a complete and comprehensive overview of torrefaction technologies
DESCRIPTION
overview of torrefaction, roasting (mild thermochemical) technologiesTRANSCRIPT
"A Complete and Comprehensive Overview
of Torrefaction Technologies"
R. A. WALTON and DRS ING B. G. VAN BOMMEL DECEMBER 2010
2 | P a g e
Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Introduction / History ........................................................................................................................ 5
Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 5
History ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Patents published or pending regarding Torrefaction of Biomass (incomplete): .......................... 6
Market Overview ................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Definitive Description of Torrefied Biomass Pellets ........................................................................ 15
Calorific Value .............................................................................................................................. 16
Grindability .................................................................................................................................. 17
Hydrophobicity ............................................................................................................................ 19
Durability ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Chemical Composition / Homogeneity ........................................................................................ 20
Van Krevelen Diagram of Torrefaction ............................................................................................ 21
The Science of Torrefaction ............................................................................................................. 22
Economics of Torrefaction / Ultimate Product Cost .................................................................... 25
Technology Developers / Promoters ............................................................................................... 27
4Energy Invest ............................................................................................................................. 30
3R Agrocarbon ............................................................................................................................. 30
Agri-‐Tech ...................................................................................................................................... 30
Argonaut Bioenergy ..................................................................................................................... 31
Atmosclear / Airless Systems ....................................................................................................... 31
Biochar Engineering Corporation ................................................................................................ 32
Biogreen Energy ........................................................................................................................... 32
Biomass Energy Holdings ............................................................................................................. 32
Biomass Energy Resources .......................................................................................................... 33
BTG .............................................................................................................................................. 33
Canadian Bio-‐Coal ........................................................................................................................ 34
Chemmeco Inc. ............................................................................................................................ 34
Cockerill Maintenance and Ingenierie ......................................................................................... 34
CNF Biofuels ................................................................................................................................. 35
Cree Industries ............................................................................................................................. 35
DGEngineering ............................................................................................................................. 36
Earth Care .................................................................................................................................... 36
3 | P a g e
EBES AG /Andritz ......................................................................................................................... 36
ECN .............................................................................................................................................. 37
EcoFuels ....................................................................................................................................... 37
Foxcoal ......................................................................................................................................... 38
G & R Technology Group ............................................................................................................. 38
Gazprom ...................................................................................................................................... 38
Hi-‐Tech Agro ................................................................................................................................ 39
HM3 ............................................................................................................................................. 39
IFP ................................................................................................................................................ 39
Integro Earth Fuels ...................................................................................................................... 40
International Torrefaction Systems ............................................................................................. 40
J F Biocarbon ................................................................................................................................ 40
Key Flame .................................................................................................................................... 41
Lantec / Idema ............................................................................................................................. 41
Matric .......................................................................................................................................... 41
New Biomass Energy ................................................................................................................... 42
New Earth Renewable Energy ..................................................................................................... 42
Renewable Fuel Technologies ..................................................................................................... 43
River Basin Energy ....................................................................................................................... 43
Rotawave ..................................................................................................................................... 43
Sea2Sky Corporation ................................................................................................................... 44
Stramproy-‐Green ......................................................................................................................... 44
SubCoal ........................................................................................................................................ 45
SunCoal ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Terradyne Energy ......................................................................................................................... 45
Terra Green Energy ...................................................................................................................... 46
Thermogen Industries .................................................................................................................. 46
Thermya SA .................................................................................................................................. 46
TK Energi AS ................................................................................................................................. 47
Topell ........................................................................................................................................... 47
Torkapparater AB ........................................................................................................................ 47
Torrcoal ........................................................................................................................................ 48
Torrsys / Bepex ............................................................................................................................ 48
Transnational Technologies ......................................................................................................... 49
4 | P a g e
Vega Promotional Systems .......................................................................................................... 49
Verdant Energy Solutions ............................................................................................................ 49
Complimentary Technologies .......................................................................................................... 50
University Researchers .................................................................................................................... 51
Industry Associations ....................................................................................................................... 52
Existing Operations Worldwide ....................................................................................................... 53
Europe ......................................................................................................................................... 53
North America ............................................................................................................................. 53
Who will succeed? ....................................................................................................................... 53
Who will fail? ............................................................................................................................... 54
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 55
GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................... 55
References ................................................................................................................................... 56
5 | P a g e
Abstract
At present, the Wood Pellet market is about 13 million tonnes per year, of which Europe consumed more than 8 million tonnes. This was produced at some 400+ pellet mills, which are the “add-‐on” market for the torrefaction reactor technology suppliers or developers.
New projections of several institutes, (AEBIOM, DEPV, Pellet Atlas etc,) market analysis providers (Rotterdam Port, Argus Biomass, Forest Energy Monitor etc) and EU-‐power companies ( RWE, Vattenfall, Electrabel etc) have made predictions that in 2020, this market will be about 130 million tonnes per year, a 10 fold increase from what it is today. This means a sustained, strong growth of 20% year, which is also a Greenfield opportunity for many starters in the solid biomass fuel business, including torrefaction technology providers and companies.
Introduction / History
Overview
Global Energy demand is forecast to increase dramatically over the next decades, and given the concerns surrounding the use of Fossil Fuels, solutions are desperately needed. Biomass is currently the worlds 4th most important source of Energy. Photosynthesis stores about 8 times as much Energy annually in Biomass than is consumed globally from all sources of Energy, and could therefore conceivably become the main source of Energy. There are however significant hurdles to overcome to make Biomass a much more significant part of the Energy Solution. First, sustainability and potential competition with Food crops are high on that list, but also the fact that Biomass has a relatively low energy density, high moisture content and that especially woody biomass is very fibrous and tough -‐ which makes it difficult to handle, transport and ultimately use as Fuel for Power Stations. The challenge is to make Biomass a homogenous, friable, sustainable fuel with low moisture content, increased Energy density and low particle emissions. Scientists the world over have been looking for solutions to these problems for some time, and the Torrefaction of Biomass has emerged as the most promising method of conditioning Biomass while increasing energy density, vastly improving hydrophobicity, reducing the mass of the biomass without losing energy content and creating a product that is still able to be pelletized, vital for transport across great distances.
History
The partial decomposition of Biomass, mainly wood, at high temperatures in the absence of Oxygen to create a Fuel of high Energy density has been practised by humans for 1000’s of years. This traditional way to carbonize Wood (pyrolysis) however takes the wood far beyond the narrow perimeters which define it as an ideal fuel. Experiments were made to improve the characteristics of
6 | P a g e
the fuel, and much was learned from the Torrefaction of Coffee and Roots as Coffee substitute. Torrefaction is similar to Pyrolysis, but is conducted at much lower Temperatures. While Torrefaction was used for Coffee production or the production of Coffee substitutes such as Chicory as far back as the 17th Century, it was adapted to facilitate the Conversion of Biomass for Fuel not until the early 20th Century.
Currently, there are close to 100 patents and/or patents pending relating to the Torrefaction of Biomass, the first dating back to the 15th of January 1901.
Patents published or pending regarding Torrefaction of Biomass (incomplete):
Reference # Date Title
Inventor
CH20332 15/01/1901 Four de séchage et de Torréfaction
Albert Comte Dillon de Michero
FR538040 02/06/1922 Appareil de séchage et de Torréfaction
Fortin Pierre-‐Honore
FR574507 12/07/1924 Appareil de Torréfaction Scrive Paul
FR29060 20/05/1925 Appareil de Torréfaction Scrive Paul
