# Burning wood instead of coal to generate electricity



## SlyFerret (Jul 1, 2010)

This link just came though my twitter feed:
http://www.columbusunderground.com/ohio-is-ground-zero-for-biomass-fight

I'm curious what this battle will mean for me as a wood burner in Ohio.  I'm concerned that if this gets killed, there may also be restrictions placed on using firewood as a source of fuel for heating as well.

Not to mention... I can't fathom how many trees will be burned in the process.  It makes me sick to think that they'll start clear cutting forests

-SF


----------



## Dune (Jul 1, 2010)

They are building four of those in Mass right now, which I think is at least three too many.

Why should the choices be limited to coal or wood?


----------



## JBinKC (Jul 2, 2010)

I agree it looks obvious too many of these are getting built at once  and is a hasty short term solution to handle the current inventory of diseased trees which will speed up the slowdown of the progression of the disease  then what. 

Knowing how our system works I think it has all the markings to severely limit woodburning by the individual since now they are in competition for a resource. Once a big corporation moves on your turf they have the financial muscle to buy off politicians that will support legislation to make it uneconomical to burn firewood like imposing burn and or moving permits that will only be economical for large scale use and harvesting.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 4, 2010)

I think it would be using mostly wood waste products


----------



## Dune (Jul 4, 2010)

trump said:
			
		

> I think it would be using mostly wood waste products



That would be great, but they are not. The plan is to burn "biomass", chipped trees. There is no doubt that here in Mass, four of these will lead to deforestaion.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 4, 2010)

could also lead to higher prices for pellet fuel, look at the price of corn when the ethanol thing took back off a few years ago, cornstove popularity too a big hit as the fuel became too expensive to be attractive.


----------



## begreen (Jul 4, 2010)

Locally in Seattle they recently converted the old steam plant to wood chip burning. The plant is right by the waterfront in the heart of the city. So far it seems to be burning quite cleanly. It was a fun process to watch. I'll see if they ever offer tours. If so, I'll bring a camera.


----------



## wallis54806 (Jul 5, 2010)

Our local power plant burns both coal and wood chips. Mostly wood chips I believe. 
It sounds like a different situation is Ohio, although a single article like this could be biased. We have a lot of trees and few people, so deforestation from burning trees to produce our electricity is not an issue here.


----------



## jlasserton (Jul 12, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, this will lead to deforestation. Why would they even consider doing this? I am curious to know how many other states are involved in this. I am glad that article got posted. It was an interesting read.


----------



## renewablejohn (Jul 23, 2010)

I cannot speak for how you do it over the pond but we use approx 10,000 tonnes of wood per annum to generate 600 kw on a 24/7 basis. Our operation is totally sustainable as it uses the waste brash left behind from the trees which have been felled for paper pulp. Once we have removed the brash the forest is replanted and the cycle continues.  We have not ignored the local wood burning community as we also provide a full range of split logs, kindling, briquettes and wood pellets all made from the waste which previously was either allowed to rot or burn in the open.  The real problem I see from the article is no mention of drying the timber before power generation. Our moisture content is always below 20% thanks to our solar dryers but if they use woodchip direct from the forest the MC is likely to be 55-60% requiring 3 times as much timber for the same generating output.

I would dispute the articles assertion about CO2 emissions re Coal versus Wood but with no facts as to how he arrived at this comment it is difficult to verify the statement. From a purely generating perspective Wood has very loooow emissions compared to coal which is why we can even operate in smoke controlled areas of UK which excludes coal fired systems.


----------



## TMonter (Jul 25, 2010)

> Locally in Seattle they recently converted the old steam plant to wood chip burning. The plant is right by the waterfront in the heart of the city. So far it seems to be burning quite cleanly. It was a fun process to watch. I’ll see if they ever offer tours. If so, I’ll bring a camera.



I have a lot of pictures that as we built it and most of the engineering design plans too.

I assume you're referring to the Seattle Steam biomass facility installed last year.


----------



## webbie (Jul 25, 2010)

T would know more about this, but the reason we are getting opposition in Ma. has a lot to do with the perceived inefficiency of a green wood plant. The plans are not for combined power and heat - just for electric power. The naysayers are claiming that the efficiency is really really low. There are other objections in MA. because this is a very small and densely developed state and although there is a lot of wood and forests, it's not like out west or even PA or NY. The plants would have to truck in the logs on a constant basis which concerns those who live nearby. It also will put a strain on wood supplies in some areas....or at least this is what some are saying.

They did some bogus studies to prove that the plants do not count as renewable (long story, but I will explain if anyone wants), and they are spreading a lot of PR around opposing the plants.

