public summary of 2014 ontario solid wood combustion

Public Summary

of

2014 Ontario

Solid Wood Combustion

Equipment Manufacturers Survey

In 2014, a survey was conducted by the Wood Heating Systems < 3MW – Environmental Compliance

Approval Interim Guidance Sub-Project Team with the purpose of gathering information pertaining to the

design, operation, performance and cost of commercially available wood fired heating systems with an

energy input rating of less than 3 megawatts (MW). The team is structured through a partnership between

the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

and Forestry, and Confederation College’s OPG Bioenergy Learning and Research Centre with support

from Natural Resources Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Contact Karry Anne Campbell, Policy Analyst – Forest Economy, Forest Tenure and Economics Branch,

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry for more information. [email protected]

This Public Summary of the 2014 Ontario Solid Wood Combustion Equipment Manufacturers Survey

(the “Summary”) is provided on an ‘as-is’ basis and the Province of Ontario makes no warranty, either

express or implied, including but not limited to, warranties of merchantability and fitness for any

particular purpose or that the information is complete or accurate. In no event will the Province of Ontario

or our project partners and other contributors, be liable for any direct, special, indirect, consequential or

other damages, however caused. By using all or part of the Summary, the user acknowledges that the use

of or reliance on the contents contained is solely at their own risk. This Public Summary [of the 2014

Ontario Solid Wood Combustion Equipment Manufacturers Survey] should not be relied upon to predict

what will be contained in the existing or future Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s

guidance on technical requirements for wood-fired combustors.

mailto:[email protected]

Public Summary of 2014 Ontario Solid Wood Combustion Equipment

Manufacturers Survey

Survey Method, Recruitment and

Participation

This survey was conducted in March and April of 2014 through an English language electronic survey

tool. 81 equipment manufacturers or distributors from Europe and North America were identified as

having models for wood pellets or wood chips >50kW to < 3MW on an energy input basis. These

businesses were contacted through e-mail or their website contact function and asked to identify an

appropriate technical contact, who was then requested to participate in the survey. Canadian equipment

manufacturers and distributors were also contacted by phone to identify an appropriate technical contact,

who was then requested to participate in the survey. Some European manufacturers forwarded the

responsibility to respond to the survey to their North American distributor. Some organizations and

associations were contacted and requested to communicate to their members the opportunity to participate

in the survey. The lead survey author also did direct survey participation recruitment at the Northeast

Biomass Heating Expo in Portland Maine, US. There were 51 exhibitors with over half being wood

combustion equipment manufacturers of varying styles.

The general product line section was the minimum requested participation with the wood pellet and wood

chip examples being optional. Any individual question could be skipped, thus response levels changed

from question to question. The survey was piloted with one association, one equipment manufacturer and

one equipment distributor. Equipment manufacturers and distributors were asked to participate so that the

survey data could inform the development of a new interim guidance document for small scale wood

combustion Environmental Compliance Approval permits in Ontario, Canada. They were told that their

specific survey information would be kept confidential and a public summary report for the whole sector

would be shared with survey participants and the supporting biomass heat community of practice. No

compensation was provided for participation in the survey.

This document is the aforementioned public summary of the survey. It has been subject to some limited

editing and exclusion of proprietary knowledge responses in order to protect the anonymity of the survey

results. Most of the questions are multiple-choice or yes/no. All of the questions have been included,

however, in some cases responses are not shared if the response size was too small or the response

indicated information about who participated in the survey. Where possible short answers and comments

are included or summarized without disclosing the identity of the contributing survey participant.

“Other” comments for multiple-choice questions are not shared to protect the anonymity of the survey

results.



Section 1: General Product Line

This section had general questions about the product line offered by the company. Respondents were told

their responses should be focused to their wood pellet or wood chip combustion system “models”

>50kW to < 3MW on an energy input basis. (Reference conditions: dry basis at 11% oxygen, temperature

25°C and pressure 101.3 kPA).

Manufacturer Information - Section 1: General Product Line

1. Name of Company:

In order to protect the anonymity of the survey results, responses will not be shared.

