIB Database ( Figure 2.5 Barley Straw (with unharvested grain) Alkali (lb/mmbtu) Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies

27 Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies Table 2.6 Fuel Characteristics of Barley Straw Proximate Analysis (wt% dry basis) Fixed Carbon Volatile Matter Ash Moisture (64-82) 5.5 ( ) Water Soluble Alkalis % (wt% dry basis) Na 2 O K 2 O CaO Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Sulphur Ash Moisture HHV (BTU/lb) Chlorine % Ultimate Analysis (wt% dry basis) 44.3 ( ) 6.0 ( ) 45.7 ( ) 0.7 ( ) ( ) Elemental Composition (wt% dry basis) SiO 2 Al 2 O 3 TiO 2 Fe 2 O 3 CaO MgO Na 2 O K 2 O SO 3 P 2 O 5 Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, Phyllis Database ( CO 2 Cl ( ) 0.1 ( ) 0.1 ( ) 8.1 ( ) 1.8 ( ) 1.0 ( ) 18.5 ( ) 2.5 ( ) IEA Bioenergy Task 32, Biomass Database ( 3.8 ( ) ( ) Vienna University of Technology, BIOBIB Database ( Alkali (lb/mmbtu)

28 2.2.6 Hay Hay can be grass, legumes or herbaceous plants that have been cut, dried and stored for later use. Hay includes timothy, fescue, alfalfa and clover. Hay consists of the leaf, steam and seed components of the plant. Hay is cut and dried in the field when the seed heads are not mature but the leaf is fully developed. Following drying, hay is raked into windrows for bailing. Figure 2.6 shows a Timothy Hay field, and Table 2.7 provides the fuel characteristics of hay. Table 2.7 Fuel Characteristics of Hay Proximate Analysis (wt% dry basis) Fixed Carbon Volatile Matter Ash 5.7 Moisture Water Soluble Alkalis % (wt% dry basis) Na 2 O K 2 O CaO Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Sulphur Ash Moisture HHV (BTU/lb) Chlorine % Figure 2.6 Timothy Hay Ultimate Analysis (wt% dry basis) 44.6 ( ) 5.1 ( ) 45.6 ( ) ( ) 7723 ( ) Elemental Composition (wt% dry basis) SiO 2 Al 2 O 3 TiO 2 Fe 2 O 3 CaO MgO Na 2 O K 2 O SO 3 P 2 O 5 CO 2 Cl Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, Phyllis Database ( IEA Bioenergy Task 32, Biomass Database ( Vienna University of Technology, BIOBIB Database ( Alkali (lb/mmbtu) Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies

29 Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies 2.3 Summary of Biomass Properties as a Fuel Chemical properties of various biomass samples were examined by researchers and are summarized as follows: (Vassilev et al., 2010) Agricultural residuals produce higher ash yields than forestry biomass. Annual and fast growing crops have the highest contents of ash, moisture, Cl, K, Mg, N, P and S. All biomass has similar contents of C, H and O with differing N and ash forming elements. The moisture in biomass is an aqueous solution containing: Al, Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ti, Br, Cl, carbonate, F, I, nitrate, hydroxide, phosphate and sulphate. Volatile matter appears as light hydrocarbons, CO, CO 2, H 2, moisture and tars. Tall grasses and straw have a naturally high concentration of Si which provides the plant with sturdiness and rigidity. Si may also be introduced through sand, clay and soil components collected during residual harvest, transport or processing. Biomass with a large annual growth rate has a high content of alkaline elements since these elements are readily absorbed from the soil. Carbon dioxide and water react with alkaline and alkaline earth oxides to form hydrates, hydroxides and carbonates in the ash during biomass oxidation and storage E f f e c t o n C o m b u s t i o n o f C h e m i c a l E l e m e n t s f o u n d i n A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s i d u a l s Biomass materials have a different chemical composition in comparison to coal. Many inorganic compounds occur naturally in biomass due to plant uptake from a number of sources. These mineral components pose challenges for biomass combustion. Silicon, aluminum and titanium occur in plants in the form of oxides, where silicon is the most abundant component. These oxides are not water soluble and appear mainly in the plant residual material. These oxides also do not vapourize or become mobilized at combustion temperatures. Silicon has an important role in plant structure. It is incorporated into the plant through biological processes and is believed to provide the plant with rigidity, to withstand wind and rain, overall strength and has a small role in photosynthesis. Aluminum and titanium oxides are generally found in small to trace amounts in biomass fuels (Miles et al., 1996). Alkali and alkaline earth metals are essential to plant metabolism and are included in organic structures or in mobile inorganic forms. Potassium and calcium are commonly found elements in biomass. High concentrations of potassium are generally found in herbaceous biomass fuels. The majority of the potassium in biomass is water soluble and is an essential nutrient for plants as a facilitator for osmotic processes. The high potassium content of agricultural residuals is likely due to the use of fertilizers (Werther et al., 2000). Calcium is commonly found in cell walls and organic components of cell structures. Sodium and magnesium are generally found in small quantities. Potassium and sodium are also common components of clay soil (Miles et al., 1996). Alkalis, such as sodium and potassium, are susceptible to vapourization. Alkaline earth metals, such as calcium and magnesium, are less likely to volatilize,

30 and during combustion are more likely to form stable compounds that are less volatile than alkali materials. Non-metallics, such as chlorine and sulphur, are plant nutrients. Chlorine has an active role in inorganic compounds reactions. Chlorine and alkali metals react to form volatile and stable alkali chlorides, where chlorine is the facilitator for vapourization. Chlorides condensate on cooler surfaces in the presence of sulphur which results in sulphate formation that can lead to corrosion. Stable chlorine containing vapours generated during combustion include alkali chlorides and hydrogen chloride. Sulphur is a trace component of biomass with the exception of straws, but has a large role in ash deposition, where deposits are based on sulphate formation. Most forms of sulphur will oxidize during combustion and many then react with alkali metals to form sulphates. Alkali sulphates are unstable at combustion temperatures. Phosphorus is a component of biomass fuels and its behaviour has not been characterized during combustion (Miles et al., 1996). Biomass generally contains low concentrations of iron. It is believed that iron generally has a small role in the formation of ash deposits (Miles et al., 1996) Factors Effecting the Chemical Compositions of Residuals Agricultural residuals from a specific crop can have a range of chemical composition values. This range is influenced by a number of factors introduced during crop production which affect the natural biomass properties. These factors include: (Vassilev et al., 2010) Type of plant: species and the component of the plant (stalk or leaves) Growth processes: ability of the plant to uptake nutrients from the water, air and soil and transport and store these materials in various plant tissues Growing conditions: amount of sunlight, geographic location, climate, soil type, water availability, soil ph, nutrient availability, proximity to forested areas, waterways and pollution sources Age of the plant when harvested Harvest time and collection technique for the residual harvest Residual transport and storage conditions Fertilizer and pesticide usage Collection of external materials, such as soil, during the harvest of residuals A number of relationships have been identified between the activities and the environment involved in biomass production and the fuel properties. Researchers have suggested that the plant species has a more important role than the soil type, growing region and fertilizer treatment (Vassilev et al., 2010). More research is required to confirm this hypothesis Inherent Undesirables in Biomass Residual Fuels Contamination will occur if biomass fuels are not collected according to proper harvesting procedures as well as transport, storage, pre-treatment and processing techniques. Growing conditions also effect the concentrations of some elements in the biomass. For instance, the content of aluminum in plants is effected by the ph of the soil (Cowan, 2010). Aluminum can inhibit plant growth and can be toxic to plants. Depending on the soil ph, aluminum can have different effects on the plant. At a ph below 5, aluminum can inhibit plant growth, at a ph between 5.5 and 6, aluminum is in hydroxyl form and is not toxic to plants. Above a ph of 6, aluminum does not have any effect (Kessel, 2008). Exposure to pollution sources such as groundwater and aerosols can result in increased elemental concentrations. Contamination of agricultural residuals can also occur at various points along the supply chain. This contamination will also affect the fuel quality. Fur- Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies

31 Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies ther discussion on biomass contamination throughout the supply chain is discussed in Chapter Challenges Associated with Biomass Combustion The utilization of biomass as a fuel sets new demands for boiler process control, boiler design and for combustion technologies including fuel blend control and fuel handling systems. Most of the challenges related to biomass combustion are the result of the biomass fuel properties. Understanding of combustion mechanisms are required to achieve high combustion efficiency and effective design and operation of combustion systems. The high moisture content of the biomass can lead to poor ignition, and reduces the combustion temperature which hinders combustion of the reaction products and affects the combustion quality. A large quantity of flue gas is formed during the combustion of high moisture content fuels which eventually leads to large size equipment for flue gas treatment (Werther et al., 2000). Efficient ash removal equipment is required to reduce or eliminate particulate pollution. Agricultural residuals combustion produces low melting temperature ash due to the presence of high concentrations of potassium oxide in the residual biomass. This results in fouling, scaling and corrosion of heat transfer surfaces (Werther et al., 2000). A large quantity of volatile matter is present in agricultural residuals compared to coal. This indicates that agricultural residuals are easier to burn but may lead to rapid combustion that may be difficult to control. Attention must be given to the combustion control system of residual fuels to ensure complete combustion of volatiles, high combustion efficiency and low emissions of CO, hydrocarbons and PAH (Werther et al., 2000). The presence of sulphur, nitrogen, chlorine and other chemical elements in the biomass result in the formation of gaseous pollutants such as SO x, NO x, N 2 O, HCl, dioxins and furans. Unburned pollutants may include CO, hydrocarbons, tar, PAH, C x H y and char particles. These unburned pollutants are generally the result of poor combustion due to low combustion temperatures, insufficient mixing of the fuel with combustion air and too short of a residence time of the gases in the combustion zone. Lower emissions are achieved if combustion is conducted with a higher burn out efficiency through efficient mixing of the combustion air with the combustibles (Werther et al., 2000). Ash is also a potential pollutant that is carried by the flue gas from the furnace. Fine fly ash is generally derived from easily leached elements from the biomass (Veijonen et al., 2003). Ash emissions are a function of the fuel f e e drate, ash content, excess air ratio and the distribution of the combustion air (Werther et al., 2000) Devolatilization Common characteristics of most biomass are the low temperature devolatilization and combustion properties. Complete devolatilization of agricultural residuals and char combustion can occur at relatively low temperatures. The quantity of volatiles produced at a specific temperature is dependent on the biomass particle size. During devolatilization, agricultural residuals undergo a thermal decomposition to release volatiles and form tar and char. The amount of these products formed depends on the residual and the combustion conditions (Werther et al., 2000). For example, as the devolatilization temperature increases, CO 2 production decreases while H 2 and CO formation quickly increase. The high volatile matter content of agricultural residuals has a significant effect on combustion mechanisms and consequently on the design and operation of

32 combustion systems. Volatiles consist mainly of combustibles and release a significant amount of energy. Devolatilization starts at low temperatures for low moisture content residuals. Devolatilization is expected to occur as soon as the fuel is exposed to the high temperature atmosphere which presents a challenge for combustion control (Werther et al., 2000) Ash Melting Agricultural residuals have high concentrations of alkali oxides and salts, which have low melting temperatures. This may lead to problems in the boiler during combustion. The ash produced by the combustion of agricultural residuals contains a mixture of inorganic components. This results in an ash that does not have a well defined melting point and melting occurs over a temperature range that begins at the initial deformation temperature (Werther et al., 2000) Deposit Formation Gaseous or liquid phase constituents form deposits on cooled surfaces or furnace walls which lead to slagging and fouling. Deposit formation leads to a reduction in heat transfer rates and increased corrosion (Werther, 2000). Substances vapourized in the boiler can condensate on heat transfer surfaces by the condensation of volatiles from sulphation. These deposits can vary from light sintering to complete fusion. The degree of fouling and slagging depends on: local gas temperature, tube temperatures, temperature differences, gas velocities, tube orientation, particle local heat flux and the fuel composition (EUBIONET, 2003). Alkali metals in ash have an important role in deposit formation, which depends on the release and chemistry of chlorine, sulphur, aluminum silicates and alkalis during combustion. Deposits will result in decreased heat transfer of the heat delivery surfaces leading to lower boiler efficiency and corrosion (EUBIONET, 2003). If chlorine concentrations are limited or absent, alkali hydroxides are dominant in the gas phase. Gaseous alkali compounds on the metal surfaces result in the formation of sticky coatings which exacerbate the formation of deposits through inertial particle impaction (Khan et al., 2009). There are 5 main mechanisms which lead to the formation of deposits on heat transfer surfaces, shown in Figure 2.7. These mechanisms include (EUBIONET, 2003): 1. Inertial impaction where the majority of the fly ash does not follow the stream lines of the gas flow and impact the heat transfer surfaces. 2. Thermophoresis of fly ash due to the difference in temperature between the gas and the boiler surfaces. As the deposit layer thickness increases, thermophoresis is reduced as the surface of the deposit approaches the gas temperature. 3. Condensation of vapourized compounds occur when the compound is in contact with lower temperature heat transfer surfaces. 4. Diffusion of small fly ash particles into porous deposits. 5. Chemical reactions within the deposit layer and between gas and solid components Corrosion Ash from biomass fuels contains certain chemicals which result in the corrosion and erosion of metals when deposited on surfaces. Silicon and potassium form silicates that have a low melting point. Combustion of residuals with high silicon and potassium contents, such as wheat straw, leads to the condensation of molten silicates resulting in fouling and corrosion. Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies

33 Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies Thermophoresis Condensation on deposit layer Coarse particle sticking Chloride vapours Condensation on aerosol particles Sintering & removability by sootblowing Metal combustion system surfaces are vulnerable to chemical attack when silicates are present protective layers of oxides can be soluble or react in silicate slags. As well, the high volatilities of alkali metals can result in unanticipated corrosion reactions. Research has shown that the corrosion rate of steel exposed to flue gas was found to be strongly dependent on the surface temperature (Werther et al., 2000). Chlorine rich deposits lead to corrosion of the heat transfer surfaces. Deposits may be detected quickly, however, corrosion progresses slowly and can occur without slagging Sulphation SO 2 HCI Corrosion Heat transfer Alkali aerosol particles & coarse mode particles Turbulent flow in staggard tube array or fouling. The low melting points of ash from the combustion of agricultural residuals can result in serious design and operational challenges including f o u l i n g, s l a g g i n g a n d c o rr o s i o n o f b o i l e r s u r f a c e s. Po s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s i n c l u d e t h e improvement of fuel properties or the design of combustion systems so that the furnace is maintained at temperatures below the melting point of ash. Diffusion in porous deposits Figure 2.7 Schematic Illustration of Deposit Formation and Condensation of Inorganic Vapour on a Tube Surface (EUBIONET, 2003)

34 2.6 Biomass Fuel Improvement Options Raw biomass poses challenges during combustion of the fuel, however, there are options to minimize these problems. Preventative actions can be implemented prior to burning the biomass fuel. Pre-treatment options are under development to reduce the quantity of problematic components in the biomass to avoid detrimental effects in the boiler. The following pre-treatment techniques have been tested on the laboratory scale or in demonstration field plots and are emerging on the commercial scale. These techniques include washing and over-wintering of the biomass as well as the addition of additives. Pre-treatment options have been found to dramatically affect the results of combustion and fulfill two important objectives (Khan et al., 2009). Pre-treatments allow for a reduction in the concentration of elements that result in deposit formation in combustion boilers as well as to return nutrients that would otherwise be removed from the field back to the soil (Turin et al., 1997). Pre-treatments are used to minimize or eliminate corrosive chemical elements that are plant nutrients, such as alkali metals. These components are generally water soluble and can be removed easily through washing techniques (Turin et al., 1997). Pre-treatments would be applied prior to biomass combustion in order meet a fuel specification Leaching of Agricultural Residuals Leaching, or washing, of the agricultural residuals is the removal of the problem-causing components in the biomass through a liquid rinse. This can be accomplished through washing with water or acid Leaching with Water Biomass washed with water removes the plant nutrients for use in nutrient recycling while improving the fuel combustion characteristics. Water leaching can be implemented in two ways through washing on the field naturally through rainfall or under controlled conditions. Leaching agricultural residuals on the field reduces the concentration of minerals in the biomass and returns the nutrients directly to the field. However, leaching is dependent on the weather conditions and biomass can degrade if left on the field too long. For example, this would occur if there was heavy rainfall over a long period of time without an opportunity for residual harvesting. A second pass may be required to collect the residuals depending on the harvesting process. Residual materials may be baled at the time of crop harvest, with bales stored at the edge of the field. The residuals would then be washed as bales with the nutrients leached back into the soil at the edge of the field. Residuals may also be washed where grown on the field. This would require harvesting of the crop, followed by rain washing of the residual material and a second pass to harvest the residuals. This would provide an equal distribution of the nutrients back to the field for reuse by the next crop. A third alternative would be the collection and transport of the residual material to an external facility for controlled washing and collection of the plant nutrients in the wash water to return to the field. Studies have shown that through washing, large quantities of potassium, chlorine, and phosphorus compounds are removed from the biomass and into the water. Most of the inherent alkali and alkaline earth metals are water soluble or ion exchangeable (Jenkins et al., 1996). Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies

35 Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies Published information shows the effects of washing on wheat straw. Wheat straw was washed using various techniques including rain washing, tap and distilled water washing and soaking in distilled water. It was determined that (Jenkins et al., 1996): Washing with distilled and tap water resulted in easy removal of potassium, sodium and chlorine Total ash produced was reduced by 68% for treated wheat straw compared to untreated straw The effects of various washing techniques on the ash content of wheat straw include: o Untreated straw: ash content of 13% o 1 minute spray with tap water: ash content of 9.5% o 19 mm straw particles washed with 20 L of tap water: ash content of 5.0% o 19 mm straw particles washed with 20 L of distilled water: ash content of 4.2% o 0.9 mm straw particles soaked for 24 hours in distilled water: ash content of 6.2% The effects of washing wheat straw on the chemical composition of the biomass includes: o Reduction in sulphur content by 77% o Reduction in chlorine content by 90% o Reduction in K 2 O content by 84% The effects of washing wheat straw on the chemical composition of the ash includes: o Reduction in K 2 O content by 68% o Reduction in SO 3 content by 69% o Reduction in Cl content by 96% Untreated wheat straw and treated wheat straw emitted volatiles for 2-4 minutes during combustion Untreated wheat straw produced a glassy slag between o C. Wheat straw reduced to a 0.9 mm particle size and washed with 20 L of distilled water did not form slag until o C. The other washing techniques did not form slag until the combustion temperature was above 1000 o C. A study was carried out to determine the effects of natural washing by rain water on rice straw. Samples of rice straw were collected at harvest, and following 65 mm of precipitation. These samples were air dried in a laboratory and rinsed to remove soil. The following effects were noted the following the rain wash (Jenkins et al., 1996): Reduction in ash content by 8% Reduction in the chemical composition of rice straw: o Reduction in sulphur content by 33% o Reduction in chlorine content by 92% o Reduction in K 2 O content by 82% o Reduction in P 2 O 5 content by 78% o Reduction in SO 3 content by 63% Reduction in the chemical composition of rice straw ash: o Reduction in K 2 O content by 80% o Reduction in P 2 O 5 content by 76% o Reduction in SO 3 content by 57% Untreated rice straw produced slag between o C. Rice straw harvested following rain wash did not form slag until 1600 o C. Studies of water washing techniques on the commercial scale have not been published. In the cases presented above, these results indicate that controlled and natural rain washing techniques are both effective methods to improve fuel quality. These pre-treatment techniques are not technically sophisticated and may be easily commercialized to meet the market for the treated biomass Leaching with Acid Washing biomass with acids is not widely tested and has not been demonstrated commercially. This technique increases the environmental concerns as the plant nutrients are contained in an acid solution which requires additional treatments to remove nutrients for

