Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis Formatted Full Report

B i o ma s s g a s i f i c a t i o n&p y r o l y s i s

J u n e2 0 1 5

B i o m a s s g a s i f i c a t i o n&p y r o l y s i s : How UK support for 'energy innovation' leads to business failures and particularly inefficient and dirty biomass power stations

j u n e2 0 1 5 Almuth Ernsting R e p o r t a u t h o r : A c k n o wl e d g e m e n t s : With special thanks to Raemond Bradford & Tim Hill for their expert advice Oliver Munnion l a y o u t :

b i o f u e l w a t c h . o r g . u k

1


J u n e2 0 1 5

B i o m a s s g a s i f i c a t i o n&p y r o l y s i s : How UK support for 'energy innovation' leads to business failures and particularly inefficient and dirty biomass power stations

j u n e2 0 1 5 Almuth Ernsting R e p o r t a u t h o r : A c k n o wl e d g e m e n t s : With special thanks to Raemond Bradford & Tim Hill for their expert advice Oliver Munnion l a y o u t :

b i o f u e l w a t c h . o r g . u k

1


J u n e2 0 1 5

C o n t e n t s E x e c u t i v eS u m m a r y

3

I n t r o d u c t i o n

5

S c o p e o f t h i s r e p o r t

7

H o wd o e sb i o ma s s g a s i f i c a t i o na n dp y r o l y s i s w o r k ?

9

A s h o r t h i s t o r y o f b i o m a s s g a s i f i c a t i o n

1 2

A v e r y s h o r t h i s t o r y o f b i o m a s s p y r o l y s i s

1 5

B i o ma s s g a s i f i c a t i o na r o u n dt h e wo r l dt o d a y

1 6

Main technical challenges associated with biomass gasification

B i o m a s s p y r o l y s i s : A g l o b a l o v e r v i e w

*8

1 8

Main technical challenges associated with biomass pyrolysis

H o we f f i c i e n t a r ea d v a n c e d c o n v e r s i o nb i o ma s s p l a n t s ? Conventional biomass combustion asification !yrolysis Are biomass gasifiers cleaner cleaner or more polluting than biomass combustion plants"

T h e U K ’ s e x p e r i e n c e wi t h b i o m a s s g a s i f i c a t i o na n d p y r o l y s i s s c h e m e s #essons not heeded$ A%&%E ' the UK(s first failed biomass gasifier &adly advised$ How Highland Council bought into biomass gasification technology and lost )**+, million -hree UK biomass gasifiers in operation" reen .nvestment &an/ boosts Canadian gasifier company 0e1terra(s business 2avid !i/e3 his 45 6or more7 advanced conversion companies and ),5 million losses to investors A closer loo/ at other companies companies involved involved in UK biomass biomass gasification gasification

*9

2 1 :* :* :4 :4

2 4 :; :, :< :8 := 45 44

C o n c l u s i o n s f r o mt h e U K G o v e r n m e n t ’ s s u p p o r t f o r b i o ma s s g a s i f i c a t i o n a n d p y r o l y s i s

3 5

r e f e r e n c e s

3 8

2


J u n e2 0 1 5

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y &iomass and waste gasification and pyrolysis are being heavily promoted promoted by the UK government+ government+ According to the UK &ioenergy &ioenergy >trategy >trategy :5*:3 developing advanced gasification technologies3 especially biomass gasification3 is vital to achieving low?carbon targets in different sectors+ -he government has made particularly generous subsidies available for electricity from biomass and waste gasification and pyrolysis+ -his &iofuelwatch report focuses on biomass 6including waste wood7 rather than non?biomass waste gasifiers and pyrolysis plants+ However3 the the policy framewor/ and subsidies are largely identical for both3 and the technologies ' and therefore the technical challenges ' are very similar+ -he findings in the the report will therefore be relevant to Municipal Municipal >olid @aste @aste gasifiers and pyrolysis reactors3 too+ &iofuelwatch has identified ;5 biomass and pyrolysis plants with a capacity of at least * M@ which have been proposed proposed across the UK in recent years+ At least 9 such plants have been built3 though some some of them may never have been been fired up+ = of these gasifiers have failed failed and been shut down+ -wo have been redesigned redesigned and re?opened+ One of them 6supposedly a pyrolysis plant rather than a gasifier7 appears to have generated no energy as yet and the other one3 according to the most recent published evidence3 was operating at less than one?tenth of its its capacity for the first five months3 indicating technical problems+ problems+ One company claims to have built another biomass biomass gasifier but &iofuelwatch could find no planning consent for that one and there are contradictory statements from two other companies that also claim to be behind this plant+ &y comparison3 comparison3 &iofuelwatch is is aware of *4 conventional biomass power stations built in the UK with at least *, M@ capacity3 none of which have been shut down+ 2espite the failure of eight biomass gasifiers3 at least *; biomass gasification and pyrolysis plants hold planning consent as of May :5*,

6including those reportedly built7 and at least two of them are under construction+ construction+ Clearly3 biomass biomass gasification and pyrolysis has attracted significant interest from companies ' but the technologies have been beset with serious problems+ &iomass pyrolysis lin/ed to electricity generation is a new and entirely unproven technology ' so far it has not been done successfully anywhere in the world+ &iomass gasification3 on the other hand3 is not a new technology+ .t was discovered discovered in the *= th century and there were attempts to develop it for town gas( in the *9 th century+ .t was used to drive hundreds of thousands of cars in Europe during @orld @ar : 6although not without technical and health and safety problems7 and it has been promoted for heat and electricity in many countries since the *985s+ *985s+ 2espite this long history3 biomass gasification technologies remain beset with technical difficulties and a very high failure rate+ -his is particularly the the case for biomass gasifiers designed to supply electricity rather than steam for heating or cooling only+ >ome biomass biomass gasifiers have been generating electricity for several years but these tend to be ones involving either collaborations between companies companies and research institutes institutes or collaborations between companies with different types of e1pertise+ e1pertise+ >uccess appears appears to depend on companies being able and willing to invest in overcoming technical problems and upgrading plants over long periods+ >uch plants are e1pensive to build3 e1pensive to operate and prone to far greater problems than conventional biomass plants+ At best they offer offer Bust minor efficiency gains3 with the worst being less efficient than most conventional plants+ lobally3 interest in biomass gasification revolves around the potential for producing clean syngas3 which is chemically similar to natural gas 6though 6though less energy energy dense7+ >yngas can be burned in gas engines and gas turbines3 3


which are more efficient than the steam turbines used by conventional power stations burning solid fuels+ &urning clean syngas would in theory also emit less pollution than burning biomass3 but only where gasifiers operate without technical problems+ urthermore3 research and development is underway in various countries to refine syngas into transport fuels and to use it for various industrial purposes+ .n the UK3 however3 the recently built gasifiers and two new ones which have received sufficient investment to be built3 as well as most of the currently proposed gasifiers3 do not involve producing and using any clean syngas at all+ -hey involve burning dirty gas to power a steam turbine3 in particularly inefficient plants+ -hese developments conseDuently ma/e no meaningful contribution to any technology developments worldwide and3 li/e other biomass gasifiers3 are beset with /ey technical challenges+ -hese challenges are mostly due to the highly e1plosive gases involved and the fouling and corrosion of /ey plant components+ -his report e1amines individual biomass gasifier developments and most of the companies involved+ -he first biomass gasifier ever built in the UK remains the most ambitious proBect yet+ -he company set up to build it went into liDuidation in :55:+ A peer?reviewed study was subseDuently conducted about the proBect+ -he authors found that a lac/ of effective scrutiny and oversight contributed to the failure of it and that the offer of deployment?related subsidies 6i+e+ renewable electricity subsidies paid per unit of electricity generated7 may have led to poor technology choices+ -he lessons from this proBect(s failure have not been learned+ >ubsidies for electricity generation coupled with deregulation or barrier removal( are cornerstones of the UK government(s strategy for supporting energy innovation( in general+ -he e1perience with biomass gasification and pyrolysis plants suggests that this policy approach has had entirely unintended conseDuences$ %ather than driving technology innovation(3 it has driven a proliferation of small companies3

J u n e2 0 1 5

many of them sharing the same directors and none of them with any trac/ record in designing and operating such comple1 and challenging technologies+ ailed gasifier schemes have led to tens of millions of pounds of investors( money being lost+ or e1ample3 two company directors3 2avid !i/e and 2avid 0airn3 have been directors of companies directly responsible for two failed biomass gasification schemes3 which lost investors a total of ),5 million+ -hey were also behind another ultimately unsuccessful biomass gasifier venture which was ta/en over by another company that subseDuently went into liDuidation+ %emar/ably3 the companies associated with these same directors3 despite the disastrous trac/ records of their gasifier ventures3 have been greatly boosted by the reen .nvestment &an/3 which recently Boined a consortium building a waste wood gasifier in -yeseley3 &irmingham+ -he consortium has chosen a main developer with directors lin/ed to three failed biomass gasifiers3 and on top of this has chosen a Canadian company3 0e1terra3 to deliver the /ey technology+ 0e1terra has built three biomass gasification power plants to date3 and not a singel one has been successful+ One was closed after three accidents described as potentially lethal( by a spo/esperson of the university where it was installed3 another failed soon after it opened3 and commissioning of the third has so far been delayed by over a year+ urthermore3 if this new gasifier is to succeed3 it will be less than :* efficient ' far below what many conventional biomass plants achieve+ -he /ey losers of the government(s unsuccessful policy of promoting biomass gasification and pyrolysis have primarily been investors3 including investors participating in the government(s subsidised Enterprise .nvestment >cheme+ Health and safety and air emissions ris/s associated with both technologies have also put local residents at a particularly high ris/3 one even greater than living close to conventional biomass plants+ ires3 e1plosions and e1cessive pollution have been associated with biomass gasifiers and pyrolysis pilot plants outside the UK and3 in >cotland3 a waste gasifier was responsible for hundreds of air Duality permit breaches3 a fire and an e1plosion+

4


J u n e2 0 1 5

I n t r o d u c t i o n .n 2ecember :5*4 the reen .nvestment &an/ 6.&7 announced funding for Fthe first gasification plant of its /ind in the UKG i+e+ the first advanced conversion( biomass plant that would generate electricity+ -he hope3 according to the .&(s Chief E1ecutive3 was that it would Foffer a positive demonstration effect that others will followG i iI+-his .&?funded gasifier is now being built in -yseley3 in &irmingham+ .f it successfully operates then it will indeed be the first UK biomass plant of this type to do so+ &ut it is by no means the first such plant to have been built in the UK At least :; biomass gasification and pyrolysis plants with at least * M@ capacity have received planning consent across the UK * *I+ 9 biomass gasifiers have been builtii iiI3 although some of those may never once have been fired up+ Out of those 9 plants3 = have failed and been shut down+ -wo of those have been redesigned and reopened$ One of them operated at less than *5 of its capacity and no more recent information has been published+ -he other does not appear to have generated any energy as yet+ One other plant was reported by a company to have been commissioned but contradictory information has been published by two other companies and &iofuelwatch could find no planning consent for it+ -hus3 out of 9 biomass gasification plants reportedly opened3 not one appears to have operated successfully so far+ &y comparison3 &iofuelwatch is unaware of any dedicated biomass power station using conventional technology that has been commissioned and then closed down in the UK ' *4 such conventional plants with at least *, M@ capacity are in operation at present :+ Clearly3 operating a biomass gasifier is beset with far greater technical difficulties and challenges than operating a conventional biomass plant+ 0onetheless3 at the time of writing this report3 at least *; biomass gasification or pyrolysis plants have planning permission 6e1cluding those with planning consents that have been abandoned by the developers but including two already built7 advanced conversion( biomass plants have planning permission in the UK3 five planning decision are pending3 and two others have been publicly proposed3 although full planning applications have not yet been published+ -his does not include the even larger number of similar plants proposed and being developed that would use Municipal >olid @aste rather than biomass+ -hus3 despite maBor technical problems3 companies( interest in advanced conversion( of biomass is growing+ -he reason for this is simple$ A successfully operated advanced conversion( plant 6whether it uses biomass or Municipal >olid @aste7 attracts more subsidies per unit of electricity than any other power plant4+ -he overnment(s &ioenergy >trategy iii highlights the Fcrucial roleG which it sees 1 !

