EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • Biomass- An Emerging Fuel tor Power Generation

     

    Norbridge recently conducted a study to assess interest in biomass generation and identify some of the issues and challenges pertaining to conversion to biomass. Twenty-five percent of the utilities interviewed stated that their interest in increasing the use of biomass fuel was a “10” on a 1 to 10 scale (with 10 the highest). Across all utilities, the median response was 7.5 out of 10. This level of interest was driven by renewable energy standards as well as many utilities’ limited ability to increase use of hydro, wind and solar power.

    The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects biomass consumption for power generation to increase significantly in coming years. EIA’s base case forecast–which does not factor in the impact of a potential national cap-and-trade initiative–projects biomass-fueled power to increase from 60 billion kWh in 2008 to 188 billion kWh by 2020, of which 165 billion kWh is to come from “wood and other biomass.” If all of this generation were to come from forest residues (a primary source for biomass), the demand could well exceed the current supply, potentially by a multiple.

    In the words of baseball legend Yogi Berra, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” As such, it is impossible to know how close EIA’s expectation will come to the realities of 2020. Nonetheless, the analysis makes three issues clear. First, if these forecasted levels are going to be approached much less achieved, a variety of wood and agricultural biomass sources will be required to meet anticipated demand. Second, a supply of purpose-grown biomass sources will be needed as residuals alone will not be sufficient. And third, competition for biomass resources could become fierce. Add in local or geographic implications and the supply equation for any individual utility could become very interesting.

    Biomass Conversion Challenges

    In the U.S., shifting power generating capacity to biomass will not be easy. Biomass as a fuel source for large-scale power generation is in its infancy. Suppliers and supply chains have not yet been developed on the scale necessary to supply volume of biomass necessary to meet U.S. power needs. Unlike the coal supply chain that has been in place for many years, it is not clear at present how the biomass supply chain will or should develop. This is made more complex as numerous utilities are considering entering the biomass market before it is well understood how the competition for fuels sources could evolve. Key questions for a utility considering a conversion to biomass are likely to include the following:

    • Type of biomass: Wood vs. agricultural products, raw vs. pelletized, purpose grown vs. byproduct/residual; torrefaction; specifications (Btu content, moisture content, size, emissions)
    • Sourcing: Biomass origins, suppliers, producer facility sizes, pellet plant locations (if applicable)
    • Transportation: Modal options, equipment requirements, unloading infrastructure, delivery quantities
    • Storage/Handling: Type of fuel storage (indoor for certain types of biomass pellets), conveying infrastructure, dust control systems, fire suppression systems
    • Boiler: Type of boiler to use or boiler conversion options.

    Each involves a variety of options and trade-offs that must be considered when developing a biomass supply chain. In addition, each may include significant capital requirements. For example, boiler modifications, transportation equipment, unloading infrastructure, storage facilities and other potential requirements could add up to a significant expense depending on the needs of a specific utility or generating facility.

    Type of Biomass

    Biomass fuel can come in many flavors. The right choice for a particular power plant will depend on biomass availability and cost and fit with boiler and environmental requirements. Wood-based and agriculturally-based biomass are potential fuel sources. However, major regional differences exist in the local availability of potential biomass resources.

    For a power plant in the Southeast, a wood-based fuel may be preferred due to the region’s abundance of softwoods. Other forested regions, such as the Midwest and Northeast, consist primarily of hardwoods, which tend to be more expensive. In parts of the Midwest that are agricultural “breadbaskets,” an agricultural product solution may be a better option. But if in doing so the biomass demand sparks a competition for land use, then it could drive up the cost of biomass and alternative land uses.

    Biomass can be purpose-grown as fuel or it can be the byproduct of, or residual from, another process. The advantage of purpose-grown biomass is the stability of supply of biomass fiber and increased efficiency in harvesting the biomass. The main disadvantage of purpose-grown biomass is that it can compete with other uses for the land or the product. For example, using some types of roundwood as a fuel source would take that supply “out of circulation” for the lumber and pulp/paper industries. Using residual biomass is typically less expensive and competes less directly with the primary use for that biomass. This is especially important for agricultural products. However residual biomass, such as corn stover and tree branches, is not always harvested with the primary material, making collection difficult.

