Come out . . . Come Out . . . WHEREVER you are

Well folks, here it is, almost the end of 2011, and the much promised and highly touted "Arrival" of torrefaction seems to have escaped us again.

This point was made abundantly clear a few days ago, when the Daily Tar Heel (The UNC's Campus Newspaper) published a sad reality. . . . .

“ We've confirmed that there is no torrefied wood material out there,” said Ray DuBose, director of Energy Services.

Seems as though that just about sums it all up.

CERTAINLY - there have been many, MANY claims by a multitude of developers, that THEIR technology was ready to go, in fact, already producing copious amounts of the elusive and somewhat enigmatic "Bio-Coal".

I can recall at least half a dozen developers "announcing" that they have product in the "thousands of tonnes" - just waiting for a home. Well - in spite of issuing TWO tenders, even the UNC couldn't come up with any.

There is lots and LOTS of rhetoric and Hype floating around right now about "Zilkha Black" pellets. Unfortunately - here is the sad reality - This product is no more torrefied wood than chicken S**T is chicken soup.

Several requests from yours truly resulted in absolutely no response whatsoever. Undoubtedly - they have come to the realisation that a peer review and scientific scrutiny is not something that their product can withstand. However - every Major Utility I have spoken to in the UK and EU have pretty much drawn the same conclusion that I have.

As for us, we just keep going on our merry way, and continue with our Joint-Development Project (with a Major UK Utility) to validate the combustion characteristics of our torrefied pucks. Now, make no mistake - this is not earth-shattering volumes (in fact - the total production will only be 6,000 tonnes) but it is yet another step in the right direction.

On a positive note - I did have a trip this summer to my old stomping grounds in California. Other than the fact that I was on antibiotics (for a toot infection) and couldn't partake of the lovely fruit of the vine that the Nappa and Sonoma Valley's are so famous for; it was a very successful and pleasant trip.

You want to keep your eyes on a Company Called "Renewable Fuel Technologies". These guys, while predominantly a group of Computer geeks (and I say that in the most affectionate way) have developed one of the best Process Control systems I have seen to date. As we all know - torrefaction is NOT about the Hardware; after all, the equipment is little more than silos or drums with heat exchangers and burners and fans attached; but rather about controlling the process.

The RFT system is targeting the "Mobile" market - and as such, will be unlikely to make large penetrations into the Industrial Sector. HOWEVER - and this is a BIG however - their scientists and engineers have come as close to a perfected PCC as I have seen. In fact - it is so unique, that we would like to license it for our reactor automation.

In almost every respect - these boys have the "right stuff". No fancy-schmancy bits of kit; no microwaves; plasma generators; deep fat fryers or any other superfluous peripherals. JUST good engineering, based on sound scientific principles, applied in a sensible and economical fashion.

Yet again, a Company that doesn't shout from the mountaintops, but rather carefully and methodically moves through the development process is one that is becoming an Industry leader. Well done Chad, Mark, and the "boys"!

I read today, yet another Master's Thesis on Torrefaction. Funny - but it would appear that this subject has been "Done to DEATH". Somehow - (and not surprisingly) nothing new was revealed. (Fell free to contact me if you would like a copy - it makes interesting bedtime reading) The fact remains that there is virtually NOTHING that isn't understood about the process of Torrefaction from a scientific point of view. I suppose however - that as long as Universities have funding - they will continue to try and reinvent the wheel at every opportunity. Seems to me that it's a bit like walking around with blinders on. Surely the Academic community actually TALK to each other, and even a tiny amount of research would reveal that there simply isn't the need for ANOTHER Thesis on the devolitilization of Cellulosic Biomass through torrefaction?

However - who am I to say?

FOR THE RECORD:

We have now identified the requirement for no less than THREE distinct reactor types, to undertake torrefaction of the variety of major feedstocks. Sorry folks - but there isn't, and WON'T be, any "One size fits all" solution. In the end - this is good news, as it provides for the development of niche markets for each type, addressing the supply chain specifics of various locals.

In the end - the quest continues. So - all you developers who have been singing your praises to anyone who would listen - Come out . . . Come out . . . wherever you are!

I'm off now to go blow a few tonnes of powder through a 350 MW PFI Burner.

RW

P. S. I have had a number of requests lately, asking me how to tell if a developer has a "bankable" technology. The answer is simple - Ask the developer to show you his Purchase order, for a few million tonnes per year of product, from a major utility. SIMPLE!

The Giant is Awakening

It was inevitable that it would happen.

The second largest Country in the World, with vast forest resources, would ultimately recognise the benefits of a Technology like Torrefaction.

Of course - I am referring to Canada.