FR686708 30/07/1930 Four rotative à axe incliné pour le séchage, la Torréfaction et la cuisson des matériaux minéraux ou organiques
Beau Alfred
FR39349 12/10/1931 Four rotative à axe incliné pour le séchage, la Torréfaction et la cuisson des matériaux minéraux ou organiques
Beau Alfred
7 | P a g e
CH153757 15/04/1932 Four à tambour rotative à axe incliné pour le séchage, la Torréfaction et la cuisson des matériaux minéraux et organiques
Etablissements Poliet Chausson
FR839732 11/04/1939 Perfectionnements aux fours a torréfier le bois
Bouteille Joseph
US2159027 23/05/1939 Process and apparatus for roasting
Jalma Michael M, Henri Coutinho
BE444413 09/02/1942 Perfectionnement apportés aux procédés d’agglomeration de métiers combustibles, notamment pour gazogènes
Seneze Marcel
FR872164 01/06/1942 Procédé d’agglomération de produis obtenus avec du pois torréfié e analogues
Bethenod Joseph, Bouteille Joseph, Koehler Marcel
FR886071 04/10/1943 Systeme de carbonisation, de séchage et de torréfaction des bois, et dispositif pour la mis en oeuvre du systeme
Brisset Alfred
FR906950 25/02/1946 Procédé de traitement thermique des matiéres végétales en vue de leur séchage, torréfaction ou distillation
Manson Isak
8 | P a g e
FR933026 08/04/1946 Procédé d’obtention de combustibles, de lubrifiants et de produits divers à la aide de matières ligno-‐cellulosiques
FR953004 29/11/1949 Procédé de traitement du bois en vue de l‘ obtention, par agglomération, d produits moulés
Pinel Adrien
FR976640 20/03/1951 Procédé et installation pour le séchage, la torréfaction, la carbonisation, la distillation du bois, de la tourbe, et toutes autre matières
Dumesnil André
FR977529 02/04/1951 Procédé et Appareil pour séchage, torréfaction de bois ou autre matières ligneuses
Santenoy Gaston-‐Francisque
FR993131 26/10/1951 Perfectionnement apportés aux procédés de fabrication d’ agglomérés combustibles et aux appareils de moulage utilisés
Barrier Henri
FR55506E 01/09/1952 Perfectionnements aux fours à torréfié le bois
Bouteille Joseph
US 3950143 13/04/1976 Process for producing solid Industrial Fuel
Pyle
9 | P a g e
DE3041627 09/06/1982 Verfahren zum Aufbereiten von Zellulosehaltigen Biomassen bzw. Braunkohle und Lignit zu einem einheitlichen, stark reaktionsfähigem Staubförmigen Brennstoff
Greul Arthur Richard
FR2512053 01/09/1982 Process for the transformation of cellulosic material by roasting, and product obtained by said process
Schwob Yvan
DE3211590 13/10/1983 Process and equipment for the bertinisation of Biomass
Greul Arthur Richard
FR2525231
21/10/1983 Procédé de préparation d’un combustible de nature Lignoucellulosique et combustible obtenu
Schwob Yvan
US4787917 04/12/1986 Method for producing Torrefied wood, product obtained thereby, and application to the production of Energy
Leclerc de Bussy Jacques
FR2591611 01/01/1987 Thermally condensed ligno-‐cellulose material, process and oven for obtaining it
Bourgeois Jean-‐Paul
DE3721006 22/12/1988 Apperatus for low Temperatur pyrolysis of Biomass
Völskow Peter
FR2624876 23/06/1989 Methode and Device for the Torrefaction of Vegetable
Gerard Roger, Cimetiere Jean Paul
10 | P a g e
Ligneous Material
DE19614689 16/10/1997 Process and apparatus for de-‐oiling oil and grease containing materials
Bauknecht Maximilian, Lutze Hans
FR2757097 06/10/1999 Apparatus and process for the heat treatment of lignocellulosic material
Unternahrer Roland
Chautemps Cyrille
Bernon Jean-‐Pierre
FR9901718 01/27/2000 Reactor for wood retification Guillin Dominique;
FR2786426 02/06/2000 Method of thermal treatment of ligneous-‐ cellulose (wood) material with elimination of Oxygen in the gaseous phase
Bouvier Jean Yves
DE19932822 25/01/2001 Device for degassing organic materials, e.g. wood, comprises heated pyrolysis Chamber through which pyrolysis material is conveyed using screw conveyor from inlet side to outlet side
Hochreiter Johann
US2003221363 04/12/2003 Process and apparatus for making a densified, torrefied fuel
Reed Thomas
NL1025027 21/06/2005 Method and System for the torrefaction of materials
Bergman Peter
Christiaan Alber;
Boersma Arjen
11 | P a g e
Ragusa;
Zwart Robin Willem;
Rudolph
Kiel Jacob;
Hendrick Arnold
DE102004038730 23/02/2006 Roasting device for plant bulk material and method for operating a roasting device for plant bulk material
Lange Stephan;
Jansen Gerhard A;
Möller-‐Willenberg Uwe
NL1029909 09/03/2007 Werkwijze en inrichting voor het behandelen van Biomassa
Pels Jan Remmert;
Bergman Peter
Christiaan Alber
CN1935941 28/03/2007 Biomass graded temperature control slow pyrolysis process and it’s system
LV Fengjie Zhang
EP 1969099 09/07/2007 Process and device for treating Biomass
Bergman Peter
Christiaan Alber
US2007220805 27/09/2007 Method for producing a homogenous Biomass fuel for gasification applications
Leveson Philip D.;
Gaus Johann P.;
EP1852491 07/11/2007 Mild pyrolysis of carbon based energy carrier material
O’Connor Paul
12 | P a g e
US2007266623 22/11/2007 Method and apparatus for biomass torrefaction, manufacturing a storable fuel from biomass and producing offsets for the combustion products of fossil fuels and a combustible article of manufacture
Paoluccio John A
NL1032001 17/12/2007 Preparation by torrefaction of a solid fuel useful as fuel for coal-‐fired power plants, involves heating a starting composition comprising a secondary recovered fuel material indirectly at specific
mass temperature
Ruiters Gerard;
Hubert Joseph
EP2027233 21/12/2007 Method for the preparation of solid fuels by means of torrefaction as well as the solid fuels thus obtained and the use of those fuels
Ruiters Gerard;
Hubert Joseph
FR2903177 03/01/2008 Method and system for roasting a Biomass feedstock
Guyomarc H Raymond
CN201015789 02/06/2008 Energy saving type formwork torrefaction carriage
Guojiong Si
US20080223269 18/09/2008 Method and apparatus for biomass torrefaction using conduction heating
Paoluccio, John A
US20080263891 30/10/2008 Process for treating lignocellulosic material, and apparatus to carry out the same
Brunet Andre
13 | P a g e
EP1990399 12/11/2008 Method for the treatment of the empty fruit bunch (EFB) material of Palm Oil Trees, particulate torrefied EFB product and use of such product as auxiliary fuel in a power plan
Cox Constantijn
WO2009124286 10/08/2009 Autothermal and mobile torrefaction devices
Hopkins, Christopher B;
Johnson John E;
GB2009001672 07/07/2010 Microwave torrefaction of biomass
Budarin, Vitaliy, Lvovich;
Milkowsky, Krzysztof, Jakub;
Shuttleworth, Peter;
Lanigan, Brigid;
Clark, James, Hanley;
Macquarrie, Duncan, James;
Wilson, Ashley;
US20100083530 08/04/2010 System and method for drying and torrefaction
Weisselberg Edward;
Bevacqua Joseph;
Borre Robert
US20100101141 29/04/2010 Device and method for conversion of biomass to biofuel
Schulenberger Arthur M.;
Wechsler Mark;
14 | P a g e
The first ever known Patent is held by Albert Comte Dillon de Michero, but most modern Reactors are based on the work of Jacques Leclerc de Bussy, (Method for producing Torrefied wood, product obtained thereby, and application to the production of Energy).
The Energy Center of the Netherlands (ECN) is basing their technology on the patents by Peter Bergman; Agri-‐Tech Producers use a technology that is virtually identical to the patent by Roger Gerard, published in 1989, while Torr-‐Coal is using the process patented by Gerard Ruiters and Joseph Hubert. In early 2010, Wyssmont patented their Technology (US20100083530, Edward Weisselberg, Joseph Bevacqua & Robert Borre) by converting their Dryer into a torrefaction reactor, and earlier that same year the first patent for the torrefaction of biomass using Microwaves was published.
15 | P a g e
Definitive Description of Torrefied Biomass Pellets
One of the greatest areas of misunderstandings with respect to torrefied wood is exactly what torrefied wood is. There is a vast array of products that are promoted as TW, but very few that meet the needs of power stations. Much of the focus has been placed on the Technology, and very little attention or focus has been placed on the Product. As a consequence – virtually the entire product available today is less than perfect – in one or many ways.
Torrefied wood is completely desiccated biomass, with devolitilised hemicellulose, which has not yet reached the point of “char”. That is to say – that pyrolysis, in any form, has not yet commenced.
When the critical surface moisture content of the particle is reached, the evaporation is assumed to take place inside the particle in the moving front between dry and moist regions. In the next stage the surface temperature of the particle never exceeds the pyrolysis temperature. In this case, it means that the drying isotherm reaches the centre of the particle and vanishes before the pyrolysis isotherm appears at the particle surface.
It is fair to say that TW is best defined by its performance characteristics. There are 5 distinct aspects that separate it from natural wood, and from charcoal:
1) Calorific Value 2) Grindability 3) Hydrophobicity 4) Durability 5) Chemical Composition/Homogeneity
Each of the above solves one particular drawback that is problematic for Power Stations. By changing the Physical / Chemical properties of natural wood, a more suitable fuel is created. The Chemical and physical characteristics, and ultimately their suitability for co-‐combustion, need to meet a very narrow band of specifications. Below is one standard that is currently being utilised. Ultimately – the standard will be set by the Manufacturer’s of Torrefied Wood, as determined by one specific Utility. That is to say – there is no “Single” definition – as it is specific to the needs of the end-‐user.
16 | P a g e
Calorific Value
The essence of any fuel is the ability to be transported long distances. As most Countries are not blessed with endless supplies of feedstock, in close proximity to urban areas, fuel needs to have as high an energy density as possible, so that transport costs (whether by Road, rail or ship) are
17 | P a g e
minimised. Natural wood products (forest residues and crop residues) tend to be relatively light and “fluffy”, and have very low energy densities per unit volume.
The direct relationship between Moisture Content and Calorific Value are shown below.
Grindability
As the largest market for torrefied wood is for co-‐firing with coal, the Bio-‐Coal needs to exhibit properties with similar characteristics in terms of Handling and Grinding. Currently, most power
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 2 4 6 8
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%
Den
sity
kg/
m3
Net
cal
orifi
c va
lue
GJ/
t
Moisture content
Net calorific value of biomass vs. moisture content
Wood Net CV GJ/t
Miscanthus Net CV GJ/t Wheat straw Net CV GJ/t Hardwood density kg/m3 Softwood density kg/m3
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
Energy den
sity GJ/m3
Net CV GJ/t
Biomass energy by weight and volume
Wood Net CV GJ/t
Hardwood chip energy density GJ/m3
Sovwood chip energy density GJ/m3
18 | P a g e
stations burn biomass (as mandated under several Carbon Reduction commitments) either in very low ratios (5-‐7%) or by completely separate storage, handling, grinding and infeed systems. Ideally, Bio-‐Coal would have similar grinding characteristics to fossil coal, so that it could be processed in existing systems. The most important characteristic is Grindability.
The Hardgrove Grindability Index has been the empirical standard in determination of grindability since the 1930’s. It measures the relative grindability of coals, to be used in PCI burners. One of the difficulties with this testing procedure is that different Organisations methods produce commercially different results. The most significant of these differences is that values using ASTM procedure can be higher than values using AS procedure on the same sample. Nonetheless, it is a good comparative measure.
A better comparative measure is the relative grinding energy required to produce similar size particles to coal. Below is a graph showing the relationship between Torrefied Biomass and Coal:
This graph indicates the Specific Power consumption when milling biomass, dried biomass, torrefied biomass and coal. For torrefied biomass, the torrefaction temperature (230-‐270 °C) and the torrefaction time (32 min) are indicated between brackets. (1)
As you can see, Grindability of torrefied biomass is predominantly a function of process temperature. Once the feedstock has reached complete desiccation, and the hemicellulose had been completely devolitilised, any improvement in grindability sacrifices Energy balance as the Cellulose and lignin start to be affected.
19 | P a g e
The Hardgrove Grindability Index is also influenced by the % of volatile matter contained in the final product and raw material.
(Chart Courtesy BioTorTech)
Hydrophobicity
Hydrophobicity is a characteristic of Torrefied Biomass, which prevents it from absorbing moisture when stored outside. The mechanism of Hydrophobicity is a predominantly function of the Volatiles released during torrefaction. These include H2O, Organics, sugars, polysugars, acids, alcohols, furans, ketones, Lipids, terpenes, phenols, fatty acids, waxes, and tannin as liquid fractions; and H2, CO, CO2, CH4-‐ CxHy, toluene and benzene as gas fractions.
The main explanation for Hydrophobicity is that, by the destruction of many OH groups in the biomass through dehydration reactions, torrefied biomass has lost the capability to form hydrogen bonding with water. In addition, more unsaturated structures are formed which are non-‐polar. The low water content and the hydrophobic nature largely prevent the torrefied product from rotting.
Once the practical threshold has been reached (and this is +/-‐ 6% moisture uptake) there is little to no benefit to continuing the torrefaction reaction. The cost in terms of energy and mass loss far exceed the benefit of greater Hydrophobicity.
20 | P a g e
Durability
The third most important characteristic of Torrefied Biomass pellets is their durability. Again, this characteristic is a function of CV, but is also heavily affected by particle size. For fine powders, the number of contact points between particles is higher than it would be for large particles; furthermore, because the finer the powder, the larger it’s exposed surface area; the surface energy per unit weight also increases with the size reduction of the powder. In a study investigating the mechanical properties of pellets, it was concluded that particle size had a significant effect on the pellet density of all feedstocks except for wheat straw.
