BioEnergyBioEnergy in Manitobain Manitoba

Gasification MythsGasification Myths

Gasification Workshop – Truths, Myths & OpportunitiesGreenwood Inn, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Nov 15, 2004

Dr. Eric BibeauDr. Eric BibeauMechanical & Industrial Engineering DeptMechanical & Industrial Engineering Dept

Manitoba Hydro/NSERC Chair Alternative EnergyManitoba Hydro/NSERC Chair Alternative Energy

Gasifier Terms UsedGasifier Terms UsedDistributed power (< 5 MWe)– applicable to Manitoba

Gasification for producing power– direct = syngas– indirect = hot flue gas

Gasifier types discussed – gasifier to produce a syngas to make power (direct)– gasifier or gasifier/combustor to produce a hot flue gas

to make power (indirect)Gasifier for heat (not covered)– similar aspects apply– focus on power generation

Why Look at MythsWhy Look at MythsNeed strong focus on realization of BioPower energy rather than on developing a technology– gasification is favored in the public eye– gasification is in news

…the EERC has completed over 100 hours of continuous operation of a biomass gasifier firing wood chips… The process converts wood chips into gas (similar to natural gas) that can be fired in a small gas turbine (microturbine), diesel, or conventional combustion engine.

Why Look at MythsWhy Look at MythsNeed to be able to question information– “Experience from the Second World War shows, however,

that properly designed wood gasifiers, operated within their design range and using fuels within the fuel specifications (which may differ between designs), can provide a sufficiently tar free gas for trouble-free operation”

– From “Mechanical Wood Products Branch,” Forest Industries Division FAO Forestry Department

large scale applications (500 kW and above): US$ 1000 per installed kW and upwardsmedium scale applications (30 - 500 kW): 300 - 800 US$/kW (gasifier only) small-scale applications (7 - 30 kW): 150 US$/kW, extremely reliable and should need no special operation and maintenance skills

Why Look at MythsWhy Look at MythsRequired to improve BioPower technology– continuously questioning statements and findings

a positive (negative) way to move forward understanding pitfalls allows solutions to be put forward

– many gasification projects have failed – some types of gasification projects have succeeded– understand how this technology

could be effectively applied in Manitoba compares to other forms of biomass conversion technologiesexport market potential for Manitoba

BioPower is GasificationBioPower is Gasification

indirect

direct

Limit air Excess airNo air

Add air

Add airAdd air

No air

Add air

Add air Add air

direct indirect

BioPower is GasificationBioPower is Gasification650°C 315°C

367 kPa 258 °C

111 kPa 315 °C 336 kPa

483 °C

377 kPa 127 °C

13.1%cycle eff. 58.3%

cycle energy

108 kPa 185 °C

101 kPa 15.6 °C

Air Heater

7.4% overall eff.

Compressor Turbine / Expander

Recuperator

combustion air

56.7% recovery

Thermal Oil Heat Transfer

TURBODEN srl

synthetic oil ORC

Conversion

1000°C 310°C

250°C300°C

60°C

80°C Liquid Coolant

Air heat dump

17%

Input Heater 59.9% recovery

Entropic Fluid Heat

Transfer

ENTROPICpower cycleConversion

1000°C 215°C

170°C400°C

60°C

90°C Liquid Coolant

Air heat dump

17.6%

Input Heater 68.2% recovery

Brayton Air Cycle (indirect)

ORC (indirect)

Bio-oil (direct)

EHC(indirect)

Superheater

Economizer

Boiler

Feed Pump

Deaerator

Attemporator

Turbine

2%blowdown

Condensate returnand makeup

10

9

6

4

3

18

7

Co-generation process

5

Small steam CHP

(indirect)

Gasifiers are ScalableGasifiers are ScalableScalability issues surrounding gasifiers are more complex than combustion devices– thermo-chemical conversion depends on the geometry of the gasifier – affects the thermal properties of the fuel impacting reactions

General rule– small scale

updraft/downdraft– large scale

bubbling fluidized bed/indirect

Follow load change– direct approach

must not affect HHV of syngas– indirect approach

decoupled

Biomass Reaction Mechanism Primary Pyrolysis Biomass → Primary Tar (CHxOy) + H20 +

