biomass gasification: a comprehensive demonstration of a community scale biomass ... ·...

Biomass Gasification: A Comprehensive Demonstration of a Community Scale Biomass Energy System

Final Report USDA Rural Development

Grant 68-3A75-5-232

Section I: Project Report

Contents

Authors & Contributors .................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Biomass Gasification at UMM: An Historical Overview ................................................................. 3 Chapter 2: Design in Response to the University’s Objectives and the Technology Market .......................... 9 1 Campus Characteristics .......................................................................................................................... 9 2 Natural Resources .................................................................................................................................. 9 3 Regulation ............................................................................................................................................ 10 4 Equipment............................................................................................................................................ 10 5 Strategy ................................................................................................................................................ 11 6 Planning ............................................................................................................................................... 12 7 Implementation ................................................................................................................................... 13 8 Moving the Plant From Design to Operational .................................................................................... 14 9 Construction......................................................................................................................................... 18 10 Energy Density ..................................................................................................................................... 19 11 Alkalinity .............................................................................................................................................. 20 12 Moisture............................................................................................................................................... 21 13 The Roadmap ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Chapter 3: Report on Feedstock Testing and Biomass Testing Activities ...................................................... 23 1 Preproject Testing at Carterville, IL ...................................................................................................... 23 2 Summary of Initial Findings.................................................................................................................. 23 3 Emissions Summary ............................................................................................................................. 24 4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 26 5 Appendix .............................................................................................................................................. 30 Chapter 4: Report on MPCA Coordination .................................................................................................... 47 1 Preproject Testing ................................................................................................................................ 47 2 Permitting Process and Procedures ..................................................................................................... 47 3 MPCA Process and Requirements ........................................................................................................ 49 4 Performance Testing ............................................................................................................................ 50 5 Option D Permittees ............................................................................................................................ 51 6 Reporting and Recordkeeping ............................................................................................................. 51 7 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS, 40CFR60, Subpart Dc) .................................................... 52 8 Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMS) ............................................................................................... 53 9 CEMS Recordkeeping/Ongoing Operations ......................................................................................... 54 10 Appendix .............................................................................................................................................. 55 Chapter 5: Report on Outreach Deliverables ................................................................................................ 63 1 Biomass Gasification Project Outreach and Education - Summary ..................................................... 63 2 Gasification in the Classroom .............................................................................................................. 64 3 Community Outreach........................................................................................................................... 68 4 Tours .................................................................................................................................................... 68 5 Conference Presentations.................................................................................................................... 68 6 Web Outreach ...................................................................................................................................... 70 7 Outreach Deliverables Appendices ...................................................................................................... 71 Glossary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..82 Acronym Quick Reference List ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..87

Authors & Contributors

Executive Summary Lowell Rasmussen

Chapter 1: Biomass Gasification at UMM: A Historical Overview

David Aronson Chapter 2: Design in Response to the University’s Objectives and the Technology Market Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Project Engineers: Chapters 1 through 7

Lowell Rasmussen, Project Investigator (PI): Chapters 8 through 13 Chapter 3: Report on Feedstock Testing and Biomass Testing Activities

James Barbour Jane Johnson Matt Zaske Tina Didreckson Joel Tallaksen

Chapter 4: Report on MN Pollution Control Agency Coordination James Barbour Tina Didreckson David Bordson

Mike Vangstad Joel Tallaksen

Chapter 5: Report on Outreach Deliverables

Lowell Rasmussen James Barbour Mike Reese Joel Tallaksen

Project Team The work described in this report is from a collaborative effort of scientists, educators and facilities people. The authors would like to thank them and make sure that recognition is given to the team as a whole for its work.

Lowell Rasmussen Michael Reese Dr. Jane Johnson Mike Vangstad Dave Aronson Dr. Joel Tallaksen Dr. James Barbour Matt Zaske Tina Didreckson

Cover Image Photo Credits: Clockwise from top left- Amy Rager, Joel Tallaksen, Matt Zaske

Biomass Gasification: A Comprehensive Demonstration of a Community Scale Biomass Energy System USDA Final Report

Executive Summary Page 1

Executive Summary

I am pleased to submit the final report for the Biomass Gasification: A Comprehensive Demonstration of a Community Scale Biomass Energy System.

The following report is the summation of a three-year grant that was extended two years to allow the research to follow due process and the University to identify and address the issues associated with designing, building, and operating a state-of-the-art research and community-scale production facility.

This report is a conclusion of the efforts to understand how a community can develop its own energy ecosystem. The grant turned out to be the catalyst that brought together the natural and human resources in a community setting to accomplish a vision of what a sustainable community might look like. The human resources aggregated in a college campus—the University of Minnesota, Morris, a university agricultural research center—the West Central Research and Outreach Center (WCROC), an agricultural research station—the North Central Soils Conservation Research Laboratory,and the University of Minnesota Initiative on Renewable Energy and the Environment (IREE), combined with a community with robust natural resources in the form of biomass and agricultural production, proved to be an alliance that simply could overcome the obstacles that faced the establishment of a community-scale gasification system.

The narratives and data provided in this report accurately reflect the learning curves required and the processes that needed to be established and solved to bring this project to a successful conclusion.

The scope of the project is unique as it encompasses everything from initial concepts through the final commissioning. It provides insight from designers, contractors, researchers, educators, managers, and operators. Each element required the grant team to address their unique perspectives and factor these into the final outcomes.

It is the hallmark of this project to understand the cradle to grave implications of biomass as an alternative energy stream. A team effort was undertaken to understand the role of carbon, soil chemistry, plant physiology, plant production, nutrient analysis, agricultural cropping practices, harvesting options, economic analysis, collection and transportation, storage, thermal conversion platforms, material handling, energy production and combined heat and power options, emissions characteristics, outreach and undergraduate research and educational opportunities.

This work was done in a rural community setting with the understanding that biomass was one of the most underrepresented sources of energy in the region. The project embodies Strategic Asset Allocation—with a goal to create an asset mix that will provide the optimal balance between expected risk and return for a long-term investment.

The risk identified in this project was the unstable pricing of traditional fuel. The asset was the large supply of nontraditional carbon production associated with agricultural cropping systems. The balance was to try to find the right thermal conversion processes to utilize the nontraditional carbon in a way that provides usable energy in conventional power plant configurations.


Executive Summary Page 2

The research was to identify the sustainable best practices to insure that biomass energy solutions did not just move us from one unsustainable fuel source to another. The challenges were numerous and complex. Designing and building a production scale research plant immediately created a constant dialog about how to be able to meet the deliverables of two functions that had quite different expectations. The first section of this report is focused on the planning, design, construction and commissioning of this plant. The second section is the toolbox for biomass development. Both sections offer insight into the strategic and real world development of a state-of-the-art combined heat and power plant as well as the research on previously untested biomass fuel sources in a production-scale setting.

The budget was a constant source of concern with the dual outcomes as a necessary prerequisite for the success of the plant.

The lack of data to understand how high mineral content biofuels could be converted to heat energy was a significant challenge. The lack of industry experience in these fuels compounded challenges of the selection process.

The contractors were leery of building “serial number one.” The University of Minnesota struggled with project delivery methods. Fuel moisture content, storage, density, material handling, thermal properties, alkalinity, and ash characteristics all impacted how the project developed over the grant period.

In retrospect, given the hurdles in bringing this project to closure, it’s doubtful that private enterprise would have been able, or could have afforded, to draw on the amount and number of resources and researchers that were required and available in a large public land grant university to address the issues as they were discovered.

The combination of a forward looking community, a USDA grant with a public land grant university, and a robust agricultural resource was the right combination to push the envelope of understanding in rethinking how biomass can become simply a different form of our traditional carbon based fuel infrastructure.

Understanding how biomass fits in rural communities is the end deliverable of this project. We are happy to say that we think there are many opportunities for the deployment of this technology that meets the triple bottom line—local energy, local jobs, local economy.

On behalf of a dedicated team of researchers, technicians, engineers, contractors, and plant personnel, I am pleased to submit the final report.

Lowell Rasmussen


Chapter 1: Biomass Gasification at UMM: A Historical Overview Page 3

Chapter 1: Biomass Gasification at UMM: A Historical Overview Administrators’ at the University of Minnesota, Morris (UMM) and the West Central Research and Outreach Center (WCROC) of the University of Minnesota began informal discussions relating to energy around the year 2000. UMM facilities management was concerned with the increasing costs of natural gas and also the environmental impact of continued expansion of the use of oil, coal and natural gas. Discussion began on what alternate forms of energy might be available within the natural resources of western Minnesota, have a more positive impact on the environment and support the growth of agriculture and rural economies.

West Central Minnesota has an abundance of agricultural based biomass and also an abundance of wind resources. UMM/WCROC began exploring the possibilities of small-scale community based renewable energy systems that could utilize partnerships of a variety of entities in small rural communities.

In September 2002 Oak Ridge National Laboratory published, “An Assessment of Options for The Collection, Handling, and Transport of Corn Stover.” In October 2002 the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association sponsored publication of “The Vision for Bioenergy and Biobased Products in the United States.” This represented the collective vision of the Biomass Technical Advisory Committee established by the Biomass R&D Act of 2000. About this same time the Agricultural Utilization Research Institute (AURI) published an article on biobased “Agricultural Renewable Solid Fuels Data.”

The ideas and vision presented in these papers were synergistic with the ongoing discussions on campus and discussions with other leaders in agriculture and business in western Minnesota. Would work on the process of researching and demonstrating that renewable energy resources available in western Minnesota lead to revitalizing the rural economy improve national security by reducing dependence on foreign energy sources and provide energy sources that vastly improved the impact on the environment?

In the late summer of 2002 UMM/WCROC contacted personnel at the Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC) in Grand Forks, North Dakota. EERC was asked to provide a pre-design for a biomass cogeneration system for UMM. The goal was to provide one aspect of a larger step to bring community-scale renewable energy to Morris. WCROC had conducted three community committee meetings in 2002 - 2003 with the purpose of providing vision and direction for such a project.

2003 was a pivotal year in exploring the possibility of using biomass as a renewable fuel to supplement or replace natural gas as a fuel source for the campus. The EERC report was presented in March 2003 and this served as the basis for meetings in June and July to develop a request for quotation (RFQ) to solicit a design team to develop a biomass gasification system for the campus. On July 28, 2003 this team met and selected an architectural/engineering firm to begin work on pre-design.

On July 31, 2003 a pre-design meeting was held at Morris with representatives of the engineering firm and a University project manager from Capital Planning and Project Management (CPPM). By late August an estimated budget of $5,200,000 was developed for the project. On August 22, 2003 WCROC organized and sponsored a “Community Renewable Energy Program”. University agricultural and energy officials made presentations and state legislatures from both the senate and house were present and made comments about renewable energy. The project would require state funding and this was one effort to garner both public and legislative support for the project.



In 2002 and 2003, the local school district had passed a bond for $27 million to build a new elementary addition to the high school on property contiguous with the high school and UMM. Stevens Community Medical Center was just across the street and was also in initial planning for expansion. Consistent with the vision for looking at a new way to supply energy in small communities, UMM initiated discussion about the possibility of district energy. Perhaps the university, the public school and the county medical center could partner to share a source of renewable biomass and perhaps wind energy.

Meetings continued throughout the fall. By the end of September, an estimated construction time line for the biomass facility was developed beginning on May 31, 2004 with completion by December 23, 2005. Simultaneous to the biomass planning meetings being held throughout the fall there were also meetings with representatives of the school district and their architect regarding the possibility of district heating for the new elementary school. Also in the fall of 2003 a UMM economics professor had an undergraduate assistant conduct research on the availability of corn stover from regional farms as a possible fuel source.

On December 1, 2003 UMM received confirmation from the Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment (IREE) that UMM’s request for $500,000 was approved to proceed with a request for proposal (RFP) for a construction manager at risk (CMaR) to take the pre-design to the ready to construct phase. At the same time staff at CPPM were preparing documents to provide rationale for not going to the state architectural selection board for design for the biomass addition but rather to continue with the architectural/engineering firm already under contract for pre-design. Members of the working group had been exploring options for biomass gasifier manufacturers while pre-design was in progress.

By January 2004 the project manager developed Design Guidelines to be presented by the University Architect to the Board of Regents in February in preparation for presenting a schematic design in March when requesting project approval. In January UMM received confirmation from Ottertail Power Company that they wanted to continue to be involved and would consider funding 30% of an additional $126,000 of engineering expenses that had been awarded. Ottertail management also pledged to contact the Minnesota Department of Commerce in support of the project and their lobbyist would be contacting the appropriate University personnel to coordinate support for the project with the Minnesota legislature. Drafts for specifications for a biomass boiler RFP were completed by the end of January 2004. University construction and project management (CPPM) received approval to proceed with the CMaR process with efforts to continue to refine an RFP.

By February 2004 attorneys in the Office of General Counsel (OGC) had made their first review of the draft RFP. It soon became obvious that since there are a limited number of suppliers of this type of equipment in the world, and the plant in Morris was to be of modest size with the potential to use a variety of fuels, developing an adequate RFP would be challenging. By mid-February CPPM noted the schedule was slipping a bit. It was still hoped to issue an RFP for the boiler and RFP for CMaR by early April 2004. Legislative backlogs raised the possibility that we might lose the opportunity to start construction in 2004 and by late March issued a revised schedule of perhaps starting construction in February 2005. One of the many challenges was getting an air permit for the project.

In February 2004 funding options for the project were also being reviewed and developed. The Regents on behalf of the University of Minnesota, Morris submitted a Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) proposal to the legislature for 2005 requesting $750,000. $500,000 of



this would be for UMM to update instrumentation and $250,000 for WCROC for procurement of ag based plant material for fuel and a pilot study to return the ash to the soil. The total other spending for the project was $5,500,000 for the biomass plant and research platform, which included a $4,300,000 legislative request (funding decision in May 2004) and $200,000 from the University of Minnesota, Morris. Previous spending included $70,000 for a feasibility study in 2003 and $1,000,000 from IREE in 2004. The proposed project was presented to the Regents with a power point presentation at the May 2004 meeting. The Minnesota legislature took no action on the bonding bill in 2004 so there was no state funding for the project at that time.

On June 15, 2004 CPPM reported that there was the only viable respondent to the RFP (754-03-1654, April 1, 2004) for a biomass gasification boiler. The U of MN began inquiries with the Environmental Compliance specialists at the U of MN regarding the cost of stack emissions test at the responder’s pilot plant. The U of MN received a quote of $22,000 for testing by an independent third party. UMM began developing plans to ship corn stover to the pilot plant to do test burns and emissions testing in the fall. The tests were scheduled for October 8 – 16, 2004. Representatives of UMM and their engineering consultants traveled to plant for the tests. An independent third party was contracted to do the certified stack emissions testing. The pilot gasifier had worked well with other biomass fuels but they had never attempted to burn corn stover. The fuel hopper had horizontal and vertical augers to feed the fuel into the gasification unit. As soon as they attempted to feed the corn stover into the unit the corn stover bound up on the augers and blew the circuit breakers for the motors. This was the first inkling of potential fuel feed problems with corn stover. A hammer mill was located that could chop the corn stover to alleviate the fuel feed problems. This met with limited success and strong rainstorms soaked the remaining fuel so it became apparent the tests would have to be canceled and rescheduled for a later date.

Representatives from the Minnesota Project forwarded information regarding biomass harvesting to UMM. A biomass plant tour at the Iowa State research center in Harlan Iowa was scheduled for October 22, 2004. Representatives from UMM and WCROC visited Harlan Iowa for that demonstration. By November 2004 the pilot test was rescheduled for January 7-14, 2005.

Students at UMM were a driving force in a move to sustainable energy. Students initiated the purchase of “green” electricity for the Student Center on campus from Ottertail Power Company. The students agreed to cover the additional cost by conserving an equivalent amount of energy and recycling materials.

On January 7, 2005 the Morris and engineering consultant representatives again traveled to the pilot plant for another attempted test burn. On January 25, 2005 representatives from the pilot plant submitted a preliminary test report for the corn stover gasification test. This test did work well enough that stack tests were conducted and data collected to develop an emissions report. Detailed bound reports of the January tests were received by UMM on March 30, 2005.

It was during these challenging efforts to develop an operational biomass gasification plant that a pre-application for a USDA/DOE grant was due February 15, 2005 with a focus on the development of demonstration projects that lead to commercialization. The grant opportunity seemed like a good fit for what UMM and WCROC were attempting to do with the development of a research/demonstration site for biomass gasification.

UMM continued to look for potential gasification vendors based on the newly received data from the pilot plant tests.