There is no doubt that an increase in applied pressure will increase the density; however, the mechanical strength of the pellets is not so easily predicted. Above an optimum pelletising pressure, fractures may occur in the pellets due to a sudden dilation. For a given die size and storage condition, there is a maximum die pressure beyond which no significant gain in cohesion (bonding) of the pellet can be achieved
Lignin is the natural binder (present in all woody biomass) and its concentration is increased during torrefaction, (to a point). When lignin melts (temperatures above 140°C) it exhibits thermosetting properties. There is a very well-‐defined temperature point (265° C), beyond which the lignin starts to devolitilise. Above this temperature, the lignin starts to devolitilise. By the time 300° C is reached, regardless of residence time, the lignin has all but completely disappeared, making it virtually impossible to pelletise the TW without binders.
There is a third factor that enters the equation – and that is Explosion safety in handling. These three aspects are diametrically opposed:
Smaller particle sizes create a more durable pellet (at any CV) – but increase the explosion hazard of the dust generated during handling.
Larger particle sizes become increasingly difficult to pelletise as CV increases; but create a lower explosion hazard, even though the durability is lower (and dust generation is higher).
Higher CV’s, combined with smaller particles create the most dangerous and unstable fuel. Lower CV’s; with a range of particle sizes provide the optimum solution.
Chemical Composition / Homogeneity
The fourth important characteristic of Torrefied Biomass is its Chemical Composition. While torrefaction does positively change the Chemical composition of raw biomass; there are some inorganic constituents that are unaffected. Two of the most problematic are the Elemental compounds Potassium and Chlorine.
Virtually all biomass contains these elements to one degree or another. Their concentration is highest in Leaves, needles and Bark. Herbaceous Biomass (Miscanthus, Reed Canary Grass, Elephant grass, etc) has significantly higher levels than “woody” biomass.
21 | P a g e
The potassium requirement for optimum plant growth is in the 1-‐5% dry matter weight range, depending on species, while the potassium concentration in mature plants generally does not exceed 2% of dry matter. Potassium is characterized by its high mobility in plants at all levels, including between individual cells, between tissues, and in long-‐distance transport within the plant.
Chlorine is a naturally abundant element and is taken up by plants in the form of chloride ion, Cl-‐. Chlorine in plants occurs mainly as a free anion or is loosely bound to exchange sites. Similar to potassium, chloride has high mobility within the plant, and average chlorine content in plants ranges from 0.2 -‐ 2.0% of dry plant weight.
Occurrence of inorganic constituents in biomass (% dry plant matter)
Constituent Occurrence (%)
Silica 0.5 -‐ 15%
Potassium (a) 1 – 2 %
Calcium (b) 0.1 -‐ 5.0%
Sulphur 0.1 – 0.5%
Chlorine 0.2 -‐ 2.0%
NOTES – (a) In young plant shoots, up to 5% potassium may be found, (b) in mature leaves, calcium might reach more than 10% (2)
Alkali in the ash of annual crop biomass fuels creates serious fouling and slagging in conventional boilers. Full-‐Scale Tests were undertaken at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (USA) to determine the extent, nature and occurrence of deposits formed from combustion of herbaceous Biomass. The Results were as follows:
Sintered or fused deposits were found on grates and in agglomerates in Fluidised Beds. Potassium Sulphates and Chlorides were found condensed on upper furnace walls where it mixed with fly ash. Convection tubes were coated with Alkali Chlorides, Carbonates and sulphates mixed with Silica and Alumina.
Needless to say – until such time as an aqueous (solvent) pre-‐treatment (post treatment) process can be designed, the utilisation of this feedstock will be avoided at high co-‐firing ratios.
Van Krevelen Diagram of Torrefaction
Bone Dry Agro-‐Biomass has an average composition of 42% cellulose, 33% hemicellulose, 22% lignin, 3% ash. The rest is predominantly fats. Compared to Bone Dry Wood-‐Forestry Biomass it differs mainly in higher ash content. Elemental non-‐torrefied biomasses have 45.1%C, 6.0%H, 48.5%O, 0.3%N, and 0.1%S. After Torrefaction (at 270C) the number of O and H atoms ratios is reduced, through reactions in the hemicellulose decomposition, to 56.5%C, 5.4%H, 36.1%O, 0.9%N and 0.1%S
22 | P a g e
Needless to say, during the torrefaction process the atomic ratio in biomass changes. Expressed in the of H/C and O/C, resulting value 0.95 H/C and 0.45 O/C (see below).
The Science of Torrefaction
Torrefaction, as a process, is relatively straight forward. It can be defined by a single equation:
Q = k ·∙ A ·∙ ΔT,
Where Q -‐ the amount of heat passing through the interface per unit time;
k – Heat transfer coefficient, [W/m2K];
A -‐ The heat transfer surface, [m2];
ΔT – Temperature gradient, [K] (3)
It is further defined by the following Graphic:
23 | P a g e
(4)
24 | P a g e
Finally – the process is defined by the following Graph:
(5)
Based on the above, it would appear that Torrefaction is a relatively slow and gradual process. In reality – there are two schools of thought on this.
1) That the process can be undertaken very rapidly, at the upper end of the torrefaction temperature regime. OR
2) That the process can be undertaken relatively slowly, at the lower end of the torrefaction temperature regime.
The choice of which process to undertake becomes, in reality, a question of the type and quality of the volatiles that are driven off. The current Torrefaction “leader” (Topell) has a system that undertakes the process in less than 2 minutes; at 300° C. this is currently the ONLY batch process that attempts to achieve this in such a short time period. The great challenge with this process is that it relies on relatively consistent particle shape and size to perform optimally. Devolatilisation is
25 | P a g e
affected by 2 aspects – Time and Temperature. However – these variables do not have the same effect. A large increase in time, for any given temperature, will have small effect. A large increase in temperature, for any given time, will have significant effect. There is the real risk of “over processing” some pieces and “under processing” others with such a rapid and harsh temperature / airflow regime. As these temperatures are well into the pyrolysis range – smaller particles are likely to be pyrolized, rather than torrefied.
On the other hand, a lower temperature (250° C) regime requires a much longer residence time (typically – 30 minutes) but has the net-‐effect of complete and thorough torrefaction – without the issue of pyrolysis being initiated. Essentially – once the particle reaches its torrefaction temperature – further devolatilisation does not continue. In this way – a broad range of feedstock shapes and sizes can be accommodated – without the concern for over or under processing.
The third factor that enters the equation is the relative amounts of condensable and non-‐condensable gasses that are evolved during torrefaction. It is well documented that the higher the temperature – the more “liquid” fraction is produced. As the entire process depends on the evolved combustible gasses to provide process energy – it is best to create as many combustible, non-‐condensable gasses as possible.
Each different feedstock has a different chemical make-‐up, and a very specific set of process parameters. Even wood chips of softwood differ enough from hardwood chips to require slight modifications in process parameters. (Mostly as a function of their relative Xylan content)
Economics of Torrefaction / Ultimate Product Cost
The generally accepted threshold for torrefaction Technology is €500,000.00 per tonne-‐hour of production capacity. That is to say – a 5 tonne per hour (40 kilotonne per year) reactor should cost no more than €2.5 million. This price is still significantly lower than the vast majority of Systems currently on the market. Of course – several other parameters affect the equation. These are:
1) Process efficiency. a. Energy consumption is a major cost in any pellet manufacturing process, and
represents up to 8% of the overall cost. The key to torrefaction – is to create a process that is able to utilise all of the energy driven off to feed the process. In a perfect world – this would require a supplemental energy of 10% of the feedstock to balance out the Energy requirements.
2) Feedstock Conversion / Cost. a. Many systems require 3 or even 4 tonnes of feedstock to produce 1 tonne of
finished product. (Although – at that level it is more likely Bio-‐Char rather than Bio-‐Coal). With free, or virtually free infeed product – this is of no consequence – however, the reality is that there is a cost associated with the feedstock, and long-‐
26 | P a g e
term supplies of low-‐cost feedstock will not be sustainable. As the demand for Biomass grows globally – upward pressure on prices will stabilise at “Commodity” values, rather than “Spot Market” values. Consequently – any supply chain that does not address this is destined to failure very rapidly. One only has to look at the initiatives being undertaken by RWE (Georgia); Electrabel (British Columbia); etc. to appreciate that access to feedstock, on a long-‐tem supply contract is one of the key ingredients to success.
3) Distance to market. a. One supply chain model (PGE – Boardman) specifies a Torrefaction facility close to
the point of consumption, utilising locally grown feedstock. The finished product is then utilised in the Power Plant, which is a short distance from the facility. This model certainly optimises the supply chain Logistics, and costs, which would allow for a more Capital Intensive installation.
b. A second supply chain model specifies sourcing low-‐cost feedstocks from Distant lands (South America; Australasia, etc.) and exploits the economic savings made through lower operating overheads and the increased mass and energy density of the finished product.
4) Operating costs. a. Operating costs (labour) represent less than 3% of the overall cost of production.
There is certainly a benefit to locating the facility in an area of lower wages and taxes, however – these typically carry the penalty of greater transport costs.
Generally Speaking – the cost breakdown for a supply chain from Southeast Asia to Europe is as follows: (Expressed as a percentage of finished product sell value)
Feedstock – 44% Transport – 21% Capital Cost / Carrying cost – 10% Operating Labour – 3% Utilities – 3% Royalties – 7% Other – 1% This provides for a gross margin of 10%, which is the minimum reasonable return that could be expected. Much has been said about the “value” of Torrefied Biomass. Prices range from the ridiculously low (<€100.00 per tonne) to the ridiculously high (>€400.00 per tonne). There are those that insist that “substitutionary” costs should be included in the value of Torrefied Fuel. That is to say – when considering the overall value – one needs to look at the savings made, through not spending huge sums on Material handling and storage facilities (as you would with whitewood pellets) as well as the “avoidance” of taxes and levy’s imposed as a consequence of not introducing a renewable fuel into the fossil fuel supply.
Certainly – there are significant benefits to torrefied Biomass, however – these are the Reasons for its desirability, and not justification to pay more than a baseline price. That is to say, no matter what,
27 | P a g e
Utility Companies will pay “Coal plus Carbon” value for the product. Otherwise – it is simply more economical to burn Coal, and pay the Environmental Levies; Renewable Obligation Levies, Climate Change Levies, etc.
In today’s market – That price is €165.00 per tonne, CIF ARA. This translates into a cost of +/-‐€7.00 per Gj. The current Market for Whitewood pellets (November, 2010) is €110.00 per tonne CIF, ARA (€6.21/Gj). This price is lower than the historical average – and reflects the current glut of product on the market. Inevitably – it will increase over time. Projections for 2011 indicate a level of €128.00/tonne (€7.23/Gj) for Whitewood pellets – which would be €165.00 for Torrefied Pellets.
