Biofuel Production from Western Hemlock Pulpwood Technology Scan prepared for the Revelstoke Community Forest Corporation

Thomas Cheney 5/8/17

P a g e | i

Executive Summary The Revelstoke Community Forest Corporation (RCFC) took the lead on behalf of the local forest tenure

holders looking for alternative markets for its hemlock pulp logs. These logs are currently being sold to

the Celgar Pulp Mill in Castlegar but the demand is intermittent and prices are below the harvesting and

transport cost of the logs. Using pulpwood for biofuel production might offer a higher log sale price.

Background In 2014, the City of Revelstoke launched a Request for Proposals (RFP) for wood to energy solutions.

However none of the proposals offered commercially mature technologies or products that could be easily

sold. Rather than asking for new proposals, RCFC would now like to screen the market and see where the

state of technology is. This report examines the technical and economic characteristics of various biofuel

production systems and assesses their commercial maturity.

Regulatory and economic framework The current public policy environment for biofuels has changed in the past two years, or even six months.

One reason has been an increasing focus on climate change. The federal government has announced

several supportive policies, including a nationwide low-carbon fuel standard and large investments into

clean energy technology in the 2017 budget.

The federal Clean Fuel Standard currently under design will require all fuel sellers in the country to reduce

the GHG intensity of the fuel they sell or pay a penalty. British Columbia already has a low-carbon fuel

standard that will reduce the carbon intensity of vehicle fuels by 10% by 2020. The federal regulation will

include utility gas fuels such as propane and natural gas. This could allow Revelstoke’s forest tenure

holders to turn their underpriced pulpwood into a feedstock for high-value biofuel.

Biofuel types I reviewed a range of biofuels and a number of technologies. Dimethylether (DME) appears to be a good

choice because it can be used as both a vehicle fuel and propane substitute, and because there are high-

priced markets for DME, which is used as a solvent in the oil sands in Alberta.

Other biofuels worth considering are:

• Fuel created through the Fischer-Tropsch process: a mix of methane gas, light fuel, such as

gasoline, and heavy fuels, such as diesel. It can be produced locally and used in existing vehicles

without any conversion.

• Wood-to-methane technology – also referred to as Renewable Natural Gas. This is the simplest

conversion process and could make Revelstoke’s underground propane distribution network

100% renewable. Capital costs would be significantly lower than biomass-fuelled district heating,

especially in low-density residential areas.

• Proton Power Renewable Diesel technology. This technology is being proposed in Labrador. A

technology assessment will be available once this initial plant is operating.

Technology suppliers Based on conversations with, and reviews of several technology suppliers, European technology suppliers

appear to be technically more mature than their North American competitors. This may be due to

supportive government policies and high fuel costs in Europe. Rather than recommending a single

P a g e | ii

technology supplier I suggest narrowing down technologies by the size appropriate for the feedstock

available, local fuel requirements and other constraints in Revelstoke.

Fibre availability Forest tenure holders, including RCFC, harvest approximately 40,000 bone-dry tonnes (BDt) of hemlock a

year. Some of it is left on the forest floor as the cost of transport exceeds the price paid by pulp mills.

Pulpwood available would be enough to replace all of the community’s diesel consumption or its entire

propane use.

This study focuses on hemlock pulpwood as a feedstock. Other fibre sources available in the Revelstoke

area may either compete with pulpwood or augment it. Downie Timber has an additional 30,000 BDt in

hog fuel that may be available at a lower price than pulpwood. In either case, feedstock redundancy is

important as some financing institutions require a project to demonstrate access to twice the amount

needed.

Fuel compatibility Fuels that can be used in an existing gasoline or diesel car without modification are called ‘drop-in’ fuels.

Examples are Fischer-Tropsch diesel and Proton Power’s renewable diesel. These meet ASTM standards

for diesel fuel and can even be used straight, rather than as a blend.

