HomeMy WebLinkAboutAlaskan Biomass Power Generation Demonstration Project Utilizing Local Willow Biomass Crops 2006
Chena Power, LLC Biomass Demonstration Project
Alaskan Biomass Power Generation Demonstration Project
Utilizing Local Willow Biomass Crops
Project Background and Goals:
Chena Power has assembled a strong team with a proven track record for results to
pursue a holistic approach to village scale biomass power generation which could be
applicable to a wide number of rural Alaskan communities. In addition to Chena Power,
partners include United Technologies Corporation (UTC), the University of Alaska
Agriculture and Forestry Experimental Station (UAF), the Fairbanks North Star Borough
(FNSB), Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), and Alaska Energy Authority/ The
Denali Commission (proposed).
Chena Power, in partnership with the United Technologies Research Center, has recently
demonstrated a modular power plant design generating power off a 165°F geothermal
resource. Chena Power has been awarded the prestigious 2006 Green Power Leadership
Award **! from the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency for
this project. The Chena plant represents a huge leap forward for moderate temperature
geothermal development and greatly expands the number of geothermal resources that
can economically be developed. Prior to the operation of the power plant at Chena, the
lowest temperature geothermal resource ever developed for commercial power generation
was 208°F.
UTC and Chena Power personnel celebrate the commissioning of the 200kW Chena
Hot Springs geothermal power plant in July, 2006
'** This award will not officially be announced until December 4" 2006
Chena Power, LLC Biomass Demonstration Project
The power modules, built by United Technologies Corporation, consist of components
from their Carrier mass-production facilities, and are designed to resemble a chiller for
quick installation and easy operation. This has resulted in substantial reductions to both
upfront installation costs and long-term maintenance costs. The same technology
installed at Chena can be used to generate power either from any heat source, including
biomass. United Technologies has dedicated $500,000 to developing a biomass power
plant for remote power applications based on the same principles but with increased
efficiency. Specific goals for the power plant include a modular design, low cost, simple
and safe installation and operation, remote monitoring and startup/shut down capability,
and CHP” design. With a highly successful, results-oriented partnership already in place
between UTC, Chena Power and the State of Alaska, a continued collaboration
demonstrating affordable biomass power generation for Alaska has the potential to
transform rural economies throughout the State.
[
While designing and constriction 4 robust, modular power plant specific to remote site
deployment is a critical component of this project, ensuring a sustainable source of
biomass at remote sites is equally critical to long term success. Alaska has substantial
biomass resources, but lacks significant local infrastructure to harvest and process
biomass sustainably over wide tracks of land. The State University of New York Forest
and Natural Resources Department has engaged in a long-term project to investigate the
feasibility of growing willows as a short-rotation woody crop for use as a fuel for power
generation. 500 acres are grown on a 3 year rotation at their test plot in Syracuse, New
York, and a number of satellite test plots have also been established as far north as
Edmonton, BC. Willow biomass cultivation has also been well established in Sweden
since the 1970’s, with 17,000ha currently in production. Sweden envisages 200,000ha of
cultivation by 2020°. The University of Alaska Agriculture and Forestry Experiment
Station has also begun a pilot project involving 8 Alaskan willow varieties specifically
selected for potential use as a biomass crop and reindeer feedstock. This program can
easily be expanded to encompass the scope of work outlined in this proposal, and a verbal
commitment with SUNY willow biomass PI’s Dr. Tim Volk and Dr. Larry Abrahamson
to collaborate with UAF and Chena Power has already been obtained.
In 1999 the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) studied the economic feasibility of biomass
power generation for a community the size of McGrath (200kW)*. They compared
biomass to diesel power generation over a 20 year lifetime, using an assumed constant
cost of $1.54/gal for diesel fuel. They also assumed an upfront biomass power plant
installation cost of $1,800,000, and 7,659 tons of biomass fuel required at a cost of $45-
$90/ton, depending on the source. At the time, the project was concluded to be
marginally economical, however there were concerns which surfaced including impacts
of increased wood harvest, depletion of wood resources, and overall system complexity.
> Combined Heat and Power
> Verwijst T. 2001. ‘Willows: An Underestimated resource for environment and society’, Forestry Cron.
77.
* Crimp P. 1999. ‘Biomass Energy Alternatives for a Remote Alaskan Community’.
Chena Power, LLC Biomass Demonstration Project
When the AEA study is revised using current fuel costs of $3.00/gal, and holding all
other costs constant, the project economics are very attractive. The project would save
$1,000,000 in fuel costs over 20 years and generate as much as $12,000,000 in local
revenue in the form of jobs over the same time period. This combined revenue and
power generation savings could have a substantial impact on the economic health and
sustainability of remote Alaskan villages, particularly in the face of rising fuel costs. In 000d
fact, had the proposed power plant been installed in McGrath at the time the study was J *- A
conducted, the project would have already paid for itself. Instead, McGrath has Ce M
purchased approximately $1,700,000 in diesel fuel over that time period, dollars which ee
are irretrievably lost to both the village and largely to the State of Alaska as well.
Project Description:
The proposed project will take place over a period of 5 years in order to incorporate a full
rotation of willow crops, however the goal will be to make the project largely financially
self sufficient after the first three years. This will be accomplished through project
revenue generation through the sale of electric power (to GVEA), management of the
FNSB paper and cardboard recycling program, which generates 1500tons/year of
potential fuel, and associated tax credits and REC’ sales. All aspects of this project, from
power plant design to biomass crop planning will be geared toward technology transfer to
village settings, with the goal of having a sister plant in operation in a rural village by the
end of the project period. Once the project is officially concluded, the Chena Power
biomass plant will continue to be available for tours and serve as a venue for training
opportunities for rural residents.
This proposal encompasses an ambitious plan to bring together private, government, and
institutional partners to address the problem of sustainable, economically viable rural
power generation in a proactive and results oriented manner. The project has five
primary components as outlined below:
1. Power plant development at the United Technologies Research Center geared for
the Alaskan market, including modular design, robust construction, simple and
safe installation and operation, and remote monitoring capability. The power
plant will be designed as a 200kW module operating at higher temperatures and
efficiencies than the Chena geothermal power plant.
2. Test facility and onsite infrastructure installed by Chena Power at their sister
company, K&K Recycling located in North Pole, Alaska. The goal will be to
demonstrate and test the technology using a variety of biomass fuels. This will
include identifying and installing a safe, robust thermal heater to process the
biomass fuel and a CHP system for the site.
3. Short-rotation biomass willow crop for Alaskan conditions will be selected and
planted in test plots by University of Alaska Agriculture and Forestry Experiment
Station with the goal of supplying biomass fuel to the power plant.
4. Economic and social feasibility study will be conducted in partnership with
Alaska Energy Authority to determine if demonstration project can be viably
exported to village setting. Including rural Alaskans in long term project
° Renewable Energy Credits, or Green Tags
Chena Power, LLC Biomass Demonstration Project
feasibility studies would be a critical component to insure high success
probability.
5. Educational outreach to Alaskans residents, both rural and non-rural is a critical
component to long term project success. A program offering specific, project
based, hands-on educational opportunities for rural Alaskans will be designed by
Chena Power and the Alaska Energy Authority, in partnership with the
Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP). Additionally, facility tours will be
regularly scheduled for any interested members of the public, but catering
specifically to elementary and high school students from around the State.
Project Partners:
The primary project partners are listed below.
Chena Power, LLC: Chena Power will serve as the project lead due to the strong
relationships Chena Power and its sister organization Chena Hot Springs Resort has
fostered with all other project participants. Chena Power is a privately owned utility
which owns and operates the 400kW geothermal power plant installed at Chena Hot
Springs Resort. The Chena Hot Springs geothermal project was completed on schedule
and within the original project budget of $2.2 million. Because the proposed biomass
plant will build on the successful platform already installed at Chena Hot Springs, Chena
Power has the experience and expertise to manage and operate the power plant facility.
In addition, Chena Power will provide $300,000 in cost share for the project.
United Technologies Corporation (UTC): UTC is the 20" largest U.S. manufacturer, ( |
with $42.7 billion in sales in 2005. The biomass power plant will be designed by the 7
United Technologies Research Center using massed produced Carrier Refrigeration
components similar to the Chena geothermal power plant. Improvements to the
geothermal platform will focus on higher efficiency. Cold weather operation and
operation without a strong grid connection has already been tested at the Chena Hot
Springs location. UTC has committed $500,000 in cost share for the development of the
power plant module.
UAF Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station (UAF): UAF began
experimentation with willow as a potential crop for biomass production in the spring of
2005. Small plots of several species of native willows were planted using cuttings
harvested during late winter. Very few cuttings survived the first winter, but cuttings
planted in 2006 including 8 willow species and balsam poplar in a small plot area 3000ft*
in size have shown encouraging initial results, with some species showing rooting
success approaching 100%. Researchers will clip (to begin coppicing process) some of
the plants of each species soon after the leaves drop as is common practice in areas where
willows are grown commercially for biofuel. UAF has an ongoing (3 year) reciprocating
relationship with Chena Hot Springs Resort on an existing production agricultural
project. UAF and Chena would continue and expand this collaboration to include willow
production for the purpose of the biomass project.
Chena Power, LLC Biomass Demonstration Project
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA): AEA would serve a critical central role in terms of
managing project funding, in conjunction with Chena Power. AEA would also provide
critical economic and long term feasibility assessments, and be responsible for finding
village partners interested in becoming involved in future installations.
The illustration below shows the basic organizational structure of the biomass power
generation project. The educational component is not included in this illustration, but
will encompass all aspects of the project.
Chena Power, LLC
Installation and Operation of
fo TasTolehs ie} elg ee UO 4d male)
Power Plant PROJECT BIOMASS RESOURCES/ SUPPLY PARTNERS
Other Project Participants:
The participants listed below will be involved in peripheral aspects of the project in
partnership with Chena Power, LLC, and would not be directly funded through this
program.
Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA): GVEA has a longstanding interest in
renewable energy generation, with an ambitious plan to generate 50% of its power from
renewable resources within 50 years. They have worked closely with Chena Power on a
number of projects, and Chena is a member of their Green Power Advisory Committee.
GVEA has many hundreds of miles of transmission lines which are regularly cleared and
Chena Power, LLC Biomass Demonstration Project
maintained. GVEA has expressed significant interest in working on a method to collect
this cut biomass for use as an immediate biomass fuel. Additionally, by feeding power
generated by the demonstration biomass unit onto the GVEA grid, the project could
generate income immediately through a power sales agreement.
Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB): The FNSB has been involved in this project
since its inception. They are interested in collaborating with Chena Power on this
biomass project as part of a long term municipal waste plan to recycle paper and
cardboard from the borough landfill. Additionally, the FNSB is engaged in a multiple
year fuel reduction program in the borough to reduce wildfire danger to population
centers. Chena Power and the FNSB are exploring ways to collect some of the biomass
removed as part of that program for use as fuel.
Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP): REAP is a public advocacy group
supporting renewable energy power generation in Alaska. REAP will work with Chena
and the AEA to provide educational opportunities for Alaskans centered around this
project and the projects already installed at Chena Hot Springs.
Project Timeline:
The project will take place over a period of 5 years, with the majority of the funding
required for the first 2 years. Because the willow biomass crop will require 4 years from
establishment to first harvest, the project cannot be concluded until as least one cycle of
willows is harvested and utilized. A brief synapses of activities proposed for each year is
outlined below:
2007:
e 200kW biomass plant is designed by UTC at their Research Center and installed
by Chena Power. This will include a state of the art wood-fired thermal oil heater
to avoid potential safety issues associated with steam boiler systems. The system
will be designed as a combined heat and power system and installed at K&K
Recycling in North Pole, Alaska.
e The UAF Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station will continue research on
willow varieties to use in Alaska in addition to selecting, preparing, and planting
an expanded test plot of 100 acres. They will draw heavily on prior experience in
Sweden and New York, forming collaborations with those existing projects.
e The biomass plant will initially use recycled paper and wood from the FNSB
landfill, from the FNSB fuel reduction program, and from GVEA’s transmission
line maintenance program. Additionally, woody residue from local lumber
processing facilities could also be used as a fuel.