36 nutrient recycling as well as acid disposal. The application of an acid pre-treatment will improve the combustion of the fuel through the alteration of pore structures and the removal mineral elements. A laboratory based study was conducted to determine the effect of acid washing on wood and cotton residuals. Pre-treatments were conducted using two acids M HCl (hydrochloric acid) and 1 M of CH 3 COOH (acetic acid). Samples of each biomass were stirred in each acid for 4 hours. The samples were filtered, washed with double distilled water and dried (Vamvuka et al., 2006). It was found that partial demineralization occurred through the acid washing process which eliminated 15-24% of the ash from wood and 57-68% of the ash from the cotton residues. The hydrochloric acid was more effective at reducing the ash content than the acetic acid (Vamvuka et al., 2006). Hydrochloric acid was also effective at reducing the concentrations of carbonates, sulphates and alkali chlorides whereas the acetic acid was effective at reducing calcite, a form of calcium carbonate, and anhydrite, a form of calcium sulphate. Both acids were effective at reducing sodium and potassium, however, neither removed a significant quantity of silicon and aluminum (Vamvuka et al., 2006). Washing the biomass with acids was effective at reducing mineral contents, however the results were not as promising as water washing. Environmental concerns regarding the use of acids will likely hinder the commercialization of this process Over-wintering of Biomass Fuels An alternative technique to improve fuel quality and return plant nutrients to the soil is over-wintering of agricultural biomass. Over-wintering decreases the mineral concentrations of plant nutrients in the biomass and also the fuel yield. Little information is available on the over-wintering of agricultural residuals, however, over-wintering studies have been conducted on purpose-grown crops, specifically switchgrass. A comparison study of the effects of over-wintering was conducted where the biomass was harvested in the fall or was left on the field and harvested in the spring. It was found that the switchgrass fuel yield decreased by 11% between the fall and the spring harvest. This is the result of snow crushed biomass that the baler could not cut and collect as well as the loss of brittle biomass such as leaves and panicles that broke off the stem. The amount of snowfall also has an impact on the amount of biomass harvested. In one case, an increase in snowfall of 150 cm was found to decrease the fuel yield by 40%. This is likely due to crushing of the biomass against the ground so that it could not be cut and collected by the baler (Adler et al., 2006). Through the over-wintering of switchgrass, this study found that there was a 30% reduction in the ash content produced during ash testing. Over-wintering also led to a reduction of specific minerals in the switchgrass. Minerals of higher solubility in water were found to have the greatest reduction in concentration. Specific results include (Adler et al., 2006): Reduction in potassium and chlorine contents by 38-83% Reduction in magnesium and phosphorus contents by 41-67% Reduction in calcium, nitrogen and sulphur contents by 5-28% Over-wintering effectively reduces the mineral content of biomass. However, in Ontario this technique may result in a considerable reduction of the biomass yield due to snowfall. This may Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies

37 Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies affect northern and snowbelt regions of Ontario severely where heavy snowfalls are frequent Use of Additives for Agricultural Residuals Combustion Biomass fuel quality can be improved through the addition of additives prior to biomass combustion. Additives can be a solid, liquid or a gas that alters the physical or chemical characteristics of the biomass fuel. Additives increase the melting temperature of the ash by inducing chemical reactions between the ash and the additive to form new compounds with a higher melting point. Additives can also react with flue gasses to reduce corrosion. The increased melting temperatures reduce the formation of slag, fouling and corrosion that lead to low combustion efficiencies. Solid additives are incorporated into the biomass fuel during the fuel processing stage as part of the biomass pellet. Additives that have been tested on various small scale units include kaolin, limestone, calcite, alumina and dolomite. In general, kaolin binds to potassium in the ash to form potassium aluminum silicates. The melting behaviour of phosphate rich biomass fuels can be significantly improved with the addition of lime and calcium carbonate. Limestone reacts with the ash to form calcium potassium phosphates. Calcite reacts with aluminum silicates and magnesium silicates to form calcium silicates. Alumina and dolomite have also been used as additives but their roles and mechanisms have not yet been determined. The use of additives in agricultural residual combustion have been examined on the lab scale. In these studies, kaolin and limestone additives were added to the ash of wheat straw before heating the mixture to 1000 o C. Kaolin and limestone were added at 4-6 wt% of the biomass, and a lab oven was used to determine the ash behaviour and properties. It was found that both additives were effective at all concentrations to increase the ash melting temperatures. The combination of kaolin and limestone were the most effective at reducing sintering, where limestone alone was nearly as effective. The addition of additives increased the melting temperature by more than 300 o C to 1100 o C (Steenari, et al., 2009). The affect of additives in corn stover pellets was examined using a small scale commercial pellet burner in a 90 kw boiler. Concentrations of 0-3% calcite and kaolin were added to 4 mm corn stover pellets. Pellets without additives caused severe deposit formation in the burner which blocked the air outlets. The melting temperature of the corn stover pellet ash was 1170 o C without the use of additives. The inclusion of additives in the pellets improved the fuel quality and the conditions in the burner. Calcite was more effective than kaolin and produced smaller sized slag particles. However, kaolin increased the ash melting temperature to 1370 o C while calcite increased the ash melting temperature to 1290 o C. The use of an additive also decreased the amount of slag produced. The quantity of slag produced by the inclusion of kaolin was reduced by approximately 50%, where as the amount of slag produced by the addition of calcite as reduced by approximately 30%, compared to corn stover pellets without additives. It was concluded that the increase in the ash melting temperature was due to a reaction that produced high melting temperature silicates from low melting temperature silicates (Xiong et al., 2008). ChlorOut is an aqueous ammonium sulphate additive which is sprayed into the flue gas. This additive reacts with alkali chlorides through sulphation to form less corrosive sulphates and reduce corrosion and deposit formation (Brostrom et al., 2007). ChlorOut has been tested in European power g e n e r ation stations burning wood waste in

38 combustion systems based on grate, circulating fluidized bed and bubbling fluidized bed technologies (Livingston and Babcock, 2006). These demonstration tests showed that ChlorOut reduced corrosion, deposit growth, and the chlorine content in the deposit (Brostrom et al., 2007). If ammonia was included in the additive, the formation of NO x was also reduced (Li vingston and Babcock, 2006). Based on the quantities of additives used in literature studies, the estimated cost of solid additives is approximately $10/tonne of biomass fuel, which will add approximately $0.55/GJ to the fuel cost. The use of additives is a promising technique and additives are commercially available at a reasonable price. Further research is required to determine the optimum quantities to add to the biomass for large applications such as the OPG generating stations Pelletization Pelletization of biomass produces a high-energy density, homogeneous fuel. The pelletization process compacts biomass into cylindrical shaped pellets. Pelletization overcomes the challenges associated with the low bulk density of biomass and results in reduced transportation and storage costs. Properties of pellets result in easier grinding, handling and feeding to the boiler. The pelletization process includes the drying, milling, conditioning, pelletizing and cooling processes followed by fines separation. For best pelletization, moisture levels of the raw biomass must be between 8-17%. Above 17%, moisture will be contained in the pellet which increases the volume and weakens the pellet. If the biomass moisture content is below 8%, the surface of the material may carbonize and burn the binders (Maciejewska et al., 2006). Binders may be added at the conditioning stage to improve pellet adhesion. Binders include lignin, starch, molasses, natural paraffin and synthetic agents (Maciejewska et al., 20 06). Pelletization is a commercial process that has been in use for many years Torrefaction Torrefaction is a promising pre-treatment option to improve the properties of biomass for combustion and gasification. These improvements include: higher heating values per unit weight, enhanced hydrophobic nature and grindability, and a uniform and durable fuel (Maciejewska et al., 2006). Torrefaction is a thermo-chemical process that is used to improve the fuel quality of biomass. The torrefaction process occurs in the absence of oxygen at temperatures between o C for approximately 1 hour. During the torrefaction process the biomass partially decomposes to release volatiles and produce a solid charred fuel. Following torrefaction, biomass tends toward similar physical and chemical properties that result in improved process control Assessment and Summary of Fuel Improvement Options Pre-treatments are generally at the early stage of development, and many have not yet been implemented commercially. The use of a pre-treatment may affect the cost of acquiring a high quality biomass fuel, depending on the technique. The ideal quantity of additives to include in the preparation of the biomass fuel has not yet been determined, although the use of additives on the small scale has shown success. Natural washing and over-wintering may require an additional harvest if left to leach the nutrients back to the field where the crop was grown. The acid wash is the least attractive alternative since a process must be Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies

39 Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies developed in order to remove the leached nutrients for recycling to the field. Acids also pose a significant problem for disposal. Large scale washing of agricultural residuals can reduce the problems caused by the alkali components in the biomass prior to combustion and may be economically feasible for industrial power generating stations. Reduction of these alkali compounds will also result in lower maintenance costs. Torrefaction and pelletization are complementary operations that produce a high quality fuel. Torrefaction and pelletization can be used in combination with over-wintering, washing and the use of additives. 2.7 Current Harvesting Practices Generally, farmers do not harvest agricultural residuals from their fields, however the exception is cereal straws. If there is a market for residuals, farmers are generally willing to harvest residuals, but are unsure of the amount that can be sustainably removed without risking future crop yields due to soil degradation. Many farmers rely on their agronomists for advice on residuals removal and monitor the soil quality following the crop rotation cycle. Current practices for farming include leaving the residual material on the field to decompose in order to reduce the impact of multi-pass harvesting on the soil and for nutrient recycling of the residual material back to the soil for uptake by the next crop. Most wheat straw is harvested and collected from the field. A combine harvests the wheat and cuts the straw. A baler follows the combine to harvest the straw left in the field and the bales are picked up by a tractor and cart. The bales are then stored on the edge of the field or in covered storage. Wheat straw is harvested since there is a market for straw as animal bedding and in horticulture. There is currently not a market for soybean stover. When soybeans are harvested, the soybeans are collected by the combine and the soybean plant is cut. The soybean stover is left in the field or ploughed under. Soybean stover should not be removed from the field unless a cover crop is grown to replenish the soil and prevent soil erosion. Corn is harvested by a combine that pinches the corn ears from the stalk. The corn stalks are driven over by the tractor, pulled down and left on the field. The corn grains are gleaned from the cob and the cobs are also returned to the field. The harvesting method differs if the corn grown is for seed. Here, the corn ears are pinched from the stalk and transported to a seed production facility where it is gleaned on-site. 2.8 Residuals Harvesting Technologies Farmers can use their existing equipment to harvest and collect most agricultural residuals from the field. The exception is the collection of corn cobs. Changes to existing harvesting practices are necessary in order to harvest residuals. To harvest residuals, farmers may: Require additional passes of the field to bale stover once the grain has been harvested. Wheat straw is currently harvested and baled through a second pass. Modify equipment to change the cutting height or baling setup. Have increased costs associated with extra passes due to additional fuel usage, purchase of attachments or modifications to equipment. Extensive development is underway by many farm equipment manufacturers to develop dedicated residual harvesting equipment and attachments for existing farm equipment. Modifications to existing farm equipment include the development of large balers to harvest corn stover since it is a bulky material and the small balers used for straw bales may not be able to handle the corn stover. There are currently many corn cob collection equipment and technologies at the prototype stage of development due to the expected demand for corn cobs to produce cellulosic ethanol.

40 Figure 2.8 Combine-Baler Harvesting System to Bale Corn Cobs and Corn Stover A prototype is full-scale equipment at the debugging stage that is not yet commercially available. Since there is currently not a large market for corn cobs, most cobs are returned to the field and commercial collection methods do not exist Development of Agricultural Residual Harvesting Technologies Farm harvesting equipment is being designed specifically for residuals harvesting, mainly for corn cobs and corn stover. Residual harvesting equipment is at various stages of development with production and manufacturing encouraged by POET Ethanol in the United States who were granted $80 million to produce ethanol from corn cobs rather than corn grain (Wehrspann, 2009). These new technologies will provide farmers with the option to purchase a new combine or the necessary attachments for their existing combines. The new equipment is designed for 1-pass collection of grain and residuals. Combine-baler systems, shown in Figure 2.8, are designed to collect and compress corn cobs and stover into large bales in 1 pass. This produces bales with 3 ft by 4 ft by 8 ft dimensions and weigh approximately 1,500 lb. Corn cobs must be collected and baled with stover because cobs cannot be baled alone. In this system, a baler is attached behind the combine and drops the bales onto the field for later removal by a tractor and cart (Bernick, 2009). Figure 2.9 Duel Stream Harvester System to Harvest Corn Cobs The Duel Stream Harvester, presented in Figure 2.9, incorporates a combine attachment to separate the corn cobs from the corn stover. Through this attachment, corn stover is returned to the field and the cobs are collected in a wagon which is pulled by a tractor next to the combine. The collected cobs can be left in a pile at the end of the field (Wehrspann, 2009). The Cob Harvest System, shown in Figure 2.10, collects corn cobs above the combine. The cobs are sieved from the stover towards the back of the combine and Figure 2.10 Cob Harvest System for the Collection of Corn Cobs Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies

41 Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies transported to the top tank above the grain hopper. When full, the corn cob tank folds over for emptying. This system can be used alone with cobs piled at the edge of the field or with a wagon alongside the combine to receive cobs once the tank is full (Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company, 2009). The Towable Stream Harvester, presented in Figure 2.11, collects corn cobs in a wagon pulled by the combine. The combine cleans the stores the grains. The chopper on the combine is disengaged so that the stover and cobs are sent to the wagon where they are separated. A screen is used to collect the corn cobs which remain in the wagon and the stover is returned to the field (Wehrspann, 2009). Figure 2.11 Towable Stream Harvester for the Collection of Corn Cobs Manufacturers Developing Residual Harvesting Equipment Many large farming equipment manufacturers are involved in the development of agricultural residual harvesting combine systems and attachments. These manufacturers include: Combines: AGCO, John Deere Harvesters: Vermeer Balers: Hesston Bale Wagons: Mil-Stak, Stinger Trailers: SmithCo, Titan, Trinity Trailer Carts: Demco, Oxbo, Unverferth Systems: o Case IH: Combine and harvesting cart o Claas Lexion: Combine with chopping corn head o Ceres: Combine with separator, blower and storage tank o John Deere: Combine with cob collection system attachment o Redekop: Cob harvester with cart Expectations Regarding Residual Harvesting Equipment The equipment required to collect agricultural residuals is not complex and farmers currently own most of the necessary equipment with their existing combines, tractors and wagons. Residual harvesting machinery consists mainly of belts, pneumatics, blowers and screens to separate various components of the crop such as the grain from the straw or stover and stover from the cobs. Specialty residual harvesting equipment is under development for corn cob collection and is at the prototype stage. It is expected that there will be minor problems associated with this machinery, however, these issues will be quickly resolved.

42 Chapter3 Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals Agricultural residuals, when left in the field, perform a number of important functions such as maintain soil moisture, accommodate beneficial microbes, increase soil organic matter and recycle plant nutrients. Therefore, a certain amount of residuals must remain on agricultural land to maintain the soil quality. However, an excessive quantity of residuals may occur with improved crop yields, and would lead to slower soil warming in the planting season, difficulties operating planting machinery, and increased emissions of greenhouse gases due to the decay of residuals. The optimum removal of residuals is very site-specific depending on the crop and the soil management practices of individual farmers. However, the estimate of the quantity of total harvestable residuals in Ontario, Three pools (passive, active and slow with different potential decomposition rates), as shown in Figure 3.1, are collectively called soil organic matter. Above and below ground plant residues, animal manures and compost organic materials in the passive pool help reduce the surface wind speed and water runoff, maintain the soil moisture, and provide food to microbes. The materials in the passive pool are gradually broken down by microbes and along with partially decomposed materials, form the active pool of SOM. The microorganisms in this dynamic, living and rapidly changing active pool are also responsible for binding small soil particles into larger aggregates. Aggregation is important for good soil structure, aeration, water infiltration and resistance to erosion and crusting. as a provincial average, was determined in this chapter through the consideration of sustainability factors. Microorganisms in the active pool increase soil porosity, which is one of the most important natural activities 3.1 Soil Organic Matter for the preparation of the soil for seeding in the next growing season. Microbial activity also releases large Soil is a dynamic and complex living eco-system. Healthy soil is a fundamental requirement of the food supply chain. Plants obtain nutrients from two natural sources: organic matter and minerals. Soil organic matter (SOM) has many more functions than only providing nutrients to plants. SOM defines the chemical and physical structures of the soil and its overall health. Therefore, maintaining SOM at an appropriate level is critical for increased productivity of agricultural lands. quantities of plant available nutrients and the stable fraction of soil organic carbon (SOC), collectively termed the slow pool as shown in Figure 3.1. This pool decays at a very slow rate with a turnover time of several decades to over a century, if not disturbed by human activities such as ploughing. Well-decomposed SOC and recycled nutrients are collectively named humus which gives the dark colour to the surface soil. In general, the darker the colour of the soil, the higher the SOM level. SOM is generally calculated by dividing the measured SOC by SOC is approxi- Soil organic matter (SOM) Plant residuals and/or Microbes & partially Soil organic carbon (SOC) manures decomposed materials & recycled nutrients Passive pool Active pool Slow pool Figure 3.1 Three Pools of Soil Organic Matter Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals

43 Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals mately 58% of SOM by mass (McConkey et al., 2005). SOM is closely related to soil health. Healthy soils produce healthy crops to nourish people. Fertilizers are not a replacement for SOM. As stated earlier, SOM has a number of functions, some of which are listed below, related to soil health and crop production: Provides nutrients to plants Provides primary food sources necessary for maintaining a large, diverse, and active microbial population Aggregates soil particles which increases the porosity of the soil Increases water infiltration which reduces water runoff Defines the chemical and physical properties of the soil Increases the water and nutrient holding capacity of the soil Acts as a buffer for farmers to postpone fertilizer applications by a few years Recycles nutrients from crop residuals 3.2 Soil Organic Matter Levels and Trends in Ontario Plant residuals and other organic materials in the passive pool are necessary to maintain SOM, since these materials are food for microorganisms to produce final, well-decomposed, stable SOC as well as produce plant available nutrients. Before European settlers introduced large-scale farming to Ontario, the lands in the province were mainly occupied by native plant species such as switchgrass, Indian grass, etc. Since little or no biomass was collected from these native species, almost all organic materials such leaves, stems, and dead roots were returned to the soil. These organic materials served as the passive pool of SOM. This resulted in maintained or even increased levels of SOM in Ontario soils. However, massive farming began in the first half of the 20th century which effectively lessened the SOM of agricultural lands. Extensive farming is characterized by row cropping of corn, soybeans and grains, intensive tillage, and the return of fewer plant residuals to the soil. The lower quantities of plant residuals returned to the soil and water erosion are major factors which lower the SOM of the soil in the province. If there is no soil erosion due to water runoff and intensive tillage, the SOM of the soil should, in theory, stabilize at a certain level for a given crop mix in the region. The plant-soil system of modern farming gradually establishes a new steady state in accordance with soil management and cropping practices. Voroney (1988) estimated the time required to reach the new steady state SOM level for a typical crop mix in Ontario, which is shown in Figure 3.2. It is important to note that the degradation of the soil would continue if water erosion, mainly associated with intensive tillage practices, is not properly controlled. There have been limited studies in Ontario with regards to determining the average level of SOM for different soil types and different land capability classes. Table 3.1 provides selected SOM data for different Ontario regions. The productivity of these agricultural lands is relatively high according to the sources consulted during this study. The correlation of agricultural land SOM to land productivity is usually not straightforward. One can easily argue that crop yields have increased over the last three decades while SOM has declined in the province. The increased crop yields are also due to additional factors such as genetic advances, fertilizer applications, and farming practices. However, there is a threshold SOM level to maintain healthy soil. This level is a function of the climate of the region and the crop mix. The threshold level would likely be the subject of debate a m o n g t h e soil conservationists and

44 100 crops are recommended by soil specialists for lands with low SOM levels. Soil Organic Matter Remaining (% of original) No Erosion Water Erosion Cropping Period (Years) Figure 3.2 Soil Organic Matter Trend with the Introduction of Intensive Farming (Voroney, 1988) specialists. Loveland and Webb (2003) suggested that a major threshold level is about 2% SOC (i.e. 3.4% SOM) in temperate regions, below which a decline in soil quality is possible. Farming practices such as spreading manure, adopting conservation tillage, growing cover crops, adding compost materials and frequent rotations with hay and high yield biomass Table 3.1 Soil Organic Matter Contents of Selected Farms in Ontario No Soil Organic Matter (%) In a study conducted for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, McConkey et al. (2005) estimated the rate of SOC change of Canadian agricultural lands using the Century simulation model by incorporating generalized scenarios of past and current land-use and management practices. These results indicate that Canada s cropland has changed from a net SOC loss position in 1995 and earlier years to a net gain since Most of the gains occurred on the Prairies, where there has been increased adoption of reduced tillage practices, reduced summer fallow and increased hay crop production which have all contributed to replenished soil organic matter. Overall, the mean rate of SOC change on Canadian cropland in 2001 was +29 kg/ha/yr. In Ontario, the SOC level rose in 1991, as shown in Figure 3.3, likely due to the increased adoption of conservation tillage and higher crop yields. The SOC of Ontario agricultural lands was nearly balanced in Ontario may have lagged behind the Canadian average in net SOC g a i n d u e t o t h e h i g h p e r c e n t a g e o f low b i o m a s s - y i e l d ing soybeans production in the crop mix. Ontario produces about 75% of Canadian soybeans (personal communication with Soy 20/20 staff). Location Soil Type Reference/Source Delhi Elora Clinton Chatham Sarnia Sandy Silty Loamy Clay Clay Wanniarachchi et. al., 1999 Wanniarachchi et. al., 1999 Don Nott, Nott Farms Ed VanDeWynckel, OSCIA Tim Barkhouse, local farmer Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals

45 Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals Average Soil Organic Carbon Change (kg ha -1 yr -1 ) 3.3 Estimating Residuals Surplus/Deficit Using SOC Balance Ontario Year Carbon compounds contained in plant residuals, above and below ground, are rapidly decomposed by microbes during the first couple of years following the plant growth, as shown in Figure 3.4. The actual decomposition rate of carbon compounds in plant residuals may differ slightly from the curve shown in Figure 3.4 depending on the soil temperature, soil moisture, soil type and other environmental factors. Within 5-10 years, the percentage of carbon left in the ground will decrease to 14-15%, which is generally accepted as the stable form of carbon or SOC (Kong et al., 2005). After this value has been reached, the decay rate slows significantly, if the soil is not disturbed by farming activities such as ploughing. Soil loses its SOC through the normal decay of carbon even in the absence of farming activities. This rate of Canada Year Figure 3.3 Average Soil Organic Carbon Change in Ontario and Canada (McConkey et al., 2005) decay can be estimated from the equation developed by Voroney et al. (1989) shown in Figure 3.4. Soil erosion, due to wind and water run-off, also contributes to the loss of SOC. If the tolerable limit, or T value, of 6.6 tonne/ha of soil erosion recommended by OMAFRA is used in this equation, the associated SOC loss is 0.13 tonne/ha. Tillage activities also promote SOC loss due to exposure of soil carbon to the air which results in oxidation. Conventional tillage practices, such as fall ploughing, increase SOC losses in comparison with no-till or other conservation tillage methods. On average, SOC loss due to conservation tillage may be assumed to be 0.28 tonne/ha based on models developed by Gollany et al. (2010). The three major routes of SOC loss per hectare of typical agricultural land using conservation tillage practices are shown in Figure 3.5. Total SOC losses from a hectare of typical agricultural land using conservation tillage practices are approxi-

46 100 % Carbon left in the ground y=0.72 e -1.4t e t SOC Region Years (t) Figure 3.4 Decomposition of Carbon in Plant Residuals (Voroney et al, 1989) mately 0.55 tonne/year. As shown in Figure 3.5, nearly 9.6 tonnes of plant residuals at 15% moisture content are required to replenish the SOC losses of 0.55 tonne/ha/year, in order to maintain the SOM of the land at 3.4%. Both above and below ground residuals contribute to the replacement of SOC in the soil. The estimate is based on the assumption that 45% of dry based on Voroney (2010) and personal communication with personnel from the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA). Grain corn, which is the highest biomass yielding crop, offers the largest potential quantity of residuals for harvest followed by winter wheat. Hay has deep roots in comparison with annual crops and provides some plant residuals are carbon and 15% of this carbon is theoretically harvestable residuals. Practically, converted into the stable form or SOC. The total SOC content of the land, estimated in Figure 3.5, is for the top 30 cm of soil. Field crops which produce more than 9.6 tonne/ha of plant residuals provide surplus residuals that are available for harvesting. However, field crops with less than 9.6 tonne/ha of plant residuals create SOC deficits which should be replenished by surplus residuals from other crops through rotations or other organic materials such as livestock manure or compost. however, residuals would not be available for energy use. Soybeans, which are relatively small plants, need more plant or other organic materials to maintain soil SOM. Crop residuals deficits due to soybean production are usually replenished by residuals surplus from grain corn or winter wheat through crop rotation. Farmers also periodically add livestock manure to the soil to replenish SOC. Therefore, the amount of agricultural residuals, which could be sustainably removed from farms, depends on the crop rotation Table 3.2 provides the theoretical harvestable amount of residuals for the four major field crops that represent over 85% of the total field crop production in Ontario. The estimate of root biomass materials are schedule and other farm practices of individual farmers. If a particular farm is on a steep slope, soil erosion due to water run-off may be an issue which may also reduce the theoretically harvestable amount. Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals

47 Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals 3.4 Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals in Ontario Plant residuals (9.6 tonne at 15% MC) Above ground & below ground 0.55 tonnes SOC The estimate of the total residuals that can be sustainably harvested, based on individual farmers and farm characteristics, can be a daunting task due to the dynamics of change from crop rotations and the lack of detailed data. However, a macro analysis at the provincial and regional levels can be performed based on the acreages of field crops. Table 3.3 provides residual surplus or deficit calculations associated with each major field crop in the province. As mentioned earlier, the residual surplus/deficit is calculated assuming that 3.4% SOM is maintained. The hectares harvested and 1 hectare land 3.4% SOM 95 tonne of SOC Normal carbon decomposition (0.14 tonne SOC) Loss due to erosion (0.13 tonne SOC) Loss due to conservation tillage (0.28 tonne SOC) Total losses (0.55 tonne SOC) Note: SOC loss due to conventional tillage can be greater than 0.55 tonne/ha/yr Figure 3.5 SOC Balance for One Hectare of Agricultural Land the percentage of unharvested areas are seven-year ( ) averaged data, and compiled from field crops statistics on the OMAFRA web site. Root b i o mass from other field crops are estimated assuming the same ratios apply to each type (i.e. cereal or grain or beans) of field crop. The total residual surplus from field crops in the province in 2009 is 1.3 M tonnes, which is approximately 10% of the total above ground residuals. This surplus translates to 20 kg/ha of SOC gain in 2009, which is likely in agreement with the data estimated by McConkey et al. (2005) if the trend presented in Figure 3.3 continues. It is interesting to note that only three Table 3.2 Theoretically Harvestable Plant Residuals (15% Moisture Content) for Major Field Crops in Ontario Crop Grain Corn Winter Wheat Soybeans Hay Roots (tonne/ha) Above ground (tonne/ha) Total residuals (tonne/ha) Required residuals (tonne/ha) to maintain 3.4% SOM Theoretical harvestable residuals (tonne/ha)

48 field crops, namely hay, grain corn and winter wheat, produce more plant residuals than are required to maintain SOM at the 3.4% level. Some wheat straw is taken from the field for use as bedding materials for livestock. However, the majority of used bedding from livestock farms is returned to agricultural land, so this unlikely affects the net surplus of residuals in the province. Residual surplus/deficit analysis was also completed for each Ontario agricultural census region (details of counties and an agricultural census region map are given in Appendix B) to determine if a particular region is in a residuals deficit. Table 3.4 identifies the top ten field crops in each Ontario agricultural region. The last two rows of Table 3.4 suggest that farmers in all regions of the province grow field crops which produce surplus residuals (hay, grain corn and winter wheat) on the majority of field crop land. The field crop hectares in Table 3.4 are Table 3.3 Field Crops with a Surplus/Deficit of Residuals in Ontario in 2009 Field Crop Hay Soybeans Grain corn Winter wheat Fodder corn Barley Spring wheat Mixed grain Dry field beans Oats Fall rye* Tobacco* Canola Hectares Harvested 971, , , , ,788 82,822 61,191 53,499 29,381 37,883 24,586 11,032 17,293 % Unharvested Area Provincial Total five-year ( ) averaged data compiled using the field crops statistics on the OMAFRA web site. Another important factor that should be considered in the estimate of sustainably harvestable agricultural residuals is that organic materials, specifically livestock manures, are added to agricultural fields. This allows for the removal of more plant residuals for use in energy applications. The majority of hay produced in Ontario is utilized by livestock farms in the province. The indigestible fibre in animal feed is returned to the soil by spreading manure and used animal bedding on the land. Conservatively it is assumed that each cow, on average per day, produces 35 kg of manure with a 70% moisture content. When dried, the indigestible content of this manure is 20% (sources: OMAFRA f a c t sheet on anaerobic digestion basics, Surplus Residuals ('000 tonne) 397-3,029 3,537 1, Surplus Residuals from Un-harvested ('000 tonne) * Percentage unharvested area for fall rye and tobacco are not available and thus assumed Total Surplus Residuals ('000 tonne) 452-3,041 3,734 1, ,324 Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals

49 Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals w w w. a g e n g. n d s u. n o d a k. e d u / a n i m a l w a s t e m a n agement/manure_production.htm, Characteristics). Therefore, approximately 1.5 M tonnes of indigestible fibre is produced every year by cattle farms in Ontario. Returning livestock manure to the farm would increase the amount of sustainably harvestable agricultural residuals in Ontario regions as presented in Table 3.5. The number of cattle in the agricultural census regions of the province used in this e s t i mate is five year ( ) averaged data o b tained through the livestock statistics section of the OMAFRA web site. Therefore the amount of sustainably harvestable agricultural residuals in the province in 2009 is 2.8 M tonne. This is approximately 20% of the total above ground residuals produced in the province. The impact of removing 20% of the total above ground residuals Table 3.4 Top Ten Field Crop Hectares in Ontario Agricultural Census Regions on soil quality is expected to be minimal based on the soil SOM budget analysis completed in this study. Continuous monitoring of soil health, as currently practised by the majority of farmers, through periodic measurements of SOM and other soil parameters, is essential to the utilization of crop residuals as a bio-fuel.the farming community will experience an increase in revenues due to the sale of crop residuals. The added benefit of incorporating best farming practices, such as growing winter cover crops, is a potential soil health improvement. In general, the quantity of sustainably harvestable residuals would be higher in the future with improved crop yields. Genetic advancements in crops, specifically grain corn, have increased the corn yield by 100% over past 30 years (Ontario Federation of Agriculture), i.e. an approximate 3% yield improvement annually. Crop yield improvements return more biomass or organic materials to soil which increases the SOM level. Field Crop Eastern Central Western Southern Northern Total Hay Soybeans Grain corn Winter wheat Fodder corn Barley Spring wheat Mixed grain Dry field beans Oats Total 241,239 92,526 95,636 4,785 25,126 11,676 24,291 1,368 3,854 5, , ,360 62,834 61,830 33,069 12,777 9,377 1,960 2,721 7,166 7, , , , , ,105 55,984 42,842 29,320 30,291 32,291 9,765 1,116, , , , ,117 27,182 3,951 5,239 25,045 3,028 8,364 1,243, ,781 1, ,798 1,441 8,429 5, ,178 5, , , , , , ,510 76,275 66,640 59,425 48,518 36,842 3,374,194 Surplus Crops Area (% of Total) Surplus/Deficit Area Ratio

50 Figure 3.6 predicts the quantity of sustainably harvestable residuals with 1 and 2% crop yield improvement scenarios in the near future. Therefore, the total sustainably harvestable residuals would increase from 2.8 M tonnes in 2009 to 4.5 M tonnes and 6.2 M tonnes in 2014 for 1% and 2% crop yield improvements, respectively. These crop yield improvements are based on the 2009 yield. The number of cattle in the province in 2014 is assumed to be the same as in The residual-to-crop ratio may not increase linearly with the gain in crop yield for all crops. Fo r i n s t a n c e, t h e h e i g h t o f w i n t e r w h e a t h a s remained relati vely constant with the i n c r e a s e d g r a i n yield during the last years ( per sonal communication with farmers). H o w ever, the farming community has noted that today, the height of some corn varieties are over 10 feet compared to 5-6 feet 20 years ago. This increase in height results in greater residual return to the soil. Plant residuals from grain corn represent over 4 5 % o f t h e t o t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s i d u a l s p r o duced in Ontario. Table 3.5 Sustainably Harvestable Agricultural Residuals in Ontario in 2009 Ontario Region Eastern Central Western Southern Northern Provincial Total (Adjusted with all Field Crops) Harvestable Residuals ( 000 tonne) without Considering Fibre from Livestock Manure ,324 Monsanto and industry specialists expect that the grain corn yield could be doubled in the next 20 years due to recent advancements in crop breeding and genetics ( article.jsp?article_id=3330, personal communication with Dale Cowan and Jim Campbell, AGRIS Co-operatives Ltd.). The A Billion Ton Vision report (Perlack et al., 2005) prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, assumed an average 50% increase in yield for a l l crops by 2030 (i.e. simple 2% annual yield improvement). The Billion Ton Vision report also predicted the residual-to-crop ratio of soybeans to escalate from current level of 1:1 to 2:1 by Based on these facts, an average 1% increase in crop yields with a constant residual-to-crop ratio is a conservative assumption. Applying this projection to Ontario in 2014 when OPG may require biomass fuels, the quantity of sustainably harvestable residuals will be 4.5 M tonnes, as shown in Figure 3.6. This biomass quantity still represents approximately 20% of the total above ground residuals produced in the province in Number of Cattle 356, , , , ,906 1,982,651 Harvestable Residuals ( 000 tonne) Considering Fibre from Livestock Manure , ,824 Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals

51 Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals Sustainably Harvestable Residuals (M tonne) % Annual Yield Improvement 2% Annual Yield Improvement Figure 3.6 Sustainably Harvestable Residuals in Ontario with Crop Yield Improvement Scenarios 3.5 Soil Erosion in Ontario and Removal of Agricultural Residuals As mentioned previously, the quantity of sustainably harvestable agricultural residuals is very site specific and depends on the crop rotation, soil type, slope length-gradient of the land, amount of precipitation, wind speed, weather conditions, tillage methods and other farm management practices. Although soil erosion due to wind could be a serious issue in some Year areas, such as Saskatchewan, it is well controlled in Ontario given the topology of the province and easyto-establish wind breaks (personal communication with the farming community). In Ontario, an important factor to consider regarding residuals removal is soil erosion due to water run-off. Agricultural residuals not only increase the soil organic matter but protect from surface soil loss due to water run-off. Soil and the associated SOM loss from agricultural land due to heavy precipitation and steep land slope

52 are significant in some jurisdictions such as Iowa ( h tt p : / / w w w. i a. n r c s. u s d a. g ov / n e w s / n e w s r e leases/2004/mayrains.html). Soil erosion from an acre of agricultural land can be estimated by using the Universal Soil Loss Equations (USLE) as follow (OMAFRA factsheet on USLE): A = R x K x LS x C x TM x P where: A = Soil erosion due to water run-off in tons/acre/year R = Rainfall and runoff factor (90 to 120 for most Ontario regions) K = Soil erodibility factor (0.02 to 0.43, depending on soil type and SOM level) LS = Slope length-gradient factor ( to , depending on land slope and length) C = Crop/vegetation factor (0.02 to 0.5, depending on the crop type) TM = Tillage method factor (0.25 to 1.0, depending on tillage practices) P = Support practice factor (0.25 to 1.0, depending on erosion control practices) Soil erosion A, is estimated by multiplying all the factors in the above equation. Higher factor values result in greater soil loss due to water run-off. The tolerable limit of soil erosion, or T value, recommended by OMAFRA is less than 3 tons/ acre/year. The values of the crop/vegetation factor, C, of different crops are given in Table 3.6. Hay represents approximately 30% of the total field crops in Ontario, and has the best C factor at This indicates that hay protects against soil loss due to its deep roots and perennial nature. It is interesting to note that water erosion associated with soybeans production, which has a C factor of 0.5, results in an increase of only 20% compared to grain corn, with a C factor of 0.4. Grain corn produces above ground residuals at 8.82 tonne/ha, which is about three times more than the above ground residuals produced by soybeans at 2.92 tonne/ha. Therefore, leaving excess residuals in the field to reduce soil erosion from water run-off will not provide additional benefits beyond a certain quantity. Table 3.6 Crop/Vegetation Factor C for Different Crops (Source: OMAFRA) Crop Type Factor C Grain Corn 0.40 Silage Corn, Beans & Canola 0.50 Cereals (Spring & Winter) 0.35 Seasonal Horticultural Crops 0.50 Fruit Trees 0.10 Hay and Pasture 0.02 In fact, tillage practices result in a more pronounced effect on soil erosion due to water run-off than the crop type. This is demonstrated in Table 3.7 through the estimate of soil loss from a sample of agricultural land in London, Ontario, for different tillage practices. Soil loss due to water run-off is below tolerable limit T value of 3 tons/acre/year for both no till and ridge till practices. However, a conventional tillage practice of fall ploughing could substantially increase soil loss to 8.17 tons/acre/year, well above the T value. Therefore, adoption of conservation tillage practices is essential for the utilization of agricultural residuals as a biofuel as well as to maintain the soil quality. The current adoption rate in Ontario is believed to be approximately 75%, based on the information obtained from agricultural experts and the farming community in this study. This adoption rate is expected to increase with the rising crude oil price. The slope length-gradient factor, LS, can range from to , depending on the topology of the land. The worst value, , is for agricultural land Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals

53 Table 3.7 Estimated Soil Loss Due to Water Run-off Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals Parameter Value Comment Rainfall and runoff factor, R Soil erodibility factor, K Slope length-gradient factor, LS Crop/vegetation factor, C Tillage method factor, TM Support practice factor, P Site-specific factors From London, Ontario, weather station Clay loam soil Land with 800 ft length and 3% slope Grain corn No till Ridge till Fall plough Cross-slope cropping Soil losses (tons/acre/year) Soil loss, A, with no till Soil loss, A, with ridge till Soil loss, A, with fall plough Below T value of 3 tons/acre/year Below T value of 3 tons/acre/year Well above T value of 3 tons/acre/year that is 3,000 ft. in length with a 10% slope. The majority of agricultural land in Ontario has a relatively low gradient in comparison with other regions such as Iowa. Farm land with steep slopes may represent less than 10% of the total agricultural land in Ontario. Farmers manage their greater sloped land well by adopting best practices such as cross-slope cropping, total quantity of sustainably harvestable agricultural residuals in Ontario if conservation tillage practises are widely adopted. For most Ontario farm land utilizing conservation tillage practices, the amount of plant residuals left in the field to maintain the SOM level should also keep soil erosion due to water run-off below the tolerable limit. growing continuous hay, contour farming, planting hay strips in the field, etc. A conclusion of this study is that soil erosion should have a minimal impact on the

54 Chapter4 Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers A number of processes must be completed in order to acquire a high quality biomass fuel at the power generating station gate. These processes include the procurement of the agricultural residual fuel supply, residual harvesting, processing of the residuals to a set fuel specification as well as transportation of the residuals between various points from the field to the generating station gate. The acquisition of a large biomass fuel supply is a collaborative process involving many parties at various points along the supply chain with the goal to obtain a usable final fuel product. This chapter describes the various components of an agricultural residual supply chain beginning with the famers and ending at the generating station gate. Sources of potential contamination are identified which may affect the fuel quality. Various models will be presented along with users of biomass feedstocks who have an established supply chain. Potential suppliers are identified along with their strengths and weakness in supplying or processing biomass for fuel. 4.1 Major Supply Chain Components The supply chain to acquire agricultural residuals for fuel involves a number of stages and organizations. The processes involved in the acquisition and delivery of biomass fuel must be effectively coordinated in order to produce a high quality fuel in a timely manner The Biomass Supply The biomass supplier is the first stage in the supply chain. This is where the biomass is produced; the crop is harvested for food or feed and residuals are harvested for use in other applications. Corn, soybeans and wheat are the major crops produced in Ontario. Since most farmers grow these crops in their rotation cycle, there are no crop establishment costs or additional time associated with agricultural residual production. These residuals may be available as a fuel on a relatively shorter lead time compared to energy crops. Generally, suppliers of agricultural residuals are the farmers who grow the crop or organizations which represent the farmers. However, the biomass supply may be acquired from third party harvesters who contract with the farmer to harvest the residuals on their behalf Biomass Processing and Storage The bulky nature of biomass and limited storage space at OPG Generating Stations for raw biomass requires biomass processing and storage at many centralized facilities near the farms involved in the harvest of residuals. Biomass processing technologies employed may include drying, pre-treatment application (washed before the processing facility or additives added at the facility), torrefaction and pelletization. Densification of the biomass through pelletization results in a fuel that is 4-10 times denser than unpelleted biomass. Biomass may also be densified into briquettes. Densificaton of the biomass results in a reduced transportation cost from the pellet mill to the generating station gate, since more biomass can be transported in one shipment. It also allows for reduced space required for the storage of the biomass fuel. Torrefaction eliminates the need for covered storage of the residual fuel. This may result in the replacement of coal piles at generating stations with torrefied residual pellet piles. Centralized pelletizing and processing plants have a key role in providing a fuel which meets the specifications of the generating station. Blending of residuals from various sources reduces the effect of inconsistencies of the biomass chemical characteristics due to growing conditions on the farm. This blending capability also provides OPG with the flexibility to change the fuel specifications. Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers

55 Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers The establishment of storage and processing facilities for agricultural residuals are necessary for the development of an effective supply chain. A number of pelletization plants exist within Ontario, mainly in the northern region of the province, to pelletize wood and forestry residuals from forestry operations. Small scale pelletizers are located in southern Ontario, where the majority of agricultural residuals are produced. If agricultural residuals are to be used as a fuel in Ontario, processing and pelletizing facilities must be constructed in southern regions where the fuel supply will be acquired. Demonstration facilities in southern Ontario may be necessary to attract investments to develop the processing component of the supply chain. Once funding has been acquired, construction of a processing facility requires approximately 18 months Biomass Transportation Agricultural residuals must be transported between various points along the supply chain. Assuming that a centralized processing facility is a component of the supply chain, harvested residuals must be transported from the farm to a processing facility, and then from the processing facility to the generating station. Biomass may also be transported directly to the generating station to be used in an unprocessed form or processed on-site. Agricultural products grown in Ontario are shipped across Canada and the United States through established routes and modes, which include truck, rail and marine transport. The same modes and similar routes may be used for the transport of residual materials to the processing facilities or generating stations. Processing facilities are ideally located close to the producing farms, within 100 km, to reduce the cost of transporting bulky residual materials. It is expected that trucks or tractors will be used to transport the residuals from the farm to the processing facility. For short distances, the processed biomass fuel would be transported to the generating station by truck, otherwise the biomass may be transported to a rail or marine terminal for shipping. Transportation of residuals to OPG by truck may result in local traffic congestion due to the number of trucks necessary to deliver the required fuel quantities. Currently, rail lines do not exist at the Nanticoke and Lambton Generating Stations to receive biomass fuel from other locations in the province. However, both generating stations are located along the Great Lakes Seaway System and currently receive coal shipments by marine vessels. This is a viable option to receive residual fuel shipments. Marine shipping infrastructure is in place at the OPG Generating Stations the existing coal handling systems can be used with little modification to convert to biomass fuel handling. Marine shipping also has the lowest transportation cost and has less environmental impact than truck and rail transport. 4.2 Potential Sources of Residuals Contamination Along the Supply Chain There are many possible sources of agricultural residuals contamination between production and use as a fuel. These contaminants will alter the chemical characteristics of the raw biomass due to the inclusion of new foreign materials. Based on the contamination source, the fuel may be contaminated after leaving the aggregator where the biomass was processed to meet the set fuel specification. Care must be taken throughout the supply chain to ensure that the fuel quality is maintained during transport and delivery to the generating station. Figure 4.1 identifies the various stages of the supply chain and the possible sources of contamination at