CO2 + CH4 + C2H4 + Cs Secondary Pyrolysis Primary Tar → Secondary tar (CHxOy) +

CO + CO2 + C2H4 + H2 Homogenous Gas Phase Reactions

Gaseous tar Secondary Tar → C + CO + H2 Hydrogen oxidation H2 + ½ O2 H2O + 242 MJ Water shift CO + H2O CO2 + H2 + 41 MJ CO oxidation CO + ½ O2 CO2 + 283 MJ Methane oxidation CH4 + ½ O2 CO + 2 H2 + 110 MJ Dry reforming CH4 + CO2 + 247 MJ 2 CO + 2 H2 Steam reforming CH 4 + H2O + 206 MJ CO + 3 H2 Water-gas shift CO2 + H2 CO + H2O + 41.2 MJ Methane formation CO + 3H2 CH4 + H2O + 206 MJ

Heterogeneous Reactions (solid and gas phase) Partial oxidation of carbon Cs + O2 CO2 + 393 MJ Methane formation Cs + 2 H2 CH4 + 75 MJ Steam gasification Cs + H2O + 131.4 MJ CO + H2 Oxidation of char and hydrogen Cs + 2 O2 + H2 CO2 + 2 H2O + 393 MJ Boudouard char Cs + CO2 + 172.6 MJ 2 CO

Gasification is More EfficientGasification is More EfficientWhat does the statement mean?– high reaction efficiency as gasifier converts most of the fixed

carboncaution: reduction reactions of the fuel may be affected by moisture content and this is not well understoodBFB combustion devices covert most of the carbon

– produce more power using direct method vs indirectGasifiers are often reported in the literature as being more efficient than combustion systems• there is limited practical experience to support this claim

• Possible advantages of gasifiers are that burning syngas in a turbine allows for greater overall cycle efficiency • gas turbine Brayton cycle with high efficiency gas turbines

can theoretically outperform a steam-Rankin cycle if properly implemented

Gasification is More EfficientGasification is More Efficient• Recent white paper on gasification reports

plant efficiencies for integrated biomass gasification combined cycles of 35% to 50% • these values are promising • not achievable for small systems and for high MC

fuels• values seem higher than those achievable in

practice by large fossil fuels power systems • where fuel moisture is of minor important

• Rule of thumb • No combined cycles under 20 MWe

Gasification is More Gasification is More EfficientEfficient

At low MC

Small

Condensing Steam

Small steam with

cogeneration

Organic Rankine

Cycle

Air Brayton

cycle

Entropic cycle Gasification1

Heat recovery loss (MW)

8.0 8.0 7.8 12.3 5.3 11.0

Cycle loss (MW)

15.2 16.5 15.3 12.1 7.2 10.5

Power generated (MWe)

3.03 1.75 3.13 1.83 3.68 4.71

Cogeneration heat (MWth)

0.0 15.0 14.5 0.0 16.4 0.0

1Assumes Producer gas has heat value of 5.5 MJ/m3 and cooled down to room temperature

Vegetation maps Netley-Libau

Marsh 2001

Netley 1979 Area Moisture HHVPlant Available kJ/kgSpecies (ha) min max (%) min max DryCattail 4987 8,528 118,267 17.1 7,070 98,043 18,229Bulrush 3247 3,215 32,584 18.2 2,629 26,653 17,447Reed Grass 650 1,112 1,170 12.8 969 1,020 17,285Rushes, Sedges.. 922 954 6,638 12.4 836 5,819 15,838Sum 9,806 13,808 158,659 11,505 131,535Weighted average 16.7 18,024

Harvest Biomass(Wet tonne) (Dry tonne)

Gasification is More EfficientGasification is More EfficientModeling distributed power systems with 50% MC feedstock– realistic small size systems

limit cycle improvement opportunities– cost effective for technology for small size

limit external heat/power to systemadapt component efficiencies to scale

– model system as if building system todaymodel actual conversion energy system ignore parasitic power for bio-oil & gasifiermass and energy balances

– account for every step in conversion– exclude use of specialized materials

BioBio--oil Overall Energy Balanceoil Overall Energy Balance

Biomass Feed 50% moisture

Drying/Sizing to 10% / 2 mm Pyrolysis

21.5% energy loss 32% energy

Char 45.6%

energy loss

Engine/ Generator

6.4% Electricity

60% energy Bio-oil

8% energy loss

18.5%

3%

3%

5%

N2 Sand

Electricity: 363 kWhr/BDtonne

Pyrolysis heat: non-condensable gas + some char (no NG)

Pyrolysis power: 220 – 450 kWhr/BDtonne (335 or 5%)

Engine efficiency: 28% (lower HHV fuel; larger engine; water in oil lowers LHV)

Drying heat: 3.72 – 5.1 MJ/kgh20 Drying power: 917 – 1262 kWhr/BDtonne Sizing power: 150 – 200 kWhr/BDtonneLimited useable cogeneration heat

PowerPower

New Hampshire experience studying bio-oil•What was learned?

