National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for biomass coal electricity

  1. Coal and Coal-Biomass to Liquids

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    and Coal-Biomass to Liquids Turning coal into liquid fuels like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, with biomass to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, is the main goal of the Coal and ...

  2. Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Liquid Tr anspor tation Fuels from Coal and Biomass Technological Status, Costs, and ... technologies for converting biomass and coal to liquid fuels that are deployable by ...

  3. Co-production of decarbonized synfuels and electricity from coal + biomass with CO{sub 2} capture and storage: an Illinois case study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eric D. Larson; Giulia Fiorese; Guangjian Liu; Robert H. Williams; Thomas G. Kreutz; Stefano Consonni

    2010-07-01

    Energy, carbon, and economic performances are estimated for facilities co-producing Fischer-Tropsch Liquid (FTL) fuels and electricity from a co-feed of biomass and coal in Illinois, with capture and storage of by-product CO{sub 2}. The estimates include detailed modeling of supply systems for corn stover or mixed prairie grasses (MPG) and of feedstock conversion facilities. Biomass feedstock costs in Illinois (delivered at a rate of one million tonnes per year, dry basis) are $ 3.8/GJ{sub HHV} for corn stover and $ 7.2/GJ{sub HHV} for MPG. Under a strong carbon mitigation policy, the economics of co-producing low-carbon fuels and electricity from a co-feed of biomass and coal in Illinois are promising. An extrapolation to the United States of the results for Illinois suggests that nationally significant amounts of low-carbon fuels and electricity could be produced this way.

  4. Energy, Environmental, and Economic Analyses of Design Concepts for the Co-Production of Fuels and Chemicals with Electricity via Co-Gasification of Coal and Biomass

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eric Larson; Robert Williams; Thomas Kreutz; Ilkka Hannula; Andrea Lanzini; Guangjian Liu

    2012-03-11

    The overall objective of this project was to quantify the energy, environmental, and economic performance of industrial facilities that would coproduce electricity and transportation fuels or chemicals from a mixture of coal and biomass via co-gasification in a single pressurized, oxygen-blown, entrained-flow gasifier, with capture and storage of CO{sub 2} (CCS). The work sought to identify plant designs with promising (Nth plant) economics, superior environmental footprints, and the potential to be deployed at scale as a means for simultaneously achieving enhanced energy security and deep reductions in U.S. GHG emissions in the coming decades. Designs included systems using primarily already-commercialized component technologies, which may have the potential for near-term deployment at scale, as well as systems incorporating some advanced technologies at various stages of R&D. All of the coproduction designs have the common attribute of producing some electricity and also of capturing CO{sub 2} for storage. For each of the co-product pairs detailed process mass and energy simulations (using Aspen Plus software) were developed for a set of alternative process configurations, on the basis of which lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, Nth plant economic performance, and other characteristics were evaluated for each configuration. In developing each set of process configurations, focused attention was given to understanding the influence of biomass input fraction and electricity output fraction. Self-consistent evaluations were also carried out for gasification-based reference systems producing only electricity from coal, including integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and integrated gasification solid-oxide fuel cell (IGFC) systems. The reason biomass is considered as a co-feed with coal in cases when gasoline or olefins are co-produced with electricity is to help reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for these systems. Storing biomass-derived CO

  5. Biomass for Electricity Generation

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2002-01-01

    This paper examines issues affecting the uses of biomass for electricity generation. The methodology used in the National Energy Modeling System to account for various types of biomass is discussed, and the underlying assumptions are explained.

  6. COFIRING BIOMASS WITH LIGNITE COAL

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Darren D. Schmidt

    2002-01-01

    The University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center, in support of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) biomass cofiring program, completed a Phase 1 feasibility study investigating aspects of cofiring lignite coal with biomass relative to utility-scale systems, specifically focusing on a small stoker system located at the North Dakota State Penitentiary (NDSP) in Bismarck, North Dakota. A complete biomass resource assessment was completed, the stoker was redesigned to accept biomass, fuel characterization and fireside modeling tests were performed, and an engineering economic analysis was completed. In general, municipal wood residue was found to be the most viable fuel choice, and the modeling showed that fireside problems would be minimal. Experimental ash deposits from firing 50% biomass were found to be weaker and more friable compared to baseline lignite coal. Experimental sulfur and NO{sub x} emissions were reduced by up to 46%. The direct costs savings to NDSP, from cogeneration and fuel saving, results in a 15- to 20-year payback on a $1,680,000 investment, while the total benefits to the greater community would include reduced landfill burden, alleviation of fees for disposal by local businesses, and additional jobs created both for the stoker system as well as from the savings spread throughout the community.

  7. Randolph Electric Biomass Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Biomass Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Randolph Electric Biomass Facility Facility Randolph Electric Sector Biomass Facility Type Landfill Gas Location Norfolk County,...

  8. Coal and Coal-Biomass to Liquids FAQs

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Coal and Coal-Biomass to Liquids FAQs faq-header-big.jpg BASICS Q: How are gasoline and diesel fuel made from coal? A: Gasoline and diesel fuels can be produced from coal in two distinct processes: Indirect Liquefaction and Direct Liquefaction. In Indirect Liquefaction, coal is first gasified to produce synthesis gas (syngas for short), which is a mixture containing primarily hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO) gases. The Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis is a commercial process that can be used

  9. Gasification Characteristics of Coal/Biomass Mixed Fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mitchell, Reginald

    2013-09-30

    A research project was undertaken that had the overall objective of developing the models needed to accurately predict conversion rates of coal/biomass mixtures to synthesis gas under conditions relevant to a commercially-available coal gasification system configured to co- produce electric power as well as chemicals and liquid fuels. In our efforts to accomplish this goal, experiments were performed in an entrained flow reactor in order to produce coal and biomass chars at high heating rates and temperatures, typical of the heating rates and temperatures fuel particles experience in real systems. Mixed chars derived from coal/biomass mixtures containing up to 50% biomass and the chars of the pure coal and biomass components were subjected to a matrix of reactivity tests in a pressurized thermogravimetric analyzer (TGA) in order to obtain data on mass loss rates as functions of gas temperature, pressure and composition as well as to obtain information on the variations in mass specific surface area during char conversion under kinetically-limited conditions. The experimental data were used as targets when determining the unknown parameters in the chemical reactivity and specific surface area models developed. These parameters included rate coefficients for the reactions in the reaction mechanism, enthalpies of formation and absolute entropies of adsorbed species formed on the carbonaceous surfaces, and pore structure coefficients in the model used to describe how the mass specific surface area of the char varies with conversion. So that the reactivity models can be used at high temperatures when mass transport processes impact char conversion rates, Thiele modulus – effectiveness factor relations were also derived for the reaction mechanisms developed. In addition, the reactivity model and a mode of conversion model were combined in a char-particle gasification model that includes the effects of chemical reaction and diffusion of reactive gases through particle

  10. Huaian Huapeng Biomass Electricity Co | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Huaian Huapeng Biomass Electricity Co Jump to: navigation, search Name: Huaian Huapeng Biomass Electricity Co. Place: Jiangsu Province, China Sector: Biomass Product: China-based...

  11. NETL, USDA design coal-stabilized biomass gasification unit

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2008-09-30

    Coal, poultry litter, contaminated corn, rice hulls, moldly hay, manure sludge - these are representative materials that could be tested as fuel feedstocks in a hybrid gasification/combustion concept studied in a recent US Department of Energy (DOE) design project. DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) collaborated to develop a design concept of a power system that incorporates Hybrid Biomass Gasification. This system would explore the use of a wide range of biomass and agricultural waste products as gasifier feedstocks. The plant, if built, would supply one-third of electrical and steam heating needs at the USDA's Beltsville (Maryland) Agricultural Research Center. 1 fig., 1 photo.

  12. Chicopee Electric Biomass Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    2006 Database Retrieved from "http:en.openei.orgwindex.php?titleChicopeeElectricBiomassFacility&oldid397321" Feedback Contact needs updating Image needs updating...

  13. Halifax Electric Biomass Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    2006 Database Retrieved from "http:en.openei.orgwindex.php?titleHalifaxElectricBiomassFacility&oldid397540" Feedback Contact needs updating Image needs updating...

  14. Mini-biomass electric generation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Elliot, G.

    1997-12-01

    Awareness of the living standards achieved by others has resulted in a Russian population which is yearning for a higher standard of living. Such a situation demands access to affordable electricity in remote areas. Remote energy requirements creates the need to transport power or fossil fuels over long distances. Application of local renewable energy resources could eliminate the need for and costs of long distance power supply. Vast forest resources spread over most of Russia make biomass an ideal renewable energy candidate for many off-grid villages. The primary objective for this preliminary evaluation is to examine the economic feasibility of replacing distillate and gasoline fuels with local waste biomass as the primary fuel for village energy in outlying regions of Russia. Approximately 20 million people live in regions where Russia`s Unified Electric System grid does not penetrate. Most of these people are connected to smaller independent power grids, but approximately 8 million Russians live in off-grid villages and small towns served by stand-alone generation systems using either diesel fuel or gasoline. The off-grid villages depend on expensive distillate fuels and gasoline for combustion in small boilers and engines. These fuels are used for both electricity generation and district heating. Typically, diesel generator systems with a capacity of up to 1 MW serve a collective farm, settlement and their rural enterprises (there are an estimated 10,000 such systems in Russia). Smaller gasoline-fueled generator systems with capacities in the range of 0.5 - 5 kW serve smaller farms or rural enterprises (there are about 60,000 such systems in Russia).

  15. NO reduction in decoupling combustion of biomass and biomass-coal blend

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Li Dong; Shiqiu Gao; Wenli Song; Jinghai Li; Guangwen Xu

    2009-01-15

    Biomass is a form of energy that is CO{sub 2}-neutral. However, NOx emissions in biomass combustion are often more than that of coal on equal heating-value basis. In this study, a technology called decoupling combustion was investigated to demonstrate how it reduces NO emissions in biomass and biomass-coal blend combustion. The decoupling combustion refers to a two-step combustion method, in which fuel pyrolysis and the burning of char and pyrolysis gas are separated and the gas burns out during its passage through the burning-char bed. Tests in a quartz dual-bed reactor demonstrated that, in decoupling combustion, NO emissions from biomass and biomass-coal blends were both less than those in traditional combustion and that NO emission from combustion of blends of biomass and coal decreased with increasing biomass percentage in the blend. Co-firing rice husk and coal in a 10 kW stove manufactured according to the decoupling combustion technology further confirmed that the decoupling combustion technology allows for truly low NO emission as well as high efficiency for burning biomass and biomass-coal blends, even in small-scale stoves and boilers. 22 refs., 6 figs., 1 tab.

  16. Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass Presented at the U.S. Department of Energy sponsored a Light Duty Vehicle Workshop in Washington, D.C. on July 26, 2010. liquid_trans_tech.pdf (584.34 KB) More Documents & Publications February GBTL Webinar GBTL Workshop GHG Emissions HEFA and Fischer-Tropsch Jet Fuel Cost Analyses

  17. Biomass Gas Electric LLC BG E | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Gas Electric LLC BG E Jump to: navigation, search Name: Biomass Gas & Electric LLC (BG&E) Place: Norcross, Georgia Zip: 30092 Sector: Biomass Product: Project developer...

  18. Fact #844: October 27, 2014 Electricity Generated from Coal has...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Electricity Generated from Coal has Declined while Generation from Natural Gas has Grown Fact 844: October 27, 2014 Electricity Generated from Coal has Declined while ...

  19. 2015 Gasification Systems and Coal and Coal-Biomass to Liquids Workshop |

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    netl.doe.gov 5 Gasification Systems and Coal & Coal-Biomass to Liquids Workshop Workshop Summary Additional materials will be added when they are received from the author. Presentations Monday, August 10, 2015 Welcome and Introduction Jenny Tennant, Technology Manager for Gasification and C&CBTL U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory Wyoming Coal's Role in the World-Recent Past, Present and Future Don Collins, CEO of the Western Research Institute SESSION I

  20. Biomass and Coal into Liquid Fuel with CO2 Capture - Energy Innovation...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Find More Like This Return to Search Biomass and Coal into Liquid Fuel with CO2 Capture New Single-step hydrolysis process co-converts coal and any biomass to liquid fuel Savannah ...

  1. ,,,,,,"Coal Components",,,"Coke",,,"Electricity Components",...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ...Subbituminous",,"Coal","Petroleum","Electricity","from ... ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",4,26,0,6,0,6,... 324110," Petroleum Refineries",3,79,0,25,0,25,0,0,0,4...

  2. Fact #844: October 27, 2014 Electricity Generated from Coal has...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Generated from Coal has Declined while Generation from Natural Gas has Grown - Dataset Fact 844: October 27, 2014 Electricity Generated from Coal has Declined while ...

  3. Biomass cofiring: another way to clean your coal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eisenstat, L.; Weinstein, A.; Wellner, S.

    2009-07-15

    Demand for renewable power is burgeoning as state government impose increasingly rigorous environmental and procurement standards on the energy industry. Surprisingly, biomass cofiring has yet to attract much attention, even though it could help many utilities meet their renewable portfolio requirements, reduce carbon emissions, and solve other regional environmental problems. US developers, investors, and regulators should consider including cofiring as part of the energy mix going forward. This is the message of the article. Currently 28 US states and the District of Columbia have mandatory renewable portfolio standard (RPS) regimes and congress has both federal RPS and a national carbon regulation regime as top priority this session. Henry Waxman's RPS proposal, how HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 includes cofiring as a renewable energy source. These options for cofiring biomass with a coal-fired power plant - direct, indirect and paralled cofiring are outlined. 2 figs., 1 photo.

  4. Coal based electric generation comparative technologies report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1989-10-26

    Ohio Clean Fuels, Inc., (OCF) has licensed technology that involves Co-Processing (Co-Pro) poor grade (high sulfur) coal and residual oil feedstocks to produce clean liquid fuels on a commercial scale. Stone Webster is requested to perform a comparative technologies report for grassroot plants utilizing coal as a base fuel. In the case of Co-Processing technology the plant considered is the nth plant in a series of applications. This report presents the results of an economic comparison of this technology with other power generation technologies that use coal. Technologies evaluated were:Co-Processing integrated with simple cycle combustion turbine generators, (CSC); Co-Processing integrated with combined cycle combustion turbine generators, (CCC); pulverized coal-fired boiler with flue gas desulfurization and steam turbine generator, (PC) and Circulating fluidized bed boiler and steam turbine generator, (CFB). Conceptual designs were developed. Designs were based on approximately equivalent net electrical output for each technology. A base case of 310 MWe net for each technology was established. Sensitivity analyses at other net electrical output sizes varying from 220 MWe's to 1770 MWe's were also performed. 4 figs., 9 tabs.

  5. MINIMIZING NET CO2 EMISSIONS BY OXIDATIVE CO-PYROLYSIS OF COAL / BIOMASS BLENDS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Todd Lang; Robert Hurt

    2001-12-23

    This study presents a set of thermodynamic calculations on the optimal mode of solid fuel utilization considering a wide range of fuel types and processing technologies. The technologies include stand-alone combustion, biomass/coal cofiring, oxidative pyrolysis, and straight carbonization with no energy recovery but with elemental carbon storage. The results show that the thermodynamically optimal way to process solid fuels depends strongly on the specific fuels and technologies available, the local demand for heat or for electricity, and the local baseline energy-production method. Burning renewable fuels reduces anthropogenic CO{sub 2} emissions as widely recognized. In certain cases, however, other processing methods are equally or more effective, including the simple carbonization or oxidative pyrolysis of biomass fuels.

  6. EPRI-USDOE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT: COFIRING BIOMASS WITH COAL

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    David A. Tillman

    2001-09-01

    The entire Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) cofiring program has been in existence of some 9 years. This report presents a summary of the major elements of that program, focusing upon the following questions: (1) In pursuit of increased use of renewable energy in the US economy, why was electricity generation considered the most promising target, and why was cofiring pursued as the most effective near-term technology to use in broadening the use of biomass within the electricity generating arena? (2) What were the unique accomplishments of EPRI before the development of the Cooperative Agreement, which made developing the partnership with EPRI a highly cost-effective approach for USDOE? (3) What were the key accomplishments of the Cooperative Agreement in the development and execution of test and demonstration programs-accomplishments which significantly furthered the process of commercializing cofiring?

  7. Levelized Costs for Nuclear, Gas and Coal for Electricity, under...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Conference: Levelized Costs for Nuclear, Gas and Coal for Electricity, under the Mexican Scenario Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Levelized Costs for Nuclear, Gas and ...

  8. South Korean energy outlook: Coal and electricity focus

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Young, E.M.; Johnson, C.J.; Li, B.

    1995-03-01

    This paper concisely outlines the capacity for Korea to generate electricity by using coal. Resources (native and imported) as well as facilities are reviewed.

  9. Biomass to Liquid Fuels and Electrical Power

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    ... Pd Nanoparticles," Nanotechnology, 23, 29404. 34 Presentations * Adhikari, S., C. Brodbeck, S. Taylor. 2012. Biomass gasification for heat and power applications. ...

  10. Reducing GHG emissions by co-utilization of coal with natural gas or biomass

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, I.M.

    2004-07-01

    Energy reserves price and security of supply issues are discussed in the context of the prospects for coal and policies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Coal is projected to remain a major source of energy, with most of the demand growth in developing countries. Currently available power-generating technologies, deploying coal with natural gas or biomass, are examined. Examples of successful, partial substitution of coal by other fuels in power stations are highlighted, including the GHG emissions reductions achieved as well as the costs where available. Among various options, hybrid gasification and parallel cofiring of coal with biomass and natural gas appear to have the greatest potential to reduce GHG emissions. Much may also be achieved by cofiring, reburning, and repowering with gas turbines. The best method differs between different power systems. Co-utilization of biomass with coal is a least-cost option to reduce GHG emissions where the fuel prices are comparable, usually due to subsidies or taxes. The role of biomass is likely to increase due to greater use of subsidies, carbon taxes, and emissions trading within the context of the Kyoto Protocol. This should provide opportunities for clean coal technology transfer and diffusion, including biomass co-utilization. 32 refs., 1 fig., 3 tabs.

  11. NEW SOLID FUELS FROM COAL AND BIOMASS WASTE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hamid Farzan

    2001-09-24

    Under DOE sponsorship, McDermott Technology, Inc. (MTI), Babcock and Wilcox Company (B and W), and Minergy Corporation developed and evaluated a sludge derived fuel (SDF) made from sewage sludge. Our approach is to dry and agglomerate the sludge, combine it with a fluxing agent, if necessary, and co-fire the resulting fuel with coal in a cyclone boiler to recover the energy and to vitrify mineral matter into a non-leachable product. This product can then be used in the construction industry. A literature search showed that there is significant variability of the sludge fuel properties from a given wastewater plant (seasonal and/or day-to-day changes) or from different wastewater plants. A large sewage sludge sample (30 tons) from a municipal wastewater treatment facility was collected, dried, pelletized and successfully co-fired with coal in a cyclone-equipped pilot. Several sludge particle size distributions were tested. Finer sludge particle size distributions, similar to the standard B and W size distribution for sub-bituminous coal, showed the best combustion and slagging performance. Up to 74.6% and 78.9% sludge was successfully co-fired with pulverized coal and with natural gas, respectively. An economic evaluation on a 25-MW power plant showed the viability of co-firing the optimum SDF in a power generation application. The return on equity was 22 to 31%, adequate to attract investors and allow a full-scale project to proceed. Additional market research and engineering will be required to verify the economic assumptions. Areas to focus on are: plant detail design and detail capital cost estimates, market research into possible project locations, sludge availability at the proposed project locations, market research into electric energy sales and renewable energy sales opportunities at the proposed project location. As a result of this program, wastes that are currently not being used and considered an environmental problem will be processed into a renewable

  12. SEP Success Story: Biomass Burner Cogenerates Jobs and Electricity from

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Lumber Mill Waste | Department of Energy Biomass Burner Cogenerates Jobs and Electricity from Lumber Mill Waste SEP Success Story: Biomass Burner Cogenerates Jobs and Electricity from Lumber Mill Waste December 6, 2011 - 11:20am Addthis Dale and Sharon Borgford, small business owners in Stevens County, WA, break ground with Peter Goldmark, Washington State Commissioner of Public Lands. The pair brought more than 75 jobs to the area with help from DOE's State Energy Program and the U.S.

  13. Demonstration of Pressurizing Coal/Biomass Mixtures Using Posimetric Solids Pump Technology

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Westendorf, Tiffany; Acharya, Harish; Cui, Zhe; Furman, Anthony; Giammattei, Mark; Rader, Jeff; Vazquez, Arturo

    2012-12-31

    This document is the Final Technical Report for a project supported by U.S. DOE NETL (Contract No. DE-FE0000507), GE Global Research, GE Energy, and Idaho National Laboratory (INL). This report discusses key project accomplishments for the period beginning August 7, 2009 and ending December 31, 2012. In this project, pressurized delivery of coal/biomass mixtures using GE Posimetric* solids pump technology was achieved in pilot scale experiments. Coal/biomass mixtures containing 10-50 wt% biomass were fed against pressures of 65-450 psi. Pressure capability increased with decreasing biomass content for a given pump design, and was linked to the interaction of highly compressible coal/biomass mixtures with the pump outlet design. Biomass pretreatment specifications for particle size and moisture content were defined based on bench-scale flowability, compressibility, friction, and permeability experiments that mimic the behavior of the Posimetric pump. A preliminary economic assessment of biomass pretreatment and pump operation for coal/biomass mixtures (CBMs) was conducted.

  14. Potential for biomass electricity in four Asian countries

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kinoshita, C.M.; Turn, S.Q.; Tantlinger, J.; Kaya, M.