It would appear, that there is significant momentum in both Political, Financial and Industrial circles as stakeholders start facing the realities of CO2 Reductions and Environmental Responsibility.

Of course - this is starting somewhat of a "gold rush" as the dash to biomass heats up. No longer are Torrefaction developers listed among the "also-ran's", they are now among the front runners in Renewable Energy Development.

All one needs to do is look at the likes of Ontario Power Gen; Portland General Electric; WPAC; CANMET; NRCan, and a host of others, to see that this once "curious" technology (Bio-Coal) is now the sweetheart of the industry.

This, of course, is very good news for those of us tinkering away in our Labs and workshops.

What amazes me most, is the complete lack of understanding about Torrefaction technology and Torrefied Biomass supply chains. Take, for example, the major Steel Companies; Cement Companies, Glass Companies, etc. These industries consume enormous amounts of energy, (After all - to make these products - you need to melt ROCKS) and are significant contributors of CO2 and other GHG's.

For the most part, we have focussed solely on Utilities and Power Stations. Somehow - it seems as though we have been walking around with blinders on. There are so many other high-energy use industries that can benefit from Bio-Coal, that it seems naive to ignore them.

Many millions of dollars are now being pumped into the commercialization of this technology. In BC, the WPAC has received funding to study the benefits of torrefaction. http://www.pellet.org/linked/melin%20torrefaction.pdf

In Quebec - Energex are moving towards a commercial reactor technology, with the Manager driving around the country with a 40 pound bag of "the future of Biomass Fuel" in his pick-up truck. http://www.canadianbiomassmagazine.ca/content/view/2024/69/

The CCPC is looking at ways to develop torrefaction for co-combustion http://www.canadianbiomassmagazine.ca/content/view/1904/133/

In Nova Scotia, the Government has provided $1.7 million for a torrefaction study under the Atlantic Innovation Fund http://www.capebretonpost.com/Business/2011-04-03/article-2397115/BioEnergy-and-CBU-get-funding-for-green-energy-technology-/1

NRCan are supporting Torrefaction and Bio-Char developments http://canmetenergy-canmetenergie.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/eng/bioenergy/biofuels/solid_biofuels.html

All in all, it would appear that Canada is becoming a hotbed of Torrefaction.

The future is exciting, and holds great promise for this technology.

On the European side of the Atlantic, Topell are just about ready to fire up their Commercial Plant.

4Energy Invest seems to have worked out the bugs in their system, although they having some financial problems and are looking for money now http://www.e-energymarket.com/news/single-news/article/4energy-invest-must-reschedule-the-debts-or-start-looking-for-fresh-equity.html

Stramproy-Green are still walking towards commercialization, however they too have a few kinks to work out still (It appears that their Cool-Coal didn't quite have the "right stuff", and Essent burned one truckload - and no more) http://www.e-energymarket.com/news/single-news/article/biocoal-factory-of-stramproy-not-producing-rwe-not-worried.html But RWE are NOT worried - as they have also locked up the supply from Topell. (Good plan - I would say)

A couple of new players have entered the market:

TORRPROC - http://torrproc.com/ and

PAC-WEST GLOBAL - http://www.pacwestglobal.net/solutions_torrefaction_main.html

One Company is headed up by a malpractice Lawyer and Real Estate Developer; the other, has dubious credentials.

However - they may very well be credible and viable organisations. Each offers "Turn-Key" torrefaction facilities available to purchase TODAY. I wonder if the major Utilities are aware of these Companies? It would seem to me, that they would be beating a path to their door, and lining up to get a hold of the technology.

As for us - we plod along slowly but surely. Our current activity includes the construction of a 1-tonne per hour demonstration reactor that is headed for Canada (Ontario) for field trials and testing; Which will then be sent on to Oregon for further testing; and a 5-tonne per hour Commercial plant for a large production run here in the UK.

We have received our first order for 6,000 tonnes of this "black gold" (Although - it's actually brown) and it is the next step in our development path.

On a final note - I was speaking to a colleague of mine after a recent conference on Torrefaction.

He exclaimed that "you know . . . torrefaction developers are all liars when it comes to where they are in the development process."

I agreed but explained that "we never listen to each other - so it really doesn't matter".

Onward and upward . . . . .

RW

A Complete and Comprehensive Overview of Torrefaction Technologies

Well Folks, we have finally managed to get the Report published online.

Since it's initial announcement, it has grown from 29 to over 50 Developers, Promoters and System Designers.

We have also included expanded sections on complimentary technologies (HTC, Bio-Char, etc).

As the industry is changing rapidly, we will also be publishing a quarterly update, which will chronicle key milestones in the Commercialisation of this technology. One example - is a new entrant into the field. Whetsell Energy of Lexington SC is planning on a 250 Tonne per day torrefaction reactor, as part of a consolidated development that includes Bio-Coal, Bio-Diesel and High-Grade; Low Sulphur Coal.