2008:
e UAF will plant 100 acres of at least 3 willow varieties selected based on success
in test plot. The acreage may be distributed over an area incorporating a range of
soil and moisture conditions to replicate as closely as possible likely village
environments throughout the state.
Chena Power, LLC Biomass Demonstration Project
e A second 200kW biomass plant will be installed offering greater efficiency and
other improvements made based on operational feedback of first unit.
2009 & 2010:
e Continuation of planting willow biomass plots by UAF (100 acres per year); no
harvest takes place.
e Operational data on two 200kW units collected to determine maintenance costs of
units; project income is generated through power sales.
e AEA performs initial economic feasibility studies and chooses potential village
site for rural trial.
e First rotation of willow is harvested; harvest equipment is tested and production
monitored
e Final project evaluation completed
e Project is expanded to test village location(s) based on feasibility study and life
cycle analysis of demonstration project.
Social and Environmental Benefits of Biomass Power Generation:
Willow crops have a relatively low energy density per pound compared to fossil fuels.
This limits distances biomass can be economically transported, and the organic nature of
the crop limits storage time. This results in a short special and temporal supply chain,
and ensures that the majority of process expenditures are recirculated within the local
community. This is as ideal situation for Alaskan villages, many of which are stuggling
to maintain economic viability and provide quality long term employment opportunities
for rural residents. Willows also offer wonderful habitat for a wide range of Alaskan yoem
wildlife species critical to local subsistence hunting.
Willow crops are easy to maintain and harvest, with harvesting taking place in the early ofte rt
winter after the ground is frozen and-when translocation of leaf, stem, and branch >
Tients to x Winter Storage has already taken place’. Willow crops generate at
least 4tons/acre/year; and are harvested on a three year rotation. A village requiring
T generation could provide 100% of the fuel needed from 200 acres of
willows. Willows require minimal care and equipment has been designed which allows
for harvesting and chipping to take place at the same time. The net energy ratio for the
production and harvest of willow biomass ranges from 1:29 to 1:55’. This means for
every unit of nonrenewable fossil fuel used to grow and harvest willows, between 29 and
55 units of stored energy in the form of biomass is produced.
° Tim Volk et al. 2005. ‘Growing Fuel: a sustainability assessment of willow biomass crops’, The
Ecological Society of America.
7 Matthews RW. 2001. “Modeling of Energy and Carbon Budgets of Wood Fuel Coppice Systems’,
Biomass BioEnergy 21.
Chena Power, LLC Biomass Demonstration Project
Attachments:
1) Proposed Project Budget
2) UTC 200kW biomass power plant proposal
3) ‘Biomass Alternatives for a Remote Alaskan Community’
4) Willow Biomass Producer’s Handbook
Attachment 1
Proposed Project Budget
PROPOSED COMBINED PROJECT BUDGET FOR WILLOW BIOMASS PROJECT
TOTAL SUBTOTAL YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5
Chena Power, LLC $ 2,513,396 | $ 2,513,396 |$ 1,516,740|$ 249,164|/$ 249,164[$ 249,164|/$ 249,164
Project Expenses $3,687,700
Management (Project PI plus assistant, base + 15% fringe) $ 506,000 | $ 101,200 | $ 101,200 | $ 101,200 | $ 101,200 | $ 101,200,
Indirect Expenses $ 722,700 | $ 180,540 | $ 135,540 | $ 135,540 | $ 135,540 | $ 135,540
Wellons thermal heater + installation $ 938,000 | $ 938,000
Powerplant delivery $ 30,000 | $ 30,000
Powerplant Installation $ 30,000 | $ 30,000
CHP Installation $ 110,000 | $ 110,000 —— a
Power Plant Operation (including biomass collection) $ 960,000 | $ 160,000] $ \_200,000'\$ 200,000 | $ 200,000 | $ 200,000
Willow Harvester $ 105,000 | $ 105,000
Travel $ 36,000 | $ 12,000 | $ 6,000 | $ 6,000 | $ 6,000 | $ 6,000
Educational Component $ 250,000 | $ 50,000 | $ 50,000 | $ 50,000 | $ 50,000 | $ 50,000, Project Income S__(,174,304| Borough Recycling $ (240,000) $60,000 $ (60,000)| $ (60,000) $ (60,000)
Electric Power Sales (150kW net and 98% availability) $___ (255,600) $ (63,900)| $ (63,900)| $ (63,900) $ (63,900)
1.9% Tax Credit S$ (157,680) S$ (39,420)| $ (39,420)| $ (39,420)| $ (39,420) REC Slaes $ (21,024) $ (5,256)| $ (6,256) $ (6,256)| $ (6,256)
Cost Share Contribution ($500,000 Total) $ (500,000)] $ (200,000)} $ (75,000)} $ (75,000)| $ (75,000)] $ (75,000) $ :
TOTAL SUBTOTAL YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5
UAF Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station $ 4,249,755 | $ 4,240,755) $1,005,000 | _$ 913,820 |" $ 767,153 | $ 796,599| _$ 767,183
Research P| Budget (50% time plus UA benefits) Sf 595,795, 40,000 | $ 114,400 | $ 118,976 | $ 123,735 | $ 128,684
Co PI Budget (50% time plus University benefits) 6 454,971 84,000 | $ 87,360 | $ 90,854 | $ 94,489 | $ 98,268
Research Assistant (2 assts after year one) & 859,988 89,000 | $ 181,560 | $ 188,822 | $ 196,375 | $ 204,230
Labor (student assistants part time, academic year/ full time seasonal) $ 470,000 85,000 | $ 85,000 | $ 100,000 | $ 100,000 | $ 100,000,
Site Preperation, Maintenace and Management $ n $ 120,000 | $ 120,000 | $ 120,000 | $ 120,000 | $ 120,000
John Deere - track tractor for rough terrain 255 hsp $ 200,000 | $ 200,000 | $ -|$ -|$ -|$ :
Irrigation System (Well, Controller and Implementation) $s 120,000 | $ 75,000 | $ 15,000 | $ 10,000 | $ 10,000 | $ 10,000
Willow Cone Planter $ 50,000 | $ 50,000
Environmental Monitoring equipment $ 40,000 | $ 20,000 | $ 10,000 | $ 5,000 | $ 5,000
Willow Chip Wagon $ 7,500, $ 7,500
Material Storage - weather port structure $ 9,500 $ 9,500
Willow Whip Harvester and handler $ 52,000 | $ 52,000
Willow Harvester Equipment and maintenance $ 165,000 $ 150,000 | $ 5,000 | $ 5,000 | $ 5,000
Willow shoot storage and handling $ 65,000 | $ -|$ 20,000 | $ 15,000 | $ 20,000 | $ 10,000
Propagation Equipment $ 45,000 | $ 25,000 $ 20,000,
Supplies, crop management, weed management, pest management $ 45,000 $ 15,000 | $ 10,000 | $ 10,000 | $ 10,000
Supplies, fencing, small equipment and production materials, fertilizer} $ 140,000 | $ 30,000 | $ 30,000 | $ 30,000 | $ 30,000 | $ 20,000
Data acquisition, networking, and management $ 36,000 | $ 15,000 | $ 15,000 | $ 5,000 | $ 1,000 | $ =
Travel (Statewide, national and international) Project development,
investigation, desemination and remote site development. $ 89,000 | $ 25,000 | $ 16,000 | $ 16,000 | $ 16,000 | $ 16,000
Information dissemination and publication, $ 80,000 $ 20,000 | $ 20,000 | $ 20,000 | $ 20,000
Lab Equipment and Analysis $ 125,000 | $ 25,000 | $ 25,000 | $ 25,000 | $ 25,000 | $ 25,000
TOTAL SUBTOTAL YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5
United Technologies Corporation $ 500,000} $ 500,000} $ 500,000| $ -
Power Plant Design and Construction $ 1,000,000 | $ 1,000,000 Cost Share Contribution ($500,000 Total) $ (500,000) $ (500,000)|
— Ww
\ 7
+z ed
il 4 VV OL
Cow P+ ve
Nan?
Attachment 2
UTC 200kW Biomass
Proposal
PROJECT NARRATIVE
PARTICIPANT:
United Technologies Research Center
411 Silver Lane
East Hartford, CT 06108
BUSINESS CONTACT:
Shawn Gale
(860) 610-7952 (phone)
(860) 610-7248 (fax)
galesm@utrc.utc.com
TITLE: ORC Electrical Power System for Biomass Application
DATE OF APPLICATION: September 15, 2006
The data contained in pages [1-15] of this application have been submitted in confidence and contain
trade secrets or proprietary information, and such data shall be used or disclosed only for evaluation
purposes, provided that if this applicant receives an award as a result of or in connection with the
submission of this application, Chena Hot Springs shall have the right to use or disclose the data therein
to the extent provided in the award. This restriction does not limit the Government’s right to use or
disclose data obtained without restriction from any source, including the applicant.
Table of Contents
P.700.0027 Project Narrative
1.0) APPLICABILITY... ccccesesescsescsescsescscscscscseacscseseeeeesescaeeees . 3
1.1 Project Objective..
1.2 Goal Alignment
1.3. Economic Benefit Assumptions and Data ..........c.cecseeeseseseseseseseeeseseseseecseseseseneseseneseeeaes
1.4 Performance Benefit Assumptions and Data we
1.5 Net Electrical Output 00.0. ccccccscessesesscseeseeeseeseeseesecseesesseeaesecseeseeaeeaesecseeateaeseeatenseas
2 TCHMOLOBY <0 5050.52:-:2s5:ecesuscssceusnsesceseeseesuseostsnageesesstonsseususiessseessbutiessesauodeususisdsusderereeteseedeeeese
2.1 Technology Description.....
2.2 Technical Merit and Feasibility
3 RESOUICES ......ececeeeseseseeeeeeeeenenes
3.1 Key Personnel Qualifications ..
3.2. Budget Funding.......
3.3. Budget Justification
4 Management plan... ceceescesssesesceseseseeeesesescesesesesceseseesesesesescaeaeeaeseseeseaeenseseseneeeeeesesees
4.1 Statement Of Work 0.0... ccececeseeeeseesesesescsescscsesesessesescscsessacseseseseseeeeneeeseeeeneeeeeeeneee
4.2 Major Project Milestones and Task Structure .
4.3. Reasonableness of the Schedule and Milestones .............:.:scseseseseseseseeeseseeeseeeseseeeeeeee 13
4.4 Project Management Plan and Organizational Structure oo... cececeeeceseseseteeeeteeeeeneees 14
4.5 Information Dissemination and Technology Transfer.. .14
5 References .......eececcccesescesseescseseeseessceeeecseseeeesceceeesseseees 15
United Technologies Research Center Proprietary Information. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this proposal.
P.700.0027 Project Narrative
1.0 APPLICABILITY
1.1 Project Objective
The objective of the proposed project is to demonstrate the feasibility of producing electricity at a cost of
less than 5¢/kWh from a biomass resource with 98% or better availability (excluding biomass fuel and
related processing cost). This will be achieved by developing, installing and operating a 200kW ORC
power plant. The ORC power plant will be based on technology and hardware from the commercially
available PureCycle® Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) geothermal plant that is designed to produce
200kW of electric power from low temperature geothermal resource. The PureCycle® power plant
achieves extraordinarily low cost through innovative application of mass-produced Carrier chiller
components including a single-stage centrifugal compressor running in reverse as a radial inflow turbine
producing 200kW of power and heat exchanger components originally designed for large chiller
applications.
The biomass application for the PureCycle® platform will allow UTC to broaden the market for this
technology to include biomass power production. This project also will validate the opportunity for
Alaska to increase its renewable energy portfolio and decrease its dependence on expensive electricity
generated with diesel engines.