    Biomass fuel can also be “raw” or pelletized. The process of pelletizing the fuel typically increases the Btu content by removing moisture from the biomass. It also standardizes the fuel’s size and shape. However, pelletizing the biomass is typically energy intensive and requires the capital cost of the pellet plant as well as drying and pelletizing equipment.

    New technologies could potentially shift the economics of biomass sourcing. One example is torrefaction, a process by which biomass is heated in a low-oxygen environment at 250 C to 320 C before pelletizing. The economics of this process have yet to be proven in large-scale operations, but supporters point to attractive qualities of the torrefaction process: higher energy content (around 11,000 Btu/lb.), lower moisture content and increased stability in storage (indoor storage may not be required).

    Sourcing

    While biomass is burned for power in the U.S. and Canada, it is done on a relatively small scale. For a utility looking to convert or develop significant generating capacity, it is not at all clear from where or by whom the biomass would be sourced. Some sources may be near a power plant, but they may be unable to provide the quantity required to supply a 100 MW plant or larger. A utility may need to source from multiple suppliers in different geographic areas to obtain the fuel quantities necessary.

    In many regions, biomass suppliers for centralized power generation do not yet exist. Some potential fuels suppliers may be active in the agricultural or wood products industries, but are not yet active in the biomass fuels business. In many cases, the suppliers are start-ups with limited operating history. The current credit crisis is inhibiting the ability of some of these new companies to obtain financing.

    The way in which the biomass supply industry develops will significantly affect the delivered cost of biomass fuel to North American utilities. For example, pellet plant size and location could be good for one utility but bad for another. Pellet plants can be large–producing up to 500,000 tons a year–or like the more numerous 50,000- to 125,000-ton plants. A key determinant of pellet plant size is the distance from which raw biomass must be harvested to produce the requisite volume of pellets. Since raw biomass can have a moisture content of up to 50 percent, inbound transportation costs to the pellet plant can become significant as distances increase. This will also influence whether pellet plants are located near utilities or near the raw biomass supply. Since the industry is still relatively undeveloped, there may be opportunities for early-moving utilities to shape the supply chain before it is fully established.

    Once built, some utilities will have to compete for the biomass with other users. The cyclical availability of biomass will be partially a function of demand in other industries. For example, when demand is low for products such as pulp and paper, the usable by-products of that process will also be lower. During periods of high demand for agricultural or timber land, it could be more expensive to use land for purpose-grown biomass crops, as the opportunity cost for that land could be higher.

    Competition for fuel will not only be between North American utilities, but also will involve European utilities. Biomass supply is not infinite. The implications of this supply uncertainty are magnified by long-term investments with multi-year lead times that utilities will need to make to convert to biomass-fueled generation.

    Transportation

    Most utilities receive their coal by unit train or by barge; in either case in large quantities. Biomass fuel is much more likely to arrive in smaller quantities from a larger number of suppliers. This will require greater coordination and management at the power plant to efficiently receive the biomass fuel. Railcar blocks will likely be smaller and arrive more frequently. River terminals may have to serve as consolidation points from multiple biomass suppliers. Fuel then would be loaded onto barges and delivered to the utility. Modal options are likely to change as well. Trucks could play a more significant role in biomass fuel transportation than they do with coal, a result of the smaller quantities produced at each location.

    Biomass also could require different equipment and unloading infrastructure than most utilities currently use for their coal. Traditional non-torrefied wood pellets, for example, must remain dry, requiring enclosed transport equipment and covered storage. Railcars may have to be covered hoppers instead of the open-top gondolas or hoppers used for coal. Cars will likely be bottom dump with gates (similar to grain cars) instead of doors (as rapid discharge coal cars have today). Trucks will also have to be covered and will either have dumping capability or require a tilt dumping deck at the generating station (as is often used for wood chips at paper plants). Barges will likely have to be covered. So, too, may unloading infrastructure, which also may need to be available for receiving by multiple modes.

    Since the cost of biomass can be much higher than that of coal (wood pellets can cost three to 10 times more than coal), transportation costs will likely be a smaller percent of total delivered cost than with coal. As a result, it may be economically viable to source lower-cost biomass from farther away when the biomass product cost savings exceeds the additional transportation cost. As a result, a large number of potential sourcing and transportation option combinations will have to be assessed.