2. Country of Origin/Manufacturing:

The invitation to participate in the survey resulted in 23 participants from various North American and

European equipment manufacturers, including: Canada, United States, Austria, Czech Republic,

Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Sweden. The majority of respondents were from EU (59%) and

36% of respondents were from North America. Austria, Canada, and then the United States had the

highest participation. 19% were identified as both EU and North America, with 10% clarifying North

American assembly.

3. Is there a current distributor in Canada?

Answered Question 21

Answer Response Percent Response Count

Yes 52% 11

No 48% 10

4. If yes to question #3, please specify their names and contact information:


5. Are there units already operating in Canada?



Yes 71% 15

No 29% 6



6. If yes to question #5, please specify location examples:

Out of the respondents who indicated they had units operating in Canada, 31% identified multiple

provinces. 38% answered that they have units located in Quebec. 31% have units in Atlantic Canada.

North West Territories and Manitoba were the next popular locations for units in Canada with 19% of

respondents indicating each location.

7. Are there models certified for operation in Canada?



Yes 62% 13

No 38% 8

8. If models are certified, to which standards? Note: Respondents were to select all that applied.



Electrical Certification

Approvals

13% 2

CSA International

(also known as

Canadian Standards

Association)

67% 10

ESA, Electrical Safety

Authority

7% 1

FM Approvals LLC 0% 0

IAPMO Research and

Testing Inc.

0% 0

Intertek Testing

Services – ETL and

Entela

7% 1

LabTest Certification

Inc.: LC

0% 0

NSF International:

NSF

0% 0

QPS Evaluation

Services Inc.: QPS

0% 0

OMNI-Test

Laboratories, Inc.:

OTL

27% 4

Underwriters

Laboratories of

Canada: ULC or UL

40% 6

ET Laboratories Inc.:

MET

0% 0

Other (please specify) In order to protect the anonymity of the survey results, responses will not be

shared.



9. Boiler Approvals:



UL2523 (Underwriters

Laboratories of

Canada)

15% 2

CSAB416 or B366

(Canadian Standards

Association)

46% 6

ASME IV (American

Society of Mechanical

Engineers)

85% 11

Other In order to protect the anonymity of the survey results, responses will not be

shared.

10. If not currently certified in Canada, does your current product line have models that you

could obtain Canadian federal and provincial certifications for?



Yes 61% 11

No 6% 1

Not Applicable 33% 6

Product Line Information – Section 1: General Product Line

11. Do you offer a defined product line of wood combustion devices (“off-the-shelf models”)?



Yes 81% 17

No 19% 4

12. How many models of wood combustors do you carry?

There were 19 respondents to this question, with the minimum number of models being 3. The median #

of models is 5 and only 21% of the respondents carried more than 20 models.



13. What size ranges do you produce (energy input basis)? Note: Respondents were to select all that

applied.



0-50 kW 41% 9

50-100 kW 59% 13

100-200 kW 59% 13

200-400 kW 68% 15

400-800 kW 68% 15

800-1600 kW 64% 14

1600-3200 kW 46% 10

> 3200 kW 32% 7

14. What fuel types does your product line include? Note: Respondents were to select all that

applied.



Firewood 32% 7

Briquettes 50% 11

Agricultural Biomass 55% 12

Wood Chips 86% 19

Wood Pellets 91% 20

15. Do you have models that are designed exclusively for wood pellets?



Yes 59% 13

No 41% 9

16. Do you have models that are designed for wood chips with moisture contents greater than 40

to 50%wt?



Yes 50% 11

No 50% 11



Combustion and Emission Controls – Section 1: General Product

Line

Respondents were asked to describe the features and performance characteristics of their wood pellet and

wood chip combustor models between 50 kW and 3 MW (input energy basis).

17. Which types of combustion chamber designs do you offer? Note: Respondents were to select all

that applied.



Two chambers - first

chamber solid fuel

with low oxygen

environment, second

chamber combustion

of volatized gasses

with excess air

45% 9

One chamber -

staged combustion

air, primary and

secondary

95% 19

One chamber – only

primary air

10% 2


shared.

18. Do you have models that are equipped with oxygen sensors used for process control (i.e., to

modulate the combustion air supply fan speed or wood chips/pellets supply)?