To realize this opportunity we propose to perform the following modifications major tasks: 4 . . — aan ¢ Design, purchase, fabricate and test a 200kW-ORC power plant : -
¢ Install and commission the ORC power plant to produce at least/200kW) net power under nominal
condition with the thermal resources and sinks that Chena provides——_
e Continuously support the operation of the power plant, monitor the performance and validate the
cost
Figure 1 shows an illustration of the proposed power plant. The biomass power plant will be designed
and qualified at United Technologies Research Center (UTRC) before installation in Alaska. The turbine
and heat exchangers will be procured from and manufactured by Carrier’s large chiller manufacturing
facilities. Manufacturing will be closely monitored in order to verify the projected manufacturing cost of
the power plant. Final assembly of the power plant will be done at UTRC. The plant will be installed at
the chosen site in the summer of 2007. The power plant will be operated for at least one year after initial
installation to validate operation and maintenance costs. Local and remote monitoring will be applied for
both operation and data collection.
Figure 1 proposed ORC power plant configuration for the biomass application
United Technologies Research Center Proprietary Information. Use or disclosure of data
contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this proposal.
P.700.0027 Project Narrative
1.2. Goal Alignment
UTC is uniquely positioned to help Chena Hot Springs to meet the biomass energy generation goals. The
current product offering of the PureCycle® 200kW geothermal power plant can produce power at
approximately $1000/kW with a 164 °F geothermal fluid temperature. The cost of the PureCycle® plant
in the proposed biomass application will be similar to the geothermal application. In addition, the
proposed biomass PureCycle® platform allows for direct heating capability with the warm water exiting
the power plant.
This demonstration site will serve as a model for sustainable development of remote rural areas that grow
biomass resources. The rising cost of fuel is making the sustainability of many Alaska communities
questionable. The ability to produce electric energy at a cost of less than 5 ¢/kWh (excluding fuel cost
and thermal oil process cost) using mass produced, packaged power plants will enable strong economic
growth of areas with biomass resources. The low cost of electric energy combined with the direct use of
the residual heat from the discharge water creates tremendous potential for agricultural and aquaculture
food production including value added processing and packing.
Low cost power generation from biomass resources is still only part of the objective. UTC wants to
ensure that these plants can be procured, operated, and maintained in a manner that will be advantageous
to site developers. The current production of large water-cooled chillers at the Carrier factory averages
over 30 units shipped/week. The standard lead-time for a chiller is 6-10 weeks from order. This implies
a far more effective production system than is the norm for the relatively small fabrication facilities and
privately owned companies that have been producing binary geothermal plants in the past. This very
significant resource can be utilized for geothermal plant manufacturing as long as the geothermal plant
shares a large number of components with the chillers. In addition, the product databases and production
management systems can be shared. Other benefits include an established service organization, very
competitive transportation contracts, strong supply chain management, and a long-term commitment to
the customer that only a large corporation can guarantee over the multi-decade life of these types of
products.
Key enablers for the rapid spread of biomass energy to new locations such as Alaska and rural areas in the
continental USA include reduced complexity and inexpensive O&M. The proposed system, using mass-
produced modules that can be serviced by qualified HVAC technicians, raises the current standard for
each of these criteria. After a successful demonstration, this site will serve as a model for power
generation using renewable biomass resources.
1.3. Economic Benefit Assumptions and Data
1.3.1. Plant Cost Analysis
The proposed price target of 1000$/kW for the PureCycle® Biomass plant is supported by analyzing the
pricing of the PureCycle® 200 geothermal plant. The analysis assumes similar condenser and evaporator
flow rates as the geothermal power plant. The projected factory price at 250kW is approximately
$1000/kW rated output for full serial production.
1.3.2 O&M cost
Traditionally biomass plants have operated with onsite personnel and with support from the manufacturer.
The relatively small installed base of these plants limits the availability of knowledgeable personnel and
can lead to significant downtime when a technical problem arises. Carrier has a strong nationwide service
team that would greatly reduce response time for factory deployed service personnel. By using shared
technology from air conditioning equipment, it is expected that the service cost for the biomass ORC
plant will be at an estimated service contract cost of 1¢/kWh. There will also be costs associated with the
United Technologies Research Center Proprietary Information. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this proposal.
P.700.0027 Project Narrative
maintenance of external boiler and auxiliary equipment. Installations with multiple units on one site
could reduce service contract cost because of improved utilization of service personnel.
1.3.3. Data collection and analysis
The construction and installation cost of the system will be monitored and documented in detail so it can
be verified that it will be possible to produce the plants at the proposed cost target. To date, PureCycle®
200 geothermal plant in Chena Hot Springs has been operated unattended for extended periods.
Condition and performance monitoring is done over the Carrier NetLink system allowing remote
monitoring from the Carrier service center used by many of Carrier’s chiller customers.
1.4 Performance Benefit Assumptions and Data
The proposed PureCycle® 200 biomass unit uses R245fa as the working fluid. This refrigerant, at the
PureCycle® standard operating condition of 250°F source and 70°F sink temperature, resulting in system
pressures and turbine power density comparable to existing Carrier 19XR centrifugal compressor
applications. The higher temperature hot fluid conditions encountered at this biomass plant would result
in substantially higher turbine inlet and exit pressures than those in the PureCycle® geothermal system
where R134a were used.
1.4.1 Performance prediction
During the development of the PureCycle® geothermal system, a detailed thermodynamic performance
model was developed for overall performance prediction as well as sizing of the various components
(heat exchangers, turbine, pump, connecting piping, etc). This program, which analyzes the performance
with various heat sources and heat sink temperatures and capacities, has been validated against the Chena
Hot Springs geothermal power plant test data. The computational model also accommodates various
working fluids and can be used to select working fluids that maintain pressure and power density
similarity between ORC radial inflow turbines and existing Carrier 19XR centrifugal compressors at
different temperature levels.
Preliminary cycle analysis shows that a 200 kW net biomass power plant using 250 °F temperature hot
liquid (thermal oil) as the heat source and 70°F closed-loop cooling water as heat sink can be developed
with R245fa as the working fluid. The proposed power plant will operate at the following conditions:
Interface
Heat source: Tin 250°F Tout=230°F load: 2270 kW
Heat sink: Tin= 70°F Tout=85°F Flowrate: 906 gpm Load: 1995kW
Refrigerant side
Mass flow rate: 20.16 Ibm/s
Evaporator/turbine inlet pressure: 242.2 psia
Condenser/turbine exit pressure: 26.9 psia
Turbine output power (net): 250 kW
Pump power: 30 kW
Thermal efficiency: 11%
United Technologies Research Center Proprietary Information. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this proposal.
P.700.0027 Project Narrative
These numbers are derived from actual component efficiencies for the turbine and pump, reasonable line
losses and conventional log-mean temperature differences in the heat exchangers. The exit temperature
of 85°F was specifically chosen to meet the needs for downstream use of the resource for direct heating.
Figure 2 shows the predicted temperature-entropy diagram of the system.
TS Cycle Diagram of PureCycle System
0.2500. 0.3000 0.3500 -0,4000.-««0.4500 0.5000
Entropy (Btu/(Ibm-R))
Figure 2. T-S Diagram of Proposed ORC Cycle using R245fa
On the preheater/evaporator side of the ORC system 250 °F hot fluid enters the unit and is cooled to
230°F transferring 2.27 MW of thermal energy to the refrigerant. This energy preheats the 20.16 lbm/s
refrigerant mass flow rate from 87°F (state point 5) to 236°F and subsequently boils the working fluid at
this temperature before slightly superheating it (state point 1). The high pressure refrigerant vapor is
expanded in the turbine that extracts close to 300kW of mechanical power from the refrigerant flow at
80% aerodynamic efficiency. After accounting for mechanical and electrical losses, 2830kW of electrical
power is delivered by the generator. The refrigerant vapor leaving the turbine (state point 2) is de-
superheated, condensed at 88 °F and then slightly subcooled to state point 3 in the 2.0 MWth water-
cooled condenser. The condenser heat is transferred to 906 gpm of 70°F cold water that is heated to 85
°F. The refrigerant loop is closed by a pump, which elevates the refrigerant pressure from 26.9 psia (state
point 3) to 242.2 psia (state point 1). The proposed 35% efficient pump requires SO kW of electrical
power. Accounting for all losses, the net power produced by this ORC system is 230 kW.
The above ORC power plant design is going to be the first phase of the proposed project. If higher
efficiency is desired, a cascade cycle will boost the overall cycle efficiency by having a topping ORC
cycle with Ketone as the working fluid.Since Ketones can have a higher critical temperature, a higher
turbine inlet pressure is achievable.During the condensing process of the top cycle, the Ketone working
fluid will reject heat to the working fluid in the bottom cycle, R245fa. The bottoming ORC cycle thus
will receive heat from the top cycle and/or the thermal oil loop. The combined power output from both
the topping cycle and the bottoming cycle will greatly enhance the overall power plant efficiency. This
first 200kW ORC power plant can either be an independent operating module or become part of the
cascade cycle in the future. The conceptual design of the cascade cycle will be included as part of the
scope of work to be performed by UTRC.
United Technologies Research Center Proprietary Information. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this proposal.
P.700.0027 Project Narrative
1.4.2 Instrumentation and data acquisition
The plants will be fitted with pressure and temperature sensors upstream and downstream of each
component to verify individual component performance. Refrigerant mass flow will be measured with a
high accuracy coriolis meter located after the pump. This methodology has been successfully
demonstrated during the qualification of the PureCycle® 200 geothermal power plant. Power
measurements will be done at the turbine terminal and also at the local grid connection point. The pump
power consumption will be continuously monitored through the pump inverter and verified by discrete
power analyzer measurements. Continuous data logging will be maintained and the log files will be
available upon request.
1.5 Net Electrical Output
The installation will consist of one 200kKW module, which, at nominal condition, should generate about
230kW net electricity. Based on the experience gained in the execution of this project, along with further
exploration of the resource, subsequent facility expansion is planned to utilize the more capability of the
Alaska biomass resource. The modular design of the proposed system will help facilitate this effort.
United Technologies Research Center Proprietary Information. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this proposal.
P.700.0027 Project Narrative
2 Technology
2.1. Technology Description
The primary innovations UTC can bring to the Biomass Power Generation field are in power plant cost,
both manufacturing and O&M, and in delivery time. The PureCycle® 200 geothermal/biomass power
plant provides an exceptional value proposition because it leverages high-volume chiller components,
including the turbine / compressor and the heat exchangers. The proposed PureCycle® plant provides
even greater leverage of cost effective components from commercial water-cooled chillers. All major
components: turbine, evaporator, and condenser, will be manufactured on the same production line as
Carrier’s water-cooled large chillers and factory assembly of these components will very closely resemble
that of a chiller. This product will therefore inherit the cost structure and reliability of an established
chiller manufacturing system, utilizing Carrier’s proven design and manufacturing tradition, tools and
processes. The proposed power plant will also benefit from a large global service organization including
a service center for remote monitoring. A power plant based on chiller components and technologies will
be a packaged, standardized design that can be installed and commissioned by most large mechanical
contractor firms experienced with commercial HVAC equipment. Based on typical water cooled chiller
production schedules it will be possible to ship assembled and tested biomass plants of the proposed
design with lead times as short as 8-12 weeks.
2.1.1 Utilization of commercial HVAC chiller technology for power generation
HVAC technology works with relatively small temperature differences between condenser and evaporator
saturation temperatures, resulting in pressure ratios across the compressor in the range of 3-10. With
current refrigerants such as R245fa this results in compressors designed for maximum pressures around
300 psig. Because of this, HVAC compressors are well suited for conversion to turbogenerators for ORC
applications at low to medium temperature differences.