Here is the link to our Report:

http://www.e-energymarket.com/en/shop/products/details/category/market-reports/product/a-complete-and-comprehensive-overview-of-torrefaction-technologies.html

We hope that this will help to separate the "Torrefact" from the "Torrefiction"

RW

Pyrophoric Carbon, Oxygen depletion and other things

As if we didn't have enough to worry about already with Explosivity and dust generation hazards, a new and challenging issues has raised its ugly head.

Seems that torrefied biomass has this nasty little characteristic called Pyrophoricity. Essentially, it means that the product will smolder, and eventually self-ignite. Now, this can't be a good thing.

This nasty habit is a function and consequence of the thermal treatment process. While the mechanism is not well understood, the oxidation reactions seem to be integrally linked to the modification of the transverse permeability and disruption of the microstructure. We believe that this provides greater oxygen diffusion, and precipitates the reaction.

"Transverse permeability"? "Disruption of Microstructure"? What the heck is that? ;-)

Actually, in simple terms, it means that the opening of the cellular structure within the biomass (Which is a good thing - as this is the mechanism that provides for better grindability) also allows for increased diffusion of Oxygen.

Of course - Oxygen causes Oxidation, and the torrefied biomass contains large amounts of carbon to be oxidized.

Net result - the creation of CO and CO2. (and heat)

NOW - when it is stored in the fresh air - this is not a real problem - but - stick it into the hold of a ship - and what you have is a recipe for disaster.

Not too long ago, there was a tragic fatality in Sweden, where a dockworker walked down a stairway into the hold of a ship carrying wood pellets from Canada. The oxygen down there had been depleted, and replaced with CO2. The consequences were catastrophic.

Most biomass emits CO2 in storage. Switchgrass, for example, emitted about 1800 p.p.m. (Parts per million) in closed-container testing. Torrefied wood, on the other hand, emitted over 12,000 p.p.m. in the same tests. This is not a good thing.

At low concentrations, CO2 is categorized as a simple asphyxiant. A CO2 concentration of >15,000 p.p.m. will cause headaches, dizziness, heart rate increase, and induce coma. (And that can ruin your WHOLE day!)

CO, on the other hand, prevents the uptake of oxygen by the blood, and starves the brain and other parts of the body. The exposure limits are much lower ( 25-50 p.p.m.)

SO - it would appear that the two key characteristics that make Torrefied fuel so desirable (high Carbon content and good grindability) might also be their "Achilles Heel".

We're working on a solution . . . . and will let you know when we find one.

RW

Another Milestone Reached!

Today, after 24 months of work, we were FINALLY successful in densifying torrefied wood into a puck suitable for utility fuel as a coal replacement.

This was done as a cold pressing without any binders, or additives. We were able to achieve a mass density of 1200 kg/m3, which was one of our primary targets.

Now that I have these little "gems", I think I might just go ahead and have them gold plated. After all, at 3 grams each - and with an investment so far of over £100,000.00 to make them, they have cost far more than GOLD!

However, at the end of the day, it has all been worth it. The sense of achievement and pride in this accomplishment has made my week. Of course, there is still a LONG way to go - but this hurdle was the tallest one in the race.

Now, we can move forward with grindability, Hydrophobicity, Durability, and other tests, in our never-ending quest.

I think I'll go and celebrate!

RW

The various flavours of torrefied biomass fuel

In the Petroleum Industry, hydrocarbon fuels come in various "flavours", and various grades in each flavour.

lets see . . . There's Gasoline, both regular and high octane; Diesel; Kerosene; Jet Fuel; Bunker C; heating Oil, and assorted blends (Bio-Diesel, Gasohol, etc.)

Each fuel has specific chemical and physical properties for the job at hand. Torrefied biomass is no different.

As we progress along the fuel validation path, we have come to learn that there will be several different "Grades" of torrefied Fuel. Some will be suitable for small biomass boilers; others for large Utility burners, and still others for Industrial processes (like Cement Manufacturing).

The problem is, that there is no "one size fits all" solution. If you take wood chips designed for a pulverised fuel injection burner, and try to feed them into 500 kW chip boiler, the results are, at best disappointing - at worst - catastrophic. By the same token, a fuel that works perfectly well in a Cement kiln, would clog up a Utility boiler faster than you can say alkaloid deposition.

There's only one TINY problem associated with defining the various Grades of fuel. That is, we can no longer rest on our laurels as experts in thermodynamic and chemical processing; we now need to completely understand combustion. (And here - I thought that once we cracked the torrefaction process we would be finished. How wrong we were.)