-

This includes ones for which planning consent has expired and developments not pursued any further by the developer This does not include coal power stations converted to biomass" Tilbury B was operated on 1##$ biomass for about two years and then closed down and %ronbridge ower 'tation( currently operated on 1##$ biomass( is scheduled to close at the end of !#1) However( these have been amongst the largest biomass users worldwide and economic considerations related to such large*scale wood pellet sourcing appear to have played a role in the operators+ decisions to close these plants , rather than technical barriers 'uch ./dvanced 0onversion+ plants attract ! Renewable bligation 0ertificates per megawatt hour which is higher than the rate available for conventional biomass power plants The only renewable electricity technologies that attract a higher rate of subsidies are tidal stream and wave power 2https"33wwwgovuk3government3uploads3system3uploads3attachment4data3file3!11!5!3ro4banding4levels4!#1-416 pdf7

5


J u n e2 0 1 5

for advanced biomass conversion in Fdelivering low carbon energy going forwardG and high subsidies have been chosen as the main way of incentivising the development of such technologies+ -his report will start with an overview of the two technologies classed as advanced biomass conversion($ biomass gasification and biomass pyrolysis+ .t will then give a brief global and historical overview of the development of both and loo/ at whether such plants have been operated successfully in other countries+ -his is followed by a discussion of how efficient and clean ' or otherwise ? biomass gasifiers and pyrolysis plants can be e1pected to be and what determines their efficiency levels and air emissions+ -his general overview is then followed by an in?depth discussion of the e1perience of failed and proposed biomass gasification and pyrolysis plants in the UK+ Have the lessons from the failed proBects been learned" @hat are the chances of the planned new developments overcoming the problems encountered in the past" @ould the plants that are being built or proposed produce more efficient and cleaner energy from biomass than conventional power stations" And finally3 what lessons can be drawn from the UK(s policy to incentivise advanced biomass conversion( plants"

6


J u n e2 0 1 5

S c o p e o f t h i s r e p o r t -his report focuses on two technologies for converting biomass to electricity ; 6including combined heat and power plants7$ gasification and pyrolysis+ &oth are classed as advanced biomass conversion( under UK subsidy rules+ -he report does not discuss the impacts of large?scale biomass use for electricity and heat generation in general i+e+ the impacts on forests and climate change+ &iofuelwatch has documented and discussed those in detail elsewhere iv+ Air Duality impacts are considered only in so far as emissions from gasification and pyrolysis plants are compared to those from standard combustion biomass plants+ @e attempt to answer the following Duestions$ *+ Are biomass gasification and pyrolysis proven technologies" :+ Are there technical problems associated with these technologies and3 if so3 what are they and could they negatively affect nearby communities or wor/ers 6e+g+ through health and safety ris/s or pollution7" 4+ Are biomass gasifiers and pyrolysis plants more or less efficient than standard biomass power plants" @hat ma/es individual plants more or less efficient" ;+ 2o biomass gasifiers and pyrolysis plants cause more or less air pollution than standard biomass power plants" ,+ 2oes the UK government(s support for biomass gasification and pyrolysis ' especially their rules for subsidising both technologies ' promote the most efficient and least polluting types of advanced conversion plants(" -he report does not loo/ at gasification and pyrolysis plants which rely on Municipal >olid @aste or other non?biomass waste+ However3 gasification and pyrolysis uses the same technologies regardless of which type of solid fuel is used ,+ urthermore3 UK subsidy rules and rates are identical for biomass and for energy from waste advanced conversion(+ -his means that the conclusions drawn will be relevant to those concerned about energy from waste gasifiers and pyrolysis plants+ -he main focus of the report is on proposed3 operating3 and abandoned biomass gasification and pyrolysis proBects with a minimum capacity of * M@ in the UK+ @e have identified ;5 such schemes v for which planning applications 6including scoping reDuests7 have been submitted < in the UK+ -his figure includes developments for which planning applications were submitted but later reBected or withdrawn3 ones where planning consent was granted but has e1pired without any plant being built3 and plants which were built but subseDuently closed down+ .n 4* cases we were able to access planning documents 83 from which we obtained /ey information about the schemes and in the : cases 8 ) ; 6

Biomass gasification and pyrolysis can be used to supply heat only( but we have found no proposals for heat*only plants in the 9: and therefore we focus on electricity generation only( with and without cogeneration of heat The only exception is plasma arc gasification which appears to have only been proposed and used for non*biomass waste gasification to date This includes 'coping Re
7


J u n e2 0 1 5

where full planning applications are still pending3 we accessed consultation documents published by the developers+ @e also searched for and used information published by the developer6s7 and any additional information publicly available+ or those plants said to be operational3 we consulted Ofgem data to see whether any renewable electricity subsidies have been received ' a pro1y for evidence of electricity generation+ Our list may not be e1haustive as far as advanced conversion plants not yet built and commissioned are concerned+ or e1ample3 one company3 Aggregate Micropower Holdings3 states that they are raising investment for five biomass gasifiers vi3 but we have only been able to find details of one of these+ However3 before discussing these ;5 UK schemes3 we present an overview of how the technologies wor/3 a historical overview3 and a global overview of the current state of the technologies and of the main motives behind investments in them+ @e draw on a wide range of literature3 including publications by the .nternational Energy Agency3 studies commissioned by the UK government3 and peer?reviewed studies+ -here is significant international interest in using biomass gasification and pyrolysis as the first stages for producing liDuid transport biofuels from solid biomass+ &iofuel production would involve comple1 further refining of either the gas obtained from biomass gasification or pyrolysis3 or the bio? oil obtained from pyrolysis+ &iofuel production of this type is not commercially viable so far and no refinery of this type has been proposed in the UK+ -he report therefore does not loo/ at this potential application3 nor does it loo/ in detail at the potential uses for char3 which may be a by?product of gasification and is either a by?product or a primary product of pyrolysis+ -his report only focuses on heat and power generation from the two technologies+

commissioned but for which we could find no planning records , even though our planning search revealed unrelated planning applications for the same site= the Tyseley gasifier currently under construction2about which the >reen %nvestment Bank has published details7= a gasifier built and shut down in ?ewry biomass gasifier2about which company and media reports7( and the /RBR@ gasifier built and shut down in @ggborough 2about which a peer*reviewed study has been published7

8


J u n e2 0 1 5

H o wd o e s b i o m a s s g a s i f i c a t i o na n d p y r o l y s i s w o r k ? -here are three possible ways of converting biomass 6or for that matter any solid fuel7 into electricity andJor heat$ Conventional combustion3 gasification3 and pyrolysis+ Here we shall focus on plants that generate electricity 6although they may also ma/e use of heat7$ .n a conventional biomass – or coal – power station 3 the fuel is combusted in the presence of air =+ As the biomass or coal burns3 it reacts with the o1ygen in the air and most of it turns into a hot mi1 of gases 6e1cept for the unburnable residue which remains as ash7+ -he hot gases from the burning biomass or coal3 heat water to produce super?heated steam+ -hat steam then passes through a steam turbine which generates electricity+

2iagram of a solid?fuel steam power plant >ource$ http$JJ*+bp+blogspot+comJ?L0enbEhvfoJUcl5g? OcyB.JAAAAAAAAAE.Jv4aOpC*p#N/Js*<55Jsteamturbinebycoal+Bpg

A

To be precise( effective biomass or coal combustion re
9


J u n e2 0 1 5

-he idea behind biomass gasification is that biomass is heated not in normal air3 but with limited o1ygen+ -his produces a different composition of hot gases3 which the .nternational Energy Agency vii and many others call producer gas( 9 and which can then be cleaned of different pollutants and tars+ -he cleaned up gas is called syngas(+ >yngas3 unli/e the dirtier producer gas3 can be burned to power not Bust steam turbines3 but also gas turbines3 Combined Cycle power plants 6i+e+ ones combining a gas turbine and a steam turbine to increase efficiency73 or gas engines+ However3 if the producer gas is not cleaned then it can only be used as fuel for a boiler that provides steam for a turbine or3 otherwise3 for providing heat only+ -his is the least efficient form of generating electricity through biomass gasification+ Either ash or a small amount of char is left behind as a waste or by?product3 but the ma1imum amount of char derived from gasification is much smaller than what can be produced with pyrolysis+

-wo biomass gasifier designs >ource$ http$JJwww+san/alpacmfs+orgJsrcJ5:eneJimageJgasifierPapp+gif

Biomass pyrolysis involves e1posing biomass to high temperatures in the absence of o1ygen for a short period of time+ !yrolysis produces different Duantities of pyrolysis oil 6 bio?oil(73 producer gas 6which can be transformed into syngas through gas cleaning73 and char ? depending on the specific pyrolysis technology used+ A range of different technologies and designs can be used in biomass combustion plants3 biomass gasifiers3 and biomass pyrolysis plants+ or e1ample3 conventional biomass and also biomass gasifier plants can use different boiler technologies3 some of which are more efficient3 some of which are suitable for larger or smaller plants only3 and some of which are only suitable for certain types of biomass+ 2ifferent pyrolysis processes are distinguished by the temperatures and the length of time for which biomass is e1posed to heat+ A range of different types of pyrolysis plant technologies are being developed+ An overview of different biomass gasifier technologies can be found at$ www+ieatas/44+orgJappJwebrootJfilesJfileJpublicationsJactPsheetsJ.EAP@hatPisPgasification+pdf and a description of all of the different biomass pyrolysis technologies being developed can be found at$ www+mdpi+comJ*99
?ote that the term .producer gas+ is used in different ways 'ome use the term as interchangeable with 2cleaned7 syngas( others use it to describe a particular industrial fuel %n this report( we will use this term to describe un* cleaned gases resulting from biomass gasification /nd we will use the term syngas to describe producer gas which has been cleaned sufficiently so as to be suitable for gas engines and turbines

1 0


J u n e2 0 1 5

Overview of a pyrolysis plant 6not including the actual combustion of gas andJor oil7 >ource$ www+ratical+orgJrenewablesJpyrolytic+gif

1 1


J u n e2 0 1 5

As h o r t h i s t o r y o f b i o m a s s g a s i f i c a t i o n &iomass gasification to produce wood gas( is not a new technology+ .ts discovery and early development dates bac/ to the *= th century+ .n *8=93 a rench engineer3 !hilippe #e &on3 wrote about distilling wood to produce gas+ He later obtained a patent for this3 although there is no record of him having turned such a process into practice viii+ .n *8=,3 another rench inventor3 Qean !ierre Minc/elen3 reported using the first gas lights i1+ as lighting became commonplace in cities such as #ondon during the early *9 th century+ >ome of that gas would have been produced from wood and peat but most of it was coal gas3 which came to be /nown as town gas3( and was widely used until it was replaced by natural gas after @orld @ar :+ rom the early *9:5s there was renewed interest in wood gas3 this time as a transport fuel+ -he &ritish inventor -homas Hugh !ar/er is said to have built the first car to run on wood gas in *95* 1 though his invention of an oil?burning steam powered car and a very f irst electric vehicle are better documented 1i+ 2uring the early *9:5s3 eorge .mbert developed the first wood gasifier suitable for a vehicle 1ii and commercial wood gas vehicles began to be built3 especially in rance+ &y *9:93 around *3==5 vehicles in rance ran on wood gas and the number increased to around 83=55 in *94=+ &oth 0aLi ermany and fascist .taly heavily promoted the development and use of wood gas as a transport fuel 1iii+@ood gas use in transport pea/ed during the >econd @orld @ar when access to oil became difficult in Europe+ .t was most widespread in ermany but also widely used in >weden3 rance3 inland3 2enmar/3 >witLerland3 Austria and the 0e therlands 1iv+&ut although ermany reportedly built up to half a million wood gas cars3 wood gas cars were never without problems ' which is why petrol supplies were reserved for the armies+

Car running on wood gas3 ermany3 *9;; 1 2


J u n e2 0 1 5

A study of @orld @ar : wood gas vehicles in inland 1v3 wood gas vehicles details these problems$ •

•

• • •

•

Cars driven with wood gas were slower and less eff icient than those run on petrol ' they had to be pushed up even small hills -he wood gas generators had to be cleaned and maintained regularly+ @ood needed to be loaded more often than petrol tan/s would be filled and engines too/ up to *, minutes longer to start up #arge Duantities of polluting soot were emitted 2rivers had to be careful to avoid a ris/ of e1plosion from flames or hot charcoal Constant supplies of chopped wood o f the right type were reDuired and those were difficult to come by3 especially in cities -he most serious problem of all was carbon mono1ide 6CO7 poisoning$ At least ,?*, people a year were /illed from CO poisoning but around half of all drivers using wood gas ' including bus drivers ? suffered some level of CO poisoning and3 over a two year period3 <3555 car drivers using wood gas were reported to have fallen unconscious as a result+ CO poisoning became so widespread that a specialist clinic had to be opened in Helsin/i+