Technology Developers / Promoters
Company Location Principal Website 4Energy Invest Belgium Yves Crits http://www.4energyinvest.com/
3R Agrocarbon Hungary Edward Someus http://www.3ragrocarbon.com/
Agri-‐Tech USA Joseph J. James http://www.agri-‐techproducers.com/
Alterna Biocarbon Canada Leonard Legault http://alternabiocarbon.com/
Airless Systems Latvia Duncan Kiel http://www.airless-‐systems.co.uk/
Argonaut Bioenergy USA Scott Dixon http://www.argonautbioenergy.com/s
ervices.html Biochar Engineering Corporation
USA Jim Fournier http://www.biocharsystems.com/
Biogreen Energy France Mr Olivier Lepez http://www.biogreen-‐energy.com/appli.html
Biomass Energy Holdings
USA Mr. Irwin Katso http://www.biomassenergyholdings.net/
Biomass Energy Resources
USA Charles Cotter http://www.biomassenergyresources.com/
BTG Netherlands http://www.btg-‐btl.com/index2.php
Canadian Bio-‐Coal Canada John Bennett http://canadian-‐biocoal.com/
Chemmeco Inc. Indonesia Tara FK http://cmc-‐indo.blogspot.com/ Cockerill Maintenance and Ingenierie
Didier Leboutte http://www.cmigroupe.com/nesa/fsol.html
CNF Biofuels USA John Paoluccio http://www.cnfbiofuel.com/
Cree Industries USA John Olsen http://www.creeind.com/
DGEngineering Germany Klaus Limberg http://www.dgengineering.de/Rotary-‐
28 | P a g e
Kiln-‐Processes-‐Torrefication.html Earth Care USA Andrew
Livingston http://www.ecpisystems.com/wcms/index.php?Torrefaction
EBES AG /Andritz Austria Michael Wild http://www.ebes.at/
ECN Netherlands J. H. A. Kiel http://www.ecn.nl/home/
EcoFuels USA Allen Sharpe http://ecofuelsinc.net/about/
Foxcoal Netherlands Walter
Nonnekes http://www.foxcoal.nl/
G & R Technology Group
Germany Reinhard Lehner http://www.grgmbh.de/
Gazprom / International Forest Products
Thailand Adrian Boodt http://www.gazprom-‐mt.com/
Hi-‐Tech Agro India Abhay Khater http://www.hitechagro.org/default.aspx
HM3 USA Hiroshi Morihara
http://hm3e.com/index.php
IFP France Jean-‐Pascal Dejean
http://www.ifp.com/l-‐ifp/l-‐ifp-‐en-‐bref
Integro Earth Fuels USA Walt Dickenson http://www.integrofuels.com/
International Torrefaction Systems
USA http://internationaltorrefaction.com/
J F Biocarbon Canada John Flottvik http://cmc-‐indo.blogspot.com/2010/07/jf-‐biocarbon-‐carbon-‐chemmeco-‐from.html
Key Flame USA Jacob Rheuben http://www.keyflame.com/
Lantec / Idema Spain D. Roman Monasterio Larrinaga
http://www.lantec-‐ing.com/
Magnolia BioPower LLC USA John Swan http://www.magnoliabiopower.com/ Matric -‐ Mid Atlantic Technology Research and Innovation Centre
USA http://www.cpac.washington.edu/Activities/SI/SI10/Presentations/Tuesday/Pauley_SI_2010.pdf http://www.matricresearch.com/
New Biomass Energy USA Irwin Katso http://www.newbiomass.com/ New Earth Renewable Energy
USA Ahava Amen http://www.newearth1.net/
Renewable Fuel Technologies
USA Mark Wechsler http://renewablefueltech.wordpress.com/
29 | P a g e
River Basin Energy USA Dianne Wyss http://www.riverbasinenergy.com/
Rotawave UK Bob Rooney http://www.rotawave.com/
Sea2Sky Corporation USA Eric Odeen http://www.sea2skyenergy.com/
Spirajoule France http://www.spirajoule.com/
Stramproy-‐Green Netherlands Ijsbrand Galema http://www.stramproy.nl/
SubCoal Netherlands Mohammed Nafid
http://www.qlyte.com/
SunCoal Germany http://www.suncoal.de/en/home/ Terradyne Energy USA Mark Lowe http://terradyneenergy.com/ready.sw
f
Terra Green Energy USA Thomas Causer http://www.terragreenenergy.com/
Thermogen Industries USA Bob Payne http://thermogenind.com/index.html
Thermya SA France Herve Chauvin http://www.thermya.com/en/index_thermya.php?id=6#
TK Energi AS Denmark Thomas Koch http://www.tke.dk/TKE_simple.asp?p
ageid=99 Topell Netherlands Ewout
Maaskant http://www.topell.nl/
Torkapparater AB Sweden Ulf Bojner http://www.torkapparater.se/
Torrcoal Netherlands Roger Ruiters http://www.torrcoal.com/
Torrsys / Bepex USA Kevin Grotheim http://www.torrsys.com/
Transnational Technologies
USA James Arcate http://www.techtp.com/
Vega Promotional Systems
USA Michael K. Molen
www.vegabiofuels.com
Verdant Energy Solutions
USA Chris Pollatos http://www.verdantenergysolutions.com/
30 | P a g e
4Energy Invest
“4Energy Invest is a Belgian based renewable energy company that aims at creating and managing a portfolio of small to middle-‐sized locally embedded projects that valorise biomass, directly or indirectly, into energy.
The core business of 4Energy Invest consists in turning non-‐contaminated wood biomass, which are at their end-‐of-‐life in the forestry sector, into energy, either directly through cogeneration to generate heat and electricity, or indirectly through torrefaction to produce renewable solid fuels such as BioCoal.”
4Energy Invests’ current operations relied heavily on the commercialisation of the Stramproy Green Technology for their operations. In June 2010, after failing to Commission the Torrefaction Reactor at Amel, the EPC Contract with S/G was terminated. 4Energy are now looking for a solution.
3R Agrocarbon
“The 3R Environmental Technology Group is a Swedish initiative in technology Research, technical Development and industrial Engineering for the management of products & Services for Eco-‐Industry and Agriculture in the rapidly developing and growing EU and USA Bio-‐Economy and Eco-‐Industrial Markets.
The 3R Technology is one of the world leaders in applied scientific development and industrial engineering design of thermal desorption, pyrolysis and low temperature carbonisation technologies.”
This technology is Pyrolysis, and not torrefaction, as it applies to the production of Power Station fuels.
Agri-‐Tech
“Agri-‐Tech are manufacturing torrefaction machines, through our partnership with Kusters Zima Corporation (KZC), and are both selling such equipment to a variety of customers, as well as deploying torrefaction equipment in projects of their own and in certain joint-‐ventures.
In addition to producing and selling torrefaction equipment, ATP intends to develop and operate a few torrefaction-‐based processing plants, in conjunction with key strategic partners. ATP intends to become involved in the planting and harvesting of high-‐density bio-‐crops, which can be treated by its torrefaction process. In addition, ATP will continue to explore the creation of mobile torrefaction equipment, thanks to a grant from the U. S. Department of Energy, as well as explore ways in which its torrefaction process can promote economic development and job creation in distressed rural
31 | P a g e
communities. ATP can also produce a biochar, for soil enhancement purposes, and a cooking fuel, for the Third-‐World, which can reduce de-‐forestation pressures.”
ATP has demonstrated technology developed at North Carolina State University by Dr. Chris Hopkins. It is based on a Multi-‐screw feeder, encased inside a second heating chamber. Hot air circulating through the outer chamber heats the inner chamber walls – where the wood chips come in contact with it, causing the torrefaction reaction.
At 40% moisture content (raw feedstock) the Reactor requires 3 tonnes (or more) of raw biomass to produce 1 tonne of torrefied wood. This results in a conversion efficiency of 55.5% (1.8 BDT feedstock generates 1 BDT Torrefied Wood). At this conversion rate – only the lowest cost feedstock would allow for financial viability. At average “market rates” ($50.00/BDT) the feedstock cost would be virtually 100% of the finished fuel value – i.e. $150.00/tonne ex works. Estimated cost for the Torrefaction system is US$3 Million for 5 tonnes per hour.
Argonaut Bioenergy
“Argonaut was founded in 2006 to address an extreme supply and demand imbalance present within the wood pellet industry. Despite nearly one million tons of additional capacity coming online in the past 3 years, this imbalance still exists.”
Argonaut Bioenergy has been very active in the development of whitewood pellets, and is currently including torrefaction in their R&D Efforts. To date, there is no indication of Commercial Installation Development.
Atmosclear / Airless Systems
“Airless Systems offers a range of industrial services that include torrefaction, carbonization and airless drying. Torrefaction is the process by which an object is dried off using heat, removing volatile materials in it simultaneously. The torrefaction process by Airless Systems can be used in the production of BioCoal.
BioCoal, an enhanced wood fuel, can be used for home, industrial and commercial applications. It can be used along with pulverized coal for the generation of electricity. With the help of the torrefaction technique utilized by Airless Systems, a moisture content of 3 per cent can be achieved. The BioCoal produced retains 90 per cent of its original energy and has a 30 per cent reduction in its overall mass. The heating value of the BioCoal has been calculated at 22,560kJ/kg.
The BioCoal from Airless Systems can be utilized as a feedstock for the production of other biofuels. Municipal and local grids can use it for the generation of electricity through a direct gasification method. For applications in the home, commercial and industrial sectors, the BioCoal is used in the form of pellets or briquettes. An advantage of this product is that it can be pulverized according to the requirements of the application.”
32 | P a g e
Atmosclear Airless Systems are currently building a reactor in Latvia. Like most other developers – they are struggling with the issue of tar evolution, and have approached this by engaging the “best Flue-‐gas management Company in the World”. Undoubtedly this strategy will ultimately succeed in producing the desired end product. However – the economics of such a system may make the costs prohibitive.
Biochar Engineering Corporation
“BEC founders include one of the world's preeminent experts on biomass gasification and our CEO has been in biochar for over five years. We understand the full spectrum of thermal conversion approaches from torrefaction, pyrolysis, updraft and downdraft gasification to fluidized beds and fast pyrolysis.”
As their information states, they are experts in the field of Pyrolysis and Bio-‐Char. Their main focus is on transportable (Containerised) systems, to be implemented on a decentralised basis. The Technology is classic pyrolysis, and would not be suitable for Torrefaction, as the Feedstock conversion rate puts it out of the realm of economic sensibility.