I have to somewhat agree - that thermal and smaller scale biomass fits in better in our more urban area. Large plants using wood which is not waste...and burning at low efficiency - does not sound ideal. 

Admittedly, I don't know all the issues....but I suspect the naysayers don't either. Some of them are the type who oppose everything.....even though we have large coal and nuclear plants nearby. Sometimes I feel like shaking them and saying "it's not a question of what is ideal, but more what we are using NOW compared to what is being proposed".


----------



## webbie (Jul 25, 2010)

renewablejohn said:
			
		

> I would dispute the articles assertion about CO2 emissions re Coal versus Wood but with no facts as to how he arrived at this comment it is difficult to verify the statement. .



I think that is a concocted statement which they paid some scientists for.........

The logic is somewhat perverted. Here is how I think they came up with it.
Rather than consider it over normal time periods (30+ years or 100+), they claimed that our State (Ma. in this case) had a particular goal to cut CO2 by a certain amount within 15-20 years and they based the government policies (the "free" money, etc.) on this goal. Since it takes longer than 10 or 20 years to grow most large trees, they then claimed that wood was not really renewable.

This, of course, is a complete fabrication. It takes a lot of nerve to try and fit natural processes which occur over decades and centuries into a finite and short time period. 

Like you, I am more concerned about the low efficiency. They need to take a hint from your operations and use the solar dryers and also perhaps sell firewood and briquettes and pellets.


----------



## webbie (Jul 25, 2010)

JBinKC said:
			
		

> Once a big corporation moves on your turf they have the financial muscle to buy off politicians that will support legislation to make it uneconomical to burn firewood like imposing burn and or moving permits that will only be economical for large scale use and harvesting.



FYI, I don't think our local plans are big corporations - more like locals and forestry folks who thought it would be a good thing. 
http://www.russellbiomass.com/


----------



## renewablejohn (Jul 25, 2010)

I cannot believe the plans outlined by russellbiomass. Any efficient biomass plant needs to have a purpose for its waste heat whether that is a district heating scheme or in our case a torrefication plant. Straight away your efficiency on a generating only plant is reduced to a maximum 30% instead of 70% for a CHP plant and by using wet forest waste I would expect the efficiency could be as little as 10%.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 25, 2010)

As to burning wood for electric power production, this almost has to mean burning fiber which cannot be sold for a higher price. Trees (logs) which can be sawed into lumber, if there is a market for the lumber, or which can produce pulp for paper, or even stove wood for residential or small commercial use, produce much higher value than burning the trees in a power plant. A power plant has to compete in the market for its fiber fuel, and even at current depressed prices for fiber, the price still is too high to buy the trees for burning to produce electricity. And just about as soon as the price might drop low enough, the added demand by power plants will start to push the price back up again. 

In short, brush, tops, branches, unmerchantable thinings and other round wood, deadwood are the likely target for a power plant. In our area these items barely produce a bid at a timber sale, and this stuff is "sold" mostly to prepare the harvested area for replanting, as otherwise it often needs to be piled in large slash piles and burned in the open air. Some slash, if left on the ground, attracts insect and other pests which are harmful to other living trees. There is controversy about how much of this can be taken out of the woods and for how long and still leave sufficient biomass on the forest floor to produce long term sustainable forests. Considerable research is continuing in this area.

The quantity of sustainable fiber available for power plants is an interesting question. Quantity is inextricably related to the price the power plant will pay, and currently that price is little if any more than the cost of chipping if needed, gathering and trucking the material to the plant. The forestry certification agencies have pretty good standards to insure long term, sustainable forests, and the great bulk of public (and much private) forest lands in MN are certified and audited. In Minnesota, forestry plans for the national forests, Minnesota state forests, and county public land forests are prepared and administered for long term healthy, sustainable forests, not only for fiber but also for clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreational uses. The current issues revolve around whether these plans are too conservative (harvest levels substantially below sustainable yields) and getting rid of unmerchantable, excess fiber, even if it has to be given away. 

I think this issue is not settled, but paranoia on one side of the other is not helpful. Keep in mind that there has been little controversy over cutting forests for paper pulp or lumber, both high value products. Cutting forests for electric power production will have to compete in this larger market, and energy costs will have to go much, much higher to make it profitable to cut forests for electric power production.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 25, 2010)

When we talk about efficiency, we almost always fail to consider the laws of thermodynamics (hey, not my area of expertise, but ...) which in general state that 50% of energy is lost to heat in the conversion from one form to another form. Whether coal, oil or wood is burned for electricity production (when not combined with district heating or other use of the excess heat), starting efficiency is only 50%. Other losses that occur until the electricity arrives at the point of use result in overall efficiency of roughly 15%. Point of use efficiency of the 15% available may range from close to 100% for heat, if heat is the desired output, to as little as 10% in the case of an incandescent light bulb. 

