WOOD STAGING AREA CONCEPT DESIGN PROJECT FOR BIO FUELPRODUCTION FACILITY AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

by

Michael Sonko, Sinem Korkmaz, Ph.D., Timothy Mrozowski, M.Arch., A.I.A., and TariqSami Abdelhamid, Ph.D.,

School of Planning, Design and ConstructionThe Center for Construction Project Performance Assessment and Improvement [C2P2ai]

Report No. 08-01

C2P2ai

ii

AbstractMichigan State University (MSU) has committed to reduce CO2 emission by 6% from theyear 2000 baseline within ten years (2010). Burning of alternative fuels, especiallybiomass was proposed by the Environmental Stewardship Team for the T. B SimonPower Plant at MSU, so that a third of the 2010 Chicago Climate Exchange targets couldbe achieved from a combination of alternative fuels (bio-solids). An equivalent coalamount of 8000 tons will be replaced with biomass fuels which will result in an offset ofa third of the CO2 target reductions (around 20,000 tons). Wood will account for one halfof the total biomass quantities use to substitute the coal at the power plant. Wood is oneof the most viable choices for replacing coal as a biomass in power plants due to itsabundance and low cost, especially in Michigan. However, fuel preparation is asignificant stage in energy generation and therefore, proper planning and design arecrucial for power plant operations.

The purpose of this project was to size a staging area for urban wood wasteprocessing to be used as a bio-fuel at the T. B Simon Power Plant at MSU. Such astaging area would need receiving, sorting and potential grinding operations. To achievethis purpose, the project team conducted several activities including: a literature review; aquestionnaire-guided inquiry and committee meetings; and site visits to wood burningpower plants, wood and equipment suppliers, and related MSU facilities.

The project activities revealed that wood use at the T.B Simon Power Plant could takeany number of directions including contracting for wood from a commercial source,operating an ongoing community waste program, utilization of wood waste from existingMSU Landscape services operations, participating in a joint venture relationship with anoff campus firm to receive, process and deliver wood to MSU; and/or develop a forestryoperation to cultivate wood as an ongoing renewable fuel source.

The project team developed nine alternative wood procurement and receivingscenarios to illustrate the various stream flows from the biomass source to delivery to thepower plant facility. Among those, one sequence was chosen based on the EnvironmentalStewardship Team objective of a community waste wood program and the project team’sconsideration of contracted wood usage incase of interruption in supply from thecommunity waste wood program.

Two site configurations have been developed with the largest at 5.15 acres whichprovides storage and processing of a 30-day supply of unprocessed urban wood wasteand a supply buffer of a 10-day finished green wood chips. A smaller site of 3 acres wasdeveloped which can handle a 10-day unprocessed urban wood waste supply and a 10-day supply buffer of finished green wood chips.

The C2P2ai project team strongly believes that there is great potential for use of woodto substitute coal at the T.B Simon Power Plant. While the research was able to determinea recommended size of a wood processing and storage facility, many questions remain asconcluded by this research in 13 specific recommendations to be considered by theEnvironmental Stewardship Team for next steps in this on-going effort. Each of therecommendations and questions are important in determining a long term andeconomically viable solution. C2P2ai is very willing to work to help answer thesequestions along with the MSU Power and Water Division, Alternative Fuels Committeeand its outside engineering consultants.

C2P2ai

iii

Table of ContentsList of Figures..................................................................................................................... ivList of Tables........................................................................................................................v

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 11.1 Background.................................................................................................................... 31.2 Wood as Biomass in Michigan..................................................................................... 3

Chapter 2: Wood Staging Area Design.................................................................................. 62.1 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................... 62.2 Preliminary Findings................................................................................................... 102.3 Coal Substitute Targets and Design Assumptions .................................................... 14

Chapter 3: Results.................................................................................................................. 153.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 153.2 Wood Quantities.......................................................................................................... 153.3 Site Area Requirements .............................................................................................. 163.4 Analysis of Findings ................................................................................................... 17

Chapter 4: Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................. 204.1 Specific Recommendations ........................................................................................ 21

References.............................................................................................................................. 26Appendix A: Questionnaire .............................................................................................. 28Appendix B: Wood Handling Operations Alternative Scenarios................................... 36Appendix C: Calculations for Wood Requirements and Staging Area Footprint ......... 39Appendix D: Diagrammatic Representations of Possible Wood Handling Areas ........ 43

C2P2ai

iv

List of FiguresFigure 1: Michigan Power Plants using wood as fuel (Simpkins et al. 2006)..................... 4Figure 2: T.B Simon Power Plant and the coal used in the Boiler Unit #4 ......................... 7Figure 3: Processed wood chips and Urban Waste wood at Hammond farms.................... 8Figure 4: The Cadillac Renewable Energy facility ............................................................... 8Figure 5: Urban waste and mulch chips heaps at the MSU Landscape Services recycling

facility .............................................................................................................................. 9Figure 6: Central Michigan University Power Plant silo and the receiving areas .............. 9Figure 7: Selected Sequence Option .................................................................................... 15Figure 8: A 5.15 and 3 Acre Site Representatione Representation.................................... 17

C2P2ai

v

List of TablesTable 1: Estimated biomass availability in Tri-county region (MacFarlane 2007). .......... 5Table 2: The amount of wood required in T.B Simon Power Plant's Operations ............. 16

---------------------- This page was intentionally left blank ----------------------

C2P2ai

1

Chapter 1: IntroductionThe Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) came into existence in 2003, and is “the world’sfirst and North America’s only legally binding rules-based greenhouse gas emissionsallowance trading system” (NIACS 2008). As a member of CCX, an entity is effectivelyvolunteering in a legally-binding commitment to work towards established reductiontargets in greenhouse gas emissions, which is the primary culprit in the global warmingand climate changes afflicting our planet Earth.

The focus of CCX, as well as other world efforts, is on reducing emissions andreducing atmospheric levels of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), andsulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (NIACS 2008). The CCX uses the Carbon Financial Instrument(CFI) contract, defined as “100 metric tons of CO2 equivalent, as the unit for all reportingand trading of greenhouse gas emission reductions” ( Global Warming 2008).

To facilitate and enable the realization of the aim on reducing greenhouse gasemissions, CCX established a market-based trading system, wherein a CCX memberorganization agree to reduce their emissions based on a set target each year. The CCXdoes not dictate how members reduce emissions but does offer incentives when lowercost technologies and process changes are deployed to reduce emissions (NIACS 2008).

Members achieving emission levels below their annual targets receive “credit”that can be sold to other members or simply accumulated to later offset years that targetsare not met. Failing to meet the set targets can be remedied by purchasing credits fromthe other members at the market price. For example, the CCX website(http://www.chicagoclimatex.com) states that in 2007, 22.9 million tons of CO2equivalent were traded by CCX for a value of $72.4 million.

As a member of CCX, Michigan State University (MSU) has committed to reduceCO2 emission by 6% from the year 2000 baseline within ten years (2010). The MSUEnvironmental Stewardship Team (EST) has elected to achieve the CCX targets byburning alternative fuels and biomass at the T. B Simon Power Plant - a cogenerationfacility producing steam and electricity, predominantly using coal, for the needs of theMSU campus-.

The EST aims to achieve at least a third of the 2010 Chicago Climate Exchangetargets using alternative fuels and bio-mass sources. A combination of alternative fuels(bio-solids) in combination with coal is being considered for use at the T. B Simon PowerPlant. This patented fuel manufactured from a variety of organic wastes, produced byblending the waste material with one or more mineral by-products and drying themixture. Initial alternative fuels utilizing a combination of wood and the patented fuel hasbeen proposed with a 1:1 mix of biomass fuels.

It is predicted that utilization of alternative fuels (equivalent 6% of current fuelconsumption) will result in emissions reductions of approximately 20,790 CO2 metrictones (source: Environmental Stewardship Recommendations by the MSU EnvironmentalStewardship Systems Team).

Bio-fuel preparation and handling constitutes a significant part of energygeneration and therefore, proper planning and design are crucial for power plantoperations. Fuel handling takes an even more central role when biomass, especiallywood, is utilized as fuel for power plants. A U.S. Department of Energy report states that

C2P2ai

2

fuel handling becomes even more significant when the wood is not immediately fed intoa boiler’s fuel-handling system upon delivery but stored on-site (DOE 2004).

Wood is a considered a most viable choice as a biomass in power plants due to itsabundance and low cost, especially in Michigan. However, the preparation of thisbiomass source is a significant stage in the power generation process, and, therefore,proper planning and design are crucial for smooth power plant operations.

