[Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass

Tom Miles tmiles at trmiles.com
Thu Dec 30 20:35:46 CST 2010


Thomas,

 

You developed it because it is fun. Gasification still has a certain
mystique after all these years. 

 

You ask important societal questions. I'm not sure that we have the
institutional means to answer them in this country. 

 

We pay a lot less for energy than you do. Wholesale prices for power in my
region are: Coal $18/MWh(24€/MWh), Natural Gas $30/MWh (40€/MWh), Biomass
$68-$100/MWh (90-132 €/MWh), Wind $90/MWh (119 €/MWh). These don't reflect
the total (including environmental) cost but they are what we have to deal
with in the short term.  

 

We're changing our local 550 MW coal plant to natural gas to reduce
emissions. The best technical alternative is a combination of biomass and
CCS.  Unfortunately I don't think we will see  significant implementation of
known cofiring (cheapest) or CCS (more expensive) technologies until we have
more serious problems. 

 

We build wind every time there is a new subsidy. Biomass has been tough to
develop. We have one new 25 MWe biomass plant based mostly on mill residues.
Forest residues are still too expensive ($60/dry ton) for power generation.
We can do CHP with a lower cost mix of urban wood, ag wood, mill and forest
residues. 

 

A target price for a gasifier in this region would be to offset $100/MWh
power costs  by producing electricity that is used in house and not buying
from the utility. The utility won't buy power for more than about
$60-$80/MWh. Institutions like schools and military installations want to
generate heat and power from biomass to reduce their carbon footprint. How
much can they pay? They pay high prices for capital with public money. Yet I
have seen a school drain its swimming pool in order to reduce its budget so
it could pay its heating oil bill.  

 

Many challenges

 

Tom   

 

 

 

 

From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
Koch
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 3:27 PM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass

 

Tom 

 

I have been looking for niches for my gasifier technology for 10 years
without identifying any. 

 

The question that i ask myselves is: Why did I develop this technology?

 

The only reasonanble answer i can give is that there was a lot of public
support money available and it was good fun.We all (us that spend public
money with out thinking about market possibilities) believed that as soon as
something would be working support structures would be implemented and our
technologies would be sold at the price level it had. 

Like it happended to the windmills and Stirling now selling electricity at
270 €/MWh ~ 350 $/MWh.

 

The relevant discussion to me is to find out how much we are willing to pay
for energy?

 

What are the alternatives? How much will it cost to install windmills and
hydro enegy storages - or cofired coal/biomass waste plants with CCS? 

Will smal scale gasification - waveenergy - 2 gen bioetanol etc ever get a
chance in the market? 

 

An example:

A family in Denmark:

Gross income 100000 € pr year - personal income tax 40000 € - Left for
consumption 60.000 € pr year

Energyconsumption:

8 MWh  ~ price 40 € + tax 200 € = 320 € + tax 1600 €

2000 liter petrol ~ price ,6 € + tax ,7€ = 1200€ + tax 1400 €

1500 m3 nat gas ~ price ,5 € + tax ,8 € = 750 € + tax 1200 € 

Total energy bill 2270 € --  tax 4200 €.

 

Thus the energy tax is close to 10 % of what this family pays in tax 

 

If this family converts to non taxed energysources - the tax will have to
come from some where else. 

 

Thus our price target is the net price and not the gross price and if
technologies will need economic support for the next many years we will end
in the unavoidable discussion - du you want better schools - hospitals or
(maybe) green energy?  

 

Best regards

 

Thomas

 

 

 

  _____  

Fra: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org på vegne af Tom Miles
Sendt: to 30-12-2010 20:58
Til: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
Emne: Re: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass

Thomas,

 

If there is a "niche" for gasifiers in power generation here it is for CHP
applications at less than 10 MWe. 1 MWe is often too small to pay off the
balance of plant costs. 2-8 MWe may be a market niche. 

 

Xylowatt seems to have settled on 300 kWe/600kWth modules. 250-300 kWe-
seems like the right size for a small sawmill but we don't have one working
here yet. 

 

The challenge is delivering a system that is robust but with low enough
capital and operating costs to be economic. 

 

Tom   

 

From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
Koch
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 10:52 AM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass

 

Tom 

 

It is the same figures that TK Energi came to 5-7 years ago.

 

If a 1 MWe gasifier plant cost 10 M$ and operates 5000 hours pr year for 10
years (total 50000 hours) each KWh elecrticity cost 20 cent in depreciation
+ maintenance, fuel and O&M - This can easily add up to 50 cent US/KWh.