56 Figure 4.1 Potential Contamination Sources Along the Supply Chain each stage. These sources can add additional inorganic where soil may be collected with the residuals materials to the chemical characteristics of the biomass if the biomass is over-wintered or washed in or render it as unusable. Blending of residuals from the field different sources may minimize the effects of contamination from a particular location on the final fuel product. biomass was stored on the edge of the field or Storage of the residuals at the farm and if the on a concrete pad sheltered from the weather At the production site, a number of possible contaminant sources were identified. These include: field, in piles or in the bales, and the set Spoilage of residuals if rotting begins in the The use of pesticides and fertilizers which result collection methods applied incorrectly. in high levels of nutrients absorbed by the plant or on the surface of the plant Contamination of agricultural residuals may occur Characteristics of the farm including soil ph between the farm and the processing facility and which may increase the uptake of specific between the processing facility and the generating nutrients from the soil station. This may occur due to the presence of residual The proximity to industrial sources which may materials from previous biomass or unrelated dry release emissions to the air and water that can cargo shipments (such as ores, cement, etc.); spoilage be absorbed by the plant of residuals in shipping containers if the biomass is The level and type of farming activity in the field improperly dried; shipping containers which have not such as specific tillage practices been cleaned and are infested with insects or rodents, The location of the plant in the field where plants and container decomposition where rust and paint closer to the road experience greater exposure flakes from container walls. to automobile emissions and road salt. At the aggregator, contamination of agricultural During the harvest of agricultural residuals, residuals may be through spoilage in silos if the contamination may occur due to: biomass is not properly dried; the condition of containers Equipment cleanliness since old residuals, rust, and conveying lines where remains of previously soil and stones may be present in the carts processed residuals or inorganic materials may and wagons used in harvesting become mixed with current residuals; storage container The application of a pre-treatment on the farm decomposition where rust or paint flakes may be Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers

57 Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers incorporated into the fuel, and erosion of metal components on equipment due to conveying, chopping, and processing of residuals that results in the addition of fine metal particles Contamination During Marine Shipping Marine shipping poses a high risk of contamination due to the large volume of residuals shipped in one load. The two main risks are spoilage of biomass residuals and dry cargo residues within cargo holds from previous shipments of inorganic materials. Spoilage of agricultural residuals may occur in cargo holds through a number of methods. Contaminated residues present, either in the current shipment or from the previous shipment, can lead to the spread of mould through the residuals. High moisture levels due to inadequate blending of biomass with varying moisture levels, improperly dried biomass with a moisture content greater than 15.5%, and condensation of the ship walls may result in rotted fuel shipments. Water may also enter cargo holds through welds or punctures, deck openings and leaking valves which can partially flood the holds containing residuals fuel. This spoilage applies to unprocessed and pelletized agricultural residuals (Canadian Grain Commission, 2009). Cargo residues are dry cargo materials that remain in cargo holds after the ship has been unloaded. In a study for the US Coast Guard, it was determined that % of the total amount of dry cargo materials shipped on the Great Lakes become cargo residues. This is equivalent to 88 tonne/year of residues based on Ontario shipments. These residues are generally washed into the lakes (Mittag et al., 2008). Ontario currently ships significant quantities of coal, iron, limestone, salt, stone/cement/sand mixtures, cement, and petroleum coke (Statistics Canada, 2007). If present as cargo residues, contamination by these materials will contribute to increased ash content and deposit formation in the boiler. Contamination due to transport, either through marine shipping or transport truck, is expected to contribute the most to residual fuel contamination. To estimate the amount of contamination expected, as a worst case scenario for both marine shipping and transport by truck, potassium was considered to be an example contaminate due to its effects on deposit formation during biomass combustion. The potassium content of corn stover was used to determine the contribution of contaminate potassium to the ash, since the analysis in Chapter 2 shows that it has the highest potassium content of all the residual materials. Figure 4.2 provides the details of the calculation. The amount of biomass shipped on a lake freighter is approximately 30,000 tonnes, with a maximum percentage of cargo residuals remaining in the hold of %. Corn stover has the highest potassium content in the ash of 39 wt%. Assuming 5% of the biomass becomes ash and all the residuals from shipping are potassium, the contribution of potassium due to contamination is an insignificant wt%. To determine the contamination that could be expected due to transport by truck, a truck surface area of 168 m 2 was calculated assuming a 0.5 mm layer of residue remaining on all surfaces of the container. This would result in 0.07 tonne of potassium residue in the truck. The potassium content from corn stover was used in the calculation, which indicates that contamination due to residue in the truck would contribute an additional 3.5 wt% for a maximum potassium content in the ash of 42.5 wt%. This calculation shows that the contribution of contaminates due to shipping is small. It also

58 Contamination by Potassium Marine Shipping Mass of biomass shipped: 30,000 tonne Maximum cargo residue: % Maximum potassium in ash without contamination: 39 wt% Maximum potassium addition due to contamination: wt% Maximum potassium content in ash: wt% (no significant increase) Truck Transport Surface area of a truck container: 168 m 2 Cargo residue remaining on truck surface: m 3 Remaining potassium: 0.07 tonne Maximum potassium in ash without contamination: 39 wt% Contamination by potassium due to trucking: 3.5 wt% Maximum potassium content in ash: 42.5 wt% (significant increase) There is a greater risk of contamination from trucking rather than marine shipping due to the higher surface area to volume ratio of the truck container. Figure 4.2 Estimate of Maximum Contamination During Residuals Transport indicates that the risk of contamination is higher The standard for grain shipments mandates that there commercially through the use of transport trucks must be a government inspection of a ship s cargo rather than marine vessels due to the increased holds to ensure that grain will not be damaged or surface area to volume ratio of the container. deteriorate as a result of the condition and cleanliness of the cargo compartment. The cargo holds must be Mitigation of Transportation Contamination clean, dry, free of infestation by insects and rodents as well as free from toxic substances and odours prior to Spoilage of grain, and therefore agricultural residuals, loading. If the cargo holds contain residues of is the greatest cause of cargo damage during fertilizers, previous grains, loose cement or debris, the marine transport. To minimize contamination and hold is declared unfit for loading. Cleaning procedures spoilage during transport, there are standards and have been developed for cargo holds and inspectors procedures that have been developed and can can mandate fumigation to rid the holds of infestations b e modified and applied to the shipment of (Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2006). agricultural residuals. There is a standard that has been developed for marine transport of grain. This 4.3 Potential Feedstock Suppliers standard can be adapted for agricultural residuals for application at the farm site for container use, Ontario has a large agricultural sector with at the processing facility for storage, and for transport by truck, marine vessel or rail. residuals as co-products of their operations. thousands of farmer s producing agricultural A Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers

59 Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers number of potential suppliers of agricultural residuals have been identified. These potential suppliers include: Individual Farmers: produce residuals as a co-product of their crop production. The Grain Farmers of Ontario: is the largest commodity group in Ontario and represents 28,000 soybean, corn and wheat farmers. These farmers cultivate over 5 million acres of land in Ontario. This generates $2.5 billion in farm gate receipts. This group was formed through a merger of the Ontario Soybean Growers, Ontario Corn Producers Association and Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board. The goal of this new group is to provide farm members with new markets for Ontario corn, wheat and soybeans. Seed Producers: glean corn at the seed corn production facility which results in corn cob biomass that has not been introduced to contamination by soil during the harvest. There are 6 seed corn production companies in Ontario. A surplus supply of wood pellets exists in British Columbia. British Columbia has 9 pellet mills that have been supplying the European market with pellets produced from wood infested by the Mountain Pine Beetle. Sales of the BC pellets have stalled due to the decreased value of the Euro. British Columbia pellet mills would like to sell their wood pellets to Ontario for use in power generation. One of the pelletization companies, Pacific BioEnergy Corporation, has stated that Ontario cannot close the market to pellets produced in other provinces (McKay, 2010) Biomass Acquisition & Harvesting Options To acquire the biomass fuel supply required to meet electricity demand, OPG has two main contract options which include direct contracts with individual farmers or contracts with aggregators who then contract with individual farmers. To acquire agricultural residuals, the harvesting options include: 1. One field pass by the farmer to harvest the crop and the residuals using additional or specialized equipment. 2. Two field passes by the farmer. The first pass is to harvest the crop and the second pass is to harvest the residuals. 3. Two field passes to harvest the crop and residuals. The crop is harvested by the farmer and a third party harvests the residuals on behalf of the farmer. Fuel prepared from agricultural residuals must meet specifications set by OPG, which may include specified values related to the heat of combustion, ash content, particle size, moisture content and selected chemical element contents. Biomass and fuels which do not meet this specification can be rejected or subjected to a reduction in price as indicated in supply agreements. Challenges are associated with the harvesting of residuals which may include the possible purchase of combine attachments and the short crop harvesting time window. To assist farmers, third party harvesters are an attractive option to harvest residuals Third Party Harvesters Third party harvesters are responsible for harvesting residuals on the farm following the harvest of the crop. These harvesters utilize their own harvesting equipment to collect the residuals and may transport the materials to the processing facilities. Harvesting procedures can be tailored to the specific needs of the farmer to ensure sustainability of the crop land. An example of a third party harvester is Pacific Power- Stock, located in the United States. Originally founded as Pacific Ag Solutions in 1998 as a haying operation,

60 a need was recently identified for the harvest of residuals to meet the demands of large scale biofuel and bioenergy producers. Thus, the affiliated Pacific PowerStock began operations in Pacific Power- Stock designs, develops and maintains dedicated supply chains for biomass energy facilities based on the needs of the customer. This group owns and operates a large fleet of tractors, combines, balers and specialized trailers across the United States. This network of harvesters allows for the rapid deployment of harvesting capability when an increase in harvesting capacity is needed. Harvesting process options available to the farmer include biomass loading and unloading, transportation from the farm to the processing facility or end user, combining of the field, storage of the biomass and alternative harvesting options. A pellet mill has also been constructed for dedicated pelletiziation of purpose grown crops and residuals. Pacific PowerStock is positioned to operate as a third party harvester in Canada. 4.4 Potential Aggregators and Processors Aggregators and processors are intermediates between the farmer and the final user of the processed residual material. Aggregators and processors are involved in the collection of the agricultural residual material and upgrading it to a specified, useable form for the generating station. This group is responsible for the collection, drying, pre-treatment, torrefaction, pelletization and storage of the agricultural residuals as well as monitoring of the processed biomass fuel quality to ensure it meets the fuel specifications. Establishment of the supply chain through a small number of aggregators and processors, rather than a large number of farmers, reduces the number of contracts to manage by OPG. OPG would contract with the aggregators and processors who would contract with individual farmers. Currently, these large scale residual processing facilities do not exist. Potential aggregators and processors for OPG include: The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA): represents 38,000 farmers and is an advocate for the interests of Ontario farmers and represents more than 90% of Ontario farmers. The OFA is influential with local, provincial and federal governments regarding agriculture and rural affairs. The OFA has expressed interest in acting as a facilitator to develop and coordinate the aggregators and processors of agricultural residuals. A business model has been developed which includes a 20 year contract for biomass fuel acquisition. The proposed contract from the OFA includes a variable price for biomass that is linked to the price of crude oil. It is likely that the OFA can manage the financing required to construct the facilities and develop the supply chain (OFA, 2010). Existing co-operatives are designed to handle agricultural products. Co-operatives have an organizational structure that is favourable to secure financing. In order for co-operatives to be a successful aggregator and processor in the agricultural residual supply chain, they must develop and construct new facilities to handle residual materials and assemble a committed group of producers (farmers or third party) to harvest and supply residuals. New Generation Co-operatives are under development in the United States and focus on the value added processing of biomass for biobased applications rather than processing commodities. These new generation co-operatives do not exist in Ontario and financing and memberships must be established. Independent operators include small-scale pellet mills such as Gildale Farms, Nott Farms and Evergreen Farms which are in operation. Table 4.1 identifies existing pellet mills and their corresponding biomass speciality, scale and Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers

61 Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers location. The current total annual pelletization capacity in Ontario is currently less than 150,000 tonnes. Few plants pelletize all biomass (agricultural residuals, energy crops and wood biomass) and the majority process wood and forestry biomass. The production scale ranges from small-scale to thousands of tonnes per year. A number of pelletization plants are emerging in Ontario. The provincial government and funding agencies have awarded grants to various groups to develop and construct pellet mills to meet the expected future demand of bio-energy applications. Many of these plants are located in northern and eastern Ontario. Pellet equipment designers and manufacturers are also located in Ontario. Table 4.1 Operational Pellet Mills Aggregator/ Processor Gildale Farms Evergreen Farms Nott Farms Atikokan Renewable Fuels Afortek Inc. Agricultural Residuals X X X Table 4.2 Pellet Mills Under Construction or Expansion Aggregator/ Processor Canadian Biofuel SPB Energy Canadian Bio Pellet Woodville Pellet Corp. Agricultural Residuals X X 4.5 Biomass Supply Chain Options Contract Options There are four contract options to acquire agricultural residuals to process into a biomass fuel. These contract 1. options include: Spot Market Contract: the buyer purchases biomass 2. based on the current energy price equivalent. Standard Market Contract: the buyer pays for biomass partially based on a guaranteed price for an expected quantity and a spot price for 3. excess biomass above the guaranteed quantity. Acreage Contract: the buyer purchases biomass at a guaranteed price for biomass produced on 4. a specific biomass acreage. Gross Revenue Contract: the buyer guarantees an annual gross revenue per hectare payment. Energy Crops Wood Biomass Scale Location X X X X X X X Small Small Small 125,000 tonne/year Small St. Marys Glenburnie Clinton Atikokan Thunder Bay Energy Crops Wood Biomass Scale Location X X X X 120,000 tonne/year 600,000 tonne/year 80,000 tonne/year Springford Peterborough Ingleside Kawartha Lakes

62 4.5.2 Supplier Models Producers of bio-based energy and products have developed biomass supply chains that best suit their needs in order to acquire feedstock for their processes. Examples of these supply chains follow. (i) Drax Power Station Drax has developed the Green Shoots program to source energy crops such as miscanthus, short rotation coppice willow and straw. A pellet plant has also been built and commissioned to process local straw into pellets usable in the generating process (Drax, 2010a). As part of the Green Shoots program, Drax contracts for biomass through BiCAL from farmers and landowners. Suppliers collect biomass from farmers for delivery to the Drax Power Station. Through BiCAL, Drax supports the identification and development of new organizations to assist farmers with issues related to agronomy, biomass planting and the development of sustainable farming practices. (ii) Elean Power Station The straw fuel for the Elean Power Station (38 MW generation capacity) is procured from Anglian Straw, a wholly owned subsidiary. Anglian Straw sources approximately 70% of the biomass supply directly from farmers who harvest and deliver straw directly to the plant. The remaining 30% is harvested and delivered to the plant by Anglian Straw (EPR, 2010). Straw is delivered to the plant from within a 50 mile radius by truck every half hour and moisture content is tested to ensure it is below 25%. Two fully enclosed straw barns are capable of storing 2,100 tonnes of straw, which is the equivalent of 4 days of fuel (Newman, 2003). (iii) Iogen Corporation Iogen has developed a cereal straw supply chain for their cellulosic ethanol pilot facility in the Ottawa region. The price paid for straw is either fixed, or variable which is linked to the price of crude oil. Linking the price of biomass to the price of oil allows farmers to manage the cost of fuel used to produce and harvest the crop and residuals. Iogen has also implemented sustainability measures. Farmers have the option of selling all their harvested straw every second year, or half of their harvested straw every year. Contracts with farmers are for straw laid in the field (cereal crop harvested) while contracts with custom operators are to complete the straw harvest and for delivery to the plant (Altman et al., 2007). (iv) Suncor Energy Suncor Energy in the Sarnia region produces ethanol from corn. Their supply chain is based on direct contracts with farmers. Farmers bid through an internet portal on the selling price of their corn to Suncor. This accommodates farmers for their desired selling price for their corn and payment is according to their preferred method. Once the supply chain logistics and residuals markets have been established, the spot market price, as used by Suncor Energy, is an efficient and attractive option for OPG and feedstock suppliers Aggregator and Processor Models New Generation Co- Operatives New generation co-operatives have been developed in the United States for various biomass materials and applications. These models are shown as examples below. (i) Show Me Energy Co-operative Co-operative members within 100 miles of the pellet mill deliver baled biomass to the facility. Bales of biomass are stored on the farm until delivered to Show Me Energy. The farmers are reimbursed for the transportation of their biomass within a 100 mile limit. Transportation distances exceeding this 100 mile Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers

63 Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers boundary will only receive reimbursement for 100 miles. Show Me Energy will only accept biomass if sustainability practices are implemented. For agricultural crop residuals such as corn stover, 30% of the residuals must remain on the field. For prairie grasses, a killing frost must occur before harvesting, and grasses must not be harvested around water courses to minimize soil erosion (Ebert, 2008). The majority of the pellets produced are sold locally within Missouri, however, some pellets have been shipped to other states and to Europe (Tietz, 2010). The pellets for homeowners are bagged in 40 lb (18 kg) plastic bags. Industrial pellet products are shipped in bulk or large totes. Customers include homeowners and small businesses using pellet stoves, furnaces or boilers independently or with their current heating system. Members can buy pellets at cost for home heating, whereas non-members purchasing pellets save 40% of the cost of wood pellets. (ii) The Tennessee Biomass Supply Co-operative This co-operative was created to develop a program to establish switchgrass for energy applications and co-firing in power plants. Farmers harvest switchgrass using their existing equipment and move the bales to the edge of a field. Bales are loaded onto trucks for centralized storage off-site. Co-operative membership is limited and based on the demand for switchgrass, however, switchgrass is not harvested if it is not needed. All contracts are acreage based and farmers are paid for the switchgrass produced on contracted land (Grooms, 2010). (iii) The Minnesota Valley Alfalfa Producers Co-operative A number of co-operatives organized to develop an alfalfa processing and separation plant, and to invest in technologies to utilize alfalfa biomass. Alfalfa leaves are stripped from the stems and then pelletized. Pellets produced from alfalfa leaves are shipped across the United States for animal feed and the stems are currently considered as a feedstock for ethanol production (Saidak, 2010). A $100 membership fee was required to join the co-operative in order to fund activities prior to the share offerings. Shares were offered at $40 and after 30 days, 18,000 shares were sold (Downing et al., 2005). (iv) The Willow Bioenergy Producers Co-operative This co-operative, located in New York state, was formed by researchers, power utilities, landowners and environmental groups to develop planting and harvesting equipment for willow production and to sell the willow biomass to a power utility. The co-operative ensures adequate production of willow to meet the supply contract as well as for timely fuel delivery and quality control. Revenue is generated through the sale of biomass to the power utility, and membership fees support planting, harvesting, processing and transportation activities. The power generation utilities receive the emissions credits from the co-firing activities (Downing et al., 2005) Processing Techology for Torrifed Biomass Torrefaction was been recently commercialized in Europe. Torrefied biomass has been commercially produced and used for power generation in a large scale power plant. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show the Topell torrefaction plant during early construction and near of the end of construction. This plant is located in Duiven, The Netherlands. Construction of this plant was accelerated to approximately 12 months due to the demand for torrefied biomass. Stramproy Green Investments has deli vered commercial scale shipments of torrefied biomass to the Essent power station in Geertruidenberg. Figure 4.5 shows the first delivery of torrefied biomass