In mid-March 2005 CPPM noted that it appeared that the 2004 capital request to the legislature for a biomass plant would likely be funded in the 2005 session. At the same time the engineering firm was developing a new time line for the biomass gasification project. By April 2005 the full emissions report was available from the third party testing firm for the test burn at Carterville in January. These results were forwarded to MCPA for review to begin the permitting process for a biomass gasification unit to use fuels other than wood. The U of MN also began work on a new RFP for a biomass gasification manufacturer. The University anticipated receiving proposals from manufacturers for review by late July 2005. The University anticipated awarding of the contract so fabrication of a gasification boiler would occur from October 2005 to May 2006 with construction and commissioning by March 2007.

In April 2005 the USDA/DOE published a report, “Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply.” The report emphasized the DOE and the USDA had a strong commitment to expanding the role of biomass as an energy source. Two of the principal authors, Robert D. Perlack and Anthony F. Turhollow, had been the principal authors of the 2002 Oak Ridge National Laboratory report on options regarding corn stover. The April 2005 report became known in short as, “The Billion Ton Report.” This just reinforced the fact that the University of Minnesota, Morris was very much in the forefront in an effort to develop biomass as a renewable energy source with a practical size research/demonstration plant.

While work was progressing on plans for the gasifier in the spring of 2005, the Minnesota legislature was considering funding the bonding request to build the biomass gasification research/demonstration plant. Also during this same time UMM/WCROC and others were at work drafting a new USDA grant. On March 25, 2005 UMM/WCROC learned that , “The good news is that the USDA biomass pre-proposal we (UMM, WCROC, Soils Lab, CVEC, and others) submitted entitled “Biomass Gasification: A Comprehensive Demonstration of a Community-Scale Biomass Energy System” scored in the top 50 out of 670 pre-applications.” This came with an invitation to submit a full proposal. Full applications were due May 2 and for the proposal to get through the University system it needed to be completed by April 26, 2005. The grant was submitted by May 2, 2005.

The UMM Grants Officer reported on October 18, 2005 “I spoke with Mark Peters from USDA this morning. They are still in the process of transferring the program from NRCS to Rural Development within USDA. Rural Development has not administered this type of award before. Mark cannot speak for Rural Development, but believes we should have an initial call from a grant-contracting officer by the end of October. The goal is to have agreements negotiated by the end of December.”

In June 2005 the U of MN (Office of General Council) OGC was still reviewing and commenting on the RFP document. The U of MN did not want to refer to it as specifications since we were just providing requirements and the contractor should provide the specifications. Considerable correspondence and discussion occurred throughout June and early July trying to develop a usable RFP. Eventually by early September the revised RFP was issued. In mid-October UMM learned that we had just received one response to the RFP from the same vendor that submitted the first time.

There were numerous meetings and conference calls throughout November and December 2005 trying to determine if there was a way to proceed with the limited response. There was a conference call on December 22, 2005 that included everyone working on moving the project forward including OGC and U of MN Purchasing.

While working on getting the biomass gasification project moving along there was simultaneous activity relating to the USDA grant. The UMM grants officer was coordinating some meetings regarding setting up the particulars of the grant and in mid May 2006 announced that the Office of Sponsored Projects Administration had received and set up the new award to UMM/WCROC. By the end of May 2006 the UMM team was still discussing how to move forward with a gasification platform.



Design for the building for the biomass addition continued as the team continued to work to resolve the issue of a provider of a gasification unit. A pre bid meeting for the construction of the addition was held in mid-July with proposals due on August 15, 2006. It was a CM at Risk proposal so selection would not be strictly on low bid. We learned Purchasing only received one proposal on August 15 that was from Regional Construction Company.

A meeting was held on October 12, 2006 to review the proposal. CPPM noted the project came in 2 million dollars over budget. There was some speculation that these prices reflected the fact of a limited response and that the project involved new and untested technology with significant risks. CPPM noted we had to develop a plan to get back within budget and a timeline to get there. The University asked for a peer review by a third party construction company and perhaps to assist in developing a plan. The project costs appeared to be at 7.2M.

Another large meeting was held on November 10, 2006 to attempt to find ways to move the project along. The regional construction company noted part of the problem was that contractors were very nervous about a project building model number one. At this meeting the group continued exploring the possibility of other gasifier manufacturers. UMM worked to provide revised numbers for the project so CPPM could report to the Regents in February 2007.

The group met again on November 17, 2006 to continue to explore options to reduce the cost and get the project moving. It was decided to explore the possibility of other gasification vendors.

The project planning team continued to have extensive discussions throughout December 2006. MPCA had granted a permit for a biomass plant based on the emissions tests provided by the independent testing firm from the pilot plant. If another manufacturer were to be selected we would have to demonstrate they could meet the emissions criteria that MPCA had established based on our tests.

In early January the regional construction company and our engineering consultants were still working out how to get the project within budget and what modifications might be made to do so. At a January 5, 2007 meeting a representative of the engineering firm noted they had received a call from another vendor inquiring about the project. This vendor claimed to have some experience with corn stover and their emission test had low NOx.

At this same meeting there was some discussion of the design of the addition to the existing heating plant to accommodate the new gasification unit. Should the addition be on grade or below ground? There were also discussions about the roofline and connections to the existing building. Obviously there were challenges to designing a building addition without knowing exactly what would be going into the space and without knowing just how the fuel feed system would work.

The project team made plans to visit the most recent potential vendor and tour their facility on January 14 - 16, 2007. The CPPM noted that we were now focused on comparing the options of three gasification unit manufactures. He suggested we needed to develop a matrix of what we would be getting or not getting from each of the providers and for what price. At the same time the General Contractor (GC) was progressing with getting bids to construct the building. We still were having discussions on the appropriate design of the building. The GC representatives noted they would bid the original documents and negotiate modifications with the contractors as needed to fit the needs of whatever gasification unit to be selected. CPPM noted we had to prepare a report for the Board of Regents meeting in March 2007.

After the visit to the third site on January 15 2007 we immediately began making plans to ship corn stover to the emissions testing facility. Since we had learned that fuel feed could be an issue with corn stover we made



arrangements with WCROC to grind the corn stover prior to shipping to the test site. UMM had expected the second gasification supplier to have done some emissions testing on corn stover but learned in late January they were having some difficulty feeding the corn stover into their gasifier. We were learning that handling and processing corn stover as a fuel had some issues yet to be resolved.

Planning on the gasification unit continued and work progressed simultaneously with the USDA Grant. A biomass coordinator was hired on grant funding and on February 7, 2007 he sent and introductory e-mail to the group. We coordinated the emissions test burn with the third vendor’s test facility for February 12 & 13, 2007. The new biomass coordinator and a representative of our consulting engineering firm flew to observe the tests.

By the end of February 2007 the third vendor submitted a formal proposal for the biomass gasification project. By early March preliminary results of the emissions test were available and our engineering firm summarized the results. In early march the GC reported that the current total cost estimate was over 7M but was confident with work by the consulting engineers and UMM staff to develop a clear list of priorities the project construction cost could be held to 7M. The consulting engineers proposed Friday March 16, 2007 for a kickoff meeting for the redesign of the project. This would include all elements of the project from fuel handling, to building layout and ash handling and scope of work. Tangential to this the biomass coordinator began organizing some meetings relating to the feed stock supply issues as well as fuel handling and fuel preparation issues.

By mid-April the GC was trying to move the project along. Meetings focused on pricing updates and the status of a gasification/boiler manufacturer. The selected gasification vendor had submitted a revised proposal to the GC. At this time UMM still needed the official report of the emissions testing from the third vendor. Vendor number two was still being pursued as a possible supplier of a bale breaker/chain drag fuel-handling unit but were no longer under serious consideration to provide a gasification unit. Similarly vendor number one had been removed from consideration as a provider of a gasification unit. Discussions relating to fuel supply, fuel storage and fuel handling increased as the project moved closer to fruition.

By May 9, 2007 we had the official test results for emissions from vendor number three. UMM’s environmental consultant commented, “The test results are very similar to that for the original vendor, and do not materially change the University's permitting requirements.” This result removed one of the obstacles for the GC to formalize a contract with vendor number 3. The project was tentatively on the Board of Regents agenda for June but it became apparent this might need to be moved to July when more information would hopefully be available. The Regents were scheduled to meet in Morris in August 2007. The GC was receiving bids from subcontractors for construction of the building and targeted June1, 2007 as a date to provide a guaranteed maximum price (GMP). At a meeting on June 1, 2007 the GC presented an estimated GMP of $7.155. There was considerable discussion on a number of unresolved issues including fuel handling, gasifier warranty, ash handling, emissions and discussion of possible opportunities for more competitive pricing. By June 7 the environmental consultant informed MCPA that the University had changed vendors for a gasification unit but that the new vendor’s unit emissions test results were similar to the original vendor’s.

By June 12, 2007 the GC reported they had received the latest proposal from vendor number three and had prepared a draft contract agreement for review. Approval of the contract would allow the project to proceed. The first on site construction meeting was held on Friday July 13, 2007 at the Morris biomass site. The official groundbreaking event was scheduled for 11:00 AM Friday July 27, 2007. Construction began shortly thereafter with a target completion date of spring 2008 with commissioning in April 2008 so that fuel tests for the USDA grant could begin in the summer of 2008.


Chapter 2: Design in Response to the University’s Objectives and the Technology MarketPage 9

Chapter 2: Design in Response to the University’s Objectives and the Technology Market The University of Minnesota, Morris (UMM) began it efforts in 2001 to investigate the use of biomass to meet its energy requirements on campus. With the help of the local electric utility, Ottertail Power Company, the university explored how to produce electricity at a scale that matched the university’s consumption. The utility and university explored options with the help of the University of North Dakota’s Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC) and focused its efforts on a system that included a high pressure steam boiler and a condensing turbine. This work was concluded in early 2003. Prior to seeking funding of this recommendation, UMM decided to execute a comprehensive energy Master Plan and examine how this recommendation might be modified or expanded to address long term planning objectives.

The University of Minnesota Twin Cities Campus was familiar with renewable energy initiatives that were underway in Saint Paul, Minnesota and the work of other Twin Cities consultants who were investigating renewable energy projects in North America. An RFP was prepared, and Hammel, Green and Abrahamson (HGA) were selected, together with Sweden’s FVB, to develop the plan.

The Master Planning effort included a comprehensive analysis of planning parameters. They include:

1 Campus Characteristics Operating pressure of the existing steam plant is 18 psig. The system was originally operated at 15 psig and the pressure was increased to overcome the limitations of the distribution system. Operators were trained in high pressure plant operation; however, their experience was with low pressure operations.

Electricity consumption peaked at less than 4 MW and is supplied by Ottertail Power Company from one of two service entrances on campus. The energy consumption profile is unique from most perspectives but made sense when considering the academic calendar for the campus. Peak consumption often occurred in September, on an Indian summer day after the students returned. Occasionally, the peak occurred in August. The campus distribution system is owned and operated by the university and was in the process of being upgraded to 12.7KV. Ottertail’s rate structure reflected its reliance on coal fired generation and a load base that experienced a daytime winter peak. Night-time power was priced very low and there was little cost associated with peak demand.

Steam demand followed outdoor air temperatures and reflected the time of day. Morning warm-up, student shower and dining activities were all reflected in the daily steam demand profile. This profile was of interest in the Master Planning effort, knowing that combined heat and power (CHP) was a path toward developing cost effective energy assets on a campus with a consolidated thermal load.

Chilled water was primarily produced at the central plant by two electric drive water chillers. The campus expected future remodeling projects to add to the central plant load. The consumption profile was dominated by the school calendar first and the weather conditions second.

2 Natural Resources A fuel survey identified the biofuel sources that would be available in the market, their quantities and their projected price over the planning period. Corn stalks, sunflower seed husks, grass, wood and



distillers grain solubles were the dominant biofuels in the market. By simply driving to Morris through surrounding prairie, it was easy to observe the abundance of corn in the county when compared to wood.

Wind was recognized as an important resource to include in the Master Plan. The reasoning was simple, wind turbine developers were completing projects in the region and another school had successfully implemented a utility scale project. It was broadly understood that it is less expensive to generate electricity using a wind turbine than it is to use a thermal biomass fueled system.

3 Regulation The use of biomass as an energy source is not a new concept. Examples of wood-fueled plants are abundant and Minnesota has more than ten plants that use municipal solid waste or refuse derived fuel (both are often considered biomass). During the implementation phase of the project, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency decided that corn stover (corn stover is the stalk, leaves and cob of the corn plant) though similar to wood, was not well understood, and therefore, they decided to explore all implications of stover as fuel by classifying stover as municipal solid waste.

While the USDA could not identify any jurisdictional authority, they raised concerns about the impact on soil quality if stover were harvested aggressively from the same field over multiple decades. Consideration was given to the harvesting process, the location of the nutrients in the dried plant, and the cost of adding soil amendments to the field if stover were harvested. Their work was primarily classified as interdisciplinary research that could serve as the basis for regulation in the event that the stover fuel market grew significantly.

Minnesota has a regulated electric market which is managed through Public Utility Commission tariffs. While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the state support independent power production, there are a number of tariffs that make development expensive. The tariffs also require that customer generating assets be connected on the customer’s side of the meter. This becomes a design criterion that affects the location of the generating asset and can present challenges to locating renewable energy projects, where both solid fuel boiler operations and wind generation are normally accomplished in a setting that is more like a field than a town.

4 Equipment At the inception of the project, the team was tasked with identifying manufacturers that could produce energy using wood for fuel. Tried and true systems were available to make steam that could then be used to heat the campus, make electricity or make chilled water. Decisions regarding how the combustion process was controlled and the operating steam pressure were the primary consideration.

The mission was expanded to look beyond combustion technology so the university could experiment with producer gas driven electric generation. Producer gas is a low energy density gas (when compared to natural gas). A variety of engines and turbine manufacturers were considering product offerings. This concept refocused our search for thermal technology to gasification systems that would deliver producer gas.

We were unable to find a reliable engine manufacturer; however, this did not end the university’s interest in gasification. It was seen as a technology that may eventually tilt the energy production of biofuel plants toward electricity and away from steam. This shift to electricity from steam reflected the overall consumption patterns of the campus and our society.



Because of the scale of the project at Morris, the survey of gasification technologies focused on systems with the following characteristics:

• Operated at near atmospheric conditions. • Used air rather than oxygen. • Were close coupled, where the producer gas is combusted before it is cooled or

cleaned. • Fed the fuel from the bottom as a means to limit the demands of fuel preparation.

With the goal of having many competitors, approximately 40 manufacturers, domestic and foreign were identified that could either supply a wood fired boiler or a gasification system. To maintain the broadest participation and to respect the scale of the plant, its first cost and its operating complexity, we also decided to limit our operating pressure to 280 psig.

At the same time that the Master Plan was being completed, Morris further developed its understanding of sustainability and set goals for the project that would make it more valuable to rural America. It was also opportunistic and worked with the state’s Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment to develop one utility grade wind turbine in conjunction with the West Central Research and Outreach Center (WCROC), a branch of the university. The electrical utility facilitated the project by making its right-of-way available and the power was delivered on the university’s side of the meter. The economic impact of the turbine was evaluated with the other electricity generating assets that were being planned. This provided the university with a comprehensive understanding of how Ottertail’s rate structure affected the cost of power on campus.

Renewable energy costs were also analyzed and it was clear that the efficiency of combined heat and power (CHP), where steam flows through a back pressure turbine to building loads, rather than to a condenser where the heat is rejected to the atmosphere was important to the overall operating cost of the system. Wind was the most economical way to produce electricity; however, there was little cost penalty associated with CHP.

5 Strategy The university realized it was on course to achieve carbon neutrality and student feedback on campus showed strong support for the initiative. In fact, the support was so strong that the administration felt that it was responding to student demand, rather than working toward its own initiative. The energy strategy was knit with the campus’ marketing strategy. The campus was working to create a clear identity for itself within the university system. Morris administration focused on delivering benefit to its students, its host community and its region. The project was charged with exploring energy technology that could make a real difference for communities in the region. Recalling the abundance of corn grown in the area, it asked the team to plan for using corn stover for fuel. It also set a course for developing a district energy system that would serve the school districts K-12 facilities and the hospital. The idea was that economy of scale and sharing a single labor pool to meet the thermal energy requirements of three institutions could demonstrate a repeatable model in neighboring towns.

The campus began to survey the market for boiler and gasification system manufacturers that would be interested in working with the university to use stover for fuel. To meet this goal, the properties of corn stover became a central issue. There is a reason why corn stover is abundant beyond its low value compared to the grain itself. The leaves and the stalk of the corn plant have high silica content



and are stringy. Silica in a boiler normally translates to slag which is an impure glass. The slag forms on the coolest surfaces of a boiler and that is generally on the tubes where steam is produced. The slag acts as insulation and is difficult to remove. It is the enemy of a boiler. There are also other elements in stover present in varying quantities, which affect the melting point of the ash being produced. If the ash melts, then cools, clinkers are formed and can clog a boilers ash removal system.