 

Best regards

 

Thomas 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  _____  

Fra: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org på vegne af Tom Miles
Sendt: to 30-12-2010 19:26
Til: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
Emne: Re: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass

Correction for 1.32 $/€

 

270 €/MWH (would be welcome. We can't justify gasification without heat
recovery with our electricity (100-180 $/MWH, 76-136 €/MWH) and heating fuel
($10-$22/MMBtu, $7.2-15.8 €/GJ) costs. Wood fuel is $40-$60/dry ton
($2.50-$3.75/MMBtu, 1.8-2.7 €/GJ).  

 

Real capital costs are somewhere between $5-$10 Million/MWe(3.8M-7.6M €/MWe)
for a plant designed with a pro forma capacity factor of 85% (85% x 100%
full load capacity x 8760 hours per year). Actual operation is probably more
like 50%-60% (4,000-5,000 hours/year) due to heat loads. (You can always
design a cheaper plant that is less reliable, or reliable for fewer hours
per year.)  

 

Thanks to those who do real math. 

 

Happy New Year.

 

Tom Miles

www.gasifiers.bioenergylists.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
Koch
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:12 AM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass

 

I just looked through the presentations from the Copenhagen meeting.

 

My aim was to try to find out what the costs for small scale CHP om biomass
can be expected to be in the near and the far future

 

It was not easy to draw a conclusion from the presentations.

 

The Skive plant is using fuel at 1200 DKK/tons (162 €) and has an
availabilty of 50 % now.

The pyroforce techmology seems to work but there where no economical numbers
in their presentation. 

The Stirling present investment figures of 1,4 M€ for a 140 KWel plant and
present a payback times of 5,5 years if they can sell the electricity at 270
€/MWh and the heat at 45 €/MWh and the maintenace cost are defined at 45
k€/years.

Vølund technology definetely works and produce electricity, heat and taroil
but they present no economical data.  

DONG presented their 85/15 plan which is almost financed by converting taxed
fuel (coal) into non taxed fuel (biomass) - but rumours say that the tax
issue most be solved first (who is going to pay for the hospitals if the
energy tax on fossils are not payed?)

 

For our own 3 stage gasification technology we are expecting a total
electricity production  cost of 300-400 €/MWh with a fuel price of  5 €/GJ
and no income for heat for a 1 MWel gasifier in generation 3. We base this
number on approx 12000 hours operation wtih two 50 kWel gasifier.

More details can be given if anyone are interested.

 

Does anybody have data concerning the present and expected future operation
economy of small scale CHP on biomass they would like to share? 

 

Best regards

 

Thomas Koch

www.tke.dk <http://www.tke.dk/>  

 

 

 

 

  _____  

Fra: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org på vegne af Tom Miles
Sendt: on 29-12-2010 23:15
Til: mark at ludlow.com; 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
Emne: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_

A thumbnail sketch of developments in small scale CHP including
gasification, and the development of gasifiers for syngas production can be
seen in this year's meetings and workshops of the IEA Task 33 on Biomass
Gasification and IEA Task 32 on Biomass Combustion and Cofiring. 

 

They held a joint workshop in October 7,2010 in Copenhagen on
"State-of-the-art technologies for small biomass co generation". Individual
presentations can be seen at: 

http://www.ieabcc.nl/meetings/task32_Copenhagen/index.html

 

The last meeting of the IEA Task 33 on Biomass Gasification was held June
1-3, 2010 in Helsinki. Minutes of that meeting can be found at:

 <http://media.godashboard.com/gti/IEA_Helsinki_Minutes_06-2010.pdf>
http://media.godashboard.com//gti/IEA_Helsinki_Minutes_06-2010.pdf

 

This meeting lists activities in the principal countries that are developing
gasifiers for syngas and producer gas applications. Highlights from other
countries that did not present at the 2010 meeting can be found at:

 
<http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=iea/taskmin
utes.xml>
http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=iea/taskminu
tes.xml

 

Additional presentations for research and commercial systems can be found in
the Programme of "Gasification 2010," the International Seminar on
Gasification held 28-29 October, in Gothenburg, Sweden

http://www.sgc.se/gasification2010/programme.asp

 

Happy Holidays

 

Tom Miles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Ludlow
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:37 PM
To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_

 

Hmmm,

Ben a lot of "gas" generated on this topic but not much useable energy!
Chicken Little would feel right at home! I doubt that many who buy the GEK
expect to go into methanol production. Do I smell just a little envy?