The proposed concept can be readily adapted for a wide range of source and sink conditions by using
different working fluids. For the Chena Hot Springs geothermal application the preferred HFC working
fluid is R134a. With resource temperatures in the range of 200-250°F the preferred working fluid would
be R245fa and high efficiency can be maintained when cooling is provided with warmer available cooling
water or with cooling towers. For heat sources above 250 °F it becomes economically feasible to use air-
cooled condensers as currently used in the PureCycle® 200 power plants.
2.1.2 Turbo generator design
The turbo-generator component combines a radial inflow turbine with an internal gearbox and an
induction generator in a single hermetically sealed unit. Generator cooling is provided by the working
fluid. This hermetic design reduces maintenance and eliminates issues with shaft seal leakage typical of
existing geothermal plants. The single-stage radial inflow turbine is the most cost effective turbine design
possible. The turbine is internally lubricated with a high temperature lubricant that is compatible with the
working fluid and has been qualified for use up to 350 °F in the Air-Air PureCycle® 200 test program.
The turbine can be specified with a rotor and multi-port conical nozzles chosen from a range of standard
options to provide the optimal performance for specific design points. The PureCycle® turbogenerator
Bill of Materials has a total of 171 line items. Relative to the corresponding chiller compressor assembly,
the PureCycle turbogenerator has only 13 unique manufactured parts. There are no significant changes in
processes, patterns or tooling. This allows for the turbine to be manufactured with the same consistent
quality as commercial chiller plants.
The induction generator is connected to the utility grid with a Wye-Delta starter. Grid protection is
provided by the non-islanding properties of the induction generator and, if required a utility protection
United Technologies Research Center Proprietary Information. Use or disclosure of data
contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this proposal.
P.700.0027 A le Med WE: Project Narrative
telay. We also have experience“with the operation of the turbine using a regenerative inverter to feed the
utility grid. This system was used successfully during early testing of the PureCycle® concept. An
inverter-based /s ould also allow grid independent operation of the power plant. For the
demonstration e expect to install the system against an inverter/battery load system to allow
black start and loac-batancing. As a part of the project we will also evaluate load following concepts that
could be applied for stand-alone operations in remote areas without using batteries for load balancing.
2.1.3 Heat exchanger design
Most commercial geothermal power plants use separate heat exchangers to preheat and vaporize the
working fluids. Using two separate heat exchangers can increase manufacturing costs and installation
complexity compared with using a single heat exchanger. UTC has demonstrated an integrated
evaporator with preheater such that a preheater section is integrated into the bottom of a shell-and-tube
heat exchanger while the boiling section occupies the top portion of the heat exchanger. In this case, the
hot liquid flows in the tubes while the working fluid absorbs heat on the shell side. There is a partition
panel dividing the two heat exchange sections and a distributor nozzle to guide the working fluid flow
into the evaporator section from the baffled preheater section compared to the more conventional dual
heat exchanger design used by Ormat. This integrated evaporator design will provide the required heat
transfer capacity to preheat and vaporize the working fluid within just one heat exchanger shell that can
be produced on existing production lines, reducing both component cost and system complexity. The
integrated evaporator is currently under development at UTRC for industrial waste steam applications and
this concept will be evaluated for the biomass application.
The water-cooled condenser is a standard heat exchanger selection from Carrier’s chiller component
manufacture line. It is shell-tube heat exchanger with water flowing in the tube side. The bottom of the
condenser is a subcooler to provide sufficient subcooling of the refrigerant before it enters the refrigerant
pump.
2.1.4 Balance of plant
The use of flammable working fluids in conventional geothermal plants requires valves and other
components to be rated for use with flammable fluids. These are low volume, high cost components that
drive up the cost of the overall system. The use of flammable working fluids also requires explosion-
proof electrical components. The current PureCycle® 200 plant is designed to operate at heat source
temperature between 165-280 °F. These working temperatures also require the use of some relatively
inexpensive components. In addition, the lubricant and working fluid are not stable at high temperatures
so the plant has been designed to actively and passively protect the fluid from being overheated. For
biomass applications high temperatures will no longer be an issue, enabling significant cost reduction.
We will specify commercial grade refrigeration valves and will evaluate possibilities to simplify the
protection system. Since the working fluid is non-flammable, there is no need for any specially rated
electrical components.
2.2. Technical Merit and Feasibility
Utilizing the same technology as proposed for the biomass application, the PureCycle® 200 organic
Rankine cycle geothermal system is in operation at Chena Hot Springs and has demonstrated the technical
and economical feasibility of the innovative concept of using mass-produced chiller equipment to
generate electricity from low grade heat at less than 5¢/kWh. During the development, qualification and
field-testing of these units a large number of cost, performance and reliability data were collected and
archived. Systems modeling tools and product cost models have been validated using these data. These
same models will be used to design the biomass plant lending high confidence to the predicted design
point and performance.
United Technologies Research Center Proprietary Information. Use or disclosure of data
contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this proposal.
P.700.0027 Project Narrative
2007.07.18
Figure 3. PureCycle® 200 Geothermal Plant in CHSR
United Technologies Research Center Proprietary Information. Use or disclosure of data
contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this proposal.
10
P.700.0027 Project Narrative
3 Resources
3.1. Key Personnel Qualifications
From June 2001 to August 2006 the team developed and launched an air source-air cooled ORC, the only
ORC plant on the market today that is manufactured in a high volume production facility; and a low
temperature geothermal ORC. A 200kW unit is today sold ex-factory for $1,200/kW of rated power. The
plant is marketed by UTC Power. (www.utcpower.com). Today there are three plants installed in the
field that have been in operation since Q2 2003, Q2 of 2004, and Q3 of 2006 respectively.
The team also has access to the combined resources of United Technologies Research Center and UTC’s
other divisions including Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Sundstrand and Carrier.
Bruce Biederman has been the UTRC Project Leader for the Air-to-Air PureCycle® project since its
inception in 2000, and has multiple years of experience in project management at Pratt and Whitney
including the development of the high compressor of the P& W 4000 engine.
Dr. Joost Brasz was the lead aerodynamics engineer responsible for the Carrier 19XR centrifugal program
and has 24 years of experience in compressor design for Carrier Corporation. Dr. Brasz was the lead
aerodynamicist for the Air-to-Air PureCycle® project.
Dr. Duane McCormick has an extensive background in noise and vibration and experimental testing.
Duane has been the lead test engineer for the PureCycle® 200 Product.
Dr. Fred Cogswell was responsible for the control development for the PureCycle® 200. Fred has an
extensive controls background and has been active for many years developing controls and diagnostics for
Carrier and other UTC products.
Jarso Mulugeta has over 20 years experience in thermodynamics and compressor design working for
Carrier and York International before joining UTRC to develop the PureCycle® 200 power plant. He
was responsible for reliability, cycle optimization and UL approval for the system.
Lili Zhang has a degree in nuclear engineering and has been working on heat transfer calculations and
project management for the PureCycle® 200 development.
3.2 Budget Funding
The project will be funded jointly by UTC and Chena Hot Springs Resort. UTC will support the
program with its own funds up to $500K. Total UTRC program value will be $1000K.
3.3. Budget Justification
The proposed budget for UTRC is based on experience from the development and qualification for the
PureCycle® 200 geothermal product and is planned around the same engineering team as was responsible
for that effort and includes lessons learned. The Project will be executed using the UTRC PP&E Project
planning and Execution tool and will be tracked using Earned Value Measurements on a continuous basis.
Detailed labor, travel and material cost estimates can be provided upon request.
4 Management plan
4.1 Statement of Work
UTRC will on a best efforts basis lead a team to design, manufacture, test, install and demonstrate the
performance, economics and reliability of a PureCycle® Power System in Alaska and demonstrate the
United Technologies Research Center Proprietary Information. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this proposal.
11
P.700.0027 Project Narrative
feasibility of producing 200 kW net electric power at a cost of 5¢/kWhr from the biomass resource
(excluding fuel and thermal process cost).
Task 1 Project Management:
This task will encompass all aspects of project management, including required report preparation and
presentation and revised project management planning as the project evolves.
Task 2 Completion of Technical Requirements (Chena):
All the biomass source technical requirements are to be completed and documented by Chena.
Task 3 Cycle analysis and design point analysis
UTRC shall define the design point for the system based on data from the biomass source onsite. The
optimization will be driven to minimize total cost/kWh including parasitic loads such as cooling water
pumps and the working fluid pump.
UTRC shall perform a conceptual design of a high efficiency cascade cycle ORC power plant that shall
employ a Ketone topping cycle and a R245fa bottoming cycle.
Task 4 Power plant specification
UTRC shall generate specifications for the overall power plant including electrical requirements, pressure
drop requirements and material selection for heat exchanger tubes based on the resource analysis.
Task 5 Component specification and design
UTRC shall evaluate alternative components and control options that will reduce the cost and improve
reliability of the plant. This includes turbine stop and trip valve, turbine by-pass valves, pump and system
control strategies and safety functions. The pump will be selected to optimize cost and system
performance. Final design of the system will be driven by the usage of standard Carrier purchased parts to
minimize the need for extensive component qualification. Components that are not previously qualified
are to be qualified with bench testing or in the system at UTRC.
Task 6 Power plant design and fabrication
Final arrangement for the system shall be based on heat exchanger size determined from the design point.
The configuration shall be selected in close cooperation with manufacturing engineering at the Carrier
chiller plant. UTRC shall be responsible for manufacture of the heat exchangers and the turbine along
with the assembly of the system.
Task 7 Shake-down test at UTRC
UTRC shall make appropriate modifications and adjustments to the control logic as required to ensure
proper operation of the field units before ultimately being sent out into the field for installation. These
modifications will be catalogued and incorporated into the final report
Task 8 Site preparation (Chena)
During this task design and installation of the biomass process and equipment will completed onsite by
Chena before the ORC power plant is sent out into the field for installation. The scope of work includes
installation of the boiler and the water piping, hot and cold sides. The interface between the boiler and
the ORC power plant shall be completed to enable the turn-key installation of the ORC power plant.
Task 9 Site Installation and Commissioning
United Technologies Research Center Proprietary Information. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this proposal.
12
P.700.0027 Project Narrative
UTRC shall deliver the ORC power plant to the site, charged with fluid, and tested by the dates specified.
The installation effort will be done in accordance to Carrier manual #531-940 [1]. Deviations from the
installation manual will be monitored and incorporated in the report and included in the installation
manual. Installation will be accomplished with joint staff from UTC and Chena.
The power plant will be commissioned with joint staff from UTC and CHena. The plant will be installed
along with the monitoring system. The plant will be operated over its intended range of conditions and all
sensors will be recalibrated and checked with the system model to ensure that the collected data is valid.
When the second module is available it will be commissioned separately and then final commissioning of
the entire plant will be performed.
Task 10 Continuous operation of the power plant (Chena)
The plant will be operated 24/7. Service will be performed on the unit at the time to ensure continuous
power supply. The control system will provide continuous logging of all operating parameters and
unusual events. A database running on a dedicated PC will be installed to manage performance logging
and event logging for the unit.
4.2. Major Project Milestones and Task Structure
The high level milestones are defined in the time line shown in the figure below, based on the statement
of work in the previous section. Based on a December 1, 2006 start date, the project is scheduled to be
completed by end of July 2007 and power is to be produced at K&K Recycling by early September 2007.
A more detailed project plan in Microsoft Project 2000 can be made available upon request.
Months
0 1 2
Task 1 Project management
Task 2 Comletion of Technical Requirement onsite
Task 3 Cycle analysis and design point
Task 4 Power plant specifications
3 4 5 6
Task 5 Component specification and design Task 6 Power plant design and fabrication Task 7 Shake-down test at UTRC Task 8 Site preparation Task 9 Installation and commissioning onsite Task 10 Continuous operation ERE
Figure 4. Level-1 Task Schedule
4.3 Reasonableness of the Schedule and Milestones
The schedule for the Purecycle® power plant development is based on experience from the development
of the PureCycle® 200 system as described in the previous section. The severity of this application is
lower from a technical point of view because the maximum temperature present will not result in
degradation of the fluid. The challenge is the onsite work to design and install the water loops and boiler.