Given the chemical properties of stover, the number of manufacturers willing to take up the project went from 40 down to one. In addition to experiencing a tepid response on the supply side, the local school district decided to proceed with a conventional gas fired system in their own building, rather than relying on the university’s thermal energy plant. This cost the university its chance to share operating costs with other institutions in the community.

The university entered into a process of qualifying the only proposal for the project. The key issues at the beginning of the qualification process were determining if the equipment could produce heat, and if it could limit stack emissions to levels below permit requirements. Testing was conducted on corn stover and Distillers, Grain and Solubles (DGS). Wood was determined to be a straight forward and tested option that had already been documented by the manufacturer. At the same time that the university was testing the equipment, a Fortune 500 company was also running tests. Their interests were similar. The testing was interrupted by the fuel handling systems inability to move corn stover into the gasification furnace.

Recall that corn stover is stringy. Fuel handling system commonly used for wood chips use screws to move the chips from a conveying system into the boiler-furnace. The corn stover wrapped around the screws, clogging the system. The manufacturer processed the fuel by tub grinding it to reduce the length of the stalks. That allowed the tests to be conducted for heat production and emissions and a later test was conducted on a modified fuel handling system. Following completion of the testing, planning commenced to incorporate the manufacturer’s equipment into a boiler plant addition that would be built to house their equipment and other equipment that was part of the energy Master Plan.

6 Planning Work proceeded to incorporate the manufacturer’s proposal into a boiler plant addition. The university recognized a conundrum early in its development of the project and the lack of competition highlighted the issue. Using corn stover for fuel put the project beyond the cutting edge of manufactured products being offered to the market by established companies. At the same time, the university was determined to use its standard contracting forms that sought guaranteed performance. While the university wrestled with it contracting language, the design proceeded. The resulting documents produced bids well in excess of the budget.

An evaluation of the bids suggested that the project was underfunded and that the scope would need to be reduced to achieve the primary goal, gasification of corn stover to produce steam. The university explored additional options to fund the project, including the use of Clean Renewable Energy Bonds being made available through the U.S. Department of Treasury to reduce the cost of debt and the use of a revolving energy conservation fund within the university system. None of the options offered real value to the university and additional funding was raised within the university system.



The project was reissued in two packages, the first for the gasification technology and subsequently the balance of the plant that would house the gasification technology and provide the interfaces with existing equipment. Like the first time, potential manufacturers were identified. The difference is that the definition of gasification was blurred to allow very close coupled systems to qualify. An additional step was taken to review the bid documents ahead of issue to accommodate the expectations of several suppliers regarding the terms under which they would supply equipment for this highly experimental project. Interest was expressed by several companies and the bid documents were issued.

Unfortunately; again only a single bid was received. Others, who initially were interested in the project stepped back, and in general cited business reasons that included not wanting to sort through a research and development project in a public arena.

Like the first round, the lone bidder was qualified through testing that focused on a test burn to demonstrate emissions characteristics and the quality of the ash. Fuel handling was met with a claim that they had experience using a hydraulic ram to move refuse derived fuel that was certain to work with corn stover. (There was no test facility available to demonstrate the claim was true.) Design of the balance of the plant proceeded and was bid. This time the project met its budget threshold and the general contractor accepted assignment of the technology partner and led the coordination of that supplier’s performance on the project.

7 Implementation Construction demands the coordination of manufacturers and site labor to assemble a building that meets the specifications prepared by architects and engineers. This project also knit the requirement that detailed drawings of the gasification system be produced in advance of final documentation of the balance of the plant, eliminating rework that is required to coordinate construction details of complex systems in the documents.

A third tier contractor on the project was in a financially precarious position so the general contractor took additional steps to make sure products and work were delivered before money was paid, to minimize the risk that a party does not perform.

This tactic worked reasonably well for the component goods associated with their work, but did not help in making sure that coordination drawings were produced in a timely manner. Materials were delivered to the site prior to shop drawings being produced, reviewed or accepted. This frustrated the team’s ability to coordinate the work and to resolve potential problems ahead of field labor being spent. The engineers reverse engineered the thermal process to gain confidence that the systems could meet the overall objectives of the project. The university’s project manager made the judgment to proceed with the work and solve issues during start-up.

During startup of the system, several subsystems required modifications to meet operational requirements.

• The stoker system was not able to feed the unprocessed corn stover (like the stover that was tested) at a rate that allowed the boiler to reach its operating capacity. By processing the fuel, into pellets that physically resembled wood and making some other modifications the stoker system worked.



• The step grate system in the gasification furnace did not manage the fuel flow rate until changes to the hydraulic system were completed.

• The control system was modified to make use of the full complement of sensors provided as part of the system to manage over-fire and under-fire air. This allowed the system to respond to both the demand for steam and the management of excess oxygen in the combustion process.

• A flue gas scrubber system was adjusted to manage flow and the injection of sodium hydroxide when Chlorine was present in the fuel.

• Experiments were also conducted in the gasification system to better understand how various opportunity fuels might behave in a commercial system. During the process of testing fuels it became clear that the more the fuel was processed to resemble wood, the better the gasification furnace and the balance of the system performed. Trouble was experienced when:

o Fuel density was in excess of 25lb/ft3. o Fuel was crushed or had high powder content. This generated significant fly ash that

clogged the heat recovery system.

Early in the design process, a gasification technology was observed in an outdoor commercial/industrial setting. The gasifier was located in a freezing outdoor climate, and dust was observed on the outside of the equipment. A design decision was made to locate the university’s gasifier outdoors. This was seen as benefit because it offered a means of controlling dust, or at least eliminating dust from entering the existing gas fired plant. When observing the dust on the outside of the equipment a judgment could be made that this was a good design decision. Conversely, due to the intermittent operation of the system and the wind and cold temperatures at Morris, this system has challenged the operators and issues have surfaced.

• The opening at the stoker into the furnace is protected by water. This was true of the other system that was observed, nonetheless, the water at the opening freezes, even if the system is up for more than a day.

• This system relies upon recirculated flue gas to provide lower oxygen content blast under the fire on the grate. This flue gas is moisture laden and condenses in the duct that is routed outdoors. This results in a significant amount of water draining to the space directly below the grate and results in wet ash.

The system that is in operation at Morris is based on a system that is normally fueled with wood. In hind sight, a commissioning process that proved subsystems with this fuel would have reduced the amount of ambiguity associated with early problems and allowed the team to focus without as many distractions. With processed fuel that resembles the dimensional properties of wood, the university was able to complete its testing to learn more about how the chemistry of various fuels behave. Finally, the system has demonstrated that it can operate to meet the goal of trigeneration; the production of steam for heating, electricity and chilled water using renewable fuels.

8 Moving the Plant From Design to Operational The conceptual design and assumptions made about how biofuels could be managed to produce useable energy were put to the test during the construction and commissioning phase of this project.



Before we describe the process, it should be noted that it took some time for the University to understand how to manage this construction project. The typical project delivery methods included Design/Build, Design/Bid/ Build and General Contractor at Risk.

There was vigorous discussion about what project delivery mechanism should be used. The basic issue was owners look to hedge risk by using contracts that either shift risk or develop risk sharing in a manner that all parties are comfortable with.

In this particular hybrid research/demonstration/operational plant prototype had by its aggressive deliverables, posed significant risk. The University was used to doing research projects, but had not built research projects with long term operational expectations. Contractors were comfortable with fossil fueled combined heat and power plants (CHP), but had no experience in biofuels and gasification. Gasification contractors were comfortable with gasification of wood and wood by products but knew very little about how high mineral content biofuels would perform in their gasification platforms.

Thus in trying to define and understand the elements of risk, it was important to understand that each segment of the project participants understood risk from a different perspective. Each project delivery method placed risk at a different part of the project team. The downside of placing risk at specific participant levels is that the participants may adjust their bid response to mitigate perceived or real risk.

The final project delivery method selected was the General Contractor at Risk, with some significant exceptions in that risk assignment. The General contractor agreed to accept risk for the typical combined heat and power plant construction but made a condition of acceptance that the University must accept risk for the actual biofuel gasification process.

The efforts to identify contractors and subcontractors who might have had some prior experience in gasification or biofuels handing was difficult. It was nearly impossible to find contractors who had experience with gasification in the Midwest. We did locate contractors who had experience in materials management and grain handling. The robust agricultural economy was a significant help in finding projects that could provide guidance and information in handling bulk materials.

The concept of the walking floor and load cells came directly from the ag processing industries. They were proven concepts and we could find working projects to observe.

We were also fortunate to attract a general contractor who had experience in heating plants and doing work for the U of MN system. Selecting a general contractor who could bring the right mix of sub-contractors to the project was also important.

The project was put out for bid in 2007 and was awarded for construction to complete in 2008. A brief description of the final plant configuration is as follows:



Figure 2.1-Overhead view of Biomass Facility

The infeed system is an 8 ft. wide 60 ft. long walking floor conveyer that is sitting on load cells. It can hold up to 30 tons of fuel that can be transferred into the plant. At the interface between the walking floor and the gasifier is a hydraulically controlled piston ram that is 51 inches wide and 9 1/2 inches deep. The travel of this ram is 38 inches from fully retracted to fully extended. This fuel bunker is equipped with cameras and quench type water suppression systems to prevent fires.

Figure 2.2-Simplified Drawing of Gasification Process

The ram pushes the biofuel into the first grate of the gasifier. The gasifier is an incline grate atmospheric pressure air blown gasifier. It is a simple configuration and was proposed for this project



because there was a goal to provide equipment that can be readily adapted to existing industrial applications. The ram is driven by the number of cycles in the gasifier grate system.

The gasifier thermally converts biofuels into an intermediary gas made up of compounds of Hydrogen, Carbon Monoxide and Nitrous Oxides. This is a low quality synthetic gas that can be combusted to produce heat. The gasification process was selected as means to produce a lower temperature thermal conversion reactions at the fuel bed level and then add additional air above the fuel bed to maximize the temperature of the producer gas just prior to entering the boiler. The lower fuel bed temperatures are necessary to manage the higher mineral content biofuels.

The gasifer is close coupled to a conventional fire tube boiler that is designed to use the low quality producer gas to convert the heat energy to steam.

The boiler is connected to a high pressure backpressure steam turbine that is designed to use the steam from the boiler to produce electricity and then discharge low pressure steam to either heat or cool the campus. (CHP)

The cooling is accomplished by using an absorption chiller that uses low pressure steam to provide chiller water for building cooling operations.

Additional plant equipment includes a water based scrubber for flue gas clean up. The scubber was added to the plant design when trial runs at a test site confirmed that we were producing a slightly acidic flue gas with the conversion of biofuels. In early gasification tests that drove the pre design, the Chlorine in the mineral salts found in most biofuels, quickly volatized in the fuel bed and combined with hydrogen that existed in producer gas. This resulted in an HCL flue gas that mandated that the process temperatures need to stay above 240 F to keep the HCL from condensing and causing acid decomposition. These temperatures are maintained until the flue gas enters the scrubber which sequesters the HCl in the water spray. We use an alkaline water spray to neutralize the slightly acidic flue gas to give a neutral (PH 7) scrubber discharge.

The USDA grant added a continuous emissions monitoring system and SCADA monitoring system. The data collection requirements of this system was not typical for production CHP plants. This required additional sensors, collection hardware and software.

Real-time data on the operation of the gasifier, boiler, steam turbine, absorption chiller, scrubber, and emissions is collected, stored on UMM servers and available on the UMM Biomass website.

Considerable time and effort was spent on emergency operations and emergency shutdown procedures. Since the gasifier is a non-pressurized vessel, the shutdown was driven by the emergency requirements of the boiler.

The control system was designed to integrate the steam production with both the steam turbine and the gasifier. The boiler is the primary control mechanism and the steam pressure determines the control sequence for grate speeds and induction fan settings. This in turn controls the ram feed and the walking floor activity. The challenge was building a control program that can recognize the lead/



lag control characteristics of the boiler and the gasifier. Lead compensators helped increase the stability and speed of the systems response. Lag compensators helped reduce steady state errors. The coordination of both types of data for reporting purposes and adding the pressure requirements of the steam turbine only complicated the control algorithms. The operational safety of using this equipment for research also required strategically located master kill switches, and continuous gas scavenging fans to insure that any carbon monoxide leakage could not build up in low lying areas.

The final portion of the plant is the ash discharge system. The ash collection occurs at multiple points in the process. The base of the gasifier has collection augers as well as the base of the boiler. The augers are run by a timed sequence to insure that all ash is removed from the process.

9 Construction

Once awarded the project started towards a completion date in Fall of 2008. There were many progress meetings to continue the coordination of the traditional parts of this project (CHP) with the nontraditional gasification elements.

Integrating the robust research and instrumentation systems provided by this grant was always a slightly different application then building a production plant. A lot of time was spent working to insure that sampling ports, thermal couple wells and sensor locations were located at the critical parts of the thermal conversion process.

The construction process was impeded due to some production delays from one of the subcontractors. This proved to be problematic as the subcontractor did not provide for timely review of shop drawings and delivered equipment that later had to be field modified.

The completion of the plant marked the end of the concept and the beginning of the testing phase. It should be note the plant received an AIA State of MN award for design excellence in 2009.

Commissioning was started in Fall of 2008. Fuel was purchased, equipment tested and the required commissioning tests were started. Commission had to be completed before the U of MN would accept the plant.

The fall was spent working to move the biofuel through the system and attempting to initiate thermal conversion. Initial efforts to get to any sustained level of steam production failed.

The winter of 2009 was spent analyzing the preliminary test results and we tried to determine what was causing the production failures. The focus eventually got to the biofuel density and the ability to provide a consistent and uniform energy flow into the gasifier. Our original concept of using lower density fuels that had significant air entrainment in the fuel feed proved to be counterproductive in the gasification process which is purposefully attempting to restrict the amount of air that is available for thermal conversion. The air entrained spaces caused rapid thermal conversion leading to overheating the fuel bed and thermal conversion rates much faster than the control system was designed to handle.



The lower density (3 to 5 lbs. cu. Ft.) biofuels simply could not be pushed into the gasifier fast enough to achieve maximum steam production. The success of the gasification process is a matrix of grate area and time spent in the gasifier, and the energy density of the fuel source.

Our low quality lower density fuel sources simply could not meet the performance specifications of the maximum steam required in the system that was installed and stay within the temperature ranges that we defined as critical to successfully gasify high mineral content biofuels.

Our options were to either increase the grate area or increasing the energy density. We chose to explore the energy density as the most cost efficient means to increase the steam production capabilities. We understood that this decision could affect the economic price points as we were putting more costs in our biofuels

Fortunately our infeed systems were robust enough that we could change density without needing to make major modifications to the infeed equipment. We did need to increase cylinders and pumping pressures to handle high density fuel sources.

We brought in an internationally recognized gasification consultant to review our system and make suggestions on how to migrate to a new higher density fuel source. At the same time we made modifications to the grate system and replaced the PLC programs to accommodate the different performance of biofuels from more traditional wood gasification control systems.

10 Energy Density

The target fuel density of 10 lbs. per cu ft. was set. That meant the density had to somehow be increased by a factor of at least two from the existing bulk fuel supplies.

Grinding to reduce the aggregate size of the biofuels from the existing 1 to 6 inch lengths to something that was more uniform was looked at first. Bales were ground in our tub grinder to a uniform size using trials from 2 inch screens to down to ½ inch screens.

The immediate outcome was that we created a significant amount of dust and fines that were susceptible to being windblown and difficult to capture.

Trials with the ground biofuels were run next but while we could increase density, the thermal performance in the gasifier was just too difficult to control. The fuel bed temperatures also could not be kept within the ranges we had specified. We suspected that entrained air was still causing problems with the speed of thermal conversion.

A more aggressive densification system was tried next. Using ground biofuels and compressing them in a mechanical piston compression system 70MM pucks that had densities that ranged up to 30 lbs. cu ft. were produced.



The higher density fuel was better managed in our infeed system and could now load enough fuel on our infeed floor to run for up to 16 hours vs. the 6 to 8 hour supply in the bulk fuels we originally tested. A discussion of the thermal stability of densified fuels is located in Chapter 3.

Trials on the 70 mm densified pucks were marginal. We observed much better energy conversion and we could adequately supply the fuel bed in terms of energy density, but still experienced problems with core temperatures in the individual pucks getting too hot and starting to develop a soft slag in the ash.

The 70 mm pucks were quartered to provide a more “wood chip” type product to the gasifier. Some of our target fuels performed well in the quarter configuration, but corn stover still showed sticky ash characteristics. We then moved to a much smaller densification process using commercially available pelleting systems. We densified several of our targeted biofuels to ¼ in diameter pellets.