•What information was missing?

Gasification Overall Energy BalanceGasification Overall Energy Balance

Biomass Feed 50% moisture

Drying to 25%

40% energy Producer Gas

7.75% Electricity

Engine/ Generator Gasification

15%

15% energy loss

60% energy loss

17.25% energy loss

Electricity: 440 kWhr/BDtonne

Assume require 25% MC and no sizing requirements (conservative)Ignore parasitic loads: dryer, gas cooler, gas cleaning, tar removal, fans (conservative)Heat to dry fuel comes from process (3.8 MJ/BDkgfuel)100% conversion of char to gas (conservative)HHV of syngas = 5.5 MJ/m3 dry gas (16% of natural gas)

Gasification Overall Energy BalanceGasification Overall Energy Balance

Biomass Feed 50% moisture

Drying to 25%

40% energy Producer Gas

7.75% Electricity

Engine/ Generator Gasification

15%

15% energy loss

60% energy loss

17.25% energy loss

Electricity: 440 kWhr/BDtonne

Low HHV of gas affects efficiency of engineAssume ICE operates at 75% of design efficiency15% heat from producer gas dries fuelNo heat lost across gasifier boundaryLimited useable cogeneration heat

Small Steam Overall Energy BalanceSmall Steam Overall Energy Balance

Biomass Feed 50% moisture Heat Recovery Steam Cycle 9.9%

Electricity

40.5% energy loss

49.6% energy loss

Electricity: 563 kWhr/BDtonne

Limit steam to 4.6 MPa and 400oC (keep material costs low)

Use available turbines for that size: low efficiency (50%)

No economizer4% parasitic loadFlue gas temperature limited to 1000oC for NOxAll major heat losses and parasitic loads accounted

4% power

Small Steam CHP Overall Energy BalanceSmall Steam CHP Overall Energy Balance

Electricity: 324 kWhr/BDtonne Heat: 2936 kWhr/BDtonne

Limit steam to 4.6 MPa and 400oC (keep material costs low)

Could use economizer to pre-heat combustion airMany ways to improve efficiency

Biomass Feed50% moisture

Steam Cycle5.7%

Electricity

Heat Recovery

115°C steamcogeneration

40.5%energy loss

53.8%energy loss

Air Brayton CycleAir Brayton Cycle

Electricity: 420 kWhr/BDtonne

Flue gas temperature inlet to heater limited to 650oC for material requirementsRecuperator with single-stage turbineNo preheat of combustion air (34% increase in efficiency)Tube metal temperatures limited to 565oC Turbine thermal efficiency 85%

Biomass Feed50% moisture Heat Recovery Brayton Cycle

7.4% Electricity

34.4%energy loss

14.9%58.2%energy loss

Biomass Feed50% moisture Heat Recovery Brayton Cycle

7.4% Electricity

34.4%energy loss

14.9%58.2%energy loss

ORCORC

Biomass Feed50% moisture Turboden CycleHeat Recovery

80°C liquidcogeneration

10.2% Electricity

40.1%energy loss

49.7%energy loss

Electricity: 580 kWhr/BDtonne Heat: 2713 kWhr/BDtonne

Flue gas temperature limited to 1000oC for NOxCool flue gas down to 310oCCHP heat at 80oCAll major heat losses and parasitic loads accounted

EHCEHC

Biomass Feed 50% moisture Entropic CycleHeat Recovery

90°C liquidcogeneration

12.0% Electricity

56.2%energy loss

31.8%energy loss

Electricity: 682 kWhr/BDtonneHeat: 3066 kWhr/BDtonne

Flue gas temperature limited to 1000oC for NOx

Cool flue gas down to 215°CCHP heat at 90oC

Fluid limited to 400°CAll major heat losses and parasitic loads accounted

Gasification is More EfficientGasification is More EfficientAt high MC

CHP and Distributed PowerNote: Results are for 50% moistures content

Bio-oil GasificationSyngas

AirBrayton

Large Steam

Overall Power Efficiency 6.6% 7.8% 7.4% 25.0%Electricity (kWhr/Bdtonne) 363 440 420 1420Heat (kWhr/Bdtonne) - - - -Overall Cogen Efficiency 6.4% 7.8% 7.4% 25.0%