    1997-12-31

    Of all forms of renewable energy, biomass offers the best near-term opportunity for supplying a significant portion of the world`s need for electric power. Biomass is especially competitive when fuel supply costs are partially defrayed as production activities associated with the processing of another product, e.g., sugar, rice, or vegetable oil. Not only do such processing situations provide cost savings, they also generate very large supplies of fuel and therefore can contribute significantly to the local energy mix. Access to ample supplies of competitively-priced biomass feedstocks is only one of several factors needed to encourage the use of biomass for power generation; equally important is a healthy market for electricity, i.e., need for large blocks of additional power and sufficient strength in the economy to attract investment in new capacity. Worldwide, the Asia-Pacific region is projected to have the greatest need for new generating capacity in the next decade and shows the highest rate of economic growth, making it an attractive market for biomass power. Also critical to the expansion of bioenergy is the adoption of positive, stable policies on energy production, distribution, and sale, that encourage the generation and use of electricity from biomass. The aforementioned three factors--adequate biomass supplies, increasing demand for electricity, and supportive policies--are examined for four Asian countries, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Information presented for each of the four countries include the types and amounts of bioresidues and their associated electric power generation potential; present and future supplies and demand for electricity; and existing or planned government and utility policies that could impact the generation and use of biomass power.

  15. Electricity from coal and utilization of coal combustion by-products

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Demirbas, A.

    2008-07-01

    Most electricity in the world is conventionally generated using coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, or hydropower. Due to environmental concerns, there is a growing interest in alternative energy sources for heat and electricity production. The major by-products obtained from coal combustion are fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) materials. The solid wastes produced in coal-fired power plants create problems for both power-generating industries and environmentalists. The coal fly ash and bottom ash samples may be used as cementitious materials.

  16. Electricity from biomass: An environmental review and strategy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1993-06-01

    This report presents an environmental assessment and strategy for the US Department of Energy Biomass Power Program. The regulatory context and the environmental impact of biomass power technologies are described, and an environmental plan for the program is suggested. The plan suggest a proactive, synergistic approach, involving multiple parties with a stake in the successful commercialization of a biomass power industry. These parties include feedstock growers, state regulators. Forest Service and agricultural agents, utilities and independent power producers, rural electric cooperatives, and environmental activists.

  17. Clean coal technologies in electric power generation: a brief overview

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Janos Beer; Karen Obenshain

    2006-07-15

    The paper talks about the future clean coal technologies in electric power generation, including pulverized coal (e.g., advanced supercritical and ultra-supercritical cycles and fluidized-bed combustion), integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), and CO{sub 2} capture technologies. 6 refs., 2 tabs.

  18. 1,"Elm Road Generating Station","Coal","Wisconsin Electric Power...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Wisconsin" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Elm Road Generating Station","Coal","Wisconsin Electric Power Co",1268 2,"Point Beach ...

  19. Coal

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Coal is the largest domestically produced source of energy in America and is used to generate a significant amount of our nation’s electricity.

  20. Biomass Burner Cogenerates Jobs and Electricity from Lumber Mill Waste |

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Department of Energy Burner Cogenerates Jobs and Electricity from Lumber Mill Waste Biomass Burner Cogenerates Jobs and Electricity from Lumber Mill Waste December 6, 2011 - 3:57pm Addthis Dale and Sharon Borgford, small business owners in Stevens County, WA, break ground with Peter Goldmark, Washington State Commissioner of Public Lands. The pair brought more than 75 jobs to the area with help from DOE's State Energy Program and the U.S. Forest Service. | Photo courtesy of Washington DNR.

  1. Product Characterization for Entrained Flow Coal/Biomass Co-Gasification

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Maghzi, Shawn; Subramanian, Ramanathan; Rizeq, George; Singh, Surinder; McDermott, John; Eiteneer, Boris; Ladd, David; Vazquez, Arturo; Anderson, Denise; Bates, Noel

    2011-12-11

    The U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE NETL) is exploring affordable technologies and processes to convert domestic coal and biomass resources to high-quality liquid hydrocarbon fuels. This interest is primarily motivated by the need to increase energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Gasification technologies represent clean, flexible and efficient conversion pathways to utilize coal and biomass resources. Substantial experience and knowledge had been developed worldwide on gasification of either coal or biomass. However, reliable data on effects of blending various biomass fuels with coal during gasification process and resulting syngas composition are lacking. In this project, GE Global Research performed a complete characterization of the gas, liquid and solid products that result from the co-gasification of coal/biomass mixtures. This work was performed using a bench-scale gasifier (BSG) and a pilot-scale entrained flow gasifier (EFG). This project focused on comprehensive characterization of the products from gasifying coal/biomass mixtures in a high-temperature, high-pressure entrained flow gasifier. Results from this project provide guidance on appropriate gas clean-up systems and optimization of operating parameters needed to develop and commercialize gasification technologies. GE's bench-scale test facility provided the bulk of high-fidelity quantitative data under temperature, heating rate, and residence time conditions closely matching those of commercial oxygen-blown entrained flow gasifiers. Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC) pilot-scale test facility provided focused high temperature and pressure tests at entrained flow gasifier conditions. Accurate matching of syngas time-temperature history during cooling ensured that complex species interactions including homogeneous and heterogeneous processes such as particle nucleation, coagulation, surface condensation, and gas

  2. Product Characterization for Entrained Flow Coal/Biomass Co-Gasification

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Maghzi, Shawn; Subramanian, Ramanathan; Rizeq, George; Singh, Surinder; McDermott, John; Eiteneer, Boris; Ladd, David; Vazquez, Arturo; Anderson, Denise; Bates, Noel

    2011-09-30

    The U.S. Department of Energy‘s National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE NETL) is exploring affordable technologies and processes to convert domestic coal and biomass resources to high-quality liquid hydrocarbon fuels. This interest is primarily motivated by the need to increase energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Gasification technologies represent clean, flexible and efficient conversion pathways to utilize coal and biomass resources. Substantial experience and knowledge had been developed worldwide on gasification of either coal or biomass. However, reliable data on effects of blending various biomass fuels with coal during gasification process and resulting syngas composition are lacking. In this project, GE Global Research performed a complete characterization of the gas, liquid and solid products that result from the co-gasification of coal/biomass mixtures. This work was performed using a bench-scale gasifier (BSG) and a pilot-scale entrained flow gasifier (EFG). This project focused on comprehensive characterization of the products from gasifying coal/biomass mixtures in a high-temperature, high-pressure entrained flow gasifier. Results from this project provide guidance on appropriate gas clean-up systems and optimization of operating parameters needed to develop and commercialize gasification technologies. GE‘s bench-scale test facility provided the bulk of high-fidelity quantitative data under temperature, heating rate, and residence time conditions closely matching those of commercial oxygen-blown entrained flow gasifiers. Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC) pilot-scale test facility provided focused high temperature and pressure tests at entrained flow gasifier conditions. Accurate matching of syngas time-temperature history during cooling ensured that complex species interactions including homogeneous and heterogeneous processes such as particle nucleation, coagulation, surface condensation, and

  3. EA-1870: Utah Coal and Biomass Fueled Pilot Plant, Kanab, Kane County, Utah

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The U.S. Department of Energy prepared an Environmental Assessment to evaluate the potential impacts of providing financial assistance to Viresco Energy, LLC, for its construction and operation of a Coal and Biomass Fueled Pilot Plant, which would be located in Kanab, Utah.

  4. DEMONSTRATION OF THE VIABILITY AND EVALUATION OF PRODUCTION COSTS FOR BIOMASS-INFUSED COAL BRIQUETTES

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kamshad, Kourosh

    2013-12-31

    This report is the final reporting installment of the DOE project titled DEMONSTRATION OF THE VIABILITY AND EVALUATION OF PRODUCTION COSTS FOR BIOMASS-INFUSED COAL BRIQUETTES. This rerport includes a summary of the work completed to date including the experimental methods used to acheive the results, discussions, conclusions and implications of the final product delivered by the project.

  5. Advanced Systems for Preprocessing and Characterizing Coal-Biomass Mixtures as Next-Generation Fuels and Feedstocks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Karmis, Michael; Luttrell, Gerald; Ripepi, Nino; Bratton, Robert; Dohm, Erich

    2014-06-30

    The research activities presented in this report are intended to address the most critical technical challenges pertaining to coal-biomass briquette feedstocks. Several detailed investigations were conducted using a variety of coal and biomass feedstocks on the topics of (1) coal-biomass briquette production and characterization, (2) gasification of coal-biomass mixtures and briquettes, (3) combustion of coal-biomass mixtures and briquettes, and (4) conceptual engineering design and economic feasibility of briquette production. The briquette production studies indicate that strong and durable co-firing feedstocks can be produced by co-briquetting coal and biomass resources commonly available in the United States. It is demonstrated that binderless coal-biomass briquettes produced at optimized conditions exhibit very high strength and durability, which indicates that such briquettes would remain competent in the presence of forces encountered in handling, storage and transportation. The gasification studies conducted demonstrate that coal-biomass mixtures and briquettes are exceptional gasification feedstocks, particularly with regard to the synergistic effects realized during devolatilization of the blended materials. The mixture combustion studies indicate that coal-biomass mixtures are exceptional combustion feedstocks, while the briquette combustion study indicates that the use of blended briquettes reduces NO{sub x}, CO{sub 2}, and CO emissions, and requires the least amount of changes in the operating conditions of an existing coal-fired power plant. Similar results were obtained for the physical durability of the pilot-scale briquettes compared to the bench-scale tests. Finally, the conceptual engineering and feasibility analysis study for a commercial-scale briquetting production facility provides preliminary flowsheet and cost simulations to evaluate the various feedstocks, equipment selection and operating parameters.

  6. Biomass Feed and Gasification

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    the feeding and conversion of biomass and coal-biomass mixtures as essential upstream ... Activities support research for handling and processing of coal-biomass mixtures, ensuring ...

  7. Co-pyrolysis of low rank coals and biomass: Product distributions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Soncini, Ryan M; Means, Nicholas C; Weiland, Nathan T

    2013-10-01

    Pyrolysis and gasification of combined low rank coal and biomass feeds are the subject of much study in an effort to mitigate the production of green house gases from integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems. While co-feeding has the potential to reduce the net carbon footprint of commercial gasification operations, the effects of co-feeding on kinetics and product distributions requires study to ensure the success of this strategy. Southern yellow pine was pyrolyzed in a semi-batch type drop tube reactor with either Powder River Basin sub-bituminous coal or Mississippi lignite at several temperatures and feed ratios. Product gas composition of expected primary constituents (CO, CO{sub 2}, CH{sub 4}, H{sub 2}, H{sub 2}O, and C{sub 2}H{sub 4}) was determined by in-situ mass spectrometry while minor gaseous constituents were determined using a GC-MS. Product distributions are fit to linear functions of temperature, and quadratic functions of biomass fraction, for use in computational co-pyrolysis simulations. The results are shown to yield significant nonlinearities, particularly at higher temperatures and for lower ranked coals. The co-pyrolysis product distributions evolve more tar, and less char, CH{sub 4}, and C{sub 2}H{sub 4}, than an additive pyrolysis process would suggest. For lignite co-pyrolysis, CO and H{sub 2} production are also reduced. The data suggests that evolution of hydrogen from rapid pyrolysis of biomass prevents the crosslinking of fragmented aromatic structures during coal pyrolysis to produce tar, rather than secondary char and light gases. Finally, it is shown that, for the two coal types tested, co-pyrolysis synergies are more significant as coal rank decreases, likely because the initial structure in these coals contains larger pores and smaller clusters of aromatic structures which are more readily retained as tar in rapid co-pyrolysis.

  8. Thermal Pretreatment of Wood for Cogasification/cofiring of Biomass and Coal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wang, Ping; Howard, Bret; Hedges, Sheila; Morreale, Bryan; Van Essendelft, Dirk; Berry, David

    2013-10-29

    Utilization of biomass as a co-feed in coal and biomass co-firing and co-gasification requires size reduction of the biomass. Reducing biomass to below 0.2 mm without pretreatment is difficult and costly because biomass is fibrous and compressible. Torrefaction is a promising thermal pretreatment process and has the advantages of increasing energy density, improving grindability, producing fuels with more homogenous compositions and hydrophobic behavior. Temperature is the most important factor for the torrefaction process. Biomass grindability is related to cell wall structure, thickness and composition. Thermal treatment such as torrefaction can cause chemical changes that significantly affect the strength of biomass. The objectives of this study are to understand the mechanism by which torrefaction improves the grindability of biomass and discuss suitable temperatures for thermal pretreatment for co-gasification/cofiring of biomass and coal. Wild cherry wood was selected as the model for this study. Samples were prepared by sawing a single tangential section from the heartwood and cutting it into eleven pieces. The samples were consecutively heated at 220, 260, 300, 350, 450 and 550oC for 0.5 hr under flowing nitrogen in a tube furnace. Untreated and treated samples were characterized for physical properties (color, dimensions and weight), microstructural changes by SEM, and cell wall composition changes and thermal behaviors by TGA and DSC. The morphology of the wood remained intact through the treatment range but the cell walls were thinner. Thermal treatments were observed to decompose the cell wall components. Hemicellulose decomposed over the range of ~200 to 300oC and resulted in weakening of the cell walls and subsequently improved grindability. Furthermore, wood samples treated above 300oC lost more than 39% in mass. Therefore, thermal pretreatment above the hemicelluloses decomposition temperature but below 300oC is probably sufficient to improve

  9. KINETIC STUDY OF COAL AND BIOMASS CO-PYROLYSIS USING THERMOGRAVIMETRY

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wang, Ping; Hedges, Sheila; Chaudharib, Kiran; Turtonb, Richard

    2013-10-29

    The objectives of this study are to investigate thermal behavior of coal and biomass blends in inert gas environment at low heating rates and to develop a simplified kinetic model using model fitting techniques based on TGA experimental data. Differences in thermal behavior and reactivity in co-pyrolysis of Powder River Basin (PRB) sub-bituminous coal and pelletized southern yellow pine wood sawdust blends at low heating rates are observed. Coal/wood blends have higher reactivity compared to coal alone in the lower temperature due to the high volatile matter content of wood. As heating rates increase, weight loss rates increase. The experiment data obtained from TGA has a better fit with proposed two step first order reactions model compared single first order reaction model.

  10. Big drop in coal-fired electricity generation during first half...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Big drop in coal-fired electricity generation during first half of 2016 The amount of U.S. electricity generated by coal continues to decline in 2016, as power plant operators turn ...

  11. Sustainable Transportation Fuels from Natural Gas (H{sub 2}), Coal and Biomass

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Huffman, Gerald

    2012-12-31

    This research program is focused primarily on the conversion of coal, natural gas (i.e., methane), and biomass to liquid fuels by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS), with minimum production of carbon dioxide. A complementary topic also under investigation is the development of novel processes for the production of hydrogen with very low to zero production of CO{sub 2}. This is in response to the nation's urgent need for a secure and environmentally friendly domestic source of liquid fuels. The carbon neutrality of biomass is beneficial in meeting this goal. Several additional novel approaches to limiting carbon dioxide emissions are also being explored.

  12. Potential for electricity generation from biomass residues in Cuba

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lora, E.S.

    1995-11-01

    The purpose of this paper is the study of the availability of major biomass residues in Cuba and the analysis of the electricity generation potential by using different technologies. An analysis of the changes in the country`s energy balance from 1988 up to date is presented, as well as a table with the availability study results and the energy equivalent for the following biomass residues: sugar cane bagasse and trash, rice and coffee husk, corn an cassava stalks and firewood. A total equivalent of 4.42 10{sup 6} tons/year of fuel-oil was obtained. Possible scenarios for the electricity production increase in the sugar industry are presented too. The analysis is carried out for a high stream parameter CEST and two BIG/GT system configurations. Limitations are introduced about the minimal milling capacity of the sugar mills for each technology. The calculated {open_quotes}real{close_quotes} electricity generation potential for BIG/GT systems, based on GE LM5000 CC gas turbines, an actual cane harvest of 58.0 10{sup 6} tons/year, half the available trash utilization and an specific steam consumption of 210 kg/tc, was 18601,0 GWh/year. Finally different alternatives are presented for low-scale electricity generation based on the other available agricultural residues.

  13. Acetylene from the co-pyrolysis of biomass and waste tires or coal in the H{sub 2}/Ar plasma

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bao, W.; Cao, Q.; Lv, Y.; Chang, L.

    2008-07-01

    Acetylene from carbon-containing materials via plasma pyrolysis is not only simple but also environmentally friendly. In this article, the acetylene produced from co-pyrolyzing biomass with waste tire or coal under the conditions of H{sub 2}/Ar DC arc plasma jet was investigated. The experimental results showed that the co-pyrolysis of mixture with biomass and waste tire or coal can improve largely the acetylene relative volume fraction (RVF) in gaseous products and the corresponding yield of acetylene. The change trends for the acetylene yield of plasma pyrolysis from mixture with raw sample properties were the same as relevant RVF. But the yield change trend with feeding rate is different from its RVF. The effects of the feeding rate of raw materials and the electric current of plasmatron on acetylene formation are also discussed.

  14. Biomass

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Transportation Energy Co-Evolution of Biofuels Lignocellulosic Biomass Microalgae ... HomeBiomass Permalink One-Pot-to-Prep Biomass for Biofuels Biofuels, Biomass, Energy, ...

  15. Design Concepts for Co-Production of Power, Fuels & Chemicals Via Coal/Biomass Mixtures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rao, A. D.; Chen, Q.; Samuelsen, G. S.

    2012-09-30

    The overall goal of the program is to develop design concepts, incorporating advanced technologies in areas such as oxygen production, feed systems, gas cleanup, component separations and gas turbines, for integrated and economically viable coal and biomass fed gasification facilities equipped with carbon capture and storage for the following scenarios: (i) coproduction of power along with hydrogen, (ii) coproduction of power along with fuels, (iii) coproduction of power along with petrochemicals, and (iv) coproduction of power along with agricultural chemicals. To achieve this goal, specifically the following objectives are met in this proposed project: (i) identify advanced technology options and innovative preliminary design concepts that synergistically integrate plant subsections, (ii) develop steady state system simulations to predict plant efficiency and environmental signature, (iii) develop plant cost estimates by capacity factoring major subsystems or by major equipment items where required, and then capital, operating and maintenance cost estimates, and (iv) perform techno- economic analyses for the above described coproduction facilities. Thermal efficiencies for the electricity only cases with 90% carbon capture are 38.26% and 36.76% (HHV basis) with the bituminous and the lignite feedstocks respectively. For the coproduction cases (where 50% of the energy exported is in the form of electricity), the electrical efficiency, as expected, is highest for the hydrogen coproduction cases while lowest for the higher alcohols (ethanol) coproduction cases. The electrical efficiencies for Fischer-Tropsch coproduction cases are slightly higher than those for the methanol coproduction cases but it should be noted that the methanol (as well as the higher alcohol) coproduction cases produce the finished coproduct while the Fischer-Tropsch coproduction cases produce a coproduct that requires further processing in a refinery. The cross comparison of the thermal

  16. A LOW COST AND HIGH QUALITY SOLID FUEL FROM BIOMASS AND COAL FINES

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    John T. Kelly; George Miller; Mehdi Namazian

    2001-07-01

    Use of biomass wastes as fuels in existing boilers would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, SO2 and NOx emissions, while beneficially utilizing wastes. However, the use of biomass has been limited by its low energy content and density, high moisture content, inconsistent configuration and decay characteristics. If biomass is upgraded by conventional methods, the cost of the fuel becomes prohibitive. Altex has identified a process, called the Altex Fuel Pellet (AFP) process, that utilizes a mixture of biomass wastes, including municipal biosolids, and some coal fines, to produce a strong, high energy content, good burning and weather resistant fuel pellet, that is lower in cost than coal. This cost benefit is primarily derived from fees that are collected for accepting municipal biosolids. Besides low cost, the process is also flexible and can incorporate several biomass materials of interest The work reported on herein showed the technical and economic feasibility of the AFP process. Low-cost sawdust wood waste and light fractions of municipal wastes were selected as key biomass wastes to be combined with biosolids and coal fines to produce AFP pellets. The process combines steps of dewatering, pellet extrusion, drying and weatherizing. Prior to pilot-scale tests, bench-scale test equipment was used to produce limited quantities of pellets for characterization. These tests showed which pellet formulations had a high potential. Pilot-scale tests then showed that extremely robust pellets could be produced that have high energy content, good density and adequate weatherability. It was concluded that these pellets could be handled, stored and transported using equipment similar to that used for coal. Tests showed that AFP pellets have a high combustion rate when burned in a stoker type systems. While NOx emissions under stoker type firing conditions was high, a simple air staging approach reduced emissions to below that for coal. In pulverized-fuel-fired tests it was

  17. CO-FIRING COAL: FEEDLOT AND LITTER BIOMASS (CFB AND CLB) FUELS IN PULVERIZED FUEL AND FIXED BED BURNERS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kalyan Annamalai; John Sweeten; Saqib Mukhtar; Ben Thein; Gengsheng Wei; Soyuz Priyadarsan; Senthil Arumugam; Kevin Heflin

    2003-08-28

    Intensive animal feeding operations create large amounts of animal waste that must be safely disposed of in order to avoid environmental degradation. Cattle feedlots and chicken houses are two examples. In feedlots, cattle are confined to small pens and fed a high calorie grain-diet diet in preparation for slaughter. In chicken houses, thousands of chickens are kept in close proximity. In both of these operations, millions of tons of manure are produced every year. The manure could be used as a fuel by mixing it with coal in a 90:10 blend and firing it in an existing coal suspension fired combustion systems. This technique is known as co-firing, and the high temperatures produced by the coal will allow the biomass to be completely combusted. Reburn is a process where a small percentage of fuel called reburn fuel is injected above the NO{sub x} producing, conventional coal fired burners in order to reduce NO{sub x}. The manure could also be used as reburn fuel for reducing NO{sub x} in coal fired plants. An alternate approach of using animal waste is to adopt the gasification process using a fixed bed gasifier and then use the gases for firing in gas turbine combustors. In this report, the cattle manure is referred to as feedlot biomass (FB) and chicken manure as litter biomass (LB). The report generates data on FB and LB fuel characteristics. Co-firing, reburn, and gasification tests of coal, FB, LB, coal: FB blends, and coal: LB blends and modeling on cofiring, reburn systems and economics of use of FB and LB have also been conducted. The biomass fuels are higher in ash, lower in heat content, higher in moisture, and higher in nitrogen and sulfur (which can cause air pollution) compared to coal. Small-scale cofiring experiments revealed that the biomass blends can be successfully fired, and NO{sub x} emissions will be similar to or lower than pollutant emissions when firing coal. Further experiments showed that biomass is twice or more effective than coal when

  18. Formulation, Pretreatment, and Densification Options to Improve Biomass Specifications for Co-Firing High Percentages with Coal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jaya Shankar Tumuluru; J Richard Hess; Richard D. Boardman; Shahab Sokhansanj; Christopher T. Wright; Tyler L. Westover

    2012-06-01

    There is a growing interest internationally to use more biomass for power generation, given the potential for significant environmental benefits and long-term fuel sustainability. However, the use of biomass alone for power generation is subject to serious challenges, such as feedstock supply reliability, quality, and stability, as well as comparative cost, except in situations in which biomass is locally sourced. In most countries, only a limited biomass supply infrastructure exists. Alternatively, co-firing biomass alongwith coal offers several advantages; these include reducing challenges related to biomass quality, buffering the system against insufficient feedstock quantity, and mitigating the costs of adapting existing coal power plants to feed biomass exclusively. There are some technical constraints, such as low heating values, low bulk density, and grindability or size-reduction challenges, as well as higher moisture, volatiles, and ash content, which limit the co-firing ratios in direct and indirect co-firing. To achieve successful co-firing of biomass with coal, biomass feedstock specifications must be established to direct pretreatment options in order to modify biomass materials into a format that is more compatible with coal co-firing. The impacts on particle transport systems, flame stability, pollutant formation, and boiler-tube fouling/corrosion must also be minimized by setting feedstock specifications, which may include developing new feedstock composition by formulation or blending. Some of the issues, like feeding, co-milling, and fouling, can be overcome by pretreatment methods including washing/leaching, steam explosion, hydrothermal carbonization, and torrefaction, and densification methods such as pelletizing and briquetting. Integrating formulation, pretreatment, and densification will help to overcome issues related to physical and chemical composition, storage, and logistics to successfully co-fire higher percentages of biomass ( > 40

  19. A supply chain network design model for biomass co-firing in coal-fired power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Md. S. Roni; Sandra D. Eksioglu; Erin Searcy; Krishna Jha

    2014-01-01

    We propose a framework for designing the supply chain network for biomass co-firing in coal-fired power plants. This framework is inspired by existing practices with products with similar physical characteristics to biomass. We present a hub-and-spoke supply chain network design model for long-haul delivery of biomass. This model is a mixed integer linear program solved using benders decomposition algorithm. Numerical analysis indicates that 100 million tons of biomass are located within 75 miles from a coal plant and could be delivered at $8.53/dry-ton; 60 million tons of biomass are located beyond 75 miles and could be delivered at $36/dry-ton.