0ot surprisingly3 wood gas use for cars3 truc/s3 and buses fell out of favour once petrol supplies resumed after the war+ .nterest in biomass gasification resumed again after the *984 oil crisis(+ -his time it focussed on converting biomass to heat and electricity in order to reduce diesel use in developing countries+ &y the early *9=5s3 there were over *, manufacturers of small scale biomass gasifiers and international development funds3 as well as the governments of &raLil3 China3 .ndia3 .ndonesia3 !hilippines and -hailand were supporting such investments 1vi+ .n *9=43 the @orld &an/ and the U0 2evelopment !rogramme initiated a monitoring programme for such gasifiers+ -heir final report ' published in *99, 1vii ' made for rather sobering reading3 especially where electricity generation from biomass gasification was concerned+ .t included$ F Almost none of the proBects identified became fully commercial3 and most proved unsustainable for technical3 financialJeconomic3 and institutional reasons G+ Even the successful proBects had been plagued by technical problems for a year or longer and had relied on ongoing technical support and supply of spare parts+ Heat gasifiers posed less technical problems but several closed for economic reasons+ >uccess( however was measured purely in terms of a plant continuing to operate+ %eplacement of diesel3 rather than clean and efficient energy production3 was the main motivation for installing biomass gasifiers at the time+!ollution ' especially with liDuid effluents ' was identified as a significant concern+ .n one case3 *,/g of highly to1ic phenols were discharged every hour+ *, years later3 a similar survey of small?scale biomass gasifiers3 this time commissioned by the erman government3 was published 1viii+ rom the *995s3 investment in biomass gasifiers was no longer confined to developing countries and the :5*5 report loo/ed at e1periences in ermany as well as in .ndia3 >ri #an/a3 and various African countries+ &y :5*53 so the study suggested3 small?scale biomass gasification had become no more reliable or successful than it had been during the *9=5s and similar difficulties were being e1perienced everywhere3 not Bust in poor countries3 but also in ermany+ -here3 ,5 biomass gasifiers had been installed between :555 and :5*5$ However3 Fmany have been ta/en out of operation after some months of trial+ >ome plants went up in flames and developers went ban/rupt+ -he few plants that achieved more or less continuous operation were operating under special circumstances$ -hey were part of university research 1 3


J u n e2 0 1 5

programmes or were operated by the developers themselves+ Moreover3 in almost all cases about one to two years of adaptation were necessary G+ #ac/ of reliable technology3 high costs for technology support and repairs3 and dangerous threats to the environment and to health and safety3 were seen as the main obstacles to the technology+ -he authors suggested that these problems may have been overcome by operators of large biomass gasifiers in >candinavia3 though they did not in fact study such plants+ &iomass gasification is thus a relatively old( technology but one which3 for the past century3 has remained beset with technical problems+

1 4


J u n e2 0 1 5

Av e r y s h o r t h i s t o r y o f b i o m a s s p y r o l y s i s Humans have used biomass pyrolysis for thousands of years ' to produce charcoal+ Charcoal was used in cave paintings older than 453555 years and was being produced in significant Duantities by the time the &ronLe Age started over ,3555 years ago 1i1+ However3 the idea of using pyrolysis to produce bio?oil and gas to generate energy is a very recent one+ -he first commercial( 6or at least larger than laboratory?scale7 pyrolysis plants to have been built3 appear to have been ones built by 2ynamotive plants in @est #orne and uelph in Ontario+ -hese were opened in :558J5= but only operated for a short period+

1 5


J u n e2 0 1 5

B i o m a s s g a s i f i c a t i o na r o u n dt h e wo r l dt o d a y -oday3 interest in biomass gasification worldwide is motivated by four main obBectives$ •

•

•

•

-he development of drop in( transport biofuels made from solid biomass3 based on the refining of syngas derived from biomass gasification$ -his type of biofuel production remains in the early %esearch and 2evelopment stage -he use of clean syngas derived from biomass gasification for a variety of chemicals and other materials currently produced from fossil fuels$ -hese uses also remain in the early %esearch and 2evelopment stages Mainly small?scale biomass gasifiers promoted in developing countries to increase overall energy supply and access and in the hope of reducing dependence on diesel &iomass gasification for heat andJor electricity generation as a contribution towards renewable energy targets and3 potentially3 a way of generating energy from biomass more efficiently and with less air pollution than would be possible in a conventional biomass plant+

All commercial investments in biomass gasification in the UK are for electricity generation 6with and without cogeneration of heat7+ -he .nternational Energy Agency 6.EA7 has published a map of biomass gasifiers worldwide$ www+ieatas/44+orgJcontentJthermalPgasificationPfacilities + Although this mapJlist is far from complete it shows a significant number of investments and it also confirms that some biomass gasifiers have now been operating for several years3 some for over a decade3 although *8 cancelled3 stopped3 or suspended proBects are listed+ Unfortunately3 no independent information about the status3 operation3 or potential problems of any of the gasifiers listed is available and at least one of the companies listed by the .EA as operating four such plants 6>tirling 2K7 has gone out of business 11+ -hose proBects which appear to have been successful ' i+e+ which have been operating for several years ' have tended to either involve collaborations between companies and research institutes or long?term company commitments to continually invest in adBusting upgrading and optimising plants in order to resolve technical problems+ >ubsidies appear to be essential in all cases ' although conventional biomass power plants also generally rely on subsidies+ or e1ample3 an = M@ combined heat and power gasifier in uessing has been operational since :55:+ -his is a steam?blown gasifier using dry wood as fuel+ According to the company3 F %enet? Austria3 a competence networ/ on energy from biomass3 consisting of e1perts from universities and industry started to develop this process further to a commercial stage+ 2uring the last years a lot of improvements could be reached G 11i+ Continuous development and the involvement of many e1perts has allowed this plant to be operated relatively successfully+ Also3 a smaller biomass gasification combined heat and power plant in Oberdorf3 >witLerland3 has been operational since :558+ .t is run by a cooperative enterprise but has involved collaboration with *5 companies3 a regional authority3 and three not?for?profit organisations 11ii+

1 6


J u n e2 0 1 5

M a i nt e c h n i c a l c h a l l e n g e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t hb i o m a s s g a s i f i c a t i o n •

•

•

Efficient energy generation through biomass gasification depends on clean syngas3 i+e+ gas of a Duality similar to natural gas and therefore capable of being burned in gas turbines and engines+ -his is discussed further below+ Effective gas cleaning is one of the main difficulties associated with this technology &iomass gasification at temperatures below *3455 oC produces gas with a range of heavy hydrocarbons+ -hese are collectively /nown as tars+ .f tars build up3 they cause fouling(3 which means they clog up vital eDuipment and prevent it from wor/ing properly+ -his could include clogging up of air emissions mitigation systems3 and create greater air pollution as a result 11iii+ .t can also reDuire plants to be shut down+ Avoiding andJor brea/ing down tars is a maBor challenge+ Using dry wood can reduce but not eliminate problems+ Higher combustion temperatures can also reduce problems but may not be practicable+ !lasma arc gasification has been proposed as one solution3 however we have been unable to find any e1amples of operating plasma arc biomass gasifiers in Europe and none of the biomass gasifiers ever proposed in the UK would have used that technology -here are health and safety risks associated with any plant that involves handling large Duantities of woodchips and pellets3 since wood dust is highly e1plosive and wood can self? ignite+ However3 biomass gasification carries additional ris/s because producer gas and syngas are highly e1plosive+ -o prevent an e1plosion when pressure builds up inside a gasifier3 operators may be forced to vent dirty producer gas straight into the atmosphere3 bypassing the various mitigation systems designed to clean it+ -hese ris/s were e1emplified by a Municipal @aste gasifier in >cotland$ &etween :559 and :5*4 6when the plant(s permit was finally removed*573 there were at least == bypass stac/ activations resulting in unlawfully high air emissions+ 0onetheless3 an e1plosion eventually did occur3 as did a maBor fire 11iv+

1# ?ote that another company has since applied for a new permit to reopen the accident*struck plant

1 7


J u n e2 0 1 5

B i o m a s s p y r o l y s i s : Ag l o b a l o v e r v i e w -he U> 2epartment of Energy3 the European Union3 and various other governments support %esearch and 2evelopment into biomass pyrolysis+ -he .nternational Energy Agency has set up a platform to facilitate cross?country collaboration to develop this technology 11v+ -he technical challenges associated with bio?oil and syngas production through pyrolysis are significantly greater than those associated with biomass gasification+ .t is widely accepted that more %esearch and 2evelopment are reDuired before this technology can become commercially viable 11vi+ .nterest in advancing this technology3 despite the significant technical obstacles3 is primarily motivated by the Duest for second?generation biofuels$ Although pyrolysis or bio?oil itself is not of high enough Duality to be burned in car engines3 it could3 at least in theory3 be refined into transport biofuels+ !yrolysis is thus one of several pathways for turning solid biomass into liDuid biofuels which is being researched+ Entrepreneurs3 researchers3 and others promoting the use of biochar also have an interest in biomass pyrolysis+ &iochar is being promoted as a soil amendment which is claimed to ma/e soils more fertile3 to help seDuester carbon long?term3 and to have various other benefits+ .n reality3 the scientific evidence so far shows that these claims are highly Duestionable and that biochar use cannot be relied on to have such desired impacts+ &iochar has been discussed by &iofuelwatch elsewhere 11vii+ !yrolysis char of the right Duality can also be used as activated carbon(+ Activated carbon is char with very fine pores which can be used to filter different contaminants from water or from flue gases 6e+g+ mercury from coal power plants7+ However3 optimising pyrolysis for char production means using slow pyrolysis(3 i+e+ e1posing biomass to temperatures averaging ;55 oC for a relatively long period+ >low pyrolysis yields around 45 bio?oil3 4, char3 and 4, gas ' with lower temperatures resulting in more char production+ &y varying the temperature and length of time that the biomass is e1posed to heat3 different Dualities of chars can be produced+ However3 slow pyrolysis ' with lower temperatures ' produces less bio?oil and bio?oil that is of lower Duality and thus even more difficult to refine into transport fuels+ urthermore3 e1posing biomass to heat for longer periods r eDuires more energy 11viii+ E1posing biomass to higher temperatures for much shorter periods ' called fast and flash pyrolysis ' results in ,5?8, production of bio?oil3 which is of a higher Duality than that produced through slow pyrolysis+ However3 it produces far less char+ Moreover3 char produced at high temperature appears less li/ely to improve crop yields than char produced through slow pyrolysis because it is less al/aline and has other chemical properties which ma/e it less easy for plants to absorb nutrients 11i1**+ >low pyrolysis is also used to produce activated carbon ? though the pyrolysis is then followed by further treatment of the carbon 111 .n short3 pyrolysis can either be optimised to produce char for use as biochar or for conversion to activated carbon3 or to produce bio?oil as a fuel3 but not both+ As for syngas production3 gas yields also drop with higher temperatures and companies interested primarily in producing and using syngas will always opt for gasification 6which yields 95 gas3 rather than a mere *5?45 from fast and flash pyrolysis7+ 11 ?ote that this is appears to be a general trend , but the interaction between different biochars with different soils and crops is highly complex and so far impossible to predict with any accuracy