So, if starting with a lump of coal, gallon of oil, or log of *dry wood*, delivered efficiency of the energy in the fuel can be as low as 1.5% of the energy contained in the fuel in its pre-burn state, with the balance of 98.5% in heat released into the atmosphere, along with CO2, acids, heavy metals, mercury, etc., the things you and I enjoy breathing, eating and drinking.


----------



## btuser (Jul 25, 2010)

Burning wet wood is stupid.  I hope we don't have stupid people building power plants.  I know its hard for me to get a grapple-load of firewood, because no one wants to deliver to a residence when the pellet mills and boiler plants around us will take it quick and non-stop, so that's already pushed up the price of fuel for me.  At one point in 2008 seasoned cordwood was selling for $400/cord. 

I don't think we're too far away from a law against selling firewood.  I think the excuse will be invasive species being spread by people delivering firewood.  They will regulate the small guy out of the market so the mills/plants will get their biomass and sell it back to us in a nice plastic wrapper.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jul 25, 2010)

That power plant sounds like a big OWB.   

Matt


----------



## peakbagger (Jul 25, 2010)

Here is a link to more information than most people would ever want to know about the impacts and operation of a biomass power plant. The proposed 70 MW plant in Berlin NH will be the biggest on the east coast.

http://www.nhsec.nh.gov/2009-02/documents/091216application.pdf

As this is part of a public permitting process there is lots of information availlable on the plant.


----------



## begreen (Jul 25, 2010)

EatenByLimestone said:
			
		

> That power plant sounds like a big OWB.
> 
> Matt



If it's designed well, it's more like a giant wood chip gassifier.

http://www.seattlesteam.com/index.htm

If I lived in NH I would start lobbying the company and the state to make this a cogenerative facility. They are blowing off waste heat in cooling towers when it could be used for greenhouses or at least an industrial park.


----------



## branchburner (Jul 25, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> EatenByLimestone said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is there a good reason there aren't more small-scale cogeneration plants? I would love to have a clean-burning OWB/gassifier to generate my own electricity and hot water. It would seem like you could have a number of neighborhood or community mini-power-plants that would increase fuel efficiency and reduce long distance transmission loss. Is it the economies of scale that discourage this?


----------



## renewablejohn (Jul 25, 2010)

In UK it is the cost of grid connection which is the barrier to entry of a distributed power plant system. For a 250kw system connected to the grid the connection charge and consultants fees will be approx £50k.


----------



## begreen (Jul 25, 2010)

branchburner said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not sure, but possibly safety related or maybe noise? To generate adequate electricity I would think you would need to generate high-pressure steam and have adequate safety systems and maintenance. But it certainly is possible.:

http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/stmpwr.htm


And did this beauty!


or if you live in the southwest, go Solar Steam


----------



## renewablejohn (Jul 25, 2010)

You can generate electric from wood without any steam. Check out Victory Gasworks for small gasifiers suitable for gas fired generators.


----------



## begreen (Jul 25, 2010)

That would also work, though it seems less efficient to generate the gas to run a gas generator. Would this be as clean?


----------



## branchburner (Jul 25, 2010)

renewablejohn said:
			
		

> You can generate electric from wood without any steam. Check out Victory Gasworks for small gasifiers suitable for gas fired generators.



I checked this out a few months ago, and the other threads here on gasification. While running my car on wood gas didn't seem too appealing, running a generator did. But Victory seems only to offer what they call a gasifier platform, and then it's up to you to figure out how to turn the gas into electricity. That makes me think it can't be too easy. 

After reading a bit, it sounds like there are a lot of issues with tar buildup, etc, in the generator if it's not done perfectly. I'm sure it is a good project for a real DIYer, someone who is handier than I am. But it's not like buying a stove, plugging it into a chimney, and getting warm. 

I haven't seen any commercially available microCHP systems that run on wood. The unit from Honda that runs on natural gas looks pretty neat. My back forty has hickory, oak, maple, cherry, birch... but no LNG.


----------



## vvvv (Jul 25, 2010)

coal is king= 1 man + machine can harvest so much more energy than??????