 

From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Pannirselvam P.V
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:22 PM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Cc: M at ry; Rajesh sk
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_

 

     Tom ,Jim,Toby

 

 We need happy end to the hot debate on  syngas 2010

         Many list member can agree with me that public or private retrack
statements  is a correct  peaceful end   as  proposed by Jim as more damage
was being done  to him and GEK, I can prove that  this is not the request of
crew of Jim  as some one put here , but  independent observer .Every member
here has their voice  heard , independent they are from poor country or rich
country , independent  of person like me with Phd , working with university
or an technical person with elementary school.The new social network make
this possible via our lists with equal rights .some  are   proved expert of
the start of art  as much as Jim  or more , but if one  do not explained
well here , the experience  alone can not make one  for other to follow as
crew. We  all here can not blindly follow with hero workship of few people
or expert or so called  imaginary  Jim crew, even though he has world wide
network, disciples.wiki,fotoblog  etc,There is no need for him to use the
power of his gasification  crew against  few misunderstanding. 

If he really use his syngas based hydrogen  globalizeded  distributed
network  power as some one supect here , our list can be innudated with
emailsand .our list email  system could have exploded wiith this syngas
based hydrogen  explosives emails and bda demage done to GEK  and JIM could
have disappeared

 

    But , as Jim travel  and know the biodiversity , really respect all even
one who misunderstand too open minded , not too much commercial business
minded , but there is always limit to this .

 

 Thus I wish especial new near to Jim and Toby , making the debate live  and
the good side of this very hot debate

 

Jim even though , too much demaged his  true image and good motivation , has
not asked public apology , but very educated and polite to ask only publick
retrack and I hopethat  he accept too private retrack ,latter inform about
the same 

 

 Making  error is human ,  I hope the persons misunderstood They  can fell
and be super human  , if they can if not publick retrack openly  or  at
least send private  email retrack.

 

 I wish Jim accept this private re-track and we will end this big mis
understanding in our very big lists 

 

As really what we need for this list  in the new year is peace , progress,
unity in diversity , respect for all list members , including  All the
energy experts , academics  like me , farmers , Small  Energy enterprise
owners .Our unity in diversity make our list very especial and diferent as
we need all, the more divesity much better for the  sustainable growth of
our list.

 

 

Yours truely

Dr.Panniselvam 


      

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:52 PM, jim mason <jim at allpowerlabs.org> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Toby Seiler <seilertechco at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Jim was right, I'm working on a machine that is intended to some degree to
integrate principles of making synthesis gas, so I have a vested interest in
his use of terminology used in marketing his product that, I believe,
contributes to a public misunderstanding.  I've asked Jim nice many times in
the past to consider the differences that Doug, Bill Klein, Greg and many
other professionals on this list have explained to Jim and myself years ago.
>

well toby, there you go again.  and now you've also ignored the raw
data, in addition to the previous detailed description and logical
argument.  again, the comedy here is I AM NOT USING THE TERM SYNGAS TO
DESCRIBE OR MARKET THE GEK.

i posted the raw data relating to the use of the syngas term on the
gek site.  you glossed over it without impact on your claims.  here it
is again below.  i would like for you to respond to this data.  and
hopefully retract your statement that i am using this term to market
the GEK currently, along with the assertion that i am actively trying
to mislead about the nitrogen content in the gek gas (of which there
is plenty).

that represents the current state of affairs and representation.

as for future states of affairs and representations, the more i look
into the history of this term, its use internationally, and general
movement in use academically, govt, commercially and popularly, i
think i am going to start using it actively.  the transition is
actually much further along than i realized when i was just waving
hands around here about it being a better term.

but again, the current representation of the gek on our site does not
use the term actively.  please respond to the data i have presented.
show some nuance.  if we cannot respond reasonably to data clearly
presented, description and argument clearly constructed, how are we
every going to make meaningful progress on the problem of biomass
thermal conversion?  vocabulary might be the least of our problems
here . . .

here's the gek site term use inventory.  you may have to click "show
hidden" to see it.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------




below is an inventory of actual usage of the terms in
question on the gek site.  i've done this for the 8 most visited pages
on the site, in order.  i've then pulled out a much lower visited
page, but the one where i thought my "sins" would be the most
pronounced.  this is the one where the details of gasification are
explained.  it is the 14th most visited page.

as you will see, there is no sentence of the type "the GEK makes
syngas".  in actuality, the "syngas" term is barely even used.  in the
top 8 pages, only 3 occurrances, 1 to note that "syngas" is one of
many terms used for the gas, and 2 in passing while talking about
mixing systems.  in contrast, there are 82 occurrances of the term
"gasifier", 28 occurrances of the term "gasification", 9 for "wood
gas", 0 for "producer gas", 0 for "suction gas", 0 for "synthesis
gas".   i'll even eliminate the two passing uses of the term while
discussing mixing if that helps quell this nonsensical lexical
tempest.

more to your point, the selling pages have exactly 0 declarations that
"syngas" is the gas being made by the GEK.  that's right- zero.  the
term is in not used anywhere to make a claim about the type of gas the
gek makes, nor to promote its sale.   not sure if this changes
anything, but that's the data.  as a man of science, i trust you will
recalibrate your conclusions in relation to the real data.


here's the detail inventory.  it is done over the permanent content on
each page.  not rss feeds in the left column from elsewhere, which
change constantly and not in my control (though i could find zero
occurances of the "syngas" term there either).