1 8


J u n e2 0 1 5

-he prospect of a highly?efficient pyrolysis plant which produces bio?oil as a useful fuel3 clean syngas to produce energy and commercially useful char3 is thus a very remote prospect indeed+ .n fact3 Bust one company ' 2ynamotive ' appears to ever have built pyrolysis plants 6two in Ontario7 with the purpose of selling biochar and bio?oil+ &oth closed down after a short period+ -he largest e1isting commercial biomass pyrolysis proBects we identified3 were developed by ortum and Ensyn and are both heavily subsidised+ A third such plant3 called the Empyro !roBect( is currently under construction in Hengelo in the 0etherlands+ -he aim is that this flash pyrolysis plant will produce steam3 electricity3 pyrolysis oil and organic acid+ -his proBect3 too has been subsidised 6through the 8th ramewor/ !rogramme of the European Commission 111i+ -he innish company ortum3 together with other corporate partners3 started commissioning a pyrolysis plant capable of producing up to ,53555 tonnes of bio?oil in 0ovember :5*4+ -hey were still carrying out test?runs when a maBor e1plosion occurred in March :5*;3 inBuring three wor/ers 111ii+ Commissioning restarted in >eptember :5*; but ortum do not e1pect the plant to be fully operational until autumn :5*,+ &io?oil is burned in ortum(s e1isting combined heat and power plant in Qoensuu in inland3 which is adBacent to the new pyrolysis plant and which otherwise burns wood and peat+ Ensyn3 a 2elaware?registered company wor/ing in strategic alliance( with Honeywell subsidiary UO! ##C3 claims to have built a fast pyrolysis plant with a capacity for producing 4 million gallons of Frenewable fuel oilG 6i+e+ bio?oil7 a year in %enfrew3 Ontario3 as well as *, smaller fast pyrolysis plants in the U>3 five of them commercial ones in @isconsin3 with new developments underway in Malaysia and &raLil+ -hey started in April :5*; and have produced 48 million gallons of bio?oil over :, years 111iii+ Ensynhas received substantial subsidies for their investments+ .f the figures they cite are correct3 then Ensyn would appear to have achieved commercialisation of larger?scale biomass pyrolysis ' contradicting the .nternational Energy Agency -as/ orce on pyrolysis3 who believe that several challenges will have to be overcome before this could happen 111iv+ -hey would have achieved what no other company in the world has managed and ortum(s claims about having built the world(s first commercial bio?oil combined heat and power plant would be incorrect+ .ndependent research into and analysis of Ensyn(s e1perience3 as well as into evidence of actual Duantities of bio?oil produced and any technical obstacles encountered3 would seem highly valuable+

M a i nt e c h n i c a l c h a l l e n g e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h b i o m a s s p y r o l y s i s A :5*: peer?reviewed technological review of biomass pyrolysis 111v concluded$ FConversion of biomass to bio?fuel has to overcome challenges such as understanding the trade?off between the siLe of the pyrolysis plant and feedstoc/3 improvement of the reliability of pyrolysis reactors and processes to become viable for commercial applications+++ &io?oil production through pyrolysis is still an immature technology and is not commercially feasible yet+ !yrolysis bio?oil needs to overcome many technical3 economic and social barriers to compete with tradition fossil fuels G+ •

•

One of the challenges consists of producing bio?oil of a high enough Duality to be used as a heating fuel and modifying engines3 turbines3 and boiler combustion systems so that bio?oil can be efficiently burned without damaging the plant(s components through slagging and corrosion+ 2ifferent pyrolysis technologies have been developed but there are challenges associated with

1 9


J u n e2 0 1 5

each of them 111vi+ or e1ample3 one technology offers reliable pyrolysis reactors which can be scaled up ' but heat?transfer and thus efficiency remains unproven at larger scales+ Another technology overcomes the problems with heat?transfer3 but it has not yet been possible to scale it up and there are problems with char attrition(3 i+e+ with char particles brea/ing up and contaminating the bio?oil3 ma/ing it less usable+ •

-here are particular health and safety problems associated with pyrolysis 111vii+ #i/e gasification3 pyrolysis produces highly e1plosive and flammable gases+ urthermore3 pyrolysis gases are to1ic and one accident in a municipal solid waste pyrolyser in ermany3 led to an entire neighbourhood being evacuated and several wor/ers and residents being admitted to hospital for observation 111viii+

2 0


J u n e2 0 1 5

H o we f f i c i e n t a r e a d v a n c e d c o n v e r s i o nb i o m a s s p l a n t s ? C o n v e n t i o n a l b i o ma s s c o m b u s t i o n &urning biomass to generate electricity is an inefficient process$ Most biomass power stations operate at :5?45 efficiencies3 i+e+ they lose 85?=5 of the energy contained in the feedstoc/ 111i1+ >maller plants tend to be less efficient than larger ones3 but even the very largest and most efficient plants that burn wood to generate electricity only3 still waste over <5 of the energy contained in the biomass+ Overall efficiency levels of biomass power stations can be raised by capturing waste heat and supplying it to customers i+e+ by designing such plants as combined heat and power plants+ -he greater the proportion of heat supplied compared to electricity3 the more efficient a combined heat and power plant will be+ However3 in the UK3 the vast maBority of biomass is burned in electricity?only rather than combined heat and power of heat only plants+ According to a :5*4 2ECC forecast3 *;+4 million tonnes of biomass are e1pected to be burned in electricity?only power stations in :5*
G a s i f i c a t i o n -he efficiency of a biomass gasifier depends on$ •

•

How electricity is generated$ as turbines and gas engines are significantly more efficient than steam turbines on their own+ Combined cycle plants ' which combine a gas turbine and a steam turbine ' are more efficient still+ .ntegrated gasification combined cycle 6.CC7 plants have been proposed as 6in theory7 the most efficient form of biomass gasification3 but we have found no evidence that any biomass .CC plant e1ists anywhere in the world *: and none is planned in the UK+ urthermore3 e1perience with coal .CC plants shows that actual energy returns can be far worse than predicted ones 6and worse than f or conventional coal power plants*47+ 1li -he biomass feedstoc/$ 2ifferent types of biomass with different moisture content produce

1! / demonstration biomass %>00 combined heat and power plant started being commissioned in Crnamo in 'weden in 155-( took a further three years to become operational( and was closed in !### /lthough the proDect was later resumed( this was to try and produce biofuels( not heat and power /nother biomass %>00 demonstration plant started being commissioned in Einghua in 0hina in !##) but by !##A( the proDect wasn+t fully running 2http"33pubsacsorg3doi3abs31#1#!13efA##8#8!FDournal0odeGenfuem7 We have not been able to find any evidence to suggest it is currently operating 1- We note that most conventional biomass power stations achieve lower peak steam temperatures and thus lower efficiency than conventional coal power stations %n theory( the .efficiency gain+ achieved by biomass %>00 plants could therefore be greater than that achieved by coal %>00 plants However( in the absence of any experience with biomass %>00 plants( it is impossible to know whether this would indeed be the case

2 1


J u n e2 0 1 5

syngas with a different energy content •

-he siLe of the gasifier$ As is the case with biomass combustion plants3 smaller units tend to be less efficient than larger ones+ .t is not the overall siLe of the proBect that matters in this conte1t ' it is the siLe of the individual units+ >ome medium?siLed biomass gasifiers proposed would consist of several very small units or modules(+

.n a biomass gasifier which produces and combusts cleaned syngas3 it is always necessary to first cool down the dirty producer gas in order to clean it+ 2uring this cooling process3 a proportion of the original energy contained in the biomass will be lost+ According to the .nternational Energy Agency(s -as/ orce on biomass gasification3 during gasification F 85?=5 of the energy contained in the initial solid fuel is transferred to the chemical energy of producer gas 6remaining :5?45 accounts for heat and losses 7G 1lii+ -he greater efficiency of a gas engine or gas turbine ' compared to a steam turbine3 on which a conventional biomass plant relies3 ' can more than compensate for this energy loss+ &urning clean syngas to power a steam turbine3 on the other hand would result in a significant energy loss compared to what a conventional biomass plant would achieve+ As one peer?reviewed study about biomass gasification published in :5*; states$ F-he challenge of this system biomass gasification reliant on a steam turbineI is related to the net electrical efficiency3 which is e1tremely low 6*5:57+ -he high capital cost and the limitation of boiler and steam turbines lead companiesI to avoiding this technology for power generation from biomass gasification gas+G 1liii However3 none of the biomass gasifier proposals that have been made in the UK which rely on powering a steam turbine involve any cleaning of the producer gas+ -his means that their efficiency will simply be comparable 6i+e+ comparably low7 to that of a comparable conventional biomass plant+ .n reality3 though3 the efficiency of those proposed gasifiers tends is particularly low *;+ -his is largely due to the very small siLe of the proposed individual units or modules+ -his also applies to the -yseley development which is supported by the reen .nvestment &an/$ &ased on published figures3 the e1pected efficiency would be a mere :5+ -his seemingly illogical technology choice3 as we shall see below3 is a perverse result of the UK government(s subsidy rules for bioenergy+ @hat about gasifiers which power a gas turbine or engine with cleaned syngas" -hese can achieve slightly greater efficiencies than conventional biomass of the same siLe despite the loss of energy during gas cooling+ -his is due to the fact that gas engines and gas turbines are more efficient than steam turbines+ -he uessing biomass gasifier in Austria3 mentioned above3 achieves :5?:, electric efficiency3 but =5 overall efficiency due to a high level of heat use ' though it is not clear from the citation whether this is gross or net efficiency3 i+e+ whether use of energy to run the plant is included in the figure 1liv+ -his is a high efficiency level for a combined heat and power plant3 but it is one that can be achieved by a well?designed combined heat and power biomass combustion plant too+ Another company planning to build a , M@ biomass gasifier with a gas engine in &ulgaria3 states that they will achieve 85 overall efficiency and :< electric efficiency 1lv + -hose figures are relatively high for a biomass plant of this siLe but could be easily e1ceeded by larger conventional biomass power plants+

18 ur calculations suggest electrical efficiency rates of Dust 15*!-)$ for several currently or recently proposed biomass gasifiers in the 9:

2 2


J u n e2 0 1 5

P y r o l y s i s !yrolysis3 as we have seen above3 yields bio?oil3 producer gas 6which can be cleaned to become syngas7 and char in varying proportions+ .n theory3 optimum efficiency would rely on cleaning the producer gas and burning it in a gas engine or turbine and also burning the bio?oil as efficiently as possible3 while /eeping non?fuel char yields as low as possible+ &ut no plant in the world has ever been built which ma/es use of all three products ' and world(s only pyrolysis plant designed to produce bio?oil and combined heat and power is not yet fully commissioned+ .n the absence of any real e1perience with pyrolysis plants for energy generation3 we cannot credibly predict how efficient those might be+

A r e b i o m a s s g a s i f i e r s c l e a n e r o r mo r e p o l l u t i n gt h a nb i o ma s s c o mb u s t i o np l a n t s ? As we have discussed elsewhere 1lvi3 burning virgin wood in power stations emits appro1imately as many pollutants as burning coal in similar plants3 but more of some pollutants and less of others+ &urning chemically treated waste wood emits a greater range of pollutants and many of them in greater Duantities+ .f the producer gas from biomass gasification is cleaned to such a high standard that it can be burned in gas engines or turbines3 then the emissions will be significantly lower than those from biomass combustion plants ' as long as the plant operates smoothly+ As we have seen above3 technical problems with such plants are almost universal and they can include dirty producer gas being vented straight into the atmosphere to prevent pressure build?up and an e1plosion+ Net cleaning of the producer gas is costly and not necessary in order to run an inefficient steam turbine ' although burning dirty producer gas will increase boiler corrosion and ma/e boiler maintenance more costly+ -hus3 a biomass gasifier that powers a steam turbine can be e1pected to emit similar types and levels of pollutants as a comparable biomass combustion plant+ &ut again3 this would only apply if such a gasifier was to operate smoothly+ @hich3 as we have seen3 is unli/ely to be the case ? at least for the first year or two of operation+ Even without any incidents reDuiring venting of dirty producer gas3 freDuent shutdowns and start?ups of such a plant will result in significant pea/s in the emission of dio1in and furans and other air pollutants 1lvii+ -echnical problems thus translate into very real pollution and public health concerns+