Developing a fuel that is all things to all men is roughly akin to genetically engineering an animal that is part Pig (for bacon and ham); part chicken (for eggs and meat); part Cow (for milk and steaks); and part fish (for Omega 3, and other good stuff). Somehow, it just doesn't seem possible. I think it might be easier to grow a fruit tree that has apples, pears, peaches, plumbs, oranges and avocados on it. (And actually - through the magic of grafting, my father was able to successfully grow one that had 3 varieties of each of the first 2 - but that's another story.)

But I digress . . . Back to the business at hand . . . . . .

In our never ending quest to add clarity and relevance to the market, below is an outline of what we see as the primary Grades of Torrefied Biomass Fuel.

1. Smokeless Chips. (SC) This grade, is designed to replace standard wood chips in small to medium scale biomass boilers. It has been processed to a point of having most of the PAH's removed, (these, if you care, are Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, and not very nice at all) but hasn't been processed to the point of being physically altered enough to become friable and fragile. Now the benefit to this, is really measured in improved Air Quality. Many jurisdictions aren't in love with the emissions from the ever increasing number of chip boilers being installed. Just as, in the UK, the transition from coal to "smokeless coal" in residential and commercial buildings was mandated many years ago - there will be a transition from chips to Smokeless chips in the years to come. We'll all breathe a little easier because of it.
2. Pulverised Fuel Injection (PFI) By far and away, this will be the predominant fuel manufactured from Biomass. Within this grade, will be three varieties: "VW" (Derived from Virgin Wood); "AR" (derived from Agricultural Residues); and "RM" (derived from Recycled Material) Each fuel will carry its own credentials, in terms of environmental impact; embodied energy and sustainability. Again, utilisation will be at the whim of the local authorities, who will control utilisation and acceptability, based on their own unique views.
3. Industrial Process (IP). This fuel would be specifically designed for the Cement, Steel and Glass manufacturing industries. Those boys use a LOT of energy (after all - to make these things - you need to melt rocks!) and want their fuel to have an energy content capable of heating a furnace to about one third of the surface temperature of the sun. Now don't get me wrong - I use as much glass and steel and concrete as the next guy, but BOY, that's a hot flame!

So, there you have it. Just when I think we've gotten to our destination, we learn that it is merely just another station stop on the way. Sometimes I get the feeling that we're 90% finished - with 90% to go.

If anyone would like to discuss the detailed "science things" behind this, feel free to contact me.

Jumping out of the frying pan, into the fire . . . . .

RW

How to Secure a Major Supply Contract for Torrefied Fuel Pellets

It is generally accepted that, torrefied pellets are the "holy grail" of renewable fuel. After all - if they can live up to their promise - then they represent the best current solution for replacing coal at Utility scale. Of course - this outline already presumes that you have identified a source of raw materials, and have some idea of the size and scope of Manufacturing facility you want to establish.

And, by the way, DON'T tell anyone what you're doing! Your phone will NOT stop ringing, and you'll be constantly pestered by people who want to jump on your bandwagon. (trust me on this one ;-)

The question is - How do you secure a Major Supply Contract?

Below is an outline of the path to market . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STEP 1) Identify your target. As there are many Utilities worldwide - you need to look at who the most likely candidate is. In the UK, there are several major and Minor players - Drax; Scottish & Southern; RWE n-Power; E-On, etc. Any one of these is more than capable of purchasing a larger volume than ANY supplier could produce - so pick one - and go to step 2.

STEP 2) Get through the door of your chosen Client. This can often times be as simple as a bit of research on the internet, to find out who looks after fuel supply. When you find them - send an email - and make them an offer.

Now - the easy part is over. Once you have an expression of interest (which is as easy as falling off a wet log) you need to validate your fuel.

STEP 3) Analyse your feedstock. Starting with a small sample of your chosen feedstock, you need to make sure that it has the "right stuff" to become a utility fuel. Now, woody biomass (dead trees and the like) is a pretty good bet. Grasses . . . . (like miscanthus, reed canary, arundo, bamboo, etc.) are a little more problematic. Agricultural residues (PKS, olive cake, Shea meal, etc.) are somewhere in-between. The raw material needs to have a specific set of physical and chemical properties, that allow it to be co-fired with coal. If there's too much of some things - or not enough of others - then it just won't work. This shouldn't cost more than £1,000.00 to £2,000.00 for a full analysis.