Yes 95% 20

No 5% 1

19. If yes to question #18, please describe make, model, manufacturer and measurement range of

the O2 sensor:

The 16 respondents’ answers varied, however the majority answered Bosch lambda probe.



20. Do you have models that are equipped with carbon monoxide sensors to monitor air emissions

as an indicator of combustion efficiency?



Yes 14% 3

No 86% 18

21. If yes to question #20, please describe make, model, manufacturer and measurement ranges of

CO sensor:

The 3 respondents’ answers varied. In order to protect the anonymity of the survey results, they will not

be shared.

22. If no to question #20, could one be added or co-located with the oxygen sensor?



Yes for all models 58% 11

Yes for some models 11% 2

No 32% 6

Not applicable since

there is no oxygen

sensor

0% 0

For questions 23, 24 and 25 respondents were asked: For your wood pellet and wood chip combustor

models between 50 kW and 3 MW (input energy basis), please identify the maximum air emission

concentration that you anticipate being able to consistently perform under during steady state operating

conditions at full load (i.e., excluding start up, shut down, malfunction).

23. Maximum 10 day average carbon monoxide outlet concentration (parts per million by

volume, dry basis at 11% oxygen, 25°C and pressure 101.3 kPa)?



< 50 24% 4

< 75 6% 1

< 100 18% 3

< 125 6% 1

< 150 24% 4

> 150 6% 1

Unknown 18% 3

Other units or

conditions (please

specify)

In order to protect the anonymity of the survey results, responses will not be

shared.



24. Maximum 24 hour average carbon monoxide concentration (parts per million by volume, dry

basis at 11% oxygen, 25°C and pressure 101.3 kPa)?



< 100 38% 6

< 200 25% 4

< 300 13% 2

< 400 0% 0

< 500 6% 1

> 500 0% 0

Unknown 19% 3

Other units or

conditions (please

specify)


shared.

25. Maximum outlet concentration of suspended particulate matter without add-on air pollution

control equipment (milligrams per normalized cubic metre, dry basis at 11% oxygen, 25°C and

pressure 101.3 kPa) unless the air pollution control device is a non-optional device that is

integrated into the system design:



< 50 36% 5

< 75 0% 0

< 100 21% 3

< 125 0% 0

< 150 21% 3

> 150 14% 2

Unknown 7% 1

Other units or

conditions (please

specify)


shared.

26. Do you have air emission documentation from regulatory agencies and/or certified testing

agencies that can be used to validate the above-noted maximum anticipated outlet

concentrations of carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter (for example EN 303-5)?



Yes 95% 20

No 5% 1



27. Do you have combustor models with the following types of data access/acquisition systems?

Note: Respondents were to select all that applied.



Remote access with real time

monitoring of system

performance, data logger with

60 days storage capacity and

ability for remote diagnostics

and control

67% 14

Remote access with data

export capabilities and data

logger with 60 days storage

capacity

62% 13

Alarm setting capability and

continuous data logger with 60

days storage capacity

52% 11

Alarm setting capability and

digital displays and screens for

manual collection of data

62% 13

Digital display screens to

allow for manual data

recordings

43% 9

No data except for manual

recording of control set-points

5% 1

Other In order to protect the anonymity of the survey results, responses will

not be shared.



28. Do your models have the capacity to identify and/or react (i.e., activate control response or

alarm) to the following problems? Note: Respondents were to select all that applied.



High combustion chamber

heat

91% 19

High moisture content fuel 19% 4

High/abnormal emissions 24% 5

Loss of fuel due to empty

hopper or blockage in feed

system

95% 20

Loss of flame 71% 15

Loss of power 95% 20

Failed sensor 86% 18

Exceedences of operating low

and high levels alarms

67% 14

Loss of communication

between the combustor and its

data acquisition system

33% 7

Other safety, health,

environmental and operational

interlocks

In order to protect the anonymity of the survey results, responses will

not be shared.

29. Do you recommend utilizing a water buffer system to avoid operating under partial load?



Yes 48% 10

No 52% 11

30. Do your models include an integrated cyclone or multi-cyclone as part of the design? Note:

Respondents were to select all that applied.