2 3


J u n e2 0 1 5

T h e U K ’ s e x p e r i e n c ew i t hb i o m a s s g a s i f i c a t i o na n dp y r o l y s i s s c h e m e s L e s s o n s n o t h e e d e d : A R B R E –t h e U K ’ s f i r s t f a i l e db i o m a s s g a s i f i e r .n ebruary *9983 >elby 2istrict Council granted planning consent for the UK(s first biomass gasification proBect3 and arguably for the most ambitious such proBect yet proposed in this country+ -he A%&%E 6FArable &iomass %enewable EnergyG7 proBect was developed by a consortium of four companies in response to a European Commission call for biomass gasification demonstration proBects+ -he European Commission grant was to cover ;5 of the cost3 although costs escalated and it therefore only covered :=+ .n addition3 the developers were guaranteed UK subsidies for electricity generation+ -he A%&%E plant3 located in Eggborough3 was built as an .ntegrated asification Combined Cycle 6.CC7 power plant ' in theory a particularly efficient3 low?pollution type of biomass plant which3 however3 has never been technically proven+ .n :55*3 the plant was finally fired up+ &ut it never operated successfully and in :55:3 the proBect went into liDuidation+ A peer?reviewed study has since loo/ed at the obstacles faced by the proBects and the reasons it did not succeed 1lviii 3 due to a combination of technical3 organisational3 and financial problems+ as cooling and cleaning was described as the proBect(s Achilles heel(+ -he authors concluded$ F F Arguably3 there was insufficient control and monitoring by the organisations and companies involved in !roBect A%&%E+ -his lac/ of control seems to have e1acerbated the degree of technical errors and the failure to address these errors in sufficient time+ !erhaps the /ey policy message to emerge from the case is that effective scrutiny and oversight of publicly funded demonstration proBects is reDuired throughout their development3 especially when bodies that might usually be performing this function in a commercial setting 6e+g+ ban/s7 are not involved in this capacity G+ -hese lessons3 as we shall see3 have not been heeded$ -he government has since increased subsidy rates for biomass gasification and pyrolysis but e1ercises virtually no oversight or control over proBects+ !lanning policy reDuires planning authorities to ignore any Duestions about the technical feasibility of proBects+ !lanners must assume that any plant will operate in full accordance with its Environmental !ermit and that the conditions in the permit will be fully enforced by the Environment Agency 1li1+-his is despite the fact that the literature about biomass gasifiers shows that they cannot be e1pected to operate smoothly for at least the first one or two years3 and even though the Environment Agency 6or their >cottish eDuivalent3 >E!A7 will only revo/e permits in the most e1treme circumstances+ And3 as we shall see below3 the reen .nvestment &an/(s support for the -yseley biomass gasification proBect raises Duestions about their level of diligence+

2 4


J u n e2 0 1 5

B a d l y a d v i s e d : H o wH i g h l a n dC o u n c i l b o u g h t i n t ob i o m a s s g a s i f i c a t i o nt e c h n o l o g y a n dl o s t £ 1 1 . 5 m i l l i o n rom :55:3 Highland Council embar/ed on a biomass proBect in @ic/$ -hey would build a combined heat and power plant which would use residues from nearby tree plantations to heat local housing and sell electricity to the grid+ ew would fault the idea+ -he plant was to meet local heating needs with local wood3 it could be run on local tree plantation residues3 it was to involve one of the very few local heating networ/s built in the UK3 and it was to be highly efficient+ Unfortunately3 as it turned out3 the arms?length company set up by Highland Council3 Caithness Heat and !ower3 became convinced that a biomass gasifier' using gas engines which relied on effective gas cleaning ? provided them with a credible and efficient choice+ :;8 houses were lin/ed up to the new district heating networ/+ @hen technical problems became apparent3 Highland Council too/ full control of the scheme+ -rials were started in October :55= but by 2ecember that year3 an e1pert report advised that the plant would never wor/+ -he Council had to provide heat and hot water to the :;8 homes with an oil boiler ' a polluting3 high carbon source of heating+ Eventually3 a private company agreed to replace the defunct gasifier with a conventional biomass combustion plant to supply and e1pand the heating networ/+ And this combined heat and power plant is reportedly wor/ing well+ -he >cottish public sector auditor3 Audit >cotland3 decided to carry out a full investigation into how Highland Council had lost )**+, million and issued a highly critical report l+ Much of their criticism related to the way in which the Council had dealt with the arms?length company responsible for choosing the gasification system ' including the lac/ of scrutiny+ Audit >cotland was uneDuivocal about the reason why the scheme failed$ FUltimately3 the proBect failed because the company procured e1perimental( and high ris/ gasification technology which could not be commissioned successfullyG + .t seems unfortunate that no similar level of scrutiny has ever been paid to the UK and that the >cottish government supports measures for biomass gasification and pyrolysis3 mainly through renewable electricity subsidy rules+

T h r e e U K b i o m a s s g a s i f i e r s i no p e r a t i o n ? -wo companies claim to be operating biomass gasifiers in the UK and another company claims to have built one3 though it is not clear whether they have tried to commission it yet *,+ One of these is a small * M@ plant at a poultry farm near Calthwaite3 north of !enrith+ .n :55<3 the owners of the farm obtained planning permission to install a gasifier provided by a company called &iomass Engineering3 which promised an efficient and low?pollution gasifier with gas cleaning before combustion and with two spar/ ignition gas engines+ -he gasifier was installed the following year but it clearly did not wor/ since it was mothballed soon after li without having received any renewable energy subsidies+ .n :5*;3 a UK startup company called Aggregated Micropower Holdings (AMPH) decided to reopen the plant3 announcing plans to either increase the siLe to *+, M@ or to build a new *+, M@ gasifier ne1t to the e1isting one+ .n fact3 AM! did not re?start the old gasifier3 they replaced it with their own design3 about which few details are available lii+ -his new gasifier has indeed received renewable electricity subsidies3 which means that AM! has succeeded in generating electricity from it at least during the months May to October :5*; 6no more recent data is available7 liii+ However3 throughout that time3 the gasifier only operated at *5 of its capacity3 indicating li/ely technical 1) ?ote that Biofuelwatch has not looked at any proDects smaller than 1 W capacity

2 5


J u n e2 0 1 5

problems*<+ @hether AM! will overcome those problems and succeed in running the gasifier longer? term remains to be seen+ Another gasifier was supposedly commissioned in Monmouthshire in Qune :5*;3 by a company called Green Power Plant Ltd3 with a capacity of ,+99 M@+ -he company has obtained accreditation for renewable electricity subsidies *8 from the UK(s electricity and gas mar/et regulator Ofgem3 though we have found no record of them having been awarded any actual subsidies+ @e have not been able to find any record of planning consent for such a plant having been granted either+ urthermore3 a different new startup company3 Ecocycle3 claims to be building the same plant liv while a third firm3 called Dortech claims to have already built it for Ecocycle lv+ And finally3 a company called Clean Energy Generation claims to have built a :+: M@ demonstration plant in >infin3 2erby3 though they have not announced the commissioning of this plant lvi+ On the same site3 a biomass gasifier had previously been built and had failed+ According to Clean Energy eneration(s website3 the technology involves the use of engines3 pre?cleaning of syngas and3 furthermore3 the production of torrefied wood pellets ' something that appears not to have been attempted in the UK so far+ !roducing torrefied pellets ' and3 as we have seen above ' generating electricity from a gasifier that powers gas engines are both highly comple13 immature and technologically challenging processes+ Net Clean Energy eneration appears to have no record of operating any other plants in the UK 6and thus no prior e1perience7 and they list no commercial partners or collaboration with any research institutes+

G r e e nI n v e s t m e n t B a n k b o o s t s C a n a d i a ng a s i f i e r c o m p a n y N e x t e r r a ’ s b u s i n e s s .n 2ecember :5*43 the reen .nvestment &an/ helped set up and Boined a consortium to finance a Ffirst of its /indG biomass gasifier in Tyseley, Birmingham lvii + As we have seen3 it won(t be the first biomass gasifier to be built in the UK3 though it will be a first if it operates successfully+ -he company chosen to provide the gasifier technology is a Canadian firm3 0e1terra+ According to the Boint press release issued by the reen .nvestment &an/ 6.&73 F0e1terra has successfully delivered seven similar gasification facilities in the U>A and CanadaG+ &ut have they" 0e1terra(s own website lists eight3 not seven3 gasifier proBects in 0orth America+ Out of the eight gasifiers built3 only three were designed to supply electricity as well as heat+ -he others were built to provide heat or process steam for industrial use only3 which3 as a @orld &an/ report about biomass gasification already pointed out twenty years ago lviii3 is technically much more straightforward than building a gasifier designed to generate electricity+ li1 0e1terra(s first electricity?generating gasifier3 built at the University of >outh Carolina3 was ill?fated$ &etween 2ecember :5583 when the developers first tried to operate the plant3 and Qune :5593 there were three incidents which a senior staff member of the University of >outh Carolina described at potentially lethal(3 the third of third of which blew a metal plate <5 feet towards the control room l1+ Over a period of two years3 the plant provided steam on Bust 9= days+ 0e1terra blamed a supplier for this plant(s failure+ &ut this wasn(t the end of the problems with 0e1terra gasifiers+

1; When a plant is first commissioned( it can be expected to initially run at a very low capacity( with the amount of fuel burned gradually being increased However( in this case( the amount of electricity generated dropped by about )#$ from 'eptember to ctober !#18( which is a red flag for technical problems 16 /ccreditation is granted before any renewable electricity subsidies can be claimed %t is based on an application by the developer /ctual subsidy awards then depend on the amount of electricity generated

2 6


J u n e2 0 1 5

.n October :5*:3 the second 0e1terra gasifier designed to provide electricity and heat was commissioned at the University of &ritish Columbia+ .n :5*43 the plant(s gas?cleaning system failed so that the gas could no longer be burned in the plant(s engines+ -he university decided to continue with this demonstration proBect( in the hope that the problems could eventually be overcome+ Meantime3 however3 they have been purchasing upgraded( biogas 6from anaerobic digestion7 from another company3 and burning that in the engines l1i+ -his means that the biomass gasifier has not successfully operated beyond a short initial period+ -he third such 0e1terra plant was set to be commissioned at a health centre in Michigan in March :5*; but no announcement of it actually being commissioned has been released+ -he University of Montana3 meantime3 cancelled a similar 0e1terra contract on which they had already spent over half a million dollars3 amidst public concerns about air Duality impacts l1ii+ -hus3 contrary to the reen .nvestment &an/(s claims3 0e1terra has never delivered a successful plant similar to the one being built in &irmingham 6i+e+ a biomass gasifier that successfully generates electricity7+ On top of this3 although biomass gasifiers that only supply steam for heat are technically less challenging3 one of 0e1terra heat only( gasifiers also failed+ -his was a gasifier commissioned at Oa/ %idge 0ational #aboratory in :5*: which had to be permanently closed the following year after a systems chec/ found that vital parts were already failing due to corrosion caused by wea/ acids l1iii+ 0onetheless3 the reen .nvestment &an/(s support for the -yseley biomass gasifier appears to have inspired other ban/s and companies to have confidence in 0e1terra(s technology$ •

•

.n March :5*,3 a company partnership involving 0e1terra announced that they had obtained sufficient loan finance to build a *5+; M@ waste wood gasifier in Theddingworth in #eicestershirel1iv+ 0e1terra is to design and supply the gasification?to?steam generation system+ -he plant will be built on a site for which another company3 !ure !ower Holdings #td3 had obtained planning permission for another biomass advanced conversion( plant in :55=+ -hat company did not succeed in building the plant and is now in liDuidation+ .n Grays, West Thurrock 3 !rocter R amble have decided to partner with 0e1terra and to see/ to build a biomass gasifier to provide heat and electricity for their factory as well as electricity to sell to the grid l1v+ A full planning application is currently pending+

A fourth 0e1terra biomass gasifier was granted planning permission in Avonmouth near &ristol in April :5*,$ -here3 the !lanning .nspectorate overturned a decision by &ristol City Council to refuse the development due to concerns over its air Duality impacts+ .f 0e1terra(s UK gasifiers were to operate successfully 6which3 Budging by their 0orth American record3 appears doubtful7 they would become the UK(s least efficient biomass power plants+ &ased on published figures3 these plants would achieve particularly low efficiency levels3 as low as :5+;+ -his is largely due to the fact that all four gasifiers are relatively small units which would power steam turbines+ >uch a process3 as we have seen3 is cheaper to install but significantly less efficient than a gasifier powering gas engines or gas turbines+ Of the four proposed 0e1terra plants3 only one 6in rays7 is e1pected to supply heat as well as electricity+ -his would ma/e it more efficient than the other three plants ' but its proBected overall efficiency will still only be 443 whereas efficient biomass combined heat and power plants can achieve over 85 efficiency+ urthermore3 0e1terra(s plants would do little to advance the research and development of biomass gasification worldwide+ -his is because the greatest challenge associated with gasification is to produce clean syngas which can be burned relatively efficiently in gas engines or gas turbines+ Net 2 7