64 Figure 4.3 Construction of the Topell Torrefaction Plant, Duiven, The Netherlands to the power plant and Figure 4.6 shows the shipment of torrefied material. Torrefaction and pelletization are complementary processes that produce a higher quality fuel with greater energy density and improved handling. Successful European development suggests that torrefaction technology will be deployed in North America relatively quickly if there is a strong demand for torrefied biomass. The use of torrefaction has the potential to change the supply chain it allows for greater distances between biomass production sites and the power generating station as it will lower transportation costs. 4.6 Assessment of Supply Chain Stakeholders There are strengths and weaknesses of each organization Figure 4.4 Topell Torrefaction Plant Near Completion, Duiven, The Netherlands involved in the supply chain. The ideal combination of stakeholders must be determined in order to develop an efficient supply chain that is capable of supplying high quality fuel to the generating station. The strengths and weaknesses of the feedstock suppliers are identified in Table 4.3. The strength and weaknesses of aggregators and processors are provided in Table 4.4. There are advantages and disadvantages of having individual farmers or third party harvesters obtain the required biomass supply. The benefit of farmers harvesting their own residuals is that care for the land will be taken to ensure sustainable future crop production, since their livelihood depends on the land. Weaknesses of relying on farmers to harvest residuals include the high cost of purchasing specialized equipment and the brief time window to harvest the crop and the residuals. A drawback for OPG includes Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers

65 Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers a large number of contracts with individual farmers for the residuals. Benefits of third party harvesting include a reduction in the number of contracts for OPG to manage as the third party can contract with individual farmers. Third party harvesters will own the necessary specialized harvesting equipment and have staff to harvest residuals. They will assume the responsibility of ensuring that a uniform biomass product is provided to the aggregators or the generating station since the harvesting procedure is consistent. A potential disadvantage to the farmer is that the third party may not have the same care for the land as the farmer and may not be as conscientious. Figure 4.5 First Fuel Delivery by Stramproy Green Investments to the Essent Power Station There are several options for aggregating and processing residuals in Ontario. The OFA has an existing large membership and the ability to influence governments regarding decisions and policies. The OFA will be able to build new facilities specially designed to harvest residuals. Ideally positioned to be a facilitator, the OFA has a business model for fuel aggregators and processors ready for implementation. The OFA prefers to be the sole supplier to OPG. Processing facilities must be constructed and distribution channels between the farm and the generating station need to be developed. If existing co-operatives will be involved in the supply chain through OFA facilitation, agreements must be made between the OFA and co-operatives. Figure 4.6. Torrefied Material from the Topell Torrefaction Plant

66 Table 4.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of Agricultural Residual Feedstock Suppliers Individual Farmer Strengths Care for their land and sustainability Weaknesses Expensive to invest in new and specialized equipment Brief time window for harvesting residuals Many contracts Third Party Harvesters Existing co-operatives have large memberships and there are many agricultural co-operatives located across the province. Co-operatives have established practices and transportation routes which are transferrable to the processing, handling and transport of agricultural residuals. Co-operatives have the ability to raise funds quickly through membership fees and shares. Farmer members are innovative and knowledgeable and can react quickly to solve problems and embrace opportunities. Co-operatives are successful due to the support of the community, and restricted membership of the co-operative provides the organization with stability. Co-operatives are not currently capable of storing and processing residuals, so existing facilities must be enhanced to include storage areas and processing equipment. Existing co-operative locations may not be ideal sites for centralized processing of agricultural residuals. Reduced number of contracts Own specialized equipment Staff to harvest Consistent product (processed properties) to aggregator New generation co-operatives are advantageous since they are specific to value-added biomass applications. Since these co-operatives do not yet exist in Ontario, Lack of concern regarding sustainability they can be built in ideal locations and specifically designed to handle the residual materials in the region. New generation co-operatives are yet to be developed in Ontario, therefore, time and financing are required for construction as well as for the development of distribution channels and memberships. Independent operators include small scale pellet mills such as Gildale Farms. These operators have existing customers for their products and suppliers of their biomass materials. Independent operators have also developed the expertise required to process residual materials into pellets. High quality is assured since their livelihood depends on the final product. These operators are small scale and do not want to assume the high risk related to rapid scale up of production or a market that does not develop. Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers

67 Table 4.4 Strengths and Weaknesses of Agricultural Residuals Aggregators and Processors Strengths Weaknesses Large membership Prefers to be the sole supplier Influence governments Must be constructed Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers OFA Existing Agricultural Co-operatives New Generation Co-operatives Independent Operators Specially designed for residuals processing Ideally positioned to be a facilitator Business model developed for pelletization plant Large membership Established practices for shipping and handling Established transportation routes Transferable skills Quickly raise funds through membership React quickly to opportunities and problems Wealth and strength in community involvement Restricted membership provides stability Specific to bio-applications Situated in ideal locations Specially designed for residuals processing Existing customer base (greenhouses, residential) Expertise in handling residual materials Must develop distribution channels Must develop agreements with existing co-operatives Currently unable to process and store residuals Must be enhanced Existing locations may not be suitable Must be constructed Must develop distribution channels Must develop membership Small scale Do not want high risk Few existing players

68 4.7 Recommended Features of a Supply Chain Based on the options available to OPG for the development of the agricultural residuals industry in Ontario, recommended features of the supply chain are described below: Farm co-operatives enter the bio-energy industry and expand their existing capabilities to develop and build new generation co-operatives. Activities undertaken at these co-operatives include drying, pelletization, torrefaction and storage of the biomass and processed fuel. This recommendation results in a strong co-operative organization due to community involvement and open competition for the acquisition of residuals by OPG. The involvement of third party harvesters to collect agricultural residuals assists farmers in harvesting residuals within a brief time frame and allows farmers to focus on the harvest of their primary crop. Third party harvesters also stabilize the biomass supply since there is an organization responsible for the harvest and collection. For initial biomass acquisition contracts during the early stages of the new industry, the price paid for residuals should be linked to the price of crude oil. This minimizes the cost risk associated with the harvest of residuals due to possible fuel and fertilizer cost increases. Marine shipping is the recommended transportation mode for large volumes of agricultural residuals cost effectively to the power generating stations as well as to reduce road traffic in the region surrounding the generating stations. Soil monitoring mechanisms should be included in the supply chain to ensure that farmers monitor their soil quality and that the SOM does not fall below an acceptable level. Construction of fuel aggregators and processors across the province should be in strategic locations to optimize the aggregation of the regional residuals supply and minimize the transportation distances of bulky biomass. The capacity of each new pellet mill would be approximately 150,0 0 0 tonne/year. Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers

69 Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel Chapter5 Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel Presently, there is a market for a portion of the agricultural residuals produced in Ontario, specifically cereal straw. This straw is used in different applications such as animal bedding and feed, growth media for vegetables and as a feedstock for bio-fuels. The current market price of these agricultural residuals, therefore, provides a basis for estimating the harvesting and collection costs as well as the expected margin for farmers from the sale of the residuals. Other costs associated with delivering biomass fuels to the OPG gate include transportation, storage and processing, and fuel quality improvement costs. Generalized estimates of these costs and the underlying assumptions are presented in this section. An economic assessment of a promising biomass fuel quality improvement option is also included. 5.1 Cost of Harvesting Residuals Ontario farmers have experience harvesting winter wheat straw, since there is market for the straw and a long harvesting time window. Winter wheat, which is the fourth largest field crop in the province, is usually harvested in July which gives ample harvesting time without rushed preparation for the next crop and the risk of an early snowfall. Wheat grains and wheat straw can be harvested with a single pass of the combine. Wheat straw is usually left in the field in windrows or swaths and bailed at a later time. A bailer may be attached to specialized combines so that harvesting and bailing can be executed in a single pass. Soybeans, the second largest field crop in Ontario, produce a relatively small amount of plant residuals. Some years, farmers may harvest soybean stover for use as livestock bedding, if there is a shortage of wheat straw in a particular region of the province. Removal of the chopper from the combine discharges whole soybean stover back to the field. The soybean stover can then be raked and bailed. Soybeans are usually harvested in late September and early October, which generally provides a long harvesting time window before the first snowfall. If the soybean crop is followed by winter wheat in the crop rotation, the harvesting time window is slightly shorter. Corn stover provides the largest amount of agricultural residuals in Ontario, even though grain corn is the third largest field crop in the province. Like soybean stover, a small percentage of Ontario s corn stover is occasionally harvested for livestock bedding if there is a shortage of wheat straw in a particular region. Harvesting corn stover requires additional passes, since the combine only removes corn ears and the stalks remain un-cut in the field. Depending on the specific harvesting equipment the farmer owns, extra passes for mowing, raking and bailing will be required. The harvesting time window for corn stover is the most challenging, since the grain corn is harvested in late October and early November when the moisture level content of the grain declines to an acceptable level. A combination of a wet fall and an early snow can reduce the harvesting time window to a couple of weeks. Third party harvesting could be an attractive option for corn stover collection to ensure residuals supply stability. Corn cobs must be harvested using specialized machinery and will slow down the grain harvest. Based on the activities and time limitations associated with each type of residual discussed above, harvesting,

70 Table 5.1 Cost of Harvesting, Bailing, On-farm Storage & Handling for Selected Residuals Practically harvestable residuals (tonne/ha) Cost of harvesting ($/ha) Cost of bailing ($/ha) On-farm storage & handling cost ($/ha) Expected margin ($/ha) Total cost at farm gate without NPK values of the residuals ($/tonne) bailing, on-farm storage and handling costs of selected agricultural residuals are estimated and given in Table 5.1. These costs don t include the monetary value o f nutrients (namely Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium, or NPK) contained in the residuals. The total cost at the farm gate of the particular residual in Table 5.1 is not necessarily the expected price. The supply and demand of a particular residual in each region will set the price. For instance, wheat straw in some Ontario regions could be as high as $150/tonne in some years, depending on the wheat yield and the straw demand. The total cost per tonne of corn cobs and soybean stover are relatively high due to lower residual yields per hectare. 5.2 Transportation Models and Costs The transportation cost of biomass is a function of the distance, the biomass density and the mode of transportation. Transportation costs usually represent a substantial portion of the total cost of the biomass fuel, and can be the limiting factor for financial feasibility of the biomass energy project. For all transportation modes, i.e. truck, rail and marine, the biomass transportation has a fixed cost component and a variable cost component. The fixed cost Wheat Straw Corn Stover Corn Cob Soybean Stover includes loading and unloading, capital cost of rail cars, the marine port, etc. The variable cost component can be expressed in $/km, and i n cludes fuel and operating costs. Figure 5.1 illustrates the fixed cost and the variable cost of biomass transportation in general. Unit Transportation Cost ($/t) Slope = Fixed cost ($/t) Distance (km) Variable Cost ($/t/km) Figure 5.1 Fixed Cost and Variable Cost of Biomass Transportation Biomass density has an important role in the transportation cost estimate. For instance, a standard wheat straw bale has a bulk density of about Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel

71 Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel kg/m 3, and a truck with a volume of 100 m 3 can transport bales with a total weight of approximately 12 tonnes. However, biomass pellets with a bulk density of 580 kg/m 3 or torrefied pellets with a bulk density of 800 kg/m 3 will weigh out the truck capacity maximum of 40 tonnes before the container is full. Obviously, it is more costly to transport bulky biomass than densified biomass. The constants used in the transportation cost models in this study are shown in Table 5.2 and were adapted from a number of studies (Flynn, 2007; Samson, 2008; Sokhansanj and Fenton, 2006; Sorensen, 2005). Transportation cost of biomass per dry matter tonne (DM t) for a given mode is calculated through: Transportation cost ($/DM t) = C 1 + C 2 x L where: C 1 = Fixed cost constant ($/DM t) C 2 = Variable cost constant ($/DM t/km) L = Distance (km) Table 5.2 Transportation Model Constants for Different Modes for a Bulk Biomass Density of 120 kg/m 3 Mode C 1 C 2 Truck Rail Marine ( Adapted from Flynn, 20 07; Samson, 20 08; Sokhansanj and Fenton, 2006; Sorensen, 2005) The total cost to transport biomass pellets is shown in Figure 5.2 for the different modes at various distances between the farm and the OPG Generating Station (GS). If the raw biomass is transported from the farm to the central storage and processing facility by truck, and the biomass pellets are trucked from the central facility to the OPG GS (i.e. T+T), the total transportation cost would be lowest if the distance between the farm and OPG GS is l e s s t h a n k m. H o w e v e r, t h i s " T + T " t r a n s portation would cost significantly more than the other modes, as shown in Figure 5.2, for longer distances between the farm and OPG. The "T+T+R" transportation includes trucking of raw biomass from the farm to the central facility, trucking of biomass pellets from the central facility to the rail terminal and rail transportation of biomass pellets from the rail terminal to the OPG GS. The "T+T+M" mode is similar to the "T+T+R" except with marine shipping rather than rail transportation. Figure 5.3 presents a breakdown of the total transportation cost for all combinations o f t h e t r a n s p o rt a t i o n m o d e s c o n s i d e r e d. A s sumptions include a farm to OPG distance of 50 0 km, a farm to the central facility distance of 100 km, and a central facility to rail terminal or marine port distance of 100 km. The densities of raw biomass and pellets are estimated at 120 k g/m 3 and 580 k g/m 3, respecti vely. Figure 5. 3 shows that, for instance with "T+T+M" transportation mode, the cost of transporting bulk y biomass from the farm to the central facility (i.e. the first T, T1) is about $20/DM t, whereas, transporting biomass pellets by truck (i.e. the second T, T2) costs about $6/DM t. Note that distance of T1 and T2 are the same, at 100 km. This is due the substantial change in the biomass density, and suggests that central storage and processing facilities should be l o cated as close as possible to the farms to minimize the total biomass transportation cost. A reduction of approximately 40% in transportation costs, in terms of $/DM t, through rail and marine shipping modes for torrefied pellets can be expected due to the higher

72 Transportation Cost ($/DM t) T+T T+T+R 60 T+T+M Distance (Farm to Generating Station) in km T - Truck R - Rail M - Marine Figure 5.2 Costs to Transport Biomass from the Farm to the Generating Station bulk density compared to untorrefied pellets. l o s s a n d m o u l d - r e l a t e d h e a l t h r i s k s. A Similarly, the transportation cost of torrefied pellets through rail and marine shipping modes, o n a $ / G J basis, can be reduced by half in comparison with untorrefied pellets due to the n u m b e r o f s t u d i e s h a v e r e p o r t e d a w i d e r a n g e o f storage costs for biomass. Durffy a n d N a n h o u ( ) r e p o r t e d a $ / t / y r s t o r age cost for switchgrass, whereas Samson higher energy density. (20 08) estimated a c o s t o f $ 5 / D M t f o r s t o r i n g 3, t o f s w i t ch g r a s s a t N o t t 5.3 Storage and Processing Costs F a r m s i n C l i n t o n, O n t a r i o. A p e l l e t m i l l w i t h a g r e a t e r c a p a c i t y, 1 5 0, t / y r A s a m i m i n u m r e q u i r e m e n t, a g r i c u l t u r a l residuals harvested for energy a p p l i c a tions must be at least dried, and may be followed w a s c o n s i d e r e d i n t h i s s t u d y, w o u l d p r o v i d e e c o n o m y o f s c a l e i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e s t o r a g e c o s t s a t N o t t F a r m s. immediately by densification. This allows for year r o u n d s t o r a g e to m i n i m i ze d r y m a tt e r Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel

73 Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel $/DM t T T T+T T+T+R T+T+M Modes of Transportation Truck (farm to central facility) 120 kg/m 3 Rail (terminal to OPG) 580 kg/m 3 Truck (central facility to terminal/port or OPG) 580 kg/m 3 Marine (port to OPG) 580 kg/m 3 Figure 5.3 Sample Breakdown of Biomass Transportation Costs Drying of biomass can represent a major cost associated with the biomass densification process. Mani (2006) estimated that the cost associated with drying wood residues at 45% moisture is about 30%, or $10.30/t, of the total pelletizing cost. Energy used for drying wood residues also represents 22% of wood pellets energy, and 70% of the total energy consumed in the pelletizing process (Karwandy, 2007). Agricultural residuals with relatively lower moisture contents, such as wheat straw, offer lower drying costs. A nearly R T T M T T linear relationship exists between the cost of drying biomass and the moisture content of the biomass. In this study, it is assumed that the incoming biomass is dried to 8% moisture content for subsequent densification processes or storage. Grinding, also known as milling, is a sub-process within the biomass densification process. Biomass materials should be milled after drying to a size no larger than the diameter of the pellets. Raw materials

74 are usually sieved before grinding to remove foreign objects such as stone and metal. Mani (20 06) estimated a grinding cost of $0.95/t for wood residues. Biomass from energy crops may have higher grinding costs due to additional sieving before grinding, since agricultural biomass is more prone to foreign materials such as soil and stones, compared to forest wood. Pelletizing machines, also known as extruders, are available in a range of sizes. Generally, every 100 hp provides a capacity of approximately one ton of wood pellets per hour. However, higher pellet outputs of 2 4 t/hr can be expected for agricultural residual biomass. Many pelletizing machines have a built-in steam conditioning chamber. Superheated steam, at temperatures above 100 C, is used to soften biomass before it is densified. Steam conditioning is not necessary but results in raw material that is less abrasive to the pelletizing equipment. This helps reduce maintenance costs. There are two types of dies used in the pelletization process: Flat die: raw material is pressed though the top of a horizontally mounted die Rotary die: two or more rotary presses push raw material from inside a ring die to the outside where it can be cut into the desired length. In both cases, a pellet is formed using a high pressure to force the raw material through the holes in the die. Pressure and friction increase along with the temperature of biomass. This allows the lignin of the biomass to soften and the fibre to reshape into the pellet form. Pelletizing cost of agricultural biomass may be higher than that of forest wood due to the higher silica contents, which leads to greater wear of the pelletizing equipment. Samson (2008) estimated the total pelletizing cost, including drying and grinding, of switchgrass at $40/t for a 50,000 t/yr (6.7 t/hr) pellet plant. Since a pellet plant with a capacity of 150,000 t/yr (20 t/hr) is considered in this study, a lower pelletizing cost due to the economy of scale is expected. The economy of scale of a wood pellet mill is shown in Figure 5.4 (Mani, 2006). It can be seen that there is no significant gain in the economy of scale beyond a mill capacity of 75,000 t/yr (10 t/hr). The process of producing a biomass briquette is similar to pelletization, however, briquette machines require less capital and have lower operating costs. The cost of producing biomass briquettes could be about 50% of the cost to produce pellets (Samson, 2008). Torrefaction is a fuel improvement process that is gaining interest from centralized power producers, especially coal-fired power plants considering co-firing or conversion to 100% biomass. This thermal pre-treatment process produces solid bio-fuels that are hydrophobic, and allows for outdoor storage similar to coal. The energy content per unit mass of torrefied biomass pellets is approximately 30% higher than that of regular biomass pellets, and energy content per unit volume of torrefied biomass pellets is about 90% higher than that of regular pellets (Kiel, 2007). The transportation cost of torrefied pellets could, therefore, be significantly reduced. Torrefied biomass also has superior handling, milling and co-firing capabilities. In Europe, torrefaction has recently been commercialized and a torrefaction facility is producing torrefied biomass for use in power generation. Determining the cost of the torrefaction processes is difficult, since commercial units have only recently been established. Therefore, the costs are estimated based on the types of processing equipment, estimates of energy consumption, and the handling and preparation steps involved. The pricing of pilot torrefaction units from potential equipment manufacturers were also obtained during this study. Table 5.3 provides cost estimates for the torrefaction Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel

75 Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel Pellet Production Cost (US$/t) Total cost Capital cost 60 Operating cost Plant Capacity (t/h) Figure 5.4 Wood Pelletizing Cost Versus Plant Size (Mani, 2006) process, excluding pelletization. The cost of torrefying agricultural biomass is approximately Table 5.3 Cost Estimates for Torrefaction $12/tonne. This assumes that the heat from the of Agricultural Biomass combustion of volatiles is recovered in the process. The torrefaction unit is considered to be annexed to the pellet mill. Either torrefaction o r p e l l e t i z a t i o n m a y o c c u r f i r s t i n t h e t o r refied pellet production process. Each option has associated advantages and disadvantages. Item Process capacity Capital cost Interest rate Life of the system Amortized capital cost Value 150, Unit tonne/yr M$ % yr M$/yr The total cost of torrefied biomass pellets depends on the sequence of operations in the production process. Operating cost Total cost/tonne* M$/yr $/tonne If the biomass is torrefied fir st followed by pelletization, the total processing cost may be lower *Note that this total cost excludes any costs related to pelletization