Considering the significance of operations related to biomass handling in woodburning power plants, the Center for Construction Project Performance Assessment andImprovement (C2P2ai) at the School of Planning, Design and Construction, MichiganState University was tasked by EST to size a staging area for receiving, sorting, grinding,chipping, loading, and transportation operations of urban wood waste in preparation forits use as a bio-fuel at the MSU T. B Simon Power Plant. The footprint requirement forthis activity will help determine possible sites on the MSU campus. The research scopedid not include detailed design or consideration of cost for implementation of theproposed layout.

To accomplish the project aim, the project team conducted several activitiesincluding: a literature review focused on the use of wood as a biomass to partially orcompletely replace coal in power plants and established design guidelines for stagingareas used for urban wood waste; a questionnaire-guided enquiry and committeemeetings; and site visits to wood burning power plants, wood and equipment suppliers,and related MSU facilities.

The EST and C2P2ai agreed on the following scope of work and projectassumptions:

Scope of Work:The project team will investigate the necessary parameters to conceptuallydesign a wood staging area for bio fuel production through site visits tosimilar bio fuel production facilities that use urban wood waste as bio-mass; and interviews with Simon Plant Alternative Fuels Committeemembers.A report will be developed as the final deliverable of this project thatincludes the wood waste staging area:

o Design principles such as the parts of the bio fuel productionprocess flow that would affect the staging area design, yearly woodinput - bio fuel output requirements, production rates, furnaceburning capacities, wood moisture content, material sittingdurations, and delivery/loading equipment sizes; a footprint thatwould give the size of the staging area.

o CAD drawing outputs that comply with committee’s flexibilitycriteria for future expansion possibilities and provide designalternatives for covered and uncovered spaces.

o Guidelines on how much the staging area size should be expandedbased on future expansion requirements.

C2P2ai

3

Project Assumptions:The staging area design will be independent from any siterequirements/limitations because the EST will not assign a site for thestaging area while the project is in progress.The project report includes the space requirements for the staging areawithout any limitations or assumptions regarding the operations that takeplace within the staging area.The project team will not address the process flow for production of biofuels from wood waste, burning capacity of the furnaces at the powerplant, input wood waste and output capacities of the power plant, requiredmoisture content limits in the wood, storm water engineering, and groundcontamination.The final report will not develop the design principles needed to size awood staging area for bio fuel production facility at MSU but will insteadassemble them based on the input from the literature review, committeemembers and site visits.

1.1 BackgroundIncreasing energy demand, reduction in greenhouse emissions, the need for reduceddependence on fossil-based fuels, and the focus on renewable energy has resulted in theneed to use “biomass” for energy generation. Biomass refers to materials derived fromplant matter such as trees, grasses and agricultural crops (DOE 2004). Biomass can beobtained from sources such as waste wood, paper, and energy crops (i.e. cropsspecifically grown to produce some form of energy). Energy crops are divided into twotypes: herbaceous and woody (Launder 2002). Wood and waste paper remain the mostviable choices at attractive prices for energy use (DOE 2004).

Wood is a suitable choice for replacing coal in power plants due to its abundanceand low cost. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE 2004) states that: “One of the mostattractive and easily implemented biomass energy technologies is co-firing with coal inexisting coal-fired boilers”. Michigan has a ready supply of wood as well as an amplesupply of waste wood (Launder 2002).

Wood must undergo a number of processing stages to be fully utilized as fuel forenergy generation (Wiltsee 1998). Depending on whether it is waste wood or an energycrop, the following stages are required: planting and maintenance (for energy crops),harvesting, transportation, handling, and storage (MBEP 2006). Consequently, effectiveplanning for these processes is crucial.

1.2 Wood as Biomass in MichiganThe use of wood as a biomass in the state of Michigan is utilized in only a dozen or sopower plants. Launder (2002) and Simpkins et al. (2006) point to the following powerplants in Michigan that use wood as their sole source for generating power (see Figure 1):Cadillac Renewable Energy (36 MW), Genesee Power Station (36 MW), GraylingGenerating Station (36 MW), Hillman Power Company (18 MW), VikingEnergy/Lincoln (18 MW), and Viking Energy/McBain (18 MW). In addition to these sixplants, Central Michigan University operates a 13MW power plant that also uses wood asfuel with gas backup to generate steam and electricity for the university. The Energy

C2P2ai

4

Information Administration in its “Annual Electric Generator Report” indicated thatMichigan also had three co-firing plants in 2006 (EIA, 2008).

The demand from power plants and commercial landscaping firms has resulted inincreased competition for wood. Energy is not always the highest value use for woodresidues, particularly when the environmental and health benefits of wood energy are notquantified in monetary terms. Therefore, increased competition raises the market price,and wood residues become less available (Launder 2002), affecting a steady supply toany new wood burning power plant in the area.

Figure 1: Michigan Power Plants using wood as fuel (Simpkins et al. 2006)

MacFarlane (2007) showed that in the Michigan Tri-county Area, potentially28,645 dry tons of wood waste (refer to Table 1) may be available annually (Dr. DavidW. MacFarlane, Memo to Alternative Fuels committee, April 1, 2008). However, nostudy has been conducted to determine the percentage of this wood that is already beingrecycled or used for other purposes such as landscaping mulch or processed woodproducts.

C2P2ai

5

Table 1: Estimated biomass availability in Tri-county region (MacFarlane 2007).AnnualYield

Estimatedavailable

Urban Area(2000 U.S. Census)

Area(ha)

Standing Biomass(dry U.S. tons)

(Dry Tonsper year)

(Dry Tonsper year)

Percent ofTotal

Lansing 35,822 1,278,857 25,076 15,045 87.5%Charlotte 1,775 63,358 1,242 745 4.3%Eaton Rapids 1,357 48,427 950 570 3.3%St. Johns 1,001 35,734 701 420 2.4%Williamston 967 34,505 677 406 2.4%Tri-county urbantotals

40,921 1,460,881 28,645 17,187 100.0%

This report is organized into four chapters. Chapter one presented the motivation andfocus of this research project, in light of the CCX and Michigan State University’scommitted targets. The findings of the research with respect to wood staging area designare presented in Chapter two. In Chapter three, analysis of and inferences from thefindings are discussed. The report concludes with Chapter four, highlighting theconclusions and recommendations of the project team. Appendices are provided tocomplement the report with the information used to arrive at the presented discourse.

C2P2ai

6

Chapter 2: Wood Staging Area Design

2.1 Preliminary ActivitiesThe following activities were conducted to guide the research.

Literature ReviewThe project team first reviewed the processes of co-firing in power generation. Thereviewed literature included the co-firing processes in boilers, biomass sources, Michiganbiomass energy program, environmental stewardship on campus, characteristics of woodas biomass, and the wood-handling process (e.g. drying, grinding, receiving, moisturecontent). Two key reports- “Clean Energy from Wood Residues in Michigan” by theMichigan Biomass Energy Program and “Exploring woody biomass retrofit opportunitiesin MI boiler operations”- were the foundational literature for this research. Other reportsby the U.S Department of energy were also studied. The team also obtained moreinformation from journal articles and different websites involved with wood.This reviewprovided the team with insight to achieve the project objective.

Input from Environmental Stewardship TeamThe Environmental Stewardship Team responded to a questionnaire developed by theproject team as well as personal communications conducted with the committeemembers.

QuestionnaireA questionnaire was developed and distributed to the Environmental StewardshipTeam to quickly determine the state of and their prior knowledge about the “WoodStaging Area for Biomass Fuel Production Facility Project”. More information wasobtained from personal conversations and committee meetings. A copy of thequestionnaire is provided in Appendix A.

Committee MeetingsThe project team attended both bio-fuels processing facility and Alternative Fuelscommittee meetings. They were informative and served as report platforms for theproject team. The project team made progress presentations at the Alternative FuelsCommittee meetings on August 7, 2008 and September 18, 2008.

Site VisitsTo obtain background information, site visits were conducted at the MSU T.B Simonpower plant, two wood burning power plants, MSU Landscape services recycling facilityand at two firms in the wood business. These site visits, explained in the chronologicalorder they were conducted below, guided the conceptual wood staging layout designprocess for this project and provided important input for the project design assumptions.Site visits included:

C2P2ai

7

T.B Simon Power Plant (Visited on July 2, 2008)The project team toured the T.B. Simon Power Plant located on the southern part of theMSU campus on Service Road. This plant supplies both power and steam for theuniversity. The team toured the power plant with the performance engineer Mr. GaryMell. During the site visit, coal was observed to be delivered and stored in the yard nextto the power plant. The picture below on the left, in Figure 2, shows the hopper in theforeground where coal is poured and transported by conveyors to the tower. Coal isground to a pulverized form (shown in Figure 2 on the right below) which is used in thefluidized bed boiler (Unit #4). This is the same boiler in which co-firing will be carriedout. Overall, this site visit enabled the project team to observe the process of power andsteam generation from coal and learn about the biomass quantities that would be requiredto substitute coal in the co-firing process.