Our density again was approaching 30 lbs. cu ft. Our trials on ¼ inch pellets showed another tendency to develop a soft slag above the grates. The pellets would get sticky just above the grate and bridge over the grate movement thus blocking the flow of air through the grates. The smaller pellets tended to roll around the grate movement and not be moved down the incline. We can speculate that this promoted overheating the pellets and increased the probability of soft slag.

A blended fuel mix of partially densified material and partially ground material was tried next. This allowed us to custom build the density that we wanted to achieve. It also resulted lower the overall fuel preparation costs as we were using a percentage of ground material in lieu of more costly processed material.

We ran various trials of various ratios of densified/ground fuel mixes. Again, some of our targeted fuels performed well with blended fuel stocks but we did notice that the movement of the fuel down the grate system tended to segregate back into higher density pellets on the bottom and lower density ground fuel on top of the fuel bed. The fuel pellets would then have a layer of ground fuel on top and the air supply from the bottom which poised significant problems if the fuel was prone to slagging. We had difficulty in keeping the higher density fuels from overheating.

We observed that changing the physical composition of any of the biofuels changes the thermal conversion properties of that fuel. We think much more needs to be tested on how the physical configuration of fuels affects the thermal performance.

We also tried mixing dissimilar fuels such as wood chips and corn stover. The thermal conversion of the dry woodchips progressed much faster than the corn stover and lead to a concentration of cornstover at the lower end of the grate which tended to develop sticky ash characteristics.

11 Alkalinity

With some consistent slagging occurring in several different density trials of the target biofuels, we turned our focus to the alkalinity indexes of the various fuels.



That led to additional changes in our fuel bed control programs to try and tighten the range of our fuel bed temperatures. Just as extracting energy is a function of grate area, time and energy density, controlling the fuel bed temp is a function of underfed supply air, induction air and flue gas return back to the gasifier bed.

The control programs were modified to be more reactive to changes in fuel bed trends and to make adjustments to attempt to keep our bed temperatures under the known points that would cause slagging.

With help from or HRSG (Heat Recovery Steam Generator) subcontractor, we looked at modifying the alkalinity numbers of the fuels we were running.

Please refer to Chapter 3 for a discussion of the alkalinity measurements of the fuels we tested.

Our primary target fuels tended to have alkalinity numbers above one. The higher that number went, the more slagging we observed on the grates.

Several of our targeted fuels did not have the slagging problems that we saw in the corn based fuels. Specifically, native prairie grasses showed little slagging when we ran them through the new fuel bed control algorithms for controlling fuel bed temps. Native grasses in our samples showed alkalinity numbers of under .75 and did not seem to develop the sticky ash characteristic of the fuels that were 1 or above in alkalinity.

A second corn based fuel that seemed to work well was corn cobs. Their size and natural moisture content seemed to work well with the gasification equipment. The alkalinity of corn cobs was less than 0.25 lb Alkali/MBtu in our tests. This level indicates a relatively low risk of slagging.

The last fuel characteristic that we found that significantly affected thermal performance is moisture. Biofuels are going to have certain moisture levels depending on physical characteristics. See Chapter 3 for a discussion on time weighted degradation of unprocessed biofuels.

12 Moisture

Field stored biofuels will maintain a certain level of moisture because of ambient conditions. Ambient moisture in the northern portions of the Midwest provide a window that can allow materials to be stored unprotected in the field for at least 6 months after the material is harvested in the fall. The winter conditions provide a limited time to keep the material in a steady state and avoid either ambient moisture increases or microbial activity. We found that material used within that window could be used with little concern for moisture levels above what the moisture was when it was harvested.

The shape of the bales also affected the length of time the bale stayed stable. Round bales seemed to perform better at moisture resistance. Material stored into the summer months showed increase moisture levels and increased microbial activity. After extended storage in a northern climate, the material stored outside became unusable for thermal conversion.



Our gasification ranges for optimum performance seemed to be in the range of 18% to 20% Field stored bales for the first 6 months stayed in the 20 to 25% range. In field trials we tested material over one year of storage. By the time the material was stored outside for 36 months, it was unusable for thermal conversion.

13 The Roadmap

The commission process was difficult and high mineral content fuels proved to be a challenge. The HRSG contractor proved to be the most important contractor in meeting these challenges. Their experience in thermal conversion systems helped us to establish a roadmap on how to work through the issues.

The Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) manufacturer has a vested interest in the performance of everything upstream from his boiler. Our experience shows that this contractor is key to the success of the project.

By identifying the areas of energy density, alkalinity, and moisture, UMM was able to selectively test and refine our understanding of the fuel characteristics of the target fuels in the grant deliverables. Since Fall of 2010, Morris has run all of the target fuel stocks, collected data and identified the best practices associated with these fuels. This information is contained in this report.

In some cases we simply have learned that certain biofuels are not good candidates for thermal conversion in our gasification platform. Other fuels show definite promise and will continue to be used for research and production at the campus.

We have also learned a great deal about blending fuels to minimize undesirable characteristics in either the thermal conversion or the end products of gas or ash. Conversely, we think there is great opportunity in blending fuels to improve performance. The following sections will provide detail on the tests, the successes, the failures and the lessons learned in this process. The University of Minnesota is grateful to the USDA for the opportunity to promote the use of biofuels as a viable fuel for community based gasification facilities like Morris.


Chapter 3: Report on Feedstock Testing and Biomass Testing Activities Page 23

Chapter 3: Report on Feedstock Testing and Biomass Testing Activities

1 Preproject Testing at Carterville, IL A Corn Stover/Ethanol Mash Gasification test was commissioned from Coaltec Energy USA, Inc., Carterville, IL, in January of 2005 for Recovered Energy Resources, LLC (RER) on behalf of UMM. In the final report compiled by RER, dated March 30, 2005, several findings demonstrated the feasibility of the project and helped the MPCA permitting process move forward. The test system was a commercial-size gasifier rated at 25 mmBtu/hr (7.32 MW(th)). The following summary presents the results that we used to determine the expected emissions and ash quality from the system:

The test and subsequent report included:

• Sustained operations using corn stover and corn stover mixed with ethanol mash • Heat and mass balance to estimate system efficiency • Emissions monitoring • Fuel analysis • Ash analysis • Identification of issues, opportunities, and expected solutions and/or costs associated with

those issues.

2 Summary of Initial Findings While it was not expected to answer all questions about project feasibility, the goals of the testing were to gather reliable emissions data, identify any fatal flaws in the project, and develop a list of issues to be addressed in the system design should the project move forward. A brief summary of the findings follows:

• Gasification was sustained with all fuels tested. Fuel was fed at a rate of 3,500 lb/hr during preliminary testing on 8 Jan 2005 to determine the burn rate. The measured rate of burn was approximately 35 lbs. of fuel per square foot of available bed area, which was in the expected range for this fuel.

• Material handling of corn stover was successful. The stover was reduced in size in a tub grinder. A test in October of 2004 had shown that the infeed system could not handle the stover in larger, variable pieces.

• In subsequent testing of the feed system with an alternative vertical auger, corn stover was moved successfully in all size ranges.

• Control of harmful emissions was generally successful. While the overall results were excellent, there are still a few issues that must be addressed.

• The ash material did not clinker and caused no handling problems. • The system operated at very high efficiency. The efficiency of corn stover gasification was

99.6%, calculated as the percentage of fixed and volatile carbon that was converted. • The system operated easily with the different fuel mixtures, without constant adjustment of

the air flow and fuel feed rates. Occasional changes in feed rate and moisture content of the fuel caused no major problems.



• The ash quality did not present any environmental concerns. • The air flow into the gasifier must be better controlled. Wetter fuel required more air, but the

gasifier lacked zonal air flow control, resulting in the addition of more air than was needed. The excessive air flow in the inner cone produced increased levels of particulate carryover.

• The fuel feed system handled the ground fuel for this test. The horizontal feed augers could not maintain the required feed rate with unprocessed stover. A smaller vertical auger with a square housing was able handle the unprocessed stover with no difficulty. A commercial system could use either the square-cased augers or a hydraulic ram system.

• Expected fuel throughput rates were achieved. It is apparent that commercial feed and ash handling systems can be designed and implemented. Some bridging occurred in the ash dumping system even though the ash was free of clinkers and was generally a fine powder. These results indicate that some sort of agitation in the ash handling system would be of benefit.

• A particulate plume was not visible at the stack, but the fine filters did capture some material. This particulate entrainment is thought to be the result of fines created by the hammer mill grinding and the high rate of air flow required by the high moisture content in the fuel. In commercial application, the feed system would be designed so the grinding of the fuel would not be required; therefore, the amount of fines would be much lower. Allowing for some seasonal variability, the moisture content of the fuels is likely to be lower in commercial application.

• The stack emissions contained a high concentration of HCl. Laboratory analyses showed that the corn stover contained slightly over 0.5% chlorine. We have since learned that corn stover typically contains high levels of chlorine. System design must consider the presence of chlorine and its removal. Minnesota regulations require us to control HCl.

3 Emissions Summary Emissions sampling and analysis were performed by GE Energy. The gas stream was tested for CO, NOx, SO2, HCl, particulates, CO2, and O2. The stack emissions throughout the test were generally very low. The CO and CO2 levels were very good, and the NOx levels were within operating parameters. It was noted by Coaltec that the NOx levels were dramatically reduced as the reaction temperature was lowered. The NOx emissions at 1800° F were 50% of the emissions at 2000° F.

Please see Table 3.1 for the summarized data.

The major issues with emissions were identified as particulate matter and HCl. These issues are discussed in Chapter 4, Section 2.4. See also Section 5 of this chapter.

3.1 Storage of Fuel Bales Change in the composition of mineral elements in 4 fuel stock was studied over a period of 268 days from August 2009 to May 2010. Separate studies were done for carbon losses over winter and over summer. The data are summarized below in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. In all cases, the sampling was done according to the Sampling protocol shown in Figure 3.1 in the Appendix.



3.2 Mineral Element Changes Round bales of corn stover and prairie grass, square bales of soybean residue, and bulk wood chips were sampled according to protocol and analyzed for the following elements by Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectrometry (ICP) at the USDA-ARS laboratory. The elements: Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Li, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, S, Se, Si, Sr, Ti, V, Zn.

For all elements, the data became increasingly variable over time. Indeed, the variability was so great that no reasonable fit of a regression line was possible. The best R-square value for any line was 0.6. Most were less than 0.1. The reason for this extreme variability is not readily apparent. We are dealing with small concentrations of these minerals (ppm ranges). Uneven weathering of the bales may be evident here. Sampling errors probably contribute some variability. Experimental error can also creep in from the laboratory. It is recommended that further research be undertaken to elucidate the fate of mineral elements in stored fuel stocks.

3.3 Carbon Losses in Storage The loss of carbon during storage is generally of highest interest in handling and storing biomass fuels. Carbon and its compounds represent the majority of the heating value of the fuel. Carbon losses to weathering and microbial action rob the energy contained in the fuel. We conducted a study of carbon loss in stored bales of corn stover over a summer. We also measured losses to Prairie grass over a winter.

Corn stover bales were sampled and assayed for carbon content in March of 2010. The stover averaged 39.8% carbon at that time. Following storage over the summer, the stover was sampled again and showed an average carbon content of 36.9%. It would appear that little carbon was lost, but for each ton of stover, that 2.9 percentage points lost from the carbon concentration means that 58 lb of carbon was lost. Based on an HHV for carbon of 14,662 Btu/lb, a total of 850,396 Btu were lost. The stover assayed at 7575 Btu/lb, so the total heating value of one ton of stover would be 15.15 MBtu. In this study, the stover lost 5.6% of its heating value over 180 days from March to September.

A similar study was done during the winter months with prairie grass bales. In January, the bales averaged 46.3% carbon. In April, 127 days later, the bales averaged 46.5% carbon. The difference is too small to be statistically significant. We conclude that no carbon was lost from the bales in a Minnesota winter. Minnesota has natural frozen storage for a good part of the year!

Studies were done to measure the change in carbon concentration in soybean residue and wood chips over a 28 day period in late summer. The soybean residue lost 124 lb of carbon per ton, or 1.82 M Btu/ton. Wood chips were (not surprisingly) more stable, losing 42 lb of carbon per ton in 4 weeks. The heating value loss was 334,068 Btu/ton.

3.4 Ash Composition As explained in Chapter 4, UMM is beginning the process of applying for a beneficial use determination regarding our intended use of the ash from our gasification system for land application. At present, MPCA requires a total chemical compositional analysis of the ash, pH, and may request others. Following is a brief description of some characteristics of the ash from our fuel stocks.

The ashes from corn stover, corn cobs, wood chips, and prairie grass generally have few characteristics that would render them unfit for application on agricultural land or managed grasslands. The primary



problem is the high pH of all of the ashes. In our tests, the agricultural residues have, on average, had lower pH than wood chips. There is, however, great variability in the ash from given batches of biomass fuel and given operational setups in the gasifier. This variability may make even use as a liming agent difficult without blending ash and other agents to produce a uniform product. The same variability in the plant nutrients will likely make blending a necessity. Upon completion of our Case-Specific Beneficial Use Determination from MPCA, we will begin negotiations with fertilizer and liming agent processors in the region. If we attain our goal, all of our ash will go back to the land, and none to a landfill.

It should be pointed out that corn stover has consistently shown relatively high levels of lead (Pb) averaging 532 ppm overall. This level is above the 300 ppm lead limit set by MPCA for land application of industrial byproducts. Ash from unadulterated wood and agricultural biomass is not considered an industrial byproduct. It is, however, unclear exactly what the MPCA will set as the regulatory limits, if any, on these products. It is also unclear whether the state or US Departments of Agriculture will issue new regulations regarding fertilizers and liming agents containing ash from agricultural biomass. In any event, we hold fast to our goal of keeping the ash we produce out of landfills. If necessary, we will explore other potential beneficial uses.

4 Conclusion The project partners have completed the commissioning of the biomass-fired combined heat and power plant on the UMM campus. We expect to have the system in routine use in the fall of 2011, pending completion of our emissions permitting process. This project has met with delays and problems, but much has been learned in the process, and not merely in the deliverables of the grant. We entered the project rather naively, understanding that there is no established supply infrastructure for agricultural biomass such as corn stover, but with no idea of the problems associated with the actual utilization of the material. Our chosen primary fuel stock was to be corn stover. That is unlikely to be the case unless we can find a way to produce a densified product that will work well in our gasifier while holding both monetary and energy costs as low as possible. We have discovered other options, and eliminated some potential crop residues form consideration. Work on fuel type, supply handling, processing, and gasification is ongoing. Corn stover is a bulky, low density product that does not handle well at all. A typical large round bale of corn stover weighs about 1000 lb and has a density of about 10 lb/ft3. Once the bale is broken, the stover fluffs up to density of around 3 lb/ft3. At such low density it would be impossible for us to put the rated 3000 lb/hr of fuel through the gasifier. We found that corn stover will jam typical auger feed systems and even plug and stop a hydraulic ram system. Grinding the product did not help these problems much, and added the problems of increased particulates and entrained air being delivered into the gasifier’s reactor. Obviously, densification to produce a consistent, uniform fuel was the solution. We worked with several companies and researchers to find a pellet or brick or briquette that would meet our needs. But each size and shape of fuel particle had its own set of problems. One of the most critical is that most pellets were simply too dense. They would begin to burn or pyrolyze on the surface, but never were completely consumed. The temperatures on the grate of a gasifier are not as high as those in a standard combustor. At these lower temperatures, the slow reaction of the surface



of the pellet heats the interior of the pellet to the fusion temperature of the ash. We then end up with clinkers and, if grate temperatures are not carefully controlled, slagging of the gasifier and boiler. Still, densification seems to be the only choice for using corn stover or prairie grass. At present, we are working with V. Morey and colleagues, engineers at the UofM Twin Cities campus, on developing and testing a roller press for compaction of materials such as corn stover and prairie grass. A full-scale prototype should be available for us to test by the fall. In our examination and testing of potential fuels, we tried corn stover, corn cobs, wood, prairie grass, soybean residue, and wheat straw. The last two were rejected quickly. Soybean residue has the lowest heating value of the fuels (7000 Btu/lb) we tested, and it is difficult to handle. But the main problem is the very low yield of residue per acre of land. Wheat straw has a very respectable HHV of 7700 Btu/lb, but caused excessive fine particulate emissions in our system. It also would require densification.

The other four fuels remain viable options, with certain provisos. Corn stover must be successfully densified, and we must find a way to reduce the potential for slagging. This area of slagging reduction is a ripe area for research. Prairie grass has slightly less slagging potential, but still requires densification. Wood is an excellent fuel and works beautifully in our system, but is not a locally abundant fuel. We must pay to have it hauled from 100 miles away. This cartage uses diesel fuel and severely offsets the excellent HHV of 8000 Btu/lb. Corn cobs work as well as wood, with a lower HHV (7500 Btu/lb). They handle easily and gasify well with little slagging. But the equipment and infrastructure for collection and storage is not available yet.