STEP 4) Chose a torrefaction technology to process the feedstock. You have a choice of over 50 technologies these days - so select the one that is most suitable for integration with your manufacturing process and feedstock characteristics. And don't buy the cheapest torrefaction technology available. (You'll only get what you pay for)

STEP 5) Run a trial batch of your chosen feedstock through your chosen technology. Any torrefaction technology provider should be able to offer you this service on their equipment. Although - you will have to pay for it. The "going rate" is about £5,000.00 for a day's operation; and at the end of it - you will have a few hundred kilos of torrefied product. (Don't worry about pelletising at this point - just work with the material as it comes out of the reactor)

Step 6) Analyse the characteristics of the torrefied product. The most important ones are;

a) Grindability

b) Explosivity of dust

c) Hydrophobicity

e) K and Cl content

f) Particle shape after grinding

Once you have determined that your torrefied feedstock meets your customer's requirements for the above - (which you should budget about £3,500.00 to validate) then you can move on with the next step. If it doesn't make the grade - go back to step 4, and find another technology; hopefully - this time - one that will produce a better result.

OK - we're about 1/2 way there . . . . . . . .

STEP 7) You now need to produce about 100 tonnes of material, but this time, you need to find someone to turn it into Pellets, Pucks, Briquettes, cubes, etc. There are many Companies that manufacture pelletising and briquetting equipment worldwide - so you just need to "sell" them on the idea that if their machinery works - there could be a big order for equipment at the end of it all for them. (It might help if you bought them a coffee - or even lunch - to sway their decision in your favour!)

The cost of densification trials should be NO MORE than £5,000.00 to £10,000.00. And MAKE SURE that you get a written guarantee that this will be CREDITED towards the purchase of a few million worth of equipment when you set up your manufacturing facility.

STEP 7) Now - you need to prove the handling characteristics for the fuel. This involves a simple process of Durability testing (bash the little buggers around for a while to see how "tough" they are) If the pellets, briquettes, etc. can't cut it - and they break down into a pile of powder - go and find yourself another Equipment Company that can ACTUALLY make a pellet that will hold together in real life situations.

While you're putting the fuel through it's durability paces, you might as well test it for other handling characteristics. Flow-ability; bridging; and resistance to abrasion are 3 other standards that they will have to meet. After all - in a coal yard, where they will spend a good part of their life, there are dirty-big machines that run over them, and scoop them up, and generally handle them with anything but kit gloves. Again - if they can't stand the heat (and break down into a pile of mush) then they better stay out of the Power Station.

This type of testing can be done quite cheaply - Say . . .£1,000.00

STEP 8) Now comes the hard part. Combustion testing. You need to take your 100 tonnes of tough little fuel pellets, grind them to a powder again (yes - I know, seems a little redundant - but that's the way pulverised fuel injection boilers work) and inject them past the gates of hell into a boiler. For those of you who have never seen a boiler injection nozzle - there's one above. (Nasty looking bit of kit - isn't it?)

Now, you say that you are a little short on Pulverised Fuel Combustion Testing Facilities? Not to worry - there's a number of them around the world that will be happy to do a trial run for you. It's highly likely that your chosen Utility will know of one somewhere in your area. The only downside to this, is the cost. Be prepared to pay between £80,000.00 and £100,000.00 PER FUEL to test it.

Now - this is the point that you sit back and wait; hope and pray - that you have made a fuel with the "Right Stuff". IF it doesn't have the correct Chemistry, and tends to corrode boiler tubes - then this is not a good thing. If it has an ash melting temperature that's too low - you're in trouble. Even if it's just a tiny bit too explosive (when in the feed tubes and conveyors - it won't pass muster - and you'll have to go back to STEP 5 again and sort it out. (You did get a "fitness for purpose" guarantee from your technology provider? Didn't you? After all - what good is it if it doesn't do what it says on the box?

We're almost there . . . . . .

STEP 9) Now that you have a complete set of test results from your trials, you only need to pass one more hurdle. So - go and make a thousand tonnes or so of your fuel, for testing in "real world" situations. To finish the validation process, you will need to partner up with your Utility Customer, and run the fuel, in various concentrations, through their burner units. It shouldn't be too difficult to get them to shut down their generating stations for a while, so that you can test the lovely clean-burning, planet friendly fuels. Start with a low ratio co-fire (say . . . 20%) then work your way up slowly to 100%. Once you've proven things for an hour or so - it's time to take the bull by the horns - and do a long-term burn. A reasonable size unit will consume about 1,000 tonnes per day - so you should have enough fuel to run for about 2 days. By the way - the cost of these trials will be in the region of £250,000.00 to £300,000.00. (You didn't think a Utility was going to shut down operations and let you play with their big-boy's toys for free, did you?)