Figure 2: T.B Simon Power Plant and the coal used in the Boiler Unit #4

Hammond Farms (Visited on July 11th 2008)The team visited Hammond Farms, a retailer that supplies wood chips, to get acquaintedwith both the process of handling wood from collection to grinding and the actual woodchips. The picture on the left of Figure 3 illustrates a heap of chipped wood on the lot ofHammond Farms. Measurements were taken on this heap, as well as other similar heapsbut of different wood types, to get an understanding of the area and volume requirementsthat will be needed for the envisioned wood staging area at MSU (refer to Appendix C).Interestingly, the team also came across a part of the Hammond Farm lot dedicated to thereceiving of urban wood waste from the surrounding communities. This wood wasprocessed and sold as mulch and wood chips to clients. In general, from this visit, theteam was able to establish a method for estimating wood chips quantities and gain anunderstanding of the process for handling urban waste wood-which Hammond Farmsstarted receiving recently.

D. L. Kessler Construction, (Visited on July 29, 2008)The team visited D.L. Kessler to see the “Morbark” chipper and to obtain data on thenature and size of wood chippers and grinders. This was crucial for the project sinceequipment forms an integral component of a handling area and the equipment affects

C2P2ai

8

both the size and arrangement of the wood handling storage area as well as productionoutput and operation requirements. In addition to the quantity of processed woodrequired, the nature of raw unprocessed waste wood will also influence the choice of thewood chipper.

Figure 3: Processed wood chips and Urban Waste wood at Hammond farms

The Cadillac Renewable Energy Facility (Visited on July 31, 2008)This facility is a 36MW renewable energy power plant located in Cadillac, Michigan, anduses wood as its fuel source, consuming about 400,000 tons per year. The project teamwas allowed to take pictures but not for public distribution. The picture in Figure 4 iswhat the public can see driving along the side of the plant. Most of the wood used ispurchased on the open market with a small offsite pallet reclaim program at which thematerial received is periodically ground and used in the plant.

Figure 4: The Cadillac Renewable Energy facility

Wood Recycling Facility at MSU Landscape Services (Visited on August 6, 2008)The project team also visited the MSU Landscape Services wood recycling facility. Thisfacility currently operates a wood storage and chipping/grinding operation near the T.B.Simon Power Plant to process campus wood waste from storms, landscaping operationsetc. After chipping and grinding, Landscape Services uses this material as mulch in its

C2P2ai

9

campus landscaping activities. The project team found that raw waste wood is generallyaccumulated over a period of six months and then chipped and used as mulch by MSULandscape Services. It was estimated that the facility yields 6000yd3 per year. Rawunprocessed wood that is collected from the university is unloaded and stored as shownin Figure 5 on the left until it is chipped into the mulch material, as shown in the rightimage of Figure 5. The chipped mulch material which is stored on unpaved ground iscollected on demand for landscaping activities.

Figure 5: Urban waste and mulch chips heaps at the MSU Landscape Services recyclingfacility

Central Michigan University Power Plant (Visited on August 15, 2008)The plant is owned and run by Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant,Michigan, and has capacity of about 13MW (peak). This plant, like the Cadillac PowerPlant, generates most of its electricity from burning wood and uses natural gas as abackup source. A total of 900 tons of wet wood (with a moisture content equals to 50%)is consumed per week.

Wood chips are delivered to the power plant in semi-trucks which are lifted andtipped to unload them, utilizing a hydraulic lift apparatus as shown in the right image ofFigure 6. The delivered material is then transported through a conveying system in whichforeign materials such as metals are removed and any regrinding completed. The chipsare then stored in dedicated silos as shown in the left image of Figure 6.

Figure 6: Central Michigan University Power Plant silo and the receiving areas

C2P2ai

10

In general, the site visit provided the research team with insights into theprocesses and infrastructure necessary for receiving, chipping, storing, shipping of woodas well as the properties of wood fuel. It was becoming clear that a spectrum existed withrespect to the sophistication necessary for procuring wood as a biomass, operating woodstaging areas, and the handling operations of the wood as a bio-fuel.

2.2 Preliminary FindingsPreliminary research activities showed that the nature and design of the staging area areaffected by:

Existing conditionsPercentage utilization of biomassType of both raw and finished biomassWood source optionsLevel of mechanizationStorage goals

Each of the above factors should be considered in developing a staging area design.

Existing ConditionsExisting conditions include the amount of land available, environmental impacts andnature and quantity of fuel required. The amount of land available will affect both thestorage configuration and the handling sequence of the finished materials. The nature ofthe fuel requirement influences supply and storage quantities.

Utilization of BiomassFor the T.B Simon Power Plant, biomass fuel is proposed to substitute 10% to 30% of thecoal used by unit #4 (consumes approximately 300 tons of coal per day) - potentially onehalf of the biomass fuel could potentially come from wood. This target quantity heavilyinfluences site layout and size.

Type of Biomass-Raw and FinishedThe U.S. Department of Energy has proposed staging area designs depending on the typeof boiler used, which determines the fuel characteristics. Boiler type determines fuelforms; consequently, the staging area may differ. Pulverized boilers, stoker, cyclone andfluidized boilers require biomass of sizes less than ¼”, 3”, ½”, and 3” respectively (DOE2004). Raw un-prepared biomass that is not fit to be used in the boilers is received at thestorage area and must be prepared into the required finished form. The T.B Simon PowerPlant will use wood chips completely dried at the bio-fuels processing facility.

Chemically treated wood generally should not be used because of potentially harmfulemissions. Surveys of wood users in Michigan and other states demonstrate thatsecondary wood users -including wood energy producers- do not accept woodcontaminated by treatments (e.g. construction debris). In addition, the simple economicsof protecting a major capital investment create incentives to screen wood fuels, becausecontaminants can adversely affect machinery necessary to keep boilers running (Launder2002).

C2P2ai

11

Wood Source OptionsWood use at the T.B Simon Power Plant could take any number of directions includingcontracting for wood from a commercial source, operating an ongoing community wasteprogram, utilization of wood waste from existing MSU Landscape Services operations,participating in a joint venture relationship with an off-campus firm to receive, processand deliver wood to MSU or develop a forestry operation to cultivate wood as an ongoingrenewable fuel source. MSU would require approximately 16,425 tons of green woodchips (GWC) annually to substitute 5% of Unit #4 coal at the T.B. Simon Power Plantand 49,275 tons GWC annually to substitute 15% (see section 3.2).

In selecting the source of wood, consideration should be given to where the wood shouldbe delivered (i.e. at the proposed biomass processing facility or directly at the existingcoal handling hopper/conveyor system) and the type of receiving equipment necessary tohandle the wood. Existing operations such as Central Michigan University (37,000 tonsGWC annually) and Cadillac Renewable Energy (400,000 tons of GWC annually), whichuse solely contracted wood sources, have substantial systems for receiving, weighing,sorting, conveying, regrinding and metals removal.

Each wood source has several implications that should be considered including: spacerequirements, equipment needs, operational staff required, quality of material, quantity ofwood available, reliability of the wood stream and cost. The implications of each woodsource as perceived by the project team are briefly addressed below.

Community Wood WasteA community wood waste program is envisioned as one that would receive urban woodwaste from the general public, landscape contractors, forestry operation and from stormevents. One advantage of such a system would potentially be that there could beperceived community goodwill that the operator would receive from being a recycler ofwood that might otherwise be discarded or land-filled. Another possible benefit (althoughnot explored by this study) is possible economic gains. If wood were available for “free”from the community, a fuel cost savings could be obtained; however, it would be partiallyoffset by the infrastructure, land, equipment and operating staff necessary to run theoperation. An additional revenue stream could be from charging a competitive drop-offfee. Granger Composting Services currently charges approximately $14.50 per mini pick-up truck (e.g. Chevrolet S10, Ford Ranger) load which is estimated to contain 1.5 yd3 ofunprocessed urban wood waste. Problems with this type of operation include potentialquality, quantity and reliability of wood available from community sources, the need toadvertise, operate and maintain a substantial ongoing operation, inefficiency of multiplematerial handlings and the need to have at least two receiving systems, one for rawunprocessed wood and a second system at the bio-fuels processing facility or coal hopperto receive finished product. Maintenance and running a community drop-off area couldboost the image of Michigan State University as a partner with the community. However,proper design, equipment selection, management and operation are required.