So, what is the best fuel? Wood, but…

• We live on the prairie. Large quantities of wood must be hauled at least 100 miles to us.

• Drying and transportation make it expensive.

• Our break-even point vs. natural gas is about $9.00 per dekatherm.

• We believe that the future of biomass energy is local. Wood simply is not abundant on the prairie.

Corn cobs are the best local fuel. They require no processing and handle well. Although we give up about 100,000 Btu/ton relative to wood, it is likely our best fuel option if we can develop a supply chain. Prairie grass and corn stover are very abundant, but require densification and mitigation of their slagging potential. Research is underway to find the optimum form and density for our fuels. Densification changes thermal characteristics of the fuels. We must find the optimum relationship between shape and intrinsic density for the densified fuel. And we have found in tests blending fuels that a custom-blended densified fuel might be the best solution, especially if the cost of densification can be kept reasonable. The above-mentioned research by Morey, et al., is very promising in that it provides variable and precise control of density with the added feature of the lowest power consumption of all the densification methods we have tested.

To close the cycle of nutrients that we interrupt by using the crop residues or grasses for fuel, we intend to return the ashes to the soil. It is also likely that the remaining fixed carbon in the ash can be valuable. This biochar can improve some soils, and may be an important way to capture and sequester atmospheric CO2. The carbon content of ash can range from <1% to more than 8% by weight. In most cases, the amount of remaining carbon in the ash is a function of the conversion process parameters. We plan to learn to control where that fraction of carbon goes – into producer gas or into the ash.



This project is demonstrating the potential for facility scale to community scale district heat and power produced from locally available biomass resources. Our experiences suggest a rethinking of energy production and distribution to favor small-scale distributed renewable energy production. Local, renewable, distributed heat and power can:

• Help to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions

• Create local bioenergy ecosystems

• Create job in small communities

• Keep energy dollars in the local economy

• Lead to development of value-added biofuels products at the local scale

• Help to reduce the US dependence on foreign fuels



This page intentionally left blank



Appendix

Figure 3.1

Fuel Stock Sampling Protocols – Stored Feedstocks

Wood Chips and other bulk material

Supplies needed: Pail or bucket, Ziploc or equivalent freezer bags, 1-qt size; permanent marker

Number of samples: Three (3). Take grab samples as described below from each of 3 locations. The selected locations should be well-separated to represent the entire lot.

Labeling: Sample Number only (from Master Sample Log)

Example: 162

Sampling method: Using a pail or bucket, collect grab samples as follows: At about chest height, dig into the pile approximately 18 inches. From the bottom of the hole, take 2 handfuls of wood chips and place in bucket. Mix the contents of the pail well and fill a freezer bag with wood chips. There is no need to over-stuff the bag. Close the bag, making sure the zip strips are secure.

Corn Stover, Prairie Grass, and other baled material

Supplies needed: Sample probe and drill: Ziploc or equivalent freezer bags, 1-qt size; clean plastic pail; permanent marker.

Number of samples: Three (3). Take 1 core from each of 4 bales to yield one aggregate sample. The selected bales should be selected to represent a given portion of the lot. Three samples are to be collected (a total of 12 cores) from sites selected to represent the entire lot.

Labeling: Sample Number only (from Master Sample Log)

Example: 162

Method: Use the 18-in probe (with the probe extension if needed). Take the core on the round side of the bale – not the end – at about the middle. Direct the probe toward the center of the bale. Withdraw the probe and push the core out into the pail. When all 4 cores are taken, mix the sample by hand and transfer to a plastic freezer bag.



Table 3.1 GE Energy emissions sampling and analysis

100% Corn Stover Fuel Condition

80% Corn Stover/20% Distillers Grain Fuel

Conditionppmvd 11.8 8.3lbs/hr 2.89 2.04

tons/yr 10.115 7.140ppmvd 4.2 8.4lbs/hr 1.42 2.89




tons/yr 0.000 0.665lbs/hr 0.00026 0.00027

tons/yr 0.001 0.001lbs/hr 0.00001 0.00001

tons/yr 0.000 0.000lbs/hr 0.00023 0.00017

tons/yr 0.001 0.001lbs/hr 0.00013 0.00034

tons/yr 0.000 0.001lbs/hr 0.00000 0.00000

tons/yr 0.000 0.000lbs/hr 0.00176 0.00155

tons/yr 0.006 0.005lbs/hr 0.00039 0.00000

tons/yr 0.001 0.000lbs/hr 0.00098 0.00070

tons/yr 0.003 0.002lbs/hr 0.00060 0.00053

tons/yr 0.002 0.002grains/dscf 0.00485 0.0329

lbs/hr 13.30 9.699tons/yr 46.547 33.947

grains/dscf 0.04340 0.0267lbs/hr 11.902 7.879

tons/yr 41.657 27.5765grains/dscf 0.0051 0.0062

lbs/hr 1.397 1.820tons/yr 4.890 6.370

Mercury

Nickel

CO

SO2

NOx

Parameter

Condensible Particulate

Filterable Particulate

Total Particulate

Selenium

THC

HCI

Aresenic

Beryllium

Cadmium

Chromium

Lead

Manganese

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<


Section 3: Report on Feedstock Testing and Biomass Testing Activities Page 32

Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3

Figure 3.4



Figure 3.5

Figure 3.6

Figure 3.7



Figure 3.8

Figure 3.9

Figure 3.10



Figure 3.11

Figure 3.12

Figure 3.13



Figure 3.13

Figure 3.15

Figure 3.16



Figure 3.17

Figure 3.18

Figure 3.19



Figure 3.20

Figure 3.21

Figure 3.22



Figure 3.23

Figure 3.24

Figure 3.25



Figure 3.26

Figure 3.27

Figure 3.28



Figure 3.29

Figure 3.30

Figure 3.31



Figure 3.32

Figure 3.33

Figure 3.34



Figure 3.35

Figure 3.36

Figure 3.37



Figure 3.38

Figure 3.39

Figure 3.40



Figure 3.41

Figure 3.42

Figure 3.43



Figure 3.44

Chapter 4: Report on MPCA Coordination Page 47

Chapter 4: Report on MPCA Coordination

1 Preproject Testing

A Corn Stover/Ethanol Mash Gasification test was commissioned from Coaltec Energy USA, Inc., Carterville, IL, in January of 2005 for Recovered Energy Resources, LLC (RER) on behalf of UMM.. In the final report compiled by RER, dated March 30, 2005, several findings proved the feasibility of the project and the findings helped the MPCA permitting process move forward. The following excerpt “outlines the results that we used to determine the design and cost of the system identify expected emissions and ash quality from the system”:

The test and subsequent report included:

• Sustained operations using fuel mixtures including corn stover and corn stover with ethanol mash

• Heat and material balance to identify system efficiency • Emissions monitoring • Fuel analysis • Ash analysis • Identification of issues, opportunities, and expected solutions and/or costs associated

with those issues.

2 Permitting Process and Procedures

With the passage of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), in 1963, the United States federal government entered into regulation of inter-state air quality. The act also provided federal research dollars and encouraged the creation of state control agencies.

The second amendment to the CAA, passed by the U.S. Congress, in 1970, granted the federal government powers to set limits or standards for the quantity of various air pollutants certain sources can emit. After the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency EPA in December of 1970, the major responsibility to prevent and control air pollution, at its source fell to the states. For a state to conduct certain air quality programs, the state must adopt a plan, submit and obtain approval of the plan from the EPA. This federal review and approval process provides for some consistency in different state programs and ensures that each state program complies with the requirements of the CAA and EPA rules. For the purposes of this report, the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPA) and EPA Region 5 will be referenced unless otherwise stated. Details of the federal requirements are located on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/sips/index.html.

In Minnesota, the protocols and procedures for demonstrating compliance with the CAA and EPA rules are contained in the State Implementation Plan or "SIP." Established as part of Title I, Chapter 110 of the CAA, the SIP adopted by the state and approved by the EPA is legally binding under both state and federal law. Federal and state authorities use these regulations to enforce the requirements of the CAA.



The bulk of Minnesota’s SIP includes site-specific emission limits as part of plans necessary to achieve and maintain the NAAQS. The SIP, located at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=2239 also includes state air quality rules necessary for supporting the air quality program and maintaining the NAAQS.” In Minnesota, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is responsible for the implementation of the SIP. UMM and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) were in communication over several months and solved multiple issues related to plant startup and operations. Working with the University’s air emissions consultant, three main areas were discussed:

Plant startup- The gasification facility was issued permission to begin operations using corn stover, for which we had prior emissions data (RER 2005 Report, see above), wood chips, or prairie grass. This permission was granted provided we submit emissions data that demonstrates that we are remaining under the emissions levels in the currently issued UMM air quality permit.

Testing of feedstocks- Standard MPCA protocols for the performance testing of the thermal conversion of different feedstocks are designed for large scale facilities that rarely change feedstocks. As a small applied research facility, the University’s situation has challenged the MPCA to find protocols that fit the scale and needs of a small to medium size gasification facility as opposed to much larger generators. See Chapter 3 for results of our fuel tests

Ash handling and distribution- The MPCA regulates both the storage and dispersal of ash in quantities larger than the regulatory threshold. The UMM facility will be producing more than 10 tons annually and is therefore subject to regulation by the MPCA. Provided the ash is not contaminated with hazardous compounds, the MPCA rules are fairly flexible on dispensing ash. Prior to any use as a fertilizer or liming agent, gasification ash must be analyzed. Storage is also regulated to prevent runoff or contamination of soil, air, or water. Ash composition data are presented in Chapter 3. As of this writing, UMM is preparing its application for a Beneficial Use Determination from MPCA.

As the facility neared completion, UMM and the University consultant began to complete MPCA paperwork and discussed different issues with MPCA staff regarding to get all the necessary permits and permissions for any potential pollutants. This process was fully completed when the plant became fully operational in winter of 2011.

MPCA Permits and Offsets 7007, Permits and Certifications, can be found under the Minnesota Administrative Rules at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=7007. UMM is regulated under 7007.1130 and we have an Option D registration permit. We must follow the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS, (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants), 40CFR63). Attached in the appendix are the details for the following charts.

Minnesota State Air Rules may need to be explored a little bit more and referenced as they pertain to UMM. They can be found at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/air-permits-and-rules/air-rules/minnesota-state-air-rules.html

MPCA Fact Sheet aq4-04, “Facts About State Performance Test Rules” (in effect since December 1993), summarizes Minn. R. 7017.2001 to 7017.2060. These statutes “contain the notification, reporting and quality-assurance requirements for facilities that must conduct performance tests” the UMM Biomass Gasification Project. Rules vary from state to state. What we can describe is our own experience. We cannot prescribe any course of action.

The impact of Air input rates and Moisture on Ash handling and distribution are discussed in Chapter 3.

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=2239�

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=2239�

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=7007�

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/air-permits-and-rules/air-rules/minnesota-state-air-rules.html�

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/air-permits-and-rules/air-rules/minnesota-state-air-rules.html�



Wet scrubber – UMM uses a conventional wet scrubber system for removal of fine particulates from the flue gas stream. The rated efficiency of the scrubber is 95%. The third-party testing done by Pace Analytical shows that our scrubbed particulate emissions average from 0.49 to 0.75 lb/hr. Comparison with a worst-case unscrubbed measurement showed that the scrubber was operating at about 72% efficiency. Even at 72% efficiency under a worst-case condition, the annualized particulate emission would total less than 5 tons per year from the stack. This is well below our regulatory cap of 50 tons/yr.

We also use the scrubber for control of HCl by injecting NaOH (sodium hydroxide) into the scrubber water. The injection rate of NaOH is controlled by a feedback loop based on the pH of the scrubber water. The system keeps the pH of the return water between 6 and 8. Based on the testing done by Pace Analytical, in stack tests for all fuels, the HCl emission levels were <0.05 ppm., given a calculated potential emission of up to 11 lb/hr, or approximately 600 ppm. From this limited testing it appears that the NaOH injection into the scrubber water is better than 99% effective.

3 MPCA Process and Requirements

3.1 Option D Registration Permit UMM’s permit was a new source permit on an existing facility. All UM-Morris emission sources operate under a State Option D Registration Permit. MPCA Option D registration permits are the most flexible and require the least reporting of all air emission permits they issue.

UMM was able to call upon the services of University of Minnesota MPCA liaisons to navigate the process of obtaining an emission permit for the existing heating plant. The MPCA website, with publications and applications specifically related to air emission regulations in Minnesota can be found at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/air-publications/air-publications.html. As stated earlier, these are the Minnesota’s SIP requirements as approved by EPA region 5. The EPA Web site relative to this process is located at http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/sips/index.html.

The purpose of the following subsections is to outline tasks required of UMM or recommended during start-up and operation as they pertain to air emissions from the new biomass boiler. The information is only for Minnesota and is specifically targeted to installations eligible to operate under a State Option D Permit. This section is broken into subsections that correspond to: the type of regulatory requirement, the regulatory period covered by the requirement, and the compliance method. [I rewrote this to include some text from an undated memo that Jim Barbour had given me. I have also included in the appendix the initial and follow-up letters notifying the MPCA about the new boiler and requesting “applicability review”]

3.2 Annual Emission Thresholds To remain eligible for Option D, the campus must have actual total annual emissions less than the thresholds shown in Table 1. (Also shown is the annual NESHAPS threshold for hydrochloric acid (HCl), which cannot be exceeded without new permitting, emission controls and reporting requirements applying to the campus.) Table 1 presents three categories of emissions for the facility:

• Maximum Hourly Potential to Emit, Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/hr - no air pollution control), based on chemical analyses of the fuel (corn stover in this case).

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/air-publications/air-publications.html�



• Projected Annual Emissions, Uncontrolled

• Projected Annual Emissions, with control technology operating

Emission calculations are based on test data collected by CANMET in 2007 and pollution control efficiencies provided by the equipment vendor. As indicated, the new biofuels plant will exceed emission thresholds if operated without air pollution control equipment. The controlling pollutants are HCl and particulates (PM) – which are controlled by the wet scrubber – and nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are not controlled by the scrubber.

Table 1. Comparison of Estimated Emissions and Option D Thresholds

Uncontrolled Controlled Option D NESHAPS

Parameter (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) Control

Equipment Efficiency

Maximum (tons/yr)

Maximum (tons/yr)

NOx 9.99 34.98 34.98 0% 50.00 N/A

HCl 8.50 29.77 1.49 95% 5.00 10.00

Particulate 8.08 28.28 1.41 95% 50.00 N/A

Fuel lb/hr 3,000 - -

Fuel hr/yr - 7,000 7,000

4 Performance Testing The MPCA requires the University to undertake several tasks to assure ongoing compliance with Option D, including testing, recordkeeping and reporting. Each of these requirements is discussed below. While the boiler/scrubber is old and proven technology, it is here being used in a new application (agricultural residue as fuel). Thus the MPCA required the University to conduct emission tests to ensure that actual performance meets or exceeds expectations. Performance tests must be conducted for each biofuel type, with the following tasks required before, during and after each performance test:

4.1 Test Plan Submittal The test plan must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the test dates. See Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 in the appendix for this section to review the Test Plan application and the Approval Letter.

4.2 Pretest Meeting with MPCA Pretest meetings are usually held by telephone. UMM’s Emissions Technician spoke by telephone with Sean O’Connor, Pollution Control Specialist at MPCA on 19 January 2011. O’Connor had a few questions, these questions were answered to MPCA’s satisfaction and the Test Plan Approval Letter was sent to UMM on 20 January 2010.

Note: Uncontrolled HCl emissions were much higher than expected based on the reported fuel content.



4.3 Performance Test The Performance test was conducted by Pace Analytical Services of Minneapolis, MN, an independent and EPA-certified laboratory. The boiler was operated at or near infeed capacity for each fuel during the tests. Testing dates were 25-26 January 2011 for prairie grass and 8-11 March 2011 for corn cobs and a mixture of 75% corn cobs and 25% ground corn stover.

4.4 Test Report Must be submitted incorporating all data required by state rule within 60 days of test completion. [Summary tables of key data from the test are included in the appendix to this chapter. The full report comprises 58 pages of narrative plus 435 pages of appendices.] A compact disc copy of the test report is also required to be submitted to the MPCA. The test results are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report and a digital copy of the report is included with this submission.

4.5 Test Frequency Plan The test frequency plan indicates when the next performance test is required. The frequency is based on the tested emission rate compared to regulatory requirements. The frequency can range from one year to five. As of this writing UMM and its regulatory liaison are in conversation with MPCA about the test results. No decisions regarding permitting change or other requirements have yet been made.