The development schedule for the ORC unit is very comparable to the development of the geothermal
system developed during 2006. The same team responsible for the PureCycle® geothermal system is in
place for this work. The intention of this program is to further reduce the number of custom parts and
system complexity due to lower operating temperatures. The plan to produce power at Chena Hot
Springs Resort in September 2007 is a comparable task to the field installations the team performed at
Chena for the geothermal power plant.
United Technologies Research Center Proprietary Information. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this proposal.
13
P.700.0027 Project Narrative
4.4 Project Management Plan and Organizational Structure
The project will be managed through the UTRC Project Planning and Execution process and earned value
management. This process has been in use at UTRC since 2000 to support the agenda of bringing
commercially viable innovations to the market.
The project leader for the PureCycle® 200 plant, Bruce Biederman, will be the project leader for the
project having the UTRC PureCycle® engineering team reporting directly to him.
4.5 Information Dissemination and Technology Transfer
Subsequent to the successful completion of the demonstration United Technologies will continue a
commercial deployment process that will make the PureCycle® power plant equipment available to
developers, architect engineers and end users using existing Carrier Corporation sales and service
channels.
United Technologies Research Center Proprietary Information. Use or disclosure of data
contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this proposal.
14
P.700.0027 Project Narrative
5 References
1 Carrier publication Catalog No. 531-940
http://www.xpedio.carrier.com/idce/groups/public/documents/techlit/] 9xr-2si.pdf
United Technologies Research Center Proprietary Information. Use or disclosure of data
contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this proposal.
15
Attachment 3
‘Biomass Alternatives for
a Remote Alaskan
Community’
BIOMASS ENERGY ALTERNATIVES FOR
A REMOTE ALASKAN COMMUNITY
Peter M. Crimp
Alaska Energy Authority
333 West 4" Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99516
Serge V. Adamian
Ecotrade Inc.
220 South Kenwood Street, Suite 305
Glendale, CA 91205-1671
ABSTRACT
McGrath is typical of the 60-70 rural off-grid communities in Alaska which are near significant biomass resources, but which import oil long distances for power and facility heating. With the goals of reducing energy costs, decreasing oil imports, and stimulating economic development, the electrical utility and its Alaska Native-owned parent company have worked with state and federal authorities to assess three biomass energy alternatives: 1) a simple wood-fired boiler at the school, 2) a diesel combined heat and power (CHP), district heating and woodchip-fired boiler system, and 3) a wood-fired power system. Based on the three separate studies that assessed these systems, 20-year system costs are compared with those of the status quo, oil-fueled power generation and facility heating, under three wood fuel supply/cost scenarios. Community concerns include technical and economic feasibility, impacts of increased wood harvest on timber and other forest values, and overall system complexity. Wood supply and demand is compared for each alternative. The corporation is proceeding toward development of the diesel CHP, district heating and woodchip-fired boiler system, which results in modest harvest increase, substantial oil displacement, and a bridge to future opportunities.
Keywords: Alaska, biomass, combined heat and power, district heating, native, power,
remote, wood
INTRODUCTION
Roughly two hundred villages in Alaska are not connected to the electrical grid that links Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other “Railbelt” communities to inexpensive hydroelectric
and natural gas-fired power (Fig.1). Most of these villages are powered by diesel internal
combustion generators supplying “micro-grids” with average electrical loads ranging
from 11 to 3,160 kW (AEA, 2000). Diesel generation is a known technology—telatively
inexpensive to install, with a well-developed infrastructure for operation and
maintenance.
Figure 1. Alaskan communities not tied to Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie or major
hydroelectric projects. Shaded area in Alaska shows forested areas.
From the perspective of a remote village, the chief problem with diesel power generation
and space heating is the fuel. Since most communities are not connected to the road
system, oil must transported long distances from refineries, usually by barge. Fuel must
be stored during the long winter when waterways are frozen, or be replenished during
times of emergencies by costly air transport. Bulk fuel oil storage facilities are expensive
to construct and maintain, with installed costs ranging from $5 to $15 per gallon of
storage capacity, and annual operation and maintenance costs estimated at $8,000 -
$27,000 per facility by Alaska Energy Authority.
A number of federal and state programs aim at energy efficiency and use of local energy
resources in rural Alaska, goals similar to those of Canada’s Renewable Energy for
Remote Communities program (NRCan, 1999), which promotes technology deployment
in the over 300 off-grid communities in Canada. Benefits can include decreased costs,
economic development, decreased oil spill hazard, and community self-reliance. Within
Alaska, renewable energy programs include wind system development on the Bering Sea
coast, small hydroelectric projects in the southeast panhandle and Aleutians, and biomass
development in the forested interior and coastal regions.
Wood is an important source of residential fuel for the 60-70 remote communities with
significant forest resources nearby. Most of the larger facilities, such as schools, water
treatment plants, and laundromats, use oil for space heating. As in other northern
locations, “waste” heat is often recovered from power generation and piped in the form of
hot water to major community loads, usually the school. There are at least 51 such
combined heat and power (CHP) systems located in rural villages in Alaska.
This paper compares the results of three studies that assessed feasibility of developing
biomass (wood) energy systems in McGrath, a typical interior Alaska community
(Adamian et al, 1998; Strandberg, 1999; and USKH, 1996). Located 220 miles northwest
of Anchorage where the Iditarod Trail crosses the Kuskokwim River, McGrath has a
population of 425, half of which is Athabascan Native. As in many other rural
communities, employment opportunities are limited and residents rely heavily on
subsistence hunting and fishing activities. A small sawmill provides rough-cut lumber
for local use. McGrath has a cold continental climate with temperatures ranging ‘from
minus 51°C (-60°F) in winter to 27°C (80°F). in summer.
ALTERNATIVES FOR HEAT AND POWER PRODUCTION
Based on the feasibility analyses, we described four alternatives (Table 1) for providing
electrical power to the community and heat to 14 facilities as follows:
Alternative 1, Oil-fueled Heat and Power (Status Quo). Diesel continues to be used for
power generation. Space heating is provided to facilities by distributed oil-fired units.
Diesel generators and oil-fired heating units are replaced at the end of their useful life. A
151,000 liter (40,000 gal) buried bulk fuel storage facility at the school must be replaced.
Alternative 2, Stand-Alone Wood-fired Boiler at School. Diesel power and distributed
heating continues, however a simple 4 mmBtv/hr stick-fired wood boiler system is
located at the school, the community’s largest heating load. The capacity of oil storage at
the school is greatly reduced to match backup heating and power generation needs.
Alternative 3, Diesel CHP, District Heating System and Wood-fired Boiler. Diesel power
continues, with heat recovered from the engines’ water jackets. A 732 m (2,500 ft)
district heating system is constructed to link the 14 facilities to the power plant. A wood
chip-fired boiler facility is constructed near the power plant to provide supplementary
heat to the system during peak load periods. Reduced oil storage is needed at the school.
Alternative 4, Wood-fired Power. A 510 kW woodchip-fired plant provides baseload
power to the community system, while a diesel generator provides peak power. Space
heating is provided to facilities by distributed oil-fired units.
Present value of costs over 20 years was estimated for each of the alternatives. Major
assumptions included a bulk oil cost of $0.41/1 ($1.54/gal), no real increase in oil price
over time, and a 3% discount rate above inflation.
Similar to other locations in interior Alaska, there are no large-scale suppliers of
cordwood or woodchips in McGrath. Because of this it is difficult to estimate the
delivered cost of wood fuel, and the studies varied in their fuel cost assumptions. Three
scenarios are established here based on the assumed source of material:
A. Mill and Logging Residue: $10/tonne ($9/ton).
B. Mixed Residue and Roundwood: $50/tonne ($45/ton).
C. Roundwood $99/tonne ($90/ton).
Present value of costs over 20 years was estimated for each of the alternatives. Major
assumptions included a bulk oil cost of $0.41/1 ($1.54/gal), no real increase in oil price
over time, and a 3% discount rate above inflation.
Table 1. Summary of energy alternatives and major assumptions.
——
Alternative ~ |
1 2 3 4
Oil-fueled Stand- Diesel CHP, Wood-
Heatand Alone District fired
Power Wood-fired Heatingand Power
(Status Boiler at Wood-fired
| Quo) School Boiler. |
Cost (thousands of dollars)
Installation
Energy system 0 215 1,850 1,510
Fuel oil storage 250 50 50 250
Non-fuel O&M (4x) 79 62 83 114
Oil (Ar) 514 458 376 185
Wood (/yr) 0 3-33 3-34 69 - 689
Fuel Consumption per Year Oil (Ix 10°) 1,266 1,130 960 420 (gal x 10°) 335 299 254 111 Wood (tonne) 0 329 341 6,948
(ton) 0 363 376 7,659
COMMUNITY CONCERNS
The local utility, McGrath Light & Power Company (ML&P), would own and operate the
central power and heating systems in all of the above alternatives. As a subsidiary of the
local Native corporation MTNT Ltd., owner of approximately 121,457 ha (300,000 A) of
surrounding land, ML&P is sensitive to local community concerns. During the studies
important concerns that surfaced included 1) technical and economic feasibility, 2)
impacts of increased wood harvest on subsistence activities and aesthetics, 3) depletion of
wood resources, and 4) overall system complexity.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Economic Comparison
Table 2 summarizes the results of this analysis. Long-term costs of the oil and wood
heating alternatives are similar for all wood fuel scenarios. The substantially lower fuel
cost of the diesel CHP/biomass/district heating alternative is offset by its higher installed
cost. Locating the simple wood boiler at the school is the least cost alternative in all
cases, except when inexpensive wood fuel is available for power production. Biomass
power is highly sensitive to wood fuel cost and attractive only when substantial quantities
of low-cost residue are produced from sawmill and logging operations.
Table 2. Twenty-year present net value cost of energy alternatives in McGrath, Alaska
for three wood fuel cost scenarios.
Alternative
Fuel Scenario 1 2 3 4
| (millions of dollars)
Mill and Logging Installed Cost) 0.3 0.3 1.9 1.8
Residue Fuel 79 7.1 5.8 3.2 $10/tonne ($9/ton) Og 1.2 0.9 13 17
Total 9.3 8.3 9.0 6.7
Mixed Residues Installed Cost 0.3 1.9 1.8
and Roundwood Fuel 7.3 6.0 7.4
$50/tonne ($45/ton) O&M (same) 0.9 13 1.7
Total 8.5 9.2 10.9
Roundwood Installed Cost 0.3 1.9 1.8
$99/tonne ($90/ton). Fuel 15 6.3 12.7
O&M (same) 9 13 17
Total 8.7 9.5 16.2
Although performance and economics of biomass-fired CHP and district heating was not
estimated by Adamian et al (1998), it is clear from these results that sale of thermal
energy from biomass power would improve economics of alternative 4.
Fuelwood Supply Versus Demand
Fuelwood availability was not addressed in the feasibility analyses described above.
Using timber inventory information and automated vegetation maps provided by the
regional Native non-profit entity (Tanana Chiefs Conference, unpub., 1995) a rough
approximation of current and sustainable fuel and sawtimber supply from MTNT land
was made (table 3).
Timber supply estimates are based on a number of assumptions. Inventory results were
extrapolated from field plots sampled in less than 25% of the study area. Sustained yield
calculations are based on area regulation (Davis and Johnson, 1987) and assume rotation
ages of 60 for hardwood stands and 100 years for spruce stands. Fuelwood quantity is
assumed to include non-sawtimber log volume and residues from milling, estimated at
43% of solid wood content (Rogers 1991). Supply estimates are likely to underestimate
biological productivity since they do not include 1) young and less productive stands,
which comprise 69% of the 38,410 ha (94,873 A) of forestland, and 2) other public forest
land in the area.