    Storage/Handling

    Many types of biomass, such as traditional wood pellets, will require inside storage. A 100 MW plant could burn an estimated 400,000 tons of biomass pellets annually. If three months’ supply was required, or 100,000 tons, a storage warehouse 180 feet wide by 1,200 feet long could be required. Alternatively, 10 10,000-ton silos could be used. If a generating station had units burning both biomass and coal, storage space and infrastructure for each fuel would be required. Other handling equipment, such as conveyors and stacker/reclaimers, may have to be modified or replaced altogether with equipment better suited to the type of biomass fuel selected.

    Storage and handling infrastructure also must take into account biomass’s high combustibility. This is true for both pelletized and raw biomass. Wood pellets are not as durable as coal and produce more combustible dust. Dust control systems, temperature sensors and fire suppression systems may be required to support safe operations. In storage and handling design, the distances that pellets are dropped either into storage or through the conveying process should be managed to limit pellet damage and dust creation.

    Boiler

    Boiler capabilities and requirements are critical to the success of any biomass-fired power plant. It almost goes without saying that the fuel supplied to the boiler must be a fuel it is capable of burning. While a new biomass power plant can be designed to burn a certain type of biomass fuel, a plant converted from coal to biomass may have greater biomass fuel limitations. There will likely be new or additional permitting and/or environmental requirements that will also need to be addressed.

    Laying the Groundwork

    While biomass consumption has not yet reached European levels, the groundwork has been laid for a dramatic increase in biomass usage for U.S. power generation. As utilities look to biomass, they must understand the challenges associated with the conversion and the ways in which biomass differs from coal. In addition to selecting the type of fuel to be burned, utilities also must identify fuel sources that balance objectives for total delivered cost control, flexibility and boiler compatibility.

    Rather than wait for the biomass supply chain to evolve organically, forward-thinking utilities will act now to ensure that the biomass supply chain evolves in a way that is optimized for their needs.

    Lee Clair is a partner with Norbridge Inc.

  • Power station developers dismiss renewable energy

     

    The environmental assessment reports for the two power stations say ”clean coal” technology will not be available to them in the medium term, although they expect that the technology will eventually emerge and the stations are fitted out for future carbon capture and storage.

    Building coal-fired power plants, which would lock in high-emissions infrastructure for decades, is a touchstone issue for environment groups, which argue future energy needs can mainly be met with better energy efficiency, wind turbines and solar stations in the outback.

    A decision by the Planning Minister, Tony Kelly, on the future of the plants, deemed ”critical infrastructure” under state planning laws, is expected this week.

    The key decision facing the utilities is whether to run the two, 1000-megawatt plants on coal or gas. Burning gas generates slightly less than half the emissions of coal, but is likely to be more expensive and would require the construction of a pipeline to Mount Piper.

    The government is unlikely to express a preference for either gas or coal in its assessment.

    The NSW Greens believe the need for new sources of baseload power have been overestimated.

    “The NSW government has written off the state’s renewable energy future, preferring instead to rely on outdated and inaccurate predications of a shortage of baseload power to justify their expansion plans,” the Greens MP John Kaye said.

    “Massive wind development in the state’s west and possibilities for solar thermal generation in the central west put paid to the Keneally government’s myths that NSW lacks renewable resources.”

  • Wireless Technologies in Renewable Energy Markets

     

    Data radios provide reliable data transmission and advantages where:

    • The system owner wants to control the communications
    • Cell phone coverage is inconsistent or non-existent
    • Communication security is a priority
    • Budgets require efficient communications investment.

    In other words, data radios offer wind and solar power generation facility developers and operators a viable solution for meeting their communication network’s requirements while also cutting costs. As the industry continues its fast-paced growth, the need to identify ways to lower infrastructure costs, improve time-to-market and increase performance with reliable, easily installed networks is no longer a wish but a requirement.

    As the renewable energy market continues to make strides in the power industry, operations and maintenance (O&M) providers are looking for economical ways to manage their systems. To do this most efficiently, some sort of communication system is required. The wireless networks need to be easily maintained, with the ability to handle the amount of data transmission required. Many O&M providers in the solar and wind industries are beginning to discover that several other options exist.