SmallSteam

SmallSteam CHP

OrganicRankine Entropic

Overall Power Efficiency 9.9% 5.7% 10.2% 12.0%Electricity (kWhr/Bdtonne) 563 324 580 682Heat (kWhr/Bdtonne) - 2,936 2,713 3,066Overall Cogen Efficiency 9.9% 53.9% 54.5% 67.5%

Direct Indirect

Indirect

Gasifiers Have Low EmissionsGasifiers Have Low EmissionsBiomass emissions in general– CO2 neutral– CO

Excess air and good mixing

– CH4active use can be better or worse than natural decay

– Particulatecan be addressed

– Sulfurbiomass (except for MSW) has low S

– NOximportant in all biomass conversion technologies every time air is injected

Gasifiers Have Low EmissionsGasifiers Have Low Emissions

Biomass emissions in general

CO2 no change except for composting

CH4 is 21 times worst of a GHG than CO2; biomass energy production is the ONLY option that makes senseNatural way has more

NOx

SO2 no influence of technology

Gasifiers Have Low EmissionsGasifiers Have Low EmissionsDo gasifiers have lower emissions than combustion devices?– direct?– indirect?

Gasifier should have less fly ash because of reduced carry over as less air flow is required Is there a real advantage using syngas?– does this outweigh the complexity of the flue gas

treatment, fuel preparation, low moisture content requirements, and loss of the latent heat of the gas

– indirect method: is it easier and cheaper to clean the flue gas?

Gasifiers Have Low EmissionsGasifiers Have Low EmissionsGasification is seen as being the environmental choice– is this justified?– what are the physical mechanism to justify this?– what about CHP; GHG offsets

Look at designs– combustors– gasifiers

Particulate levels are not low enough to use the syngas directly in an engine How emissions change with the type of fuel and moisture content is also not certain

Gasifiers Have Low EmissionsGasifiers Have Low EmissionsNote: Gasification systems using the direct approach have two sources of emissions – NOx, Sox, CO, PM need to be looked at from gasifier

and engineEmissions need to be reported after the engine– Cannot stop at energy from product or intermediate

formExamples of multi-step energy conversion systems– bio-oil– renewable hydrogen– ethanol from fermentation

Gasifiers Have Low EmissionsGasifiers Have Low EmissionsBTG 2001 study of emissions from 21 gasifiers in Europe– 4 out of 21 gasifiers met the NOx limit– 5 out of 21 met CO limits– 8 out of 21 met particulate limits

California study (From National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-570-27541, 1999)

Consider that gasifiers in these studies operated possibly with dryer fuel

Gasifiers Can Handle Any FuelGasifiers Can Handle Any Fuel• Most gasifiers sensitive to the fuel properties • Cannot support high moisture fuel content

• what gasifier manufacturers mean is that the fuel can be pre-processed to make the feedstock acceptable to their gasifiers

• requirements for this preprocessing are often not well understood economically or from an energy efficiency point of view

• little attention given in drying the fuel and evaluate the impact on gasification performance, efficiency, and costs

• fuel drying consumes heat and power and increases capital and operating costs

• alternatively higher moisture fuel can be mixed with lower moisture feedstock or with waste hydrocarbon fuels

• In traditional combustion biomass boiler systems• fuel variations lead to boiler upsets

Gasifiers & Energy Crops are FavorableGasifiers & Energy Crops are Favorable• Consensus for marginal lands

• grow high yield crops• use entire plant and weeds• limit fossil fuel use• use proven and economical conversion method

• Manitoba has unused waste biomass– forest biomass

wood residues from sawmills– agriculture residues

straw from grain– animal wastes

swine, poultry, bovine– municipal wastes

organic residues– non-mainstream biomass

cattails and peat moss

See Gasification Workshop, Gimli, Manitoba, September 30, 2004

Gasifier Performance is WellGasifier Performance is Well--KnownKnown

Need to develop the technical and economical aspects of gasification Determine if biomass syngas could be co-fired into power boilers in the provinceDetermine if gasifiers can economically pre-dry high moisture content fuelInvestigate the co-generation potential of gasifiers for direct and indirect conversion– double the economic return – displaces natural gas important in Manitoba for GHG offsets

Syngas cleanup and conditioning technology

Gasifier Performance is WellGasifier Performance is Well--KnownKnownMethods to condensate the moisture and tars Biomass plant economics are poor compared to fossil based power systems– important to achieve a simplified system that is trouble-

free – gasifier need to operate at very high capacity factor

BTG, “Inventory of biomass gasifiers manufacturers and installations,” Final Report, EWAPprogram, October 2001.