Yes, all models

include integrated

cyclone or multi-

cyclone

40% 8

Some models include 10% 2

Some models can be

equipped (optional)

40% 8

No 10% 2



31. Do you sell additional air pollution control equipment?



Yes 43% 9

No 57% 12

32. If yes to question #31, please specify what types of add-on air pollution control equipment:

25% of respondents indicated Baghouses and 25% indicated Multi-cyclone dust collector. The other 50%

of respondents’ answers varied: Stainless Steel Catalyst coated with Platinum, Wet scrubber system using

palls for heat recovery; Electrostatic Precipitator; Other filter system and in addition ESP for greater

capacity.

33. If no to question #31, are the models capable of incorporating third party air pollution control

equipment into the system design?



Yes 92% 12

No 8% 1

34. Does your current process control infrastructure allow alarms to be set on various process

variables such as:


Answer Yes No Rating Count

Monitored process

parameters (e.g., O2)?

75% (15) 25% (5) 20

Flue gas composition

(e.g., CO)?

29% (5) 71% (12) 17



35. Do you or are you planning to offer your Canadian customers, either directly or through 3rd

parties:



Original Equipment

Manufacturers’

(OEM’s) warranties

and optional extended

warranties on both

parts and labour?

89% (17) 11% (2) 19

Spare parts? 100% (20) 0% (0) 20

Service contracts with

guaranteed, remote or

onsite support

services?

89% (16) 11% (2) 18

Obsolescence

notifications on

hardware and

software?

59% (10) 41% (7) 17

Training and

certifications on

operation and

maintenance of your

combustors?

100% (20) 0% (0) 20

Price list for spare

parts and schedule of

rates for technical

support services?

89% (17) 11% (2) 19

36. Use of a continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) system is the current guideline requirement

for all permitted wood combustors in Ontario. Would you be interested in participating in a small

wood combustion equipment manufacturers working group to help us understand maintenance and

reliability of systems, automation options and alternatives to CEM through monitoring of

indicators of good combustion? Note: Respondents were asked to provide contact information for a

technical representative that could participate in a working group.



Yes 76% 13

No 24% 4



37. Are you a member of an association that represents you?



Yes 42% 8

No 58% 11

38. If yes to question #37, please provide names of associations:

Of the 8 respondents, the majority belonged to Biomass Thermal Energy Council (BTEC).

39. If no to question #37, do you see a need for a representative association?



Yes 59% 10

No 41% 7

40. Would you be willing to provide more detailed information for one of your combustor models

as an example of equipment designed for wood pellets?



Yes 74% 14

No 26% 5


as an example of equipment designed for wood chips?

Answered Question 7


Yes 29% 2

No 71% 5



Section 2: Wood Pellet Equipment Example

This section was intended to gather more detailed information for one of the respondents’ combustor

models as an example of equipment designed for wood pellets. Respondents were told that the wood pellet

examples would be compared to the following wood chip examples to identify if/how the two

fuels/equipment categories would be treated differently in the interim guideline. Respondents were asked,

if available, to provide an example of a unit that was certified for sale in Canada (unless indicated

otherwise, survey results were based on normal operating conditions, using wood pellets with 10%

moisture content, without additional air pollution control equipment (unless it is a non-optional device

integrated into the system design)). (Reference conditions: dry basis at 11% oxygen, temperature 25°C

and pressure 101.3 kPa)

General Information – Section 2: Wood Pellet Equipment Example

42. Model name:

There were 14 equipment manufacturer respondents that provided information on their specific wood

pellet models. In order to protect the anonymity of the survey results, responses will not be shared.

43. Size (energy input basis) kW:

Of the 14 respondents, examples were provided for various model sizes, which ranged from 10 kW to 4

MW.

44. Thermal efficiency % (energy output/energy input x 100):

Of the 14 respondents, the model with the lowest reported thermal efficiency was at 70% and the highest

reported efficiency was at 97%. The average reported thermal efficiency was at 87% and the median was

85%.