5 Option D Permittees As the UMM Biomass Gasification Plant is an Option D permittee, we may operate our emission units subject to performance testing. We cannot take credit for pollution control until regulatory testing is performed. (In the case of the biofuels boiler, controlled pollutants are HCl and particulates). However, testing is not required until after the completion of initial startup.

Generally, the MPCA allows an initial start-up period for the operator to “shake down” the system. Testing is usually required within 60 days of achieving maximum capacity or 180 days of initial startup, whichever is shorter. In addition, the permittee is allowed to request a testing delay due to a lack of steam demand (Minn. Rules 7007.1400, Subpart 1.H.).

In the case of the biofuels boiler, the University requested to delay regulatory performance testing until winter 2011. Summer testing would require all steam to be vented and the engineer has stated that the unit does not have the capability to run while venting steam.

Testing by an independent laboratory was begun in late January 2011. Results were reported to MPCA and are discussed in depth under Report on Feedstock Testing and Biomass Testing Activities in Chapter 3 of this report.

6 Reporting and Recordkeeping Figures 4 through 7 in the appendix for this section are copies of several of the following records and reports which are required to be submitted to MPCA as part of the registration permit. There may be changes to our reporting requirements after MPCA has completes its review of our test results. At present, our reporting requirements under Option D are as shown in the sample forms.



6.1 Annual Emissions Inventory Emissions are calculated from fuel use and chemical composition of the fuel.

6.2 An Annual Emission Fee Due every April 1, it is assessed based on actual emissions at a rate of approximately $31.50/ton.

6.3 Operation and Maintenance Plan For pollution control equipment and emission-related boiler operation. The plan must be maintained on site. The plan must follow manufacturers’ recommendations and include forms for routine inspections, scrubber pressure drop, shutdown and breakdown notifications, and unscheduled maintenance activities.

6.4 Monthly Fuel Consumption Daily fuel consumption (and/or deliveries) must be recorded. It is recommended that daily steam production also be recorded in the same spreadsheet.

6.5 Semi-Annual Deviations Report/Annual Compliance Certification These reports provide information regarding deviations from normal operating conditions and/or confirm compliance with permit conditions.

7 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS, 40CFR60, Subpart Dc)

7.1 Commercial-Industrial-Institutional Boilers The biofuels boiler is subject to federal New Source Performance Standards. However, since the unit capacity is 19,000,000 Btu/hr, performance testing is not required for purposes of federal approval. (The performance testing threshold is 30 MMBtu/hr). Notifications, reporting and recordkeeping are still required.

7.2 Notification The University must send a notification of Initial Startup must be sent to the MPCA and U.S. EPA Region V (postmarked) within 15 days after “such date” (40CFR60.7(a)(3) and 40CFR60.48c).

7.3 Reporting and Recordkeeping Records of startup, shutdown and malfunctions (air pollution control and boiler); including date and duration must be maintained on-site. Any malfunction or other deviation from permit conditions must be reported on either the semi-annual deviations report (state requirement) or the annual compliance certification. Fuel supply (by delivery), including the suppliers’ names, fuel type, potential sulfur emissions and the method used to determine the potential sulfur emission rate (wood only). Daily steam production should also be recorded.



8 Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMS) UMM operates a CEMS for research purposes. Under our option D permit, continuous monitoring of emissions is not required. (See Reporting and Recordkeeping above.) CEMS data should be verifiably accurate if the data will be used for research. CEMS verification methods have been promulgated by EPA and the State of Minnesota that encompass installation, operation and quality assurance. The following discussion is based on state and federal regulations (Minn. Rules 7017 and 40CFR60, Subparts B and F).

8.1 CEMS Specification To obtain formal CEMS certification, the site must notify the MPCA at least 60 days prior to their installation. The notification must include system location and configuration drawings. Installation notification can be deferred to a future date. The risk is that the MPCA will find that the CEM location is not appropriate for certification. As UMM’s CEMS is not for regulatory monitoring, this step was not required.

8.2 Installation Notification To obtain formal CEMS certification, the site must notify the MPCA at least 60 days prior to their installation. The notification must include system location and configuration drawings. Installation notification can be deferred to a future date. The risk is that the MPCA will find that the CEM location is not appropriate for certification.

8.3 Location CEMS must be located in a position that will provide “directly representative” results, or where measurements can be corrected so as to be representative. The rules suggest that the measurement location be at least two diameters downstream from the point of pollutant generation (or flow disturbances) and at least ½ diameters upstream from pollution control equipment. For extraction CEMS (most of the biofuels CEMS) rules suggest that the measurement point be no less than 3.3 feet from the duct wall, or centrally located in the duct.

8.4 CEMS Certification UMM has not yet sought certification for its CEMS. The following discussion describes the process to be used at the time we do certify the unit.

8.4.1 Certification Notification

To obtain formal CEM certification, the University must notify the MPCA at least 30 days prior to compliance certification testing. The notification must include a detailed plan that includes a drawing of CEM probe locations, reference method port locations, reference methods, CEMS make and model numbers, and planned boiler operating range.

8.4.2 Relative Accuracy Tests

The largest part of the certification process the series of performance tests conducted using Reference Test Methods. The results of the physical sampling tests are compared to concurrent data collected by



the CEMS. The testing must be conducted by an independent laboratory. At least nine tests must be performed for each pollutant.

The reference method port location should have the same distance from disturbances that are suggested for the CEMS. If this amount of space is not available, the number of sampling points across the cross-section of the duct must be increased. Another alternative is to use the sampling ports at the scrubber outlet. However, the scrubber must not be run during the RA test. The UMM Emissions Technician has asked the engineer to find out if flue gas can be discharged through the scrubber while not in operation.

Other tests may be required during the RA tests, including a measurement of “calibration drift” each test day.

8.4.3 Certification Report

Test results are submitted to the MPCA for review. The report must include all CEM and reference methods results as well as a series of statistical calculations which determine CEM relative accuracy.

9 CEMS Recordkeeping/Ongoing Operations

9.1 Quality Assurance Plans A Quality Assurance Plan must be developed and implemented for each CEMS to maintain certification. (A detailed list of Plan contents is found at Minn. Rules 7007.1170, Subpart 2; and, 7007.1210 Subpart 1.)

9.2 Other QA Tests The following tests must be performed and results must be retained and/or reported to the MPCA to maintain certification. Note that we do not follow this protocol since we are not using the CEMS for compliance monitoring; however, these procedures are followed to maintain the CEMS for research work. The daily calibrations are done only while the CEMS is online for a research project.

• Daily Calibration Drift Assessments

• Semi-annual Calibration Error Audits (Opacity)

• Semi-annual Cylinder Gas Audits (All other CEMS)

• Relative Accuracy Test Audit Summaries, and

• Linearity Check Results Summaries.

In summary, CEMS are complex pieces of equipment that must be tuned and maintained under fairly strict regulatory requirements. Operators need to be trained in proper CEMS operation and quality assurance. In addition, Campbell-Sevey needs to clarify how they will verify CEMS operation in the next few weeks, and how their results relate to formal CEMS Certification requirements.



10 Appendix

Figure 4.1-Initial Notification to MPCA



Figure 4.2-Second Letter to MCPA



Figure 4.3 MPCA Testing Plan Acceptance Letter pages 1 and 2



Biomass Gasification Project

Figure 4.4 – 2010 HAP report

University of Minnesota - Morris Campus

Hazardous Air Pollutants-Rolling Sum

HAP Name Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Total Haps (tons/yr)

Permit Thresholds

Formaldehyde 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 5

POM (particulate only) 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 5

Arsenic compounds 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 5

Beryllium compounds 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 5

Cadmium compounds 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 5

Chromium compounds 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 5

Lead compounds 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 5

Manganese compounds 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 5

Mercury compounds 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 5

Nickel compounds 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 5

Biofuels HAPS 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.005254 0.000000 0.019430 0.000000 0.000000 0.018099 0.140796 0.019929 0.203507

Combined HAPS (tons) 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 12.5



Formaldehyde

Beryllium compounds

Lead compounds

Nickel compounds

0

5

10

15

20

Jan-

10

Feb-

10

Mar

-10

Apr-

10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug-

10

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

Tota

l Hap

s (to

ns/y

r)

HAP Rolling Sum Chart

Individual HAP Threshold

Combined HAP Threshold

Tons

Month

Pollutant

Figure 4.5- 2010 HAP report graph




Figure 4.6

University of Minnesota - Morris Campus (Copyright 1996 Beacon Environmental, Inc. Rev. 99)

Criteria Pollutant Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Totals (tons/yr)

Permit Thresholds

Particulates (tons) 0.122 0.093 0.078 0.095 0.100 0.084 0.092 0.094 0.095 0.097 0.125 0.144 1.220 50 PM10 (tons) 0.076 0.061 0.048 0.040 0.048 0.042 0.056 0.049 0.044 0.074 0.125 0.094 0.758 50 SOx (tons) 0.018 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.011 0.002 0.035 0.003 0.002 0.036 0.309 0.058 0.483 50 NOx (tons) 0.808 0.666 0.499 0.295 0.333 0.390 0.523 0.457 0.359 0.435 0.969 0.902 6.637 50 VOC (tons) 0.044 0.037 0.027 0.016 0.021 0.021 0.030 0.025 0.020 0.041 0.076 0.056 0.415 50 CO (tons) 0.676 0.558 0.415 0.245 0.325 0.319 0.462 0.381 0.298 0.623 1.163 0.860 6.325 50 Lead (tons) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.5




Particulates (tons)

PM10 (tons)

SOx (tons)

NOx (tons)

VOC (tons)

CO (tons)

Lead (tons)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan-

10

Feb-

10

Mar

-10

Apr-

10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug-

10

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

Tota

ls (t

ons/

yr)

Criteria Pollutant Chart

Tons

Month

Criteria Pollutant

Criteria Pollutant Threshold

Figure 4.7


Chapter 5: Report on Outreach Deliverables Page 63

Chapter 5: Report on Outreach Deliverables

1 Biomass Gasification Project Outreach and Education - Summary

Education, outreach, and demonstration are important components of the biomass gasification project. Audiences interested in biomass gasification and related issues range from young children to senior citizens, with a wide range of experiences and feedback. Our outreach efforts are designed to help students, farmers/businesses, planners, and policy makers understand renewable energy in general, but specifically the benefits and drawbacks of biomass gasification.

One of the keys to successfully reaching our target audience was the collaboration of the University of Minnesota, Morris, the USDA-ARS- North Central Soil Conservation Research Lab, and the West Central Research and Outreach Center. Informally called the Green Prairie Alliance, these organizations have successfully covered the full breadth of biomass energy related opportunities and challenges. By complementing each other, with expertise, facilities and effort, regional project outreach has been very effective.

Grant funds from the USDA allowed us to interface with our audience via several mediums. As a higher education institution, one of our important audiences is undergraduate students. We have integrated biomass gasification components into two interdisciplinary classes at the University of Minnesota, Morris campus. We have also established a web portal that will allow worldwide teaching and demonstration from any web-enabled classroom. For undergraduate students interested in biomass energy, we are offering internships that allow students an opportunity to gain research experience in renewable energy.

Outreach with other audiences is being done through a combination of presentation, displays, research posters, field days, and tours. These venues are often helpful because they allow us to target our information for a particular group (i.e. farmers, engineers, or city managers). In particular, we can focus on how a community scale biomass facility may fit their needs.

Using the experience gained from work on our biomass project, leverage funds were awarded to the UMM campus to develop a biomass gasification course. The course was designed to meet the needs of a diverse group.

To more fully document our education and outreach activities, we have attached a more detailed list and description of activities. It is broken down into highlights of several categories of academic instruction, community outreach, tours and demonstration, publicity efforts and the World Wide Web. Several appendices include a comprehensive list of our team’s activities.



2 Gasification in the Classroom

As a relatively new technology in its most recent applications, the uses for biomass gasification are not well known. Therefore, as part of our grant from the USDA, we requested funds to help develop college level academic course components for existing courses. By providing students with a background in gasification and relating it to other renewable energy choices, we hope to prepare students for the choices they will be asked to make as they become our future leaders.

Classroom instruction at the University of Minnesota, Morris using USDA funds focused on two aspects of gasification; environmental and economics. Gasification components were designed to be an integral part of courses in these areas. The multi-disciplinary nature of renewable energy in general, but specifically gasification, made courses in these particular areas a good fit for gasification content. Based on the students desire for a more broad based environmental education, the UMM campus launched a new environmental studies major in the fall of 2008 and an environmental science major in the fall of 2009. Courses using the gasification components are options for completing degrees in these majors.

2.1 Environmental Studies Courses Dr. Peter Wyckoff, Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota Morris, incorporated biomass energy into an upper-level seminar, Biology 4331: Global Change Ecology, taught Spring 2007 and repeated Spring 2009 at the UMM campus. Course content included: a consideration of global available net primary, productivity (NPP), consideration of how changes in the nitrogen and carbon cycles may impact NPP, plant cell wall constituents and structure, and ways to liberate energy from plant material. The last topic included the chemistry and energy return from combustion, gasification, pyrolysis, and fermentation. Two guest speakers gave information on biomass gasification plants and the potential impacts of biomass removal on soil carbon. Students read and discussed one book and several research papers dealing with aspects of biomass, and completed a biomass-themed problem set. Much of the same material was retooled for an introductory non-majors course, Nsci 1051: State of the Planet.

Dr. James Barbour demonstrating a benchtop gasifier to junior high and high school students at University on the Prairie, August 2009

(photo courtesy of the University of Minnesota, Southwest Research and Outreach Center)



Dr. Wyckoff has included several guest lectures by research staff funded by the USDA funded gasification researchers in his courses. Project team members involved in these course included Dr. Don Reicosky, Dr. Joel Tallaksen, and Dr. James Barbour. In 2009, with Dr. Barbour’s assistance, he held a lab portion of his courses at the biomass facility using lab-scale bench top gasifiers.

2.2 Economics Dr. Arne Kildegaard, Professor of economics at the University of Minnesota, Morris incorporated a 2 week section of biomass related content into his teaching schedule. Rather than simply focusing on the strict profitability of biomass gasification facilities, Dr. Kildegaard broadens the economic evaluation to include the societal, policy, and agricultural impacts. Specific topics include technologies, policy, development potential, and land use implications. By integrating all these topics, Dr. Kildegaard can demonstrate that the economic impacts extend farther that the actual biomass gasification facility. Copies of Dr. Kildegaard’s presentations can be found in the Biomass Digital Library and is included with this report.

2.3 Student Research Projects Funds from the USDA grant were also being used to train students for future work in the renewable energy field through hands-on internships and assistantships. While interns all help with the biomass project work, each is asked to conduct their own research project that relates back to biomass gasification. Individual students and their projects are listed below:

Ben Cole-Summer 2010, Ben researched Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) programs as well as a super-SCADA system that could control multiple facilities. He was interested in system efficiency, and optimization, as well as looking at models that are currently being used, and their effectiveness.

Ben Schroeder-Summer 2010, Ben’s research looked at the relationship between the feedstock’s moisture content, the operating temperature, and the ash/char byproduct formation in a small scale, cornstover and corncob gasification system. A Gasifier Experimenter Kit (GEK) was used to gasify corncobs and cornstover to collect data. He also created a GEK user manual.

Elizabeth Binczik-Summer 2010, Elizabeth researched the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) established by the Farm Service Agency that promoted the establishment of energy crops and the collection of waste materials for use as Biomass Feedstock. Financial payments from the program, legislation provisions, and data from Minnesota were also compared to see how well the program was constructed and running.

Mukul Jain- Summer 2010, Reviewed biomass feedstock processing equipment, with a comparison of pelletizing and briquetting. The most important variable examine for pre-processing was energy needed to produce the final feedstock and identifying how to reduce energy in feedstock processing systems.

Michelle Williams- Summer 2010, Michelle researched soil carbon and how it was affected by different methods of tillage (no-till/minimum till vs. conventional methods.) She compared soils of Stevens County to other research that had similar soils to find the best method and management practices to sustain soil carbon in Stevens County soils.



Bob Balfany Summer 2009, Examined the use of small scale gasification units for education, research, and demonstration. Bob worked on possible methods for analyzing producer gas for various chemical properties.

Luke Toso, Summer – Fall 2008, Researching the economics of the biomass gasification plant and its effects on Stevens County. The final report “The Economic Effect of Biomass Use in Stevens County, Minnesota” is available on-line at http://renewables.morris.umn.edu.

Brittany Crocker, Intern, Summer 2008, Concentrated on using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to assess available biomass. The final report Assessing Agricultural Biomass Using Geographic Information Systems is available on-line at http://renewables.morris.umn.edu.

Toby Simacek, Intern, Summer 2008, Focused on growing select C4 grasses and the resulting effects on soil nutrients. This research will enable future growers to maintain soil quality while producing quality feedstocks. The final report Growing Alternative Energy Crops in West Central Minnesota is available on-line at http://renewables.morris.umn.edu.