At the end of the trial, you sit back, relax, and have a cup of coffee, while the engineers, scientists, analysts, etc. validate and verify the data. They will look at things like ash composition; performance; emissions, etc. (Stuff that YOU shouldn't be bothered about - after all - you're just the fuel supplier)

STEP 10) Presuming that all things went well in step 9 (and after all . . .what could possibly go wrong?) you then sit down and give yourself a BIG pat on the back, because you have succeeded in doing what no one has done before you. NOW - it's time to sign on with that multi-billion pound sterling purchase order, and start planning how to spend all of your new found wealth.

And that, my friends . . is all there is to it.

RW

Torrefaction - True or False?

It never ceases to amaze me how much misinformation there is about Torrefied Biomass.
Below are a number of claims that have been published – and I thought it would be fun to look at a few of them – and test your knowledge;
1) By using torrefied biomass, utility companies avoid additional capital expenditure in existing power plants T? F?
2) It is carbon neutral, as all renewable biomass sequesters an equal amount of CO during growth as is released upon its burning T? F?
3) An increase of the heating value per weight unit (9,500 to 11,000 Btu/lb) T? F?
4) Achievement of a hydrophobic property, with a moisture content of less than 3% T? F?
5) Improved grinding, crushing, or pulverizing properties (40 on the Hardgrove Grindability Index, comparable to coal) T? F?
6) Increased uniformity and durability T? F?
7) Torrefaction involves the removal of volatiles, most acids and smoke-producing agents T? F?
8) Each ton of torrefied wood burned in the facility reduces their carbon output by up to 2.4 tons, earning them an estimated $72 in carbon credits. T? F?
9) Torrefied wood can be handled just like coal. T? F?
10) It does not take on water so it can be left uncovered like coal. T? F?
11) During the torrefaction process, as most volatiles are burned off, eliminating the concerns over slagging in the boiler. T? F?

In fact – 9 of them are false
So . . . how did you do?
1) This one is TRUE, but only to a point. Many people are promoting and pumping the value of torrefied Biomass because it “offsets” high CapEx costs associated with handling; grinding storing and burning whitewood pellets. In fact – this ONLY applies to pellets, as most other biomass feedstocks do NOT need special storage and handling systems. It is also TRUE however – that ALL power stations put little to no “value” on these “avoided” costs. They simply pay the Climate Change Levy – and don’t burn biomass.
2) FALSE – ABSOLUTELY FALSE! True carbon neutrality could ONLY be achieved if the CO2 footprint left on the entire supply chain was zero (and this is HIGHLY unlikely). Certainly – biomass absorbs CO2 during its lifetime, and emits it during combustion – however – there are a lot of processes that embed energy into the harvesting; transport, manufacturing and handling of biomass. In the case of forest residues - It is also true that only 30% to 40% of the entire volume of feedstock is converted into fuel. The other 60% to 70% is effectively sequestered carbon (in the form of furniture, building materials, etc.) that could ultimately be converted into fuel. So – it is the FOREST that is carbon neutral – NOT the feedstock.

IF the entire supply chain were carbon neutral, EVERY piece of field equipment, truck and train would need to run on Bio-Diesel; delivered in trucks that run on bio-diesel; derived from a plant that is solar powered. The manufacturing facility would need to be powered by geothermal energy (heat) and solar PV powered (electric); the ships would need to be Gas turbine powered, from Syn-gas, derived from torrefied pellets. Having said that – let’s look at the RELATIVE Carbon neutrality to coal. On average, a ton of coal takes approximately 25 Gj of energy to mine, extract, process and transport. For that – you get 24-26 Gj of Derived energy – after imparting even further energy into handling, conveying, grinding and injecting. Torrefied Biomass, on the other hand, will have an embedded energy of about 2 Gj per tonne.

3) This one is also TRUE – kilo for kilo – torrefied biomass has a higher heating value than its non torrefied counterpart. This however – is predominantly a function of the removal of moisture from the feedstock.

4) FALSE – Most promoters extol the “hydrophobic” properties of torrefied wood. While it is true that it does resist water uptake, it is FAR from being hydrophobic. In fact – some of the “torrefied wood” we have tested actually absorbed MORE water than its untreated counterpart (Bamboo – for example). So – like most generalities – this one doesn’t hold true.

5) FALSE – Again, you need to define “improved”. Certainly – torrefied biomass is more friable – but it comes with a price. That price is explosivity of the dust (when it is kept dry) and the development of “sludge” when it is ground wet. Anyone who has undertaken any testing of torrefied material in a ball-grinder when the material was stored outside will tell you that this is a significant hurdle to overcome.

6) FALSE – Uniformity, and I’m defining that by the term homogeneous, has nothing to do with the process of torrefaction – and everything to do with the feedstock. A wide variety of feedstocks will produce a wide variety of finished products. After all – the old expression “Garbage IN – Garbage OUT” applies. Durability is the antithesis of Friability – so it CAN’T be both. Like most things – this is an area of compromise – where you trade off the durability of the pellets for CV, or Grindability, or particle size and shape. Sweeping generalities like this are commonplace, and simply not true.