----------



## Oldmainer (Jul 25, 2010)

Hello Folks...I think if our forests are managed correctly  there will be plenty of material for lumber and power generation. Lets not fly off the handle yet... I believe there is enough coal...oil...gas...and wood chips to keep our bulbs burning for many a year. I believe the American public will have to be made to cut back at least twenty percent on power use in the coming years if we want our economy to prosper at all. My guess is the waste of power is off the chain and needs to be addressed in the coming years. Franklin


----------



## renewablejohn (Jul 26, 2010)

branchburner said:
			
		

> renewablejohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you have a natural gas fired generator then a Victory gasifier is really plug and play. Tar is a problem if the temperature in the gasifier is to low and the filters are not working effectively.
For commercial microCHP you will need to look in Europe at systems such as Sunmachine and KWB using small stirling engines. For larger natural gas generators 50kw to 2000kw there is a lot of options using either gasifiers or thermal oil.


----------



## btuser (Jul 26, 2010)

Berlin has been a city in crisis for about 40 years.  I remember driving through when the paper mill was running and even with the windows up you wouldn't believe the stench going into the river.   Something tells me this was just a buy-out to shut them up when the paper mill closed.  In order to save the town they built a prison, which was supposed to bring in a bunch of good jobs.  Problem is the prison wouldn't hire anyone locally!  Stiffed big time.  So now someone is building an inefficient power plant, probably from subsidized money.  Just call it our little bridge to nowhere.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 26, 2010)

Community CHP used to be very prevalent at least into the '60's. My dad over the years worked at several state institutions. He was the facility engineer. These originally had coal fired boilers that ran the generators and supplied steam heat to the many buildings. The steam lines, along with electrical and water lines, were in underground tunnels. Of course the steam lines had asbestos insulation. We lived on the grounds, our house had cast iron steam radiators, with a little vent device at the top to let moisture into the air during the winter. 

The demise of these units in part was the availability of "cheap" natural gas. First the coal fired boilers were converted to natural gas with coal backup, as natural gas would be cut on very cold winter days when demand was high. Later no coal at all was used. Finally, as electric power became very cheap, and maintenance of the old generators became difficult, electricity generation was stopped and the now natural gas fired boilers just provided steam heat.

I think another reason for the demise of the coal fired boilers was the smoke. Huge plumbs of black smoke spewed out of the tall chimney when the boiler was fired and during maintenance operations. I don't remember the smoke being objectionable when the boilers were in full operation, but I suspect air pollution from coal became an issue.

Today both Minneapolis and St. Paul have district heating but not power. I suspect, although I don't know, that electric generation was not included due to lobby pressure from the big electric power companies. It's also possible that when these were built it was less expensive to buy power from the big electric power companies with their huge coal fired generating plants located in the Dakotas and Montana, next to the strip mines, then build and maintain local generating capacity.

The waste of energy through unused heat from a generating plant is astronomical. While it's easy to focus on that, that waste is equal or greater from all of our motor vehicle internal combustion engines, which burn fuel both to power the vehicle and to run the generator. Direct electric generation from heat, bypassing the generator, would seem to be a technological no-brainer, with the technology transferable to many other heat producing appliances -- micro grid-tied systems all over the place. Perhaps for another day when the lights are about to go out.


----------



## peakbagger (Jul 26, 2010)

btuser said:
			
		

> Berlin has been a city in crisis for about 40 years.  I remember driving through when the paper mill was running and even with the windows up you wouldn't believe the stench going into the river.   Something tells me this was just a buy-out to shut them up when the paper mill closed.  In order to save the town they built a prison, which was supposed to bring in a bunch of good jobs.  Problem is the prison wouldn't hire anyone locally!  Stiffed big time.  So now someone is building an inefficient power plant, probably from subsidized money.  Just call it our little bridge to nowhere.



Assuming you live in PSNH territory, you will be contributing to the Laidlaw plant. PSNH may have to shut down one of their hydros (probably 3 or 4 cents per kw) so they can have the ratepayer subsidize a 15 cents rate for the plant. 

By the way, the papermill didnt cause the smell, the pulp mill did. It has been closed for about 5 years and it doesnt smell anymore. The prison will hire locals as long as they meet the Federal requirements for prison jobs anywhere in the US.


----------



## btuser (Jul 27, 2010)

How can you have paper with no pulp?    I talked to a buddy who was in the paper biz and his main concern was the rollers.  There are no forges big enough to make them anymore, so once the rollers get sold off that's it, too expensive to bring it back again.  

I read about 10 cent electric rates and it drives me nutz.


----------



## Dune (Jul 28, 2010)

Apparently, there is a great abundance of recycled paper stock. I have a hard time believing that we have lost the capacity to make rollerrs...I beleive that some vendors may no longer be viable, but there are large custom fabricators who can make most anything. Of course, such work would not be inexpensive.