    Wired vs. Wireless

    The class of wireless radios that are industrially hardened and proven to be reliable in the harshest environments may offer the most effective, economical solution, when compared to other options. For example, when compared with fiber, wireless systems are relatively easy to install. In the event a buried cable is damaged, to the extent it requires repair or replacement the costs can be high. Wireless systems are relatively maintenance-free and, if maintenance does become necessary, they are easily maintained.

    Once installed, top-class wireless systems rarely need any type of service. If, for some reason, maintenance is required, the best systems provide information regarding a pending maintenance concern and the location or type of maintenance required can easily be detected remotely. As a result, operators only send someone out for service if/when the system needs it, thereby saving time and money. If engineered and installed correctly, wireless systems will perform maintenance-free for years. At least one of the top-class wireless manufacturers provides backwards compatible solutions throughout its family of products. That, too, saves on maintenance concerns as well as stocking and replacement costs.

    Finally, wired options are priced by the foot. With wireless data radios, the pricing covers ranges expressed in terms of miles. For instance, a pair of top-class serial radios will likely communicate reliably across 60-mile links with line-of-sight designs.

    Communication Systems and Options

    Today, solar or wind utilities operators have a number of options they can employ for their communications needs. The major ones include:

    Wireless Data Radios –The top industrially hardened class of proprietary protocol wireless radios systems are quite easy to install, require minimal labor and do not require any trenching or expensive equipment. In addition, users can obtain real-time data fast. Users can be operational quickly and don’t have to wait until some sort of network typology is complete. Once a remote radio and a master radio are installed, users can monitor these points right away. Although these radios are reliable, they often are more expensive than standards-based radios because these radios provide the range, throughput options and reliability found only in this class of offering.

    ZigBee – A somewhat inexpensive, standards-based wireless solution, ZigBee offers a self-healing mesh network. However, these products also have a direct sequence protocol that is susceptible to interference, especially when compared with proprietary protocol systems. The range is extremely short in comparison to others and as the user adds repeaters to lengthen the range, the throughput degrades quickly and the “perceived” low cost goes up. At 230 Kbps, the throughput without repeaters is acceptable in many applications. However, to achieve the self-healing networks, repeaters are required. As stated above, as repeaters are added, throughput decreases.

    Wired – Copper, fiber and an Ethernet cable are some of the options available as wired solutions. Each of these types of cable will have limitations as to how far the signal can be sent before one encounters line loss. And wired solutions typically require more money and more time to install. What are the advantages to wired solutions? If implemented correctly, wired solutions provide secure, reliable data communications. The main issues operators will face with wire are the cost of materials and installation. Time to install is also an issue, especially when compared with data radios.

    Cell Phone/Satellite – Cell phone and satellite technologies have many similar attributes. Both are public systems and, therefore, not controlled by the plant owner. Carrier-based systems such as these include monthly fees that add to the overall cost of ownership making them even more costly over time. Notoriously, cell phone-based systems do not have a history for being backwards-compatible. Replacing old technology with new technology can be costly. What are the advantages? Sometimes these systems can reach extreme or remote locations where it is not feasible to lay fiber or even deploy a full wireless communication network. This is especially true in the case of satellite systems.

    Hybrid Communications

    None of the systems described above can solve all problems in all situations. Hybrid networks–a blend of different technologies–are often important to consider, especially in the wind power generation markets where some wind installations can be remote. In such situations, there are benefits to implementing a system that uses data radios from location to location with a satellite modem at a site data concentrator. Hybrid networks also might include a mix of fiber, data radios, satellite or cell phone-based technologies. A hybrid system can be a more cost-effective and effective solution for remote networks through lower hardware unit costs, fewer points requiring monthly fee-based satellite or cell connection modems and lower power-consuming technologies.

    One example might be a wind farm located in an isolated region with 10 turbines. Land-line access does not exist and cell coverage is not present although satellite coverage is available. A viable hybrid solution would include data radios on each turbine communicating to one “master station” turbine. With those radios, there can be reliable communications with no monthly fees and backwards compatibility. At the master station, a master radio is wired to a satellite modem that uplinks data to and from the wind farm. This system eliminates monthly fees for nine of the 10 towers.