Daron Zych Summer 2008 Examined potential of using only corn cobs as a biomass feedstock for reducing the potentially negative impacts of removing other feedstock materials from agricultural land. The final report “The Viability of Corn Cobs as a Bioenergy Feedstock” is available on-line at http://renewables.morris.umn.edu.

Rachel Harstad, Spring 2008, Conducted a case study of small business scale biomass gasification at the local Laundromat, which used biomass gasification for heating and hot water. The report examines existing technologies and benefits/drawbacks using these technologies in a small business. The report is available upon request.

Sara Gulbrandson, Summer 2007, Developed an information packet about biomass energy and conversion technologies targeted towards the general public and those with little background knowledge of biomass energy. The packets are available upon request.

Amanda Decker, Summer 2006, Began reviewing literature for biomass energy systems with a focus on feedstocks and harvesting of agricultural residues.

Dr. Tallaksen informally assisted a graduate student by providing background information and hosting a visit in preparation for her thesis paper. The paper, “Evaluating Biomass Logistics in West Central Minnesota”, was written by Tricia Simo Kush in fulfillment of her Masters of Engineering Management degree from St. Cloud State University.

Using the expertise and resources gathered for the USDA funded project, The University of Minnesota, Morris and West Central Research and Outreach Center have been part of several education projects and courses that focused on enhancing education to include biomass gasification and other renewable energy topics. The Green Prairie Alliance mentioned above has been a key component of these educational activities, with a combination of knowledge, facilities, and time committed to education by all partners.



2.4 Capstone Classes Over the Fall and Winter of 2010-2011, six 3-day capstone classes were offered to inform and educate energy professionals, architects, engineers, businesses, planners, and citizens about gasification and thermal conversion technologies. The discussions began with biomass feedstocks and concluded with the gasification process and converting biomass to energy. The course was designed to go beyond the chemistry, engineering and technology to provide an understanding of what is required to use biomass to produce energy on a meaningful scale. Factors such as proper facility design, sustainable feedstocks, and a manageable logistics chain were all introduced to give participants some perspective.

Based on enrollment, it was decided to combine classes and hold one course on the University of Minnesota, St. Paul Campus using a lab-scale gasifier and another in Morris using the Morris biomass gasification facility and lab-scale gasifiers for demonstration. The course packets for the capstone class are available electronically and are included on the resources CD to accompany this report.

The University of Minnesota, Morris leveraged its gasification knowledge and facilities to begin teaching a three-week biomass gasification course in the spring of 2009. Funded using resources from the Renewable Energy Marketplace - Alliance for Talent Development (MNREM) initiative (originating from the US Department of Labor), the course included four of the collaborators working on the USDA biomass grant; Dr. Arne Kildegaard, Dr. Jane Johnson, Dr. Joel Tallaksen, and Dr. James Barbour, along with Dr. Ted Pappenfus a UMM Chemistry Professor. The course featured discussions of the chemistry, sustainability, economics, and mechanical aspects of biomass gasification. The course was designed to mix students with different backgrounds in a unique blend of hands on and classroom education. The participants included undergraduate students, technical college students, displaced workers, and industry professionals. The response from the students and MNREM has been very good and we intend to further refine the course with an offering this spring.

Other education activities that biomass staff have worked on include:

University on the Prairie- Dr. James Barbour, along with a student intern, helped teach a segment of this 3 day science education camp for junior high and high-school students. Dr. Barbour demonstrated gasification and discussed biomass and energy.

Morris area schools- Dr. James Barbour was a guest instructor for the 6th Grade at the local public school. Dr. Barbour discussed renewable energy with the students.

STEM project- Dr. Joel Tallaksen served as a mentor for regional junior high school teachers who were interested in experiences in renewable energy that they could bring back to their schools. The teachers had the opportunity to learn about renewable energy by participating in research activities and finding practical applications for the topics they teach in their classroom, such as math, chemistry, and mechanics.

Guest Lectures- Both Dr. Barbour and Dr. Tallaksen served as guest lecturers for various University of Minnesota courses, both at the Morris and Twin Cities campus. Often the lecture topics centered on introducing students to gasification and sustainability concepts in renewable energy.



2.5 Curriculum Curriculum was developed by Dr. Joel Tallaksen for the capstone classes. Currently in digital and three-ring binder form, a copy of the digital version is included in the CD-ROM that accompanies this report.

3 Community Outreach

The projects community outreach efforts focus primarily on speaking with a wide variety of community groups who have an interests ranging from technical issues related to biomass gasification all the way to why we need other forms of energy. Tables in Appendix I illustrate off-site outreach activities our project team has participated during this grant period.

4 Tours

In addition to going out into the community to speak with different groups, we are very busy with visitors coming to our facilities to hear about gasification and agricultural issues related to gasification. The tables in Appendix II contain Drs. Tallaksen and Barbour’s logs of individuals and groups touring our facilities. You can see from the logs that there are many groups interested in our activities and willing to travel several hours in some cases to visit us. In many cases, the logs don’t include folks who have simply dropped in to see us and been given a tour.

5 Conference Presentations

5.1 Dr. Barbour Presentations In April of 2009, Dr. Barbour presented “Corn Stover Utilization: From Concept to Reality” at the International Biomass Conference & Expo in Portland Oregon.

In January of 2011 Dr. Barbour presented “Chemical Reactions in Gasification” and “Gasifier Designs” at the Capstone Class in St. Paul, Minnesota.

In February of 2011 Dr. Barbour presented “Using Agricultural Residues in A Hybrid Energy System” at North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.

5.2 Dr. Tallaksen Presentations Dr. Tallaksen was invited to present an overview of the Morris Gasification Project and its successes and challenges at the Midwest Regional Biomass conference in Dubuque, IA in November of 2010. The presentation entitled, “Case Study of U of Minnesota Morris Gasification System” covered the projects developmental and early start-up phases. In October of 2009, Dr. Tallaksen was invited to moderate the biomass logistics panel and give a short introduction to biomass logistics at the 4th Platt’s Biomass Conference, Chicago, Illinois.



In 2008 Dr. Tallaksen was an Invited Speaker and presented Integrating Biomass Heat and Electricity Production in Community Scale Projects: The Morris Campus as a Model at Biomass 08: Technical Workshop, Grand Forks, ND

5.3 Mike Reese Presentations August 2009 American Coalition of Ethanol Conference, Milwaukee, WI April 2009 MN Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) State Meeting,

Rogers, MN January 2009 Manitoba Ag Days, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada November 2008 MN Environmental Initiative Conference, St. Cloud, MN October 2008 International Bioenergy Conference Study Tour panelist, Willmar,

MN October 2008 U of MN Alumni Association, Willmar, MN January 2008 Renewable Energy Guest Lecture Program, Auburn Univ. January 2008 Morden Renewable Energy Conference, Morden, Manitoba,

Canada November 2007 U of MN Alumni Association, Fergus Falls, MN November 2007 U of MN Alumni Association, Woodbury, MN April 2007 Ag Professionals Conference, Renville, MN December 2006 Clean Energy Resource Teams (CERTs) Annual Conference, Saint

Cloud, MN November 2006 U of MN Alumni Association, Alexandria, MN October 2006 Minnesota Department of Employment & Economic

Development) DEEDS Conference, Saint Paul, MN September 2006 Energy Transition 2050 Conference, Madison, WI June 2006 Energy and Environmental Resource Center (EERC) Renewable

Energy Conference, Grand Forks, ND

5.4 Lowell Rasmussen Presentations In November of 2009 Rasmussen presented “Lessons from the University of Minnesota-Morris biomass gasifier and sustainable campus” during the “Green on the Ground” workshop at the Institute on the Environment (IREE) and University of Minnesota’s Energy, Economic and Environmental E3 2009 Conference. Other conference presentations include:

• Presenter Delta Conference 2010 • Presenter Upper Midwest Association for Campus Sustainability (UMACS) Conference 2008 • Presenter Midwest AIA Conference MPCA Process and Requirements 2008 • Environmental and Energy Study Institutes (EESI) Washington Briefing 2008 • Presenter National Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges (COPLAC) Conference on

Sustainability 2008



• Presenter Midwest Regional Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) Conference 2008

• Presenter Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association (MMUA) Annual Meeting 2008 • Presenter at National American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) on Green

Energy Initiatives 2008 • Co-sponsor, Regional Renewable Energy and Bio-Refining Workshop 2007 • Presenter, 2007 Minnesota Department of Employment & Economic Development (DEED)

Conference on renewable energy

6 Web Outreach

The final vehicle for education and outreach is the worldwide web. The website allows us to update the world-wide community on our activities with publications and photos as they are created. The website also features an online tour/explanation of the facility’s operations with photo slideshows and illustrations, a feature to more easily illustrate the process of biomass gasification to the layperson. We have also implemented a ‘real-time’ gasification facility “control panel” for public display. This “biomass control panel” allows users worldwide to consume information about the current and recent run-time statistics of the facility. Using a combination of data obtained from the SCADA/HMI control software for the facility, live web cameras around the facility, and some basic operator-entered runtime data, a mashup of this data is displayed for the web user’s use.

Control system data is pushed to the website in 15-minute intervals (a restriction of the control software) where it is processed for public consumption. With this data, a series of graphics and graphs are automatically generated, illustrating current and recent temperatures, steam production, and overall status of three components of the system—gasifier, boiler, and scrubber systems. Additionally, the main control panel page also allows for a single real-time web camera view of the facility where the user can select one of the six available cameras. A separate page for multiple video feeds is also available to the casual user, but is currently limited to two concurrent video feeds to prevent overloading network links that serve said video.

For internal use by campus and operator staff, a “heads up” video display is available which displays all six web cameras simultaneously. This is currently configured to refresh all six images at a set three-second interval. This display is most convenient for the operations staff to remotely view the current status of the facility as operational adjustments are made.

Through its outreach efforts, the biomass research project has had impact on the biomass knowledge of local, national and international audiences. Daily, project staff receives requests for information from individuals and groups about gasification and renewable energy in general.

Summary



7 Outreach Deliverables Appendices

7.1 Appendix I – Offsite Community Group Presentations Date Group, Conference, or Meeting Audience March 2007 Starbuck Lions club 50 March 2007 UMM Biology Guest Lecture 15 March 2007 AURI Biofuels Meeting 45 March 2007 Starbuck Lions club 50 August 2007 USDA-ARS Field Day 80 August 2007 Minnesota State Fair Display October 2007 Elementary School Plant Science Day 150 October 2007 Youth Energy Summit 150 October 2007 Glacial Falls State Park 25

October 2007 4th Grade Plant Science Day 120 November 2007 Café Scientific (Morris) 15 December 2007 Nature Conservancy Executive 8 February 2008 U of M MPGI Spring Colloquia 18 April 2008 Glenwood Rotary 30 June 2008 Breckinridge Rotary 30

July 2008 3rd Crop Walk and Talk 40 July 2008 Biomass 08: Technical Workshop 200 August 2008 Minnesota Farm Fest Display August 2008 Minnesota State Fair Display August 2008 Morris Lions Club 25 August 2008 County Fair Display August 2008 Glenwood Rotary 30 August 2008 State Fair Display September 2008 Elementary School Plant Science Day 150 November 2008 Café Scientific 10 February 2009 Kerkhoven Lions February 2009 Extension Biomass Conference- Roosevelt, MN 40 March 2009 Extension Biomass Conference- Morris, MN 30 August 2009 FarmFest Display August 2009 U on the Prairie August 2009 USDA Field Day 150 September 2009 Heron Lake Watershed District 25 October 2009 Platt's Cellulosic Ethanol Conference 250 November 2009 STEM summit Display November 2009 IREE E3 Conference Display



7.2 Appendix II Biomass Gasification Facility Tours

7.2.1 Dr. Barbour Tours Date Group/persons No.Persons May 2008 LCCMR 15 June 2008 N. Kelly, MNTAP 3 June 2008 Chancellor & VIPs 4 July 2008 Station Day tours 75 July 2008 WCSA Alumni (2 tours) 90 July 2008 MFBF 35 August 2008 Dean Contant Karen Mumford 2 August 2008 Mille Lacs visitors 6 August 2008 UM gov't relations 5 August 2008 Austrian visitors 3 August 2008 Troy G. and Guests 6 August 2008 MPCA 2 August 2008 Faculty 3 August 2008 Humphrey Fellows 7 August 2008 Mille Lacs visitors 4 September 2008 Ecology Students 4 September 2008 KVLY Camera Crew 3 September 2008 Wyckoff Lab 13 September 2008 Wyckoff Lab 12 September 2008 Wyckoff Lab 9 October 2008 BioAgro Sweden 3 October 2008 Kandiyohi County 4 October 2008 Dedication Day tours (multiple) 80 October 2008 PS Office Staff 6 October 2008 U. Tschirner 1 October 2008 CERTS 40 October 2008 Danish Engineer 1 October 2008 Chancellor's Adv. Group 10 November 2008 Job Shadow Student 1 November 2008 Chinese Students 8 November 2008 John King/M. Granley 2 November 2008 Students project 2 November 2008 Northwoods College 15 January 2009 Daniel Stanghelle 1 January 2009 Biomass Conference Tour 9 February 2009 Mulcahy, Webb, et al 5 February 2009 Keeler, Kearns 2 February 2009 RMI 4 February 2009 Lofgren, Mast, Ryan, Frey 4 March 2009 John Barry 1 March 2009 Chris Eng 1



April 2009 Bell Museum & Middlebury College 2 May 2009 Earth Resources Class 23 May 2009 Carleton Coll. Facilities staff 2 May 2009 FSA, MDA, AURI Tour 35 May 2009 CERP staff 2 May 2009 HS Students – Osseo 22 May 2009 HS Students – Henning 26 May 2009 Viss, ret ChE, UMM parent 2 June 2009 Students - White Earth 17 June 2009 Reporter - Sun/Tribune 1 July 2009 Visitors from Nebraska 2 July 2009 MinnWest TC & Development P. 2 July 2009 ATC faculty 2 July 2009 Norwegian Exchange Students 20 July 2009 MN 20/20 6 July 2009 Jen G's CChem in Context Class 25 July 2009 Gateway Students 18 August 2009 New Faculty Tour 14

August 2009 Linda Limbak (MnREM) and Anil Bika (Grad Student) 2

August 2009 RA Tours (4) 60 August 2009 Move-in Day Tours (3) 55 August 2009 NextGen Board 30 August 2009 Grad Students 2 September 2009 Central Lakes College 3 September 2009 Kevin Grotheim, Bepex 1 September 2009 MnREM/DOL 5 September 2009 St. Mary's School 65 September 2009 Architecture Grad Student 1 September 2009 Dewall Family 4 October 2009 Morris Students Club 13 October 2009 Unified Theory, Inc. 2 October 2009 Swedish Visitors 3 November 2009 MinnWest & MCBC 4 November 2009 Northwoods College 14 November 2009 K Mumford's Class 30 November 2009 Gary Donovan/MnREM 6 November 2009 SCSU Students 2 December 2009 FSA/BCAP 5 January 2010 Marinus Otta, NDSU 1 January 2010 Chris Cole, Conservation Biology Class 13 February 2010 UMM History Faculty Candidate 2 February 2010 Community of Scholars parents 8 February 2010 GEK filming for MnRem, Film Crew 3 February 2010 Todd Turner 1 February 2010 Ashley Mellgren, NDSU student 1



March 2010 Former-Senator Mark Dayton & aides 3 March 2010 Omnibus Class-Morris Elementary School 8 March 2010 Melissa Cornich & Joe Alin U-Internship project 2 April 2010 Aides from Senator Franken’s office 2 April 2010 Mn. Nat. Council – Camp Ripley 6 April 2010 Paige Lopeman-UMM student research 1 April 2010 Shane Tappe’s Shop Students 35 April 2010 Boroff & Partner-Entrepreneurs 2 April 2010 K. Mumford’s Class 31 May 2010 Henning High School Students 30 June 2010 Margaret Anderson Kelliher & Others 8 June 2010 Rick Peterson + 1 2 June 2010 HECUA Tour & Troy G 16 June 2010 Symposium Small Towns Tour 18 July 2010 Julie Denis (UMM student) 1 July 2010 Visitor from Nebraska 1 July 2010 Renewable Energy Road Tour 60 July 2010 Summer Inst.-European Students 11 July 2010 Gateway Students 22 September 2010 Green Campus Tours 44 September 2010 Env. Science Labs – 2 sections 21 October 2010 Video Shoot – Mankato State 2 October 2010 Students & 3 faculty from UND 21 October 2010 Env. Chem. Lab 16 November 2010 Michelle Schempp & Parents 3 November 2010 Env. Chem. Lab 16 November 2010 MCTC 9 December 2010 Job Candidate 1 December 2010 Efrim Energy 2 January 2011 Carbon 101 Class 40 January 2011 Jenna Ross, Star Tribune Reporter 1 February 2011 MnVAP 2 February 2011 Senator Franken & staffers 5 February 2011 A.D. Grants Candidate 12 March 2011 MPCA Tour 3 March 2011 UMTC Sustainability Class 42 March 2011 Charter School from Twin Cities