7) FALSE, ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALY FALSE. I think that this myth was initiated and perpetuated by Ahava Amen from New Earth Renewable Energy. He had a Wonderful U-Tube video that showed him holding a “standard pellet below a smoke detector after lighting it. Guess what happened? Give up? The smoke detector went off! THEN – he held a lit piece of torrefied wood below the same smoke detector – and Surprise . . . Surprise. . Surprise! The smoke detector DIDN’T go off! His explanation was that ALL of the volatiles had been removed from the Torrefied wood – and therefore no smoke could be emitted. (What UTTER Nonsense!) The reality is – that torrefied wood, on average, is about 70% volatiles. At least – ever test we have done – and every credible study I have read indicated the same thing. SO – how did the smoke detector remain silent? Simple breath of air blowing across the top of the pellet – to keep it “glowing” (and provide more complete combustion), while blowing the invisible smoke from the detector’s surface. You heard it here first.

8) FALSE – burning 1 tonne of coal and 1 tonne of torrefied wood release about the same amount of CO2. Actually – the coal does emit more (simply because it has a higher Carbon Content to begin with) but neither of them emits 2.4 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of fuel burned.
Coal with a heating value of 6.67 kWh per kilogram as quoted above has a carbon content of roughly 80%, which is where 1 mol equals to NA (Avogadro Number) atoms.
Carbon combines with oxygen in the atmosphere during combustion, producing carbon dioxide, with an atomic weight of (12 + 16 × 2 = 44 kg/kmol). The CO2released to air for each kilogram of incinerated coal is therefore 2.93 kg

9) FALSE – Torrefied wood has many specific handling requirements that make it significantly different from coal. Firstly – it contains much lower moisture than most coals, and produces a much more hazardous dust, both in terms of explosivity and health & safety. (Coal dust is certainly bad enough – but look up an MSDS on most biomass dusts and you will find that they are MUCH worse.) Many of the “torrefied” biomass products offered on the market today with high CV’s, are virtually charcoal – and if you research the MSDS and COSSH on charcoal dust – you will find that most jurisdictions classify it as “explosive” and “hazardous”. These characteristics necessitate very special handling protocols.

10) FALSE (see #4 above)

11) FALSE – COMPLETELY, UTTERLY, TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY FALSE!!!! Torrefaction has NOTHING to do with slagging characteristics of boilers. This is ALWAYS a function of the chemistry of the fuel; and is determined by the presence or absence of K and Cl mostly. It is the ASH MELTING temperature that is the critical determination. Certainly – torrefaction DOES remove a lot of the Acids from the raw feedstock, thereby improving its utility and reducing the tendency to corrode boiler pipes, but that’s about as far as it goes.

The lesson learned here is that, in spite of an ENORMOUS amount of factual Data available; hundreds of scientific papers; and untold thousands of tests – the Fallacies about torrefied biomass still run rampant.
Perhaps is it because people want to “appear” to know what they are talking about?
Perhaps it is a “belief”, based on “wishful thinking”?
Whatever the reason – now you know . . . the rest of the story. . .
RW

All's Quiet on the western front

Where have all the Torrefaction Developers gone?

It seemed for a while there, that a week didn't go by, that someone else was entering the torrefaction arena. After all - in the short span of a couple of years, no less than 53 Companies and Organisations were throwing their hats into the ring. NOW - it would appear that we have reached "saturation" point.

One could reasonably assume that this meant there was a clear winner - a Company that had "cracked the code" - and that was successful in commercialising the Technology. Alas - such is not the case.

Progress continues, slowly but surely, towards the ultimate goal. What is happening, is a number of Governmental organisations worldwide are "waking up" to the potential of torrefaction, and undertaking "studies" with respect to its viability.

For example - the Government in British Columbia is throwing $150,000.00 at a study, and will then consider whether there is any merit to throwing even larger amounts of money at a pilot project - and ultimately a Commercial Demonstration Project. Somehow, from where I sit, this this seems a lot like reinventing the wheel. After all - there was much fanfare a few months ago about a large Torrefaction Facility being built in Terrace, BC. The Ground breaking ceremony was attended by local, regional and Provincial Politicians; including the Minister of Forests I understand; so I have to ask myself "Didn't he tell the Ministry department looking at considering the viability of Torrefaction about this project?"

After all - it seems somewhat of a foregone conclusion. However - far be it from me to even attempt to begin to understand the mysterious ways of politics and politicians.