  20. Research and development to prepare and characterize robust coal/biomass mixtures for direct co-feeding into gasification systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Felix, Larry; Farthing, William; Hoekman, S. Kent

    2014-12-31

    This project was initiated on October 1, 2010 and utilizes equipment and research supported by the Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, under Award Number DE- FE0005349. It is also based upon previous work supported by the Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, under Award Numbers DOE-DE-FG36-01GOl1082, DE-FG36-02G012011 or DE-EE0000272. The overall goal of the work performed was to demonstrate and assess the economic viability of fast hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) for transforming lignocellulosic biomass into a densified, friable fuel to gasify like coal that can be easily blended with ground coal and coal fines and then be formed into robust, weather-resistant pellets and briquettes. The specific objectives of the project include: • Demonstration of the continuous production of a uniform densified and formed feedstock from loblolly pine (a lignocellulosic, short rotation woody crop) in a hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) process development unit (PDU). • Demonstration that finely divided bituminous coal and HTC loblolly pine can be blended to form 90/10 and 70/30 weight-percent mixtures of coal and HTC biomass for further processing by pelletization and briquetting equipment to form robust weather resistant pellets and/or briquettes suitable for transportation and long term storage. • Characterization of the coal-biomass pellets and briquettes to quantify their physical properties (e.g. flow properties, homogeneity, moisture content, particle size and shape), bulk physical properties (e.g. compressibility, heat transfer and friability) and assess their suitability for use as fuels for commercially-available coal gasifiers. • Perform economic analyses using Aspen-based process simulations to determine the costs for deploying and operating HTC processing facilities for the production of robust coal/biomass fuels suitable for fueling commercially-available coal-fired gasifiers. This Final Project Scientific

  1. Secured electrical supply at least cost: Coal, gas, nuclear, hydro

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gavor, J.; Stary, O.; Vasicek, J.

    1995-12-01

    Electric power sector in East Central European countries finds in a difficult period. In the situation of demand stagnation, enormous investments must be realized in a very short time. Today`s decisions in the development strategy will influence the long term future of the industry. The optimal structure of the sources is one of the most important problem to be solved. Paper describes the current structure of the sources in electric power sector in the Czech Republic. The importance of coal, oil and gas, nuclear and hydro in electric power generation is compared. Taking into account the different position in the load coverage, economy of individual sources is evaluated and basic results of discounted cash flow calculations are presented. Information on specific investment programs and projects are included and further trends are estimated.

  2. Dairy Biomass-Wyoming Coal Blends Fixed Gasification Using Air-Steam for Partial Oxidation

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Gordillo, Gerardo; Annamalai, Kalyan

    2012-01-01

    Concenmore » trated animal feeding operations such as dairies produce a large amount of manure, termed as dairy biomass (DB), which could serve as renewable feedstock for thermal gasification. DB is a low-quality fuel compared to fossil fuels, and hence the product gases have lower heat content; however, the quality of gases can be improved by blending with coals. This paper deals with air-steam fixed-bed counterflow gasification of dairy biomass-Wyoming coal blend (DBWC). The effects of equivalence ratio ( 1.6 < Φ < 6.4 ) and steam-to-fuel ratio ( 0.4 < S : F < 0.8 ) on peak temperatures, gas composition, gross heating value of the products, and energy recovery are presented. According to experimental results, increasing Φ and ( S : F ) ratios decreases the peak temperature and increases the H 2 and CO 2 production, while CO production decreases. On the other hand, the concentrations of CH 4 and C 2 H 6 were lower compared to those of other gases and almost not affected by Φ.« less

  3. The Market for Coal Based Electric Power Generation

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    ... Market for New Coal Power Plant Technology 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Coal-Fired Plant Capacity (GW) EIA Projected Coal ...

  4. Fly ash and concrete: a study determines whether biomass, or coal co-firing fly ash, can be used in concrete

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wang, Shuangzhen; Baxter, Larry

    2006-08-01

    Current US national standards for using fly ash in concrete (ASTM C618) state that fly ash must come from coal combustion, thus precluding biomass-coal co-firing fly ash. The co-fired ash comes from a large and increasing fraction of US power plants due to rapid increases in co-firing opportunity fuels with coal. The fly ashes include coal fly ash, wood fly ash from pure wood combustion, biomass and coal co-fired fly ash SW1 and SW2. Also wood fly ash is blended with Class C or Class F to produce Wood C and Wood E. Concrete samples were prepared with fly ash replacing cement by 25%. All fly ash mixes except wood have a lower water demand than the pure cement mix. Fly ashes, either from coal or non coal combustion, increase the required air entraining agent (AEA) to meet the design specification of the mixes. If AEA is added arbitrarily without considering the amount or existence of fly ash results could lead to air content in concrete that is either too low or too high. Biomass fly ash does not impact concrete setting behaviour disproportionately. Switch grass-coal co-fired fly ash and blended wood fly ash generally lie within the range of pure coal fly ash strength. The 56 day flexure strength of all the fly ash mixes is comparable to that of the pure cement mix. The flexure strength from the coal-biomass co-fired fly ash does not differ much from pure coal fly ash. All fly ash concrete mixes exhibit lower chloride permeability than the pure cement mixes. In conclusion biomass coal co-fired fly ash perform similarly to coal fly ash in fresh and hardened concrete. As a result, there is no reason to exclude biomass-coal co-fired fly ash in concrete.

  5. List of Geothermal Electric Incentives | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Coal with CCS Concentrating Solar Power Energy Storage Fuel Cells Geothermal Electric Natural Gas Nuclear Tidal Energy Wave Energy Wind energy BiomassBiogas Hydroelectric...

  6. Fact #844: October 27, 2014 Electricity Generated from Coal has Declined while Generation from Natural Gas has Grown

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    From 2002 to 2012, most states have reduced their reliance on coal for electricity generation. The figure below shows the percent change in electricity generated by coal and natural gas for each...

  7. Small-Scale Coal-Biomass to Liquids Production Using Highly Selective Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gangwal, Santosh K.; McCabe, Kevin

    2015-04-30

    The research project advanced coal-to-liquids (CTL) and coal-biomass to liquids (CBTL) processes by testing and validating Chevron’s highly selective and active cobalt-zeolite hybrid Fischer-Tropsch (FT) catalyst to convert gasifier syngas predominantly to gasoline, jet fuel and diesel range hydrocarbon liquids, thereby eliminating expensive wax upgrading operations The National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC) operated by Southern Company (SC) at Wilsonville, Alabama served as the host site for the gasifier slip-stream testing/demonstration. Southern Research designed, installed and commissioned a bench scale skid mounted FT reactor system (SR-CBTL test rig) that was fully integrated with a slip stream from SC/NCCC’s transport integrated gasifier (TRIGTM). The test-rig was designed to receive up to 5 lb/h raw syngas augmented with bottled syngas to adjust the H2/CO molar ratio to 2, clean it to cobalt FT catalyst specifications, and produce liquid FT products at the design capacity of 2 to 4 L/day. It employed a 2-inch diameter boiling water jacketed fixed-bed heat-exchange FT reactor incorporating Chevron’s catalyst in Intramicron’s high thermal conductivity micro-fibrous entrapped catalyst (MFEC) packing to efficiently remove heat produced by the highly exothermic FT reaction.

  8. MINIMIZING NET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY OXIDATIVE CO-PYROLYSIS OF COAL/BIOMASS BLENDS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Robert Hurt; Todd Lang

    2001-06-25

    Solid fuels vary significantly with respect to the amount of CO{sub 2} directly produced per unit heating value. Elemental carbon is notably worse than other solid fuels in this regard, and since carbon (char) is an intermediate product of the combustion of almost all solid fuels, there is an opportunity to reduce specific CO{sub 2} emissions by reconfiguring processes to avoid char combustion wholly or in part. The primary goal of this one-year Innovative Concepts project is to make a fundamental thermodynamic assessment of three modes of solid fuel use: (1) combustion, (2) carbonization, and (3) oxidative pyrolysis, for a wide range of coal and alternative solid fuels. This period a large set of thermodynamic calculations were carried out to assess the potential of the three processes. The results show that the net carbon dioxide emissions and the relative ranking of the different processes depends greatly on the particular baseline fossil fuel being displaced by the new technology. As an example, in a baseline natural gas environment, it is thermodynamically more advantageous to carbonize biomass than to combust it, and even more advantageous to oxidatively pyrolyze the biomass.

  9. ,,,,,,"Coal Components",,,"Coke",,,"Electricity Components",,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Natural Gas Components",,,"Steam Components"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.1;" " Unit: Percents." ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Selected Wood and Other Biomass Components" ,,,,,,"Coal Components",,,"Coke",,,"Electricity Components",,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Natural Gas Components",,,"Steam Components" " "," ",,,,,,,,,,,,,"Total",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Wood Residues",,,," " " "," ","

  10. Biomass Fired Electricity Generation Market | OpenEI Community

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Fired Electricity Generation Market Home There are currently no posts in this category. Syndicate...

  11. Feasibility Study of Biomass Electrical Generation on Tribal Lands

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tom Roche; Richard Hartmann; Joohn Luton; Warren Hudelson; Roger Blomguist; Jan Hacker; Colene Frye

    2005-03-29

    The goals of the St. Croix Tribe are to develop economically viable energy production facilities using readily available renewable biomass fuel sources at an acceptable cost per kilowatt hour ($/kWh), to provide new and meaningful permanent employment, retain and expand existing employment (logging) and provide revenues for both producers and sellers of the finished product. This is a feasibility study including an assessment of available biomass fuel, technology assessment, site selection, economics viability given the foreseeable fuel and generation costs, as well as an assessment of the potential markets for renewable energy.

  12. (Assessment of the potential of Yunnan Province, China to grow and convert biomass to electricity)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Perlack, R.D.

    1990-10-15

    The purpose of the trip was to conduct a preliminary evaluation of biomass energy development in Yunnan Province, China. The evaluation included an assessment of the potential to grow and convert biomass to electricity, and an evaluation of the institutional relationships, which would be critical to the establishment of a collaborative biomass energy development project. This site visit was undertaken to evaluate the potential of an integrated biomass energy project, including the growing and handling of biomass feedstocks and its conversion to electricity. Based on this site visit, it was concluded that biomass production risks are real and further research on species screening and experiments is necessary before proceeding to the conversion phase of this project. The location of potential sites inspected and the logistics required for handling and transporting biomass may also be a concern. The commitment of support (labor and land) and leadership to this project by the Chinese is overwhelming exceeding all pre-site visit expectations. In sum, there is a definite opportunity in Yunnan for an integrated biomass energy project and a potential market for US technology.

  13. Utility to Purchase Electricity from Innovative DOE-Supported Clean Coal Project

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    An innovative clean coal technology project in Texas will supply electricity to the largest municipally owned utility in the United States under a recently signed Power Purchase Agreement, the U.S. Department of Energy announced today.

  14. Construction Begins on First-of-its-Kind Advanced Clean Coal Electric

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Generating Facility | Department of Energy Construction Begins on First-of-its-Kind Advanced Clean Coal Electric Generating Facility Construction Begins on First-of-its-Kind Advanced Clean Coal Electric Generating Facility September 10, 2007 - 3:16pm Addthis ORLANDO, Fla. - Officials representing the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Southern Company, KBR Inc. and the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) today broke ground to begin construction of an advanced 285-megawatt integrated

  15. NREL: Energy Analysis - Coal-Fired Electricity Generation Results...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    gasification combine cycle (IGCC), fluidized bed (FB), and supercritical pulverized coal-combustion technologies), NREL developed and applied a systematic approach to review life ...

  16. AEO 2015 Electricity, Coal, Nuclear and Renewables Preliminary...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    arrangements for coal plants upon expiration - ... - Retire Intermountain plant in 2025 * California ... power sector natural gas-fired generation is lower in ...

  17. Should we transport coal, gas, or electricity: cost, efficiency, and environmental implications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Joule A. Bergerson; Lester B. Lave

    2005-08-15

    The authors examine the life cycle costs, environmental discharges, and deaths of moving coal via rail, coal to synthetic natural gas via pipeline, and electricity via wire from the Powder River Basin (PRB) in Wyoming to Texas. Which method has least social cost depends on how much additional investment in rail line, transmission, or pipeline infrastructure is required, as well as how much and how far energy is transported. If the existing rail lines have unused capacity, coal by rail is the cheapest method (up to 200 miles of additional track could be added). If no infrastructure exists, greater distances and larger amounts of energy favor coal by rail and gasified coal by pipeline over electricity transmission. For 1,000 miles and 9 gigawatts of power, a gas pipeline is cheapest, has less environmental discharges, uses less land, and is least obtrusive. 28 refs., 4 figs., 3 tabs.

  18. Subtask 7.4 - Power River Basin Subbituminous Coal-Biomass Cogasification Testing in a Transport Reactor

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Michael Swanson; Daniel Laudal

    2009-03-01

    ratio. Higher-reactivity (low-rank) coals appear to perform better in a transport reactor than the less reactive bituminous coals. Factors that affect TRDU product gas quality appear to be coal type, temperature, and oxygen/fuel ratios. During this series of tests, a previously tested baseline Powder River Basin (PRB) subbituminous coal from the Peabody Energy North Antelope Rochelle Mine near Gillette, Wyoming was mixed with 20 wt% biomass. Two types of biomass were used - wood waste and switchgrass. Gas and particulate sampling at several locations in the riser provided information on coal devolatilization and cracking chemistry as a function of residence time, transport gas, and mode of operation. The goal of these tests was to compare the operating data and sample chemistry of the coal-biomass mixture to the PRB coal, with a focus on Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-liquid production in oxygen-blown mode. Data are to be provided to DOE to determine kinetic rates of devolatilization and tar cracking.

  19. Rail Coal Transportation Rates to the Electric Power Sector

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    modes, the Coal Waybill Data is based only on rail shipments. Due to the different nature of the data sources, users should exercise caution when attempting to combine the two...

  20. Thermal Pretreatment of Wood for Cogasification/cofiring of Biomass...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    ...cofiring of Biomass and Coal Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Thermal Pretreatment of Wood for Cogasificationcofiring of Biomass and Coal Utilization of biomass as a ...

  1. 1,"Coal Creek","Coal","Great River Energy",1144.5 2,"Antelope Valley","Coal","Basin Electric Power Coop",900

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Dakota" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Coal Creek","Coal","Great River Energy",1144.5 2,"Antelope Valley","Coal","Basin Electric Power Coop",900 3,"Milton R Young","Coal","Minnkota Power Coop, Inc",684 4,"Leland Olds","Coal","Basin Electric Power Coop",667

  2. Fact #844: October 27, 2014 Electricity Generated from Coal has Declined while Generation from Natural Gas has Grown – Dataset

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Excel file with dataset for Fact #844: Electricity Generated from Coal has Declined while Generation from Natural Gas has Grown

  3. Biomass Energy for Transport and Electricity: Large scale utilization under low CO2 concentration scenarios

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Luckow, Patrick; Wise, Marshall A.; Dooley, James J.; Kim, Son H.

    2010-01-25

    This paper examines the potential role of large scale, dedicated commercial biomass energy systems under global climate policies designed to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at 400ppm and 450ppm. We use an integrated assessment model of energy and agriculture systems to show that, given a climate policy in which terrestrial carbon is appropriately valued equally with carbon emitted from the energy system, biomass energy has the potential to be a major component of achieving these low concentration targets. The costs of processing and transporting biomass energy at much larger scales than current experience are also incorporated into the modeling. From the scenario results, 120-160 EJ/year of biomass energy is produced by midcentury and 200-250 EJ/year by the end of this century. In the first half of the century, much of this biomass is from agricultural and forest residues, but after 2050 dedicated cellulosic biomass crops become the dominant source. A key finding of this paper is the role that carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technologies coupled with commercial biomass energy can play in meeting stringent emissions targets. Despite the higher technology costs of CCS, the resulting negative emissions used in combination with biomass are a very important tool in controlling the cost of meeting a target, offsetting the venting of CO2 from sectors of the energy system that may be more expensive to mitigate, such as oil use in transportation. The paper also discusses the role of cellulosic ethanol and Fischer-Tropsch biomass derived transportation fuels and shows that both technologies are important contributors to liquid fuels production, with unique costs and emissions characteristics. Through application of the GCAM integrated assessment model, it becomes clear that, given CCS availability, bioenergy will be used both in electricity and transportation.

  4. Demonstration of a Piston Plug feed System for Feeding Coal/Biomass Mixtures across a Pressure Gradient for Application to a Commercial CBTL System

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Santosh Gangwal

    2011-06-30

    Producing liquid transportation fuels and power via coal and biomass to liquids (CBTL) and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) processes can significantly improve the nation's energy security. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandates increasing renewable fuels nearly 10-fold to >2.3 million barrels per day by 2022. Coal is abundantly available and coal to liquids (CTL) plants can be deployed today, but they will not become sustainable without large scale CO{sub 2} capture and storage. Co-processing of coal and biomass in CBTL processes in a 60 to 40 ratio is an attractive option that has the potential to produce 4 million barrels of transportation fuels per day by 2020 at the same level of CO{sub 2} emission as petroleum. In this work, Southern Research Institute (Southern) has made an attempt to address one of the major barriers to the development of large scale CBTL processes - cost effective/reliable dry-feeding of coal-biomass mixtures into a high pressure vessel representative of commercial entrained-flow gasifiers. Present method for dry coal feeding involves the use of pressurized lock-hopper arrangements that are not only very expensive with large space requirements but also have not been proven for reliably feeding coal-biomass mixtures without the potential problems of segregation and bridging. The project involved the development of a pilot-scale 250 lb/h high pressure dry coal-biomass mixture feeder provided by TKEnergi and proven for feeding biomass at a scale up to 6 ton/day. The aim of this project is to demonstrate cost effective feeding of coal-biomass mixtures (50:50 to 70:30) made from a variety of coals (bituminous, lignite) and biomass (wood, corn stover, switch grass). The feeder uses a hydraulic piston-based approach to produce a series of plugs of the mixture that act as a seal against high back-pressure of the gasification vessel in to which the mixture is being fed. The plugs are then fed one by one via a plug

  5. EA-1642-S1: Small-Scale Pilot Plant for the Gasification of Coal and Coal-Biomass Blends and Conversion of Derived Syngas to Liquid Fuels via Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis, Lexington, KY

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) analyzes the potential environmental impacts of DOE’s proposed action of providing cost-shared funding for the University of Kentucky (UK) Center for Applied Energy Research (CAER) Small-Scale Pilot Plant for the Gasification of Coal and Coal-Biomass Blends and Conversion of Derived Syngas to Liquid Fuels via Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis project and of the No-Action Alternative.

  6. Table 11b. Coal Prices to Electric Generating Plants, Projected vs. Actual

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    b. Coal Prices to Electric Generating Plants, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected Price in Nominal Dollars" " (nominal dollars per million Btu)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 "AEO

  7. Electricity and technical progress: The bituminous coal mining industry, mechanization to automation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Devine, W.D. Jr.