45. Can wood chips also be combusted in this unit?



Yes 79% 11

No 21% 3

46. Is this model currently available for sale in Canada?



Yes 71% 10

No 29% 4



47. Is this model currently certified for use in Canada?



Yes 54% 7

No 46% 6

48. What is included in wood combustion unit? Note: Respondents were to select all that applied.



Combustion chamber 100% 14

Heat transfer device

(e.g., hot water boiler)

100% 14

Integrated air pollution

control system

71% 10

Fuel handling 100% 14

Fuel storage 79% 11


shared.

49. What is the price range for wood combustion unit (as described in above question, excluding

installation and commissioning support) delivered in Ontario (in Canadian $)?



< $ Canadian 10,000 8% 1

$ Canadian

10,000 - 50,000

69% 9

$ Canadian

50, 000 - 100,000

8% 1

$ Canadian

100,000 - 200,000

23% 3

$ Canadian

200,000 - 400,000

31% 4

> $ Canadian 400,000 15% 2



System Design and Controls – Section 2: Wood Pellet Equipment

Example

50. The combustion chamber can be described as: Note: Respondents were to select all that applied.



Underfeed ring 20% 2

Moving grate 60% 6

Moving chain 10% 1

Tilted and/or stepped

grate

10% 1

Stationary bed 30% 3


shared.

51. The combustion chamber design is:




chamber solid fuel

with low oxygen

environment, second

chamber combustion

of volatized gasses

with excess air

15% 2

One chamber - staged

combustion air,

primary and secondary

85% 11


primary air

0% 0


shared.

52. What is the design gas residence time in the area of the combustion chamber with excess air?

(sec)

Five respondents provided answers to this question, of which ranged from 0.5 to 5 seconds, with an

average of 2.2 sec.



53. What is the design gas temperature in the area of the combustion chamber with excess air?

(ºC)

Eight respondents provided answers to this question, of which ranged from 400 ºC to 1200 ºC. The

average was 870 ºC and the median was 950 ºC.

54. Indicate all sensors that are/can be included in system: Note: Respondents were to select all that

applied.



Flue gas oxygen

sensor

86% 12

Flue gas carbon

monoxide sensor

14% 2

Combustion chamber

temperature sensor

64% 9

Combustion chamber

pressure sensor/switch

64% 9


shared.

55. If your system includes a flue gas oxygen sensor, does it:



Control combustion

air (e.g., variable

speed drive of air

intake system)?

85% (11) 15% (2) 13

Have data acquisition

system (logging,

archiving and

reporting)?

46% (6) 54% (7) 13



56. Please indicate how the following operating/maintenance conditions are controlled: Note:



Answer Manual Automatic

(timer /

thermostat

controlled)

Automatic

(performance

sensor

controlled)

Rating Count

Start-up 21% (3) 21% (3) 57% (8) 14

Turn down 0% (0) 14% (2) 86% (12) 14

Shut down 21% (3) 21% (3) 71% (10) 14

Heat exchanger

cleaning

23% (3) 46% (6) 31% (4) 13

Ash cleaning 8% (1) 46% (6) 46% (6) 13

Performance and Emissions – Section 2: Wood Pellet Equipment

Example

Respondents were asked to indicate performance and emissions including start-up, turn-down and shut-

down conditions unless otherwise indicated.

57. Under normal steady state operation excluding start-up and shut down, what is the design

target range of oxygen concentrations in the flue gas (percent by volume, dry basis for a 3-hour

rolling average) Note: If scale was too fine, respondents were to select all that applied.



< 4% 8% 1

4% to 6% 17% 2

6% to 8% 17% 2

8% to 10% 58% 7

> 10% 8% 1

Unknown 17% 2

58. What is the normal emission intensity range for particulate matter over an hour time period

assuming normal steady state operation (specify units i.e., mg/MJ)

Response size too small, in order to protect the anonymity of the survey results, responses will not be

shared.

59. What is the normal emission intensity range for carbon monoxide over an hour time period



shared.



60. What minimum turn down rate (% load) can the system still operate at, while maintaining

high combustion, high thermal efficiency and low emissions?