J u n e2 0 1 5

there would be no gas cleaning before combustion in the -yseley plant+

D a v i dP i k e , h i s 3 0( o r m o r e ) a d v a n c e dc o n v e r s i o nc o m p a n i e s a n d£ 5 0 m i l l i o nl o s s e s t oi n v e s t o r s 0e1terra wasn(t the only winner from the reen .nvestment &an/(s support for the -yseley gasifier+ Another big winner was a small company called Carbonarius3 who were appointed as the developers of the plant+ &ut who are Carbonarius" According to industry media reports of the reen .nvestment &an/ loan3 Carbonarius are Fa Boint venture between >to/e?on?-rent technology developer O?en and property firm -he Una roup l1viG+ According to information available on www+companychec/+co+u/ 3 there is indeed a company called Carbonarius td ' but their only subsidiary 6 !"Gen #lymtrek td 7 is a company that was set up with the sole purpose of developing a biomass gasifier in !lymouth+ @e will loo/ at the failure of that plant below+ -hree out of Carbonarius #td(s five directors3 however3 are also directors of two similarly named companies$ -here is Carbonarius$ td 3 set up in Quly :5*:3 who own );+;5 6sic7 of shares in a company called Tyseley Bio"#ower td + -yseley &io?!ower #td was set up two months before the reen .nvestment &an/ loan for the plant was announced+ And there is Carbonarius% td 3 set up Bust three wee/s before the reen .nvestment &an/ loan3 who describe themselves at -yseley &io !ower? !ower(s parent company 6though the latter was set up first7+ inally3 there is a company called Birmingham Bio"#ower td 3 set up in Quly :5*:3 who own )*5 of -yeseley &io !ower(s shares+ our of these companies ' all but &na Group ' share three of the same directors$ 2avid !i/e3 2avid 0airn and .an &roo/ing+ .an &roo/ing is also a director of Una roup3 as is another of the Carbonarius #td directors3 2avid Noung+ .ndeed3 the five companies mentioned above are five out of at least 45 companies of which 2 avid !i/e and his associates have been directors since :55,3 all of them in the field of advanced conversion in the UK+ ive of the companies have been dissolved+ or simplification3 we shall call them the O?en Companies(3 since the first ** of them had O?en( 6or Ogen(7 in their title+ Altogether3 the record of the O?en Companies has been a highly unsuccessful one$ •

•

-heir first gasifier was built in 'toke"on"Trent + -his particular company involved 6!"Gen Acme Trek td 7 tried to commission it from April :559 to October :5**3 but without success+ -hroughout that time3 it operated at Bust 5+< of the plant(s capacity l1vii+ 0o electricity appears to have been generated since+ -he auditors( report of the company(s latest account3 published March :5*,3 state$ F-heyI incurred a net loss of )*3<9*3=:* during the year ending 45 Qune :5*;3 and at that date3 the company(s current liabilities e1ceeded its total assets by )*43:*;399;3 and it had net current liabilities of )*;39593;4;G+ -hese figures3 according to the auditors3 Fmay cast significant doubt about the company(s ability to continue as a going concernG+ -he O?en Companies( first gasification venture3 it seems3 is on course to going into receivership or being dissolved with a loss of almost )*, million of investors( money+ Company House records l1viii do not reveal who those investors are ' other than that 99 of shares are owned by a dormant3 non?trading company called F>hare 0ominees #tdG+ >ome of the remaining shares have been owned by three companies belonging to the oresight roup ' the reen .nvestment &an/(s first e1ternal fund manager l1i1+ &ut this is not the biggest loss incurred by one of the O?en Companies( gasifier ventures+ .n 2ecember :5593 #lymouth City Council granted planning consent for a waste wood gasifier which two of the O?en Companies 6 !"Gen #lymtrek td and their parent company3 Carbonarius #td7 planned to build+ Construction started but the plant was never 2 8


J u n e2 0 1 5

commissioned+ O?en !lymtre/(s audited accounts3 published April :5*,3 state$ F.n 2ecember :5*;3 the company was advised by the design and build contractor that it was ceasing construction+ .n addition3 the main proBect funder to the proBect e1ercised its right under a >ales Agency Agreement+++and reDuired that the Company(s main asset3 the energy centre3 was mar/eted for sale+ On :8 th March :5*, the energy centre was sold and proceeds paid to the e1ternal proBect funder+++-he Company has no further significant assets+ -he directors intend to wind the Company up+++-he Company made a loss after ta1 for the year of )4,344;3555+G Qust whose )4,+44 million were lost is difficult to ascertain+ &iLarrely3 audited accounts for Carbonarius #td3 published at the same time and signed by the same auditor3 report net liabilities of Bust ):;43859 for the same period ' even though their subsidiary had lost over )4, million+ Also for the same period3 Una roup *=3 one of the two companies that hold ,5 each of Carbonarius #td(s shares3 recorded a profit of )83;<, from that same company 6i+e+ Carbonarius #td7 for the same period+ Carbonarius #td(s other shareholder3 O?en UK #td3 has not yet published their accounts for :5*;+ !erhaps their shareholders are amongst the main losers" 99+9= of them are investors through the Enterprise .nvestment >cheme+ -his is a scheme set up by the government which provides ta1 relief for buying shares in new high? ris/ companies ' effectively a subsidy+ •

.n Quly :55=3 O?en UK #td obtained planning permission for a waste wood gasifier in 2erby3 which opened in :5*: or Qanuary :5*4 and was closed after several months of unsuccessful attempts to operate it+ .n this case3 however3 none of the O?en Companies incurred a loss+ -his is because they had succeeded in selling the development on to an unrelated startup company3 Withion #ower (formerly Clarke"#ower td) and their subsidiary, B oyle *lectrical Generation td+ 2uring the summer of :5*43 both @ithion !ower #td and &oyle Electrical eneration #td filed for ban/ruptcy+ @ithion(s main shareholders had belonged to the oresight roup 6i+e+ the reen .nvestment &an/(s first e1ternal fund manager7+ @e could not find information as to how great the losses incurred by @ithion !ower were+

2avid !i/e and 2avid 0airn3 directors of the O?en Companies associated with the -yseley gasifier3 have been directors of all of the O?en Companies mentioned above and associated with the gasifiers in >to/e?on?-rent3 !lymouth and 2erby 6though not with the companies that acDuired the 2erby scheme in :5*57+ They have therefore been directors of two biomass gasifier ventures which have lost investors a total of -. million, and behind a third biomass gasifier scheme which ultimately led to the bankruptcy of another company and its subsidiary + 0onetheless3 the reen .nvestment &an/(s support for Carbonarius3 has been used by O?en companies and their directors to attract support for yet more ventures$ •

•

A relatively new O?en Company3 Cogen 6also with !i/e3 0airn and &roo/ing amongst the directors7 has partnered with &alfour &eatty+ #oan funding has been obtained for the ),: million gasifier in Theddingworth mentioned above 6which uses 0e1terra(s technology73 and Cogen will be the developer+ !eel Energy3 part of the larger !eel roup3 have partnered with two O?en Companies3 called /oughton Bio #ower td and 0orthern Bio #ower td 6again3 with !i/e3 0airn and &roo/ing amongst the directors7+ -ogether3 they have applied for planning consent for a waste wood gasifier in ittle /oughton 3 near &arnsley+

2avid !i/e and his associates seem hopeful of further contracts with !eel roup+ >ince the beginning of :5*,3 they have set up$

1A 9na >roup shares one director( %an Brooking( with all the *>en 0ompanies mentioned in this section

2 9

B i o ma s s g a s i f i c a t i o n&p y r o l y s i s •

•

•

J u n e2 0 1 5

1nce Bio"#ower td $ !eel roup holds planning permission for a biomass plant in 1nce 2arshes 3 Cheshire Bilsthorpe Bio #ower td $ !eel roup is currently see/ing planning consent *9 for a Municipal >olid @aste gasifier in Bilsthorpe 3 although !eel roup has so far announced Harwoth Estate !roperty roup #td and @ast:-ricity3 rather than this new company3 as their corporate partnersl 'outhmoor Bio #ower td $ !eel roup holds planning permission for a Muncipal >olid @aste gasifier called >outhmoor Energy Centre near 3nottingley in 0orth Nor/shire+

Also in :5*,3 they have founded$ •

•

•

/ooton Bio"#ower td $ &iossence holds planning permission for a Muncipal >olid @aste gasifier in /ooton #ark, *astham  4artmoor Bio"#ower and 4artmoor !perations td 6we could find no e1isting proBect to lin/ this to7 5iverside Bio"#ower td $ %iverside %e>ource %ecovery #td and Cory hold planning consent for a Municipal >olid @aste gasifier called %iverside %esource %ecovery acility in Be6ley, ondon +

inally3 an O?en Company3 Almondbank #ower td 3 is currently proposing a biomass pyrolysis plant in #erth+ -he particular technology they want to use is called steam thermolysis(3 to be provided by a U> company called Concord &lue+ Concord &lue promises on its website that their technology is commercially proven3 nearly any scale( and that they have five plants in operation and two under construction worldwide l11+ An investigative Bournalist in the U> found that two of the supposedly operating plants have not actually been built3 a third had bro/en down every *5?*, days before being finally shut in :5*43 and a fourth had been e1perimental and was also closed down due to technical problems+ A fifth 6in .ndia7 has3 according to the Bournalist(s findings3 been operated without any electricity being generated ' but has raised serious complaints over air and water pollution3 the discharge of untreated waste3 and foul odours+ A plant supposedly under construction in ermany had in fact been abandoned and the only operational Concorde &lue plant3 based in .ndia3 has failed to generate any electricity at all l11i+ -ens of millions of pounds in losses to investors clearly haven(t deterred the O?en Companies and their directors from see/ing to greatly e1pand their advanced conversion activities+

A c l o s e r l o o k a t o t h e r c o m p a n i e s i n v o l v e di nU K b i o ma s s g a s i f i c a t i o n As we have seen3 a successful biomass gasification scheme reDuires a high level of technical e1pertise and e1perience and a company with sufficient funds to /eep upgrading the technology and solve problems over a long period of time+ .t may also reDuire close collaboration between companies with different types of e1pertise and with researchers+ >o who3 apart from 0e1terra and the O?en roup Companies are the main players in UK biomass gasification" One of them is 5*ACT *nergy td73edco 3 who announced in >eptember :5*: l11ii that they had started e1porting electricity from a : M@ biomass gasifier in 0ewry3 County 2own3 and that they were 15 The application has gone to ublic %n
3 0


J u n e2 0 1 5

planning to double its capacity by the end of :5*4+ -he plant itself belongs to a subsidiary of KedcoJ%EAC- and their main shareholder3 armer &usiness 2evelopments !lc3 called 0ewry &iomass #td + #oans for the plant had been provided by Ulster &an/ and %oyal &an/ of >cotland l11iii and3 in Qanuary :5*;3 Ulster &an/ made a further loan available to finally increase the plant(s capacity to ; M@+ .n fact3 the 0ewry gasifier has been a failure+ .t never received any %enewable Obligation Certificatesl11iv3 subsidies of around )=8 per M@h generated to which the operators would have been entitled:5+ .n Qune :5*;3 %EAC- announced that they were loo/ing for an Falternative technology providerG to Fta/e full responsibility for the construction3 commissioning and operation of the proBectGl11v+ %EAC-(s own Kedco subsidiaries3 which had been responsible for building and operating the plant were put into voluntary liDuidation with a debt of S4+, million 6around ):+, million7 for which %EAC- accepted no liability l11vi+ .n 2ecember :5*;3 %EAC- suspended trading on #ondon(s stoc/ mar/et 6Alternative .nvestment Mar/et l11vii7+ And in May :5*,3 they applied for e1aminership(3 i+e+ court?supervised restructuring3 in the High Court of 2ublin l11viii+ -he 0ewry plant remains mothballed+ -he failed 0ewry plant hasn(t been %EAC-(s only problem+ .n August :5*53 they had obtained planning permission for a larger waste wood gasifier in Enfield3 0orth #ondon3 and they had eventually succeeded in signing a Collaboration Agreement with the oresight roup+ >ince then3 planning consent has e1pired3 oresight roup has withdrawn from the agreement and %EAC- has withdrawn a new planning application+ However3 a company(s financial troubles and previous development failures are not matters deemed relevant in planning cases+ 0or3 for that matter3 are their legal status and claim on sites ?+ Until * st 2ecember :5*;3 %EAC- was see/ing planning consent for another gasifier3 in !lymouth+ -hey withdrew the application only after the planning officer had recommended that the !lanning Committee should reBect the application3 following a significant number of local obBections+ %EACcontinues to see/ planning consent for a waste wood gasifier in Clay Cross 2erbyshire+ Another company with great ambitions in the biomass advanced conversion sector is 'unrise 5enewables td + .ncidentally3 one of the two directors of each of their five local subsidiaries3 Howard 2avies3 had previously been a director of @ithion !ower #td and their subsidiary3 &oyle Electrical eneration #td+3 the two companies that went into liDuidation after the failed biomass gasification proBect in 2erby 6the proBect first initiated by one of the O?en Companies7+ &etween 2ecember :55= and Quly :5*53 >unrise %enewables obtained planning consent for four biomass pyrolysis plants in &arrow?in?urness3 &arry3 Hull and >underland+ However3 the company has not become the world(s first successful electricity generator from biomass pyrolysis+ .nstead3 they have changed their plans and have started getting their planning consents changed to biomass gasifiers 6which3 according to the planning applications3 would use significantly more wood for a relatively small increase in proBected electricity output7+ At the time of finalising this report3 at least two such planning consents have been changed3 although Hull City Council has since reBected a further application to allow non? biomass waste to be gasified there3 too+ A similar application is pending in &arry+ A company called Alternative &se Group #C claimed in its latest annual accounts that they started building a *: M@ biomass gasifier in Boston, incolnshire during the year up to May :5*; and that the plant would be finished in :5*<+ -hey had obtained planning permission together with a company called Alchemy 8arms td + &ut neither of the companies( financial statements suggests that either of them has the funds to commence construction3 or that any significant e1ternal funding3 including any loans3 have been obtained3 even though the plant would be slightly bigger than the );8+= million -yseley biomass gasifier+ And neither company appears to have any previous !# This is based on each biomass advanced conversion plant attracting ! R0s per Wh and on the average price per R0 over the past 1! months at the time of finalising this report