Gasifier Concentrates Heavy MetalsGasifier Concentrates Heavy Metals

This has been shown in Manitoba for MSWMechanism of how the fixed bed interacts with the oxidizing agent is not well understoodIf gasifiers perform better than a deep bed combustion system, it is not known why

Gasifiers are a Low Cost SolutionGasifiers are a Low Cost SolutionGasifiers are low cost has yet to be demonstrated practically for all scales Need to demonstrate the cost advantages as require additional equipment:– fuel: sizing & drying– direct: tar, water, PM, latent heat removal to inject

syngas into engine– engine: production versus low BTU engine

Cost for biomass turnkey installations for gasifiers should not exceed (high side)

Base Power ($/kW installed) Capital Cost5 MWe 3,0001 MWe 3,5000.25 MWe 4,000

Gasifiers are a Low Cost SolutionGasifiers are a Low Cost SolutionCost estimates vary according to industry, region, and the payback time required – payback period can be reduced by up to 50% if the waste

heat can be use productively – payback for different capital cost and power rates

CapitalCost /kW 0.04 0.06 0.08

2000 5.7 3.8 2.92500 7.1 4.8 3.63000 8.6 5.7 4.33500 10 6.7 54000 11.4 7.6 5.7

Electrical rates (c/kW hr)

Pay back (years)

$0.060 per kWhr$0.025 per kWhr

Canadian DollarsPower (85% use) Heat (40% use) Total

Bio-oil $19 $19Gasification Syngas $22 $22Air Brayton $21 $21Large Steam $72 $72Small Steam $29 $29Small Steam CHP $17 $29 $46Organic Rankine $30 $27 $57Entropic Hybrid $35 $31 $65

Revenue per BDTon Biomass

Electical PowerNartural Gas

*Revenue for distributed biopower systems using 50% MC biomass

1

Gasifiers are a Low Cost Solution Gasifiers are a Low Cost Solution CHP Revenue Chart CHP Revenue Chart

Gasifier Has Limited Operator RequirementsGasifier Has Limited Operator Requirements

This point is crucial in the use of this technology for distributed powerGasifiers need to function with little operator assistance or they will potentially fail in the market placeSteam engineer (cost?)– indirect approach

Impact of system on automation and operator requirements– direct approach (focus on gas quality and hard to control)– indirect approach (decoupled)

Gasification is Beyond CombustionGasification is Beyond CombustionStatement based in part on gasification being

– more environmentally friendly – more efficient– less costly– “in fashion”

Bias against combustion based on – bad experiences in the past (older technology)– time when their was no regulation– doing the impossible: disposal of very wet biomass using combustion

If all technology meets environment emissions, what is better?– gasifier– gasifier/combustion– combustion– incinerator– fast and slow pyrolysis

Which technology holds better promise for emissions reduction inthe future?

– PM, CO, NOx, SOx, Ash disposal

Low Capital, Operational, &

Maintenance costs

Gasification Requires EfficiencyGasification Requires Efficiency

Tampier M., Smith D.W., Bibeau E.L. and Beauchmin P., "Identifying environmentally preferable uses for biomass resources: Phase 2 report: life-cycle emission reduction benefits of selected feedstock-to product threads," Envirochem Services Inc. Project sponsored by the National Resource Canada, the National Research Council, and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 2004.