A study by McFarlane (2007) addressed the potential wood available within InghamCounty by estimating the standing wood and the amount of waste available. However, it

C2P2ai

12

is unknown how much wood is actually available due to competition for this wood. TheC2P2ai project team determined there are at least three wood recyclers already operatingin Ingham County which include Mid Michigan Recycling, which is a supplier to theGenesee Power Plant, Granger Compost Services and Hammond Farms. If MSU were toown and operate a significant community wood waste program it would be in directcompetition with these commercial firms and would need to be aggressive in advertisingto attract wood in sufficient quantities to significantly substitute coal use. As a graphicexample, the project team calculated that it would require approximately 262,000 annualmini pickup truck loads (720 loads per day at 365 days per year) or (240 daily loads and87,600 annual loads) to obtain enough wood to substitute 15% and 5% respectively, ofthe coal used by Unit #4 at the T.B. Simon Power Plant. The size of the receiving,processing, handling systems and shipping to the bio-fuels processing facility plant to thecoal hopper would be substantial. While a potential revenue stream could be significant(potentially $2-4 million less costs to own and operate), the project team doubts thatMSU would be able to compete for this much wood on an ongoing basis. It is imperativethat a feasibility and marketing study be conducted to determine the wood that would beavailable in a competitive market and the costs to own and operate such a system.

Contracted WoodMost of the existing wood burning power plants that the project team is aware of utilize acommercial wood source. One exception is the McNeil Power Plant in Vermont whichruns a community wood waste program that accounts for about 30% of its total woodsupply with the remaining 70% purchased. Another small exception is the CadillacRenewable Energy facility in Michigan which has a small cooperative program to utilizeindustrial pallet wood from a nearby industrial zone, but this pallet wood accounts for avery small percentage of its 400,000 tons of wood used per year.

Commercial sources are used because of the large volume of wood needed eachyear, reliability of source, and quality of material. Central Michigan University powerplant uses approximately 37,000 tons per year, the Cadillac Renewable Energy facilityuses approximately 400,000 tons per year, and Genesee uses over 500,000 tons. WhileCentral Michigan University has a gas fired unit which can be brought on line in theevent of a shortage or disruption of wood supply, the Cadillac Renewable Energy facilityonly burns wood and would essentially be shut down in the event that the wood supplywas disrupted. Advantages of a contracted wood source are: reliability of supply, qualityin the volumes necessary for plant operations, and concentration of the receiving andhandling equipment which decreases the need for space. These operations havesophisticated systems for receiving, weighing, sorting, conveying, regrinding and metalsremoval and because of there mechanization require small operating staffs and minimalhuman handling of wood that is received.

The project team believes that using wood from a contracted wood source atcurrent market rates may be revenue neutral or slightly less than using coal. However,wood is a commodity and several studies have indicated the price of wood rises and fallswith supply and demand. A new plant or alternative use such as for composite materialsor landscaping could change the economics. Therefore, the project team recommends thatcommercial wood supply contracts be explored prior to developing any storage site.

C2P2ai

13

MSU Landscape Services OperationsMSU Landscape Services currently operates a wood storage and chipping/grindingoperation near the power plant to process campus wood waste from storms, landscapingoperations etc. After chipping and grinding Landscape Services uses this material asmulch in its campus landscaping activities.

From information collected by C2P2ai, the project team believes that potentially 12,000yds3 of raw unprocessed wood waste is collected annually. This is believed to yieldapproximately 6,000 yds3 of chipped wood. If all of the MSU Landscape Servicesmaterial were directed to the power plant it would only substitute about 1½ percent of thecoal used by Unit#4. If this wood was used by the power plant, the mulch material needsfor the MSU Landscape Services would have to be met, presumably by purchasingproduct from landscaping supply companies.

While the project team believes it makes sense to use excess MSU Landscape Services’wood, if available, it does not seem that it will have much impact on substituting coal inany significant amount. Additionally, disadvantages include some of those of thecommunity waste program discussed above such as space and equipment needs, althoughat a smaller scale.

Joint Venture with a third partyMSU could explore a joint venture with an off campus firm such as Mid MichiganRecycling, Granger Compost Services or Hammond Farms to operate an MSU connectedcommunity waste program. The off campus firm would receive, process and ship thefinished material directly to the bio-fuels processing facility or to the coal hopper. MSUand its joint venture partner could advertise this program as a community waste programand obtain some positive goodwill. MSU would benefit by not having to own andoperate its own receiving, processing and shipping facility. Reliability of product quantitycould be enhanced by connecting this community waste program with a contracted woodsource. This combination would require only a single investment for receiving equipmentlocated at the bio-fuels processing facility site or coal hopper. Alternatively, MSU couldown and operate a collection site, but contract for the chipping and processing operations.While referred to as a community waste program in reality it operates as a contractedwood source for MSU.

Forestry ProgramTo develop a truly renewable wood source, MSU could consider developing its ownongoing forestry operation to grow its own wood fuel. Because of MSU’s historicalleadership in agriculture and natural resources research, this seems to be a natural andlogical approach. If MSU were to develop a fast growing tree farm for cultivation offuel, the time lag would still require using contracted wood in the interim. This idea wasexplored by Central Michigan University but was not pursued for reasons not disclosed tothe research team. C2P2ai is intrigued by this possible operation because of its efficiency,reliability and natural connection to MSU’s history.

C2P2ai

14

Wood source had a substantial effect on the site layout, feasibility and economics ofusing wood. There are a number of unanswered questions which should be explored priorto committing to a specific fuel source. The recommendations in section 4.0 layout anumber of areas for future exploration.

2.3 Coal Substitute Targets and Design AssumptionsCoal Substitute TargetsThe target coal to be substituted by biomass at T.B. Simon Power Plant is 10-30% of thedaily 300 tons used in the Unit #4 fluidized bed boiler. Wood could potentially accountfor 50% of the total biomass substitute of coal. Therefore, a substitute amount of 15-45tons per day of wood is estimated.

ParametersThe following design principles were developed for determining the required size of thewood staging area and also the possibility of expanding the use of wood. The literaturereview and site visits showed that the following factors affect the staging area design:yearly wood input, bio fuel output requirements, production rates, furnace burningcapacities, wood moisture content, material storage durations, and delivery/loadingequipment size.

Design AssumptionsMoisture ContentWood chips will be delivered at 50% moisture content (DOE 2004) and be referred to ingreen tons which will be dried at the bio-fuels processing facility and then delivered tothe power plant. Green tons refer to weight at 50% moisture content (Shelly 2007).Different resources refer to “dry tons” at different moisture contents depending on themethod of drying. For air dried wood, the dry ton is at 10% moisture content while foroven dried, it is at 0% (Hartman 1975). It is therefore important to fully and clearly definethe type of tons used to avoid any confusion.

Heat ContentHeat content of coal is assumed to be 12000 BTU/lb (Segrest 1998) while that of greenwood chips is 4,000 BTU/lb (Segrest 1998). Therefore, three pounds of green wood chipsare required to produce the same amount of heat as one pound of coal.

Onsite HandlingIt is assumed that onsite chipping will be conducted daily or at least weekly using MSUowned or leased chippers or by contracting an outside firm. Any ferrous metals will beremoved by use of magnets and it is assumed that no drying will occur at the site. Onsitestorage of a maximum of 10 days and 30 days should be targeted for finished green woodchips and unsorted/unprocessed wood waste respectively. Thirty days is planned due toseasonal inflow variations or storm events.

Raw to Processed Wood RatioIt is assumed that one cubic yard of unsorted/unprocessed wood waste yields 0.5 cubicyards of green wood chips.

C2P2ai

15

Chapter 3: Results

3.1 IntroductionThe purpose of this project was to determine the required size of a wood staging area forthe T.B. Simon Power Plant at MSU. To achieve this purpose, it was essential tounderstand the potential wood procurement scenarios. Nine alternative woodprocurement and receiving scenarios were developed to show a variety of wood sourceflows from the biomass source to delivery and were presented to the Alternative FuelsSubcommittee of the Environmental Stewardship Team. The sequence shown in Figure 7was chosen by the Alternative Fuels Subcommittee of the Environmental StewardshipTeam (EST) because it included a community waste wood program as well as acontracted wood. The remaining sequence flow charts are included in Appendix B.