76 due to lower milling and pelletizing energy requirements (Arvelakis, 2009 and Kiel, 2007). The natural binding agents contained in raw biomass will likely define the processing sequence for the production of torrefied pellets. Woody biomass usually has a higher natural binding content in comparison with agricultural residuals. Torrefaction of woody biomass prior approximately $32/DM t. If agricultural residuals must be pelletized before torrefaction, due to their low content of natural binding chemicals, the total processing cost of torrefied biomass pellets is about $44/DM t. If the agricultural residuals can be torrefied first, followed by pelletization, the total processing cost may be reduced to $25/DM t. to pelletization has been proven at the pilot scale. An option is to include the lignin byproduct from pulp and paper operations as a binder in the pelletization of 5.4 Financial Model and Total Cost of Agricultural Residuals Fuel at the OPG Gate agricultural residuals. More research is needed into the torrefaction and pelletization of agricultural biomass to determine if the same process sequence can be applied. The total cost of torrefied biomass is, therefore, estimated for two processing sequence scenarios: torrefaction first and pelletization first. A financial model was developed to estimate the cost of different forms of biomass fuels derived from agricultural residuals. The total cost of biomass fuels at the OPG gate was calculated based on general input parameters such as practically harvestable residuals per hectare, the moisture content, Based on the discussion above and the studies referenced, cost estimates for the storage and processing of selected agricultural residuals are given in Table 5.4. The total processing cost to produce regular biomass pellets from agricultural residuals is expected margin from sale of residuals, processing expenses and transportation costs. NPK in agricultural residuals are also considered and the costs of biomass fuels with and without NPK are estimated. Biomass processing using mobile units is also included as an Table 5.4 Storage and Processing Costs of Selected Agricultural Residuals Wheat Straw Corn Stover Storage and processing costs ($/DM t) Storing and administrative expenses Drying to 8% moisture content Grinding Briquetting Pelletizing Torrefying Total processing cost ($/DM t) Grind Briquette Pellet Torrefied pellet (Pelletization first) Torrefied pellet (Torrefaction first)* *Lower grinding ($1.00/DM t) and pelletizing ($5.75/DM t) costs for this processing sequence Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel

77 Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel Figure 5.5 Financial Model for Wheat Straw Financial Model - Wheat Straw General Input Parameters Average biomass yield (DM t/ha) Fuel value (GJ/DM t) Moisture content at farm gate (%) Nitrogen content (% of total dry mass) Phosphorus content (% of total dry mass) Potassium content (% of total dry mass) Average distance - farm to central facility (km) Average distance - central facility - marine port (km) Average distance - marine port to OPG (km) Interest rate (%) Fertilizer/Mobile Unit Cost Items Cost in Nitrogen ($/kg) Cost of Phosphorus ($/kg) Cost of Potassium ($/kg) Capital cost of mobile pelletizer (M$) Utilization of mobile pelletizer (t/yr) Life of mobile pelletizer (yr) Annualized cost of mobile pelletizer (M$) Capital cost of mobile pelletizer on each tonne processed ($/t) Total Cost of Biomass at Farm Gate Harvesting ($/ha) Bailing ($/ha) On-farm storage and handling ($/ha) Expected margin from residual sales ($/ha) Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/DM t) without fertilizer values Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/GJ) without fertilizer values Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/DM t) with fertilizer values Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/GJ) with fertilizer values Transportation Costs ($/DM t) Farm to central facility Grind - central facility to marine port Briquette - central facility to marine port Pellet - central facility to marine port Torrefied - central facility to marine port Grind - marine port to OPG Briquette - marine port to OPG Pellet - marine port to OPG Torrified - marine port to OPG Processing Cost Items Storing and administration expenses ($/DM t) Drying to 8% moisture content ($/DM t) Grinding ($/DM t) Briquetting ($/DM t) Pelletizing ($/DM t) Torrefication ($/DM t) Value Value Value Value Value Cost ($/GJ) of Different Forms of Biomass at OPG Gate (Central Processing Facility Model) Grind Briquette Pellet Torrefied-1 Torrefied-2 Harvesting & Bailing Processing Transporting Total without fertilizer values Total with fertilizer values Harvesting & Bailing Processing Transporting Total without fertilizer values Total with fertilizer values Cost ($/GJ) of Different Forms of Biomass at OPG Gate (Mobile Processing Unit Model) Grind Briquette Pellet Torrefied-1 Torrefied Torrefied-1: Pelletizing first with subsequent torrefaction Torrefied-2: Torrefaction first with subsequent pelletizing Note: Calculated value (green text) Input Value (black text)

78 Figure 5.6 Financial Model for Corn Stover Financial Model - Corn Stover General Input Parameters Average biomass yield (DM t/ha) Fuel value (GJ/DM t) Moisture content at farm gate (%) Nitrogen content (% of total dry mass) Phosphorus content (% of total dry mass) Potassium content (% of total dry mass) Average distance - farm to central facility (km) Average distance - central facility - marine port (km) Average distance - marine port to OPG (km) Interest rate (%) Fertilizer/Mobile Unit Cost Items Cost in Nitrogen ($/kg) Cost of Phosphorus ($/kg) Cost of Potassium ($/kg) Capital cost of mobile pelletizer (M$) Utilization of mobile pelletizer (t/yr) Life of mobile pelletizer (yr) Annualized cost of mobile pelletizer (M$) Capital cost of mobile pelletizer on each tonne processed ($/t) Total Cost of Biomass at Farm Gate Harvesting ($/ha) Bailing ($/ha) On-farm storage and handling ($/ha) Expected margin from residual sales ($/ha) Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/DM t) without fertilizer values Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/GJ) without fertilizer values Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/DM t) with fertilizer values Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/GJ) with fertilizer values Transportation Costs ($/DM t) Farm to central facility Grind - central facility to marine port Briquette - central facility to marine port Pellet - central facility to marine port Torrefied - central facility to marine port Grind - marine port to OPG Briquette - marine port to OPG Pellet - marine port to OPG Torrified - marine port to OPG Processing Cost Items Storing and administration expenses ($/DM t) Drying to 8% moisture content ($/DM t) Grinding ($/DM t) Briquetting ($/DM t) Pelletizing ($/DM t) Torrefication ($/DM t) Value Value Value Value Value Cost ($/GJ) of Different Forms of Biomass at OPG Gate (Central Processing Facility Model) Grind Briquette Pellet Torrefied-1 Torrefied-2 Harvesting & Bailing Processing Transporting Total without fertilizer values Total with fertilizer values Harvesting & Bailing Processing Transporting Total without fertilizer values Total with fertilizer values Cost ($/GJ) of Different Forms of Biomass at OPG Gate (Mobile Processing Unit Model) Grind Briquette Pellet Torrefied-1 Torrefied Torrefied-1: Pelletizing first with subsequent torrefaction Torrefied-2: Torrefaction first with subsequent pelletizing Note: Calculated value (green text) Input Value (black text) Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel

79 Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel Figure 5.7 Financial Model for Corn Cobs Financial Model - Corn Cobs General Input Parameters Average biomass yield (DM t/ha) Fuel value (GJ/DM t) Moisture content at farm gate (%) Nitrogen content (% of total dry mass) Phosphorus content (% of total dry mass) Potassium content (% of total dry mass) Average distance - farm to central facility (km) Average distance - central facility - marine port (km) Average distance - marine port to OPG (km) Interest rate (%) Fertilizer/Mobile Unit Cost Items Cost in Nitrogen ($/kg) Cost of Phosphorus ($/kg) Cost of Potassium ($/kg) Capital cost of mobile pelletizer (M$) Utilization of mobile pelletizer (t/yr) Life of mobile pelletizer (yr) Annualized cost of mobile pelletizer (M$) Capital cost of mobile pelletizer on each tonne processed ($/t) Total Cost of Biomass at Farm Gate Harvesting ($/ha) Bailing ($/ha) On-farm storage and handling ($/ha) Expected margin from residual sales ($/ha) Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/DM t) without fertilizer values Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/GJ) without fertilizer values Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/DM t) with fertilizer values Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/GJ) with fertilizer values Transportation Costs ($/DM t) Farm to central facility Grind - central facility to marine port Briquette - central facility to marine port Pellet - central facility to marine port Torrefied - central facility to marine port Grind - marine port to OPG Briquette - marine port to OPG Pellet - marine port to OPG Torrified - marine port to OPG Processing Cost Items Storing and administration expenses ($/DM t) Drying to 8% moisture content ($/DM t) Grinding ($/DM t) Briquetting ($/DM t) Pelletizing ($/DM t) Torrefication ($/DM t) Value Value Value Value Value Cost ($/GJ) of Different Forms of Biomass at OPG Gate (Central Processing Facility Model) Grind Briquette Pellet Torrefied-1 Torrefied-2 Harvesting & Bailing Processing Transporting Total without fertilizer values Total with fertilizer values Harvesting & Bailing Processing Transporting Total without fertilizer values Total with fertilizer values Cost ($/GJ) of Different Forms of Biomass at OPG Gate (Mobile Processing Unit Model) Grind Briquette Pellet Torrefied-1 Torrefied Torrefied-1: Pelletizing first with subsequent torrefaction Torrefied-2: Torrefaction first with subsequent pelletizing Note: Calculated value (green text) Input Value (black text)

80 Figure 5.8 Financial Model for Soybean Stover Financial Model - Soybean Stover General Input Parameters Average biomass yield (DM t/ha) Fuel value (GJ/DM t) Moisture content at farm gate (%) Nitrogen content (% of total dry mass) Phosphorus content (% of total dry mass) Potassium content (% of total dry mass) Average distance - farm to central facility (km) Average distance - central facility - marine port (km) Average distance - marine port to OPG (km) Interest rate (%) Fertilizer/Mobile Unit Cost Items Cost in Nitrogen ($/kg) Cost of Phosphorus ($/kg) Cost of Potassium ($/kg) Capital cost of mobile pelletizer (M$) Utilization of mobile pelletizer (t/yr) Life of mobile pelletizer (yr) Annualized cost of mobile pelletizer (M$) Capital cost of mobile pelletizer on each tonne processed ($/t) Total Cost of Biomass at Farm Gate Harvesting ($/ha) Bailing ($/ha) On-farm storage and handling ($/ha) Expected margin from residual sales ($/ha) Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/DM t) without fertilizer values Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/GJ) without fertilizer values Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/DM t) with fertilizer values Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/GJ) with fertilizer values Transportation Costs ($/DM t) Farm to central facility Grind - central facility to marine port Briquette - central facility to marine port Pellet - central facility to marine port Torrefied - central facility to marine port Grind - marine port to OPG Briquette - marine port to OPG Pellet - marine port to OPG Torrified - marine port to OPG Processing Cost Items Storing and administration expenses ($/DM t) Drying to 8% moisture content ($/DM t) Grinding ($/DM t) Briquetting ($/DM t) Pelletizing ($/DM t) Torrefication ($/DM t) Value Value Value Value Value Cost ($/GJ) of Different Forms of Biomass at OPG Gate (Central Processing Facility Model) Grind Briquette Pellet Torrefied-1 Torrefied-2 Harvesting & Bailing Processing Transporting Total without fertilizer values Total with fertilizer values Harvesting & Bailing Processing Transporting Total without fertilizer values Total with fertilizer values Cost ($/GJ) of Different Forms of Biomass at OPG Gate (Mobile Processing Unit Model) Grind Briquette Pellet Torrefied-1 Torrefied Torrefied-1: Pelletizing first with subsequent torrefaction Torrefied-2: Torrefaction first with subsequent pelletizing Note: Calculated value (green text) Input Value (black text) Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel

81 Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel alternative to central fuel aggregators and processors. The financial models for different agricultural residuals are given in Figures Selected results, as a total cost of biomass fuel per GJ at the OPG gate, of the financial models are highlighted in Table 5.5. The total cost of cereal straw and corn stover pellets at the OPG gate are $6.00/GJ and $6.57/GJ, respectively. If the agricultural residuals are torrefied before pelletization, this may offer not only a higher quality fuel but also reduce the overall cost per unit energy content. The total cost of biomass fuel, torrefied then pelletized, may vary from $5.59/GJ to $8.67/GJ without considering the value of nutrients in Table 5.5 Costs of Selected Agricultural Residual Fuels at the OPG Gate ($/GJ) Cereal Straw Corn Stover Corn Cob Soybean Stover Harvesting & bailing Processing Transportation Total (without NPK values) Total (with NPK values) Harvesting & bailing Processing Transportation Total (without NPK values) Total (with NPK values) Harvesting & bailing Processing Transportation Total (without NPK values) Total (with NPK values) Harvesting & bailing Processing Transportation Total (without NPK values) Total (with NPK values) the residuals. The economics may result in farmers leaving the low yielding residuals in the field for SOM replenishment. As shown in Figures , the option of fuel processing through mobile units was investigated in this study. The cost of biomass pellets could be substantially higher, by an factor of two, with mobile units due to a lower capital utilization factor and higher cost of liquid fuel, compared to electricity, (cost of diesel is approximately $25/GJ) to power the mechanical processes involved in pellet production. The production costs of raw agricultural residuals at farm gate shown in Figures are based on harvesting and bailing costs and the expected Untorrefied Pellet Torrefied Pellet (Pelletization First) Torrefied Pellet (Torrefaction First)

82 Table 5.6 Supply, Demand and Average Price of Cereal Straw in Ontario Regions Region Eastern Central Western Southern Northern Total Wheat Straw Production (tonne) 15, , , ,338 6,648 1,544,139 Total Cereal Straw Production (tonne) 132, , ,889 1,051,056 83,890 2,515,145 Number of Cattle 356, , , , ,906 1,982,651 margin from the sale of the residuals. The actual p r i c e o f a p a r t i c u l a r a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s i d u a l depends on the supply and demand of the residual at a specific location in a s p e cific year. These s u p ply/ demand analyses were p e r formed for cereal straw in different Ontario agricultural census regions, since cereal straw is currently the most widely used residual. Table 5.6 shows the supply and demand of cereal straw and the average prices in the different regions of Ontario. Wheat straw is also included in the total cereal straw production. Eastern Ontario has a cereal straw deficit, and here, the price of straw is the highest in the province. If the total cereal straw demand is to be met by wheat straw, the central, western and northern regions would experience wheat straw deficits. This is reflected in the average wheat straw price of $ in those regions. There is approximately one million tonnes of surplus cereal straw in the province. The majority of the surplus is produced in southern Ontario, where the livestock industry represents a smaller percentage of the total agricultural activities. Therefore, the price of wheat straw in the southern Total Cereal Straw Demand (tonne) 267, , , ,256 81,680 1,527,961 Wheat Straw Production Minus Total Cereal Straw Demand (tonne) -251,363-68, , ,082-75,031 16,178 Note: Estimates are based on the field crop and livestock data from OMAFRA web site Total Cereal Straw Supply Minus Demand (tonne) -134,476 76, , ,800 2, ,184 region is the lowest in the province. Average Wheat Straw Price ($/tonne) In this study, the estimated cost of wheat straw bales at the farm gate, as given in Figure 5.5, is approximately $45/tonne. It is unlikely that wheat straw will be available to purchase at this price in the Ontario, except in the southern region where approximately 0.8 M tonnes of surplus straw is available. The surplus cereal straw is currently returned to the soil. The expected correlation between the demand and the price of cereal straw is illustrated in Figure 5.9. A demand for cereal straw greater than 0.75 M tonnes may lead to a rapid escalation of the price up to a demand of one million tonnes. This would likely be due to acquiring the straw mainly from the southern region with the remainder from the other regions. If the demand from OPG exceeds one million tonnes of straw, which is greater than the total surplus in the province, market competition for the straw from existing and emerging customers may lead to a very sharp increase in the price as shown in Figure 5.9. Corn stover, which currently has limited use in the province, will likely be the main agricultural residual Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel

83 Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel Straw Price at Farm Gate ($/tonne) OPG Straw Demand (M tonne/yr) Figure 5.9 Expected Price of Cereal Straw at Different Demand Levels used for power generation. Corn stover use would be economic section are based on the current level of followed by surplus wheat straw to less than 0.75 M harvesting, pelletizing and transportation activities as tonnes, and then corn cobs. Soybean stover has the well as from related costs for biomass applications in least potential to become a fuel source due to its low Ontario. Like any other commodity or industry, there yield, higher cost, and requirement to be left in the field will be economies of scale associated with increases to protect the soil from water erosion. The narrow harvesting time window of corn stover may be an issue supply chain, i.e. harvesting and bailing, processing in biomass production for all components of the to achieve a steady supply of biomass fuel. However, and transportation. An attempt was made to estimate this could be resolved to some extent by third party the reduction in the total biomass cost due to the harvesting. With this suggested supply mix, the economy of scale. average cost of biomass pellets from agricultural residuals is in the range of $6.00/GJ to $7.00/GJ at the The harvesting and bailing components of the supply OPG gate. chain offer the least gain in the economy of scale, especially for wheat straw. About 1.5 million tonnes 5.5 Cost of Biomass through Economies of Scale of wheat straw are harvested in Ontario for various applications. However, economies of scale for corn All the cost estimates previously presented in this stover and corn cob may be greater than wheat straw

84 due to their narrow harvesting time window and the r e q u i r e m e n t of specialized equipment. Depending on the agricultural residual, a reduction of approximately 5% in the unit cost of harvesting and bailing can be expected for an increase in agricultural residuals quantity by approximately ten-fold. can provide. The economic consulting firm Global Insight ( has reported that the gross margins of transportation companies could be as high as 30%. Therefore, a modest reduction of about 15% of the unit transportation cost can be expected, if a total of 5 million DM t/yr of biomass is shipped from the farms to the central facility to the OPG GS. The storage and processing component of the supply chain may offer a greater sensitivity to economy of scale in comparison with harvesting and bailing. As presented in Figure 5.4, substantial gain is not In order to estimate the economies of scale for agricultural residuals, the following typical m a t h e matical model was used in this study: expected by increasing the size of a central storage and processing facility beyond a 150,000 t/yr capacity. In fact, further increases in processing capacity will Y = K (X) F where: likely result in a higher overall cost of the biomass due Y = Total cost of production ($) to increased transportation costs from farms to the K = Constant central facilities. Therefore, the gain in the economy of X = Biomass production (Mt/yr) scale through the storage and processing components are likely due to improvements in processing F = Scale factor technologies, such as better management of the nutrient content of the biomass, and a reduction in administration and management expenses. A reduction of approximately 10% in the unit cost of storage and processing can be expected when the total quantity of biomass from agricultural residuals reaches 5 million DM t/yr. The typical range of scale factor F is , depending on the degree of the economy of scale and the type of industry. Note that the lower the scale factor, the greater the economy of scale. For a unit scale factor (F=1), there is no economy of scale. Based on the previous discussion above regarding different supply chain components, the scale factors estimated for each agricultural residual are given in Table 5.7. The Transportation is the supply chain component which can offer the greatest economy of scale. This gain is mainly due to volume discounts that transportation companies results of the economies of scale for selected agricultural residuals, through the application of these scale factors, are presented in Figure 5.10 for cereal Table 5.7 Economy of Scale Factors ( F ) Estimated for Agricultural Residuals Residual Harvesting & Bailing Processing Transportation Cereal Straw Corn Stover Corn Cob Soybean Stover Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel

85 Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel straw, Figure 5.11 for corn stover, and in Figure 5.12 for corn cobs. The cost sensitivity of biomass pellets due to economies of scale can be estimated for a given volume of biomass for each agricultural residual. Table 5.8 provides the total cost of the various forms of biomass fuels from each agricultural residual at the OPG gate in $/GJ for a total volume of 1.2 DM t/yr. 9 8 Costs($/GJ) at OPG Gate 7 These cost estimates are for the established solid biomass fuel industry, and do not consider the risk premiums associated with the start-up of the industry. The actual prices OPG may pay for agricultural residual pellets during the initial stage of the industry will depend on the level of de-risking activities for all participants involved. X Total Harvesting & Bailing Processing 6 X X X X X X Biomass Production (million DM t/yr) Figure 5.10 Estimated Economy of Scale for Cereal Straw Pellets X Transporting

86 Costs($/GJ) at OPG Gate X X X X Biomass Production (million DM t/yr) Figure 5.11 Estimated Economy of Scale for Corn Stover Pellets Costs($/GJ) at OPG Gate X X X Harvesting & Bailing Processing Transporting X Total X X X X Biomass Production (million DM t/yr) Figure 5.12 Estimated Economy of Scale for Corn Cob Pellets X X Harvesting & Bailing Processing Transporting Total X Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel

87 Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel Table 5.8 Estimated Economy of Scale of Selected Agricultural Residuals at the OPG Gate ($/GJ) Cereal Straw Corn Stover Corn Cob Harvesting & bailing Processing Transportation Total (without NPK values) Harvesting & bailing Processing Transportation Total (without NPK values) Harvesting & bailing Processing Transportation Total (without NPK values) Note: 1.2 million tonnes of each agricultural residual is assumed 5.6 Estimation of Fuel Quality Improvement Costs Agricultural residuals contain mainly NPK nutrients which should ideally be returned to the soil. Combustion of biomass containing high levels of NPK is also detrimental to the boilers. Therefore, the removal and recovery of NPK is desirable from the resource utilization and combustion perspectives. There is presently not a commercial system to recover NPK from agricultural residuals. However, nutrient treatment technologies to remove phosphorus and other nutrients from municipal bio-solids could be potentially applied to agricultural residuals. The world s first industrial-size nutrient treatment facility was installed in 2007 at the City of Edmonton s Gold Bar wastewater treatment plant ( This system removes phosphorus and other nutrients from municipal waste for recycling into an environmentally-safe, commercial fertilizer. The technology was developed by Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies Inc. of Vancouver, and can Pellet Torrefied Pellet (Pelletization First) Torrefied Pellet (Torrefaction First) extract more than 80% of the phosphorus and 10-15% of the ammonium compounds. Phosphorus removal is relatively easy compared to nitrogen and potassium. Easier removal of phosphorus compounds is due to their insolubility in water. Major components of the nutrient recovery system are conceptualized in Figure This system could use water or other solvents to leach NPK from the biomass and flocculant chemicals are required to settle the NPK. Recovered NPK can be returned to the soil as fertilizer. The cost estimates of this system, recovery rates of NPK and other economics related to the system are given in Table 5.9. If recovered NPK can be sold as fertilizer, the NPK recovery would add $0.24/GJ to the cost of the biomass pellets. If the NPK cannot be sold, the NPK recovery would increase the cost of biomass pellets by $1.14/GJ. The recovery of nutrients from agricultural residuals is currently under development at specific research facilities (personal communication with Dr. Stelios Arvelakis, 2010).