BioPower distributed technologies for 50% MC

direct indirectTechnical complexity

25%

Gasifiers are Best at GHG DisplacementGasifiers are Best at GHG Displacement

Waste biomass application (residues)– often no fuel usage attributed to biomass– transportation (35% MC)

0.0249 kgfuel/km/BDtonne 3.2 kgCO2 released for 40 km

– from emissions point transportation of biomassvery positive on CO2 displaced

– < 1% CO2 cost per 100 kmeconomic limitation

– $65/BDtonne for 125 km

Gasifiers are Best at GHG DisplacementGasifiers are Best at GHG DisplacementElectricity (kWe- hr)– displace electricity from various sources– look at (1) location, (2) average electricity

on the grid, (3) additional load– favorable to displace fossil fuels generation

only

(tonnes/MWh) (tonnes/TJ) (tonnes/MWh) (tonnes/TJ)Newfoundland and Labrador 0.02 6.2 0.000 0.0Prince Edward Island 0.50 137.9 0.807 224.2Nova Scotia 0.74 204.5 0.542 150.5New Brunswick 0.50 137.9 0.807 224.2Quebec 0.01 2.5 0.000 0.0Ontario 0.23 65.2 0.542 150.5Manitoba 0.03 8.2 0.000 0.0Saskatchewan 0.83 231.7 0.542 150.5Alberta 0.91 252.1 0.542 150.5British Columbia 0.03 7.4 0.000 0.0Territories 0.35 98.5 0.909 252.5Marginal Canadian Emission Factor 0.22 61.3 0.426 118.4

CO2, CH4, N2O

Electricity Emissions Average Marginal Provincial Emission

CO2

Remote communities

CHP Impact

Gasifiers are Best at GHG DisplacementGasifiers are Best at GHG DisplacementHeat (kWth- hr)– integrated areas

displace oil, natural gas, electricity

– non-integrated areadisplace oil

Northern Community: special case– off-grid power from transported diesel– off grid heat from transported oil– very favorable to CHP

ORC, EHC, and small steam CHP

Gasifiers are Best at GHG DisplacementGasifiers are Best at GHG DisplacementScenario Description Emissions

per kWe-hrTypical Regions

1 Low carbon intensity power generation: 90% of nuclear or large hydropower; 10% natural gas

CO2: 52 g Québec, British Columbia, Manitoba; France; Norway; Sweden

2 Moderate carbon intensity power mix:65% nuclear/large hydro, 25% coal, 10% natural gas

CO2: 288 g Canadian average; Ontario; Atlantic Canada; Austria; Belgium

3 High coal/oil content in power production (50%); nuclear/large hydro: 25%; natural gas: 25%

CO2: 588 g United States average, Denmark; Germany; Mexico; Spain; U.K.

4 Very high coal/oil content 75%, nuclear/large hydro 15%, natural gas 10%

CO2: 761 g Alberta, Saskatchewan, central U.S.; Greece; Ireland; Netherlands

-900-800-700-600-500-400-300-200-100

0

CHP SYSTEMSSmall Steam Turboden Entropic

GH

G E

MIS

SIO

N

(kgC

O2/

BD

tonn

e)

Heating OilNatural Gas

Power

Heat

Gasifiers are Best at GHG DisplacementGasifiers are Best at GHG DisplacementDistributed Systems and 50% MCDistributed Systems and 50% MC

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800-600

-400

-200

0

EMISSION REDUCTIONS for CHP SYSTEMS

GH

G E

MIS

SIO

N(k

g CO

2/BD

tonn

e)

Scenario 1Scenario 2Scenario 3Scenario 4

LargeSteamPow er

SmallSteamPow er

BraytonCycle

Pow er

Bio-oilConver.Pow er

Gasif.Conver.Pow er

SmallSteam

CHP

TurbodenCycleCHP

EntropicCycleCHP

Displacing oil for heat

Gasifiers indirect

Gasifiers direct

Manitoba

Gasifiers are Best at GHG DisplacementGasifiers are Best at GHG DisplacementBioEnergyBioEnergy in a Northern Manitoba Communityin a Northern Manitoba Community

2 MWe Community Subsidized Power System BioPower SystemPower (2 MWe) tonne CO2 0 tonne CO2

Heat (10 MWth) tonne CO2 0 tonne CO2

Total tonne CO2 0 tonne CO2

115532305534,608

Power: Diesel Fuel EHCCHPManitoba Northern Community

Heat: Oil Biomass (local or pellets)2 BD tonne/MWe-hr

Power

Heat

~233 liters/ MWe-hr~2.83 Kg CO2/ liter

~93 liters/ MWth-hr~2.83 Kg CO2/ liter

~1 MWe-hr~No GHG

~5 MWth-hr~No GHG

BioPower SystemSubsidized Power

Gasifier

Manitoba Hydro/NSERC Chair in Alternative Energy

AcknowledgementAcknowledgement

Presentation & InformationPresentation & Informationhttp://www.umanitoba.ca/engineering/mech_and_ind/prof/bibeau/