As the cold weather sets in, and my energy bills escalate (Followed closely by the annual escalation in Fuel costs) I think about the time when I will have a nice pellet boiler to warm the cockles of my house. Funny - but the annual increase in energy costs is as predictable as the annual Postal Strike - just before Christmas. I wonder if it's a revolt on the part of the Postal workers to NOT deliver the Utility Bills until AFTER Christmas????? Somehow - I think not.

The Reactor development is coming along nicely. We have added a pair of eminent scientists to our Staff, and are busy working away on CFD and devolitilization regimes and the like. We do now have one test reactor operational - and this is specifically focussed on Fines (sawdust) and small particles. A second test reactor, which will handle wood chips and ground wood is on schedule for March commissioning. Slowly - but surely - we continue on our quest.

FINALLY, after 20 months, my report entitled "A Complete and Comprehensive Overview of Torrefaction Technologies" is ready for the publisher. It should be available on the market by December 7th. While not exactly bedtime reading, it does include virtually everything you always wanted to know about Torrefaction - but were afraid to ask.

In the end - it may not sell one copy. On the other hand - it may sell many. The cost of the report is about 2 weeks wages for a researcher in a Large Company - and represents excellent value, if you want to know the "who's who" and " what's what" of torrefaction.

Wish me luck.

RW

NER 300 - EU Recognises Torrefaction Technology

This is a marvellous announcement, and the FIRST time we have seen recognition of Torrefaction technology by a Major National Governing body; (No offence to Taiwan's EPA Minister Stephen Shu-Hung Shen - who said that "using low-temperature torrefaction to convert bio-fuel to eco-coal for co-generation is the most efficient way of harnessing biomass energy"); and had that recognition backed up by the potential for on-going financial support.

To quote the decision paper; one of the Appendix I Renewable Categories specifically identifies the conversion of "Lignocellulose to intermediate solid, liquid or slurry bioenergy carriers via torrefaction with capacity 40 kt/yr (kilo tonnes per year) of the final product". What more needs to be said?

There is however, one tiny little issue with this. (There's ALWAYS a fly in the ointment, isn't there?)

The application process is limited to a small number of projects per MS (Member State). Essentially - instead of distributing the funding on some formula (population - for example) it is based on the NUMBER of projects. Each MS is guaranteed ONE - but will be able to apply for 3.

hmmmmm . . . . .SO - given the choice of putting forward a £3 Million project, or a £30 Million project, which do you think the Government will do? The answer - came swiftly from the DECC in the Consultation paper on the NER 300. To no ones surprise - they have effectively already made up their mind to submit WAVE and TIDAL power projects, as their "technology of choice".

Details of their reasoning can be found here http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/what%20we%20do/uk%20energy%20supply/energy%20mix/carbon%20capture%20and%20storage/333-decc-initial-guidance-on-eu-funding-mechanism-ner3.pdf

In this Consultation Document (Although - I am unaware of anyone who was "consulted" on the matter) they state:

"Our approach to preparing the UK shortlist (pre-selection) for the NER300 will be to seek to maximise the UK’s overall financial return and ensure that return contributes to our domestic priorities. Among the 34 subcategories of innovative Renewable Demonstration projects eligible for support, our preference for the projects we would like to consider short-listing for NER support are those projects falling within the ocean category. These are wave energy devices with nominal capacity 5MW, marine/tidal currents energy devices with nominal capacity 5MW and ocean thermal energy conversion with nominal capacity 10MW."

Well - there you have it! So - it looks like Torrefaction doesn't have the proverbial snowball's chance in h*ll of being put forward by the DECC to the EU under this funding mechanism.

What to do . . . .what to do . . . ?

Well - one would suppose that the other developers of torrefaction in the EU are rubbing their hands together in glee. After all - one of the horses in the race is dead long before the race begins, and that means that there is one less Country (read - competing technology) to worry about. Who knows - maybe France or Spain or Germany will also write-off torrefaction before it even gets a chance?

It does however, appear that if there are no more than 1 or 2 projects submitted in any single technology category - that the EU will simply "strike off" the technology for "lack of interest".

Oh well - a brief moment of hope is shattered by a long period of disappointment. Nonetheless - we still have our reactor to complete.

Speaking of which - I thought you might like to see what it will look like when finished. There's a picture of a 900 tonne per year reactor at the top of this Blog Page. (I bet you were wondering what the heck that was, weren't you?

This unit is manufactured in France, and is specifically designed to produce bio-coal at a "community" (not Utility) scale. If all things go well - we will have one of these here in the next few months for trials and research. I can hardly wait.

You have to admit - it IS a pretty cool looking piece of kit - all bright and shiny stainless steel.

For now - we continue to trudge on with the day to day chores.

Damn the torpedoes - full steam ahead