1. GEK gasifier home page: http://www.gekgasifier.com
<http://www.gekgasifier.com/> 
gasifier (9), gasification (4), syngas (1), wood gas (0), producer gas
(0), synthesis gas (0)
     the "offending" syngas sentence at the bottom of the page:
"The system automatically adjusts syngas/air mixture via a wide band
Bosch oxygen sensor, shakes the grate when needed, and removes ash via
a mechanical auger.")

2. How to make the GEK page: http://www.gekgasifier.com/wood-gasifier-plans/
gasifier (8), gasification (3), syngas (0), wood gas (1), producer gas
(0), synthesis gas (0)

3. Power Pallet info and buy page:
http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-store/gasifier-genset-skids/
gasifier (19), gasification (3), syngas (2), wood gas (2), producer
gas (0), synthesis gas (0)
      the two 2 syngas references are again in the context of
talking about fuel/air mixing

4.  Store front:  http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-store/
gasifier (8), gasification (3), syngas (0), wood gas (1), producer gas
(0), synthesis gas (0)

5. Wiki page with detail plans and CAD drawings on making and using
the GEK:
http://wiki.gekgasifier.com/w/page/6123754/How-to-Build-and-Run-the-GEK-Gasi
fier
gasifier (8), gasification (3), syngas (0), wood gas (2), producer gas
(0), synthesis gas (0)

6. BEK biochar info page:
http://www.gekgasifier.com/reactor-options/pyrolysis-biochar/
gasifier (5), gasification (2), syngas (0), wood gas (2), producer gas
(0), synthesis gas (0)

7. Gasification Basics, intro to the tech:
http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-basics/
gasifier (8), gasification (6), syngas (0), wood gas (0), producer gas
(0), synthesis gas (0)
   the closest i get to sin here is:
"Gasification is the use of heat to tranform solid biomass, or other
carbonaceous solids, into a synthetic “natural gas like” flammable
fuel.")

8. Gasifier kits info and buy page:
http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-store/gasifier-systems-and-kits/
gasifier (17), gasification (4), syngas (0), wood gas (1), producer
gas (0), synthesis gas (0)


Here's where i thought my biggest "sins" would be.  This is the page
with the detailed explanation of how gasification works:
http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-basics/how-it-works/
gasifier (8), gasification (18), syngas (2), wood gas (2), producer
gas (1), synthesis gas (0), suction gas (1)
    there are 2 sentences with syngas.  the "offending sentences:
"The gas produced by this method goes by a variety of names: “wood
gas”, “syngas”, “producer gas”, “suction gas”, etc."
"This is why an engine run on syngas can have such clean emissions."


those appear to be the facts from my neck of the woods.  others are
invited to review the above pages and point out where they think
things are otherwise or should be changed.  i'll happily change them,
as i don't really have a horse in this race.

percentage nitrogen density isn't really the relevant racetrack to
work out the real issues with this tech.


jim













>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> _______________________________________________
> The Gasification list has moved to
> gasification at bioenerglists.org - please update your email contacts to
reflect the change.
> Please visit http://info.bioenergylists.org
<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>  for more news on the list move.
> Thank you,
> Gasification Administrator
>

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Jim Mason
Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com <http://www.whatiamupto.com/> 
Current Projects:
   - Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com
<http://www.gekgasifier.com/> 
   - Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race: www.escapefromberkeley.com
<http://www.escapefromberkeley.com/> 
   - ALL Power Labs on Twitter: http://twitter.com/allpowerlabs
   - Shipyard Announce list:
http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com

_______________________________________________

Gasification mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
Gasification at bioenergylists.org

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenerg
ylists.org

for more Gasifiers,  News and Information see our web site:
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/




-- 
************************************************
P.V.PANNIRSELVAM
ASSOCIATE . PROF.
Research Group ,GPEC, Coordinator 
Computer aided  Cost engineering

DEQ – Departamento de Engenharia Química
CT – Centro de Tecnologia / UFRN, Lagoa Nova – Natal/RN
Campus Universitário. CEP: 59.072-970
North East,Brazil
*******************************************
https://sites.google.com/a/biomassa.eq.ufrn.br/sites/
 and 
http://ecosyseng.wetpaint.com/


Fone ;Office
84 3215-3769 ,  Ramal 210
Home : 84 3217-1557

Mobile :558488145083

Email:
pvpa at msn.com
panruti2002 at yahoo.com
pannirbr at gmail.com
pvpa at msn.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 31862 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101230/8f8df7f9/attachment.bin>


More information about the Gasification mailing list