The selected sequence combines both contracted source and a community waste woodrun program at MSU. The processed wood is delivered to the bio-fuels facility as shownin Figure 7, and then conveyed to the power plant.

Figure 7: Selected Sequence Option

3.2 Wood QuantitiesBased on the coal substitute targets and design assumptions provided in section 2.4, theamount of wood required to reach those targets was determined and is shown in table 2.Calculations are attached in Appendix C.

RECEIVE COMMUNITY WASTE

REMOVE METALS

UNLOAD MATERIAL

STORE MATERIAL FOR

GRIND MATERIAL TO SIZE

LOAD FOR DELIVERY TO PLANTOR BIOFUELS FACILITY

STORE FINISHED PRODUCT

CONTRACTED WOOD COMMUNITY OR MSU WOOD

TO POWER PLANT OR BIOFUELS FACILITY

TO POWER PLANT ORBIOFUELS FACILITY

C2P2ai

16

Table 2: The amount of wood required in T.B Simon Power Plant's OperationsCoal Substitute Amounts (Wood)

Volume Requirements(Daily)(one half of total coal substitute)*

5% 15%

Green Wood Chips 180yd3 540yd3

Unprocessed Waste Wood 360yd3 1,080yd3

*The other one half will be substituted by other bio-fuels

MSU would require approximately 16,425 tons of green wood chips (GWC) annually tosubstitute 5% of Unit #4 coal at the T.B. Simon Power Plant and 49,275 tons GWCannually to substitute 15%.

3.3 Site Area RequirementsThe site area was determined based on the wood requirements estimated in section 3.2.Hence, based on the daily demand of 540yd3, for a 15% coal substitute and a planned 10day supply buffer of finished green wood chips (5400yd3),a tapered pile roughly 15 ft H x90 ft W x 108 ft L (approximately 0.3 acres) is required. For the ‘unsorted unprocessedurban waste wood’ (UUUWW), a supply of 30-days is planned. This will result in astorage of 32,400 yd3 (a tapered pile roughly 15 ft H x 240 ft W x 243 ft L) which willcover approximately 1.52 acres. The 30-day supply of unprocessed urban wood wastewas used to factor in the occurrence of surges in supply due to heavier flows from stormevents.

Diagrammatic representations of possible wood handling areas were developed and aredepicted in Figure 8 (also presented in greater detail in Appendix D). Two siteconfigurations have been developed with the largest at 5.15 acres which provides storageand processing of a 30-day supply of unprocessed urban wood waste and a supply bufferof a 10-day finished green wood chips. A smaller site of 3 acres was developed whichcan handle a 10-day unprocessed urban wood waste supply and a 10-day supply buffer offinished green wood chips.

C2P2ai

17

Figure 8: A 5.15 and 3 Acre Site Representations

Conceptually, and as schematically depicted in Figure 8, site flow is envisioned asreceiving and checking in a load, being directed to a drop-off location and then onceunloaded, yarders would move the material to the chipping operation where it would bechipped/ground to size and metals removed. Once processed the material would beloaded on trucks via a hopper and conveyer and driven to the bio-fuels processing facilityor to the coal hopper and offloaded.

3.4 Analysis of FindingsInfrastructure and staffing for Community Wood Waste Wood Storage andProcessing Site/facilityAlthough the focus of this study was on space needs rather than detailed site design oroperational layout the project team has identified some of the infrastructure, equipmentand staffing that would likely be necessary to conduct a full community waste program.Capital investment in infrastructure and operational costs of owning and operating acommunity wood waste site are believed to be significant and should be evaluated closelyas part of any feasibility/marketing study conducted in determining if this directionshould be pursued by MSU.

C2P2ai believes that the following infrastructure and components are necessary for acommunity wood waste site:

Truck egress and exitTruck maneuvering spaceOffloading space for unprocessed materialUrban waste storage areaChipping/grinding areaMetal removalPaved chip storage area (optimum)Covered chip storage area (optimum)

C2P2ai

18

Truck loading space for processed materialWeigh Scale areaDumpster or storage for unusable/non recyclable wasteStorage area for non wood recyclable wasteEmployee sanitary facilitiesEmployee warming shed/officeEmployer/visitor parkingAccess to fire water sourceFire protection planSanitary facilitiesPotable waterElectrical powerFuel delivery and containment areaSecurity and site lightingSecurity fencing and gateSediment and soil erosion controlStorm water controlDust and Pollution ControlEnvironmental protections for water contaminationSignageFirst Aid

Equipment(2) Loaders(2) 20-50 cubic yard trucksChipper/grinderConveyor systemsHopper systemsMetal removalMechanical screen/separatorsWeighing equipment

Additional Operations and Equipment necessary at the bio-fuels processing facility.ReceivingWeighingTippingHopperStorageConveyingDrying SystemMixingConveyance to Power Plant

C2P2ai

19

Operational StaffingStaffing at the wood storage site is dependent on the scale and hours of operation, level ofmechanization and target goal for the coal substitute. To operate a community woodwaste program of a scale sufficient to substitute 15% of Unit#4 coal, the site would needto receive approximately 1,080 yds3 of unprocessed wood, chip it to 540 yds3, load it andship it to the bio-fuels processing facility or to the coal hopper each day. Based on acombination of load sizes of 1.5 yds3 of unprocessed wood for a mini pickup truck, 3 yds3

for a full size pickup and maybe 5-10 yds3 for a landscape or tree trimming operationtruck, perhaps 180 truck loads of unprocessed wood waste would need to be delivered tothe site 7 days per week (a six day operation would require 210 loads per day orapproximately or 25 loads per hour. Staffing would be significant and require likely (thenumbers refer to personnel);

(1) Load check and payment clerk(2) Yarders to direct or assist offloading(2) Yarders to move material for chipping(1) Chipping operator(1) Loader for chipped material(2) Truck drivers

A total of 9 staff personnel would be required at the facility to facilitate the operations.Staffing could be reduced by increasing the use of conveyor and hoppers to movematerials automatically. The multiple handling by staff with loaders is inefficient and theresearch team stresses the need to develop an engineered process design that utilizes“Lean Production” principles to minimize waste and increase efficiency.

C2P2ai

20

Chapter 4: Conclusions and Recommendations

This research aimed at determining the recommended size of a wood storage area tosupport the use of wood to substitute a portion of the coal used at the T.B. Simon powerplant at Michigan State University. The research uncovered a number of underlyingquestions and possible operational directions. The research showed that a site of between5-6 acres could support all of the operational directions considered by the project team.The results of the research yielded two conceptual designs one at 5.15 acres and one at 3acres based on amount of coal substitute desired and amount of wood to be stored at thesite at any given time.

The 5.15 acre site is targeted toward a site which can receive, process and ship woodfrom several sources including Landscape Services operations, a community wasteprogram and/or a MSU cultivated wood operation. This site could support a 15%equivalent substitute of coal used in unit #4 at the T.B. Simon Power Plant. Planning forthis site considered near continuous receipt of unprocessed wood, chipping and shippingto the bio-fuels processing facility or to the existing coal hopper at the power plant. Thissite is estimated to be able to store a 10 day supply of processed green wood chips and a30 day supply of raw unprocessed wood.

The 3 acre site is targeted toward a smaller operation which again can receive wood fromMSU Landscape Services operations, a community waste program and a MSU cultivatedwood operation but is estimated to be able to receive and process only enough wood tosubstitute 5% of the coal used annually by unit #4. This site is estimated to be able tostore a 10 day supply of both processed green wood chips as well as raw unprocessedwood.

The project team considered a variety of wood sources including: contracting for woodfrom a commercial source, operating an ongoing community waste program, utilizationof wood waste from existing MSU Landscape Services operations, participating in a jointventure relationship with an off campus firm to receive, process and deliver wood toMSU and development of an MSU forestry operation to cultivate wood as a ongoingrenewable fuel source.

Each of the wood sources above has strong implications on the quantity of woodavailable, the reliability of this source, quality of wood for use, land area required, capitalinvestment in equipment both at the storage site and at the bio-fuels processing facility,operational staff needed to own and operate an ongoing facility, and net economic effect.No specific parameters were provided by the Alternative Fuels Subcommittee of theEnvironmental Stewardship Team with respect to budget, operations, or specific sitessuggested to frame the research, favoring instead to have general objectives. While thissomewhat conceptual directive made the research difficult, it had the effect of allowingthe project team to consider alternatives that were perhaps not considered previously bythe Alternative Fuels Subcommittee.