According to the local state forester (W. Beebe, pers. comm., 1997), residents gather
around 2,408 m? (1,000 cd) of firewood per year, approximately 2,014 tonnes (2,220
tons) assuming equal volumes of birch and spruce. Adding this quantity to the fuelwood
consumption estimates in Table 1 gives total fuelwood demand (Table 3).
Using conservatively low estimates of timber supply, it is clear that there are sufficient
wood resources for alternatives 1-3. Demand approaches supply when a significant
amount of fuelwood is used for power generation. In this case, careful planning will be
required to avoid land use conflicts and timber resource depletion.
Table 3. Wood supply versus demand.
Sustained Community Demand per Year
Current Yield Supply Alternative
| Inventory per Year 1 2 3 4
Net volume
Fuelwood (m3 x 10°) 974 14
(MCF) 34,390 498
Sawtimber (MBF) 147,816 1,916
Fuelwood Weight (tonne) 748,789 11,019 2,014 2,343 2,355 8,962
(ton) 825,384 12,147. 12,220 2,583 2,596 9,879
CONCLUSIONS
MINT Ltd. and its electrical utility are seeking financing for developing a diesel-fueled
CHP, district heating and wood-fired boiler system (alternative 3). Their rationale, which
may be reasonable for many other remote communities in the forested north, is as
follows:
1. Long-term costs are similar to the status quo; however alternative 3 results in the
development of basic community infrastructure, an expandable district heating and
boiler system, which provides a bridge to potential future wood-fired CHP.
2. Substantially less oil must be imported into the community due to wood fuel
substitution and enhanced system efficiency. Community self-sufficiency is
increased, while risk of long-term oil price increases is buffered.
3. Fuelwood harvest increases over status quo are modest. This addresses community
concerns about depletion of forest values.
4. A woodchip fuel supply and demand system infrastructure is established stimulating
investment and job creation. Sawmill and logging residues increase in value,
benefiting the economics of expanded local forest products manufacturing.
REFERENCES
1. Adamian, S., G. Elliot, and G. Morris, 1998. The Potential Use of Small Biomass
Power Technology to Provide Electricity for a Native Alaskan Village, prepared by
Ecotrade, Inc. for Sandia National Laboratories.
2. Alaska Energy Authority, 2000. Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization
Program, Anchorage, Alaska.
3. Davis, K.P. and K.N. Johnson, 1987. Forest management, McGraw-Hill, New York.
4. NRCan 1999. 1998-1999 Year-End Report of Activities Under the Renewable
Energy Deployment Initiative, Natural Resources Canada Renewable and Electrical
Energy Division. .
5. Rogers, R., 1991. Alaska Sawmill and Pulp Mill Residue Assessment, Alaska Energy
Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
6. Strandberg, J.S., 1999. McGrath Biomass Heating Project, 35% Design Phase,
prepared for McGrath Light and Power, McGrath, Alaska.
7. Tanana Chiefs Conference, unpub., 1995. Forest inventory statistics for MTNT Ltd.
lands.
8. USKH, 1996. Rural Alaska Heat Conservation and Fuel Substitution Assessment
prepared for Alaska Division of Energy, Anchorage, Alaska.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge support from MTNT Ltd., the State of Alaska,
Sandia National Laboratories, and the U.S. Department of Energy for the work on which
this paper is based. Peter Crimp thanks the International Institute for Aerospace Survey
and Earth Sciences, Enschede, the Netherlands for support in forest inventory modeling.
Attachment 4
Willow Biomass
Producer’s Handbook
Willow Biomass Producer's
Handbook
CSD
Syracuse, NY Revised January 2002
Salix dasyclados
The Willow Biomass Producer’s Handbook describes the willow biomass production system, which
is based on a combination of agricultural and forestry practices. The system simultaneously produces a
renewable cellulosic feedstock and provides a wide range of environmental and rural development benefits.
The system described is operational, but is being optimized on more than 500 acres in central and western
New York. This revision of the handbook provides information that has been gained from research and
operational trials since the first edition of the handbook was produced in 1997. Feedback from producers
and other collaborators is essential for continued improvement. Please send any comments you have to one
of the addresses at the end of this handbook.
WRITTEN BY
Lawrence P. Abrahamson, Senior Research Associate
Timothy A. Volk, Research Scientist
Richard F: Kopp, Research Scientist
Edwin H. White, Professor of Forest Soils and Dean of Research \
Jennifer L. Ballard, Research Support Specialist
State University of New York
College of Environmental Science and Forestry
1 Forestry Drive
Syracuse, NY 13210
Revised January, 2002
Salix eriocephala
Contents
TiMOGUICHON 5.5552 525:cseesceserssceussssenseiesensscusucuonsesstssetsscsesieccetesescsstesasasecuenstestucassazenssesiasabasncesatarsscsscussiecerstere 7
Soil Considerations for Willow Biomass Crops .........::::sssssssssssssssesseseessesesescscsesesescseeseseacseseaescseseseeceeeeees 10
Site Preparation for Planting «00.0.0... eee il
Planting Willow Cuttings .... 243
Willow Crop Production Timeline . .17
The First Growing Season ..........sssssssesesessesesessesesesscscsesscsesesesscsesesesuescaesesnsasacseeneassesnsaeeneaeaeenensaeseaeeeeeeees 18
Second Through Fourth Growing Seasons ............cccsssssssssssesesseeseseseseseecssscsseescsnsnseessseseseseseseseseseecacaees 20
Harvesting the Willow Crop .
Willow Cutting Development and Production .0.......c.c.cesesssesesesesesesesesesesesesesesesesesesesesescscseseacscscacsesescsesees 26
Willow Crop Pests and Diseases ...........:.sssssessssseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseseacsesesescsesescsesees 30
Acknowledgment ...........s.scsssssssessssesssesescscscsescsesesesesesesecesesesesesesesesesesesesesesessaeseseseseseseeeseseseseesseseseseeees 31
Willow coppice
INTRODUCTION
Cultivation of willow in the United States began in the 1840s by immigrants in western New York and Pennsylvania. By the late 1800s cultivation of willows for basketry and furniture had spread from the shores of Maryland to the western borders of Wisconsin and Illinois. By the early 1900s, New York State dominated willow cultivation in the United States, with 60% of the total reported area, and about 45% of the income generated from willow products. However, as the demand for willow baskets dropped off rapidly in the 1920s and 1930s, only pockets of willow cultivation remained.
The cultivation of willow was revitalized in upstate New York in the mid 1980s at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY-ESF). The focus was research on the production of willow as a locally produced, renewable, cellulosic feedstock for bioproducts and bioenergy. Over 20 organizations have teamed up to form the Salix Consortium, whose goal is to facilitate the commercialization of willow biomass crops in the Northeastern and Midwestern regions of the United States. In 1995, the Salix Consortium was one of three competitively bid national projects selected to develop a dedicated feedstock energy project under the Biomass Power for Rural Development Program supported by the United States Departments of Energy (DOE) and Agriculture (USDA). To reach these goals a series of simultaneous activities, including research, regional clone-site trials, a large-scale demonstration program, and outreach and education efforts, were initiated (Figure 1).
Goal: Willow Biomass Commercialization
Large-Scale
Demonstration
Nursery stock production
Production systems optimization
Outreach & Education
Landowner participation
Institutional and policy
support
Regional Trials Equipment optimization
Conversion technology
Business scenarios
Clone-site interactions
Nine states & southern
Quebec
Market development
Research
Production system @ Genetics @ Sustainability e Economics @ Conversion technology
Figure 1. Components of the Salix Consortium’s program that are being implemented simultaneously to reach
the goal of commercialization.
While producing a cellulosic feedstock, willow biomass cropping systems simultaneously produce
valuable environmental and social benefits. These include reduced SO, and NO, power plant emissions
when used as a fuel for co-firing with coal, no net addition of CO, to the atmosphere when used to generate
electricity, sequestration of carbon in soil, reduced soil erosion and non- -point source pollution from agricultural
land, and enhanced agricultural landscape diversity. Willow biomass has the potential to play a crucial role
in revitalizing the economy of rural communities by making productive use of under utilized cropland.
Between 1998 and 2000 over 500 acres of willow biomass crops were established in western and
central New York. Smaller trials have been established in nine states and southern Quebec. First rotation
yields of the best clone in the trials that have been harvested to date has ranged from 3.7 oven dried tons
per acre per year (odt/A/yr) in Burlington, VT to 5.1 odt/A/yr in Canastota, NY. Second rotation yields
have increased by 35 to 100%, depending on the site. Correlation of these research plot yields with
commercial harvests will begin in the winter of 2001/2002 with the large-scale harvest of the first 100
operational acres. The biomass will be co-fired with coal at the NRG Dunkirk power plant in western New
York, used for gasification tests, and for research on the fabrication of new biobased materials and chemicals
as alternatives to products currently derived from non-renewable fossil fuels.
In addition to co-firing and gasification for energy production, willow biomass represents a relatively
low cost and locally-available feedstock for the production of liquid fuels, chemicals and advanced materials
derived from its lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose. Analysis has shown that willow wood derived from three-
year old stems is 19% lignin compared to 22 - 30% for mature hardwoods, which will facilitate the pulping process while enhancing the overall product yield for those chemicals derived from the polysaccharide fraction
of willow (glucose, ethanol, furfural, and levulinic acid). The dry weight ratio of cellulose to xylan hemicellulose in willow was found to be approximately 3.5:1 based on a new Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)
technique. This ratio is higher than typically observed in most hardwood species, which could enhance the
yield of bioproducts from willow biomass.
Studies are in progress utilizing a fungal pre-treatment (biopulping) to optimize the yield of both usable
papermaking fiber (cellulose) and water-extractable xylan from willow. Trials at the Empire State Paper Research Institute (ESPRI) at SUNY-ESF have revealed that willow fiber can make paper of equivalent
strength and quality to eucalyptus, a “standard” papermaking pulp worldwide, and represents a viable
commercial fiber resource. In addition, aqueous liquid crystalline phases of extracted xylan have been
produced from willow, which we plan to fabricate into high performance, biodegradable fibers and films, as
well as composites with thermoplastic bacterial polyesters. These products represent biodegradable alternatives to petroleum-derived polyethylene and polystyrene. Other “high tech” applications for willow
biomass include stimuli responsive elastomers, which could be used in shock absorbers as equipment
dampeners, artificial muscles, biomedical equipment; and in the development of micron-sized dispensers for
insect pheromones used to control forest and agricultural insect pests. From an economic perspective, it
has been estimated that process improvements leading to efficient xylan (hemicellulose) extraction and utilization
have the potential to significantly improve the value of a ton of willow biomass. About 275 pounds of xylan
(assuming 25% weight xylan and 50% recovery) could be recovered from each ton of willow biomass.
This would add $20 to the value of a dry ton of willow biomass.
The ongoing research and large-scale demonstration of willow biomass crops, supported by DOE,
USDA and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA); developments
in the extraction and use of xylan from willow biomass; and the active participation of Salix Consortium
partners are creating new opportunities to reach the goal of commercialization of the system. The development
of a vibrant willow biomass enterprise can play an important role in bolstering the region’s farm and forestry
sectors, increasing energy independence, strengthening the protection of the environment, and mitigating
pollution problems.
The willow biomass production system is primarily an agricultural based system that is similar to
perennial cropping systems currently being used by New York farmers (Figure 2). This manual is based on
fifteen years of research at SUNY-ESF, plus information from Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Canada.
This is the first update to the Willow Biomass Producer’s Handbook, and as new information is gained,
recommendations may change. The system described is operational, but it is still in the developmental
phase in New York. Feedback from growers and other collaborators is essential for continued improvement.
Figure 2. Willow biomass crops growing on a cooperating landowner’s farm in western New York state.