> 90% load 0% 0

80 – 90% load 0% 0

70 – 80% load 0% 0

60 – 70% load 0% 0

50 – 60% load 21% 3

< 50% load 79% 11

61. What minimum turn down rate (% load) can the system operate in idle mode prior to

requiring shut-down?



> 40% load 0% 0

30 – 40% load 25% 3

20 – 30% load 25% 3

10 – 20% load 8% 1

< 10% load 42% 5

62. Do you have air emission certification from a regulatory agency and/or certified testing

agencies to validate suspended particulate matter and carbon monoxide for a range of operating

conditions including the recommended turn down ratios (e.g., EN303-5)?



Yes 79% 11

No 21 3

63. Does the system have an integrated air pollution control device included in the design?



Yes 43% 6

No 57% 8



64. If yes to question #63, please specify:

Of the 5 respondents, all mentioned cyclones or multi-cyclones. Stainless steel catalyst and wet system

integrated air pollution control devices were also identified as included in the integrated air pollution

control designs.

65. What air emission or particulate matter pollution control equipment is recommended or

included in the design? Note: Respondents were to select all that applied.


agencies that validate your air emission performance with additional air pollution control

equipment (e.g., EN303-5)?



Yes 50% 7

No 50% 7



None 39% 5

Catalytic converter 8% 1

Settling chamber 8% 1

Cyclone 46% 6

Multi-cyclone 46% 6

Electrostatic

precipitator

0% 0

Fabric filter/baghouse 15% 2

Scrubber 8% 1

Panel bed filter 8% 1


shared.



Operation and Maintenance – Section 2: Wood Pellet Equipment

Example

67. Which of these wood pellet fuel standards are approved for use in your combustors? Note:




A1 European EN 14961-2

(pellets for non-industrial

use)

75% 9

A2 European EN 14961-2

(pellets for non-industrial

use)

50% 6

B European EN 14961-2

(pellets for industrial use)

33% 4

Premium US Pellet Fuels

Institute

67% 8

Standard US Pellet Fuels

Institute

50% 6

Utility US Pellet Fuels

Institute

33% 4

Other (please specify) In order to protect the anonymity of the survey results, responses will

not be shared.

68. How are your combustors optimized for fuel quality?



The system utilizes sensors

and control logics to adjust

operating parameters in real

time to optimize for the fuel

quality

64% 9

The operator manually

adjusts operating parameters

to optimize for the fuel

quality

36% 5

No fuel quality optimization 0% 0



69. How frequently must the system be inspected/maintained by a trained operator?



Daily 31% 4

Weekly 46% 6

Fuel consumption/run

time trigger

23% 3


shared.

70. Would you be willing to complete an additional wood pellet equipment example should the

project team identify a gap in survey responses for an equipment size/technology type?



Yes 69% 9

No 31% 4

71. If yes to question #70, please provide contact information:



as an example of equipment designed for wood chips?



Yes 69% 9

No 31% 4



Section 3: Wood Chip Equipment Example

This section was intended to gather more detailed information for one of the respondents’ combustor

models as an example of equipment designed for wood chips. Respondents were told that the wood chip

examples would be compared to the wood pellet examples to identify if/how the two fuels/equipment

categories would be treated differently in the interim guideline. It was also intended to gather information

on the technology and performance differences for combusting low moisture content and high moisture

content fuels (i.e., wood chips under 35% wt or over 45% wt). Respondents were asked, if possible, to

provide an example of a unit that was certified for sale in Canada (unless indicated otherwise, survey

responses were based on normal operating conditions, using wood chips, without additional air pollution

control equipment (unless it is a non-optional device integrated into the system design)). (Reference

conditions: dry basis at 11% oxygen, temperature 25°C and pressure 101.3 kPa).

General Information – Section 3: Wood Chip Equipment Example

73. Model name:

There were 12 equipment manufacturer respondents that provided information on their specific wood chip

models. In order to protect the anonymity of the survey results, responses will not be shared.

74. Size (energy input basis) kW:

There were 10 respondents and examples were provided for various model sizes, which ranged from 100

kW to 3.5MW. The average size was 914kW and the median was 390kW.

75. Thermal efficiency % (energy output/energy input x 100):

From the 9 respondents, the model with the lowest reported efficiency was at 80% and the highest

reported efficiency was at 94%. The average reported efficiency was at 86%.

