 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
REPP-CREST
1612 K Street, NW
Suite 202
Washington, DC 20006
contact us
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| Bioenergy Archive for October 2002 |
|
| 34 messages, last added Tue Nov 26 17:13:58 2002 |
[Date Index][Thread Index]
No Subject
The discrimination by certain elements of the renewables fuel energy industry
against biomass green-e certification makes absolutely no sense to us, in
light of the CO2 benefits available from the use of biomass fuel.
In conclusion, we recognize the benefits available from the use of biomass
fuel. We would be delighted to engage in more detailed conversations with you
or others regarding our efforts to replace coal in coal-fired power plants
with cleaner burning and biosphere friendly biomass.
Regards,
Fred Murrell
Biomass Development Company
1401 Manatee Avenue West
Suite 910
Bradenton Florida 34205
Phone 941 747 2630
www.biomassdev.com (biomass)
www.energyweb.com (coal)
--part1_12c.19c36f07.2ae99a35_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3>In a message dated 10/24/02 12:57:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, fbeck@repp.org writes:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">The expertise of this group could add<BR>
to the debate over co-firing certification. Are you interested?</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Mr. Beck:<BR>
<BR>
Thanks very much for your very interesting email on biomass and how it fits into the fuels regime -- both as a qualified green-e certificatable fuel and into society at large. <BR>
<BR>
Our company is actively involved in attempting to introduce biomass co-firing in coal fired power plants. We believe that the best way to accomplish this is to convert the biomass into a combustible gas and inject the gas into the coal-fired boiler while it takes the balance of its load from coal. <BR>
<BR>
We believe this because we come from a coal background, and we have substantial experience with coal-fired power plants. We know that most forms of biomass offer operational disamenities to power plant operators. To avoid the disadvantages that biomass fuel offers in power plants (e.g., reduced efficiency of the pulverizers and increase in moisture in the boiler), we prefer to gasify the biomass, thereby putting a hot, combustible gas into the boiler. Depending on the specific situation, we can put the biomass directly into a gasifier or take the biomass first into a pyrolyzer and then the char into a gasifier. <BR>
<BR>
Another significant "pro" for this type of gas injection is that it has been shown to be effective in reducing the amount of NOx that is emitted from coal-fired plants -- both because of the stoichiometry of the gasification process (destroying fuel-bound N), as well as the ability to stage combustion to keep flame temperature lower (to avoid thermal NOx production). <BR>
<BR>
Another advantage of biomass gas injected into a coal-fired plant is that it reduces the ash loading of the plant. The pyrolysis and gasification processes tend to have their own particulate capture methodologies that release few particles per million BTUs than many coal-firing technologies. <BR>
<BR>
Implied in your email is the fact that most biomass (perhaps all biomass) has lower sulfur content than most coals. This is a decided benefit, as well. <BR>
<BR>
|
|
|