    Top-class data radio communication systems–composed of industrially hardened radios–offer several advantages that some of the other options do not. This class of radio has been proven in communication-intensive industries, such as military, oil and gas and electric power. Leading companies offering data radios stand by their products with training, tech support, warranties and experience. These attributes arm O&M providers with the confidence required for managing their communication system. Proprietary data radios are offered at a variety of speeds, interface protocols and security. They are offered with varieties of form factors available to match the needs of the user.

    Range or link distance is another advantage in the top-class of radios. Some types have proven to communicate over 60 miles line-of-sight. Others, such as standards-based radios, offer a range that is more accurately characterized in hundreds of feet. The top-class technologies are used successfully in extremely harsh conditions with high vibration (such as robotics, unmanned aerial vehicles in the military and farm vehicles) proving in the field that they can effectively communicate in all types of environments, including the challenges presented by wind turbines. Data radios even have proven effective and reliable in high-speed racing environments such as Formula One car and motorcycle races.

    Each of the applications that can be performed using data radios in solar and wind power generation plants are conducted today in many thousands of other market applications. These radios are relied upon in mission critical monitoring, controlling and data acquisition situations in the harshest weather and RF conditions. Radios are used on natural gas wells in every climate. They are also used reliably in baking heat and in the freezing cold in Antarctica, for example. The top-class of radios is used in urban situations, plant situations and rural situations. Again, the top class of radios is known to perform with comparable reliability to the wired alternatives and all at a fraction of the cost.

    The advances of wireless technology in the renewable energy power markets on both an industrial and commercial scale are anticipated to increase. The costs, reliability, reporting and more are driving operators to consider alternatives to wired solutions. The experience mentioned above of operators in many industries around the world is evidence that data radios are a viable alternative. Wireless data radio technologies provide a long-range, reliable and affordable solution to providers. A wireless system can potentially save a company millions of dollars of installation fees and the technologies have been proven in the field. Not all radios are created equal. Top-class radios have proven, industrially hardened equipment and the flexibility to perform in almost any situation.

    Any manufacturer who has a solid product offering is likely willing to provide operators with test equipment to prove the technology before they buy it. It is easy to use, quick to install, reliable and low risk. When return on investment is a key in determining the best communications solution, the benefits of top-class data radios should be part of every decision process.

    Colin Lippincott is general manager, Renewable Energy Markets with FreeWave Technologies.

  • Labor and Liberal block Senate inquiry into toxic plantations

    25 February 2010

    Labor & Liberal block Senate inquiry into toxic
    plantations

    The blocking of a Senate inquiry into potential toxic
    leaching from eucalypt plantations into Tasmania’s George River by both
    Labor and Liberal today was an abrogation of responsibility, according
    to the Greens.

    Greens Senators Bob Brown and Christine Milne moved for
    the inquiry following reports that plantations of Eucalyptus nitens were
    contaminating water supplies near St. Helens in North East Tasmania,
    with impacts on human and animal populations.

    “This is an abrogation of responsibility by the Labor
    and Liberal parties,” said Senator Brown.

    “Why should a community have had to fight so hard to
    have an investigation of toxicity in their water supply?” said Senator
    Christine Milne.

    “There is a far too close relationship between the
    Tasmanian government, Forestry Tasmania and the private forest industry.

    “The EPA conducted an Inquiry in 2005 and found toxicity
    but did not take the matter further.

    “Their failure to act then and their lack of
    independence gives me no confidence that they will conduct a full and
    proper investigation now.

    “What the community wants is an independent inquiry, not
    one under the auspices of people who have failed the community in the
    past and who have demonstrated a complete lack of concern about the
    impacts of forestry, chemical use in the forest industry and the
    breeding programs by forestry.

    “By blocking this inquiry both the Labor and Liberal
    party have let down Tasmanians concerned about public health, wildlife
    and the reputation of Tasmania as a clean green source of products.”

    Media contact: Erin Farley 0438 376 082
    www.greensmps.org.au <http://www.greensmps.org.au/>

    _______________________________________________
    GreensMPs Media mailing list

  • Rail Delay costs $2 billion

     

    Mr Campbell has also overseen two major policies marred by errors in the past month and was yesterday forced to back down on claims to Parliament that members of the Sydney media had hacked into the transport blueprint website.

    A breakdown of costs, released by the Transport Minister yesterday, shows the revived north-west rail link would cost $4.89 billion if construction began immediately.