    1987-07-01

    Development and use of electric mobile machinery facilitated the mechanization of underground bituminous coal mining and has played a lesser but important role in the growth of surface mining. Electricity has been central to the rise of mechanically integrated mining, both underground (after 1950) and on the surface (recently). Increasing labor productivity in coal mining and decreasing total energy use per ton of coal mined are associated with penetration of new electric technology through at least 1967. Productivity declined and energy intensity increased during the 1970s due in part to government regulations. Recent productivity gains stem partly from new technology that permits automation of certain mining operations. On most big electric excavating machines, a pair of large alternating current (ac) motors operate continuously at full speed. These drive direct current (dc) generators that energize dc motors, each matched to the desired power and speed range of a particular machine function. Direct-current motors provide high torque at low speeds, thus reducing the amount of gearing required; each crawler is independently propelled forward or backward by its own variable-speed dc motors. The principal advantages of electric power are that mechanical power-transmission systems - shafts, gears, etc. - are eliminated or greatly simplified. Reliability is higher, lifetime is longer, and maintenance is much simpler with electric power than with diesel power, and the spare parts inventory is considerably smaller. 100 refs., 11 figs., 12 tabs.

  8. 2,"Laramie River Station","Coal","Basin Electric Power Coop",1710

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Wyoming" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Jim Bridger","Coal","PacifiCorp",2111 2,"Laramie River Station","Coal","Basin Electric Power Coop",1710 3,"Dave Johnston","Coal","PacifiCorp",760 4,"Naughton","Coal","PacifiCorp",687 5,"Dry Fork Station","Coal","Basin

  9. Determination of the Effect of Coal/Biomass-Derived Syngas Contaminants on the Performance of Fischer-Tropsch and Water-Gas-Shift Catalysts

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Trembly, Jason; Cooper, Matthew; Farmer, Justin; Turk, Brian; Gupta, Raghubir

    2010-12-31

    Today, nearly all liquid fuels and commodity chemicals are produced from non-renewable resources such as crude oil and natural gas. Because of increasing scrutiny of carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) emissions produced using traditional fossil-fuel resources, the utilization of alternative feedstocks for the production of power, hydrogen, value-added chemicals, and high-quality hydrocarbon fuels such as diesel and substitute natural gas (SNG) is critical to meeting the rapidly growing energy needs of modern society. Coal and biomass are particularly attractive as alternative feedstocks because of the abundant reserves of these resources worldwide. The strategy of co-gasification of coal/biomass (CB) mixtures to produce syngas for synthesis of Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuels offers distinct advantages over gasification of either coal or biomass alone. Co-feeding coal with biomass offers the opportunity to exploit economies of scale that are difficult to achieve in biomass gasification, while the addition of biomass to the coal gasifier feed leverages proven coal gasification technology and allows CO{sub 2} credit benefits. Syngas generated from CB mixtures will have a unique contaminant composition because coal and biomass possess different concentrations and types of contaminants, and the final syngas composition is also strongly influenced by the gasification technology used. Syngas cleanup for gasification of CB mixtures will need to address this unique contaminant composition to support downstream processing and equipment. To investigate the impact of CB gasification on the production of transportation fuels by FT synthesis, RTI International conducted thermodynamic studies to identify trace contaminants that will react with water-gas-shift and FT catalysts and built several automated microreactor systems to investigate the effect of single components and the synergistic effects of multiple contaminants on water-gas-shift and FT catalyst performance. The contaminants

  10. Progress toward Biomass and Coal-Derived Syngas Warm Cleanup: Proof-of-Concept Process Demonstration of Multicontaminant Removal for Biomass Application

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Howard, Christopher J.; Dagle, Robert A.; Lebarbier, Vanessa MC; Rainbolt, James E.; Li, Liyu; King, David L.

    2013-06-19

    Systems comprising of multiple sorbent and catalytic beds have been developed for the warm syngas cleanup of coal- and biomass-derived syngas. Tailored specifically for biomass application the process described here consists of six primary unit operations: 1) Na2CO3 bed for HCl removal, 2) two regenerable ZnO beds for bulk H2S removal, 3) ZnO bed for H2S polishing, 4) NiCu/SBA-16 sorbent for trace metal (e.g. AsH3) removal, 5) steam reforming catalyst bed for tars and light hydrocarbons reformation and NH3 decomposition, and a 6) Cu-based LT-WGS catalyst bed. Simulated biomass-derived syngas containing a multitude of inorganic contaminants (H2S, AsH3, HCl, and NH3) and hydrocarbon additives (methane, ethylene, benzene, and naphthalene) was used to demonstrate process effectiveness. The efficiency of the process was demonstrated for a period of 175 hours, during which no signs of deactivation were observed. Post-run analysis revealed small levels of sulfur slipped through the sorbent bed train to the two downstream catalytic beds. Future improvements could be made to the trace metal polishing sorbent to ensure complete inorganic contaminant removal (to low ppb level) prior to the catalytic steps. However, dual, regenerating ZnO beds were effective for continuous removal for the vast majority of the sulfur present in the feed gas. The process was effective for complete AsH3 and HCl removal. The steam reforming catalyst completely reformed all the hydrocarbons present in the feed (methane, ethylene, benzene, and naphthalene) to additional syngas. However, post-run evaluation, under kinetically-controlled conditions, indicates deactivation of the steam reforming catalyst. Spent material characterization suggests this is attributed, in part, to coke formation, likely due to the presence of benzene and/or naphthalene in the feed. Future adaptation of this technology may require dual, regenerable steam reformers. The process and materials described in this report hold

  11. 5,"New Madrid","Coal","Associated Electric Coop, Inc",1154 6,"Thomas Hill","Coal","Associated Electric Coop, Inc",1133

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Missouri" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Labadie","Coal","Union Electric Co - (MO)",2371 2,"Iatan","Coal","Kansas City Power & Light Co",1594.4 3,"Callaway","Nuclear","Union Electric Co - (MO)",1193 4,"Rush Island","Coal","Union Electric Co - (MO)",1182 5,"New

  12. Large-Scale Utilization of Biomass Energy and Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the Transport and Electricity Sectors under Stringent CO2 Concentration Limit Scenarios

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Luckow, Patrick; Wise, Marshall A.; Dooley, James J.; Kim, Son H.

    2010-08-05

    This paper examines the potential role of large scale, dedicated commercial biomass energy systems under global climate policies designed to meet atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at 400ppm and 450ppm by the end of the century. We use an integrated assessment model of energy and agriculture systems to show that, given a climate policy in which terrestrial carbon is appropriately valued equally with carbon emitted from the energy system, biomass energy has the potential to be a major component of achieving these low concentration targets. A key aspect of the research presented here is that the costs of processing and transporting biomass energy at much larger scales than current experience are explicitly incorporated into the modeling. From the scenario results, 120-160 EJ/year of biomass energy is produced globally by midcentury and 200-250 EJ/year by the end of this century. In the first half of the century, much of this biomass is from agricultural and forest residues, but after 2050 dedicated cellulosic biomass crops become the majority source, along with growing utilization of waste-to-energy. The ability to draw on a diverse set of biomass based feedstocks helps to reduce the pressure for drastic large-scale changes in land use and the attendant environmental, ecological, and economic consequences those changes would unleash. In terms of the conversion of bioenergy feedstocks into value added energy, this paper demonstrates that biomass is and will continue to be used to generate electricity as well as liquid transportation fuels. A particular focus of this paper is to show how climate policies and technology assumptions - especially the availability of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technologies - affect the decisions made about where the biomass is used in the energy system. The potential for net-negative electric sector emissions through the use of CCS with biomass feedstocks provides an attractive part of the solution for meeting stringent

  13. Biomass Feed and Gasification

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Biomass Feed and Gasification The Biomass Feed and Gasification Key Technology will advance scientific knowledge of the feeding and conversion of biomass and coal-biomass mixtures as essential upstream steps for production of liquid transportation fuels with a lower net GHG emissions than conventional oil refining. Activities support research for handling and processing of coal-biomass mixtures, ensuring those mixtures are compatible with feed delivery systems, identifying potential impacts on

  14. DESIGNING AND OPPORTUNITY FUEL WITH BIOMASS AND TIRE-DERIVED FUEL FOR COFIRING AT WILLOW ISLAND GENERATING STATION AND COFIRING SAWDUST WITH COAL AT ALBRIGHT GENERATING STATION

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    K. Payette; D. Tillman

    2004-06-01

    During the period July 1, 2000-March 31, 2004, Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC (Allegheny) conducted an extensive demonstration of woody biomass cofiring at its Willow Island and Albright Generating Stations. This demonstration, cofunded by USDOE and Allegheny, and supported by the Biomass Interest Group (BIG) of EPRI, evaluated the impacts of sawdust cofiring in both cyclone boilers and tangentially-fired pulverized coal boilers. The cofiring in the cyclone boiler--Willow Island Generating Station Unit No.2--evaluated the impacts of sawdust alone, and sawdust blended with tire-derived fuel. The biomass was blended with the coal on its way to the combustion system. The cofiring in the pulverized coal boiler--Albright Generating Station--evaluated the impact of cofiring on emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO{sub x}) when the sawdust was injected separately into the furnace. The demonstration of woody biomass cofiring involved design, construction, and testing at each site. The results addressed impacts associated with operational issues--capacity, efficiency, and operability--as well as formation and control of airborne emissions such as NO{sub x}, sulfur dioxide (SO{sub 2}2), opacity, and mercury. The results of this extensive program are detailed in this report.

  15. NREL: Energy Analysis - Biomass Technology Analysis

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    ... Biomass-fired integrated gasification combined-cycle system using a biomass energy crop Pulverized coal boiler representing an average U.S. coal-fired power plant Cofiring biomass ...

  16. Subtask 3.11 - Production of CBTL-Based Jet Fuels from Biomass-Based Feedstocks and Montana Coal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sharma, Ramesh

    2014-06-01

    The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Accelergy Corporation, an advanced fuels developer with technologies exclusively licensed from Exxon Mobil, undertook Subtask 3.11 to use a recently installed bench-scale direct coal liquefaction (DCL) system capable of converting 45 pounds/hour of pulverized, dried coal to a liquid suitable for upgrading to fuels and/or chemicals. The process involves liquefaction of Rosebud mine coal (Montana coal) coupled with an upgrading scheme to produce a naphthenic fuel. The upgrading comprises catalytic hydrotreating and saturation to produce naphthenic fuel. A synthetic jet fuel was prepared by blending equal volumes of naphthenic fuel with similar aliphatic fuel derived from biomass and 11 volume % of aromatic hydrocarbons. The synthetic fuel was tested using standard ASTM International techniques to determine compliance with JP-8 fuel. The composite fuel thus produced not only meets but exceeds the military aviation fuel-screening criteria. A 500-milliliter synthetic jet fuel sample which met internal screening criteria was submitted to the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright–Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, for evaluation. The sample was confirmed by AFRL to be in compliance with U.S. Air Force-prescribed alternative aviation fuel initial screening criteria. The results show that this fuel meets or exceeds the key specification parameters for JP-8, a petroleum-based jet fuel widely used by the U.S. military. JP-8 specifications include parameters such as freeze point, density, flash point, and others; all of which were met by the EERC fuel sample. The fuel also exceeds the thermal stability specification of JP-8 fuel as determined by the quartz crystalline microbalance (QCM) test also performed at an independent laboratory as well as AFRL. This means that the EERC fuel looks and acts identically to petroleum-derived jet fuel and can be used

  17. BIOMASS COGASIFICATION AT POLK POWER STATION

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    John McDaniel

    2002-05-01

    Part of a closed loop biomass crop was recently harvested to produce electricity in Tampa Electric's Polk Power Station Unit No.1. No technical impediments to incorporating a small percentage of biomass into Polk Power Station's fuel mix were identified. Appropriate dedicated storage and handling equipment would be required for routine biomass use. Polk Unit No.1 is an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant. IGCC is a new approach to generating electricity cleanly from solid fuels such as coal, petroleum coke, The purpose of this experiment was to demonstrate the Polk Unit No.1 could process biomass as a fraction of its fuel without an adverse impact on availability and plant performance. The biomass chosen for the test was part of a crop of closed loop Eucalyptus trees.

  18. Coal Study Guide for Elementary School

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Focuses on the basics of coal, history of coal use, conversion of coal into electricity, and climate change concerns.

  19. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Coal-Fired Electricity Generation: Systematic Review and Harmonization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Whitaker, M.; Heath, G. A.; O'Donoughue, P.; Vorum, M.

    2012-04-01

    This systematic review and harmonization of life cycle assessments (LCAs) of utility-scale coal-fired electricity generation systems focuses on reducing variability and clarifying central tendencies in estimates of life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Screening 270 references for quality LCA methods, transparency, and completeness yielded 53 that reported 164 estimates of life cycle GHG emissions. These estimates for subcritical pulverized, integrated gasification combined cycle, fluidized bed, and supercritical pulverized coal combustion technologies vary from 675 to 1,689 grams CO{sub 2}-equivalent per kilowatt-hour (g CO{sub 2}-eq/kWh) (interquartile range [IQR]= 890-1,130 g CO{sub 2}-eq/kWh; median = 1,001) leading to confusion over reasonable estimates of life cycle GHG emissions from coal-fired electricity generation. By adjusting published estimates to common gross system boundaries and consistent values for key operational input parameters (most importantly, combustion carbon dioxide emission factor [CEF]), the meta-analytical process called harmonization clarifies the existing literature in ways useful for decision makers and analysts by significantly reducing the variability of estimates ({approx}53% in IQR magnitude) while maintaining a nearly constant central tendency ({approx}2.2% in median). Life cycle GHG emissions of a specific power plant depend on many factors and can differ from the generic estimates generated by the harmonization approach, but the tightness of distribution of harmonized estimates across several key coal combustion technologies implies, for some purposes, first-order estimates of life cycle GHG emissions could be based on knowledge of the technology type, coal mine emissions, thermal efficiency, and CEF alone without requiring full LCAs. Areas where new research is necessary to ensure accuracy are also discussed.

  20. Nitrogen oxides emission control options for coal-fired electric utility boilers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ravi K. Srivastava; Robert E. Hall; Sikander Khan; Kevin Culligan; Bruce W. Lani

    2005-09-01

    Recent regulations have required reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from electric utility boilers. To comply with these regulatory requirements, it is increasingly important to implement state-of-the-art NOx control technologies on coal-fired utility boilers. This paper reviews NOx control options for these boilers. It discusses the established commercial primary and secondary control technologies and examines what is being done to use them more effectively. Furthermore, the paper discusses recent developments in NOx controls. The popular primary control technologies in use in the United States are low-NOx burners and overfire air. Data reflect that average NOx reductions for specific primary controls have ranged from 35% to 63% from 1995 emissions levels. The secondary NOx control technologies applied on U.S. coal-fired utility boilers include reburning, selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR), and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Thirty-six U.S. coal-fired utility boilers have installed SNCR, and reported NOx reductions achieved at these applications ranged from 15% to 66%. Recently, SCR has been installed at 150 U.S. coal-fired utility boilers. Data on the performance of 20 SCR systems operating in the United States with low-NOx emissions reflect that in 2003, these units achieved NOx emission rates between 0.04 and 0.07 lb/106 Btu. 106 refs., 6 figs., 6 tabs.

  1. Impact of Contaminants Present in Coal-Biomass Derived Synthesis Gas on Water-gas Shift and Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis Catalysts

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alptekin, Gokhan

    2013-02-15

    Co-gasification of biomass and coal in large-scale, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants increases the efficiency and reduces the environmental impact of making synthesis gas ("syngas") that can be used in Coal-Biomass-to-Liquids (CBTL) processes for producing transportation fuels. However, the water-gas shift (WGS) and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS) catalysts used in these processes may be poisoned by multiple contaminants found in coal-biomass derived syngas; sulfur species, trace toxic metals, halides, nitrogen species, the vapors of alkali metals and their salts (e.g., KCl and NaCl), ammonia, and phosphorous. Thus, it is essential to develop a fundamental understanding of poisoning/inhibition mechanisms before investing in the development of any costly mitigation technologies. We therefore investigated the impact of potential contaminants (H2S, NH3, HCN, AsH3, PH3, HCl, NaCl, KCl, AS3, NH4NO3, NH4OH, KNO3, HBr, HF, and HNO3) on the performance and lifetime of commercially available and generic (prepared in-house) WGS and FT catalysts.

  2. Co-firing biomass

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hunt, T.; Tennant, D.

    2009-11-15

    Concern about global warming has altered the landscape for fossil-fuel combustion. The advantages and challenges of co-firing biomass and coal are discussed. 2 photos.

  3. Health and environmental effects of coal-fired electric power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Morris, S.C.; Hamilton, L.D.

    1984-05-01

    This paper describes health and environmental impacts of coal-fired electric power plants. Effects on man, agriculture, and natural ecosystems are considered. These effects may result from direct impacts or exposures via air, water, and food chains. The paper is organized by geographical extent of effect. Occupational health impacts and local environmental effects such as noise and solid waste leachate are treated first. Then, regional effects of air pollution, including acid rain, are analyzed. Finally, potential global impacts are examined. Occupational health concerns considered include exposure to noise, dust, asbestos, mercury, and combustion products, and resulting injury and disease. Local effects considered include noise; air and water emissions of coal storage piles, solid waste operations, and cooling systems. Air pollution, once an acute local problem, is now a regional concern. Acute and chronic direct health effects are considered. Special attention is given to potential effects of radionuclides in coal and of acid rain. Finally, potential global impacts associated with carbon dioxide emissions are considered. 88 references, 9 tables.

  4. Comparative life-cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Paulina Jaramillo; W. Michael Griffin; H. Scott Matthews

    2007-09-15

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that in the coming decades the United States' natural gas (NG) demand for electricity generation will increase. Estimates also suggest that NG supply will increasingly come from imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). Additional supplies of NG could come domestically from the production of synthetic natural gas (SNG) via coal gasification-methanation. The objective of this study is to compare greenhouse gas (GHG), SOx, and NOx life-cycle emissions of electricity generated with NG/LNG/SNG and coal. This life-cycle comparison of air emissions from different fuels can help us better understand the advantages and disadvantages of using coal versus globally sourced NG for electricity generation. Our estimates suggest that with the current fleet of power plants, a mix of domestic NG, LNG, and SNG would have lower GHG emissions than coal. If advanced technologies with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) are used, however, coal and a mix of domestic NG, LNG, and SNG would have very similar life-cycle GHG emissions. For SOx and NOx we find there are significant emissions in the upstream stages of the NG/LNG life-cycles, which contribute to a larger range in SOx and NOx emissions for NG/LNG than for coal and SNG. 38 refs., 3 figs., 2 tabs.

  5. Bamboo: An Overlooked Biomass Resource? (Technical Report) |...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Country of Publication: United States Language: English Subject: 09 BIOMASS FUELS; 01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT; AGRICULTURAL WASTES; ASH CONTENT; BAMBOO; BIOMASS; ENERGY RECOVERY ...

  6. Mercury emissions during cofiring of sub-bituminous coal and biomass (chicken waste, wood, coffee residue, and tobacco stalk) in a laboratory-scale fluidized bed combustor

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yan Cao; Hongcang Zhou; Junjie Fan; Houyin Zhao; Tuo Zhou; Pauline Hack; Chia-Chun Chan; Jian-Chang Liou; Wei-ping Pan

    2008-12-15

    Four types of biomass (chicken waste, wood pellets, coffee residue, and tobacco stalks) were cofired at 30 wt % with a U.S. sub-bituminous coal (Powder River Basin Coal) in a laboratory-scale fluidized bed combustor. A cyclone, followed by a quartz filter, was used for fly ash removal during tests. The temperatures of the cyclone and filter were controlled at 250 and 150{sup o}C, respectively. Mercury speciation and emissions during cofiring were investigated using a semicontinuous mercury monitor, which was certified using ASTM standard Ontario Hydra Method. Test results indicated mercury emissions were strongly correlative to the gaseous chlorine concentrations, but not necessarily correlative to the chlorine contents in cofiring fuels. Mercury emissions could be reduced by 35% during firing of sub-bituminous coal using only a quartz filter. Cofiring high-chlorine fuel, such as chicken waste (Cl = 22340 wppm), could largely reduce mercury emissions by over 80%. When low-chlorine biomass, such as wood pellets (Cl = 132 wppm) and coffee residue (Cl = 134 wppm), is cofired, mercury emissions could only be reduced by about 50%. Cofiring tobacco stalks with higher chlorine content (Cl = 4237 wppm) did not significantly reduce mercury emissions. Gaseous speciated mercury in flue gas after a quartz filter indicated the occurrence of about 50% of total gaseous mercury to be the elemental mercury for cofiring chicken waste, but occurrence of above 90% of the elemental mercury for all other cases. Both the higher content of alkali metal oxides or alkali earth metal oxides in tested biomass and the occurrence of temperatures lower than 650{sup o}C in the upper part of the fluidized bed combustor seemed to be responsible for the reduction of gaseous chlorine and, consequently, limited mercury emissions reduction during cofiring. 36 refs., 3 figs. 1 tab.

  7. Hydrogen and electricity from coal with carbon dioxide separation using chemical looping reactors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Xiang Wenguo; Chen Yingying

    2007-08-15

    Concern about global climate change has led to research on low CO{sub 2} emission in the process of the energy conversion of fossil fuel. One of the solutions is the conversion of fossil fuel into carbon-free energy carriers, hydrogen, and electricity with CO{sub 2} capture and storage. In this paper, the main purpose is to investigate the thermodynamics performance of converting coal to a hydrogen and electricity system with chemical-looping reactors and to explore the influences of operating parameters on the system performance. Using FeO/Fe{sub 3}O{sub 4} as an oxygen carrier, we propose a carbon-free coproduction system of hydrogen and electricity with chemical-looping reactors. The performance of the new system is simulated using ASPEN PLUS software tool. The influences of the chemical-looping reactor's temperature, steam conversion rate, and O{sub 2}/coal quality ratio on the system performance, and the exergy performance are discussed. The results show that a high-purity of H{sub 2} (99.9%) is reached and that CO{sub 2} can be separated. The system efficiency is 57.85% assuming steam reactor at 815 C and the steam conversion rate 37%. The system efficiency is affected by the steam conversion rate, rising from 53.17 to 58.33% with the increase of the steam conversion rate from 28 to 41%. The exergy efficiency is 54.25% and the losses are mainly in the process of gasification and HRSG. 14 refs., 12 figs., 3 tabs.