C2P2ai

21

The project team visited a number of existing operations as well as conducted literaturereview to gain background information and to help identify alternatives and possibleefficiencies. This background information was used in establishing the two concept sitesincluded in the report and to develop the recommendations outlined below.

4.1 Specific RecommendationsThe C2P2ai project team strongly feels that prior to selecting an actual site, certain pre-steps are necessary to answer questions that were uncovered during the research.Consequently, some of the recommendations take on the form of questions to beanswered. The specific recommendations are identified below:

1. Determine if wood is to be a substantial, ongoing and consistent part of the MSUbiomass fuels effort or whether wood should be used on an incidental “as available”source of wood.

The amount of wood necessary to account for up to 50% of the upper biomass fuels targetof 30% coal substitute for unit #4 is substantial, requiring an estimated 49,000 wet tons ofgreen wood chips. This operation would exceed the approximate 37,000 tons used by the13MW Central Michigan University power plant operation, which uses fairlysophisticated receiving, tipping, silo storage and conveying systems. The project teamdoes not believe that this amount of wood is available from MSU Landscape Serviceoperations or from a community wood waste drop-off operation. The decision to pursuean ongoing substantial use of wood will necessitate the purchase of some portion of thewood required or perhaps the development of a MSU cultivated renewable wood source.

The project team believes that use of wood solely from MSU Landscape Services or acommunity wood drop-off site is likely to yield quantities far below the total discussedabove and would yield only a sporadic or incidental use of wood as a portion of thebiomass fuels solution.

2. Determine the economic objectives for use of wood.

Is a revenue neutral solution, considering capital investment, staffing and operations tosubstituting coal acceptable? Or should the wood portion be revenue positive whencompared to coal? The project team believes that simply contracting for wood as acommodity may be a revenue neutral solution which avoids the need to have a storagesite and eliminates the need for capital investment in equipment and staffing at a storagesite. This contracted wood solution could still utilize any excess wood available fromMSU Landscape Services but would not target receiving and processing communitywood waste.

3. Determine the costs of purchasing wood as a commodity. Develop a woodspecification and obtain pricing from suppliers.

The project team believes that purchasing wood has many benefits and is likely to beviable economically. Advantages lie in being able to make wood a substantial and

C2P2ai

22

ongoing part of the biomass fuels solution. Reliability and quality control of a contractedwood source would help to ensure that there is a constant substantial source available andavoids investment in infrastructure and operating staff at a storage site. Literatureindicates that purchasing wood may generally cost less than coal.

4. Determine the receiving equipment and its costs necessary at the bio-fuelsprocessing facility to receive processed wood chips.

The project team observed wood receiving operations at Central Michigan University(37,000 annual tons) and at the Cadillac Renewable Energy (400,000 annual tons). Atboth of these operations tipping operations capable of lifting and tipping full semi trucksand trailers, hoppers, conveying systems, metals removal, regrinding and storageoperations are substantial requiring capital investment at the receiving facility.Consideration of the receiving facility at the bio-fuels processing site must be consideredregardless of the wood source options used.

5. Determine the amount of wood available annually from a combined MSULandscape Services and Community Wood Waste Program in light of competition forthis wood.

Dr. David W. MacFarlane, a member of the Alternative Fuels subcommittee of theEnvironmental Stewardship Team, has estimated the amount of wood theoreticallyavailable within close proximity to MSU based on amount of standing wood andestimating likely rates of its removal due to landscape operations and storms. The projectteam determined that there currently is competition for this wood with three commercialwood recycling operations already operating in Ingham County. At this time it is notknown how much community wood could realistically be attracted to a MSU Communitywood waste processing site. Consequently the research team recommends further study ofavailable wood.

6. Conduct a market and feasibility analysis of a community wood waste processingand storage facility.

A community wood waste and storage facility designed, owned and operated by MSUwill require substantial investment in land, equipment and operating staff. Prior topursuing this direction a business planning approach should be used which assesses woodavailability (recommendation 5 above), potential revenue from drop-off fees, cost ofequipment, operational staff , site infrastructure and a marketing advertising approach.

7. Evaluate specific equipment requirements and costs for a community wood wasteprocessing and storage site.

The project team, on conceptual basis explored equipment needed on a community woodprocessing and storage site, but it was beyond the scope of this study to develop anengineered process design. Many mechanized equipment solutions are available such asthe use of tippers, conveyers, hoppers which can minimize the need for operating staff to

C2P2ai

23

move materials by the use of loaders. Equipment solutions and their costs of ownershipand operation should be evaluated. Multiple handling of the wood during receipt,chipping, storage and loading is seen as inefficient by the project team. The balancebetween equipment and operating staff will need to be carefully explored.

8. Develop a detailed equipment and process layout which considers efficiency andutilizes “Lean Production” principles.

There are considerable opportunities to study process flow and how equipment and staffwill be used to efficiently process and move materials. An engineering and process flowmodeling approach which considers “Lean Production” principles should be used todetermine an optimized design of a storage and processing site. A simulation, usingavailable layout modeling software, would allow the experimentations with and analysisof multiple scenarios until a favorable configuration is found.

9. Minimize storage of processed and unprocessed wood at the storage site.

Because MSU is proposing a flexible fuels solution which includes biomass fuels, coaland gas, it is relatively immune from a temporary disruption of the wood source.Therefore, the project team favors minimizing storage (buffer), utilizing, frequentchipping and shipping. Ideally, the receipt of raw unprocessed wood, chipping andshipping would be conducted simultaneously and continuously. The effect of thiscontinuous operation is to minimize the need to store processed and unprocessed materialon site. Unlike coal which needs to be stockpiled in case of source disruption, it isbelieved that a disruption in the wood supply can be compensated by ramping up the useof other biomass fuels or coal. There appears to be no particular advantage to storing anyof the wood for any length of time. Stored wood requires space, may be unsightly, mayrequire more movement and handling and can pose a fire or environmental hazard. TheCadillac Renewable Energy facility stores wood for approximately 1-2 months to use itsheat of decomposition to drive off about 5% of its initial moisture. However, at MSU thebio-fuels processing facility is planned to be used to dry all biomass materials inpreparation for use at the power plant.

10. Select a site that is as close as possible to the bio-fuels processing facility or at thepower plant hopper.

Avoid remote sites that require processed materials to be moved large distances betweenthe storage site and the bio-fuels processing facility. Additionally, remote sites willrequire longer drives for community members, local landscaping and forestry companies,and MSU Landscape Services for drop-off. Any distance traveled partially offsets anycarbon reductions gained by offsetting coal with wood.

11. Select and establish specific sites for assessment of operations.

The project team had no specific site to evaluate in determining the required site size. Theconcept plans therefore did not consider many possible site conditions such as, proximity

C2P2ai

24

to access roads, winter load limits, site proportions, topography, environmentalconditions, travel distance, available utilities etc. All these conditions in combinationwith the equipment and operation solutions will impact the suitability of any actualindividual site.

12. Examine the possibility of an MSU owned and operated cultivated wood operation.MSU should consider growing its own fuel.

The project team is very intrigued about the possibility of MSU developing its own longterm forest for cultivation as fuel. The concept site developed would be capable ofprocessing wood grown for this purpose and in the quantities required for wood to be asubstantial part of the biomass fuels operation. Research and development of such a siteseems to be well within the MSU research capabilities based on its history of agriculturaland forestry research. Use of fast growing trees and forestry management for energy usepurposes seems to offer a myriad of opportunities for faculty research and studentexperiential learning. This solution would require the development of the storage andprocessing site conceived by this research, as well as, likely using some commoditywood in the interim, but yields a long term sustainable and constant solution.

13. Examine the possibility of a Joint Venture between MSU and other firms.

The project team believes that MSU should explore the possibility of contracting withanother firm that deals in wood waste. Firms like Hammond farms or Granger CompostServices would operate an MSU connected community waste program. MSU will benefitby saving on initial capital investment, maintenance of the facility and obtain positivegoodwill. It is suggested that the extent of the firm’s involvement should also beexplored. MSU can contract all the activities involving the preparation of wood anddelivery to the power plant or a portion of them.

14. Conduct a test burn of wood to determine acceptance and required moisturecontent.

The project team believes that wood should be used at the power plant as soon as possibleusing a contracted wood source. There is no particular reason to wait until completion ofthe bio-fuels processing facility for starting the wood operation. Conducting the test burnand proceeding with a contracted wood source will allow MSU to gain experience withhandling wood at the power plant and would require very little startup investment. Inorder to use wood, a test burn must be conducted in order to gain approval for use ofwood as a fuel.