SOIL CONSIDERATIONS FOR WILLOW BIOMASS CROPS
Soil properties are critical to the successful and sustainable production of willow biomass crops. Willows grow best on good agricultural soils, but can also be grown successfully on soils that are marginal for traditional crops (Table 1). Generally, better quality soil will produce greater yields earlier in the rotation. Studies are underway that will result in soil recommendations for a wide variety of different willow clones. The best willow growth occurs on sites with a large rooting volume and good aeration, water, and nutrient availability. Soil pH should be above 5.5 and below 8.0. Willow has been grown successfully on soils ranging in texture from sandy loam to silt or clay loams. Soils with higher clay content tend to have lower production in the first few years. However, initial results suggest that second rotation yields on these sites may be greater compared to soils with lower clay contents. Although willows grow on poorly drained soils, they do not grow at economically acceptable rates under these conditions.
Table 1. Soil characteristics that are suitable for growing willow biomass crops.
Soil Characteristic Suitable Unsuitable
loams, sandy loams, loamy .
Te sands, clay loams and silt loams coarse sand, clay soils
well developed to single grain massive or lacking
s re structure structure
. imperfectly to moderately well | excessively well or very
Drainage drained poorly drained
pH 55 to 8.0 | below 5.5, above 8.0
Depth 18 inches or more | _ less than 18 inches
10
SITE PREPARATION FOR PLANTING
Effective weed control is critical for the successful establishment of willow biomass plantings. Weed competition is the most common cause of failure for willow biomass crops. Currently available willow clones do not compete well with weeds during the establishment year, or during the first part of the second growing season. Once trees close canopy, completely occupying the site, weeds are unable to compete. If weeds are not controlled until the trees fully occupy the site, production will be much lower during the
first rotation, or in the worst case scenario, the planting may have low survival and never be productive.
Effective weed control techniques, outlined below, have been developed for willows in New York, and
research to make weed control methods more efficient continues.
The following site preparation procedure has been used successfully and is recommended until new
methods are proven to be economically successful. Alternative methods that minimize tillage and employ sustainable agriculture practices are being developed.
Site preparation (Figure 3) on an old-field or hay-field site must begin the summer before planting,
preferably during mid to late July. The site should first be mowed, and if vegetation is excessive should be removed and baled into hay bales. After the vegetation resumes vigorous growth, the site should be sprayed with glyphosate (Figure 4), a broad spectrum post-emergent, translocated herbicide. Site preparation could
Figure 3. Completed fall site preparation ready for planting in the spring.
Figure 4. Application of a post-emergent herbicide on an old-field, as
part of fall site preparation.
11
begin during mid August, but starting this late is riskier because perennial weed regrowth may not be vigorous enough for effective control with herbicides. If difficult to control perennial weeds such as crown vetch, morning glory, or thistle are present, adding 2,4-D in a tank mix with glyphosate is advisable. Directions provided on the labels and local regulations on the use of specific herbicides should be followed. At least two to four weeks should be allowed for the herbicide to kill all weeds. We recommend using higher water spray volumes than normal to insure good spray coverage.
Once the effectiveness of herbicide application is confirmed, the site should be plowed to a depth of
10 inches or more . Plowing can be followed immediately by cross discing (Figure 5). Once discing is complete (probably early to mid September) site preparation is complete for the fall season. On soils with significant erosion potential, a cover crop that provides good ground cover late in the growing season, and is easily killed the following spring, such as winter rye, should be planted. Additional research on incorporating cover crops into willow cropping systems is underway and additional recommendations will be forth coming.
Figure 5. Cross discing of planting site after plowing as part of fall site preparation.
Rocks that protrude more than approximately two inches above the soil surface should be removed.
Since harvesting machines will cut the stems at a height of two to four inches, rocks can damage harvesting
equipment and expensive saw blades.
The following spring, if a winter-hardy cover crop was planted, it must be killed. Just before planting,
soil should be cultimulched to kill any germinating weeds and loosen the soil for planting. Willow planting
machines function best on freshly cultimulched sites.
12
PLANTING WILLOW CUTTINGS
The planting design for each field should be carefully thought out before planting begins. Rows should be as long as possible. Very long rows should have a 20 foot break inserted every 500 - 600 feet to allow harvesting equipment to be moved on and off the field. Where possible, the rows should run across slopes, as with conventional crops, to reduce soil erosion. At least 20 feet should be left at row ends to allow turn-around space for harvesting machines and for access with other farm equipment. Once established, willow biomass crops will be productive for about 22 years, so mistakes in the planting design could cause problems for many years.
Willow planting is done by machine in early spring as soon as sites are workable, and within several days following cultimulching. Willow planting material consists of unrooted dormant stem cuttings eight to 10 inches in length and 3/8 to 3/4 inches in diameter, or dormant stem whips > four feet to approximately
seven feet in length and 3/8 to 3/4 inches in diameter. (These limits are based on planting machine design and storage box length.) Cuttings will produce both roots and shoots after planting. Ideally, planting would take place in late April to late May, but it can be completed as late as mid June if necessary. Early May planting is advisable so that soil moisture is sufficient to support young plants and root development, and trees have as much time as possible to grow and develop. Shoots typically sprout one to two weeks after planting under typical New York field conditions in May, and can occur as quickly as 3 days after planting
if soil and air temperatures are warm. Some willow varieties are not damaged by late spring frosts, but
young shoots of other varieties may be killed. There is little advantage to planting earlier than late April because low soil and air temperatures typically result in slow sprouting and growth, and early planting increases the chance of frost damage to young, recently sprouted cuttings. Late planting (June) is risky because soil moisture may become limiting for root development. If willow cuttings do not establish good root systems during the first growing season, they are prone to frost heave during their first winter. The more time they have to grow during the first season, the more extensive the root systems will be. In a wet, warm summer, late plantings may be successful. Willows grow best with warm temperatures and moist,
but not saturated, soils.
Willow cuttings and whips are stored at 25° - 30°F, and should not be shipped to the planting site until just before they are to be planted. Once cuttings or whips are thawed, they should be planted as quickly as possible, and not be re-frozen. Cuttings and whips should be stored in conditions as cool and moist as possible. Under good conditions they can be maintained outside the freezer for approximately one week, provided they are in their original containers, are not overheated, and do not dry out. They
should never be stored in direct sunlight or under conditions that promote drying. Cuttings that have started to grow before planting should not be planted because their chances for survival are low.
The current willow biomass crop system consists of planting genetically improved willow clones as unrooted hardwood cuttings at densities of about 6,000 plants per acre. Planting is done with mechanized planters specifically designed for dormant hardwood cuttings or whips. To facilitate the management of the
site with farm machinery, willows are planted in a double-row system with five feet between double-rows,
two and a half feet between rows, and two feet between plants within rows (Figure 6).
Agriculturally based planting machines have been commercially developed in Europe and are being adapted to conditions in the northeastern United States. The two most common machines used to date are
the Fréebbesta planter (Figure 7) and Salix Maskiner’s Step planter (Figure 8), both of which were designed and produced in Sweden. The Fréebbesta planter uses 10 inch long hardwood cuttings as the planting stock. The planter opens a slit in the ground to a depth of eight to 10 inches. Cuttings are fed manually
into the planting tube and are driven into the open slit by hydraulically powered rubber wheels. A pair of
packing wheels closes the slit around the cutting. Staff at Cornell University have modified the Fréebbesta
planter to suit local soil conditions and farm machinery.
The Step planter has become the industry standard as the most efficient and effective machine for
planting willow biomass crops. The Step planter uses willow whips as planting material. The whips are fed
into the machine between two belts that guide the whip into the planting mechanism. The whip is automati- cally cut to the desired length and simultaneously inserted into a slit in the ground made by a coulter. The
length of the cutting can be varied from six to eight inches, which provides increased flexibility to work on
a variety of different soil types. When the
13
Figure 6. The double-row spacing for willow biomass crops facilitates the use of existing or slightly
modified agricultural equipment. This two week old willow crop is at the beginning of the second
season following coppicing of the first year’s growth. Figure 7. The Fréebbesta willow planter uses 10 inch long cuttings as planting stock and plants one
double-row at a time.
14
Figure 8. Salix Maskiner’s Step planter uses > four foot long willow whips as planting stock and
plants two double-rows at once.
plant material is inserted into the ground, the planting portion of the machine is held stationary. Designing the
machine with this temporary, stationary moment at planting was inspired by the pattern of people walking -
hence the name of the machine- Step planter. ,
The planter increases the efficiency of planting willow biomass crops compared to the Fréebbesta
planter in a number of ways. The use of whips versus cuttings as planting stock results in savings in the cost of
planting material production since labor is not required to make the whips into cuttings. The Step planter
plants two double-rows (four rows) at once, while the current Fréebbesta machine only plants one double-
row (two rows) at a time. Since two people are required to operate both planters, the man-hour requirement
for planting a given field is cut in half with the Step planter. The Step planter's output is about two acres per
hour while the Fréebbesta planter's output is half an acre per hour. The Fréebbesta is a smaller machine that
is easier to operate with a smaller tractor so it will still be used for planting smaller parcels of land and
specialized willow plantings such as riparian buffers.
Immediately following planting, a pre-emergent herbicide is applied to provide weed control through
the first year (Figure 9). Oxyfluoren and simazine are the two herbicides currently being used, based on the
results of previous trials. Directions provided on the label and local regulations for the use of specific herbicides
should always be followed. Trials are underway to test other pre-emergent herbicides on willow biomass
crops.
15
Figure 9. Spraying pre-emergent herbicides immediately after planting for weed control.
16
LI Jan
Year 0
Site Preparation
Jul
mow site
Aug
apply contact
herbicide
Sep
plow, disc, plant
cover crop
Year 5
2nd Rotation
1st Growing Season
Dec/Jan
Year 1
1st Rotation
1st Growing Season
Year 2
1st Rotation
2nd Growing Season
Year 3
1st Rotation
3rd Growing Season
Year 4
1st Rotation
Ath Growing Season (‘sontanoe
Apr May
kill cover crop weed control if
May necessary
cultipack, plant, Jun
immediately apply fertilize
pre-emergent Jul
herbicide . weed control if Jun - Sep necessary
weed control if
necessary
Nov - Mar
coppice first year
growth
Year 7
2nd Rotation
3rd Growing Season
Apr - Dec
no treatments
necessary- monitor
insects and diseases
Year 22
7th Rotation
3rd Growing Season Vv Apr - Dec
no treatments
necessary- monitor
insects and diseases
Dec - Mar
1st harvest
Year 23
New Planting
Jun
fertilize
Apr - Dec
monitor insects and
diseases
IH
Apr - Dec
no treatments
necessary- monitor
insects and diseases
Dec - Mar
2nd harvest
ky
Apr - Dec
no treatments
necessary- monitor
insects and diseases
Dec - Mar
7th harvest
>
May - Jul
Retro-fit Field
herbicide, heavy
discing +/or grinding eak Aq 1eaK UO S[teJap JOJ 1X9} 99) “sdoio ssewOIg MOT[LM JO UOHONpod ayy ut sdays Ady are BULMOTIO ANITAWNIL NOILLONGOUd dOWD MOTTIM
THE FIRST GROWING SEASON
Cuttings should sprout shoots within two weeks of planting. Roots are being produced underground
at the same time. Typically 90% or more of the cuttings survive. A minimum survival percentage, below
which the planting should be replanted, has not yet been determined, but we suspect that this value is somewhere around 60 - 70%, depending on the site.
If survival and weed control are acceptable during the first growing season, no further effort is
required until leaf fall. Ifthe pre-emergence herbicide cap fails and annual weed seeds germinate, or if
perennial weeds not killed during site preparation begin to compete with trees, mechanical cultivation (Figure
10) will be necessary. Annual weeds are generally easily controlled mechanically when they are small. If
perennial weeds become established, two to three cultivations may be necessary. Cultivators and rototillers
designed to accomodate the double-row spacing used in willow plantings have been developed. Contact
herbicide application with shielded sprayers has been used successfully, but willows are highly sensitive to
post-emergent herbicides, so the risk of damaging trees is high. Grass weeds can be effectively controlled
with grass post-emergent herbicides.
Growth during the first growing season (Figure 11) varies by clone, rainfall, and site conditions.