  8. Planning India's long-term energy shipment infrastructures for electricity and coal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brian H. Bowen; Devendra Canchi; Vishal Agarwal Lalit; Paul V. Precke; F.T. Sparrow; Marty W. Irwin

    2010-01-15

    The Purdue Long-Term Electricity Trading and Capacity Expansion Planning Model simultaneously optimizes both the expansion of transmission and generation capacity. Most commercial electricity system planning software is limited to only transmission planning. An application of the model to India's national power grid, for 2008-2028, indicates substantial transmission expansion is the cost-effective means of meeting the needs of the nation's growing economy. An electricity demand growth rate of 4% over the 20-year planning horizon requires more than a 50% increase in the Government's forecasted transmission capacity expansion, and 8% demand growth requires more than a six-fold increase in the planned transmission capacity expansion. The model minimizes the long-term expansion costs (operational and capital) for the nation's five existing regional power grids and suggests the need for large increases in load-carrying capability between them. Changes in coal policy affect both the location of new thermal power plants and the optimal pattern inter-regional transmission expansions. 15 refs., 10 figs., 7 tabs.

  9. Table 11a. Coal Prices to Electric Generating Plants, Projected vs. Actual

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    a. Coal Prices to Electric Generating Plants, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected Price in Constant Dollars" " (constant dollars per million Btu in ""dollar year"" specific to each AEO)" ,"AEO $ Year",1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 "AEO 1994",1992,1.4699,1.4799,1.53,1.57,1.58,1.57,1.61,1.63,1.68,1.69,1.7,1.72,1.7,1.76,1.79,1.81,1.88,1.92 "AEO

  10. Table 11a. Coal Prices to Electric Generating Plants, Projected vs. Actual

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    a. Coal Prices to Electric Generating Plants, Projected vs. Actual Projected Price in Constant Dollars (constant dollars per million Btu in "dollar year" specific to each AEO) AEO $ Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 1992 1.47 1.48 1.53 1.57 1.58 1.57 1.61 1.63 1.68 1.69 1.70 1.72 1.70 1.76 1.79 1.81 1.88 1.92 AEO 1995 1993 1.39 1.39 1.38 1.40 1.40 1.39 1.39 1.42 1.41 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.47

  11. Methodology for comparing the health effects of electricity generation from uranium and coal fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rhyne, W.R.; El-Bassioni, A.A.

    1981-12-08

    A methodology was developed for comparing the health risks of electricity generation from uranium and coal fuels. The health effects attributable to the construction, operation, and decommissioning of each facility in the two fuel cycle were considered. The methodology is based on defining (1) requirement variables for the materials, energy, etc., (2) effluent variables associated with the requirement variables as well as with the fuel cycle facility operation, and (3) health impact variables for effluents and accidents. The materials, energy, etc., required for construction, operation, and decommissioning of each fuel cycle facility are defined as primary variables. The materials, energy, etc., needed to produce the primary variable are defined as secondary requirement variables. Each requirement variable (primary, secondary, etc.) has associated effluent variables and health impact variables. A diverging chain or tree is formed for each primary variable. Fortunately, most elements reoccur frequently to reduce the level of analysis complexity. 6 references, 11 figures, 6 tables.

  12. Nuclear economics 2000: Deterministic and probabilistic projections of nuclear and coal electric power generation costs for the year 2000

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Williams, K.A.; Delene, J.G.; Fuller, L.C.; Bowers, H.I.

    1987-06-01

    The total busbar electric generating costs were estimated for locations in ten regions of the United States for base-load nuclear and coal-fired power plants with a startup date of January 2000. For the Midwest region a complete data set that specifies each parameter used to obtain the comparative results is supplied. When based on the reference set of input variables, the comparison of power generation costs is found to favor nuclear in most regions of the country. Nuclear power is most favored in the northeast and western regions where coal must be transported over long distances; however, coal-fired generation is most competitive in the north central region where large reserves of cheaply mineable coal exist. In several regions small changes in the reference variables could cause either option to be preferred. The reference data set reflects the better of recent electric utility construction cost experience (BE) for nuclear plants. This study assumes as its reference case a stable regulatory environment and improved planning and construction practices, resulting in nuclear plants typically built at the present BE costs. Today's BE nuclear-plant capital investment cost model is then being used as a surrogate for projected costs for the next generation of light-water reactor plants. An alternative analysis based on today's median experience (ME) nuclear-plant construction cost experience is also included. In this case, coal is favored in all ten regions, implying that typical nuclear capital investment costs must improve for nuclear to be competitive.

  13. Design and construction of coal/biomass to liquids (CBTL) process development unit (PDU) at the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research (CAER)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Placido, Andrew; Liu, Kunlei; Challman, Don; Andrews, Rodney; Jacques, David

    2015-10-30

    This report describes a first phase of a project to design, construct and commission an integrated coal/biomass-to-liquids facility at a capacity of 1 bbl. /day at the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research (UK-CAER) – specifically for construction of the building and upstream process units for feed handling, gasification, and gas cleaning, conditioning and compression. The deliverables from the operation of this pilot plant [when fully equipped with the downstream process units] will be firstly the liquid FT products and finished fuels which are of interest to UK-CAER’s academic, government and industrial research partners. The facility will produce research quantities of FT liquids and finished fuels for subsequent Fuel Quality Testing, Performance and Acceptability. Moreover, the facility is expected to be employed for a range of research and investigations related to: Feed Preparation, Characteristics and Quality; Coal and Biomass Gasification; Gas Clean-up/ Conditioning; Gas Conversion by FT Synthesis; Product Work-up and Refining; Systems Analysis and Integration; and Scale-up and Demonstration. Environmental Considerations - particularly how to manage and reduce carbon dioxide emissions from CBTL facilities and from use of the fuels - will be a primary research objectives. Such a facility has required significant lead time for environmental review, architectural/building construction, and EPC services. UK, with DOE support, has advanced the facility in several important ways. These include: a formal EA/FONSI, and permits and approvals; construction of a building; selection of a range of technologies and vendors; and completion of the upstream process units. The results of this project are the FEED and detailed engineering studies, the alternate configurations and the as-built plant - its equipment and capabilities for future research and demonstration and its adaptability for re-purposing to meet other needs. These are described in

  14. Table 11b. Coal Prices to Electric Generating Plants, Projected vs. Actual

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    b. Coal Prices to Electric Generating Plants, Projected vs. Actual Projected Price in Nominal Dollars (nominal dollars per million Btu) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 1.50 1.55 1.64 1.73 1.78 1.82 1.92 2.01 2.13 2.22 2.30 2.41 2.46 2.64 2.78 2.90 3.12 3.30 AEO 1995 1.42 1.46 1.49 1.55 1.59 1.62 1.67 1.76 1.80 1.89 1.97 2.05 2.13 2.21 2.28 2.38 2.50 AEO 1996 1.35 1.35 1.37 1.39 1.42 1.46 1.50 1.56 1.62 1.67 1.75

  15. PRODUCTION OF NEW BIOMASS/WASTE-CONTAINING SOLID FUELS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    David J. Akers; Glenn A. Shirey; Zalman Zitron; Charles Q. Maney

    2001-04-20

    CQ Inc. and its team members (ALSTOM Power Inc., Bliss Industries, McFadden Machine Company, and industry advisors from coal-burning utilities, equipment manufacturers, and the pellet fuels industry) addressed the objectives of the Department of Energy and industry to produce economical, new solid fuels from coal, biomass, and waste materials that reduce emissions from coal-fired boilers. This project builds on the team's commercial experience in composite fuels for energy production. The electric utility industry is interested in the use of biomass and wastes as fuel to reduce both emissions and fuel costs. In addition to these benefits, utilities also recognize the business advantage of consuming the waste byproducts of customers both to retain customers and to improve the public image of the industry. Unfortunately, biomass and waste byproducts can be troublesome fuels because of low bulk density, high moisture content, variable composition, handling and feeding problems, and inadequate information about combustion and emissions characteristics. Current methods of co-firing biomass and wastes either use a separate fuel receiving, storage, and boiler feed system, or mass burn the biomass by simply mixing it with coal on the storage pile. For biomass or biomass-containing composite fuels to be extensively used in the U.S., especially in the steam market, a lower cost method of producing these fuels must be developed that includes both moisture reduction and pelletization or agglomeration for necessary fuel density and ease of handling. Further, this method of fuel production must be applicable to a variety of combinations of biomass, wastes, and coal; economically competitive with current fuels; and provide environmental benefits compared with coal. Notable accomplishments from the work performed in Phase I of this project include the development of three standard fuel formulations from mixtures of coal fines, biomass, and waste materials that can be used in

  16. Biomass Program Biopower Factsheet

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2010-03-01

    Generating electricity and thermal energy from biomass has the potential to help meet national goals for renewable energy. The forest products industry has used biomass for power and heat for many decades, yet widespread use of biomass to supply electricity to the U.S. power grid and other applications is relatively recent.

  17. NETL: Coal

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Coal In response to concerns of climate change, the United States is contemplating a complete and rapid transformation of the way it both produces and consumes energy to significantly reduce its carbon emissions. The integrated Coal Program focuses on retaining the benefits of continuing to use coal to produce electric power. This strategy can help us depend less on foreign sources of energy, respond to the world's growing climate concerns, and compete economically. It also will ensure that our

  18. FE Clean Coal News | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Electricity from Innovative DOE-Supported Clean Coal Project An innovative clean coal technology project in Texas will supply electricity to the largest municipally owned...

  19. EIA - Weekly U.S. Coal Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Stocks Imports, exports & distribution Coal-fired electric power plants Transportation costs to electric power sector International All coal data reports Analysis & Projections ...

  20. Annual Coal Distribution Report - Energy Information Administration

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Stocks Imports, exports & distribution Coal-fired electric power plants Transportation costs to electric power sector International All coal data reports Analysis & Projections ...

  1. ADVANCED FLUE GAS CONDITIONING AS A RETROFIT UPGRADE TO ENHANCE PM COLLECTION FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC UTILITY BOILERS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    C. Jean Bustard; Kenneth E. Baldrey; Richard Schlager

    2000-04-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy and ADA Environmental Solutions has begun a project to develop commercial flue gas conditioning additives. The objective is to develop conditioning agents that can help improve particulate control performance of smaller or under-sized electrostatic precipitators on utility coal-fired boilers. The new chemicals will be used to control both the electrical resistivity and the adhesion or cohesivity of the flyash. There is a need to provide cost-effective and safer alternatives to traditional flue gas conditioning with SO{sub 3} and ammonia. Preliminary testing has identified a class of common deliquescent salts that effectively control flyash resistivity on a variety of coals. A method to evaluate cohesive properties of flyash in the laboratory has been selected and construction of an electrostatic tensiometer test fixture is underway. Preliminary selection of a variety of chemicals that will be screened for effect on flyash cohesion has been completed.

  2. International Biomass Conference and Expo

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The International Biomass Conference and Expo will be held April 11–14, 2016, in Charlotte, North Carolina, and will gather bioeconomy experts across the supply chain. Bioenergy Technologies Office Technology Manager Elliott Levine will be moderating a panel titled, “The Near-Term Opportunity for Biomass as a Low-Carbon Coal Supplement or Replacement.” The panel will focus on the technological challenges and opportunities in the potential for biomass to replace coal.

  3. Upgraded Coal Interest Group

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Evan Hughes

    2009-01-08

    The Upgraded Coal Interest Group (UCIG) is an EPRI 'users group' that focuses on clean, low-cost options for coal-based power generation. The UCIG covers topics that involve (1) pre-combustion processes, (2) co-firing systems and fuels, and (3) reburn using coal-derived or biomass-derived fuels. The UCIG mission is to preserve and expand the economic use of coal for energy. By reducing the fuel costs and environmental impacts of coal-fired power generation, existing units become more cost effective and thus new units utilizing advanced combustion technologies are more likely to be coal-fired.

  4. EIA projections of coal supply and demand

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Klein, D.E.

    1989-10-23

    Contents of this report include: EIA projections of coal supply and demand which covers forecasted coal supply and transportation, forecasted coal demand by consuming sector, and forecasted coal demand by the electric utility sector; and policy discussion.

  5. Coal Combustion Products

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Coal combustion products (CCPs) are solid materials produced when coal is burned to generate electricity. Since coal provides the largest segment of U.S. electricity generation (45 percent in 2010), finding a sustainable solution for CCPs is an important environmental challenge.

  6. Assessment of fuel-cycle energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for Fischer-Tropsch diesel from coal and cellulosic biomass.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Xie, X.; Wang, M.; Han, J.

    2011-04-01

    This study expands and uses the GREET (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation) model to assess the effects of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology and cellulosic biomass and coal cofeeding in Fischer-Tropsch (FT) plants on energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of FT diesel (FTD). To demonstrate the influence of the coproduct credit methods on FTD life-cycle analysis (LCA) results, two allocation methods based on the energy value and the market revenue of different products and a hybrid method are employed. With the energy-based allocation method, fossil energy use of FTD is less than that of petroleum diesel, and GHG emissions of FTD could be close to zero or even less than zero with CCS when forest residue accounts for 55% or more of the total dry mass input to FTD plants. Without CCS, GHG emissions are reduced to a level equivalent to that from petroleum diesel plants when forest residue accounts for 61% of the total dry mass input. Moreover, we show that coproduct method selection is crucial for LCA results of FTD when a large amount of coproducts is produced.

  7. A premium price electricity market for the emerging biomass industry in the UK

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kettle, R.

    1995-11-01

    The Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) is the means by which the UK Government creates an initial market for renewable sources of electricity. For the first time the third round of the competition for NFFO contracts included a band for {open_quote}energy crops and agricultural and forestry wastes{close_quote}. The NFFO Order which obliges the Regional Electricity Companies (RECs) in England and Wales to contract for a specified electricity generating capacity from renewable resources was made in December 1994. It required 19.06 MW of wood gasification capacity and 103.81 MW from other energy crops and agricultural and forestry wastes. The purpose of these Orders is to create an initial market so that in the not too distant future the most promising renewables can compete without financial support. This paper describes how these projects are expected to contribute to this policy. It also considers how the policy objective of convergence under successive Orders between the price paid under the NFFO and the market price for electricity might be accomplished.

  8. Gasification-based biomass

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None, None

    2009-01-18

    The gasification-based biomass section of the Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations describes the technical and economic status of this emerging renewable energy option for electricity supply.

  9. Overview of biomass technologies

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None, None

    2009-01-18

    The biomass overview of the Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations describes the technical and economic status of this emerging renewable energy option for electricity supply.

  10. Direct-fired biomass

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None, None

    2009-01-18

    The direct-fired biomass section of the Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations describes the technical and economic status of this emerging renewable energy option for electricity supply.

  11. JV Task 126 - Mercury Control Technologies for Electric Utilities Burning Bituminous Coal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jason Laumb; John Kay; Michael Jones; Brandon Pavlish; Nicholas Lentz; Donald McCollor; Kevin Galbreath

    2009-03-29

    The EERC developed an applied research consortium project to test cost-effective mercury (Hg) control technologies for utilities burning bituminous coals. The project goal was to test innovative Hg control technologies that have the potential to reduce Hg emissions from bituminous coal-fired power plants by {ge}90% at costs of one-half to three-quarters of current estimates for activated carbon injection (ACI). Hg control technology evaluations were performed using the EERC's combustion test facility (CTF). The CTF was fired on pulverized bituminous coals at 550,000 Btu/hr (580 MJ/hr). The CTF was configured with the following air pollution control devices (APCDs): selective catalytic reduction (SCR) unit, electrostatic precipitator (ESP), and wet flue gas desulfurization system (WFDS). The Hg control technologies investigated as part of this project included ACI (three Norit Americas, Inc., and eleven Envergex sorbents), elemental mercury (Hg{sup 0}) oxidation catalysts (i.e., the noble metals in Hitachi Zosen, Cormetech, and Hitachi SCR catalysts), sorbent enhancement additives (SEAs) (a proprietary EERC additive, trona, and limestone), and blending with a Powder River Basin (PRB) subbituminous coal. These Hg control technologies were evaluated separately, and many were also tested in combination.

  12. CALLA ENERGY BIOMASS COFIRING PROJECT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Francis S. Lau

    2003-09-01

    The Calla Energy Biomass Project, to be located in Estill County, Kentucky is to be conducted in two phases. The objective of Phase I is to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of cofiring biomass-based gasification fuel-gas in a power generation boiler. Natural gas and waste coal fines were evaluated as the cofired fuel. The project is based on the use of commercially available technology for feeding and gas cleanup that would be suitable for deployment in municipal, large industrial and utility applications. A design was developed for a cofiring combustion system for the biomass gasification-based fuel-gas capable of stable, low-NOx combustion over the full range of gaseous fuel mixtures in a power generation boiler, with low carbon monoxide emissions and turndown capabilities suitable for large-scale power generation applications. Following the preliminary design, GTI evaluated the gasification characteristics of selected feedstocks for the project. To conduct this work, GTI assembled an existing ''mini-bench'' unit to perform the gasification tests. The results of the test were used to confirm the process design completed in Phase Task 1. As a result of the testing and modeling effort, the selected biomass feedstocks gasified very well, with a carbon conversion of over 98% and individual gas component yields that matched the RENUGAS{reg_sign} model. As a result of this work, the facility appears very attractive from a commercial standpoint. Similar facilities can be profitable if they have access to low cost fuels and have attractive wholesale or retail electrical rates for electricity sales. The objective for Phase II is to design, install and demonstrate the combined gasification and combustion system in a large-scale, long-term cofiring operation to promote acceptance and utilization of indirect biomass cofiring technology for large-scale power generation applications. Phase II has not been approved for construction at this time.

  13. Small Modular Biomass Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2002-12-01

    This fact sheet provides information about modular biomass systems. Small modular biomass systems can help supply electricity to rural areas, businesses, and the billions of people who live without power worldwide. These systems use locally available biomass fuels such as wood, crop waste, animal manures, and landfill gas.

  14. Review of the Coal and Electric Sections in the Monthly Energy Review and an Overall Review of Office of Energy Data Operations Publications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-04-01

    This Review of the Coal and Electric Sections of the Monthly Energy Review and an Overall Review of OEDO Publications is comprised of two sections. The first, Review of Coal and Electric Power Data in the Monthly Energy Review consists of a detailed analysis of content and data presentation issues. The major findings of this section are summarized below: the coal and electric power data in the Monthly Energy Review (MER) represent the major functions of the respective industries; coal data by rank are inconsistently presented in the MER; coal value or coal cost and quality data are not adequately represented in the MER; the presentation of two or more units of measurement on the same table in MER may invite incorrect comparisons unless properly separated (e.g., - double line separation); to improve the timeliness of the data in the MER, the increased use of estimated, preliminary, and/or projected data should be considered; and the table and graphic formats used in the MER present the data clearly and concisely. The second section of the report, An Overall Review of OEDO Publications, contains the results of an analysis of data presentation in forty-six coal, gas, electric, oil and consolidated publications. A summary of our findings and recommendations is listed below: where practical, a scope of publication section and executive summary should be included in OEDO publications; table formats, including titles and endnotes should be uniform; more detailed guidelines for titling should be established by the Energy Information Administration (EIA); and a more detailed set of standards for footnotes, notes and source notes should be established by EIA.

  15. Annual Energy Outlook 2016 2nd Coal Working Group

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    ... Pulverized Coal * CoalBiomass Co-Fire (15%Biomass) Adv GasOil Comb. Cycle Conv GasOil Comb Cycle Conventional Comb. Turbine Advanced Comb. Turbine PV (fixed tilt) PV (tracker) ...

  16. Sensitivity of Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis and Water-Gas Shift Catalystes to Poisons form High-Temperature High-Pressure Entrained-Flow (EF) Oxygen-Blown Gasifier Gasification of Coal/Biomass Mixtures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Burton Davis; Gary Jacobs; Wenping Ma; Khalid Azzam; Janet ChakkamadathilMohandas; Wilson Shafer

    2009-09-30

    There has been a recent shift in interest in converting not only natural gas and coal derived syngas to Fischer-Tropsch synthesis products, but also converting biomass-derived syngas, as well as syngas derived from coal and biomass mixtures. As such, conventional catalysts based on iron and cobalt may not be suitable without proper development. This is because, while ash, sulfur compounds, traces of metals, halide compounds, and nitrogen-containing chemicals will likely be lower in concentration in syngas derived from mixtures of coal and biomass (i.e., using entrained-flow oxygen-blown gasifier gasification gasification) than solely from coal, other compounds may actually be increased. Of particular concern are compounds containing alkali chemicals like the chlorides of sodium and potassium. In the first year, University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research (UK-CAER) researchers completed a number of tasks aimed at evaluating the sensitivity of cobalt and iron-based Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FT) catalysts and a commercial iron-chromia high temperature water-gas shift catalyst (WGS) to alkali halides. This included the preparation of large batches of 0.5%Pt-25%Co/Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} and 100Fe: 5.1Si: 3.0K: 2.0Cu (high alpha) catalysts that were split up among the four different entities participating in the overall project; the testing of the catalysts under clean FT and WGS conditions; the testing of the Fe-Cr WGS catalyst under conditions of co-feeding NaCl and KCl; and the construction and start-up of the continuously stirred tank reactors (CSTRs) for poisoning investigations.