Most other biofuels, including DME cannot be burned directly or by blending with conventional fuels like

ethanol with gasoline or biodiesel with regular diesel. A conversion or some sort of retrofit of the

downstream burner, engine or vehicle is required. This will result in either a constrained markets or

additional investment needs beyond the biofuel production plant. These downstream costs explain part

of the $25 million that Fortis BC had earmarked for converting Revelstoke’s propane distribution system

to liquefied natural gas.

Current energy use in Revelstoke Biofuel produced in Revelstoke should be used locally. Importing fossil fuel while exporting biofuel would

not make economic sense, unless significantly higher profits can be obtained in non-local markets. Vehicle

fuel is the largest energy consumer in Revelstoke, constituting 43% of all energy used in Revelstoke and

two-thirds of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Any strategy to reduce the community’s carbon footprint

and energy expenditure will have to consider vehicle fuel.

At least half of the $25 million that Revelstoke spends on energy every year leaves the local economy.

Some of this money can be kept in the community by producing fuel or energy locally, creating business

activity and local employment.

Plant size The footprint of a biofuel plant and its potential location in Revelstoke is likely to be a bigger constraint

than feedstock availability or fuel markets. The largest space requirement of any biomass project is usually

for storing the feedstock. A plant located at Downie Timber Ltd or at RCFC’s log sorting yard would make

use of the fact that the wood fibre is already stored there. A plant at Downie would be preferable because

waste heat from the biofuel plant could be fed into RCEC’s district heating system. Property owned by the

City of Revelstoke within Downie’s yard would only allow a small- to medium-sized project, with less than

a one hectare (2.4 acres) footprint.

P a g e | iii

A small-scale plant would use up to 2,000 bone-dry tonnes (BDt) annually. This could be served by hog

fuel from the Downie mill that RCEC has contractual right to. A mid-sized plant would consume up to

15,000 BDt a year, slightly more than the amount of hemlock that RCFC harvests annually.

Technology suppliers for a small-scale plant could be Highbury Energy, in combination with the Korean

Institute of Energy Research (KIER). My research and interaction with both indicates that, from a technical

and managerial point of view, they are not as developed as the Swedish Cortus-WoodRoll or German

Agnion. The latter two offer plants for a medium scale only.

It is unlikely that a full-scale project can be financed at the current stage of commercialization. Instead, a

smaller project will need to be built that is large enough to demonstrate a proof of concept. The purpose

of the plant would primarily be to demonstrate the production and use of biofuel rather than producing

and selling biofuel for a profit. A phased-in approach could be an initial small demonstration plant

followed several years later by a mid-size commercial plant. Further research and discussions with

suppliers would be needed to settle for the best size and technology.

Conclusion Changes in the regulatory environment, such as low carbon fuel standards, are creating a market for

renewable fuels. At the same time, wood-to-fuel technologies are constantly maturing. These factors

could allow Revelstoke’s forest tenure holders to turn its underpriced pulpwood into feedstock for high-

value biofuel. The fact that the City of Revelstoke has a community forest corporation, a district heating

system, a propane distribution system and access to rail and to the Trans-Canada highway make it a prime

location for the bioenergy industry.

At the time of writing this report, there was no technology that was completely commercialized and that

Revelstoke could build on. While this involves risk, it also holds the opportunity to capitalize on

government subsidies to establish a demonstration plant and, eventually, to build a local bio-economy.

Both would be medium- to long-term developments. The economic benefits for Revelstoke could be

sizeable; currently at least $12 million are leaving the local economy every year.

Currently, pulpwood is more expensive than low-priced waste wood, such as bark that Downie has

difficulties getting rid of. RCFC may want to research using pulpwood for higher-value building products,

such as wood-wool cement boards or wood-fibre insulation. This was outside the scope of this study.

This report is only a first technology screening. RCFC may want to acquire funding for a feasibility study

on a small-scale demonstration plant located near RCEC’s district heating plant.

Recommendations In summary, I recommend the following:

1. Focus on DME as a fuel because of its high value-added applications.

2. Start with a small to medium-size plant that can fit next to RCEC’s boiler plant at Downie Timber.

Waste heat from the gasification process could be fed into the district heating system. DME

produced could be used in Downie’s and RCEC’s propane boilers (with modifications).