Trees should be at least three feet tall at the end of the first growing season, and greater than eight feet of
growth has been observed. Most trees will have one to four stems.
At the end of the first growing season and after leaf fall (typically mid November), trees may be cut
back (coppiced). This operation could be completed any time between two weeks after leaf fall and when
buds begin to swell in spring (typically early March). Coppicing can be completed with a sickle bar mower
equipped with sharp blades so that a clean cut is produced. The stems should be cut at a height of about
one to two inches. The forward speed of the tractor should be such that stems are being cut cleanly, without
tearing, and the willow’s root system is not being ripped from the soil. Any machine that pulls up on the
plant before cutting would not be suitable since the plant’s root system would be damaged. Cut stems can
be left in the field, or made into cuttings if additional planting material is desired. Coppicing promotes multiple sprout formation and results in rapid canopy closure the second year.
os
Figure 10. Mechanical weed control with a Badalini multi-row rototiller.
18
Figure 11. One and a half month old willow plants are one to two feet tall.
19
SECOND THROUGH FOURTH GROWING SEASONS
After the willows resprout and resume growth during the second season, and assuming weeds are under control, nitrogen fertilizer is applied at the rate of about 100 pounds of elemental nitrogen per acre (Figure 12). Potassium or phosphorous addition may be necessary on some sites. Rates may vary depending on the fertility of specific sites and the requirements of different clones. Timing of fertilizer application depends on spreading equipment available and the growth rate of the plants. Machinery must not damage the plants as it passes over them, but young willow stems can be bent over without damage provided the object causing the bend (e.g., a tractor axle) pushes on the top third of the stem. Ideally, application would be during mid to late June so that trees are vigorously growing and have had a chance to produce new roots that can absorb the fertilizer. Experiments have shown that a wide range of organic wastes, including sewage biosolids and composted poultry manure, can be used to supply nutrients. These organic amendments are ideal for
slow release of nutrients over the three to four year growing season.
Weed control may be necessary during the first part of the second growing season, until trees close canopy. If weeds become established during the second season, they should be removed prior to fertilization; otherwise, fertilized weeds may overtop trees.
Willows should close canopy (Figure 13) by mid to late July of the second growing season. Once the canopy is closed, weeds will be suppressed and no further weed control efforts are necessary. Each willow plant should be six feet or more in height by the end of the second growing season and have multiple stems (Figure 14 ).
During the third and fourth growing seasons (second and third seasons after coppicing) no tending of the crop should be necessary. Plants should be 10 - 15 feet in height by the end of the third season, and over 15 - 20 feet by the end of the fourth season (Figure 15). The third, and particularly the fourth growing seasons are when the above ground growth is most rapid, assuming growing conditions are similar each year.
Figure 12. Nitrogen fertilizer application over new sprouts at the start of the second season.
20
Yields of fertilized and irrigated willow grown for three years have exceeded 12 odt/A/yr. First
rotation, unirrigated trials in central New York have produced yields of four to five odt/A/yr. Unirrigated,
second rotation yields increased by 35 - 100% compared to the first rotation. It is anticipated that commercial
yields will be slightly lower due to variability in field conditions. Efforts are underway to improve the yields
and form of willow biomass crops. Traditional breeding efforts have been conducted at SUNY-ESF since
1998. Over the last three years over 250 controlled crosses have been made. In Sweden, yields of
commercial varieties generated from traditional breeding efforts increased by 12 - 67%. In addition, yields
will be increased by optimizing various components of the production system, such as weed control and
fertilization.
Figure 13. Trees generally close canopy by the second growing season, effectively controlling
competing vegetation.
21
Figure 14. At the end of the second growing season, willow plants are one-year
old above ground on a two-year old root system.
22
years old above , the willows are three- In the fourth growing season
ground on a four-year old root system.
15. Figure
23
HARVESTING THE WILLOW CROP
Willows should be ready for their first harvest three years after the first coppice (four years after planting). If growth was poor due to weather conditions such as drought or problems with weed competition, harvesting can be delayed a year or two, before annual biomass production begins to decline. As with the first coppice, harvesting can be completed any time during the winter, between leaf fall and bud swell in early spring.
Harvesting equipment has been developed in Europe specifically for willow biomass plantations. The most efficient machines currently are the modified Claas Jaguar corn harvester (Figure 16) and the Bender harvester (Figure 17). The Claas harvester has two large saw blades, one for each row in a double- row that cuts the stems at approximately three to six inches above the ground. In contrast, the Bender uses a single long chain-saw cutting chain to cut the willow stems. This means that the Bender is not restricted by the location of the rows and can be used to cut across rows, if necessary. Both harvesters chip the stems after cutting them (Figure 18) and blow the chips into a wagon towed by the harvester or by a tractor along side of the harvester. Other willow harvesters have been developed in Europe that bundle whole stems, rather than chip them. Advantages of chipping include less handling and more efficient transport. Whole stems can be stored longer than chips, but add to the cost of transport and handling. Harvesting can be completed with approximately one foot of snow on the ground provided it is not packed or crusty. Large tires or tracks on harvesting machines minimize soil damage when harvesting in wet conditions. Willow harvesting machine improvements continue, and current harvest rates are from 22 to 45 wet tons per hour, or approximately one to two A/hr.
Willows sprout vigorously in the spring following winter harvest, and harvesting can be repeated on a three to five-year cycle. We expect that six to seven harvests can be obtained from a single planting before replanting. The fact that multiple harvests can be obtained from one planting with only a minimal amount of work once the crop is established is an attractive feature for the grower.
Figure 16. Claas Jaguar com harvester with a special willow harvesting head, harvesting three-
year old willow in Sweden.
24
Figure 18. Willow chips from Claas and Bender willow chip-harvesters.
25
WILLOW CUTTING DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION
The ultimate success of willow biomass crops depends heavily on developing genetically improved
willows that are more productive than present clones (Figure 19). SUNY-ESF is developing new varieties
that have improved biomass production, more upright form, and are resistant to insect and disease pests.
When a productive variety is identified, it is propagated in cutting orchards so that thousands, or even millions,
of genetically identical cuttings are available for sale. A group of genetically identical cuttings is referred to
as a “clone”. All the individuals in a clone originated from one plant. Cuttings should only be purchased
from nurseries that can prove that cuttings being sold are truely from the clone specified.
Willow cuttings and whips are produced in irrigated, fertilized nursery cutting orchards (Figure 20).
Plants in cutting orchards are cut annually, so all cuttings and whips are from current year’s growth. Cuttings
and whips are made during the dormant season, packaged in plastic-lined waxed boxes to prevent moisture
loss, and stored at 25 - 30°F. Cuttings should be planted during the spring following production, but cuttings
and whips of some clones can be stored for a year under the right conditions.
Testing to identify willow clones that grow well in New York has been in progress for over a decade.
Some of the most productive clones identified so far that are being used commercially listed in Table 2.
Starting in 1998, SUNY-ESF began producing new clones using traditional breeding methods. Additional
clones have been collected across the Northeast. Willow breeding in New York is in its infancy, and large
increases in production are anticipated through these breeding efforts. Eventually, we hope to make new
improved clones available to producers on an annual basis.
Figure 19. Willow seedlings from genetic crosses in the greenhouse. Willow clones that are
more productive, have better form, and are insect and disease resistant are being developed.
Figure 20. An irrigated willow cutting orchard at the New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Saratoga Tree Nursery.
27
87 Table 2. Promising willow clones available for New York State.
Clone Species Description —
$25 Salix eriocephala Good growth rate on most sites, favored by deer
$365 S. discolor Moderate to good growth rate, good form, favored by rabbits, not damaged by
deer
SA2 S. alba Consistently high survival, moderate growth rate, susceptible to foliage diseases
SX61 S. sachalinensis Native to Japan, grew very well on the few sites where it has been tested -
needs more testing
Sx64 S. miyabeana Native to Japan, grew very well on the few sites where it has been tested -
needs more testing
SX67 S. miyabeana Native to Japan, grew very well on the few sites where it has been tested -
needs more testing
svi S. dasyclados The most productive clone to date, the current standard for comparison, favored
by willow leaf and Japanese beetles |
Populus nigra x A hybrid poplar clone that has been tested with the willow crop system, is very
NM6 productive, grows well on many sites, especially on soils where willow clones maximowizii are more susceptible to failure due to weeds and frost heaving
At least seven to 10 years are required to screen a willow clone and produce enough planting
stock for commercial planting. Original testing requires four years, and consists of planting new clones on
various sites, along with'“‘standard” clones for comparison. Clones that are identified as superior are then
propagated in a nursery, and approximately three to five years are required to produce enough cuttings for
commercial release.
Questions have been raised about how to deploy willow clones. Should one superior clone, or
numerous genetically diverse good clones be planted? Rather than planting a single clone over a large
area, planting clones in blocks that are a few double-rows to several acres in size is recommended (Figure
21). Planting a number of clones will maximize chances for success. Currently we are developing the expertise to recommend clones for specific sites.
Figure 21. Large clonal blocks of willows are usually planted with four to eight different clones.
Differences in foliage color of clonal blocks are obvious in this one-year old crop. Large differ-
ences in characteristics, such as yield and pest resistance, are commonly expressed among willow
clones.
29
WILLOW CROP PESTS AND DISEASES
Insects generally have not been a problem in experimental willow plantings in New York. Limited
foliage feeding by insects is commonly observed but impacts are not considered severe enough to warrant
insecticide application. Foliage feeding insects likely to be observed include Japanese beetles (Popillia
Japonica) (Figure 22), imported willow leaf beetles (Plagiodera versicolora), Calligrapha beetles
(Calligrapha multipunctata), and willow sawflies (Nematus ventralis) (Figure 23). Control efforts might
be recommended if more than 50% defoliation occurs before August. Late season defoliation has been
observed with no apparent long-term effects, so no control efforts are recommended when defoliation
occurs late in the growing season. Foliage feeding insects typically damage some clones more than others.
Another insect pest observed is the willow shoot sawfly (Janus abbreviatus), which damages cutting
orchards by killing shoot tips early in the growing season, causing trees to form a “shepherd’s crook” at the
shoot tip. Upon close inspection, a ring of punctures will be evident just below each crook. The shepherd’s
crooks die followed by production of multiple shoots below dead shoot tips. These insects have little impact
on biomass production, but can reduce cutting yields by production of multiple shoots below the damaged
shoot tips.
Fungal pathogens have been observed on willows in New York, but so far, fungal problems have
been minimal and restricted to specific clones. A rust (Melampsora spp.) is the most serious fungus problem
in Sweden, causing premature foliage drop. Melampsora has been observed in New York but has not
caused a serious problem except on one clone in the western part of New York. This clone is no longer
being used in large-scale plantings. Planting clones resistant to pathogens is the best method for managing
diseases.
Browse by rabbits in research plantings has severely damaged one clone (SH3 [not a recommended
clone]), and two other clones (S365 and SV1) to a lesser extent. Deer appear to have a preference for
the native S. eriocephala clones. Commercial plantings established in areas with high deer pressure will
have to use designs that can minimize browsing by using clones that are unpalatable to deer near the edges
of deer habitat.
If defoliation due to insects or disease, or any other problems with willow plantation health are
observed, please contact us at the addresses provided at the end of this document so that we can investigate
the problem.
Figure 22. Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica) adult.
Figure 23. Willow sawfly
(Nematus ventralis) caterpillars.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this manual was provided by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA), US Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service,
US Department of Energy-National Renewable Energy Laboratory , and US Department of Energy - Oak
Ridge National Laboratory.
Please direct any questions or comments to:
Timothy A. Volk, Project Director
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
1 Forestry Drive
Syracuse, NY 13210
315 470-6774
tavolk@mailbox.syr.edu
or
Dr. Lawrence P. Abrahamson, Principal Investigator
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
1 Forestry Drive
Syracuse, NY 13210
315 470-6777
labrahamson@esf.edu
31