  17. Co-production of electricity and alternate fuels from coal. Final report, August 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-12-31

    The Calderon process and its process development unit, PDU, were originally conceived to produce two useful products from a bituminous coal: a desulfurized medium BTU gas containing primarily CO, H{sub 2}, CH{sub 4}, CO{sub 2}, and H{sub 2}O; and a desulfurized low BTU gas containing these same constituents plus N{sub 2} from the air used to provide heat for the process through the combustion of a portion of the fuel. The process was viewed as a means for providing both a synthesis gas for liquid fuel production (perhaps CH{sub 3}OH, alternatively CH{sub 4} or NH{sub 3}) and a pressurized, low BTU fuel gas, for gas turbine based power generation. The Calderon coal process comprises three principle sections which perform the following functions: coal pyrolysis in a continuous, steady flow unit based on coke oven technology; air blown, slagging, coke gasification in a moving bed unit based on a blast furnace technology; and a novel, lime pebble based, product gas processing in which a variety of functions are accomplished including the cracking of hydrocarbons and the removal of sulfur, H{sub 2}S, and of particulates from both the medium and low BTU gases. The product gas processing unit, based on multiple moving beds, has also been conceived to regenerate the lime pebbles and recover sulfur as elemental S.

  18. Development of a Hydrogasification Process for Co-Production of Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) and Electric Power from Western Coals

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sun, Xiaolei; Rink, Nancy

    2011-04-30

    This report presents the results of the research and development conducted on an Advanced Hydrogasification Process (AHP) conceived and developed by Arizona Public Service Company (APS) under U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contract: DE-FC26-06NT42759 for Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) production from western coal. A double-wall (i.e., a hydrogasification contained within a pressure shell) down-flow hydrogasification reactor was designed, engineered, constructed, commissioned and operated by APS, Phoenix, AZ. The reactor is ASME-certified under Section VIII with a rating of 1150 pounds per square inch gage (psig) maximum allowable working pressure at 1950 degrees Fahrenheit ({degrees}F). The reaction zone had a 1.75 inch inner diameter and 13 feet length. The initial testing of a sub-bituminous coal demonstrated ~ 50% carbon conversion and ~10% methane yield in the product gas under 1625{degrees}F, 1000 psig pressure, with a 11 seconds (s) residence time, and 0.4 hydrogen-to-coal mass ratio. Liquid by-products mainly contained Benzene, Toluene, Xylene (BTX) and tar. Char collected from the bottom of the reactor had 9000-British thermal units per pound (Btu/lb) heating value. A three-dimensional (3D) computational fluid dynamic model simulation of the hydrodynamics around the reactor head was utilized to design the nozzles for injecting the hydrogen into the gasifier to optimize gas-solid mixing to achieve improved carbon conversion. The report also presents the evaluation of using algae for carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) management and biofuel production. Nannochloropsis, Selenastrum and Scenedesmus were determined to be the best algae strains for the project purpose and were studied in an outdoor system which included a 6-meter (6M) radius cultivator with a total surface area of 113 square meters (m{sup 2}) and a total culture volume between 10,000 to 15,000 liters (L); a CO{sub 2} on-demand feeding system; an on-line data collection system for temperature, p

  19. ADVANCED FLUE GAS CONDITIONING AS A RETROFIT UPGRADE TO ENHANCE PM COLLECTION FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC UTILITY BOILERS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kenneth E. Baldrey

    2002-05-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy and ADA Environmental Solutions are engaged in a project to develop commercial flue gas conditioning additives. The objective is to develop conditioning agents that can help improve particulate control performance of smaller or under-sized electrostatic precipitators on utility coal-fired boilers. The new chemicals will be used to control both the electrical resistivity and the adhesion or cohesivity of the fly ash. There is a need to provide cost-effective and safer alternatives to traditional flue gas conditioning with SO{sub 3} and ammonia. During this reporting quarter, performance testing of flue gas conditioning was underway at the PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant. The product tested, ADA-43, was a combination resistivity modifier with cohesivity polymers. This represents the first long-term full-scale testing of this class of products. Modifications to the flue gas conditioning system at Jim Bridger, including development of alternate injection lances, was also undertaken to improve chemical spray distribution and to avoid spray deposition to duct interior surfaces. Also in this quarter, a firm commitment was received for another long-term test of the cohesivity additives. This plant fires a bituminous coal and has opacity and particulate emissions performance issues related to fly ash re-entrainment. Ammonia conditioning is employed here on one unit, but there is interest in liquid cohesivity additives as a safer alternative.

  20. EIS-0105: Conversion to Coal, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, Brandon Shores Generating Station Units 1 and 2, Anne Arundel County, Maryland

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    The U.S. Department of Energy’s Economic Regulatory Administration Office of Fuels Program, Coal and Electricity Division prepared this statement to assess the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with prohibiting the use of petroleum products as a primary energy source for Units 1 and 2 of the Brandon Shores Generating Station, located in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

  1. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel Prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Alabama" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.69,2.8,3.02,2.89,2.82,2.68,2.71,2.06,2.11,1.79,1.52,1.47,1.42,1.41,1.41,1.48,1.57,1.54,1.54,1.56,1.67,1.76,1.73,1.81,1.84 "Average heat value (Btu per

  2. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Arkansas" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.37,2.35,2.22,1.93,1.73,1.69,1.74,1.6,1.47,1.46,1.23,1.2,0.84,0.87,1.42,1.46,1.47,1.64,1.5,1.61,1.6,1.7,1.65,1.6,1.61 "Average heat value (Btu per

  3. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel Prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Alaska" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",0,0,0,1.73,1.48,1.41,2.03," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "

  4. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Arizona" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.1,2.07,2.08,1.98,1.8,1.81,1.74,1.59,1.44,1.41,1.3,1.27,1.26,1.25,1.24,1.33,1.33,1.42,1.44,1.39,1.37,1.35,1.37,1.41,1.43 "Average heat value (Btu per

  5. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    California" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",3.34,3.39,3.35,3.14,3.05,2.87,2.83,2.58,2.02,2,1.88,1.73,1.8," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," " "Average heat value (Btu per

  6. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Colorado" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",1.93,1.91,1.84,1.74,1.59,1.6,1.47,1.26,1.28,1.06,0.97,0.97,0.95,0.92,0.93,0.98,0.99,1.01,1.03,1.05,1.06,1.09,1.09,1.09,1.06 "Average heat value (Btu per

  7. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Delaware" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",3.23,3.2,3.94,4.04,3.55,3.34,3.52,2.86,3.08,2.81,2.2,1.9,1.78,2.17,1.52,1.59,1.56,1.57,1.59,1.62,1.62,1.69,1.73,1.78,1.81 "Average heat value (Btu per

  8. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    District of Columbia" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)"," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," ",1.44," "," "," "," ","

  9. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Florida" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",3.36,3.47,3.55,3.59,3.47,3.39,2.97,2.56,2.56,2.31,1.92,1.76,1.76,1.72,1.57,1.59,1.65,1.73,1.74,1.79,1.78,1.77,1.82,1.86,1.85 "Average heat value (Btu per

  10. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Georgia" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",3.13,3.2,3.49,3.76,3.9,3.62,3.07,2.61,2.4,2.18,1.8,1.72,1.68,1.66,1.54,1.55,1.55,1.59,1.58,1.67,1.69,1.78,1.8,1.8,1.79 "Average heat value (Btu per

  11. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Hawaii" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",3.91,3.91,3.78,3.37,2.79,2.97,3.58,3.09,2.81,1.75,1.88,2.96,3.03," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," " "Average heat value (Btu per

  12. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Idaho" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",0,0,0,2.71,2.95,2.55,2.51," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "

  13. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Illinois" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",1.99,1.9,1.94,1.76,1.7,1.65,1.58,1.34,1.26,1.19,1.15,1.16,1.19,1.19,1.15,1.44,1.56,1.55,1.63,1.63,1.61,1.7,1.74,1.71,1.75 "Average heat value (Btu per

  14. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Indiana" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.53,2.5,2.56,2.46,2.14,2.02,1.93,1.61,1.52,1.4,1.21,1.2,1.17,1.14,1.08,1.11,1.12,1.16,1.19,1.25,1.27,1.27,1.31,1.34,1.36 "Average heat value (Btu per

  15. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Iowa" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",1.73,1.77,1.54,1.52,1.42,1.34,1.27,1.08,1.05,0.98,0.93,0.89,0.89,0.81,0.82,0.82,0.88,0.94,0.94,0.99,0.99,1.01,1.1,1.1,1.12 "Average heat value (Btu per

  16. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Kansas" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",1.79,1.77,1.83,1.75,1.51,1.43,1.41,1.23,1.19,1.12,1.03,1.01,0.98,1.05,0.98,0.95,0.98,1.02,0.99,1.02,1.02,1.02,1.18,1.23,1.24 "Average heat value (Btu per

  17. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Kentucky" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.34,2.36,2.42,2.34,2.26,2.17,2.14,1.75,1.7,1.52,1.37,1.23,1.19,1.1,1.02,1.06,1.06,1.05,1.06,1.11,1.16,1.17,1.16,1.18,1.19 "Average heat value (Btu per

  18. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Louisiana" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.46,2.56,2.49,2.39,2.16,2.04,2.1,1.85,1.66,1.51,1.38,1.34,1.27,1.31,1.32,1.4,1.43,1.48,1.51,1.55,1.54,1.58,1.53,1.65,1.7 "Average heat value (Btu per

  19. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Maine" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",5.41,5.09,7,6.09,6.19,5.06,3.67,3.19,3.27,2.66,2.62,2.37,2.41," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," " "Average heat value (Btu per

  20. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Michigan" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.62,2.68,2.79,2.68,2.12,2.07,1.97,1.72,1.68,1.58,1.39,1.34,1.32,1.27,1.3,1.31,1.33,1.37,1.4,1.45,1.51,1.53,1.56,1.59,1.6 "Average heat value (Btu per

  1. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Minnesota" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",1.98,2.03,1.99,1.93,1.74,1.64,1.69,1.5,1.22,1.13,1.07,1.08,1.06,1.02,1.11,1.1,1.07,1.09,1.07,1.14,1.14,1.13,1.19,1.26,1.25 "Average heat value (Btu per

  2. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Mississippi" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",3.03,3.24,3.52,3.45,2.89,3.01,3.01,2.71,2.31,2.1,1.69,1.54,1.59,1.63,1.52,1.55,1.54,1.55,1.51,1.53,1.57,1.64,1.6,1.67,1.65 "Average heat value (Btu per

  3. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Missouri" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2,1.9,1.85,1.73,1.59,1.53,1.51,1.33,1.11,1.01,0.93,0.92,0.9,0.96,0.92,0.93,0.92,0.93,0.95,0.98,1.1,1.24,1.34,1.34,1.35 "Average heat value (Btu per

  4. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Montana" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",1.42,1.57,1.38,1.33,1.11,1.07,1.02,0.93,0.85,0.71,0.64,0.62,0.61,0.95,0.92,0.73,0.67,0.68,0.71,0.67,0.69,0.69,0.71,0.67,0.67 "Average heat value (Btu per

  5. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Nebraska" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",1.4,1.42,1.55,1.51,1.42,1.33,0.9,0.88,0.8,0.71,0.66,0.6,0.58,0.57,0.56,0.55,0.59,0.59,0.72,0.75,0.77,0.75,0.75,0.75,0.75 "Average heat value (Btu per

  6. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Hampshire" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",4.27,4.21,4.07,3.55,3.8,3.66,3.53,2.9,2.56,2.44,2.02,1.7,1.8,1.67,1.48,1.52,1.61,1.63,1.61,1.59,1.52,1.61,1.69,1.74,1.78 "Average heat value (Btu per

  7. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Jersey" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",3.95,3.87,4.05,4.18,4.16,4.01,3.33,2.89,2.73,2.18,2.05,1.8,1.87,2.27,1.39,1.45,1.59,1.76,1.75,1.78,1.82,1.77,1.73,1.78,1.8 "Average heat value (Btu per

  8. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Mexico" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",3.78,2.31,2.18,2.05,2.06,1.9,1.99,1.79,1.56,1.51,1.48,1.43,1.53,1.47,1.38,1.33,1.31,1.34,1.43,1.42,1.41,1.37,1.32,1.38,1.32 "Average heat value (Btu per

  9. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    York" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",3.09,3.13,3.26,3.32,3.05,2.73,2.57,2.41,2.4,2.13,1.76,1.59,1.55,1.42,1.49,1.45,1.43,1.42,1.43,1.41,1.45,1.5,1.49,1.59,1.61 "Average heat value (Btu per

  10. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Carolina" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",3.59,3.8,3.77,3.63,3.52,3.59,3.26,2.74,2.69,2.4,2,1.78,1.76,1.59,1.43,1.44,1.44,1.43,1.48,1.63,1.68,1.7,1.73,1.78,1.78 "Average heat value (Btu per

  11. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Dakota" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",1.53,1.55,1.49,1.34,1.26,1.14,1.1,0.98,0.88,0.82,0.77,0.74,0.74,0.74,0.72,0.73,0.76,0.78,0.74,0.73,0.7,0.71,0.72,0.71,0.69 "Average heat value (Btu per

  12. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Ohio" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.32,2.28,2.48,2.48,2.24,2.39,2.05,1.71,1.7,1.54,1.33,1.21,1.23,1.31,1.46,1.36,1.36,1.32,1.34,1.42,1.44,1.41,1.44,1.48,1.52 "Average heat value (Btu per

  13. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Oklahoma" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",1.99,2.03,2,1.82,1.72,1.65,1.35,1.19,1.12,1.04,1.04,0.99,0.96,0.91,0.94,0.91,0.91,0.92,0.98,0.99,1.02,1.24,1.23,1.32,1.4 "Average heat value (Btu per

  14. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Oregon" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.49,1.96,1.89,1.79,1.67,1.76,1.45,1.38,1.3,1.28,1.18,1.25,1.33,1.11,1.07,1.08,1.09,1.14,1.07,1.06,1.07,1.12,1.1,1.08,1.08 "Average heat value (Btu per

  15. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Pennsylvania" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.52,2.48,2.43,2.56,2.41,2.3,2.1,1.75,1.72,1.59,1.37,1.22,1.25,1.21,1.15,1.3,1.35,1.36,1.38,1.36,1.43,1.44,1.48,1.55,1.52 "Average heat value (Btu per

  16. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Rhode Island" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",3.48," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," ","

  17. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Carolina" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",3.64,3.76,3.98,3.85,3.71,3.66,2.89,2.34,2.33,2.17,1.91,1.62,1.59,1.57,1.39,1.42,1.45,1.45,1.47,1.51,1.56,1.57,1.53,1.63,1.72 "Average heat value (Btu per

  18. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Dakota" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.09,2,2.19,2.09,1.95,1.76,1.74,1.56,1.51,1.42,1.39,1.34,1.3,1.03,0.99,0.94,0.93,0.92,0.94,1.03,1.08,1.1,1.13,1.13,1.15 "Average heat value (Btu per

  19. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Tennessee" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.53,2.49,2.72,2.88,2.69,2.57,2.28,1.94,1.73,1.57,1.36,1.26,1.22,1.22,1.11,1.13,1.12,1.12,1.15,1.15,1.26,1.26,1.27,1.25,1.34 "Average heat value (Btu per

  20. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Texas" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",1.99,1.97,1.88,1.87,1.84,1.68,1.62,1.49,1.39,1.29,1.31,1.25,1.26,1.33,1.23,1.2,1.24,1.26,1.29,1.34,1.35,1.44,1.49,1.5,1.45 "Average heat value (Btu per

  1. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Utah" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.11,2.05,1.94,1.78,1.7,1.55,1.39,1.36,1.25,1.14,1.13,1.04,0.98,1.12,1.01,1.03,1.15,1.11,1.07,1.09,1.14,1.19,1.21,1.19,1.17 "Average heat value (Btu per

  2. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Vermont" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)"," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," ","

  3. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Virginia" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",3.37,3.35,3.67,3.52,3.28,3.08,2.77,2.49,2.45,2.33,1.95,1.67,1.69,1.59,1.33,1.34,1.38,1.39,1.42,1.45,1.45,1.47,1.47,1.52,1.55 "Average heat value (Btu per

  4. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    West Virginia" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.4,2.49,2.55,2.47,2.39,2.54,2.22,1.73,1.67,1.53,1.35,1.25,1.21,1.25,1.2,1.18,1.22,1.24,1.25,1.27,1.39,1.42,1.47,1.52,1.47 "Average heat value (Btu per

  5. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Wisconsin" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.35,2.37,2.42,2.56,2.18,2.06,1.98,1.7,1.5,1.29,1.18,1.12,1.12,1.05,1.02,1.02,1.07,1.09,1.06,1.14,1.21,1.21,1.33,1.36,1.36 "Average heat value (Btu per

  6. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Wyoming" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",1.57,1.51,1.43,1.54,1.32,1.2,1.17,1.05,1,0.95,0.87,0.82,0.79,0.77,0.78,0.76,0.79,0.81,0.82,0.82,0.8,0.8,0.76,0.83,0.84 "Average heat value (Btu per

  7. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    United States" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.37,2.34,2.38,2.39,2.27,2.21,2.07,1.77,1.69,1.54,1.36,1.28,1.25,1.23,1.2,1.22,1.25,1.27,1.29,1.32,1.36,1.39,1.41,1.45,1.45 "Average heat value (Btu per

  8. Weekly Coal Production by State

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Greenhouse gas data, voluntary report- ing, electric power plant emissions. Highlights ... Stocks Imports, exports & distribution Coal-fired electric power plants Transportation ...

  9. Coal | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Assuming no additional constraints on CO2 emissions, coal remains the largest source of electricity generation in the AEO2011 Reference case because of continued reliance on...

  10. By Coal Destination State

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    California (thousand short tons) Coal Origin State Transportation Mode Electric Power Sector Coke Plants Industrial Plants (excluding Coke) Commercial & Institutional Total...

  11. Coal - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Stocks Imports, exports & distribution Coal-fired electric power plants Transportation costs to electric power sector International All coal data reports Analysis & Projections ...

  12. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Connecticut" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",3.67,3.77,4.35,3.7,3.75,3.58,3.15,2.95,2.67,2.46,2.38,2.41,2.45," "," ",1.69,1.81,1.9,1.91,1.88,1.77,1.7,1.95,2.17,2.13 "Average heat value (Btu per pound)",9205,9205,9205,9373,10706,11038,10215,10286,10056,10139,10423,10565,11439,"

  13. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Maryland" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.95,3.39,3.57,3.65,3.41,3.01,3.66,2.12,2.27,1.92,1.74,1.63,1.63," ",1.33,1.38,1.46,1.5,1.49,1.5,1.55,1.6,1.59,1.63,1.65 "Average heat value (Btu per pound)",12449,12336,12359,12245,12288,12510,12361,12501,12504,12638,12653,12708,12799,"

  14. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Massachusetts" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",3.19,3.4,3.12,3.68,3.18,3.38,2.94,2.78,2.78,2.94,1.97,1.75,1.92," ",1.75,1.73,1.68,1.7,1.69,1.68,1.68,1.68,1.69,1.72,1.73 "Average heat value (Btu per pound)",11603,11746,12130,11794,11985,11735,11517,11595,11546,11728,11793,12200,12482,"

  15. Table 6. Electric power delivered fuel prices and quality for coal, petroleum, n

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Washington" "Item", 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 "Coal (dollars per million Btu)",2.15,2.15,2.29,2.25,2.27,2.16,2.17,1.73,1.54,1.33,1.43,1.4,1.46," ",1.69,1.56,1.49,1.63,1.57,1.44,1.36,1.36,1.37,1.55,1.58 "Average heat value (Btu per pound)",8492,8517,8477,8413,8391,8403,8366,9211,8532,8131,8151,8052,8014,"

  16. Methodology and a preliminary data base for examining the health risks of electricity generation from uranium and coal fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    El-Bassioni, A.A.

    1980-08-01

    An analytical model was developed to assess and examine the health effects associated with the production of electricity from uranium and coal fuels. The model is based on a systematic methodology that is both simple and easy to check, and provides details about the various components of health risk. A preliminary set of data that is needed to calculate the health risks was gathered, normalized to the model facilities, and presented in a concise manner. Additional data will become available as a result of other evaluations of both fuel cycles, and they should be included in the data base. An iterative approach involving only a few steps is recommended for validating the model. After each validation step, the model is improved in the areas where new information or increased interest justifies such upgrading. Sensitivity analysis is proposed as the best method of using the model to its full potential. Detailed quantification of the risks associated with the two fuel cycles is not presented in this report. The evaluation of risks from producing electricity by these two methods can be completed only after several steps that address difficult social and technical questions. Preliminary quantitative assessment showed that several factors not considered in detail in previous studies are potentially important. 255 refs., 21 figs., 179 tabs.

  17. Developing Engineered Fuel (Briquettes) Using Fly Ash from the Aquila Coal-Fired Power Plant in Canon City and Locally Available Biomass Waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    H. Carrasco; H. Sarper

    2006-06-30

    The objective of this research is to explore the feasibility of producing engineered fuels from a combination of renewable and non renewable energy sources. The components are flyash (containing coal fines) and locally available biomass waste. The constraints were such that no other binder additives were to be added. Listed below are the main accomplishments of the project: (1) Determination of the carbon content of the flyash sample from the Aquila plant. It was found to be around 43%. (2) Experiments were carried out using a model which simulates the press process of a wood pellet machine, i.e. a bench press machine with a close chamber, to find out the ideal ratio of wood and fly ash to be mixed to get the desired briquette. The ideal ratio was found to have 60% wood and 40% flyash. (3) The moisture content required to produce the briquettes was found to be anything below 5.8%. (4) The most suitable pressure required to extract the lignin form the wood and cause the binding of the mixture was determined to be 3000psi. At this pressure, the briquettes withstood an average of 150psi on its lateral side. (5) An energy content analysis was performed and the BTU content was determined to be approximately 8912 BTU/lb. (6) The environmental analysis was carried out and no abnormalities were noted. (7) Industrial visits were made to pellet manufacturing plants to investigate the most suitable manufacturing process for the briquettes. (8) A simulation model of extrusion process was developed to explore the possibility of using a cattle feed plant operating on extrusion process to produce briquettes. (9) Attempt to produce 2 tons of briquettes was not successful. The research team conducted a trial production run at a Feed Mill in La Junta, CO to produce two (2) tons of briquettes using the extrusion process in place. The goal was to, immediately after producing the briquettes; send them through Aquila's current system to test the ability of the briquettes to flow through

  18. Supplement to a review of the coal and electric sections in the Monthly Energy Review and an Overall Review of Office of Energy Data Operations Publications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-04-01

    This mock-up of the electric utilities section of the Monthly Energy Review (MER) is a supplement to MAXIMA's report, Review of the Coal and Electric Sections in the Monthly Energy Review and an Overall Review of Energy Data Operations Publications. The purpose of the mock-up is to illustrate some of the options discussed in the previous report and, where necessary, to elaborate on some of the issues previously raised. The mock-up is presented first and is followed by text that discusses changes made to the original MER. For comparison purposes, the electric utilities section in the March 1981 MER has been included in Appendix A.

