Mitsui Babcock Biomass Co-firing

Experience from the UK

 Who is Mitsui Babcock?

• Leading, multi-specialist energy services company

• UK based, global operations, 4,500 employees worldwide
• A leader in utility coal fired power generation technology,
regular participant in EU and DTI R D and D programmes
• Annualt urnoverappr
oxi
mat
ely€600m,pr
ofi
tabl
eand
sustainable
• Establ i
shedi n1891asBabcock&Wi l
coxLt
d–f
ormat
ion
of Mitsui Babcock Energy Limited in 1995
• Products and services across all fuel types and throughout
the complete plant life cycle
 The Renewables Directive
A Challenge for the British Power Industry
• The Renewables Directive has been key in driving biomass co-
firing in the UK
• UK like some other EU states allow co-firing to contribute to
meeting targets
• Significant Renewable Energy Supply possible where fuel supply
and availability can be successfully integrated with effective co-
firing methods
• UK co-firing rules allow,
- extended co-firing on non-energy crop biomass
- But forces a transition to energy crop from 2009
• Historical risks,
- Poor or expensive fuel supply infrastructure,
- Lack of flexible and robust handling/ combustion technology,
- Insufficient legislative and market incentives for co-firing
• Successful large scale co-firing demands an integrated approach to
overcome these risks
 Overcoming Logistical
and Technical Challenges
• In-country Supply
- Availability and sustainability
- Extraction, processing and transport costs
- Consistency of quality (moisture and heat value)
- Drying and handling issues
• Imported Supply
- Significant an sustainable volumes
- Guaranteed quality (low moisture, consistent heat value)
- Transport CO2/cost offset by less drying/handling risks
- Can be cost competitive
• Co-firing v Dedicated plant
- +50% more RES-E/tonne biomass
- Lower capital cost and project risk
An Integrated Approach

• Co-firing Methods
• Technical Risks and
Best Practice
• UK Co-firing Experience
 Co-firing Methods

• Utility Co-firing of biomass is

the most efficient conversion
route to RES
• Co-firing can be achieved by,
- Co-milling
- Dedicated co-firing
• Direct Injection
• Dedicated burners
• Co-firing burners
Technical Risks and
Best Practice
 Co-milling

• Majority of stations co-firing by pre-blending the

biomass with the coal, before the mill
• Co-firing ratios typically 5% on a heat input basis.
• Minimal effect on boiler performance and environment.
• Most of the technical problems associated with the
reception, storage and handling
• The constraints on the co-firing ratio have been:
- Fuel availability,
- Handling/blending system capacity
- Limitations of the coal milling equipment.
 Co-milling
• A range of biomass being co-milled in,
- Ball and tube mills
- Vertical spindle ball and
- Ring, and roller mills.
• Mill performance depends on brittle fracture of
coal into particles
• Biomass can accumulate in the mill - longer to
clear the mill during shutdown.
• Mill differential pressure and power
take can increase on vertical spindle mills.
• Mill product top-size increases as larger
biomass particles exit the classifier.
• Biomassmoi stur eaff
ectsmi l
lheatbalance–
Can be limiting factor (e.g. inadequate drying).
• Safety issues when co-milling biomass - mill
operating procedures optimisation
 Trend Toward Dedicated Co-firing
The general approach at a number of British stations has been as
follows:
• Establish co-firing by pre-blending and co-milling on the preferred
fuel at minimum capital cost, and with short project lead times.
• Obtain the Environmental License Variation for commercial co-
firing activities.
• Modify the Variation to permit greater flexibility in the fuel supply
and the co-firing ratio.
• Integrate the biomass co-firing into the normal station operations.
• Upgrade the biomass reception, storage, handling and blending
facilities, to increase throughput and reduce mechanical handling
constraints, dust generation, etc.
• Some now implementing direct firing of the biomass to permit
higher co-firing ratios.
 Dedicated Co-firing options

• The biomass can be pre-milled either off-site or on-site

• All direct co-firing systems involve pneumatic conveying
of the biomass from the fuel reception/handling facility
to the boiler house.
• There are three basic direct co-firing options:
- Direct injection into the furnace with no combustion air,
- New dedicated biomass burners, and
- Co-firing with coal through the existing burners by injection of
the biomass into the pulverised coal pipework or burner
 Direct injection

• Direct injection through the furnace wall with only

conveying air and no flame stabilisation.
• Demonstrated, on a trial basis, in a downshot-fired
boiler in Britain,
• Simple and cheap to install,
• Limited application for wall or corner-fired boilers.
• Only conducted with dry biomass to date
• Handling and combustion risks with wetter biomass
 Dedicated Burners

• Modified pulverised coal burners or cyclone

burners
• New burner locations required in rear or
side walls.
• Secondary air supply requires significant
ductwork modifications.
• New burner locations -Impact on the
pulverised coal combustion and the furnace
performance need assessment
• New burner maintainability and control
could result in generation risk
• Dedicated biomass burners have not been
extensively demonstrated commercially on
Utility plant.
• Complex and relatively expensive to install.
 Co-firing Burners
• Demonstrated in Britain and continental Europe.
• Injection locations at the mill outlet or local to the
burners.
• Simple and cheap to install, but implications on the mill
operation and control.
• The risks of interference with the operation of the coal
firing system needs assessment.
• If the biomass is to be injected at the burner, there are
significant burner modifications required.
 Modified MB Mark III LNB for
Coal-Straw Co-firing at Studstrup
 UK Co-firing Experience

• All of the coal-fired power plants in Britain are co-firing biomass.

• The total number of ROCs (MWh) from biomass co-firing to date
almost 3 million.
• The range of biomass materials co-fired includes:
- Wood in a variety of forms, principally sawdust or pellets,
- Imported dry residues from the olive oil and palm oil industries, and
- Liquid biomass materials, principally talloil.
• Vol
umesofbi
omassr
equi
redar
esi
gni
f
icant–e.
g.
- 5% Co-firing on a 2GWe plant = 200-300 ktonnes/year
(@ 40% load factor)
• Low Cost Imported biomass in high volumes has produced the
majority of E-RES in the UK
 Renewable Electricity (ROCs)
from Co-firing to Sept 05
Station Capacity (MWe) Generator Cumulative ROCs
Aberthaw 1,455 RWE npower 89,744
Cockenzie 1,200 Scottish Power 9,302
Cottam 2,000 EdF 75,630
Didcot 2,100 RWE npower 46,351
Drax 4,000 Drax Power 426,218
Eggborough 1,960 British Energy 10,092
Ferrybridge 2,035 SSE 977,172
Fiddlers Ferry 1,995 SSE 442,910
Ironbridge 970 E.on UK 127,681
Kingsnorth 2,034 E.on UK 168,515
Longannet 2,400 Scottish Power 209,420
Ratcliffe 2,010 E.on UK 20,409
Rugeley 1,000 Int. Power 128,089
Tilbury 1,085 RWE npower 11,777
West Burton 1,980 EdF 3,799
Total ROCs/MWh 2,868,501
 Conclusions
• Large Scale co-firing is one of the most efficient and low cost
methods in meeting EU RES targets.
• Co-milling is being practised by all Coal plant operators
• Direct co-firing projects are being developed in British coal-fired
power plants as a means of increasing the co-firing RES.
• Injection of the biomass into the existing burner currently appears
to be the optimal direct firing solution.
• Project risk increases with,
- Co-firing Ratio
- Fuel quality and diversity
• Integration of co-firing technology selection with low cost fuel
supply in high volumes is key to profitability.
dspalding@mitsuibabcock.com

www.mitsuibabcock.com

+44 (0) 141 886 4141