Biogreen Energy
“Biogreen can be used for biomass torrefaction, among other treatments. Torrefaction is one of the ways to create densification of the energy contained within a product. Treatment is achieved within a few minutes at 200°C to 300°C in an anaerobic environment. Biomass will lose weight (around 30%), and become crumbly. This prepares it to be crushed or gasified. Torrefaction also produces a more homogeneous product, with a low hygroscopicity that is easy to store.”
Biogreen uses the “Spirajoule” pyrolysis technology. This is essentially a screw auger inside an enclosed Pipe, which has a heat-‐exchanger on the jacket. The Pyrolysis Gasses are condensed into Bio-‐Oil for further manufacturing. There is no recirculation of the non-‐condensable fraction of the Tor-‐Gas, and the system would be quite Energy Demanding.
Biomass Energy Holdings
“New Biomass Energy is a green energy developer that focuses on high quality renewable energy opportunities that offer immediate contributions to the green economy. The Company’s focus is on torrefaction of wood to be used by coal burning power plants to supplement the coal and thereby enhance the green aspects of the plants.
New Biomass Energy’ current developments include torrefaction processing plants in southeast United States and Canada. Working with local governmental authorities and premier engineers and
33 | P a g e
advisers as well as utilizing capital markets financing has brought these projects in to the early development stage. Based upon current plans the first of the torrefaction lines should be in operation by the third quarter of 2010.”
BEH appears to be a Company involved in the development of Torrefaction systems, but there is little information available to substantiate their Operations. Their website links to an article in the University of North Carolina’s newsletter – that speaks about UNC wanting to use torrefied wood as a substitute for coal. As Dr. Chris Hopkins (The developer of the Agri-‐tech system) is faculty at the University – it would be reasonable to assume that there is a connection between the two.
Biomass Energy Resources
“Biomass Energy Resources produces an environmentally friendly coal substitute suitable for consumption by existing and new coal-‐based power generation facilities. As an environmentally friendly coal substitute, BER BioCoal produced in volume will set the standard for biomass-‐based "clean coal."
Our product will enable power generation clients to: Preserve and extend the life of their coal fired plant assets Avoid the carbon tax under a Carbon Cap & Trade system Meet the renewable energy generation mandates BER will provide BioCoal samples as well as Proximate, Ultimate, and Ash Chemistry analyses upon request to prospective power generation clients.”
To date, we have been unable to acquire any samples of product, or substantiate any claims made with respect to operations.
BTG
“BTG develops technology for the conversion of a wide range of biomass feedstocks into a wide range of useful products. These technologies are in different stages of development ranging from R&D activities to commercial application.”
BTG/BTL is a fast pyrolysis Company that focuses on the conversion of Biomass to Liquids and Gaseous products. Although they do promote Torrefaction, there is little indication of any Operating Plants or Pilot / Commercial Scale installations.
34 | P a g e
Canadian Bio-‐Coal
“Canadian Bio-‐Coal are involved in the preparation of high-‐grade biochar through the controlled, low temperature microwave activation of bug killed wood and waste materials providing an emission free technology for the production of bio-‐mass char, marketing and transportation services.”
This company is based on the Rotawave Torrefaction Technology, which was developed at the University of York by Dr. James H Clark (http://www.yorkshireconcept.org/downloads/Case%20Studies/CP5274%20-‐%20YC_A0%20Poster_Ref%2020_Conversion_York_V3.pdf).
Thus far, only a 1 kg laboratory test unit has been operated. From a technical point of view – the idea that you can use electricity to heat wood particles; initiate the pyrolysis reactions; reclaim the Tor-‐Gas to clean and then combust in a boiler to make steam; which is then used to turn a turbine to make electricity; to generate the microwaves for the process seems quite inefficient.
The fact of the matter is that regardless of the source, a specific amount of input energy is necessary to undertake the reaction. In addition, conversion rates from thermal to electric are relatively low (30% or so). As a consequence, we believe that this technology will be simply too expensive and energy inefficient to gain wide acceptance and implementation. (Even if the residual heat is recycles to pre-‐dry the feedstock)
Chemmeco Inc.
“Chemmeco, Inc is the representative of JF BioCarbon, Ltd, Canada to market the continuous pyrolysis technology and business systems for Indonesia and Southeast Asia Region. Chemmeco, Inc is a company that concerns in the field of renewable energy with continuous pyrolysis technology.”
Although Chemmeco call their finished product Bio-‐Coal, it is much closer to Bio-‐Char (Charcoal). (See – J F Biocarbon)
Cockerill Maintenance and Ingenierie
“The carbonisation process involves the production of fine quality charcoal from biomass. It is based on the decomposition of organic matter into volatile matter and fixed carbon (char). The NESA Multiple Hearth Furnace consists of a series of circular hearths placed one above the other and enclosed in a refractory-‐lined steel shell. A vertical rotating shaft through the centre of the furnace carries arms with rabble blades which stir the charge and move it in a spiral path across each hearth. Material is fed to the top hearth, and rabbled across it to pass through drop holes to the hearth below. It passes in this way over and across each hearth to the bottom where the product is discharged through one or more ports. Heated gases flow counter-‐currently to heat the charge to reaction temperature and to carry out the desired reaction.”
35 | P a g e
This technology, in many respects, is the same as Wyssmont. While the transfer mechanism (from tray to tray) varies between the two, the conceptual design is essentially the same. It is unlikely that this system will realize Commercial Viability as the Nature of the Torrefaction Process requirements (temperature regimes) will inevitably lead to significant tar accumulation inside the reactor.
CNF Biofuels
“Inventive Resources, Inc. is in the design and development stages of building a pilot biomass torrefication processing plant. Current design is for laboratory size production rates for testing and evaluation. Later pilot designs include production rates or 3 tons per hour and up to one ton of processed fuel per minute.”
We don’t understand the somewhat confusing statement on their Home Page. One tonne of processed fuel per minute would be 31.5 Million tonnes per year. (This is quite a claim)
The first issue with this technology is that it is based on starting with Already Pelletised material. These pellets are then put through an Immersion process, in a hot paraffinic liquid to undertake the torrefaction process. It is claimed that “The biomass composition continues to take in heat without a change in temperature”. Other than this defies the basic laws of both thermodynamics and kinetics – it is contrary to the basic torrefaction process. The point is – that it is the Δt (Change in temperature) that causes torrefaction. After torrefaction, their process then involves Grinding the Torrefied Pellets; Running them through a Gasifier; cleaning the syngas; (a portion of which is recycled for process energy); and finally burning them in a Gas Turbine to make Electricity. They also state that their product can be densified to “70 pound per cubic foot”. This translates into 1126 kg/m3 – and is significantly higher (by 40%) than accepted industry standards for the BEST pellets.
We do not know how much of the process relies on the feedstock already being pelletised (flow-‐ability characteristics – for example) but if this is a mandated requirement – then this system will be quite inefficient, both in terms of cost and Energy Balance.
Cree Industries
“Cree Industries is a Native American owned and operated manufacturer of biomass log extrusions and an exporter of biomass manufacturing and shaping equipment.
With over 400 manufacturing sites located throughout the U.S. and Canada, Cree is positioned to supply clean & attractive fireplace logs throughout North America.”
Cree Industries is a start-‐up Company in the Torrefaction Realm. They are currently looking at available technologies, and have plans to build a Large Commercial Facility in Florida in the Future. Their business is based on the Sales of Briquette presses, which produce a variety of products.
36 | P a g e
DGEngineering
“Our network provides a lot of experiences in design, manufacturing and operating of rotary kiln pyrolysis plants. Our rotary kiln pyrolysis plants are as (wild) pigs are omnivores and give a lot of solutions for simultaneous disposal of hazardous waste and supporting with energy. Suggestive and economic is this technology with mono-‐fractions (like PE, PET, Reifen, PVC, Tetra-‐Pack-‐Fluff, Kabelreste ...). In this case you got by using the correct parameters one or more sellable products.” The Primary focus of the DG Engineering system is the output of energy (Steam, Hot Water, warm air etc.) rather than Bio-‐Coal. Their Technology is an externally heated rotary kiln, which transfers heat to the biomass by convection. This system is unlikely to be suitable for Commercial Bio-‐Coal production.
Earth Care
“Earth Care Products, Inc. provides Engineered Biomass Solid Fuels (EBSF) plant. An EBSF plant is analogous to a refinery as it produces multiple biomass-‐derived fuel types, meeting the specifications of the end user while optimizing process efficiency. We conducted the nation's first and largest test burn of torrefied wood in a coal-‐fired power plant. ECPI's torrefied wood fuel is "ACTOF." Torrefied wood is the answer to the need for a reliable alternate renewable fuel.” The greatest issue with their claims is that their website promotes “their” equipment to undertake torrefaction; the product used in the “nation’s first test burn” was manufactured at a charcoal facility (Garnet wood Products in Brandsville) using a vertical, 4-‐hearth Charcoal Kiln. The other issue with this burn was that the product cost US$29,000.00 for 50 tonnes (US$580.00 per tonne). Since this highly publicized event in August 2009, no further developments have come from this Company. Having reviewed all of the data for this Company’s product, we conclude that it is charcoal – and not torrefied wood.
EBES AG /Andritz
“EBES AG was founded in 2004 and is a leading supplier of bio fuels on the world market. No matter what fuel they need, solid or liquid, we find a solution for you and deliver wherever you wish.
EBES AG is a partner for both one-‐time deliveries and for long-‐term supply contracts with a precise delivery schedule.”
In conjunction with Andritz (A large Pelletisation Equipment Manufacturer) EBES are developing a Torrefaction system that incorporates a rotary-‐Kiln design. Their focus is on the mass / Energy
37 | P a g e
balance of the process, and they are including Tor-‐gas recycling in their system. The Pilot plant is currently being built and tested in Austria, and will be coming on-‐line by Q4, 2010.
By all accounts – this is one to watch.
ECN
“ECN develops high-‐level knowledge and technology for a sustainable energy system and transfers them to the market.”
It could be argued that ECN are the premiere research / development Organisation in the world with respect to Torrefaction. Virtually all of the Current Technologies being developed are based on the work of the two principal scientists (Jaap Kiel and P. C. A. Bergman).
Earlier this year, ECN signed a cooperation agreement with Vattenfall / Nuon to build a “Demonstration” Commercial Reactor. This development will lay the foundations for the Commercialisation of Future Reactors worldwide.
The technology meets the 4 basic requirements of a Torrefaction reactor:
1) Economic Affordability 2) Flexibility (of feedstock) 3) Durability 4) Simplicity
Undoubtedly – this technology (and others like it) will be the ones that achieve the most success in the future.
EcoFuels
“The company has been engaged in the development of its torrefication technology for the past year. This period of research and development has enabled the Company to develop the most energy efficient process and commercially viable torrefication technology in the world.”