C2P2ai

25

Next stepsThe C2P2ai project team strongly believes that there is great potential for use of wood tosubstitute coal at the T.B Simon Power Plant. While the research was able to determine arecommended size of a wood processing and storage facility, many questions remain asarticulated in the recommendations above. Each of the recommendations and questionsare important in determining a long term and economically viable solution.

C2P2ai is very willing to work to help answer these questions along with the MSU Powerand Water Division, Alternative Fuels Committee and its outside engineering consultants.

C2P2ai

26

References

Adam. (2007). “Is Burning Wood Really Carbon Neutral?”<http://www.seacoastnrg.org/2007/01/30/ is-burning-wood-really-carbon-neutral/>July 15, 2008.

Awadalla, H.S.F., El-Dib, A.F., Mohamad, M.A., Reuss, M., Hussein, H.M.S.(2004). “Mathematical modeling and experimental verification of wood dryingprocess.” Energy Conversion and Management, Volume 45, January 2004, Pages197-207

Bazilchuk, N. (1998). “More energy more efficiently from wood”<http://www.nasw.org/users/nbazilchuk/Articles/McNeil.htm> July 15, 2008.

Boszko, M., Malczewski, J., Grabarczyk, R. (2007). “Convective drying of woodchips at high temperature.” Journal of Research and Applications in AgriculturalEngineering, 52(2), 61-62.

CTA (2007). “ Exploring woody biomass retrofit opportunities in MI boileroperations.” CTA Architects and Engineers, Emergent Solutions. Christopher Allen+ Associates, Loracs Creations, Geodata.

Dandurant, K. (2008). “Wood supply short; Power plants, fuel cited.” (2008)<http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080703/NEWS/807030447&sfad=1 > July 15th 2008.

DOE (2004). “Biomass Co-firing in Coal-Fired Boilers.” U.S. Department of Energy.Federal Technology Alert publication DOE/EE-0288.

EIA (2008). "Annual Electric Generator Report." Energy InformationAdministration, Form EIA-860. Schedule 3, Part B. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/ cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1_9.pdf> August 1st 2008.

Global Warming (2008). “The Chicago Climate Exchange.” http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/Chicago-Climate-Exchange.html, visited (7/5/2008)

Hartman, A., Atkinson, W., Bryant, B., Woodfin, R. (1975). “Conversion factors forthe Pacific northwest forest industry.” Institute of Forest Products, College of ForestResources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Launder, K. (2002). “Energy Crops and Their Potential Development in Michigan.”Michigan Biomass Energy Program(MBEP). Lansing, Michigan

Laursen, K., Grace, J.R. (2002). “Some implications of co-combustion of biomassand coal in a fluidized bed boiler.” Fuel Processing Technology 76 (2002) 77– 89.

C2P2ai

27

Maker, T.M., (2004). “Wood-chip heating systems.” A Guide for Institutional andCommercial Biomass Installations. Montpelier, Vermont.

McCord, T.G., Frederick, J.P., and Farmayan, W.F. (2001). “The Encoal project:Status of the plant and product testing.” Encoal Corp, Houston, Texas.

Negaran, S., Plate, R., Brinkman, R., and Monroe, M.C., (2007) “Wood to energy.”Power to the People. University of Florida, IFAS Extension, Florida.

NIACS (2008). “The Chicago Climate Exchange.” NIACS Briefing, May 21, 2008,http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/niacs/local-resources/docs/Briefing2_CCX.pdf, (visited7/27/2008)

Ragland, K.W., Ostlie, L. D., and Berg, D. A. (2000). WTE TM, Biomass PowerPlant in Central Wisconsin.

Rector, L. (2006). “Emissions from burning wood fuels derived from constructionand demolition Debris.” NESCAUM, Boston, MA.

Reeb, J. E., (1997). “Drying wood.” University of Kentucky Cooperative ExtensionService, Lexington, Kentucky.

J. R. Shelly, J.R. (2007). “Woody biomass definitions and conversion factors”http://groups.ucanr.org/WoodyBiomass/documents/InfoGuides12929.pdf August 1st2008

Segrest, S.A., Rockwood, D.L., Stricker, J.A. and Green, A.E.S. (1998). “Biomassco-firing with coal at Lakeland Utilities.” Southeast Regional Biomass EnergyProgram, Muscle Shoals, AL. page 28

Simpkins, D., Allard, N., Patrick, J. (2006). “Clean Energy from Wood Residues inMichigan.” Michigan Biomass Energy Program, Lansing, MI.

Wiltsee, G. (1998). “Urban Wood Waste Resource Assessment.” National RenewableEnergy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.

C2P2ai

28

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Project Data Sheet and Owners Project Requirements(Fax back or email or mail, Include attachments as necessary)

Questionnaire Intent:The intent of this questionnaire is to quickly determine the state of and what is alreadyknown about the Biomass Fuels Project. If a question is not applicable, just indicate “notapplicable” (NA). If a question is relevant, but the answer is not yet known, indicate “tobe determined” (TBA). If possible, for answers “to be determined”, please indicate whowill determine it and its time frame.

Please feel very free to add to, subtract from or modify any aspects of the questionnaire.Also the questionnaire can be ongoing, we recognize many items are still in a state ofdevelopment and will be solved and determined as the project progresses. Because theproject is schedule sensitive your initial responses will greatly help the project team toquickly be introduced to and move forward with the project. Your assistance incompleting the form is appreciated.

Date:

Contact name of person completing the form:

Indicate Formal Project Name:

Identify Granting Department:

MSU administrative units directly involved in project:

List MSU administrators and staff directly involved in the project:

Primary Project Contact information:

Contact Name(s)

Contact Address

Telephone Number

Fax Number

C2P2ai

29

Email

Distribution list (List all Individuals that should receive notifications andcommunications in addition to contact names above)

Indicate preferred means of contact (email distribution, committee reports, etc.)

Planning Committee and organizational structure

Committee’s role and responsibilities

Committee’s name

Committee’s structure and organization

Committee duration/service (i.e. ongoing, for this project only, terms of members)

How do you wish to have communications distributed?

Is there a committee email list available?

List other committees that impact the project

Does the committee have a regular meeting time and location? (describe)

Is it anticipated that CCPPAI should attend committee meetings?

Consultants

Have any outside consultants been employed? If yes, please describe their role,responsibility, firm’s name, contact person and contact information.

Can CCPPAI contact them directly or should requests for information be cycledthrough the planning committee or through the primary contact person(s)?

C2P2ai

30

Are there MSU Internal consultants? If yes, please describe their role,responsibility, firm’s name, contact person and contact information.

Can CCPPAI contact them directly or should requests for information be cycledthrough the planning committee or through the primary contact person(s)?

Is it anticipated that CCPPAI should attend meetings with consultants?(explain/describe)

Owner’s Project Requirements

Do you have an approved program outlining project objectives or will that bedeveloped through this process?

What is the approval process for program decisions?

In your own words describe the objectives of the Biomass Storage facility.

In your own words describe the objectives of the Research/Planning study whichCCPPAI will prepare.

Pre Existing information

At what stage in planning of the overall biomass operation is the project? Areany plans, reports, studies, etc. available?

Does an engineering or research report which describes the proposed Power PlantBiomass and/or storage operations exist? Can you supply us with a copy?

C2P2ai

31

Does an environmental assessment or report exist? Can you supply us with acopy?

Are you aware of or have you collected relevant literature, reports, websitesand/or case studies that CCPPAI should examine in preparing for this study?

Please list/describe/furnish copies if available).

Other Power Plants

Have you visited or studied other Bio Mass Power plant and storage operations?

If so which ones?

Relevant observationsSolutions and best practices observed which are applicable to MSUProblems observed which should be avoided at MSUContact information

What types of performance problems are you aware of with other Biomass PowerPlants and storage facilities that could be addressed in this project?

Are there Biomass operations that you suggest CCPPAI visit in preparation forthis study?

MSU Biomass Power Plant Operations

How are Biomass materials to be used as part of the Power Plant operations (i.e.experimentally, on-going, etc?)

At this time CCPPAI is primarily aware of the plan to explore wood as a biomassfuel. Are there plans to use other forms of Biomass? (List/explain).

In what form should the materials be received at the Power Plant? (chips, pellets,bulk material such as logs/branches/leaves etc.)

C2P2ai

32

Please indicate the quantity and flow rate if known of biomass material requiredto be received at the Power Plant by

Quantity by BTUs, volume, or weight

Per day/week/month

Should this site study consider material storage of biomass materials other thanwood?