76. Can wood pellets also be combusted in this unit?



Yes 91% 10

No 9% 1

77. Is this model currently available for sale in Canada?



Yes 73% 8

No 27% 3



78. Is this model currently certified for use in Canada?



Yes 55% 6

No 46% 5

79. What is included in wood combustion unit? Note: Respondents were to select all that applied.



Combustion chamber 100% 11

Heat transfer device

(e.g., hot water boiler)

100% 11

Integrated air pollution

control system

73% 8

Fuel handling 100% 11

Fuel storage 73% 8


shared.

80. What is the price range for wood combustion unit (as described in above question, excluding

installation and commissioning support) delivered in Ontario (in Canadian $)?



< $ Canadian 10,000 0% 0

$ Canadian

10,000 – 50,000

40% 4

$ Canadian

50,000 - 100,000

20% 2

$ Canadian

100,000 – 200,000

0% 0

$ Canadian

200,000 – 400,000

30% 3

> $ Canadian 400,000 10% 1



System Design and Controls – Section 3: Wood Chip Equipment

Example

81. The fuel feed can be described as:



Overfeed 27% 3

Horizontal feed 55% 6

Underfeed 18% 2

82. The combustion chamber can be described as: Note: Respondents were to select all that applied.



Underfeed ring 10% 1

Moving grate 30% 3

Moving chain 10% 1

Tilted and/or stepped

grate

30% 3

Stationary bed 30% 3


shared.

83. The combustion chamber design is:




chamber solid fuel

with low oxygen

environment, second

chamber combustion

of volatized gasses

with excess air

20% 2

One chamber - staged

combustion air,

primary and

secondary

70% 7


primary air

10% 1


shared.



84. What is the design gas residence time in the area of the combustion chamber with excess air?

(sec)

Five respondents provided answers to this question, of which ranged from 0.8 to 3 seconds. The average

was 1.4 seconds and the median was 1.2 seconds.

85. What is the design gas temperature in the area of the combustion chamber with excess air?

(ºC)?

Seven respondents provided answers to this question, of which ranged from 800 ºC to 1200 ºC. The

average response was 964 ºC with a median of 1000 ºC. Most of respondents indicated the design gas

temperature was 1000 ºC.

86. Indicate all sensors that are/can be included in system: Note: Respondents were to select all that

applied.



Flue gas oxygen sensor 100% 11

Flue gas carbon

monoxide sensor

18% 2

Combustion chamber

temperature sensor

82% 9

Combustion chamber

pressure sensor/switch

82% 9


shared.

87. If your system includes a flue gas oxygen sensor, does it:



Control combustion air

(e.g., variable speed

drive of air intake

system)?

91% (10) 9% (1) 11

Have data acquisition

system (logging,

archiving and

reporting)?

60% (6) 40% (4) 10



88. Please indicate how the following operating/maintenance conditions are controlled: Note:

Respondents were to select all that applied


Answer Manual Automatic

(timer /

thermostat

controlled)

Automatic

(performance

sensor

controlled)

Rating

Count

Start-up 36% (4) 9% (1) 55% (6) 11

Turn down 0% (0) 18% (2) 82% (9) 11

Shut down 9% (1) 18% (2) 73% (8) 11

Heat exchanger

cleaning

27% (3) 36% (4) 46% (5) 11

Ash cleaning 18% (2) 36% (4) 46% (5) 11

Performance and Emissions – Section 3: Wood Chip Equipment

Example

Respondents were asked to indicate performance for wood chips with 25 to 35% moisture content unless

indicated otherwise. There were a few repeated questions to identify differences in performance with

wood chips with 40 to 50% moisture content. Performance included start-up, turn down and shut-down

conditions unless otherwise indicated.

89. Under normal steady state operation excluding start-up and shut-down, what is the design


rolling average)? Note: If scale was too fine, respondents were to select all that applied.



< 4% 10% 1

4% to 6% 40% 4

6% to 8% 30% 3

8% to 10% 70% 7

> 10% 0% 0

Unknown 10% 1




shared.




assuming normal steady state operation (specify units i.e., mg/MJ) Note: If scale was too fine,

respondents were to select all that applied.


shared.