3 1


J u n e2 0 1 5

e1perience in this sector+ A particularly active company in the UK(s gasification sector was Bioflame td + According to a media report in 2ecember :5*53 they had secured planning permission for *8 biomass gasifiers3 two of which had been built and two of which were in the late stages of construction l11i1+ -he vast maBority of &ioflame(s proBects were smaller than * M@ and have thus not been included in the mapping e1ercise accompanying this report+ One3 however3 was a :+< M@ waste wood gasifier in Cobham 3 >urrey3 for which >A> @aste #td was see/ing planning permission and which &ioflame was to build+ -he local authority reBected the application :*3 based on a planning officer(s report which e1posed &ioflame(s recordl111$ 2esigners of /ey components of their plants lac/ed e1perience3 and no Engineering3 !rocurement and Construction contract had ta/en overall responsibility for their proBects+ our plants were constructed simultaneously3 before e1perience with operating a single one had been gained+ At the time of the planning officer(s report 6ebruary :5*;73 a &ioflame gasifier in 4oncaster had failed to operate successfully since attempts to commission it were first made in :559+ Another one3 in Claythorpe 3 had been started up in mid?:5593 failed to operate successfully and was shut down in mid :5**+ A third one3 in Brandesburton, *ast 9orkshire 3 was first started up in spring :5*53 but could not be operated successfully and was shut in :5**+ And the fourth3 in Thurleigh, Bedfordshire , was constructed with serious delays but never commissioned+ .n fact3 at that time the !lanning Officer(s report was written3 &ioflame was already in liDuidation l111i+ Another company that sought to build biomass advanced conversion plants and is also now in liDuidation was #ure #ower Group td + -hey had tried to obtain planning consent for a waste wood gasifier in /ungerford and they had been granted planning consent for two other biomass advanced conversion plants$ One was in -heddingworth3 on the same site that Cogen and &alfour &eatty later obtained a new planning consent for the biomass gasifier which has now attracted funding and is being built 6see above7+ -he other consented !ure !ower plant was to have been built in /untingdon + .n Qanuary :5*43 a different company3 *nergy :. 3 obtained planning consent for a waste wood pyrolysis plant on the same site3 one that is to generate electricity+ Energy *5 plans to produce syngas to supply to the national grid from *553555 tonnes of mainly waste wood3 but with some virgin wood and plastics mi1ed in+ 0o company in the world has so far succeeded in operating a pyrolysis plant comparable to either of those planned by Energy *5+ .n Wellingborough, 0orthamptonshire 3 a company called arner 5ecycling td 3 in partnership with a consultancy firm called !aktree *nvironmental td 3 obtained planning consent for a biomass gasifier in :55=3 with several changes to the planning conditions approved subseDuently+ #arner %ecycling has been collecting and chipping waste wood but their director is currently serving a suspended prison sentence over persistent breaches of Environment Agency permitting conditions and pollution control regulations+ His related business on the same site3 #arner -imber %ecycling #td3 went into liDuidation in :5*4 l111ii+ -he planning consent appears to have been ta/en over by a new company called Green #lan *nergy td + reen !lan Energy3 according to their website Faim to become Europe(s largest developer of biomass gasification plants ' they do not appear to have any e1perience in this field so far and we have found no indication of them having raised funds for the @ellingborough plant either+ -wo larger companies ? 1nvictus Capital in Georgemas, Caithness and /onda in 'windon have obtained planning consents for biomass gasifiers but the former has abandoned their plans and the latter appears to not have pursued them further as yet ::+

!1 There had been an active local campaign against this plant The developer appealed against planning refusal but later withdrew the appeal !! Honda+s planning consent was granted in arch !#18 and they are still well within the time period for starting construction

3 2


J u n e2 0 1 5

W h e na g a s i f i e r i s n o t a g a s i f i e r –t h e c u r i o u s c a s e o f t h e p r o p o s e d “ E n e r g y P a r k S u t t o nB r i d g e ” Had it not been for 8;?year old Mrs >hirley iles ris/ing thousands of pounds of her own savings on a Qudicial %eview3 then 'utton Bridge would now be the site of the largest approved biomass gasifier in the country and the developer would be loo/ing for investors+ .n May :5*43 >outh Holland Council had granted planning consent for a large ;4?;= M@ biomass gasifier+ -o the delight of large numbers of local residents3 Mrs iles won the legal case ' the local authority decided not to contest it+ #ess than a year later3 the plant was finally refused consent+ -he company behind the development was a U> firm called #acific Green Technologies 1nc + -he 0on?-echnical >ummary for the applicationl111iii described the proposed plant as follows$ F&iomass fuel will be combusted within the main process building to produce radiant heat3 which in turn will heat hot water to produce superheated steam+ -his high pressure and high temperature steam will be passed through a steam turbine and drive a generator to produce electricity+G -his is a description of a standard combustion plant+ .f there was any obvious difference between the proposed plant and e1isting conventional biomass plants it was the far lower efficiency of the former$ A mere *9+;3 according to &iofuelwatch(s calculations l111iv+ -his e1tremely low efficiency was due to the plant(s design$ .t was to consist of at least *5 units3 each with their own steam turbine and stac/+ -he smaller the unit that powers a steam turbine is3 the less efficient the power plant will be+ However3 the same planning application nonetheless described the plant as an F advanced conversion facility 6gasification7 G3 strongly suggesting that they were hoping convince Ofgem to accredit the plant for the higher subsidy rate3 for which gasification plants are eligible+ >ince planning permission was refused3 we will never /now whether Ofgem would have agreed with the developers+ Ofgem relies entirely on companies( own reports about the nature of their plants and on companies( own fuel sampling to determine whether the advanced conversion( criteria are met :4+ >etting aside the ris/ of fraud3 it is Duite possible that a plant such as that proposed in >utton &ridge might have been accredited as an advanced conversion( plant+ -his is because the overnment(s definition of gasification( and pyrolysis(3 adopted for the purpose of determining eligibility for subsidies l111v3 is so vague that standard combustion plants might slip through the net(+ -here are Bust two reDuirements for a plant to Dualify as a gasifier( for subsidy purposes$ a7 .t needs to meet the overnment(s definition of gasification3 which says$ FFasificationG means the substoichiometric i+e+ partial( o1idation or steam reformation of a substance to produce a gaseous mi1ture containing two or all of the following$ o1ides of carbon3 methane and hydrogen G b7 -he gas needs to have a gross calorific value of at least : MQJm 4+ ross calorific value is also called higher heating value( and it is a measurement for the amount of energy contained in a cubic metre of gas 6or other fuel7+ Unfortunately3 in terms of the chemistry involved3 this offers no clear dividing line between gasification and pyrolysis on the one hand and combustion on the other hand+ !ower station operators will almost always stage the inflow of air into the combustion chamber which means that3 for a very short period of time3 wood 6or for that matter any solid fuel7 will be gasified+ urthermore3 !- This is a general comment not intended to reflect in any way on acific >reen Technologies %nc or anybody else involved with the 'utton Bridge biomass plant proposal

3 3


J u n e2 0 1 5

in chemical terms3 burning wood always involves a pyrolysis( stage+ @hen wood starts to burn3 its chemical structures decompose into a mi1 of gases which contain mainly carbon and hydrogen atomsl111vi+ Even a bonfire involves elements of pyrolysis and gasification ' hence the charred remains left behind ' and the production of gases including o1ides of carbon3 methane and hydrogenl111vii+ urthermore3 the gross calorific value( reDuirement is very wea/+ or e1ample3 U> researchers measured the gross calorific value of syngas ta/en from four biomass gasifiers and found it to be between ;+4 and *8+: MQJm 4l111viii+ .t does not seem inconceivable that gases measured during standard biomass combustion might meet the F: MQJm 4G reDuirement set out in the legislation+ Clearly the overnment would not have intended ordinary biomass combustion to be creatively re? defined as gasification( or pyrolysis( ' but the wording of their legislation may nonetheless allow this to happen+ Ultimately3 what !acific reen -echnologies tried to do would have gone Bust one step further from what 0e1terra3 O?en and other are currently trying to do+ -he single stage( gasifiers proposed by those companies ? which involve no cooling or cleaning of gas and which are to power steam turbines ? are already a very long way removed from the idea of high?tech( gasifiers3 i+e+ from gasifiers that produce clean syngas to burn in a gas turbine or engine+

3 4


J u n e2 0 1 5

C o n c l u s i o n s f r o mt h e U K G o v e r n m e n t ’ s s u p p o r t f o r b i o m a s s g a s i f i c a t i o na n dp y r o l y s i s -he overnment(s approach to supporting low carbon technologies( and energy innovation( has been outlined by 2ECC as follows$ FT -echnology push is direct funding for demonstration and pre?commercial deployment+ T Mar/et pull is indirect funding3 through mechanisms such as the %enewables Obligation3 eed?in -ariffs and Emissions -rading3 T &arrier removal aims to address the areas which slow development down3 such as planning and grid issues+G l111i1 .n short3 the overnment see/s to support technological innovations( through a combination of public subsidies :; and de?regulation+ &iomass gasification and pyrolysis are two of the technologies which the overnment regards as both innovative and low?carbon and which3 over many years3 have been receiving support according to the 2ECC(s blueprint( outlined above$ •

•

F2irect funding for demonstration and pre?commercial deploymentG$ >ignificant funding for research into biomass 6and waste7 gasification and pyrolysis technologies and has been made available through government?funded %esearch Councils 1c and other publicly funded programmes3 such as the private?public partnership Energy -echnologies .nstitute 1ci F.ndirect fundingG$ &iomass 6and waste7 gasification and pyrolysis attract particularly generous support through renewable electricity subsidies$ •

•

-hey are eligible for a higher rate of %enewable Obligation Certificates 6%OCs7 than conventional biomass plants+ %OCs are subsidies for electricity classed as renewable+ -he scheme closes to new applicants in March :5*8 but plants accredited for %OCs by then will continue to receive them 2evelopers of biomass or waste gasifiers can apply for Contracts for 2ifference 6Cf27+ -his is the UK(s new scheme for subsidising electricity classed as renewable+ &etween :5*; and March :5*83 developers can choose to apply for %OCs or for a Cf2 after that3 they must apply for a Cf2 for eligible new developments+ Cf2s are more generous than %OCs but are allocated through competition 6whereas entitlement to %OCs is automatic7+ 0ew conventional biomass power plants can only receive a Cf2 if they are classed as combined heat and power( which means that they must ma/e use of some heat and generally achieve at least 4, efficiency+ Net a biomass or waste gasification and pyrolysis plants can attract Cf2s3 even if they ma/e no use of heat and even if

!8 ?ote that all of .indirect funding+ mechanisms referred to by I@00 2except for @missions Trading7 are classed as subsidies by the @0I and World Trade rganisation and are classed as .'tate /id+ by the @9