  19. Coal Fleet Aging Meeting

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7, 2016 MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. Ian Mead Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis Jim Diefenderfer Director, Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis FROM: Coal and Uranium Analysis Team SUBJECT: Notes from the Coal Fleet Aging Meeting held on June 14, 2016 Attendees (36) *Indicates attendance via WebEx. 2 Framing the question This adjunct meeting of the AEO Coal Working Group (CWG) was held as a follow up to the previous Future Operating and Maintenance Considerations for the

  20. Sensitivity of Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis and Water-Gas Shift Catalysts to Poisons from High-Temperature High-Pressure Entrained-Flow (EF) Oxygen-Blown Gasifier Gasification of Coal/Biomass Mixtures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Burton Davis; Gary Jacobs; Wenping Ma; Dennis Sparks; Khalid Azzam; Janet Chakkamadathil Mohandas; Wilson Shafer; Venkat Ramana Rao Pendyala

    2011-09-30

    There has been a recent shift in interest in converting not only natural gas and coal derived syngas to Fischer-Tropsch synthesis products, but also converting biomass-derived syngas, as well as syngas derived from coal and biomass mixtures. As such, conventional catalysts based on iron and cobalt may not be suitable without proper development. This is because, while ash, sulfur compounds, traces of metals, halide compounds, and nitrogen-containing chemicals will likely be lower in concentration in syngas derived from mixtures of coal and biomass (i.e., using entrained-flow oxygen-blown gasifier gasification gasification) than solely from coal, other compounds may actually be increased. Of particular concern are compounds containing alkali chemicals like the chlorides of sodium and potassium. In the first year, University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research (UK-CAER) researchers completed a number of tasks aimed at evaluating the sensitivity of cobalt and iron-based Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FT) catalysts and a commercial iron-chromia high temperature water-gas shift catalyst (WGS) to alkali halides. This included the preparation of large batches of 0.5%Pt-25%Co/Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} and 100Fe: 5.1Si: 3.0K: 2.0Cu (high alpha) catalysts that were split up among the four different entities participating in the overall project; the testing of the catalysts under clean FT and WGS conditions; the testing of the Fe-Cr WGS catalyst under conditions of co-feeding NaCl and KCl; and the construction and start-up of the continuously stirred tank reactors (CSTRs) for poisoning investigations. In the second and third years, researchers from the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research (UK-CAER) continued the project by evaluating the sensitivity of a commercial iron-chromia high temperature water-gas shift catalyst (WGS) to a number of different compounds, including KHCO{sub 3}, NaHCO{sub 3}, HCl, HBr, HF, H{sub 2}S, NH{sub 3}, and a combination of H

  1. Coal combustion products (CCPs

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Coal combustion products (CCPs) are solid materials produced when coal is burned to generate electricity. Since coal provides the largest segment of U.S. electricity generation (45 percent in 2010), finding a sustainable solution for CCPs is an important environmental challenge. When properly managed, CCPs offer society environmental and economic benefits without harm to public health and safety. Research supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy (FE) has made an

  2. 1994 Washington State directory of Biomass Energy Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Deshaye, J.A.; Kerstetter, J.D.

    1994-03-01

    This is the fourth edition of the Washington Directory of Biomass Energy Facilities, the first edition was published in 1987. The purpose of this directory is to provide a listing of and basic information about known biomass producers and users within the state to help demonstrate the importance of biomass energy in fueling our state`s energy needs. In 1992 (latest statistical year), estimates show that the industrial sector in Washington consumed nearly 128 trillion Btu of electricity, nearly 49.5 trillion Btu of petroleum, over 82.2 trillion Btu of natural gas, and over 4.2 trillion Btu of coal. Facilities listed in this directory generated approximately 114 trillion Btu of biomass energy - 93 trillion were consumed from waste wood and spent chemicals. In the total industrial energy picture, wood residues and chemical cooking liquors placed second only to electricity. This directory is divided into four main sections biogas production, biomass combustion, ethanol production, and solid fuel processing facilities. Each section contains maps and tables summarizing the information for each type of biomass. Provided in the back of the directory for reference are a conversion table, a table of abbreviations, a glossary, and an index. Chapter 1 deals with biogas production from both landfills and sewage treatment plants in the state. Biogas produced from garbage and sewage can be scrubbed and used to generate electricity. At the present time, biogas collected at landfills is being flared on-site, however four landfills are investigating the feasibility of gas recovery for energy. Landfill biogas accounted for approximately 6 percent of the total biomass reported. Sewage treatment biogas accounted for 0.6 percent. Biogas generated from sewage treatment plants is primarily used for space and process heat, only one facility presently scrubs and sells methane. Together, landfill and sewage treatment plant biogas represented over 6.6 percent of the total biomass reported.

  3. Cogasification of coal and other domestic fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Green, A.; Mullin, J.; Zanardi, M.; Peres, S.

    1996-12-31

    Almost all new additions to electrical generation in the USA are natural gas combined cycle systems (NGCC) systems. This trend reflects the development of high efficiency gas turbines (GT), low capital, operation and maintenance of NGCC systems and optimism as to natural gas resources. With utility deregulation these developments will seriously restrict long term use of coal and other solid fuels unless a los cost integrated gasifier (IG) fed by low cost feedstocks can be coupled with a CC system. This study mainly considers on-site cogasification of coal with other domestic fuels in an indirectly heated gasifier as a long term strategy for lowering the effective costs of IGGT systems. The authors also consider cocombustion of coal with other low cost domestic fuels as a near term strategy for minimizing fuel costs for competitiveness under utility deregulation. These fuel blending approaches both make use of common fast copyrolysis processes. They examine fast copyrolysis from a molecular point of view searching for advantageous feedstock blends. The authors conclude that blending coal with complementary coals, biomass, MSW or natural gas would be useful in near term cocombustion systems and long term integrated cogasification combined cycle or cogeneration systems.

  4. NEMS Modeling of Coal Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    NEMS Modeling of Coal Plants Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewable Analysis Laura Martin June 14, 2016 Washington, DC 2 EMM Structure EFD ECP EFP ELD Laura Martin Washington, DC, June 14, 2016 Electricity Load and Demand Submodule Liquid Fuels Market Module Model inputs for coal plants 3 * Existing coal plants - plant specific inputs - Fixed and variable operating and maintenance costs, annual capital additions - Retrofit costs (capital and O&M) - FGD, DSI, SCR, SNCR, CCS, FF -

  5. U.S. Coal Reserves

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Coal Glossary › FAQS › Overview Data Coal Data Browser (interactive query tool with charting and mapping) Summary Prices Reserves Consumption Production Stocks Imports, exports & distribution Coal-fired electric power plants Transportation costs to electric power sector International All coal data reports Analysis & Projections Major Topics Most popular Consumption Environment Imports & exports Industry characteristics Prices Production Projections Recurring Reserves Stocks All

  6. Method of generating electricity using an endothermic coal gasifier and MHD generator

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Marchant, David D.; Lytle, John M.

    1982-01-01

    A system and method of generating electrical power wherein a mixture of carbonaceous material and water is heated to initiate and sustain the endothermic reaction of carbon and water thereby providing a gasified stream containing carbon monoxide, hydrogen and nitrogen and waste streams of hydrogen sulfide and ash. The gasified stream and an ionizing seed material and pressurized air from a preheater go to a burner for producing ionized combustion gases having a temperature of about 5000.degree. to about 6000.degree. F. which are accelerated to a velocity of about 1000 meters per second and passed through an MHD generator to generate DC power and thereafter through a diffuser to reduce the velocity. The gases from the diffuser go to an afterburner and from there in heat exchange relationship with the gasifier to provide heat to sustain the endothermic reaction of carbon and water and with the preheater to preheat the air prior to combustion with the gasified stream. Energy from the afterburner can also be used to energize other parts of the system.

  7. Building biomass into the utility fuel mix at NYSEG: System conversion and testing results for Greenidge Station

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Benjamin, W.

    1996-12-31

    NYSEG is in the second phase of developing resources and systems for cofiring biomass with coal. In the first phase, stoker boilers were fired with biomass (typically wood waste products). Encouraged by positive results at the older stokers, NYSEG decided to develop the process for its pulverized coal boilers beginning with Greenidge Station, a 108-MW pulverized coal (PC) unit with a General Electric turbine generator and a 665,000-lb Combustion Engineering, tangentially fired boiler. Greenidge Station is in the center of New York, surrounded by farms, forests, vineyards, and orchards. The test bums at Greenidge Station demonstrated that a parallel fuel feed system can effectively provide wood products to a PC unit. Emission results were promising but inconclusive. Additional testing, for longer durations, at varied loads and with different woods needs to be conducted to clarify and establish relationships between the percent wood fired at varying moisture contents. Loads need to be varied to develop continuous emission monitor emission data that can be compared to coal-only data. Economic analysis indicates that it will be beneficial to further refine the equipment and systems. Refinements may include chipping and drying equipment, plus installation of fuel storage and feed systems with permanent boiler penetration. NYSEG will attempt to identify the problems associated with cofiring by direct injection, compared to cofiring a biomass/coal mixture through the existing fuel handling system. Specifically, an examination will be made of fuel size criteria and the system modifications necessary for minimal impacts on coal-fired operation.

  8. Production of New Biomass/Waste-Containing Solid Fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Glenn A. Shirey; David J. Akers

    2005-09-23

    CQ Inc. and its industry partners--PBS Coals, Inc. (Friedens, Pennsylvania), American Fiber Resources (Fairmont, West Virginia), Allegheny Energy Supply (Williamsport, Maryland), and the Heritage Research Group (Indianapolis, Indiana)--addressed the objectives of the Department of Energy and industry to produce economical, new solid fuels from coal, biomass, and waste materials that reduce emissions from coal-fired boilers. This project builds on the team's commercial experience in composite fuels for energy production. The electric utility industry is interested in the use of biomass and wastes as fuel to reduce both emissions and fuel costs. In addition to these benefits, utilities also recognize the business advantage of consuming the waste byproducts of customers both to retain customers and to improve the public image of the industry. Unfortunately, biomass and waste byproducts can be troublesome fuels because of low bulk density, high moisture content, variable composition, handling and feeding problems, and inadequate information about combustion and emissions characteristics. Current methods of co-firing biomass and wastes either use a separate fuel receiving, storage, and boiler feed system, or mass burn the biomass by simply mixing it with coal on the storage pile. For biomass or biomass-containing composite fuels to be extensively used in the U.S., especially in the steam market, a lower cost method of producing these fuels must be developed that is applicable to a variety of combinations of biomass, wastes, and coal; economically competitive with current fuels; and provides environmental benefits compared with coal. During Phase I of this project (January 1999 to July 2000), several biomass/waste materials were evaluated for potential use in a composite fuel. As a result of that work and the team's commercial experience in composite fuels for energy production, paper mill sludge and coal were selected for further evaluation and demonstration in Phase II

  9. YEAR 2 BIOMASS UTILIZATION

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Christopher J. Zygarlicke

    2004-11-01

    This Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) Year 2 Biomass Utilization Final Technical Report summarizes multiple projects in biopower or bioenergy, transportation biofuels, and bioproducts. A prototype of a novel advanced power system, termed the high-temperature air furnace (HITAF), was tested for performance while converting biomass and coal blends to energy. Three biomass fuels--wood residue or hog fuel, corn stover, and switchgrass--and Wyoming subbituminous coal were acquired for combustion tests in the 3-million-Btu/hr system. Blend levels were 20% biomass--80% coal on a heat basis. Hog fuel was prepared for the upcoming combustion test by air-drying and processing through a hammer mill and screen. A K-Tron biomass feeder capable of operating in both gravimetric and volumetric modes was selected as the HITAF feed system. Two oxide dispersion-strengthened (ODS) alloys that would be used in the HITAF high-temperature heat exchanger were tested for slag corrosion rates. An alumina layer formed on one particular alloy, which was more corrosion-resistant than a chromia layer that formed on the other alloy. Research activities were completed in the development of an atmospheric pressure, fluidized-bed pyrolysis-type system called the controlled spontaneous reactor (CSR), which is used to process and condition biomass. Tree trimmings were physically and chemically altered by the CSR process, resulting in a fuel that was very suitable for feeding into a coal combustion or gasification system with little or no feed system modifications required. Experimental procedures were successful for producing hydrogen from biomass using the bacteria Thermotoga, a deep-ocean thermal vent organism. Analytical procedures for hydrogen were evaluated, a gas chromatography (GC) method was derived for measuring hydrogen yields, and adaptation culturing and protocols for mutagenesis were initiated to better develop strains that can use biomass cellulose. Fly ash derived from

  10. Electricity Monthly Update

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    cheap price of natural gas reduced coals share of electricity production. Days of Burn Days of burn Coal capacity The average number of days of burn held at electric power...

  11. Industrial innovations for tomorrow: Advances in industrial energy-efficiency technologies. Commercial power plant tests blend of refuse-derived fuel and coal to generate electricity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-11-01

    MSW can be converted to energy in two ways. One involves the direct burning of MSW to produce steam and electricity. The second converts MSW into refuse-derived fuel (RDF) by reducing the size of the MSW and separating metals, glass, and other inorganic materials. RDF can be densified or mixed with binders to form fuel pellets. As part of a program sponsored by DOE`s Office of Industrial Technologies, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory participated in a cooperative research and development agreement to examine combustion of binder-enhanced, densified refuse-derived fuel (b-d RDF) pellets with coal. Pelletized b-d RDF has been burned in coal combustors, but only in quantities of less than 3% in large utility systems. The DOE project involved the use of b-d RDF in quantities up to 20%. A major goal was to quantify the pollutants released during combustion and measure combustion performance.

  12. Biomass Basics | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Education & Workforce Development » Resources » Biomass Basics Biomass Basics Biomass is an energy resource derived from organic matter, which includes wood, agricultural waste, and other living-cell material that can be burned to produce heat energy. It also includes algae, sewage, and other organic substances that may be used to make energy through chemical processes. Biomass currently supplies about 3% of total U.S. energy consumption in the form of electricity, process heat, and

  13. Logistics, Costs, and GHG Impacts of Utility-Scale Co-Firing with 20% Biomass

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Nichol, Corrie Ian

    2013-06-01

    This study analyzes the possibility that biopower in the U.S. is a cost-competitive option to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In 2009, net greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted in the United States was equivalent to 5,618 million metric tons CO2, up 5.6% from 1990 (EPA 2011). Coal-fired power generation accounted for 1,748 million metric tons of this total. Intuitively, life-cycle CO2 emissions in the power sector could be reduced by substituting renewable biomass for coal. If just 20% of the coal combusted in 2009 had been replaced with biomass, CO2 emissions would have been reduced by 350 million metric tons, or about 6% of net annual GHG emission. This would have required approximately 225 million tons of dry biomass. Such an ambitious fuel substitution would require development of a biomass feedstock production and supply system tantamount to coal. This material would need to meet stringent specifications to ensure reliable conveyance to boiler burners, efficient combustion, and no adverse impact on heat transfer surfaces and flue gas cleanup operations. Therefore, this report addresses the potential cost/benefit tradeoffs of co-firing 20% specification-qualified biomass (on an energy content basis) in large U.S. coal-fired power plants. The dependence and sensitivity of feedstock cost on source of material, location, supply distance, and demand pressure was established. Subsequently, the dependence of levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) on feedstock costs, power plant feed system retrofit, and impact on boiler performance was determined. Overall life-cycle assessment (LCA) of greenhouse gas emissions saving were next evaluated and compared to wind and solar energy to benchmark the leading alternatives for meeting renewable portfolio standards (or RPS).

  14. Annual Coal Distribution Report - Energy Information Administration

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    & distribution Coal-fired electric power plants Transportation costs to electric power ... domestic distribution, while industrial plants excluding coke received 4.8%, coke plants ...

  15. Fixed Bed Biomass Gasifier

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carl Bielenberg

    2006-03-31

    The report details work performed by Gazogen to develop a novel biomass gasifier for producimg electricity from commercially available hardwood chips. The research conducted by Gazogen under this grant was intended to demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of a new means of producing electricity from wood chips and other biomass and carbonaceous fuels. The technical feasibility of the technology has been furthered as a result of the DOE grant, and work is expected to continue. The economic feasibility can only be shown when all operational problems have been overocme. The technology could eventually provide a means of producing electricity on a decentralized basis from sustainably cultivated plants or plant by-products.

  16. Table 8.11c Electric Net Summer Capacity: Electric Power Sector by Plant Type, 1989-2011 (Breakout of Table 8.11b; Kilowatts)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    c Electric Net Summer Capacity: Electric Power Sector by Plant Type, 1989-2011 (Breakout of Table 8.11b; Kilowatts) Year Fossil Fuels Nuclear Electric Power Hydro- electric Pumped Storage Renewable Energy Other 8 Total Coal 1 Petroleum 2 Natural Gas 3 Other Gases 4 Total Conventional Hydroelectric Power Biomass Geo- thermal Solar/PV 7 Wind Total Wood 5 Waste 6 Electricity-Only Plants 9<//td> 1989 296,541,828 77,966,348 119,304,288 364,000 494,176,464 98,160,610 18,094,424 73,579,794

  17. STEO November 2012 - coal supplies

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Despite drop in domestic coal production, U.S. coal exports to reach record high in 2012. While U.S. coal production is down 7 percent this year due in part to utilities switching to low-priced natural gas to generate electricity, American coal is still finding plenty of buyers in overseas markets. U.S. coal exports are expected to hit a record 125 million tons in 2012, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says in its new monthly short-term energy outlook. Coal exports are expected to

  18. The shell coal gasification process

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Koenders, L.O.M.; Zuideveld, P.O.

    1995-12-01

    Future Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (ICGCC) power plants will have superior environmental performance and efficiency. The Shell Coal Gasification Process (SCGP) is a clean coal technology, which can convert a wide range of coals into clean syngas for high efficiency electricity generation in an ICGCC plant. SCGP flexibility has been demonstrated for high-rank bituminous coals to low rank lignites and petroleum coke, and the process is well suited for combined cycle power generation, resulting in efficiencies of 42 to 46% (LHV), depending on choice of coal and gas turbine efficiency. In the Netherlands, a 250 MWe coal gasification combined cycle plant based on Shell technology has been built by Demkolec, a development partnership of the Dutch Electricity Generating Board (N.V. Sep). The construction of the unit was completed end 1993 and is now followed by start-up and a 3 year demonstration period, after that the plant will be part of the Dutch electricity generating system.

  19. DESIGNING AN OPPORTUNITY FUEL WITH BIOMASS AND TIRE-DERIVED FUEL FOR COFIRING AT WILLOW ISLAND GENERATING STATION AND COFIRING SAWDUST WITH COAL AT ALBRIGHT GENERATING STATION

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    K. Payette; D. Tillman

    2003-07-01

    During the period April 1, 2003--June 30, 2003, Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC (Allegheny) proceeded with demonstration operations at the Willow Island Generating Station and improvements to the Albright Generating Station cofiring systems. The demonstration operations at Willow Island were designed to document integration of biomass cofiring into commercial operations. The Albright improvements were designed to increase the resource base for the projects, and to address issues that came up during the first year of operations. This report summarizes the activities associated with the Designer Opportunity Fuel program, and demonstrations at Willow Island and Albright Generating Stations.

  20. Upgrading coal plant damper drives

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hood, N.R.; Simmons, K.

    2009-11-15

    The replacement of damper drives on two coal-fired units at the James H. Miller Jr. electric generating plant by Intelligent Contrac electric rotary actuators is discussed. 2 figs.

  1. Economics of coal fines utilization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hathi, V.; McHale, E.; Ramezan, M.; Winslow, J.

    1995-12-31

    In the twentieth century, coal has become the major fuel for electric power generation in the U.S. and most of the nonpetroleum-producing countries of the world. In 1998, the world coal-fired capacity for electric power generation was about 815 GW, consuming large quantities of coals of all ranks. Today, coal provides a third of the world`s energy requirements. In fact, coal use for power generation has grown steadily since the oil embargo in 1973 and has seen an even faster rate of growth in recent years. It has been reported that the global demand for new coal will increase by more than 1500 million tons by the year 2000. However, this increased production of coal has its drawbacks, including the concomitant production of coal waste. Reported estimates indicate that billions of tons of coal waste have already been disposed of in waste impoundments throughout the U.S. Further, in the U.S. today, about 20-25 % of each ton of mined coal is discarded by preparation plants as gob and plant tailings. It appears that the most economical near-term approach to coal waste recovery is to utilize the waste coal fines currently discarded with the refuse stream, rather than attempt to recover coal from waste impoundments that require careful prior evaluation and site preparation. A hypothetical circuit was designed to examine the economics of recovery and utilization of waste coal fines. The circuit recovers products from 100 tons per hour (tph) of coal waste feed recovering 70 tph of fine coal that can be used in coal-fired boilers. The present analysis indicates that the coal waste recovery is feasible and economical. In addition, significant environmental benefits can be expected.

  2. Chemicals, fuels and electricity from coal. A proposed tri-generation concept for utilization of CO{sub 2} from power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Song, C.

