Biomass power cost and optimum plant size in western Canada

Published Date
Biomass and Bioenergy
June 2003, Vol.24(6):445–464, doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00149-6

• Author 

• Amit Kumar
• Jay B. Cameron
• Peter C. Flynn ^,1,

• Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2G8

Received 5 December 2001. Revised 21 October 2002. Accepted 21 October 2002. Available online 14 December 2002. 

Abstract

The power cost and optimum plant size for power plants using three biomass fuels in western Canada were determined. The three fuels are biomass from agricultural residues (grain straw), whole boreal forest, and forest harvest residues from existing lumber and pulp operations (limbs and tops). Forest harvest residues have the smallest economic size, 137 MW, and the highest power cost,   (Year 2000 US$). The optimum size for agricultural residues is   (the largest single biomass unit judged feasible in this study), and the power cost is  . If a larger biomass boiler could be built, the optimum project size for straw would be . Whole forest harvesting has an optimum size of   (two maximum sized units), and a power cost of   without nutrient replacement. However, power cost versus size from whole forest is essentially flat from  to  , so the optimum size is better thought of as a wide range.

None of these projects are economic today, but could become so with a greenhouse gas credit. All biomass cases show some flatness in the profile of power cost vs. plant capacity. This occurs because the reduction in capital cost per unit capacity with increasing capacity is offset by increasing biomass transportation cost as the area from which biomass is drawn increases. This in turn means that smaller than optimum plants can be built with only a minor cost penalty. Both the yield of biomass per unit area and the location of the biomass have an impact on power cost and optimum size. Agricultural and forest harvest residues are transported over existing road networks, whereas the whole forest harvest requires new roads and has a location remote from existing transmission lines. Nutrient replacement in the whole forest case would make power from the forest comparable in cost to power from straw.

Keywords

Biomass usage

Agricultural residues

Forest harvest residues

Wood waste

Power generation

Carbon credit

Optimum size

Logistics

---

 Table 1

Table 1.

 Table 2

Table 2.

 Table 3

Table 3.

 Table 4

Table 4.

 Table 5

Table 5.

Fig. 1.

 Table 6

Table 6.

 Table 7

Table 7.

Fig. 2.

 Table 8

Table 8.

• *
  Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-780-492-6438; fax: +1-780-492-2200

Copyright © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

For further details log on website :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953402001496