88 Biomass Table 5.9 Economics of NPK Nutrient Recovery from Agricultural Residuals Process capacity Washer Item Average N content Average P content Average K content Price of N Price of P Price of K Recovery rate, N Recovery rate, P Recovery rate, K Capital cost of system Interest rate Life of the system Amortized capital cost Heating cost Other operating and maintenance costs Value of nutrients Net profit Cost of nutrient removal (with NPK sale) Cost of nutrient removal (without NPK sale) Recycled Water Dryer Wet/Leached Biomass Wash Water Settler 150, Unit DM t/yr % % % $/kg $/kg $/kg % % % M$ % yr M$/yr M$/yr M$/yr M$/yr M$/yr Dry/Leached Biomass Solid Nutrients to Farms Flocculant Chemicals Figure 5.13 Conceptual Overview of a Nutrient Recovery System for Agricultural Residuals $/GJ $/GJ Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel

89 Chapter6 Potential Issues in the Agricultural & Political Arenas Potential Issues in the Agricultural & Political Arenas New industry development involves challenges with varying levels of significance. The utilization of agricultural residuals to generate electricity on the large scale is no exception. The agricultural community will need to adopt new farming practices, such as conservation tillage and growing winter cover crops, to ensure that soil erosion is minimized after the residuals are harvested. Farm co-operatives and independent investors will evaluate the risks and rewards of participating in the bio-power generation supply chain. Political issues will arise, which include health and safety standards of the new industry and the design of targeted subsidies. These potential issues are discussed, along with recommended actions for OPG. 6.1 Sustainable Removal of Agricultural Residuals Agricultural residuals are regarded by most farmers as a means to recycle plant nutrients to the soil, to protect the soil from erosion, and to increase soil organic matter. Soil degradation concerns will be raised by soil conservationists and environmentalists if residuals are removed for energy and other nontraditional applications. The demand for agricultural residuals may increase in the future by power utilities as a replacement for coal and by emerging bio-based products and other fuels. There is a strong need for field research to understand fully the effects of removing residuals from the soil. It is expected to take up to a decade to d e t e r mine the results of these studies. Removal of a portion of agricultural residuals is not new to Ontario farmers, who harvest approximately 1.5 million tonnes of cereal straw of the 2.5 million tonnes produced annually. The analysis in this study suggests that approximately 20%, on average in Ontario, of above ground residuals could be sustainably harvested for non-traditional applications, including power generation. The sale of an estimated 2. 8 million tonnes of residuals in 20 09, will generate additional income for rural communities. Communication with OFA personnel and farmers during this study revealed that the farming c o m munity in Ontario is interested in participating in the bio-power generation supply chain. The adoption of conservation tillage is critical for harvesting a percentage of the agricultural residuals while preserving soil health. Other best farm management practices, such as growing cover crops and the addition of livestock manure to soil on a regular basis, should be included in the development of bio- energy from residuals. Understanding the relationship between different crop rotations and the quantity of residuals sustainably removed is also important for participating farmers. The majority of Ontario farmers monitor their soil health by conducting soil tests at the end of the rotation cycle. This practice should be e n c o u r a g e d f o r a l l p a rt i c i p a t i n g f a r m e r s harvesting residuals. Information dissemination is required to integrate the harvesting of a portion of residuals into farm management practices. OPG should work with organizations lik e the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) to develop guidelines and soil monitoring processes for sustainable harvesting of agricultural residuals.

90 6.2 Uncertainties and Perceived Risks of Supply Chain Stakeholders The Ontario Government legislated that OPG cannot been mentioned as an alternative by OPG executives continue to burn coal beyond However, the and the media. Figure 6.1 illustrates the price trend of Ontario Government did not necessarily call for the Alberta natural gas in recent years. The relatively low conversion of OPG coal-fired power stations to price in of natural gas in North America renewable fuels such as biomass. OPG has the option has created a concern that the biomass fuel supply of switching from coal to natural gas, and this has chain for OPG may be an uncertain business venture. $14 $12 $10 Cdn$/Mcf $8 $6 $4 $2 $ Year Figure 6.1 Alberta Natural Gas Prices in Recent Years Potential Issues in the Agricultural & Political Arenas

91 Potential Issues in the Agricultural & Political Arenas Another business risk is related to the assumption that the OPG biomass program was designed to assist the struggling forestry sector in Ontario and that the majority of the biomass will come from the forestry sector rather than agriculture. Canada, and in particular British Columbia, has been exporting wood pellets to Europe for use in large scale energy applications, co-firing with coal. In 2008, Canada exported approximately 1.3 million tonnes of wood pellets to Europe, which is over 90% of the total pellets produced in that year. Exports decreased to 0.85 million tonnes in 2009 (Flynn, 2010; Flynn and Neilson, 2010) as European utilities cut back the transportation subsidy from Canada. This situation does not seem to be improving. A headline in t h e Cape Breton Post (March 31, 2010) read New Brunswick wood pellet maker cuts back, lays off workers. Investors c o n s i d e r t h e biomass densification industry at over capacity. I nv i t ing new investment to an industry that has over capacity will be a challenge. Investors, such as farm co-operatives, need a guaranteed market with long-term contracts and attractive pricing to initiate the new residual supply industry. The financial model developed in this study suggests that the gross margin from the sale of agricultural residuals is approximately $50/ha, and harvesting, bailing and transportation costs are dependent on the price of traditional liquid transportation fuels. The unstable supply will be an issue, if crude oil prices rapidly escalate as in To facilitate the start-up of the agricultural residuals biomass industry, risk sharing by linking the price of biomass to crude oil in the initial contracts should be considered. A n increasing number of power utilities in Europe and the United States are considering the c o - firing of biomass and coal as a greenhouse gas reduction measure. There may be potential markets outside Ontario for agricultural residuals biomass. Facilitation by governmental and a g r i cultural organizations and the creation of di versified markets for Ontario a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s i d u a l s f u e l m a y i n v i t e i n v e s t ments into the new b i o mass energy industry. 6.3 Designing Targeted Subsidies Energy from biomass requires incubation action or subsidy to compete with conventional hydroc a r b o n s. Governments t r y i n g t o p r o m o t e bio-energy provide subsidies for some components of the biomass supply chain. Figure 6. 2 shows the major components of t h e biomass supply chain with the processing component highlighted in red to emphasize its high risk level. In t h e United Kingdom, the government provided establishment grants to farmers interested in growing miscanthus and willow SRC and created r e newable obligation certificates for the power utilities which generate electricity from renewable sources. Therefore, the feedstock production and generation components of the supply chain are subsidized in the United Kingdom. In the U.S., the sale price of biomass, purposegrown and agricultural residuals, to the Show Me Energy Co-operative in Missouri, are m a t ch e d b y g o v e r n m e n t. T h e E u r o p e a n g o v ernments have subsided the transportation cost of wood pellets from British Columbia, Canada to European p o w e r utilities.

92 Feedstock Production Transportation Processing Generation Figure 6.2 Major Components of the Biomass Supply Chain Receiving Subsidies Subsidies are provided for renewable energy sources with the goals of incubating technologies and creating benefits such as job creation, environmental improvements and reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases. In Ontario, the feed-in tariff created by the Green Energy Act also offers premium prices for electricity from renewable sources, including biomass. Therefore, the generation component of the biomass supply chain receives the subsidy. However, based on market uncertainties and the perceived risks associated with overcapacity in the densification industry and the low natural gas price, the processing component of the supply chain is an area requiring subsidy to initiate the biomass power industry in Ontario. Sharing the risks with the investor through grants and no-interest loans for early biomass processing plants, such as fuel aggregators and processors, will be beneficial. This also helps lower the price premium of the agricultural biomass due to the perceived risks associated with the development of the new industry. 6.4 Biomass Fuel and Trade Agreements OPG prefers sourcing biomass fuel within Ontario. The Wood Pellet Association of Canada is exploring the potential pellet opportunity that would result from the OPG demand (Murray, 2010). Trade agreements among the provinces and territories of Canada require that OPG considers biomass fuel from outside Ontario. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) also requires any goods and services valued greater than $75,000 be open to suppliers in the United States and Mexico. This could be a trade dispute issue, if biomass fuels are sourced only from Ontario. Acquisition of biomass pellets from sources outside Ontario may be a useful transition step for OPG. The timeline to establish the entire biomass supply chain by 2014 is tight. It is feasible with concerted efforts by all stakeholders, including OPG, farm co-operatives, governmental and non-governmental organizations. Sourcing biomass fuel from other regions, especially British Columbia, would allow for the gradual development of the agricultural biomass fuel industry in Ontario and could moderate the premium price of biomass due to the rapid start-up of the industry. 6.5 Health and Safety Standards The following issues may be encountered during the storage and transportation of biomass fuels: Development of mould, fungi and bacteria Exposure to odours for employees and the general public in the surrounding area Spontaneous combustion (which was one of the reasons for closing the strawboard plant in Western Canada) Groundwater contamination Methane generation from microbial activities (improper ventilation of the storage and transport facilities that could lead to respiration and explosion related workplace injuries). Potential Issues in the Agricultural & Political Arenas

93 Potential Issues in the Agricultural & Political Arenas Biomass fuels for energy applications a t t h e large scale considered by OPG are r e l a ti vely n e w t o C a n a d a a n d o t h e r r e g i o n s o f t h e w o r l d. H e a l t h a n d s a f e t y s t a n dards for this emerging industry are under development. OPG should work with provincial health and safety organizations, the agricultural community and its counterparts in Europe. The Europeans are slightly ahead of Canada in biomass power generation, and could help create health and s a f e t y g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e e n t i r e b i o mass supply chain. 6.6 Central versus Distributed Models The biorefinery concept is the one of the most popular visions of today s industrial experts and policy makers with regards to the agricultural sector. The biorefinery is analogous to a petrochemical refinery and integrates biomass conversion processes and equipment to produce different combinations of food, feed, fuels, power, heat, and high-value chemicals. The biorefinery may include biogas production from an anaerobic digester and the recovery of low grade heat for other purposes, such as in greenhouses. Due to the bulky nature of the biomass, the distributed model is appropriate for biorefineries. This results in benefits for rural development, better income distribution and the creation of a new bio-based manufacturing sector. Utilizing biomass resources at a centralized location, such as at OPG generating stations balances the distributed model of biorefineries. Visionaries and policy makers have promoted distributed biorefineries for decades, but there are presently only a few demonstration plants in North America. The low price of conventional hydrocarbons, market risks for new bio-based products, and uncertainties in processing technologies are the reasons for the slow development of biorefineries. T h e t h r e e m i l lion tonnes of biomass residuals consumed by OPG generating stations would result in approximately 20 fuel aggregators and processors across Ontario. These fuel aggregators and processors could form a basis for future biorefineries, contributing to the emergence of a new, d i s tributed biorefinery sector. The macro economic benefits at the provincial level would be very significant d u e to t h e O P G b i o m a s s p r o gram and should be f u rther assessed.

94 Chapter7 Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations This agricultural residuals study addresses nine items outlined by Ontario Power Generation i n the Request for Proposals. A summary of the findings and conclusions for each item of t h e study outline are gi ven below. General r e c ommendations f r o m t h i s s t u d y a r e p r o v i d e d a t t h e e n d o f t h i s section. The report examines sustainable removal of agricultural residuals from Ontario farms as a biomass fuel for OPG, as an alternative to coal. An estimate is calculated of the t o t a l annual production of above ground a g r i cultural r e s i d u als in O n t a r i o a n d the major residual producing crops are identified. The estimated quantity of agricultural residuals that can be sustainably harvested from Ontario farms is based on the preservation of soil organic matter and the minimization of soil erosion. The current and emerging uses of agricultural residuals are identified. Fuel characteristics of agricultural residuals are examined along with fuel quality improvement options. Development of the agricultural residuals biomass supply chain is examined and includes the identification of stakeholders in the supply chain. Recommended features of the supply chain were also provided. The estimated cost of biomass fuel from agricultural residuals is determined in various forms at the OPG gate. Potential issues due to the development of the bio-energy sector based on agricultural residuals are identified. 7.1 Summary of Findings and Conclusions Description and Identification of Agricultural Residuals for OPG Demand Major field crops in Ontario produce approximately 13.7 million tonnes annually of above ground residuals. The total production of residuals in Ontario, including crops such as field vegetables, fruit crops and greenhouse crops, is estimated to be 16.7 million tonnes. Grain corn is the largest residual producing crop, representing approximately 47% of the total residuals from field crops. Winter wheat and soybeans are the second and third largest residual producing crops, representing 23% and 19% respectively. The livestock industry is currently the largest user of agricultural residuals, specifically cereal straws. Presently, the demand for agricultural residuals is around 1.5 million tonnes per annum. Emerging bio-fuels and b i o - products i n d u s t r i e s m a y i n c r e a s e t h e d e mand for residuals but the use of residuals in the livestock industry is likely to remain stable. Collectively, cereal straw, corn stover, corn cobs and soybeans stover represent approximately 90% of the total above ground residuals produced by field crops in Ontario. These residuals are recommended as the focus for bio-power generation. Cereal straw offers the fastest access to the biomass supply, since farmers currently harvest cereal straw for sale using the conventional equipment. There is surplus cereal straw in Ontario. However, the surplus Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations

95 Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations varies by region. A demand for cereal straw for use in energy applications beyond 0.75 million tonnes per year could cause a sharp price increase due to the strong existing demand from the livestock industry. Corn stover and corn cobs may provide approximately 3.2 million tonnes per year to the energy industry. The time required for the development and deployment of harvesting equipment, along with the narrow harvesting time window, must be considered for the harvest of corn residuals. Approximately 1.2 million tonnes of soybean stover may be harvested for energy use. However, use of the best farm management practices such as growing cover crops to prevent soil erosion is necessary. Corn stover and cereal straw are expected to be the major biomass fuels from agricultural residuals in Ontario due to their high residual yields per hectare Chemical Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals Biomass power generation in Europe and North America is increasing, and the most widely used biomass is from purpose-grown crops such as switchgrass and miscanthus. Fuel characteristics of agricultural residuals are similar to purpose-grown crops. However, residuals contain higher levels of NPK and other inorganic minerals. This leads to challenges with agricultural residuals combustion. Corn cobs offer the best fuel quality of the major agricultural residuals in Ontario. Corn stover and wheat straw have higher potassium and silicon contents, respectively. The fuel properties of agricultural residuals can be improved through a number of pre-treatment options. The fuel quality of agricultural residuals is a function of the farm and soil characteristics. Biomass may also be contaminated along the supply chain. Blending of agricultural residuals from various sources at a centralized biomass processing station will minimize the effect of higher impurity concentration from a particular source. Truck transport of biomass fuel has a higher risk of contamination due to the greater surface-to-volume ratio of the truck c o n tainer compared to marine transport. Standards and procedures have been developed for the shipment of grain, and these standards can be adapted for the transport of agricultural residuals to reduce contamination and ensure consistent fuel quality at the OPG gate Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals Agricultural residuals left in the soil perform a number of important functions such as maintain soil moisture, accommodate beneficial microbes, increase soil organic matter and recycle plant nutrients back to the soil. SOM defines the chemical and physical structures of the soil and is an indicator of the soil s overall health. Maintaining SOM at an appropriate level is critical to the productivity of agricultural land. Based on SOM data in different Ontario regions, literature threshold values, and personal communications with the farming community, the Ontario average level of SOM to be maintained was estimated at 3.4%. Soil erosion by water runoff is also an important factor to be considered in the harvest of residuals from Ontario farms. This study concludes that the quantity of residuals required to preserve the SOM target of 3.4% is generally sufficient to keep soil erosion under the tolerable limit T value. The sustainably harvestable quantity of residuals is farm specific, and depends on the crop rotation, tillage practices, slope length-gradient factor of the land, availability of off-farm organic materials, SOM level of the land and the use of best farm management practices. Adoption of conservation tillage practices are necessary to ensure soil health if a portion of residuals are to be removed for energy applications.

96 Approximately 9.6 tonne/ha/yr of below and above ground residuals are required to maintain the average 3.4% SOM level. Only three field crops in Ontario, grain corn, winter wheat and hay, produce below and above ground residuals in quantities greater than 9.6 tonne/ha/yr. Typical crop rotations in Ontario allow the removal of a portion of residuals while maintaining a constant 3.4% SOM level. The quantity and type of residual h a r vested can be estimated and identified by determining the total residuals produced in a complete crop rotation cycle for each farm. The SOM budget analysis performed in this study for the provincial crop mix suggests that a total of 2.8 million tonnes of agricultural residuals could have been sustainably harvested in 2009 for non-traditional applications, including power generation. 2.8 million tonnes is approximately 20% of the total above ground residuals produced in the province in Based on an average crop yield improvement of 1% annually, the sustainably r e m ov able quantity of residuals would increase to 4.5 million t o n n e s i n 2 014, w h e n O P G m a y r e quire the biomass fuel Assessment of Residuals Harvesting Technologies Three major above ground residual producing crops in Ontario are grain corn, winter wheat and soybeans. Harvesting wheat straw and other cereal straws is not new to Ontario farmers. Conventional harvesting equipment can be used to harvest and bail cereal straw. Harvesting soybean stover requires minor modifications of existing farm equipment such as removal of the chopper from the combine. Raking and baling of soybean stover can be performed using existing equipment. Deployment of high capacity balers is likely necessary to meet the anticipated residuals demand from OPG. Research and development of harvesting technologies mainly focuses on corn cobs and corn stover which represent the largest quantity of agricultural residuals in many jurisdictions including Ontario. Harvesting systems under development include a combine-baler which attaches to the combine to bale the corn stover and cobs together. The advantage of the combine-baler is its ability to harvest both grain and corn residuals in a single pass. A few corn cob harvesting systems have been demonstrated in the United States and Canada with acceptable performance. Corn cob and stover harvesting technologies are at the prototype stage. A prototype is a commercially sized unit undergoing final debugging prior to commercial release. This study determined that harvesting technologies under development are relatively simple devices consisting mainly of belts, pneumatics, blowers and screens to separate various components of the residuals. They will likely be commercialized within a short time period with minor technical problems resolved quickly A s s e s s m e n t o f S u p p l y C h a i n a n d P o t e n t i a l S u p p l i ers The supply chain does not currently exist to deliver agricultural residual biomass fuel to OPG generating stations. Agricultural residuals are presently available as a feedstock since Ontario farmers generate these materials as a co-product of the crop each year. Therefore, this feedstock is easily accessible in comparison with feedstocks obtained from energy crops. Harvesting of cereal straw and soybean stover can be performed using existing farm equipment but the development and deployment of specialized farming equipment for corn residuals is necessary to establish the large scale feedstock supply chain component. Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations

97 Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations The major missing component in the residuals supply chain is biomass processing to produce torrefied or un-torrefied pellets. Construction of a biomass fuel aggregator and processor typically requires 18 months. This fits within approximately 4 years required for the development of the entire biomass supply chain. A commercial torrefaction plant in Europe began operation in 2010 and this technology has the potential to become incorporated into the Ontario supply chain. The transportation component of the supply chain to deliver biomass fuel to OPG currently exists in Ontario. The marine shipping mode is preferred from both the local truck traffic congestion and cost effectiveness perspectives. The participation of farm co-operatives, existing or new generation, in the biomass fuel business is the preferred option. This maximizes local community involvement. Contracts with independent operators would diversify the supplier base for OPG, and this option could be coupled with farm co-operative suppliers. Contracting the biomass supply to a central facilitating agricultural organization, like the OFA, would substantially reduce the administrative work for OPG related to contract management. Due to the narrow harvesting time window for corn residuals, third party harvesting organizations should be included in the supply chain. A regularly scheduled soil health monitoring mechanism as part of the supply contract is recommended. Linking the price of agricultural residuals to the crude oil price during the initial supply chain development is beneficial and would reduce the financial risk to feedstock suppliers Economic Evaluation of Biomass Fuel from Agricultural Residuals The price of cereal straw, for which there is currently a strong market in Ontario provides a basis for estimating the costs of other residuals. The total costs of cereal straw and corn stover pellets at the OPG gate are $6.00/GJ and $6.57/GJ, respectively, with a total potential supply of 4.5 million tonnes in Pellets from cereal straws offer the lowest cost but the total supply of cereal straw at this lower cost is limited to 0.75 million tonnes due to existing demands. The cost of corn stover pellets was estimated at $6.57/GJ with over 3 million tonnes of potential supply. Biomass fuel from agricultural residuals is approximately 20% lower cost than from energy crops due to lower raw feedstock costs. Pellets from corn cobs and soybean stover have higher costs compared to cereal straw pellets and is due to lower yields per hectare and the activities involved in harvesting and bailing. The gross margin from the sale of residuals was assumed to be $50/ha. These economics may result in farmers leaving the low yielding residuals in the field for SOM replenishment. The estimated cost of biomass fuel will likely decrease through the economy of scale as the industry grows. Torrefied pellets are gaining attention from biomass fuel consumers due to their superior fuel quality and better fuel handling and storage properties. The performance of commercial torrefaction plants in Europe is expected to lead to the deployment of this fuel improving and processing technology in North America. The cost of torrefied biomass from agricultural residuals at the OPG gate could be approximately 10% lower than untorrefied pellets, when the biomass is torrefied prior to the pelletization process. This is due to lower grinding and pelletizing expenses of torrefied biomass and reduced transportation costs. Oppositely, if the biomass is pelletized b e fore torrefaction, the cost of torrefied pellets would be higher than regular pellets at the OPG gate.