EcoFuels is a development Company that purchase a patented technology from the Estate of the Canadian Inventor. They have undertaken preliminary engineering and construction of a pilot plant. Essentially – the technology is identical to the Agri-‐Tech Reactor (which was developed at the University of North Carolina)
In addition, they are investigating the opportunity to partner with a large Engineering Firm (AMEC) to engineer and design / construct a commercial reactor.
The conversion Ratio of their machine is stated at 2.5 tonnes input per 1 tonne of output. Reactor Cost is estimated at US$5.7 million for 100 kilotonne per year output.
38 | P a g e
Foxcoal “New energy resources in stabbing, materials and manpower. Or, re-‐use in the broadest sense. It is important to us at FoxCoal. So we give a new dimension to the concept of recycling. FoxCoal claim the domain of Joules Recycling. Recycling Joules with the high calorific content of the residues used where the material itself does not recycle. With FoxCoal technique we are able to get everything out of it what's inside, by making full use of the energy we contribute to a cleaner world in which efficiency is produced. Well so green!” (Note – this is a literal translation from the Original Dutch) FoxCoal is a Netherlands Company that took the “least Cost” approach to develop their technology. Their intent is to incorporate “widely used and proven technologies” to construct their commercial operation. By all accounts – it is one of only 2 commercial torrefaction systems currently operating.
G & R Technology Group
“In 2010 the time is ripe. In Regenstauf, Bavaria, the first plant for a CO₂-‐neutral coal extraction in accordance with a biomass conversion process called HTC (hydrothermal carbonization) will be built. GreenCoal or vegetable coal is an alternative to biogas; windmills etc. The calorific value of GreenCoal corresponds to the energetic characteristics of brown coal.”
As their Abstract says, they utilise the Hydrothermal Carbonisation process (very similar results to torrefaction) as their primary technology. This process was developed at the Max Planck institute, http://www.mpikg.mpg.de/english/cont_issues/news/index.html and is one of the competing and complementary technologies to Torrefaction.
Gazprom
“Gazprom Marketing & Trading (GM&T) is a UK-‐registered wholly-‐owned subsidiary of Gazprom Group, the world's largest gas company. GM&T was created to optimise Gazprom’s energy commodity assets and downstream expansion through its global marketing and trading network. GM&T has the full benefit behind it of a huge gas reserves base, transportation network and intellectual capital.”
There has recently been a lot of “hype” created about a facility in Thailand that the UK Biomass Manager for Gazprom has created. In spite of repeated requests for samples, and offers to purchase large volumes of product – nothing was forthcoming. It would appear that this is currently little more than just building excitement in the Marketplace. None of the claims made could be substantiated.
39 | P a g e
Hi-‐Tech Agro
“What distinguishes Hi-‐tech Agro from other manufacturers is their understanding of the technology and ability to supply integrated waste processing plants rather than just the individual equipments.
The experience with Hi-‐tech Agro has till date been a good one.”
The only reference to Torrefaction is a notice that Mr. AK Khater would be presenting a paper on “Torrefaction and Densification: The Pursuit of Optimal Fuel Quality” at the International Bioenergy Conference & Expo 2010.
The company has a long history and a large number of installations worldwide of briquetting systems for biomass feedstocks.
HM3
“HM3 Energy has developed a proprietary process to turn biomass into clean fuel to replace coal in coal-‐fired power plants. Existing power plants designed to burn coal can co-‐fire biomass with coal, or directly use torrefied biomass in place of coal, drastically reducing carbon and other harmful emissions such as mercury, sulphur and nitrous oxides.”
HM3 are a Government supported and funded organisation that are working on Commercialisation of Torrefaction. Currently – a US$241,000.00 Grant will be used to develop a pilot plant. Their Product is marketed under the Brand “TorrB”. They have undertaken trial co-‐firing tests (although – it was only with a few kilograms of product) which were very successful. Very little is known about this technology, and the developer is unwilling to publish any information.
IFP
“IFP is working with some of the largest utilities in Europe to develop innovative supply chain relationships to source traditional and new biomass feedstock and accredited liquid bio oils. In an immature but rapidly developing marketplace, IFP aims to achieve sustainable and dependable supply of consistent quality product to meet customer needs within the framework of government legislation. IFP is able to supply biomass for industrial co-‐firing; regional combined heat and power projects (CHP), and Energy Service Company (ESCO) concepts for residential heat and power schemes.”
International Forest Products promote, on their website, “torrefied Wood Pellets” as one of the commodities they handle. At this point, although they have undertaken some research; they have not developed a technology, either on their own, or in conjunction with a technology Partner. They do not have any commercial quantities of Torrefied wood available, and are not likely too in the foreseeable future.
40 | P a g e
Integro Earth Fuels
“Integro Earth Fuels has done extensive work with UK and South-‐eastern US utilities and combined heat-‐and-‐power users presenting test materials and the merits of torrefied biomass. The company is finalizing design of its first commercial facility and is in the process of bringing it online. That facility will have initial capacity to produce up to 50,000 tons annually. Currently, Integro is finalizing off-‐take agreements with European utilities to provide them with a majority of IEF’s supply beginning in 2010. IEF will build 10 additional facilities over the next 6 years to meet the demand from coal-‐fired electricity producers.”
Integro was one of the first Companies to announce that they have “the World’s First Commercial Torrefaction Reactor” in November of 2008. In fact – what they had was a pilot scale Wyssmont “Turbo-‐Dryer”. The test facility operated for over a year, and the Pilot Scale reactor was then returned to Wyssmont. During that time, they were unsuccessful in their Development programme and, as of yet, have not constructed a Commercial Scale facility. There are however, other Companies promoting the Wyssmont Technology as “proven”, but this remains to be seen.
International Torrefaction Systems
“International Torrefaction Systems supplies torrefied wood production solutions worldwide. Our goal is to provide the means for the generation of responsible renewable energy. We believe in providing renewable and conscientious energy solutions today, while continuing to evolve for the future.”
Other than a very basic website, there is little information available about this Company. The only information that it provides is an address:
4320 Green Pl
Wilson, WY 83014 USA
J F Biocarbon
“JF BioCarbon-‐Chemmeco is a sustainable, renewable solution for today's organic waste problems:
-‐Fully integrated, self-‐powered, self contained waste management system
-‐Revolutionary continuous process pyrolysis technology converts organic material into marketable products including biochar, torrefied wood, biooil and syngas
-‐Maintain carbon dioxide neutral emission JF BioCarbon Carbon-‐Chemmeco a private company, offer an innovative, environmentally friendly waste management system with a simple solution to world
41 | P a g e
ecology and economy. The easy to operate, low maintenance, cost effective system does not dispose of, but converts organic residue to sellable products.”
The JF Biocarbon processor started out as a Bio-‐Char production system has been apparently “converted” into a torrefaction system. Unfortunately – the two processes are so significantly different, that it is highly unlikely. Certainly – the Machine can make Bio-‐Char, but this is yet another example of the promoters “muddying the waters” between Bio-‐Coal and Bio-‐Char. As a small processing unit – it is on par with the Agri-‐Tech Equipment, and mostly suitable for “in field” operations.
Key Flame
After a few months of web presence, that included links to various torrefaction articles in the press; Keyflame’s website seems to have disappeared. It would appear, at least for the time being, that they have left the torrefaction realm.
Lantec / Idema
Lantec / Idema are a Spanish Engineering Group. In September of 2009, they purchased a non-‐exclusive license to build a 2.5 tonne per hour TORSPYD™ reactor. There was a tremendous amount of Press and Presence when the deal was signed, however -‐ As of the date of publication (December 2010) – there has been no further progress reports issued. Our understanding is that it has taken this long to receive planning consent for the facility, and that Construction will begin in Q4, 2010. This is one to watch.
Matric
“The Mid-‐Atlantic Technology, Research and Innovation Centre are a group of about 150 staff, including research scientists and engineers. It was formed after the Downsizing of a Union Carbide Facility. MATRIC has a focus on developing intellectual properties for commercial and industrial customers and adding value throughout the technical services, research, development, engineering and commercialization processes.”
This organisation has designed large pyrolysis systems, and a 100,000 tonne per year torrefaction system, specifically tailored to produce torrefied pellets for the European Market. The basic principle of their reactor is the same as ECN and Thermya – that is – a gravity fed, counterflow, packed bed reactor. Although there are few details, one could reasonably assume that the configuration is similar to their “Cascading Baffle Pyrolysis Reactor”.
42 | P a g e
At an anticipated cost of US$12 Million for a 40 kt output – it is well above the realm of economic reality; however – this will change with economies of scale.
New Biomass Energy
“New Biomass Energy is a green energy developer that focuses on high quality renewable energy opportunities that offer immediate contributions to the green economy. The Company’s focus is on torrefaction of wood to be used by coal burning power plants to supplement the coal and thereby enhance the green aspects of the plants.
New Biomass Energy’ current developments include torrefaction processing plants in southeast United States and Canada. Working with local governmental authorities and premier engineers and advisers as well as utilizing capital markets financing has brought these projects in to the early development stage. Based upon current plans the first of the torrefaction lines should be in operation by the third quarter of 2010”.
If this Company has undertaken any actual development of a torrefaction system – then it is one of the best kept secrets in the torrefaction World. Attempts to find a Phone Number or email address have been unsuccessful, and enquiries sent through their web form have gone unanswered. The Managing Director is a Billionaire Rabbi with international business holdings.
New Earth Renewable Energy
“NewEarth Renewable Energy is a privately held, Seattle-‐based, renewable energy company. We have a proprietary technology, Ecological Pyrolysis-‐Torrefaction (EPT) that fully taps the potential in biochar. Through this technology, we produce two renewable, carbon-‐negative alternatives to fossil fuel: biochar (E-‐Coal), and bio crude oil (E-‐Oil). Unlike most fuels of the future, ours are ready for global deployment today.”
If ever there was an award for “Smooth Talking and Fast Walking” then this Company would win it hands down. 18 Months ago it started promoting its product (Bio-‐Coal) under the name “Eco-‐Pyro Torrefaction”. Then – it decided that it had transcended “old fashioned” torrefaction – which made only “one” product – for its NEW “Ecological Pyrolysis-‐Torrefaction” that gives you “three” products.
In reality – this process is ANYTHING but new. It is based on a Canadian Pyrolysis Technology (Pyrovac) that was mothballed several years ago. Unfortunately – the physical plant has been subsequently cannibalised, and isn’t anywhere near operational status.
The shift from Torrefied Pellets to Bio-‐Char is just the most recent transition of the Companies “appearance” after being exposed in the Torrefaction world.
43 | P a g e
Renewable Fuel Technologies
“Renewable Fuel Technologies is an energy company that sells carbon neutral solid fuel – BioCoal – to coal plants that have existing power purchase agreements.
The company has the proprietary technology and engineering expertise to develop BioCoal processing equipment that can be mass produced from commercially available materials and processes.”