3 5


J u n e2 0 1 5

their efficiency is as low as :5 or possibly even lower •

F&arrier removalG$ 2eregulation and the removal of red tape( has been at the heart of the overnment(s policy in relation to planning since at least :5*:+ As part of the recent Coalition overnment(s %ed -ape( challenge3 *:9 out of *=: planning regulations were identified as ones that would be scrapped or improved( 1cii+ English planning guidance and policy documents were slashed with the introduction of the 0ational !lanning !olicy ramewor/ :5*:+ >imilarly3 reducing the supposed burden( of Environment Agency guidance and reporting reDuirement has been a focus of the %ed -ape( challenge 1ciii+ urthermore3 the Environment Agency(s budget has been cut by :, in real terms since :559J*5 1civ+ Here are a few e1amples of how planning and permitting policies wor/ for developers of gasifiers and pyrolysis plants :,$ •

•

•

!lanning authorities must determine applications on the assumption that all environmental permitting conditions will be fully enforced and complied with ' regardless of any evidence that a particular technology cannot be reasonably e1pected to wor/ smoothly from the outset !lanning authorities are not allowed to ta/e any account of the credibility of a proposal and of the bac/ground of the developer proposing it Although planning authorities must assume full enforcement of permitting conditions3 the Environment Agency(s own guidance ma/es it clear that enforcement action is the last3 not the first resort ta/en in response to permit breaches+ -hat guidance states$ F .f an operator or individual is not complying3 we normally provide advice and guidance to help them do so+ @here appropriate3 we agree solutions and timescales for ma/ing any improvements G 1cv+

And finally3 we have loo/ed at some Duestionable practices by companies and directors such as 2avid !i/e3 founder of at least 45 gasification?related companies without any successful proBect so far+ &iofuelwatch has no information to suggest that any of those practices are unlawful+ However3 even if any companies were acting unlawfully3 the chances of them being investigated and prosecuted are small and diminishing+ -he >erious raud Office(s budget has been severely cut+ .n :5*4J*;3 only *: out of :3,5= reports of suspected fraud or corruption resulted in new investigations 1cvi+ -his report can thus be read as a case study about the effectiveness of the overnment(s approach to supporting energy innovation(+ .t shows how3 in relation to biomass gasification and pyrolysis3 this policy approach has led to entirely negative outcomes$ %ather than leading to innovation(3 deregulation coupled with generous subsidy promises has led to a spate of development proposals none of which have so far been successful+ .t has led to a proliferation of small companies without any e1perience of successfully operating the technology they see/ to use+ .t has led developers to bac/ the simplest3 dirtiest and least efficient gasifier power plant designs3 ones which contribute nothing to the development of gasification technology worldwide+ Ultimately3 it led to investors3 some of them investors through the overnment(s own subsidised Enterprise .nvestment >cheme3 having lost tens of millions of pounds on failed proBects+ !) ?ote that those examples do not necessarily arise from policy changes introduced since !#1# any would argue that the planning system has been heavily weighted in favour of developers for a far longer period and that this remains the case in Wales and 'cotland( too( where planning is devolved 2partially devolved in Wales( fully devolved in 'cotland7 Jor example( it is common practice for both communities and developers to have the right to appeal against planning decisions in many countries , but throughout the 9:( only developers enDoy such a right

3 6


J u n e2 0 1 5

At the same time3 communities are being e1posed to planning blight and to well?founded fears about dirty and dangerous plant proposals+ And so far3 biomass gasifiers have generated virtually no electricity ' and far less energy than would have gone into building unsuccessful plants+ >o far3 the failed biomass gasifiers in the UK have all simply been failed proBects ' none of them has e1ploded or caught fire and none appears to have operated long enough to cause significant air Duality impacts+ &ut this does not ma/e residents( concerns unfounded$ As we have seen in the report3 fires3 e1plosions and high levels of air and sometimes water pollution have been associated with biomass gasification and pyrolysis plants elsewhere3 and the failed waste gasifier in 2argavel in >cotland was lin/ed to hundreds of air emission permit breaches3 an e1plosion and a fire+ @ith so many more gasifiers and pyrolysis plants in the pipeline3 the conseDuences of the UK government(s misguided policies could become worse still+

3 7

i

http"33wwwgreeninvestmentbankcom3news*and*insight3!#1-3gib*and*foresight*group*forge*consortium*to* construct*86Am*renewable*energy*plant*in*birmingham3 ii 9nless otherwise stated( please seefor details of all .advanced conversion+ biomass plants that have been proposed in the 9: /ll references in this report relate to plants with a minimum siKe of 1 We iii https"33wwwgovuk3government3publications3uk*bioenergy*strategy iv wwwbiofuelwatchorguk3!#1-3chain*of*destruction3

v http$JJwww+biofuelwatch+org+u/Jwp?contentJmapsJu/?advanced?conversion+html as of 4*+5,+:5*, vi Iocument provided by /ggregate icropower Holdings for /dmission to /% , London 'tock @xchange( Muly !#18 vii http"33wwwieatask--org3content3publications3Jact$!#sheets viii The ?atural >as %ndustry in /ppalachia( Iavid / Waples( ( page !6 ix http"33pipelineknowledgecom3files3images3presentations3history4of4gas4and4oil4pipelinespdf x http"33wwwbandofbrotherstourcom3woodgasvehicleshtml xi http"33wwwhistorywebsitecouk3useum3Transport30ars3Tsteamcarhtm and http"33wwwengineering* timelinescom3who3arker4T3parkerThomasasp xii http"33webarchiveorg3web3!##!#;1816-)#A3http"33alsacebossuefreefr3imberthtm xiii roducer >as" /nother Juel for otor Transport( Report of the /d*hoc anel on Technology %nnovation( ?ational Research 0ouncil 15A-(( page 1) and 1; xiv http"33wwwlowtechmagaKinecom3!#1#3#13wood*gas*carshtml xv 'witching to a Biofuel at the inch * Wood >as in Jinnish otoring during World War %%( Timoyllyntaus( %0?( 1; 2!#1#7" 1#1,1!! xvi 'mall*scale electricity generation from biomass" art % Biomass >asification( >TN and H@R/( !#1#( http"33wwwgvepinternationalorg3sites3default3files3resources3gtK!#1#*en*small*scale*electricity*generation*from* biomass*part*ipdf xvii 'mall*scale biomass gasifiers for heat and power" / global review( Hubert @ 'tassen( World Bank( 155)( http"33www* wdsworldbankorg3external3default3WI'0ontent'erver3%W-3%B315553#A31)3#####5!;)4-5;1!181)86113Render ed3IJ3multi4pagepdf xviii'mall*scale electricity generation from biomass" art % Biomass >asification( >TN and H@R/( !#1#( http"33wwwgvepinternationalorg3sites3default3files3resources3gtK!#1#*en*small*scale*electricity*generation*from* biomass*part*ipdf xix http"33wwwpersonalrdgacuk3Oscsharip30harcoalhtm xx http"33wwwnordicgreennet3startups3soldclosed3stirling*dk xxi http"33wwwficfbat3renet4dhtm xxii http"33wwwholKverstromung*nidwaldench3holKverstromung4linksaspFidG#! xxiiihttp"33wwwieatask--org3app3webroot3files3file3publications3new3Tar4in4gaspdf xxivhttp"33biofuelwatchorguk3wp*content3uploads30hain*of*Iestruction*onlinepdf ( 0hapter xxv http"33wwwpynecouk3F4idG1A xxvihttp"33wwwmdpicom3155;*1#6-3)31!385)!( http"33cordiseuropaeu3result3rcn3!11-64enhtml xxviihttp"33wwwbiofuelwatchorguk3category3reports3biochar3 xxviiihttp"33wwwmdpicom3155;*1#6-3)31!385)! xxixhttp"33irislibneuedu3cgi3viewcontentcgiFarticleG1#!A&contextGaes xxx http"33ariKonaopenrepositorycom3ariKona3bitstream31#1)#3!8-5;A313aKu4etd4mr4!#1!4##654sip14mpdf xxxihttp"33wwwempyroproDecteu3 xxxiihttp"33wwwrisiinfocom3timber3news3Jortum*wood*bio*oil*Mounsuu*Jinland*explosionhtml and http"33i* pecru3en3news3pyrolysis*plant*disasters xxxiiihttp"33wwwbiofuelsdigestcom3bdigest3!#183#-3-13ensyn*biofuels*digests*!#18*)*minute*guide3 xxxivhttp"33wwwpynecouk3F4idG6! xxxvBiofuels roduction through Biomass yrolysis P/ Technological Review ohammad % Mahirul et al( @nergies( !-rd ?ovember !#1!( http"33wwwmdpicom3155;*1#6-3)31!385)! xxxvihttp"33wwwpynecouk3F4idG6! xxxviihttp"33i*pecru3en3news3pyrolysis*plant*disasters xxxviiihttp"33energyucdavisedu3files3#)*#;*!#1-*!##8*appendices*to*draft*conversion*technology*reportpdf xxxixBest /vailable Techni
xlviihttp"33wwwbiofuelwatchorguk3!#183power*plant*startup*emissions3 xlviii&iterou(/(et al(&roDect /RBR@" Lessons for bio*energy developers and policy*makers( @nergy olicy 2!##A7(doi"1# 1#1;3Denpol!##A#!#!! xlix ?ational lanning olicy Jramework !#1!( 'ection 1!! l http"33wwwaudit*scotlandgovuk3docs3local3!#1#3sr41##;!84chapspdf and http"33wwwaudit* scotlandgovuk3docs3local3!#183sr418#1#54chappdf li http"33wwwnewsandstarcouk3news3business3biomass*firm*set*to*double*workforce*at*north*cumbrian*plant* 111)-A6! lii http"33wwwampplccouk3combinedheatandpower liii http"33wwwvariablepitchcouk3stations3-;!A3 liv http"33wwwecocyclegroupcom3business4modelhtml lv http"33wwwdorsetnu3upload3Jile3Iorset4>3presentaties4!#4Duni4!#183B*1-##*!$!#8-(@?*Rerhoef* $!#@cocycle(grootschalige$!#houtvergassingpdf lvi http"33cegenerationcom3demo*planthtml lvii http"33wwwgreeninvestmentbankcom3news*and*insight3!#1-3gib*and*foresight*group*forge*consortium*to* construct*86Am*renewable*energy*plant*in*birmingham3 lviiiwww* wdsworldbankorg3external3default3WI'0ontent'erver3%W-3%B315553#A31)3#####5!;)4-5;1!181)86113Render ed3IJ3multi4pagepdf lix http"33www* wdsworldbankorg3external3default3WI'0ontent'erver3%W-3%B315553#A31)3#####5!;)4-5;1!181)86113Render ed3IJ3multi4pagepdf lx http"33wwwthestatecom3news3business3article18-5;#;5html lxi http"33wwwnrcangcca3energy3funding3current*funding*programs3cef38561 lxii http"33missouliancom3news3local3um*scraps*biomass*heating*plant*apologiKes*for*eco*terrorism* remark3article4AA;!e#;#*1d!5*11e1*b)f5*##15bb!5;-f8html lxiiihttp"33wwwwashingtontimescom3news3!#183aug3!)3oak*ridge*biomass*steam*plant*already*closed3 lxiv http"33wwwrewmagcom3nexterra*consortium*welland*wood*ukaspx lxv ublic @xhibition document published by rocter & >amble( Balfour Beatty %nvestments and ?exterra( !#1) lxvi http"33wwwbusinessgreencom3bg3news3!-1A6#13green*investment*bank*backs*birmingham*bio*plant lxviitinyurlcom3mDgmccf lxviii/ccessed via companycheckcouk lxix http"33wwwforesightgroupeu3institutional3our*business3sector*overview*environmental3foresight*environmental* fund3the*green*investment*bank*fund lxx http"33wwwconcordblueenergycom3worldwide*facilitiesaspx( accessed ay !#1) lxxi http"33wwwhcnorg3issues38;1)3lost*in*the*woods lxxiihttp"33wwwproactiveinvestorscouk3L?"R@/03React*@nergy3 lxxiiihttp"33newrytimescom3!#1!3#13#53kedco*makes*first*drawdown*of*loan*facilities*for*new*biomass*plant*in* newry3 lxxiv Based on a search of http"33wwwreforguk3generators3search

Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis Formatted Full Report

Recommend Documents