strategic development of sustainable supply chains for ...€¢project overview •analytical...

WWW.GREENANALYTICS.CA

Strategic Development of Sustainable Supply Chains

for Industrial Biomass Co-firing in Alberta

Presentation at SPARK

November 8, 2017

COPYRIGHT © GREEN ANALYTICS 2017

Project Partners

COPYRIGHT © GREEN ANALYTICS 2017 2

Arterran RenewablesCapital Power

DMIWest Fraser / Blue Ridge

Millar WesternWeyerhaeuser

TolkoAlberta Newsprint

Al-PacCanfor

DataResources

Outline

• Project Overview

• Analytical Approach– Supply and demand scenarios

– Network distances

• Results– Delivered fuel cost comparison

– Optimized network material flows

– GHG emissions and savings

• Conclusion


Business Problem – Greening the Grid


Biomass waste to energy is one component of a long-term sustainable electricity grid

What are the implications of a large-scale biomass to energy option in Alberta?

Pembina Institute 2009

Case Study Site


Project Objectives

• Assesses the availability of biomass feedstock supplies for

a centralized 450 MW power plant.

• Identify the combinations of biomass feedstock supplies

and conversion processes most applicable to the Alberta

context.

• Devise biomass densification strategies by plant size/s

and location/s

• Advance the strategic relationships needed to meet a

large scale biomass co-firing/firing opportunity.


Co-fire/Fire Scenarios

Supply Scenarios

• Transportation Network– Road versus road-rail

combination

• Densification Plants – Number of plants

– Location of plants

• Fuel Types– Raw biomass delivered

directly to power plant

– Dried biomass

– White pellets

– Black pellets

Demand Scenarios

• 30% co-fire

• 60% co-fire

• 100% bio-fuel



Forest residual supply (2 processing plants) Forest residual supply (5 processing plants)


Forest residual supply (12 processing plants) Mill residual supply (12 processing plants)


Road/rail network (processing plants to Genesee) Road network (processing plants to Genesee)

100% Co-fire Scenario: 33.89 M GJLHV

Best all fuels pathway


28% dried chips72% black pellets(energy basis)

Total Annual Biomass Flow Available (Supply)

• Mill residuals:

– 522,300 tonnes db / year

– 9.02 M GJ / year

• Forest harvest residuals

– 1.52 M tonnes db / year

– 30.19 M GJ / year


As of July 2017

Comparison of Delivered Fuel Cost by Scenario

(weighted average cost $/GJ lhv)


bp – black pelletswp – white pelletscp – dried biomass

Ratio of Resource Utilized to Resource Available


Total Fuel Cost Comparison (incl. retrofit)


Variablecost

($/tkm,dm)Bestblackpellets Bestwhitepellets

Bestdried

biomassBestallfuels

$0.0370 30%Co-fire $50,766,110 $63,827,434 $50,560,083 $50,334,370

$0.0266 60%Co-fire $123,222,750 $155,004,448 $129,383,938 $124,634,197

$0.0231 100%Co-fire $228,988,065 $290,012,504 $253,622,758 $232,527,858

RailTransportationCosts

$350M

Per Unit Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions

(g CO2e/MJLHV fuel)


In comparison, coal is assumed to be 106 g CO2e/MJlhv

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

30%

60%

100%

30%

60%

100%

30%

60%

100%

Whitepellets

Blackpellets

Dried

biomass

2.0

2.6

3.6

1.7

2.3

3.0

2.3

3.3

5.0

Silviculture

Harvest+Loading

Forwarding

Roadsidechipping

Storageatprocessingplant

Processingpellets/chips

Storageatpowerplant

Biomasscombustion

Fueltransport

GramsCO2eqperMJ(LHV)fuelcombusted

14.7

24.0

24.6

25.5

17.0

17.5

18.2

12.0

13.1

GHG Emissions and Savings


a) Life cycle GHG emissions from bioenergy b) Life cycle GHG savings due to displacing coal

Bestblack

pellets

Bestwhite

pellets

Bestdried

biomassBestallfuels

30%Co-fire 170,833 242,600 119,711 127,405

60%Co-fire 352,746 496,769 259,836 310,359

100%Co-fire 612,622 860,165 487,010 575,075

Bestblack

pellets

Bestwhite

pellets

Bestdried

biomassBestallfuels

30%Co-fire 907,397 835,629 958,518 950,825

60%Co-fire 1,803,713 1,659,689 1,896,623 1,846,099

100%Co-fire 2,981,475 2,733,933 3,107,088 3,019,023

Key Findings

• Sufficient sustainable biomass resources to co-fire or fire 100% in a centralized 450MW generator.

• Potential emission reductions are 3 MT/yr, relative to coal firing.

• The cost of the biomass fuel options vary.

• Fuel supply mix influences co-firing/firing levels and costs.

• Without policy changes, co-firing/firing is not cost-effective.

• Further analysis of regulatory and market implications are needed.


Next Steps

• Since this study, additional buyers and suppliers

have become available.

• Capital Power or competitor can consume and

control biomass supplies.

• Market mechanisms are needed to establish a

sustainable supply chain.

• This analysis lays the foundation for a sustainable

biomass exchange algorithm.


Thank You


Mike Kennedy, PhD CandidateDirector of Innovation Green Analytics Corp

[email protected]: 1-877-353-6835 ext. 700

mailto:[email protected]

strategic development of sustainable supply chains for ...€¢project overview •analytical...

Documents