3. Use low-cost hog-fuel as a feedstock during the early phase. Pulpwood may be used once the

plant is scaled-up.

P a g e | iv

4. Keep the conversation with the Canadian company Highbury Energy open, but focus on

cooperation with European gasification technology suppliers, such as Swedish Cortus or German

Agnion.

5. Start negotiations with companies like GV Energy regarding production and off-take of DME.

6. Disregard Proton Power’s renewable diesel technology – a demonstration plant is currently being

built in Labrador. Obtaining financing for a similar plant will be difficult until the first plant has

been tested and proven.

7. Develop a bioenergy strategy for Revelstoke. An initial demonstration plant would be part of a

five- to ten-year plan. Revelstoke has all the ingredients to position itself as a host for bioenergy

projects.

Next steps The following could be next steps towards a bioenergy plant at Revelstoke:

A. Conduct a feasibility study for a small- to medium-size wood-to-DME plant located next to the

boiler plant at Downie Timber. Funds for this may be available through Columbia Basin Trust or

the provincial or federal governments.

B. Enter into discussions with technology suppliers, the National Research Council (NRC),

universities, First Nations groups, Fortis BC, and funding agencies. Particular focus should be given

to federal funding made available in the 2017 budget.

P a g e | 1

Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ i

Acronyms and chemical formulas ................................................................................................................. 3

Glossary ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 5

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Scope and objectives .......................................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Regulatory and economic framework ................................................................................................ 6

2.0 Biomass feedstock .................................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Fibre availability .................................................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Feedstock prices ................................................................................................................................. 8

2.3 Fibre ownership .................................................................................................................................. 8

3.0 Revelstoke’s energy use .......................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Energy carriers .................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Vehicle fuel ......................................................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Energy expenditure .......................................................................................................................... 10

4.0 Biofuel Review ...................................................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Biofuels considered .......................................................................................................................... 11

4.1.1 Dimethyl Ether (DME) ............................................................................................................... 11

4.1.2 Fischer-Tropsch fuel (FT–fuel) ................................................................................................... 12

4.1.3 Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) .................................................................................................. 12

4.1.4 Proton Power Renewable Diesel ............................................................................................... 13

4.2 Plant size and conversion efficiency ................................................................................................. 13

4.3 Fuel compatibility with existing infrastructure and technologies .................................................... 14

4.3.1 Vehicle fuels .............................................................................................................................. 14

4.3.2 Utility Gas .................................................................................................................................. 16

4.4 Biofuel markets ................................................................................................................................. 17

4.4.1 Conventional fuel prices ............................................................................................................ 17

4.4.2 Clean Fuel Standard credit prices .............................................................................................. 17

4.4.3 DME as a solvent ....................................................................................................................... 17

4.5 Biofuel assessment ........................................................................................................................... 18

P a g e | 2

5. Technology review .................................................................................................................................. 19

5.1 Brief technology description............................................................................................................. 19

5.3 Technology suppliers ........................................................................................................................ 21

5.4 Technology scale ............................................................................................................................... 22

5.5 Feedstock requirements and sources ............................................................................................... 23

5.5.1 Small-scale technologies ........................................................................................................... 23

5.5.2 Medium-scale technologies ...................................................................................................... 23

5.5.3 Large-scale technologies ........................................................................................................... 24

5.6 Technology assessment .................................................................................................................... 25

5.6.1 Upstream gasification technology............................................................................................. 25

5.6.2 Downstream synthesis technology ........................................................................................... 26

6.0 Conclusion and recommendations ....................................................................................................... 27

Next steps ............................................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix A: Description of gasification and pyrolysis systems .................................................................. A1

Appendix B: Description of Fuel Types ....................................................................................................... A5

Appendix C: Development considerations .................................................................................................. A7

Appendix D: Policy context ......................................................................................................................... A8