92. Is the system designed/approved for wood chips with moisture contents between 40 and 50%

wt?



Yes 55% 6

No 46% 5

Respondents who answered yes to question 92 were asked to repeat the following three questions in

relation to expected performance with wood chips with 40 to 50% moisture content.

93. Under normal operating conditions excluding start-up and shut-down, what is the design


rolling average) – in relation to expected performance with wood chips with 40 to 50% moisture

content: Note: If scale was too fine, respondents were to select all that applied.

Answered Question 9


< 4% 0% 0

4% to 6% 11% 1

6% to 8% 22% 2

8% to 10% 78% 7

> 10% 0% 0

Unknown 11% 1


assuming steady state operation (specify units i.e., mg/MJ) – in relation to expected performance

with wood chips with 40 to 50% moisture content:


shared.




assuming steady state operation (specify units i.e., mg/MJ) – in relation to expected performance

with wood chips with 40 to 50% moisture content: Note: If scale was too fine, respondents were to

select all that applied.


shared.

96. What minimum turn down rate (% load) can the system still operate at while maintaining high

combustion, high thermal efficiency and low emissions?



> 90% load 9% 1

80 – 90% load 0% 0

70 – 80% load 0% 0

60 – 70% load 0% 0

50 – 60% load 9% 1

< 50% load 82% 9

97. What minimum turn down rate (% load) can the system operate in idle mode prior to

requiring shut-down?



> 40% load 0% 0

30 – 40% load 0% 0

20 – 30% load 46% 5

10 -20% load 9% 1

< 10% load 46% 5


agencies to validate suspended particulate matter and carbon monoxide for a range of operating

conditions including the recommended turn down ratios (e.g., EN303-5)?



Yes 73% 8

No 27% 3



99. Does the system come with any air pollution control equipment?



Yes 55% 6

No 46% 5

100. If yes to question #99, please specify:

Response size small, but multi-cyclone mentioned most frequently.

101. What emission or particulate matter pollution control equipment is recommended or

included in the system? Note: Respondents were to select all that applied.


Question Response Percent Response Count

None 46% 5

Catalytic converter 9% 1

Settling chamber 0% 0

Cyclone 18% 2

Multi-cyclone 55% 6

Electrostatic

precipitator

9% 1

Fabric filter/baghouse 0% 0

Scrubber 0% 0

Panel bed filter 0% 0

Other (please specify)


agencies that validate your air emission performance with additional air pollution control

equipment (e.g., EN303-5)?



Yes 55% 6

No 46% 5



Operation and Maintenance – Section 3: Wood Chip Equipment

Example

103. Are there specific wood chip fuel standards approved for use in your combustors?

The ten respondents’ answers varied and will not be shared in order to protect the anonymity of the

survey results, as standards are different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

104. What is the maximum wood chip moisture content that can be used in your combustors on a

continuous basis?

Eleven respondents provided answers to this question, of which ranged from 35 to 60%. The average was

45% and the median was 50%.

105. What additional fuel variation limits do you recommend for your combustors?



Temperature of fuel

(i.e., frozen):

55% 6

Moisture content

variations

46% 5

Fines 46% 5


shared.

106. How are your combustors optimized for fuel quality?



The system utilizes

sensors and control

logics to adjust

operating parameters in

real time, to optimize

for the fuel quality

58% 7

The operator manually

adjusts operating

parameters to optimize

for the fuel quality

42% 5

No fuel quality

optimization

0% 0



107. How frequently must the system be inspected/maintained by a trained operator?


Question Response Percent Response Count

Daily 42% 5

Weekly 42% 5

Fuel consumption/run

time trigger

17% 2

Other (please specify)

108. Would you be willing to complete an additional wood chip equipment example should the

project team identify a gap in survey responses for an equipment size/technology type?



Yes 75% 9

No 25% 3

109. If yes to question #108, please provide contact information:

Eight respondents provided contact information. In order to protect the anonymity of the survey results,

responses will not be shared.

public summary of 2014 ontario solid wood combustion

Documents