RFT appears to be yet another Company that is long on Hype – and short on substance. Their “systems” consist of assembling “BioCoal processing equipment that can be mass produced from commercially available materials and processes.” Every attempt to do this in the past has resulted in failure. There is no reason to believe that this will be any different.
River Basin Energy
“River Basin Energy, Inc. is headquartered in Denver, Colorado and was founded in 2008. The company is commercialising its process for biomass and low rank coal and is venture backed by Emerald Technology Ventures, a global cleantech investor based in Toronto and Zurich.”
Being backed by a Large Clean-‐Tech Fund certainly has its advantages, especially when that Fund has direct connections to a Utility like Ontario Power Generation. They have a Demonstration Plant that is operating in Wyoming, and has, according to reports, “successfully dehydrated a variety of raw feed coals and biomass chips”. Their Demonstration unit processes 200 Kilograms per hour, and they are currently accumulating volumes of torrefied product for testing. They are “adapting” their 10,000 ton per year coal processing plant to handle biomass. This Company is also previously marketed under the name “FMI NEW COAL” http://www.fmifuel.com/index.html
Rotawave
“Rotawave was established in the UK in 2002 as an SME. The company specializes in the creation and development of new technology for producing added value products and energy from a wide variety of solid organic wastes and low value feedstocks. The new technology is based on continues feed, flexible microwave processes. Current business activities include the treatment and recovery of valuable products from drilling muds from oil feeds. Achievements include the development and commercialisation of a new smokeless fuel manufacturing operation, expanding the new business to a turnover of £1.5 million per annum in 3 years. “
To produce the bio-‐coal, the company will use the Rotawave Targeted Intelligent Energy System (TIES), which is a patented, microwave-‐based, closed, continuous feed process, developed and owned by the UK-‐based Energy Environmental Group. TIES is used for the low-‐energy, high-‐volume torrefaction of forest and other biomass. The closed system process generates limited emissions.
44 | P a g e
The total production of bio-‐coal will amount to about 120,000 tonnes/year and is already pre-‐sold to an international broker. It’s estimated that up to 500,000 cubic-‐metres/year of fibre will be required for the facility.
At first glance, the Rotawave Technology appears to make infinite sense. After all, Microwaves are a very efficient way to impart energy into a moisture containing solid. The issue however – is that the process converts energy several times to maintain its energy balance. In effect; Biomass is heated by Microwaves, which produces Volatiles, which are burned, to make steam, to drive a generator, to power the microwave unit. We believe that this technology will go the way of the Microwave / Vacuum Kiln that was to be the “next” generation of Lumber and timber drying. In addition, at an average feedstock price of £25.00 per tonne, and a conversion ration of 4.16:1, this puts the final product out of the realm of commercial reality, for anything other than free or very low-‐cost feedstock. After much press earlier on this year, about a new facility in Terrace BC, all has gone quiet.
Sea2Sky Corporation (Not to be confused with Sea2Sky Energy UK Ltd.)
“Sea 2 Sky Corp. (OTCBB: SSKY) is a development-‐stage renewable bio-‐energy company headquartered in Seattle, Washington. The Company’s primary focus is to deliver alternative energy solutions to Fortune 1000 companies, governmental agencies and countries around the globe. Sea 2 Sky intends to be a manufacturer of biomass energy products for industrial use in North America and Western European countries as a fuel and energy alternative.”
Although there is a great web presence, and this Company “appears” to be well along its development path; it is little more than a Stock play or “pump and dump”. As of Q2, 2010, virtually the entire board of Directors resigned; all agreements were cancelled, and the Company had significant debt against no income. The latest reports made vague comments about negotiating a sale of the Company to another firm, whose name was so generic that it was impossible to verify or validate. As of late November 2010, Sea2Sky Corporation “purchased” ecoTECH Energy Group. This purchase was made with existing S2S Shares – and ended up being a reverse takeover by ecoTECH. No further details have been announced on future projects.
Stramproy-‐Green
“Stramproy Group, originating from Machinefabriek Stramproy, is an innovative and leading company with an extensive experience of more than 35 years.
45 | P a g e
We are active in multidisciplinary projects in a broad market and focus on the design, engineering and realisation of systems, machines and equipment for industrial processes and on the development of various process technologies.”
Stramproy Green Technologies made several “game changing” announcements in 2009. They had secured an EPC Contract with 4Energy Invest to build a torrefaction reactor at 4Energy’s Amel power Station; they had started development of their own CHP plant (with torrefaction technology installed) in Steenwyck; and they had entered a Contract to Supply RWE with 90,000 tonnes per year of Bio-‐Coal. Unfortunately – the system for 4Energy was never successfully commissioned, and the EPC Contract was cancelled in June of 2010. There have been no further announcements from the Company since then.
SubCoal
“The Subcoal® technology concerns several proprietary and state-‐of-‐the-‐art process and application technologies to convert and process cellulose/plastic fractions into high-‐quality alternative fuels for sustainable energy recovery”.
The Subcoal products are developed to be co-‐combusted in coal or gas fired industrial furnaces. The products are ideally suited for co-‐combustion in, Cement kilns, Lime kilns, and Power plants. http://www.managenergy.net/download/nr41.pdf
While not specifically Torrefaction, the SubCoal process utilises a multi-‐step process, to convert residue and waste products from Paper Sludge into High-‐energy pellets for co-‐firing with Coal. The process involves dewatering; drying and compaction, to less than 7% moisture content – and results in a pellet with a CV of 23.7 GJ/tonne.
SunCoal
“The company develops, builds, and operates plants (Biomass-‐to-‐Coal plants) that process biomass to a carbon-‐rich, dry solid. SunCoal can be efficiently burned or further refined to diesel. Alternatively, it can also be used as a source material for the industrial production of, for example, tires, fertilizer, wax and antifreeze.”
Terradyne Energy
“Heat-‐Lock Technology can easily be adapted to your Companies thermal generation furnace. We are currently developing a torrefaction process to replace coal as an energy source”.
Like many “promoters”, Terradyne Energy has jumped on the Torrefaction Bandwagon. Their angle is to promote the benefits of their product – without providing any substantiation of their process.
46 | P a g e
Requests for samples, which were to be sent as chips, rather than pellets, (presumably because they were unable to pelletise the product) resulted only in promises, but not delivery. By all accounts – their product is charcoal – and not torrefied wood.
Terra Green Energy
“Terra Green Energy, LLC is a torrefaction technology licensing company.
Terra Green Industries, LLC is the builder, owner and operator of the Commercial Torrefaction Demonstration Facility that is being built in McKean County, Pennsylvania. This team has been working on torrefaction since early in 2008.”
Terra Green is a promoter of the Wyssmont “Turbo-‐Dryer” as a torrefaction Reactor. Like Integro Earth Fuels (who tested Wyssmont’s Pilot plant for over a year) it is highly unlikely that they will succeed. The greatest challenge is the removal of accumulated tars in the tor-‐gas, which condense inside the reactor.
Thermogen Industries
“Thermogen Industries is operated by Cate Street Capital, Inc., a Portsmouth, New Hampshire-‐based investment fund and operating company specializing in “green” technologies and environmentally sustainable development projects. Thermogen Industries is a multi-‐faceted manufacturing company that utilizes cutting edge technology to produce bio-‐based products for energy generation and commercial applications. Environmentally responsible products and manufacturing practices are at the heart of our company and the core of our business. At Thermogen, we work with today’s top industry leaders and scientists to continuously improve and refine our green and environmentally sustainable line of products.”
This Company appears to be a marketing arm for the Agri-‐Tech system. Both Companies are utilising the same multi screw-‐feed torrefaction reactor technology, which was developed at North Carolina State University. Published information indicates a 3:1 conversion ratio (feedstock to finished product) which is indicative of a bio-‐char production – but too cost-‐intensive for a torrefaction process.
Thermya SA
“THERMYA is an engineering company dedicated to design, develop and build plants to produce Carbon and energy from “distillation” of organic solids. THERMYA offers innovative and environmentally-‐friendly alternatives for the recovery or recycling of wood, viscose, bagasse, chicken litter, etc...”
47 | P a g e
Thermya have a very well designed and tested pilot plant in Bordeaux. Their technology mirrors that of ECN and MATRIC, insofar as it is a packed bed, vertical column, which utilises a counterflow of hot gasses to drive the process.
Their technology is highly likely to succeed in the marketplace – however – their current financial situation (they were put into receivership in September of 2009) is a barrier to their success. Certainly – once their first Licensee (Lantec/Idema) completes the Commercial Reactor – they will be able to roll it out worldwide. It meets all of the requirements of Affordability, Durability, flexibility and functionality.
TK Energi AS
“During many years TK Energi has obtained a high level of experience in finding solutions to design and manufactory complex thermochemical equipment such as gasification, torrefaction and handling systems for biomass, waste and other materials with carbon content. TK Energy can also offer handling systems including Pre-‐Handling, Drying, Torrefaction and Pressurized Feeding”
TK Energy is a company headed up by Thomas Koch. While their website promotes the implementation of Torrefaction; further discussions have revealed that they believe it to be too costly and inefficient a process to be economically viable, and are now promoting the drying of wood chips, at the power station, utilising low-‐grade surplus heat.
Topell
“Topell Energy is a Dutch, privately funded, clean technology company which has developed a cutting edge process for the production of high value solid bio-‐fuel from woody biomass. This process is generally known as torrefaction and the solid bio-‐fuel is usually referred to as torrefied biomass.”
Topell were among the first Companies to receive funding by a major Utility (RWE) for the development of their technology. It is based on work done by Polow Energy Systems, utilising the British designed “Torbed” dryer. Topell have now broken ground on a Commercial Facility (again – in a joint-‐venture with RWE) and will likely have that facility operational in the next 12 to 16 months. They have assembled a highly credentialed team of experts to assist them with the development, and will undoubtedly succeed in making Bi-‐Coal in large volumes. The only question that remains unanswered is the economic viability of the system, as it carries a significant CapEx.
Torkapparater AB
“Torkapparater offers turn-‐key systems for drying, cooling, pyrolysis and other thermal processing of solid materials.
48 | P a g e
Since 1937 we have delivered a thousand plants adapted to a hundred different type of material. Our customers are found in most branches, around the world. Welcome to our slowly revolving world!”
This technology was recently released at “World Bioenergy 2010”. It utilises a large drum drying unit, which has been specifically adapted to operate at around 300° C to torrefy wood chips.
With a long history in the drying industry, this Company is one that may very well succeed in cracking the code for torrefaction.
Torrcoal
“The idea behind Torr ® Coal is abundant in biomass, but because of their physical and chemical properties is not suitable as a biofuel suitable for power generation and / or for use in industry.