What processes do you anticipate taking place on the Biomass storage site? (Astarting list is provided below, please feel free to add to it or delete items)

Receipt of bulk materialOff -loading of bulk materialSorting of bulk materialsSeparation and removal of unusable materialReprocessing of bulk materials (such as chipping or pelletizing)DryingLoading for transport to Power PlantOther

What un-useable material (waste) is expected to be generated? Is there a plan orconsideration for sorting, removing hauling, transporting this material? What willhappen to it?

Will staff will be permanently located on the storage facility site?

Will all staff be MSU employees or will services be subcontracted? Are theredepartments or outside firms we should contact for input?

If yes please explain the followingNumber of and roles of permanent on site staff (please list individually)

Facilities required by these staff (offices, toilet rooms/shower/changingrooms, emergency facilities, meeting rooms etc.)

C2P2ai

33

Will any anticipated storage, handling, drying, reprocessing operations etc.require enclosed spaces or covered spaces? If yes please explain.

In what size and form are the biomass materials expected to be received at thestorage facility?

Pre-chipped relatively clean with leaves and foreign debris separatedPre-chipped mixed commingled (leaves and some foreign debris)Bulk mixed materials (logs, branches, chips, logs etc)Logs onlyOther?

If possible please describe the quantity, form and flow rates of in-bound andoutbound material from the storage site.

In-bound-quantity, form and flow rate

Out-bound to the Power Plant-quantity, form and flow rate

Who on the project team can furnish information about inbound flow rate ofquantity, flow and nature of material?

Who on the project team can describe in technical terms and provide informationabout on-site preparation and processing of biomass materials?

What onsite equipment (and size if known) is anticipated to be used on the storagesite and for what operations?

Multi-axel single dump trucksMulti-axel tandem dump trucksCrane (describe-tower, mobile crawler, mobile rubber tired, self loadertruck)LoadersEarthmover style or blade

Do you already own this equipment? If yes is information available?

Do you anticipate On-site parking requirements? If possible list/describe needs.

StaffEquipmentHolding/waitingLoadingOff loading

C2P2ai

34

Other

Has there been any planning, discussion or consideration to safety orcontamination issues with the storage facility? Do any documents exists whichaddress the following;

Do you know of any environmental concerns potentially associated withthe storage, processing or handling of biomass fuels?

Ground water contamination from storage of biomass fuel material? (forexample in Cipri v Bellingham Foods, storage of large concentrations ofcorn husks were found to contaminate groundwater and considered to be abiohazard.)

Fire safety

Other emergency or risk conditions?

Are there MSU safety or biohazard offices involved with furnishing safety orhazard Information? If yes, please indicate these offices. Will project plans bereviewed by these offices?

Site selection and conditions

CCPPAI understands that there is no specific site that has been selected, and theproject design will help to determine criteria for selecting the site. However it willbe helpful to obtain any initial thoughts on site characteristics limitations.

Can you suggest or describe the sizes and types of sites that might be available?(i.e. MSU land South of Mt Hope.

Do you anticipate the project to be limited by site size or should the project teamassume unlimited space is available and focus on the ideal operation?

To what extent should future site flexibility, expansion or the ability to handleother biomass fuels be considered?

How will materials be transported to the Power Plant?Do you have a limitation of the storage site from the power plant?

C2P2ai

35

Are there other site characteristics or site parameters or objectives that areimportant?

Other relevant concerns or Information

Please identify or add any other information that will help the project team.

Please identify any concerns or cautions that you may have.

C2P2ai

36

Appendix B: Wood Handling Operations Alternative Scenarios.

Option 1: Combination of Contracted Source and Community Waste Source

Option 2: Contracted Source + Community Waste Source (No regrinding, drying or metalremoval of contracted wood and no drying of community wood)

C2P2ai

37

Option 3: Contracted Source Only Option 4: Community waste source only

Option 5: Contracted Source Only(Delivered directly to power plant ofbiofuels facility)

Option 6: Community Waste Source only.(Delivered directly from third partyprocessor)

C2P2ai

38

Option 7: Contracted Source + Community Waste Source(No Regrinding, Drying or metal removal of wood from both sources)

Option 8: Contracted Source + Community Waste Source. (MSU facility provides fuelbased on availability while the contracted source is co-managed by MSU)

C2P2ai

39

Appendix C: Calculations for Wood Requirements and Staging AreaFootprint

1. Green wood chips (GWC) tonnage target requirement assumptions are therefore:

For 5% biomass substitute of coal with wood are

(12,000 btu/4,000 btu) x 15 ton coal substitute = 45 tons of GWC/day

For 15% biomass substitute with wood

(12,000 btu/4,000 btu) x 45 ton coal substitute = 135 tons of GWC/day

*this is equivalent to Central Michigan University Power Plant operation at 100 tons perday.

Processed Green Wood Chip (GWC) volume requirement assumptions:

2. One cubic yard of green wood chips (GWC) is assumed to weigh 500 lbs. Therefore2,000 lbs/500 lbs = 4 yd3 of GWC/ton

3. Therefore required green wood chips (GWC) in yd3 per day is as follows:

For 5% biomass substitute of coal with wood:

45 tons GWC/day x 4 yd3/ton = 180 yd3 GWC/day

For 15% biomass substitute with wood:

135 tons of GWC/day x 4 yd3/ton = 540 yd3 GWC/day

Figure C-1: 260yd3 pile (Hardwood) at Hammond Farms estimated using the ConeMethod

C2P2ai

40

Using the Cone method to estimate the pile in the figure above, calculations were made toarrive at the size of heaps to be stored at the storage area. The two methods ofestimating the pile volume-squaring and cone- are shown below in Figure C-2.

Figure C-2: Different estimation methods for Wood Chip Piles

Unsorted Unprocessed Urban Wood Waste (UUUWW) volume requirement assumptions:

4. One cubic yard of unsorted unprocessed urban wood waste (UUUWW) is assumed toyield .5 yd3 of green wood chips (GWC)

5. Therefore required unsorted unprocessed urban wood waste (UUUWW) in yd3 perday is as follows:

For 5% biomass substitute of coal with wood:

180 yd3/day GWC/.5 = 360 yd3/day UUUWW

For 15% biomass substitute with wood:

540 yd3/day GWC/.5 = 1,080 yd3/day UUUWW

6. For visualization purposes UUUWW has been converted to pickup loads as follows:

Mini pickup truck (Chevrolet S-10 or Ford Ranger) = 1.5 yd3 UUUWW Full size pickup truck = 3 yd3 UUUWW

Height = 15 ft

L1 = 46 ft

L2 = 39 ft

Calculation:

Squaring method39’x46’x5’ / 27 = 325 cu.yards

Cone method [(h/3) r^2]21.5’x21.5’x(15/3)x3.14/27= 268 cu.yards

C2P2ai

41

Therefore the required number of daily pickup loads of UUUWW is as follows:

For 5% biomass substitute of coal with wood:

For mini pickup trucks is: 360 yd3/day UUUWW/1.5 yd3 per load = 240 dailyloads

For full size pickup trucks is: 360 yd3/day UUUWW/3 yd3 per load = 120 dailyloads

For 15% biomass substitute of coal with wood:

For mini pickup trucks is: 1,080 yd3/day UUUWW/1.5 yd3 per load = 720 dailyloads

For full size pickup trucks is: 1,080 yd3/day UUUWW/3 yd3 per load = 360 dailyloads

Figure C-3: Campus Wood waste Visualization

Estimated 6 month MSU Landscape services accumulationDefined by irregular pile contained in 110’ x 78’ x 15’ high pileEstimated raw volume is 4,528-6,000 yd3

Chipped volume estimated to be 2,250-3,000 yd3

Chipped weight is estimated as 563-750 tonsMay represent 12-16 day supply (at 5% coal substitute with wood) or 4-6 day

supply at (15% coal substitute with wood)

7. Total Community Drop-off Annual Pickup loads required are:

C2P2ai

42

For 5% biomass substitute of coal with wood:

For mini pickup trucks is: 240 daily loads x 365 = 87,600 loads UUUWWper year

For full size pickup trucks is: 120 daily loads x 365 = 43,800 loadsUUUWW per year

For 15% biomass substitute of coal with wood:

For mini pickup trucks is: 720 daily loads x 365 = 262,800 loadsUUUWW per year

For full size pickup trucks is: 360 daily loads x 365 = 131,400 loadsUUUWW per year

C2P2ai

43

Appendix D: Diagrammatic Representations of Possible Wood HandlingAreas