P a g e | 3

Acronyms and chemical formulas

• AAC Annual Allowable Cut

• ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

• BDt/d Bone Dry Tonnes / Day

• BDt/Yr. Bone Dry Tonnes / Year

• CFB Circulating Fluidised Bed

• CFS Clean Fuel Standard

• CNG Compressed Natural Gas

• CH3OH Methanol

• CH4 Methane

• CNG Compressed Natural Gas

• CO Carbon Monoxide

• CO2 Carbon dioxide

• DME DiMethyl Ether

• FICFB Fast Internally Circulating Fluidised Bed

• FT Fischer-Tropsch

• GHG Greenhouse Gas

• GJ Gigajoule

• LNG Liquefied National Gas

• LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas

• m3 Cubic Metre

• psi Pounds per square inch

• RCEC Revelstoke Community Energy Corporation

• RCFC Revelstoke Community Forest Corporation

• RFP Request for Proposals

• RfEoI Request for Expressions of Interest

• RNG Renewable Natural Gas

• SNG Synthetic Natural Gas

P a g e | 4

Glossary

Biodiesel A methyl-ester used as a diesel substitute. It is created from vegetable oil and converted into a fuel by adding methanol. Biodiesel has a higher proportion of oxygen compared to renewable and conventional diesel.

B-train A semi-trailer truck employing two trailers

Catalyst A chemical used to accelerate or improve chemical reactions. A catalyst may have to be replaced but is not converted itself in the chemical reaction. Catalysts are commonly used in biofuel synthesis such as for RNG, DME and F-T Diesel

Clean Fuel Standard

Legislation that requires that fuel sold in Canada does not exceed a set carbon intensity.

Direct gasification

A gasification process which produces the required process heat by oxidizing some of the feedstock within the gasifer reactor itself

Drop-in fuel

A fuel that can be used straight in existing vehicles without modification or blending.

Fischer-Tropsch diesel

A substitute diesel fuel made by reacting carbon monoxide and hydrogen with a catalyst to create a liquid hydrocarbon similar to conventional diesel.

Indirect gasification

A gasification process which produces the required process heat outside the gasifier reactor, usually in a separate combustion chamber

Liquified Natural Gas

A mixture of methane and simple hydrocarbons which is cryogenically cooled to below -163°C

Renewable Diesel

A synthetic hydrocarbon created from a renewable feedstock such as wood

Tail gas A by-product gas from Fischer-Tropsch fuel production consisting of CO2, H2O, methane and other light hydrocarbons.

P a g e | 5

1.0 Introduction The Revelstoke Community Forest Corporation (RCFC), Downie, Stella Jones and Louisiana Pacific are

forest tenure holders in the Revelstoke area. They have all been challenged with low-margin or

unprofitable hemlock timber in their respective forest tenures. These companies have been looking for

alternative markets for this fibre. In March 2017 RCFC contracted Thomas Cheney to investigate

opportunities using hemlock pulpwood as a feedstock for renewable biofuels production.

1.1 Background Hemlock, due to a high degree of rot is difficult to process into dimension lumber. Instead, it has been

used as a feedstock for pulp mills. The closest pulp mills to Revelstoke are located in Castlegar or

Kamloops. RCFC sells hemlock timber to these pulp mills at below the cost of harvesting and transport.

Other tenure holders leave hemlock on the forest floor and pay corresponding penalties to the Ministry

of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Currently, RCFC trucks the pulp logs to Shelter Bay where they are then hauled by tugboat to the Celgar

Pulp Mill at Castlegar. Recently, the Celgar pulp mill has not been purchasing pulpwood, creating

operational difficulties for local forestry operators who must store it or otherwise dispose of it.

In 2014, the City of Revelstoke launched a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a bioenergy solution for its

wood-waste issues. The RFP did not result in proposals that offered commercially mature technologies.

This time, rather than asking for proposals, RCFC and the other tenure holders would like to screen the

market and see what the state of technology is.

Some proposals in 2014 included production of products like activated coal that has to be shipped long

distances to markets or are difficult to market. The current study looks at production of fuels that can be

sold and used locally. Currently, $12 million dollars leave the Revelstoke economy for imported fossil fuels

every year. There would be a win-win situation if some of these fuels can be replaced by locally-made

biofuel. Fuel dollars would remain in the community instead of leaving the local economy. More

importantly, a biofuel plant would enhance the economic performance of the forest sector, a significant

employer in Revelstoke.