    1999-07-01

    A tri-generation concept is proposed for the 21st century for making liquid fuels and chemicals along with electricity using CO{sub 2} from flue gases of coal-based electric power plants. The CO{sub 2} from flue gas in the power plant can be converted with CH{sub 4} (natural gas) to form synthesis gas (CO and H{sub 2} mixture) using the waste heat in the power plant. The H{sub 2}O and O{sub 2} in the flue gas will be used as co-reactants and need not be separated from the flue gas. The hot synthesis gas can be used as feedstock for fuel cells for electricity generation (such as MCFC and SOFC). The hot synthesis gas can also be used for gas turbines to generate electricity. The synthesis gas at moderate temperature can be converted into chemicals and fuels, e.g., methanol and mixed alcohols for chemical and fuel uses, dimethylether (DME) and mixed ethers for diesel fuel, dimethyl carbonate and acetic acid for chemicals. The fuels thus produced may be used either for conventional IC engines or in fuel cell-driven vehicles. This concept could also be applied, in principle, for natural gas-based power plants and IGCC power plants.

  3. Biomass pretreatment

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hennessey, Susan Marie; Friend, Julie; Elander, Richard T; Tucker, III, Melvin P

    2013-05-21

    A method is provided for producing an improved pretreated biomass product for use in saccharification followed by fermentation to produce a target chemical that includes removal of saccharification and or fermentation inhibitors from the pretreated biomass product. Specifically, the pretreated biomass product derived from using the present method has fewer inhibitors of saccharification and/or fermentation without a loss in sugar content.

  4. Coal sector profile

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-06-05

    Coal is our largest domestic energy resource with recoverable reserves estimated at 268 billion short tons or 5.896 quads Btu equivalent. This is approximately 95 percent of US fossil energy resources. It is relatively inexpensive to mine, and on a per Btu basis it is generally much less costly to produce than other energy sources. Its chief drawbacks are the environmental, health and safety concerns that must be addressed in its production and consumption. Historically, coal has played a major role in US energy markets. Coal fueled the railroads, heated the homes, powered the factories. and provided the raw materials for steel-making. In 1920, coal supplied over three times the amount of energy of oil, gas, and hydro combined. From 1920 until the mid 1970s, coal production remained fairly constant at 400 to 600 million short tons a year. Rapid increases in overall energy demands, which began during and after World War II were mostly met by oil and gas. By the mid 1940s, coal represented only half of total energy consumption in the US. In fact, post-war coal production, which had risen in support of the war effort and the postwar Marshall plan, decreased approximately 25 percent between 1945 and 1960. Coal demand in the post-war era up until the 1970s was characterized by increasing coal use by the electric utilities but decreasing coal use in many other markets (e.g., rail transportation). The oil price shocks of the 1970s, combined with natural gas shortages and problems with nuclear power, returned coal to a position of prominence. The greatly expanded use of coal was seen as a key building block in US energy strategies of the 1970s. Coal production increased from 613 million short tons per year in 1970 to 950 million short tons in 1988, up over 50 percent.

  5. Clean coal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Liang-Shih Fan; Fanxing Li

    2006-07-15

    The article describes the physics-based techniques that are helping in clean coal conversion processes. The major challenge is to find a cost- effective way to remove carbon dioxide from the flue gas of power plants. One industrially proven method is to dissolve CO{sub 2} in the solvent monoethanolamine (MEA) at a temperature of 38{sup o}C and then release it from the solvent in another unit when heated to 150{sup o}C. This produces CO{sub 2} ready for sequestration. Research is in progress with alternative solvents that require less energy. Another technique is to use enriched oxygen in place of air in the combustion process which produces CO{sub 2} ready for sequestration. A process that is more attractive from an energy management viewpoint is to gasify coal so that it is partially oxidized, producing a fuel while consuming significantly less oxygen. Several IGCC schemes are in operation which produce syngas for use as a feedstock, in addition to electricity and hydrogen. These schemes are costly as they require an air separation unit. Novel approaches to coal gasification based on 'membrane separation' or chemical looping could reduce the costs significantly while effectively capturing carbon dioxide. 1 ref., 2 figs., 1 photo.

  6. Role of coal in the world and Asia

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Johnson, C.J.; Li, B.

    1994-10-01

    This paper examines the changing role of coal in the world and in Asia. Particular attention is given to the rapidly growing demand for coal in electricity generation, the importance of China as a producer and consumer of coal, and the growing environmental challenge to coal. Attention is given to the increasing importance of low sulfur coal and Clean Coal Technologies in reducing the environmental impacts of coal burning.

  7. Development of a Hydrogasification Process for Co-Production of Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) and Electric Power from Western Coals-Phase I

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Raymond Hobbs

    2007-05-31

    The Advanced Hydrogasification Process (AHP)--conversion of coal to methane--is being developed through NETL with a DOE Grant and has successfully completed its first phase of development. The results so far are encouraging and have led to commitment by DOE/NETL to begin a second phase--bench scale reactor vessel testing, expanded engineering analysis and economic perspective review. During the next decade new means of generating electricity, and other forms of energy, will be introduced. The members of the AHP Team envision a need for expanded sources of natural gas or substitutes for natural gas, to fuel power generating plants. The initial work the team has completed on a process to use hydrogen to convert coal to methane (pipeline ready gas) shows promising potential. The Team has intentionally slanted its efforts toward the needs of US electric utilities, particularly on fuels that can be used near urban centers where the greatest need for new electric generation is found. The process, as it has evolved, would produce methane from coal by adding hydrogen. The process appears to be efficient using western coals for conversion to a highly sought after fuel with significantly reduced CO{sub 2} emissions. Utilities have a natural interest in the preservation of their industry, which will require a dramatic reduction in stack emissions and an increase in sustainable technologies. Utilities tend to rank long-term stable supplies of fuel higher than most industries and are willing to trade some ratio of cost for stability. The need for sustainability, stability and environmentally compatible production are key drivers in the formation and progression of the AHP development. In Phase II, the team will add a focus on water conservation to determine how the basic gasification process can be best integrated with all the plant components to minimize water consumption during SNG production. The process allows for several CO{sub 2} reduction options including consumption of

  8. Environmentally conscious coal combustion

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hickmott, D.D.; Brown, L.F.; Currier, R.P.

    1997-08-01

    This is the final report of a one-year, Laboratory-Directed Research and Development (LDRD) project at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The objective of this project was to evaluate the environmental impacts of home-scale coal combustion on the Navajo Reservation and develop strategies to reduce adverse health effects associated with home-scale coal combustion. Principal accomplishments of this project were: (1) determination of the metal and gaseous emissions of a representative stove on the Navajo Reservation; (2) recognition of cyclic gaseous emissions in combustion in home-scale combustors; (3) `back of the envelope` calculation that home-scale coal combustion may impact Navajo health; and (4) identification that improved coal stoves require the ability to burn diverse feedstocks (coal, wood, biomass). Ultimately the results of Navajo home-scale coal combustion studies will be extended to the Developing World, particularly China, where a significant number (> 150 million) of households continue to heat their homes with low-grade coal.

  9. Table 8.11b Electric Net Summer Capacity: Electric Power Sector, 1949-2011 (Subset of Table 8.11a; Kilowatts)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    b Electric Net Summer Capacity: Electric Power Sector, 1949-2011 (Subset of Table 8.11a; Kilowatts) Year Fossil Fuels Nuclear Electric Power Hydro- electric Pumped Storage Renewable Energy Other 9 Total Coal 1 Petroleum 2 Natural Gas 3 Other Gases 4 Total Conventional Hydroelectric Power 5 Biomass Geo- thermal Solar/PV 8 Wind Total Wood 6 Waste 7 1949 NA NA NA NA 44,887,000 0 [5] 18,500,000 13,000 [10] NA NA NA 18,513,000 NA 63,400,000 1950 NA NA NA NA 49,987,000 0 [5] 19,200,000 13,000 [10] NA

  10. Biomass Logistics

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J. Richard Hess; Kevin L. Kenney; William A. Smith; Ian Bonner; David J. Muth

    2015-04-01

    Equipment manufacturers have made rapid improvements in biomass harvesting and handling equipment. These improvements have increased transportation and handling efficiencies due to higher biomass densities and reduced losses. Improvements in grinder efficiencies and capacity have reduced biomass grinding costs. Biomass collection efficiencies (the ratio of biomass collected to the amount available in the field) as high as 75% for crop residues and greater than 90% for perennial energy crops have also been demonstrated. However, as collection rates increase, the fraction of entrained soil in the biomass increases, and high biomass residue removal rates can violate agronomic sustainability limits. Advancements in quantifying multi-factor sustainability limits to increase removal rate as guided by sustainable residue removal plans, and mitigating soil contamination through targeted removal rates based on soil type and residue type/fraction is allowing the use of new high efficiency harvesting equipment and methods. As another consideration, single pass harvesting and other technologies that improve harvesting costs cause biomass storage moisture management challenges, which challenges are further perturbed by annual variability in biomass moisture content. Monitoring, sampling, simulation, and analysis provide basis for moisture, time, and quality relationships in storage, which has allowed the development of moisture tolerant storage systems and best management processes that combine moisture content and time to accommodate baled storage of wet material based upon “shelf-life.” The key to improving biomass supply logistics costs has been developing the associated agronomic sustainability and biomass quality technologies and processes that allow the implementation of equipment engineering solutions.

  11. Biomass Derivatives Competitive with Heating Oil Costs.

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Biomass Derivatives Competitive with Heating Oil Costs Transportation fuel Heat or electricity * Data are from literature, except heating oil is adjusted from 2011 winter average * ...

  12. Techno Economic Analysis of Hydrogen Production by gasification of biomass

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Francis Lau

    2002-12-01

    Biomass represents a large potential feedstock resource for environmentally clean processes that produce power or chemicals. It lends itself to both biological and thermal conversion processes and both options are currently being explored. Hydrogen can be produced in a variety of ways. The majority of the hydrogen produced in this country is produced through natural gas reforming and is used as chemical feedstock in refinery operations. In this report we will examine the production of hydrogen by gasification of biomass. Biomass is defined as organic matter that is available on a renewable basis through natural processes or as a by-product of processes that use renewable resources. The majority of biomass is used in combustion processes, in mills that use the renewable resources, to produce electricity for end-use product generation. This report will explore the use of hydrogen as a fuel derived from gasification of three candidate biomass feedstocks: bagasse, switchgrass, and a nutshell mix that consists of 40% almond nutshell, 40% almond prunings, and 20% walnut shell. In this report, an assessment of the technical and economic potential of producing hydrogen from biomass gasification is analyzed. The resource base was assessed to determine a process scale from feedstock costs and availability. Solids handling systems were researched. A GTI proprietary gasifier model was used in combination with a Hysys(reg. sign) design and simulation program to determine the amount of hydrogen that can be produced from each candidate biomass feed. Cost estimations were developed and government programs and incentives were analyzed. Finally, the barriers to the production and commercialization of hydrogen from biomass were determined. The end-use of the hydrogen produced from this system is small PEM fuel cells for automobiles. Pyrolysis of biomass was also considered. Pyrolysis is a reaction in which biomass or coal is partially vaporized by heating. Gasification is a more

  13. Quarterly Coal Report - Energy Information Administration

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Coal Glossary › FAQS › Overview Data Coal Data Browser (interactive query tool with charting and mapping) Summary Prices Reserves Consumption Production Stocks Imports, exports & distribution Coal-fired electric power plants Transportation costs to electric power sector International All coal data reports Analysis & Projections Major Topics Most popular Consumption Environment Imports & exports Industry characteristics Prices Production Projections Recurring Reserves Stocks All

  14. Florida's electric industry and solar electric technologies

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Camejo, N.

    1983-12-01

    The Florida Electric Industry is in a process of diversifying its generation technology and its fuel mix. This is being done in an effort to reduce oil consumption, which in 1981 accounted for 46.5% of the electric generation by fuel type. This does not compare well with the rest of the nation where oil use is lower. New coal and nuclear units are coming on line, and probably more will be built in the near future. However, eventhough conservation efforts may delay their construction, new power plants will have to be built to accomodate the growing demand for electricity. Other alternatives being considered are renewable energy resources. The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a research project in which 10 electric utilities in Florida and the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group rated six Solar Electric options. The Solar Electric options considered are: 1) Wind, 2) P.V., 3) Solar thermal-electric, 4) OTEC, 5) Ocean current, and 6) Biomass. The questionaire involved rating the economic and technical feasibility, as well as, the potential environmental impact of these options in Florida. It also involved rating the difficulty in overcoming institutional barriers and assessing the status of each option. A copy of the questionaire is included after the references. The combined capacity of the participating utilities represent over 90% of the total generating capacity in Florida. A list of the participating utilities is also included. This research was done in partial fulfillment for the Mater's of Science Degree in Coastal Zone Management. This paper is complementary to another paper (in these condensed conference proceedings) titled COASTAL ZONE ENERGY MANAGEMENT: A multidisciplinary approach for the integration of Solar Electric Systems with Florida's power generation system, which present a summary of the Master's thesis.

  15. Biomass Program Factsheet

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2010-03-01

    The emerging U.S. bioindustry is using a range of biomass resources to provide a secure and growing supply of transportation fuels and electric power. Displacing an increasing portion of our imported oil with renewable, domestic bioenergy will provide clear benefits:Reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; A cleaner, more secure energy future; Sustainable transportation fuels; Opportunities for economic growth

  16. Electricity production using solar energy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Demirbas, M.F.

    2007-07-01

    In this study, a solar-powered development project is used to identify whether it is possible to utilize solar technologies in the electricity production sector. Electricity production from solar energy has been found to be a promising method in the future. Concentrated solar energy can be converted to chemical energy via high-temperature endothermic reactions. Coal and biomass can be pyrolyzed or gasified by using concentrated solar radiation for generating power. Conventional energy will not be enough to meet the continuously increasing need for energy in the future. In this case, renewable energy sources will become important. Solar energy is an increasing need for energy in the future. Solar energy is a very important energy source because of its advantages. Instead of a compressor system, which uses electricity, an absorption cooling system, using renewable energy and kinds of waste heat energy, may be used for cooling.

  17. Emissions of greenhouse gases from the use of transportation fuels and electricity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DeLuchi, M.A. )

    1991-11-01

    This report presents estimates of full fuel-cycle emissions of greenhouse gases from using transportation fuels and electricity. The data cover emissions of carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}), methane, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, nitrogen oxides, and nonmethane organic compounds resulting from the end use of fuels, compression or liquefaction of gaseous transportation fuels, fuel distribution, fuel production, feedstock transport, feedstock recovery, manufacture of motor vehicles, maintenance of transportation systems, manufacture of materials used in major energy facilities, and changes in land use that result from using biomass-derived fuels. The results for electricity use are in grams of CO{sub 2}-equivalent emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity delivered to end users and cover generating plants powered by coal, oil, natural gas, methanol, biomass, and nuclear energy. The transportation analysis compares CO{sub 2}-equivalent emissions, in grams per mile, from base-case gasoline and diesel fuel cycles with emissions from these alternative- fuel cycles: methanol from coal, natural gas, or wood; compressed or liquefied natural gas; synthetic natural gas from wood; ethanol from corn or wood; liquefied petroleum gas from oil or natural gas; hydrogen from nuclear or solar power; electricity from coal, uranium, oil, natural gas, biomass, or solar energy, used in battery-powered electric vehicles; and hydrogen and methanol used in fuel-cell vehicles.

  18. Emissions of greenhouse gases from the use of transportation fuels and electricity. Volume 1, Main text

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DeLuchi, M.A.

    1991-11-01

    This report presents estimates of full fuel-cycle emissions of greenhouse gases from using transportation fuels and electricity. The data cover emissions of carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}), methane, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, nitrogen oxides, and nonmethane organic compounds resulting from the end use of fuels, compression or liquefaction of gaseous transportation fuels, fuel distribution, fuel production, feedstock transport, feedstock recovery, manufacture of motor vehicles, maintenance of transportation systems, manufacture of materials used in major energy facilities, and changes in land use that result from using biomass-derived fuels. The results for electricity use are in grams of CO{sub 2}-equivalent emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity delivered to end users and cover generating plants powered by coal, oil, natural gas, methanol, biomass, and nuclear energy. The transportation analysis compares CO{sub 2}-equivalent emissions, in grams per mile, from base-case gasoline and diesel fuel cycles with emissions from these alternative- fuel cycles: methanol from coal, natural gas, or wood; compressed or liquefied natural gas; synthetic natural gas from wood; ethanol from corn or wood; liquefied petroleum gas from oil or natural gas; hydrogen from nuclear or solar power; electricity from coal, uranium, oil, natural gas, biomass, or solar energy, used in battery-powered electric vehicles; and hydrogen and methanol used in fuel-cell vehicles.

  19. Electricity Monthly Update

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Electric Power Sector Coal Stocks: February 2014 Stocks Extreme cold throughout the winter continued in February, leading to a 13.4 million ton decline in coal inventories from...

  20. USDOE/EPRI BIOMASS COFIRING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    E. Hughes; D. Tillman

    2000-07-01

    During the period of April 1, 2000 through June 30, 2000, alternatives for relocating the Seward Generating Station cofiring project were investigated. A test was conducted at Bailly Generating Station of Northern Indiana Public Service Co., firing a blend of Black Thunder (Powder River Basin) coal and Illinois basin coal, in cyclone boiler designed for Illinois basin coal. This test at Bailly was designed to determine the technical feasibility of cofiring at that station using PRB coals. This report summarizes the activities during the second calendar quarter in 2000 of the USDOE/EPRI Biomass Cofiring Cooperative Agreement. It focuses upon reporting the results of construction and testing activities at these generating stations.

  1. Proximate analysis of coal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Donahue, C.J.; Rais, E.A.

    2009-02-15

    This lab experiment illustrates the use of thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) to perform proximate analysis on a series of coal samples of different rank. Peat and coke are also examined. A total of four exercises are described. These are dry exercises as students interpret previously recorded scans. The weight percent moisture, volatile matter, fixed carbon, and ash content are determined for each sample and comparisons are made. Proximate analysis is performed on a coal sample from a local electric utility. From the weight percent sulfur found in the coal (determined by a separate procedure the Eschka method) and the ash content, students calculate the quantity of sulfur dioxide emissions and ash produced annually by a large coal-fired electric power plant.

  2. Coal Markets

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Coal Glossary FAQS Overview Data Coal Data Browser (interactive query tool with charting and mapping) Summary Prices Reserves Consumption Production Stocks Imports, exports ...

  3. Underground gasification of coal

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Pasini, III, Joseph; Overbey, Jr., William K.; Komar, Charles A.

    1976-01-20

    There is disclosed a method for the gasification of coal in situ which comprises drilling at least one well or borehole from the earth's surface so that the well or borehole enters the coalbed or seam horizontally and intersects the coalbed in a direction normal to its major natural fracture system, initiating burning of the coal with the introduction of a combustion-supporting gas such as air to convert the coal in situ to a heating gas of relatively high calorific value and recovering the gas. In a further embodiment the recovered gas may be used to drive one or more generators for the production of electricity.

  4. Development of standardized air-blown coal gasifier/gas turbine concepts for future electric power systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sadowski, R.S.; Brown, M.J.; Harriz, J.T.; Ostrowski, E.

    1991-01-01

    The cost estimate provided for the DOE sponsored study of Air Blown Coal Gasification was developed from vendor quotes obtained directly for the equipment needed in the 50 MW, 100 MW, and 200 MW sized plants and from quotes from other jobs that have been referenced to apply to the particular cycle. Quotes were generally obtained for the 100 MW cycle and a scale up/down factor was used to generate the cost estimates for the 200 MW and 50 MW cycles, respectively. Information from GTPro (property of Thermoflow, Inc.) was used to estimate the cost of the 200 MW and 50 MW gas turbine, HRSG, and steam turbines. To available the use of GTPro's estimated values for this equipment, a comparison was made between the quotes obtained for the 100 MW cycle (ABB GT 11N combustion turbine and a HSRG) against the estimated values by GTPro.

  5. Biomass Sales and Use Tax Exemption

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    To qualify for the exemption, the biomass material must be utilized in the production of energy, including the production of electricity, steam, or both electricity and steam. Pellets and fuels...

  6. Biomass One Biomass Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    USA Biomass National Map Retrieved from "http:en.openei.orgwindex.php?titleBiomassOneBiomassFacility&oldid397204" Feedback Contact needs updating Image needs...

  7. Thermal Use of Biomass in The United States | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    from on-site waste products.3 Related Links Biomass Industrial Biomass Energy Consumption and Electricity Net Generation by Industry and Energy Source, 2008 Historical...

  8. EIA's Energy in Brief: What is the role of coal in the United...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Power Monthly Quarterly Coal Report Monthly Energy ... data, voluntary report- ing, electric power plant emissions. ... while coal-fired generation has generally declined. ...

  9. National Coal Quality Inventory (NACQI)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Robert Finkelman

    2005-09-30

    The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted the National Coal Quality Inventory (NaCQI) between 1999 and 2005 to address a need for quality information on coals that will be mined during the next 20-30 years. Collaboration between the USGS, State geological surveys, universities, coal burning utilities, and the coal mining industry plus funding support from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) permitted collection and submittal of coal samples for analysis. The chemical data (proximate and ultimate analyses; major, minor and trace element concentrations) for 729 samples of raw or prepared coal, coal associated shale, and coal combustion products (fly ash, hopper ash, bottom ash and gypsum) from nine coal producing States are included. In addition, the project identified a new coal reference analytical standard, to be designated CWE-1 (West Elk Mine, Gunnison County, Colorado) that is a high-volatile-B or high-volatile-A bituminous coal with low contents of ash yield and sulfur, and very low, but detectable contents of chlorine, mercury and other trace elements.

  10. Methods for pretreating biomass

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Balan, Venkatesh; Dale, Bruce E; Chundawat, Shishir; Sousa, Leonardo

    2015-03-03

    A method of alkaline pretreatment of biomass, in particular, pretreating biomass with gaseous ammonia.