The business philosophy of Torr-‐Coal Group is characterized by concern for
• a minimal environmental impact • maximum reuse of valuable resources • maximum utilization of the energy content • minimization and optimization of transportation”
TorrCoal is one of only two commercial operations in existence. Their process converts SRF (Solid Recovered Fuel) into a powder that can be burned in Power Stations. Certainly they have proven the concept, but their technology has not, as of yet, received wide market acceptance and implementation.
Torrsys / Bepex
“Torrsys is a development stage spin-‐off company of Bepex International that is working with utilities, raw biomass suppliers, and investors to bring to market industrial-‐scale biomass torrefaction and densification production plants that will produce biocoal, a carbon neutral solid fuel that can be used by existing coal power plants. The genesis of Torrsys began within Bepex International, a 100-‐year-‐old Minneapolis-‐based process development and industrial-‐scale process equipment company, whose clients include some of the world’s most well-‐known food, chemical, polymer and renewable companies. Since early 2007, we have been developing and refining the process, and today we are a global leader, with a 1.44 ton / day, continuous-‐phase biomass torrefaction and densification pilot plant. Combined we have produced 30 tons of biocoal and have successfully conducted pilot scale pulverized coal combustion trials at 10% and 30% co-‐firing ratios.” Torsyss is the Marketing Brand for the technology Developed by Bepex. Extensive work was conducted during 2008 -‐ 2009 to design, develop and test a semi-‐commercial reactor system. While there is a lot of data available about the results of their tests
49 | P a g e
(http://www.xcelenergy.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/docs/BepexInternational-‐RD3-‐4-‐Milestone1Report.pdf) there is little information available about the technology. Initial inquiries revealed that the cost of their system, for 100 kt per year, would be in the realm of US$25 million.
Transnational Technologies
“James Arcate, owner & manager of Transnational Technology LLC, has been promoting Torrefied Wood as a renewable fuel for energy recovery, waste minimization and a replacement for fossil fuels.”
This is yet another Company that is promoting the use of the Wyssmont “Turbo-‐Dryer” as a torrefaction reactor. Like the others – it is highly unlikely to succeed.
Vega Promotional Systems
“Vega Biofuels, Inc. was formed to pursue the production and sale of biofuel products throughout the world. “
There was great fanfare created in late 2009 about Vega utilising “Special Torrefaction Technology” in China. They announced the establishment of 10 Bio-‐Coal production facilities in conjunction with unverifiable Chinese Corporation. This is another case of vague “press releases” that cannot be substantiated in any way.
Verdant Energy Solutions
“Verdant Energy Solutions provides "Bio-‐Coal", a 100% renewable fuel alternative to fossil coal used for electric generating utilities world-‐wide; substantially reducing CO2 and other harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
Legislatively mandated CO2 reductions have created a market need for our product. No technology currently exists to remove CO2 from smoke stacks. Switching to clean burning Bio-‐Coal, provides compatibility with today's existing energy infrastructure and the opportunity to meet tomorrow's increasingly stringent emission reduction targets in a cost-‐effective manner.
Verdant Energy Solutions is currently developing its Bio-‐Coal production capability in biomass-‐rich regions such as Brazil, to serve the growing need for a non-‐fossil fuel alternative that can be co-‐fired with coal, to achieve reductions in CO2 emissions.”
Verdant Energy Solutions have an excellent website that “talks the talk” very well. Unfortunately – there is no substance behind it, and little validation of their process or products. Again – it would appear that they are just another “me too” Company – that has jumped on the Torrefaction Bandwagon.
50 | P a g e
Complimentary Technologies
While not specifically Torrefaction, the Technologies listed below are complimentary, and include Hydrothermal Carbonisation; Pyrolysis, Steam Explosion, etc. They are included in this report for comparative analysis.
Polow www.polow.nl Jacques Poldervaart
multiple torbed (Torbed)
NL [email protected] T +31 70 362 6921 Best Energies www.bestenergies.com James Schreck
more pyrolysis & biochar
AUS
BioWare http://www.bioware.com.br
more pyrolysis & biochar
Next step bio fuels www.nextstepbiofuels.com Kevin Dretzka
power pellets
USA -NEBRASKA Bio Coal India www.biocoalindia.com Ramit Plyush
biocoal
INDIA [email protected]
York Energy http://www.yorkenergy.ca/ Matthew Fox
?
CANADA - OT [email protected]
andy piers
CDS-group http://www.cds-‐group.co.uk/ Graham Bird
Fluid Bed reactor (Arcate SH steam) UK graham.bird@cds-‐group.co.uk
Genesis Industries http://egenindustries.com/ John Gelwicks
more biocarbon BIOCHAR
USA - CALIFORNIA [email protected] T +1 310 399 9775
Biochar Systems LLC http://www.biocharsystems.com/ Jim Fournier
more biocarbon BIOCHAR
USA - COLORADO [email protected]
Carbon Char Group http://www.carbonchar.com/
more biocarbon BIOCHAR
USA - NORTH CAROLINA
Biochar Products http://www.biocharproducts.com/
more biocarbon BIOCHAR
USA - OREGON
EcoTechnologies Group LLC http://www.ecotechnologies.com/ Steve Parker
?
USA - PENSYLVENIA [email protected] T
R&A Energy Solutions LLC http://www.randaenergysolutions.com/ Joel Keller
more biocarbon BIOCHAR
USA
hydro thermal carbonisation
20.000 tpa / 2011 GERMANY [email protected]
T +49 3375 566005
mike klienert
BioLake http://www.biolake.nl/index_en.html
multiple screw reactor (DiscoTherm) NL
Bio3D http://www.bio3d.eu/index2.php Sébastien Roux
?
FR Buehler-Aeroglide http://www.aeroglide.com/biofuels-‐dryers-‐coolers.php
rotary reactor
SWISS
Ava-Co2 http://www.ava-‐co2.com Jan Vyskcoil
hydro thermal carbonisation
SWISS contact@ava-‐co2.com
+41 41 727 09 70 thomas klausli
51 | P a g e
University Researchers
University of Georgia http://www.biorefinery.uga.edu/biomasspreprocessing.html
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory http://www.pnl.gov/
Idaho National Laboratory https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=255&mode=2
Eindhoven University of Technology http://w3.wtb.tue.nl/en/
Leeds University http://www.engineering.leeds.ac.uk/erri/people/jones/jones.shtml
University of North Carolina https://www.kenan-‐flagler.unc.edu/News/DetailsNewsPage.cfm?id=4193&menu=cetv
University of Jyväskylä https://www.jyu.fi/it/en
Energy Centre of the Netherlands http://www.ecn.nl/home/
Umeå University http://www.umu.se/english
Duke University http://www.duke.edu/
52 | P a g e
Industry Associations
Dutch Torrefaction Association http://www.dutchtorrefactionassociation.eu/ (In Dutch)
International Torrefaction Association http://www.internationaltorrefactionassociation.com
53 | P a g e
Existing Operations Worldwide
Europe
Torr-‐coal – Operating Commercial Facility
Fox-‐Coal – Operating Semi-‐Commercial Facility
ECN – Pilot plant
THERMYA – Pilot Plant
Topell – Pilot Plant – Commercial Plant in Construction
Stramproy-‐Green – Commercial Plant – non-‐operational
4Energy Invest – Commercial Plant – Non operational
North America
Integro – Pilot Plant – no longer operational
River Basin – Pilot Plant
Earth care Products – Converted Charcoal Kiln
Who will succeed?
Topell – their plant will ultimately get up and running. They have more than enough money behind them (courtesy of RWE) to make it happen.
Airless Systems – with a billionaire investor behind them, Airless will undoubtedly succeed in getting their technology to work. It is highly unlikely that it will be adopted universally – as the costs will far exceed any commercial sensibility.
ECN – With Vattenfall / Nuon funding the development of a Demonstration Reactor, this will ultimately succeed. It is also among the top 3 to be implemented on a widespread basis.
Thermya – In spite of their current financial difficulties, Thermya have the potential to be a major player in the Torrefaction Industry.
MATRIC – With a similar process to Thermya and ECN, Matric will be one of the leaders in the Industry.
54 | P a g e
Who will fail?
Most other Companies will fail to achieve widespread success. This is partly due to their approach to torrefaction, but mostly due to a lack of understanding of the basic mechanisms involved.
55 | P a g e
Conclusions
The Investment Community is currently in a state of mass confusion with respect to this technology. This is brought about by so many claims, from so many Companies, that it is virtually impossible to know what is real, and what is an illusion.
Uncertainty over basic information – such as the difference between Bio-‐Coal and Bio-‐Char, only exacerbates the situation further. In addition to this, there have been several claims of the “World’s First” Commercial torrefaction reactor (Integro; Earth care, etc.) After several false starts in the Industry, there was great promise held for 4Energy Invest / Stramproy Green Technologies. The simple fact remains however, that although the Systems were to be operational in December, 2009 – they are yet to be fully commissioned and operational a year later. Topell/RWE is continuing their development path – and will ultimately produce commercial volumes of product – the cost of their technology however – is such that the value of the finished product may well exceed sensible economic levels in the long-‐term.
The Ultimate winners will be those Companies that are able to get their product validated by the Major Utilities who will be their Customers. Many Companies right now, are so focussed on getting their systems to work in an economical manner, that they forget the fact that the product they are making needs to meet some fairly stringent specifications.
Thos Companies that are taking a scientific approach to the process and ultimate product will end up as the Long-‐Term Winners. Those that focus solely on “system design” without considering Product Specifics are destined to failure.
GLOSSARY
ACTOF “Ablazing Clean Torrefied Organic Fuel”
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials
AS Australian Standard
BDT Bone Dry Tonne
CV Calorific Value
Gj Gigajoule
Kg/m3 Kilograms per cubic metre
56 | P a g e
PCI Pulverised Coal Injection
Tor-‐Gas Gas Fraction evolved during Torrefaction
TW Torrefied Wood
References
(1) Torrefaction to improve biomass fuel properties By: Jaap Kiel and Patrick Bergman, ECN November 29, 2004
(2) MANAGING ASH CONTENT AND -‐QUALITY IN HERBACEOUS BIOMASS: AN ANALYSIS FROM PLANT TO PRODUCT Robert R. Bakker and H.W. Elbersen, Wageningen University & Research Centre (WUR)
(3) Gleb Bagramov ECONOMY OF CONVERTING WOOD TO BIOCOAL, Lappeenranta, 2010
(4) Torrefaction for biomass upgrading into commodity fuels – Jaap Kiel IEA Bioenergy Task 32 workshop “Fuel storage, handling and preparation and system analysis for biomass combustion technologies”, Berlin, 7 May 2007
(5) Torrefaction for Biomass Co-‐firing in existing Coal-‐fired power stations. “BIOCOAL” P.C.A. BERGMAN; A.R. BOERSMA; R.W.R. ZWART; J.H.A.KIEL ECN July 2005