    But the State Government is not planning to start work until 2017, meaning it will cost $6.75 billion because of inflation.

    The State Government axed the project in 2008 and revived it on Sunday in its new $50 billion Sydney transport blueprint, after the Opposition promised to deliver the line.

    Over the 14 years before construction is due to be completed on the rail link, Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell says drivers will be slugged up to $19 a day to use the M2, Lane Cove Tunnel and the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

    That comes on top of a new car tax, which will slug drivers between $5 to $30 a year extra to register vehicles weighing more than 975 kilograms from July.

    Mr O’Farrell says the Coalition will start building the north-west rail line in its first term if it wins next year’s state election.

    “Labor’s transport plan doesn’t deliver the transport options that Sydney needs in a timely fashion,” he said.

    The greatest cost associated with north-west rail link is tunnelling, which will chew up about half of the money allocated for the project.

     

    Pressure on Campbell rises

     

    Mr O’Farrell is also calling on Mr Campbell to stand down after the CBD Metro plan was scrapped on Sunday.

    At least $271 million has already been lost on the Metro, with another $60 million expected in compensation to companies working on the project.

    On Tuesday night, the Transport Minister also admitted that subjecting eco-friendly hybrid cars to the new weight tax was a mistake.

    And earlier this month, he had to explain why 1 million maps for the MyZone ticketing scheme had to be pulped when mistakes were discovered.

    The transport blueprint also promises a new rail line to Leppington in Sydney’s south-west, a major expansion of light rail around the city and more buses and ferries.

    Sydney’s inner west will get a light rail extension to Dulwich Hill and another line will run from Haymarket to Circular Quay.

    A tunnel will also be built from Redfern to Wynyard to speed up rail traffic from the west.

    The plan promises 1,000 new buses, six new ferries and $3 billion worth of new trains within 10 years.

    Tags: government-and-politics, states-and-territories, australia, nsw, sydney-2000

    First posted 1 hour 9 minutes ago

  • NSW govt does hybrid tax backflip

    (NB) Carefully read last line re “Fully Funded”.

    NSW govt does hybrid tax backflip

    By Adam Bennett, Leah McLennan and Lisa Martin, AAP February 24, 2010, 6:30PM

    Related Links

     

    The NSW government is being accused of incompetence over a decision to exempt hybrid vehicles from an increased weight tax just days after the release of its transport blueprint.

    The vehicle weight tax changes were announced as part of the blueprint, released on Sunday, with motorists slugged up to $30 a year more to help pay for the $51.2 billion plan.

    The policy targets large cars over 975kg, but because it was based solely on weight, it also hit hybrid cars such as the Toyota Prius.

    On Tuesday, Premier Kristina Keneally announced hybrids were to be exempted from the tax increase, a belated change seized on by the opposition.

    Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell accused the government of “making it up as it goes”, while opposition transport spokeswoman Gladys Berejiklian said Ms Keneally was guilty of “mistake after mistake”.

    The opposition has described the tax change as unfair on regional motorists, who will get no benefit out of improved Sydney transport.

    “She can’t tell us why she keeps making exemptions to the $30 tax on cars because they got that so wrong,” Ms Berejiklian told reporters on Wednesday.

    “They make an announcement and then try to fix it up.”

    Ms Keneally said the government decided to exempt hybrid cars after “listening to the community and responding”.

    “I would have thought the opposition would have welcomed that hybrids were exempted from this scheme,” she said.

    “We recognise that people who buy hybrid vehicles are already very mindful of carbon emissions.”

    The transport blueprint again dominated question time, with Ms Berejiklian calling for Mr Campbell to resign over the hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars spent on the scrapped CBD Metro.

    “If this was the private sector the person would have been sacked long ago,” she said.

    The premier was also grilled over the funding details of the blueprint, and proposals such as the $6.7 billion northwest rail link.

    “It’s a $50 billion plan, fully funded, written into our budget, written into the state infrastructure strategy,” Ms Keneally repeated.

    “It is the reallocation of the money we would have spent on the CBD Metro, and we are allocating money from the forward estimates.”

    The stock response prompted an exasperated shadow Leader of the House, Andrew Piccoli, to his feet.

    “The question was about detail. Just saying it is fully funded doesn’t mean it is fully funded,” he said