7.2.2 Dr. Tallaksen Tours Date Group Est.Number June 2007 Minnesota Corn Growers 20 July 2007 USDA Global Conference on Agricultural Biofuels 50 September 2007 Luther Elderhostel 40 October 2007 Morris High School Science Class 20 November 2007 First Lego League school group 9



December 2007 Nature Conservancy Leaders 8 May 2008 Prairie Restoration Inc. 2 July 2008 Humphrey Institute Visiting Scholars 45 July 2008 North Dakota RC & D 25 October 2008 Kandiyohi Economic Dev. Committee 30 November 2008 Green Job Tour 20 December 2008 MN Project 4 January 2009 Fish and Wildlife Foundation 1 January 2009 Piper Jaffrey 2 February 2009 St. Johns Admin 3 February 2009 Bengt Erik 8 February 2009 Rocky Mountain Sustainability Institute 8 March 2009 Chisago County 5 April 2009 Farm Service Agency National Staff 20 April 2009 NW technical college 12 April 2009 Earthday 5 May 2009 JLG Earthday tour 8 May 2009 Ron Zismuss 1 June 2009 White earth band 4th to 8th graders 40 July 2009 MinnWest Technology Campus 3 July 2009 Norwegian class 25 July 2009 WCROC Field Day 50 July 2009 Corn Growers 20 August 2009 Next Gen Energy 20 September 2009 St. Mary's school tour 30 September 2009 Homeschool tour 30 November 2009 SDSU 3 November 2009 UMM Environmental Studies 40 June 2010 Margaret Anderson Kelliher & Others 8 July 2010 Renewable Energy Road Tour 60 July 2010 Summer Inst.-European Students 11 August 2010 USDA-FSA BCAP feedback meeting 45 October 2010 Students & 3 faculty from UND 21 October 2010 West Central Wellness Meeting 80 December 2010 Efrim Energy 2 January 2011 Carbon 101 Class 40 February 2011 MnVAP 2 February 2011 Senator Franken & staffers 5 March 2011 UMTC Sustainability Class 42



7.3 Appendix III Website Screenshots Figure 4-Biomass Gasification Plant Homepage



Figure 5



Figure 6



Figure 7



Figure 8


Section 5: Report on Outreach Deliverables Page 81


Figure 9


Section 5: Report on Outreach Deliverables Page 82


Glossary of Terms specific to UMM Biomass Gasification Facility Unless otherwise cited, all definitions were prepared by Dr. Don Reicosky for his three lectures and taken directly from his “Glossary of Terms” handout, distributed at the UMM Carbon 101 Workshop-January, 2011.

Absorption Chiller: A thermodynamic technology that uses a heat-absorbing material. For example, the Morris chiller uses lithium bromide solution to remove heat from steam or hot water. Morris’s absorption chiller cools campus buildings in the summer. i

Biofuels: Biological feedstocks, cellulosic biomass, ethanol, feed grains, methanol, crop and vegetable oils, sunflower, soybean; starch and sugar waste streams; wood and logging residues, hybrid poplar; energy crops-annual and perennial, switch grass; municipal and industrial waste, sewage sludge; methane from manure production; turkey manure constantly replenished with environmental benefits that CO2 emitted in combustion is recycled into biomass through photosynthesis as part of the biological carbon cycle, thus no net increase in CO2 emissions.

Biomass: Biological materials including organic material (both living and dead) from above and below ground. Examples of biomass are trees, crops, grasses, tree litter, roots, and animals and animal waste. Biomass is also the total dry weight of all living organisms that can be supported at each tropic level in a food chain.

Biomass Feedstock: Renewable, non-fossilized organic matter such as crops and crop residues, perennial grasses, wood, algae, animal manure, and the organic parts of municipal and industrial waste.ii

Biomass Gasifier: A gasifier designed to accept biomass feedstock (see gasifier).

British Thermal Unit (Btu): The quantity of heat needed to raise the temperature of 1 pound of water by 1 degree Fahrenheit at or near 39.2 degrees Fahrenheit.

Carbon (C): The chemical element with symbol C and atomic number 6 and a molecular weight of 12. g per mole. The name “carbon” comes from Latin language, carbo, coal.

Carbon Credits: A financial instrument aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. One carbon credit represents the reduction of one ton of carbon dioxide. Carbon credits are awarded to countries or groups that have reduced their greenhouse gases below their emission quota. Carbon credits can be bought and sold in the international market.

Carbon Cycle: The natural process converting CO2 by photosynthesis into biomass and back into CO2 by respiration. Burning of fossil fuel releases CO2 that were captured during geologic time.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2): A naturally occurring colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas, with a molecular weight of 44 g per mole, considered a greenhouse gas as it traps heat (infrared energy) radiated by the Earth into the atmosphere

CO2 Concentration: Amount of a CO2 in a particular volume or weight of air, water, soil, or other medium usually expressed in parts per million (ppm), the fraction of volume of gas occupied by a component multiplied by 1,000,000.

Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2 e): A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential (GWP). Carbon dioxide equivalents are commonly expressed as



"million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2Eq)." The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is derived by multiplying the tons of the gas by the associated GWP.

Carbon Footprint: The basic measure from which we can count and begin to manage and reduce our emissions at the individual, regional, national and global levels. A carbon footprint is made up of the sum of two parts: 1) the primary footprint is a measure of our direct emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels including domestic energy consumption and transportation (e.g. car and plane) and 2) the secondary footprint is a measure of the indirect CO2 emissions from the whole lifecycle of products we use (those associated with their manufacture and eventual breakdown). A carbon footprint has units of tonnes (or kg) of CO2 eq.

Carbon Negative: Removing more carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 e) from the atmosphere than were released during a process or by a systems

Carbon Neutral: Carbon neutral means removing as many carbon dioxide equivalent’s (CO2 e) from the atmosphere as released into the atmosphere. Carbon neutrality means having a net zero carbon footprint.

Carbon Positive: Putting more Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2 e) from the atmosphere than were released during a process or by a system.

Carbon Sink: Any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas or aerosol from the atmosphere into some form of storage.

Carbon Sequestration: The capture and storage of atmospheric carbon. Soil carbon sequestration is the uptake and storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide in soil and vegetation. Sequester enough greenhouse emissions, and it may be possible to slow global climate change by capturing carbon as CO2 from large point sources such as power plants and subsequently storing it away safely instead of releasing it into the atmosphere.iii

Chilled Beam Cooling: Chilled beams use cold water, rather than air, to remove heat from a room. Cold water is pumped through coiled pipes in the ceiling, cooling the air through convection, a little like a car radiator. Chilled beam cooling can cut energy use by 20 to 50 percent.

Clinker: Incombustible fragment found in ash residue after burning feedstock. A clinker may have a glassy pitted surface and is composed of feedstock residue and ash. Clinkers may also contain live or active sparks that will re-ignite when introduced to air.iv The lower the melting point of the ash the more clinkers will be found.v

Combined Heat and Power (CHP): A system that provides both produce heat and electricity simultaneously, sometimes called cogeneration.

Corn Stover: The above ground cobs, leaves, and stalks left after corn grain is harvested.vi

CRP: Conservation Reserve Program, USDA program that pays farmers to not plant crops on certain agreage. Program designed to protect soil, streams and wildlife habitat.

Emissions: Something emitted, example: stack emissions, emission gases from soil.

Fossil Fuel: Any naturally occurring organic fuel derived from prehistoric organisms; any carbon-containing fuel derived from the decomposed remains of prehistoric plants and animals such as petroleum, coal, and natural gas.

Gasifier: Apparatus for converting solids to gas. There are a wide variety of gasifiers. Each type is dependent on heat input form (air, oxygen or pyrolytic). Examples are gas-solid contact method (updraft, downdraft, fluidized



bed, or suspended flow). Feedstock, gasification temperatures, heating rate and pyrolysis time are also factors in the gasifier classification and efficiency.vii

Gasification: A thermal process that converts solid into gases; in thermochemically (burning) organic materials in a low-oxygen environment, producing low-BTU producer gas, or syngas. Syngas can be substituted for natural gas in a furnace, turbine, or engine.

viii

Greenhouse Gas (GHG): Any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), ozone (O3), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Green Prairie Alliance: An informal Morris research consortium that includes the University of Minnesota, Morris, the West Central Research and Outreach Center, and the USDA-Agricultural Research Service- North Central Soil Conversation Research Laboratory.ix

Hydrogen (H): A colorless, odorless, flammable gas that combines chemically with

oxygen to form water.

Kilowatt (kW): Is 1000 W of electrical power generation.

Kilowatt hour (kWh): Is 1000 W of electrical power generation for exactly one hour.

Megawatt (MW): Is 1,000,000 W of electrical power generation.

Megawatt hour (MWh): Is 1,000,000 W of electrical power generation for exactly one hour.

Methane (CH4): A hydrocarbon greenhouse gas with a global warming potential most recently estimated at ~25 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2). Methane is produced through anaerobic (without oxygen) decomposition of waste in landfills, animal digestion, decomposition of animal wastes, production and distribution of natural gas and petroleum, coal production, and incomplete fossil fuel combustion.x

Metric Ton (tonne): Is 1000 kg and often a common international measurement for the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions. A metric ton is equal to 2205 lbs. or 1.1 short tons.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O): A powerful greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 298 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2). Major sources of nitrous oxide include soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.

Parts Per Million (ppm): An expression of small concentrations that represents the number of parts of a chemical found in one million parts of a particular gas, liquid, or solid.

Photosynthesis: The process by which plants and algae capture CO2 to build carbohydrates, releasing O2 in the process.

Pyrolysis: The process of the breakdown of biomass feedstock, by heat in the absence of oxygen. This process produces some gas, some oil and some charcoal. The gas produces a wide variety of chemicals and gases, some of which are then stored or burned to produce energy.xi

Pyrolytic Gasification: The process by which char and oil produced through pyrolysis are subjected to higher temperatures to produce gases which are in turn stored or burned to produce energy.

xii

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oxygen�

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/water�



Renewable Energy Flows: Involve natural phenomena such as sunlight, water, wind, tides and geothermal heat, and replaces conventional fuels in four distinct areas: power generation, heating, transport fuels, and electricity services.

Renewable Energy Resources: Energy resources naturally replenishing but flow-limited. They are virtually inexhaustible in duration but limited in the amount of energy that is available per unit of time. Renewable energy resources include biomass, hydro (water), geothermal, solar, wind, ocean thermal, wave action, and tidal action.

Renewable Fuels (other): Fuels and fuel blending components, except biomass-based diesel fuel, renewable diesel fuel, and fuel ethanol, produced from renewable biomass.

Steam Turbine: A turbine that rotates when pressurized steam strikes the vanes on a rotor providing mechanical energy to generate electricity.

Short Ton: Common measurement for weight in the United States. A short ton is equal to 2,000 lbs. or 0.907 metric tons.

Slag: Similar to a clinker in that it is composed of unburned feedstock, dissimilar in that slag usually forms as a crust on the top of the feedstock not in the ash removal process. This crust prevents Syngas from rising from the burning feedstock bed and reduces the efficiency of the gasifier. Slag can also accumulate and clog junction between the feed bed and bottom ash collection point.

Soil Carbon: A major component of the terrestrial biosphere pool in the carbon cycle. The amount of carbon in the soil is a function of the historical vegetative cover and productivity, which in turn is dependent in part upon climatic variables.

Synthesis Gas (Syngas): Gas mixture containing carbon monoxide (CO2) and Hydrogen which is burned or stored to create energy. xiii

Thermodynamic Efficiency: The thermodynamic efficiency of coal power plants is about 30%, of the 6.67 kWh of energy per kilogram of coal, 30% of that—2.0 kWh/kg—can successfully be turned into electricity; the rest is waste heat. So coal power plants obtain approximately 2.0 kWh per kilogram of burned coal.

Trace Gas: Any one of the less common gases found in the Earth's atmosphere. Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon make up more than 99 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. Other gases, such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, oxides of nitrogen, ozone, and ammonia, are considered trace gases. Although relatively unimportant in terms of their absolute volume, they have significant effects on the Earth's weather and climate.

Watt (W): The rate of energy use at this instant. The most common unit of electrical power is the watt. It is a rate of energy used in a given amount of time. A watt is a pretty small unit of measure, especially when you’re talking about the electrical power used by your home, so you’ll often see kilowatts referred to rather than watts (1,000 watts, abbreviated as kW).

Watt-hour (Wh): The amount of electrical power that represents the total energy used/generated in one hour time interval. We use Watt-hours to quantify total electricity we actually used over a period of time.

USDA-ARS: United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service



i http://www.morris.umn.edu/sustainability/documents/2010GreenPiece.pdf ii http://www.morris.umn.edu/sustainability/documents/2010GreenPiece.pdf iii See the published definition in Johnson et al., 2007, Johnson, J.M.F., A.J. Franzluebbers, S.L. Weyers, and D.C. Reicosky. 2007. Agricultural opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Environ. Pollut. 150:107-124.

Johnson, J.M.F., M.D. Coleman, R.W. Gesch, A.A. Jaradat, R. Mitchell, D.C. Reicosky, and W.W. Wilhelm. 2007. Biomass-bioenergy crops in the United States: A changing paradigm. The Amer. J. Plant Sci. Biotechnol. 1:1-28. iv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_ash v http://www.pelheat.com/RawMaterial.html vi http://www.morris.umn.edu/sustainability/documents/2010GreenPiece.pdf vii Reed, Thomas B., 2002, Encyclopedia of Biomass Thermal Conversion: The Principles and Technology of Pyrolysis, Gasification & Combustion, 3rd ed., (Franktown, CO:The Biomass Energy Foundation Press) viii http://www.morris.umn.edu/sustainability/documents/2010GreenPiece.pdf ix http://www.morris.umn.edu/sustainability/documents/2010GreenPiece.pdf x Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller. (eds.) 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 Cambridge University Press New York, NY. xi Reed, Thomas B., 2002, Biomass Thermal Conversion: The Principles and Technology of Pyrolysis, Gasification & Combustion, 3rd ed., (Franktown, CO:The Biomass Energy Foundation Press) xii Ibid. xiii http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas�



Biomass Acronym Quick Reference

BCAP Biomass Crop Assistance Program

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BFP boiler feed pump

BTU British thermal units

CAA federal Clean Air Act of 1963

CaCO4 calcium carbonate

CANMET Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology

CEC cation exchange capacity

CEMS continuous emissions monitoring system

CHP combined heat and power

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CRP USDA Conservation Reserve Program

DDC direct digital control system

DOE United States Department of Energy

EBT English Boiler and Tube, Inc.

EIA Energy Information Administration (within DOE)

EPA federal Environmental Protection Agency

FD-1 first under-fire air fan

FD-2 second under-fire air fan

FD2-1 first over-fire air fan

FD2-2 second over-fire air fan

FGR fuel gas recirculation

gph gallons per hour

gpm gallons per minute

H2O water

HCl hydrochloric acid

HGA Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc.

hp heating plant

HPS high pressure steam

http://www.englishboiler.com/�

http://hga.com/�



HPU hydraulic power unit

HRSG heat recovery steam generator

HX-1 flue gas heat exchanger

HX-2 condensing, or latent heat removal, heat exchanger

ID or IDF induced draft fan

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning (industry-standard economics model)

lbm pounds (of mass)

LPR low pressure return

MFWV manual feed water valve

MGY million gallons per year

MMBTU million British thermal units

MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

MSS main steam stop

MSW municipal solid waste

MW million watts

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NaCl sodium chloride (table salt)

NaOH sodium hydroxide

NaPO4 sodium phosphate

NESHAPS National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NG natural gas

NOL normal operating level

NOx nitrogen oxides

O2 molecular oxygen

OM or O & M operations and maintenance

PIV post indicating valve

PLC programmable logic control system

PM particulate material

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

psig pounds per square inch of gauge pressure

QA quality assurance

QC quality control



RER Recovered Energy Resources, LLC.

RFP request for proposal

SCI soil conditioning index

SIP State Implementation Plan for CAA & EPA compliance

SO2 silicon dioxide

SOP standard operating procedure

TS total solids

TSS total suspended solids

UMM University of Minnesota, Morris

UPS uninterruptible power supply

USDA-NRCS United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service

VSD variable speed drive

WCROC University of Minnesota West Central Research and Outreach Center

biomass gasification: a comprehensive demonstration of a community scale biomass ... ·...

Documents