98 7.1.7 Potential Issues in the Agricultural and Political Arenas Soil degradation concerns will be raised by soil conservationalists and environmentalists if residuals are removed from farms for energy and other nontraditional applications. Removal of a portion of agricultural residuals is not new to Ontario farmers. Adoption of conservation tillage, use of best farm management practices (such as growing cover crops), and understanding the relationship between the different crop rotations and the quantity of residuals that can be removed are critical to sustainable harvesting of residuals. OPG should collaborate with organizations like the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) to develop guidelines and monitoring processes for sustainable harvesting of agricultural residuals. Currently, the biomass processing component is the main missing link in the biomass supply chain. Stakeholders are aware of the risks associated with investing in fuel aggregators and processors due to the current relatively low price of natural gas and the over capacity of the biomass densification industry. Investors, such as farm co-operatives, want reasonable assurance of markets with long-term contracts and attractive pricing. Targeted subsidies for the processing component of the supply chain will be beneficial for t h i s n e w i n d u s t r y. Since the biomass fuel industry offers the economic benefits of rural development and job creation, collaboration with agricultural organizations which are advocating for targeted subsidies from the governments can be helpful. Trade agreements among the provinces and territories of Canada and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) may require that OPG considers biomass fuels sourced from outside Ontario. This could be a potential trade dispute issue if biomass is sole sourced in Ontario. Utilizing biomass fuels for energy applications at the large scale considered by OPG is relatively new to both Canada and other regions of the world. Health and safety standards for this emerging industry are under development. OPG should work with provincial health and safety organizations, the agricultural community and its counterparts in Europe to create health and safety guidelines for the entire biomass supply chain Evaluation of Fuel Improvement Options Rain washing of agricultural residuals in the field is an attractive option for fuel improvement and returning NPK directly to the soil. Over-wintering significantly reduces the mineral content of biomass. In Ontario, over-wintering may result in a considerable reduction of the residual yield due to high snowfall in some regions. This will affect northern and snowbelt regions of Ontario severely. Controlled washing of agricultural residuals with water or acid is effecti ve in reducing the mineral content of biomass. These approaches are only proven at the laboratory scale and economics and scalability o f t h e technologies are not yet determined. Torrefaction and pelletization are complementary processes which produce a high quality fuel and may be used in combination with other pre-treatment technologies to further improve fuel properties. NPK and other inorganic nutrients in agricultural residuals could be recovered by existing and emerging technologies. Phosphorus recovery technologies for municipal waste may be applied to the recovery of NPK from agricultural residuals. Chemical additives, namely calcite, kaolin and limestone, may also i m prove the fuel quality of residuals during combustion. Optimization of additive treatments for Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations

99 Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations large boilers and the economics of a d d i t i v e u s e a r e not yet determined. F u e l improvement technologies a r e r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l e and are e x pected to be commercialized when a strong market has developed for biomass fuels from agricultural residuals Feasibility of Utilizing Agricultural Residuals as Biomass Fuel for OPG It is feasible for OPG to utilize agricultural residuals as a biomass fuel. The total sustainably harvestable residuals in Ontario is estimated to be 4.5 million tonnes annually in This is approximately 20% of the total above ground residuals produced in Ontario. The current Ontario crop mix and yields provide a total of 2.8 million tonnes of residuals that could have been sustainably harvested in With a conservative prediction of a 1% annual crop yield improvement, the 2.8 million tonne/yr will increase to 4.5 million tonnes in 2014 when OPG may need biomass fuels. Initiation and development of the residual biomass supply chain and related industries is expected to require approximately 4 years, starting with the biomass supply contract. Development of this biomass fuel supply chain prior to the 2014 harvesting season will require the biomass supply contracts to be established early in Third party harvesting can play an important role in the Ontario biomass supply chain due to the narrow harvesting time window for grain corn, the largest residual producing crop. Surplus cereal straw, especially in southern Ontario, can contribute to the biomass feedstock supply. Use of torrefaction technologies, now at commercial scale in Europe, in the supply chain produces a coal-like biomass fuel from agricultural residuals. The cost of biomass fuel from agricultural residuals may be slightly higher than natural gas in The benefits of a biomass r e newable fuel are rural development and job creation, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and future biorefinery development. 7.2 General Recommendations The following general recommendations are provided to OPG based on this study: Biomass supply contracts should be in place approximately 4 years before supply is required. This allows time for development of the biomass supply chain, specifically biomass processing. Risk-sharing mechanisms, such as linking a portion of the cost of biomass supply to the price of crude oil, may be required during the initial stage of development. A biomass fuel specification must be developed and adopted to accommodate the development and incorporation of fuel improvement technologies, such as torrefaction, into the supply chain. A strong market for residual biomass fuels will drive commercialization of a number of emerging technologies, such as NPK recovery, torrefaction, additization and pelletization. Agricultural residuals contain higher amounts of NPK and other inorganic compunds compared to energy crops and forestry products. Comprehensive fuel performance testing at 100% agricultural biomass firing must be conducted to determine the combustion characteristics of residuals. OPG should explore the use of a mixture of wood pellets and agricultural residual pellets during the early stages of the biomass fuel utilization. This allows more time for continued development of the residuals biomass supply chain. The reliance on wood biomass can subsequently be reduced and replaced with biomass from agricultural residuals and energy crops.

100 Agricultural residuals are currently available from Ontario farmers as a co-product of their crops. Construction of fuel aggregators and processors across Ontario may require subsidy or assistance. The biomass densification industry in Canada is currently at over capacity due to decreased pellet demand from Europe. OPG should work with agricultural organizations to create subsidies, such as interest fee loans from government to launch this new industry. There is not sufficient biomass densification capacity in Ontario for the preparation of 3 million tonnes of biomass fuel per year. Fuel aggregators and processors can be constructed by 2014 with concerted efforts by all stakeholders. There will likely be a price premium associated with the rapid establish ment of this new industry. OPG should explore the option of acquiring biomass fuel from sources outside Ontario during the initial stages of industry development. There are benefits to utilizing agricultural residuals as a renewable fuel, even though the biomass residual fuel is not fully cost competitive with 2010 natural gas prices in North America. These benefits include continued viability of the agricultural sector in Ontario, rural development and job creation, enhanced income distribution between rural and urban communities, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the development of a basis for future biorefinery infrastructure. These benefits should be quantified and communicated to policy makers. Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations

101 References: Adler, P.R., Sanderson, M.A., Boateng, A.A., Weimer, P.J., Jung, H.-J.G., Biomass Yield and Biofuel Quality of Switchgrass Harvested in Fall or Spring. Agronomy Journal, 98, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Pulses and Special Crops: Ginseng. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Inspection Procedure: Inspecting Ships that Carry Grain and Grain Products for Export. PI-008. Canadian Grain Commission, Chapter 6: Control of Spoilage and Heating. Spoilage and Heating of Stored Agricultural Products. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, /2003 Canadian Fruit Situation and Trends Including Apples, Tender Fruits, Grapes (Vinifera) and Berries: Berries. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company, Corn Cobs as Sustainable Biomass for Renewable Energy, a Fieldto-Facility Demonstration and Feasibility Study. AURI. Altman, I.J., Sanders, D.R., Boessen, C.R., Applying Transaction Cost Economics: A Note on Biomass Supply Chains. Journal of Agribusiness, 25(1), Anand Kumer, K., Clement, M-F., Belanger, P., Belanger, A., Vanasse, A., Belair, G., Sritharan, R., Andrews, D. J., Danji, O. P., Pearl Millet, Potential Renewable Energy Crop. Third Annual Growing the Margins Conference, London, Ontario, Canada, March 10-13, Cowan, D., Personal Communication. Downing, M., Volk, T.A., Schmidt, D.A., Development of New Generation Cooperatives in Agriculture for Renewable Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Projects. Biomass and Bioenergy, 28, Drax Group plc, 2010a. Annual Report and Accounts Arvelakis, S., Use of Pretreatments for the Efficient Conversion of Coal, Woody, and Agricultural Biomass to Energy and Fuels. Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC), University of North Dakota, USA. ASTM International, Standard Test Methods for Analysis of Wood Fuels. ASTM E870. Drax Group plc, 2010b. Biomass: the Fourth Energy Source. Duffy, M. D. and Nanhou, V. Y., Costs of Producing Switchgrass for Biomass in Southern Iowa. Trends in New Crops and New Uses, Janick, J. and Whipkey, A. (eds.). ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA. Bernick, J., AgWeb.com, November Cob Harvest Makes Strides. Ebert, J., Agricultural Versus Industrial Waste for Energy. Biomass Magazine, February Bradley, D., Canada Report on Bioenergy Climate Change Solutions. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands. Phyllis Database ( References Brostrom, M., Kassman, H., Helggesson, A., Berg, M., Andersson, C., Backman, R., Nordin,A., Sulfation of Corrosive Alkali Chlorides by Ammonium Sulphate in a Biomass Fired CFB Boiler. Fuel Processing Technology, 88, EPR, Ely. (

102 EUBIONET, Biomass Co-Firing An Efficient Way to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. European Bioenergy Networks. Jenkins, B.M., Bakker, R.R., Wei, J.B., On the Properties of Washed Straw. Biomass and Bioenergy, 10, Fisher, P., Cold Acclimation in Strawberries: How Strawberry Plants Get Ready for Winter. OMAFRA. Kains, F., Lovell, B., Payne, M., Tremblay, R., Livestock Bedding Alternatives. OMAFRA. Flick, S., Personal Communication. Flynn, B. and Neilson, D., International Pulpwood Trade Review, 2010 Edition. Flynn, B., International Woodchip and Biomass Trade - Ups and Downs in RISI Economists, March, Flynn, P., Biomass Energy: Cost and Scale Issues. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta. Gollany, H. T., Novak, J. M., Liang, Y., Albrecht, S. L., Rickman, R. W., Follett, R. F., Wilhelm, W. W. and Hunt, P. G., Simulating Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics with Residue Removal Using the CQESTR Model. Journal of Soil Science, American Society, 74(2), Grooms, L., Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Grand Opening. Farm Industry News, January Hamilton, T., The Use of Straw to Stretch Feed Supplies for Wintering Beef Cows. OMAFRA. Helwig, T., Jannasch, R., Samson, R., DeMaio, A. And Caumartin, D., Agricultural Biomass Residue Inventories and Conversion Systems for Energy Production in Eastern Canada. Natural Resources Canada. IEA Bioenergy Task 32, Biomass Database ( Karwandy, J., Pellet Production From Sawmill Residue: A Saskatchewan Perspective. Report prepared for the Saskatchewan Forest Centre. Kessel, C., Aluminum Soil Test Foils Growers. OMAFRA. Khan, A.A., de Jong, W., Jansens, P.J., Spliethoff, H., Biomass Combustion in Fluidized Bed Boilers: Potential Problems and Remedies. Fuel Processing Technology, 90, Kiel, J., Torrefaction for Biomass Upgrading into Commodity Fuels. IEA Bioenergy Task 32 Workshop on Fuel Storage, Handling and Preparation and System Analysis for Biomass Combustion Technologies, Berlin, 7 May Kong, A. Y., Johan, S., Bryant, D. C., Denison, R. F. and Kessel, C. V., The Relationship Between Carbon Input, Aggregation, and Soil Organic Carbon Stabilization in Sustainable Cropping Systems. Journal of Soil Science, American Society, 69, Library USDA, Biomass Producers and Energy Facilities Benefit from Innovative USDA Program. Farms.com. Livingston, B., Babcock, M., Ash Related Issues in Biomass Combustion. ThermalNet. Loveland P. and Webb J., Is There a Critical Level of Organic Matter in the Agricultural Soils of Temperate References

103 Regions? A Review. Soil Tillage Research, 70, Maciejewska, A., Veringa, H., Sanders, J., Peteves, S.D., Co-firing of Biomass with Coal: Constraints and Role of Biomass Pre-Treatment. European Commission. Mani, S., 2006, Simulation of Biomass Pelleting Operation. University of British Columbia, Bioenergy Conference & Exhibition 2006, Prince George. Mushrooms Canada, Mushroom Production in Canada. Newman, R., MISCANTHUS: Practical Aspects of Biofuel Development. ETSU B/W2/00618/REP URN 03/1568. New and Renewable Energy Programme, Department of Trade and Industry, United Kingdom. OFA, Personal Communication. Mason, R., Drax Says It s Condemned to a Carbon Future. The Daily Telegraph, February 23, OMAFRA, Summary of Agriculture Statistics for Ontario. OMAFRA. McConkey, B., Hutchinson, J., Smith, W., Grant, B. and Desjardins, R., Soil Organic Carbon, Environmental Sustainability of Canadian Agriculture: Agri-Environmental Indicator Report Series Report #2. Edited by Lefebvre, A., Eilers, W. and Chunn, B., Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. McKay, J., Producers Face Biomass Burnout. Business in Vancouver, July 13-19, Miles, T.R., Baxter, L.L., Bryers, R.W., Jenkins, B.M., Oden, L.L., Alkali Deposits Found in Biomass Power Plants, Volume II. National Laboratory System of the U.S. Department of Energy. NREL/TP Mittag, M., Ghylin, T., Dupuis, T., Cavanaugh, L., Appendix P. Dry Cargo Residue Discharge Analysis Using Mathematical Simulations. Dry Cargo Residue Discharge Analysis for the U.S. Coast Guard. OMAFRA, Field Crops Statistics. Available: Perlack, R. D., Wright, L. L., Turhollow, A. F., Graham, R. L., Stokes, B. J., Erbach D. C., Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. Report prepared for U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture. Ralston, S.L., Wright, B., Forage Substitutes for Horses. OMAFRA. Resource Efficient Agricultural Production (REAP)- Canada, Optimization of Switchgrass Management for Commercial Fuel Pellet Production. OMAFRA-Alternative Renewable Fuels Research and Development Fund. Molnar, S., Wright, B., Evaluating Performance of Several Horse Beddings. OMAFRA. Ricketson, C.L., Strawberries for Home Gardens. OMAFRA. References Murray, G., Canadian Wood Pellet Industry Overview, Wood Pellet Association of Canada, Presentation by Gordon Murray, Executive Director, Dated July 19, Ringwall, K., BeefTalk: Bedding Beef Cows Is Essential, NDSU Agriculture Communication, April 22, 2009.

104 Saidak, T., Minnesota Alfalfa Producers Prep Crop Rotation for Ethanol Production. Biofuels Digest, July Taylor, L., From Straw to Starting Line: Canadian Farmers Power Formula One Cars. Montreal Gazette, March 15, Saimbi, S. and Hart, D., Drax Offers Model for Cofiring Biomass. Power, 154(7), Tietz, N., Biomass Co-op Gears Up for Expansion. Hay & Forage Grower, February Samson, R., Optimization of Switchgrass Management for Commercial Fuel Pellet Production, Final Report (draft copy) at REAP-Canada. Turin, S.Q., Kinoshita, C.M., Ishimura, D.M., Removal of Inorganic Constituents of Biomass Feedstocks by Mechanical Dewatering and Leaching. Biomass and Bioenergy, 12(4), Schooley, J., Cost of Production of 1 Acre of Ginseng in Ontario. OMAFRA. Sokhansanj, S. and Fenton, J., Cost Benefit of Biomass Supply and Pre-Processing, BIOCAP Research Integration Program, Synthesis Paper, BIOCAP Canada. Sorensen, A. L., Economies of Scale in Biomass Gasification System, Interim Report IR , International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria. Vamvuka, D., Troulinos, S., Kastanaki, E., The Effect of Mineral Matter on the Physical and Chemical Activation of Low Rank Coal and Biomass Materials. Fuel, 85, Vienna University of Technology, BIOBIB Database ( Voroney, R. P., Loss of Organic Matter in Ontario Soil, Highlights, 15(3), Statistics Canada, Livestock Feed Requirements Study Catalogue no XIE. Statistics Canada, Census of Agriculture, Farm Data and Farm Operator Data. Catalogue no XWE. Statistics Canada, Shipping in Canada. Catalogue no X. Statistics Canada, Cattle Statistics. Catalogue no X. Steenari, B.-M., Lundberg, A., Pettersson, H., Wilewska-Bien, M., Andersson, D., Investigation of Ash Sintering During Combustion of Agricultural Residues and the Effect of Additives. Energy and Fuels, 23, Voroney, R. P., All You Ever Wanted to Know About Soil Organic Matter and Soil C Sequestration: Myths and Reality, Presented as the Special Guest Speaker at Research Progress Review Meeting with OPG personnel, The Research Park, Sarnia-Lambton Campus. Voroney, R. P., Paul, E. A., and Anderson, D. W., Decomposition of Wheat Straw and Stabilization of Microbial Products. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 69, Wanniarachchi, S. D., Voroney, R. P., Vyn, T. J., Beyaert, R. P. And MacKenzie, A. F., Tillage Effects on the Dynamics of Total and Corn-Residue-Derived Soil Organic Matter in Two Southern Ontario Soils. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, References

105 Werther, J., Saenger, M., Hartge, E.-U., Ogada, T., Siagi, Z., Combustion of Agricultural Residues. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 26, Wehrspann, J., Concept Cob Collectors. Farm Industry News, February Wood, K. And Swanson, K., Corn Stalkage and Wheat Straw in Wintering Beef Cow Diets. OMAFRA. Xiong, S., Burvall, J., Orberg, H., Kalen, G., Thyrel, M., Ohman, M., Bostrom, D., Slagging Characteristics During Combustion of Corn Stovers With and Without Kaolin and Calcite. Energy and Fuels, 22, References

106 Appendix A OPG Agricultural Residuals Study Outline Appendix A

107 Appendix A

108 Appendix A

109 Appendix B Appendix B Ontario Agricultural Census Regions & Constituents

110 Appendix B

111 Appendix C Appendix C Summary of Agricultural Statistics for Ontario

112 Appendix C

113 Appendix C

114 Appendix C

115 Appendix D Appendix D Determination of Water-Soluble Alkali

116 Appendix E CEN/TC 335 Biomass Standards Appendix E

117 Appendix E

118 Appendix F Inspection Procedure for Ships that Carry Grain and Grain Products (Procedure Reference and Table of Contents Only) Inspection Procedure Inspecting Ships that carry Grain and Grain Products for Export Plant Health Division, Plant Products Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency 59 Camelot Driver Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0Y9 Inspecting Ships that carry Grain and Grain Products for Export Page 1 of 44 Appendix F

119 Appendix F

120 Appendix F

121 Appendix G Experimental Results on the Use of Fuel Improvement Additives The Bioindustrial Innovation Centre Shared Services Lab at The Research Park, Sarnia-Lambton Campus, conducted an experimental investigation into the effect of solid additives on biomass ash melting points. The biomass samples were collected in Lambton County. The results of these tests are given in the following tables. These data represent the ash properties of a single sample of residuals. In general, kaolin was the most effective additive at 3 wt% to increase the melting temperature of the biomass ash. Appendix G

122 Note: It is believed that the higher than normal melting temperature of this no additives corn stover ash sample is due to the leaching of minerals from the biomass before collection from the field. Additives had a small effect on the melting temperatures of the ash from this corn stover ash due to its already low mineral content. Design: Roundtable Creative Group Inc. Appendix G

123 Developing leadership in bioindustrial technology The Research Park, Sarnia-Lambton Campus is positioned as Canada s centre of excellence for the commercialization and research of largescale bioindustrial technology. The Bioindustrial Innovation Centre is located at The Park with space available to host project work. This centre will help our industrial partners to scale up technologies and turn them into real value added tools that will attract new inv e s t m e n t t o our region and support current investment. An initial investment from the County of Lambton and the City of Sarnia and a $10 million investment from the Province of Ontario were bolstered by $15 million in funding through Canada s federal science and technology strategy. Success has already been achieved in over 200 local projects managed between The Park and industry to recruit and retain professionals for the region. Projects are already underway and h a v e access to funding administered b y a n industry-led council, the Sustainable Chemistry Alliance. We will continue t o b u i l d o n t h e momentum of the community of Sarnia-Lambton, the work of t h e Bluewater Sustainability Initiative and our partners at Lambton College and the University of Western Ontario. Call Don Hewson, Managing Director, Industrial Liaison (519) or visit