PELLETS Bioenergy International PS1 2015 35 which, if approved, meant a construction start of October/November at the earliest considering the fastest approval timeline process. Patience it seems though is wearing thin as in July two investors opted to withdraw an estimated total of US$30 million from the project. TOPELL – At the beginning of February, a Dutch consortium consisting of torrefaction technology developer Topell Energy, three power utilities (Essent, Nuon and GDF SUEZ) and the energy research centre ECN, announced a successful completion of a large-scale co-firing test. A total of 2 300 tonnes of Topell’s “biopellets” were co-fired in various blend percentages at Essent’s Amer power plant in Geertruidenberg. According to the statement the next step involves some of the consortium partners mobilising larger quantities of torrefied pellets for green power generation within the requisites of the Dutch Energy Agreement which come into play 2015. Topell Energy operates a six-tonne-per-hour commercial-scale demonstration plant in Duiven, the Netherlands via its subsidiary Topell Nederland. In August the company signed a cooperation agreement with Australian energy solution provider HRL Technology Pty Ltd, to facilitate the rollout of torrefaction projects to potential clients in Australia and New Zealand. TORREC – In Finland the Biosaimaa cluster has come a step closer with its plans to facilitate the establishment of a 200 000 tonne-per-annum biocoal plant in Ristiina. In October 2013 its torrefaction technology cluster partner Torrec began construction of a pilot torrefaction and pellet plant for wood chips. In June, Torrec completed the plant and has begun performance testing of biocoal pellets. TSI – Based in Washington state, dryer island specialist TSI launched its first torrefaction pilot, a trailer based unit, in 2010. In December 2012 it had sold its first commercial torrefaction system to a domestic client capable of producing of ”high quality torrefied material from either wheat straw or wood chips” with delivery in May 2013. In February it was revealed that the plant had been supplied and commissioned as a two-tonne-per-hour in South Dakota. In contrast to the other revelations the client is an industrial end-user not a utility and the installation has been described by TSI as being a “part commercial, part test” facility. In September the company disclosed it was working to design a 300 000 tonne-per-annum plant. VEGA BIOFUELS – In early March, Georgia-based Vega Biofuels announced a joint venture deal with, amongst others, Agri-Tech Producers (ATP), to build and operate a pilot torrefaction facility in Allendale, South Carolina to produce the firm’s biochar and biocoal products, the latter destined for European power utilities. ATP has licensed and commercialised torrefaction technology originally developed by North Carolina State University. Kusters Zima Corporation (KZC) has been selected as equipment design and manufacturing partner. In April it was disclosed that a 3 000 ton order was received from Austrian ECEM Salzburg Energy and Environment Consulting GmbH. Construction began in October for the pellet plant, to be operated by the project sub-tenant, Statoil SA with the entire plant slated to be operational during Q1 this year. In November it was announced that discussions with Colorado-based, Vencor International, Inc., were in progress to provide Vega with supplementary capacity of ”Vega spec.” product to meet demand and in December a 5-year deal with Vencor was reached. The plan is to build additional plants around the world with the Allendale pilot plant as model for those plants. With ATP’s help, Vega is also planning to build a biocoal manufacturing plant in South Georgia. ZILKHA - Texas-based Zilkha Biomass Energy together with Finnish global technology supplier Valmet (formerly Metso) announced in mid-February a 5-year market collaboration deal. The aim is to help rollout Zilkha’s proprietary steam-treated pellet technology to selected market via a joint global offering. At face value the move is significant as now two major global forest industry and energy technology suppliers can bring three different “advanced biomass” production technologies to the table. Zilkha already have a 40 000 tonne-per-annum industrial demonstration plant in Texas in operation since 2010. A 275 000 tonne-per-annum commercial plant at the site of a former “white pellet” in Selma, Alabama is nearing completion with shipments slated for Q2 this year. The production output is sold under long-term contract to an undisclosed European utility. Another major announcement by Zilkha came at the beginning of March when it was revealed that Zilkha had agreed to license its technology to Thermogen Industries, the pellet subsidiary of Cate Street Capital. The statement outlined that Thermogen clients need more capacity from the start and the switch to Zilkha’s technology for this plant (see Thermogen) would enable a tripling to 300 000 tonnes per year. In July, Zilkha announced plans to invest and build its second own commercial plant in Monticello, Arkansas. Make or break? That will ultimately depend on availability, market volume and cost per GJ at the furnace with all eyes on OPG. Like for wood pellets, standardisation is necessary. According to Michael Wild, President of the International Biomass Torrefaction Council (IBTC) work is ongoing with an ISO quality standard, ISO 238 WG 2 ISO 17225: Solid biofuels – Fuel specifications and classes – Part XX: Thermally Treated Pellets. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) flammability and self-heating testing have resulted in torrefied material does not need to be classified as flammable solid material or as a self-heating substance. An IEA Bioenergy Task 32 report “Status overview of torrefaction technologies” published in December 2012 estimated a case study cost structure comparison between conventional industrial pellets and torrefied pellets. The latter came out with an advantage of 9 percent per GJ fuel delivered at the utility. The authors’ duly noted that the production cost of torrefied pellets was higher than for conventional pellets but cost savings could be achieved in transportation. The real benefit for a coal-fired generator however lies in major CAPEX avoidance. If utility conversion costs around 23 percent in the same case study expressed as a total cost of coal replacement. The estimate included 18 percent RoE for the investor but not a licensing fee for the torrefaction technology supplier. A more recent paper “Black Pellets” – A Financial Analysis of Costs and Benefits” by Dr William Strauss, FutureMetics, first published in July and updated in October, looks too at the net benefit or penalty of producing torrefied or steam-exploded pellets versus white pellets. It also includes the estimated financial benefit of hydrophobicity for both the buyer and the producer by quantifying the avoided cost of dry storage at the power plant and at the port respectively. Strauss concurrs that the advantage of “black pellets” versus white pellets is based on the improved transportation costs per unit of energy delivered. However he emphasizes the value of hydrophobicity, to benefit from avoided costs for dry storage of both the shipping port and at the utility, essential to the net benefit for steam exploded pellets. Although the Strauss analysis does not quantify improved grinding characteristics it is noted that this can lower operating costs for the power plant. Another important point highlighted is that shipping costs are currently near historical lows and are likely to rise. As shipping costs rise, the attractiveness of black pellets relative to white pellets increases irrespective of the reason behind the shipping cost increase. PS1/4708/Editor’s note: The IEA Bioenergy Task 32 report is available on www.ieabcc.nl The FutureMetrics paper is available on www.futuremetrics.info The IBTC can be found on www.biomasstorrefaction.org
Bioenergy nr 1 - 2015
To see the actual publication please follow the link above