----------



## peakbagger (Jul 28, 2010)

If you want to talk papermills and pulpmills, I worked at both for about 20 years. As far as I know, everypiece of equipment required to make paper is still available. Most of it comes from offshore as there are very few new papermachines being built in the US. A lot of manufacturers have gone out of business or have been bought up. Generally the problem is that the original prints are not availlable so making a replacement requires reverse engineering of the old equipment. The technology has also changed radically so that the equipment currently used to make paper looks a lot different that some of the antiques that still are running.


----------



## Delta-T (Jul 28, 2010)

I was under the impression that the Wood Chip Power plant in Berlin is having difficulty because of a lack of transmission capacity. I was also under the impression that the waste steam was going to be fed into a pellet mill being built by Woodstone, but I've not heard much about it lately. 

Peakbagger- Did you ever work at the mill in Berlin? My wifes family lives in Berlin and of course, many of them worked in the mill. We went recently to the Moffet House Historical Center in Berlin an saw many old pics of my wifes grandfather working in the mill. The gentleman giving the tour through the museum knew him well and the curator of the place used to babysit my wife's uncles. They have some excellent pics of the old Nansen Ski Jump when it was functional. Scary as all heck too.


----------



## peakbagger (Jul 28, 2010)

I was the last engineer at the Pulp Mill and was there for the last "cook" of pulp. I also worked at the papermill. 

There are two biomass electric plants proposed for Berlin. Both are conventional type plants which extract as much power as possible out of the steam to generate electricity. The resulting waste heat is low grade stuff, probably good for growing tomatoes in greenhouses but not much else. The Laidlaw plant on the old pulpmill site has greenhouses shown on the adjecent property but no formal agreements have been anounced. They have announced that they will preheat the incoming cold water to the papermill in Gorham as the water for the papermill is drawn from the river north of the old pulp mill and sent via a pipe to the papermill in Gorham. There are some limits to what they can do as the pipe is uninsulated and buried shallow, plus it is fiberglass.

The other biomass project is on the Berlin/Gorham townline across from the papermil. They plan to supply low pressure steam to the papermill via an extraction stage on the steam turbine, the remainder of the waste heat will go to a cooling tower. They also plan to reuse the discharge water from the Berlin municipal treatment plant for cooling tower water. They have also announced a partnership with a firm that gorws algae with the CO2 rich exhaust of a power plant plus supply them warm water. It is a much smaller project (29 MW vs 70 MW). 

Both projects have their supporters and detractors and there is active debate in the area as to which one should go. 

The smaller project has a spot on the ISO "queue" and most likely has transmission capacity reserved. The larger project doesnt have space reserved on the transmission line but they insist that there is minimal modifications required to obtain enough capacity. This is contrary to other studies of the transmission grid. There currently is a 100 MW windfarm going in this fall and next year that eats up 100 MW of transmission and  second larger windfarm that is on hold pending a transmission upgrade. 

Even though I work on biomass power plants, I have no stake in either one of these projects.


----------



## renewablejohn (Sep 23, 2010)

Have found another manufacturer of a gasifier the right size to power a small generator. Looks quite impressive and the price seems reasonable.

http://www.stakproperties.com/index.php?p=3_23


----------



## Dune (Sep 23, 2010)

Very nice product John. Any info on the preparation requirements of the fuel, chips, chunks, pellets, logs? I am interested in a system that can utilize chips, as they are a common, and free commodity around here.


----------



## renewablejohn (Sep 23, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> Very nice product John. Any info on the preparation requirements of the fuel, chips, chunks, pellets, logs? I am interested in a system that can utilize chips, as they are a common, and free commodity around here.



Dune

If you look at the same companies video for the 10k instead of 100k machine it shows them stoking it with woodchips but I dont know what the moisture content would need to be.

I am debating whether to get the 100k gasifier and connect to a secondhand Capstone C30 gas fired turboprop generator which I have found at a reasonable price.


----------



## Dune (Sep 23, 2010)

renewablejohn said:
			
		

> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What would you do with all that power?


----------



## renewablejohn (Sep 24, 2010)

Dune

In the UK you get paid for exporting it into the National Grid as green energy. Roughly works out at £1000 per year for each 1kw of generating capacity so 30kw machine should bring in £30,000 per annum. Main barrier is whether the National Grid can cope with the amount of export power and the cost of getting connected which is at least £20k just for connecting 3 wires and could be more if you need a transformer upgrade.


----------