1.2 Scope and objectives The objectives of the study are two-fold:

1. Identify the biofuel types best suited for local use in Revelstoke;

2. Identify the most promising technologies for converting wood into biofuels.

The study conducted the following tasks:

• Analysed what biofuels could be used in Revelstoke;

• Assessed the compatibility of wood-based biofuels with existing infrastructure and commercially

available vehicles;

• Provided a brief description of the requirements for converting Revelstoke’s propane distribution

system to renewable gas;

• Conducted a technology scan to determine what technologies are currently available for local fuel

production using up to 40,000 bone dry tonnes of feedstock per year;

P a g e | 6

• Provided recommendations and next steps.

This study is only an overview of the current state of wood-to-fuel technology. It does not include an

engineering-level analysis, detailed economic calculations, a business plan or applications for funds. These

would be activities to be considered if a biomass-to-fuel project were to move forward.

1.3 Regulatory and economic framework The current public policy environment for biofuels is starkly different than the conditions experienced two

years or even six months ago. One reason has been an increasing focus on climate change on the federal

level. The federal government has announced several supportive policies, including a nationwide low-

carbon fuel standard (the Clean Fuel Standard) and large investments into clean energy technology in the

2017 budget.

The federal Clean Fuel Standard will require all fuel sellers in the country to reduce the GHG intensity of

the fuel they sell or pay a penalty. British Columbia already has a low-carbon fuel standard that will reduce

the carbon intensity of vehicle fuels by 10% by 2020.1 The federal regulation will also include utility gas

fuels such as propane and natural gas.2 The development of a carbon-intensity standard for all fuels, not

only transportation fuels, will create a market for biofuels and clean-fuel credits throughout the country.

On the supplier side, the Canadian Gas Association has set an aspirational target of 5% of renewable

natural gas by 2025 and 10% of renewable natural gas by 20303. It is unlikely that these targets can be

met from agricultural feedstocks only. Biomass from forestry will play a role in achieving these self-

imposed targets.

The federal government has also announced hundreds of millions of dollars to help study and

commercialize various renewable energy technologies, including biofuels.4 The early commercial status of

many woody biomass to fuel technologies suggests that government subsidies could be acquired for a

demonstration plant. More information on the policy environment can be found in Appendix D.

2.0 Biomass feedstock

2.1 Fibre availability This study focuses on hemlock pulpwood as a feedstock. Other fibres are available in the Revelstoke area

that may either compete with pulpwood or augment it. The energy contained in the pulpwood alone is

1 Government of BC, “Renewable & Low Carbon Fuel Requirements Regulation,“ accessed April 25th,

2017 from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/electricity-alternative-energy/transportation-

energies/renewable-low-carbon-fuels 2 Paul Cheliak, VP Government Relations, Canadian Gas Association, phone call January 11th, 2017. 3 Canadian Gas Association, May 2016, “Renewable Natural Gas: Affordable Renewable Fuel for

Canada,” accessed April 28th, 2017 from: http://www.cga.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/RNG-

publication-FINAL-April-2016-EN.pdf 4 Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, March 2017, “Backgrounder: Budget 2017

Measures to Support Clean Technology,” accessed April 28th, 2017 from:

https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-

economicdevelopment/news/2017/04/budget_2017_measurestosupportclean technology.html

P a g e | 7

more than three times the entire propane consumption of Revelstoke.5 Even at a conversion efficiency of

less than 30%, the amount of pulpwood available would produce sufficient gas to replace Revelstoke’s

entire propane use. Table 1 summarizes potential wood fibre sources, though it is not a complete

inventory and some sources may or may not be available for a bioenergy project. Slash from log landings

is not accounted for as there is no detailed inventory of this resource.

TABLE 1: WOODY BIOMASS FEEDSTOCK AVAILABLE IN REVELSTOKE

Feedstock Amount, in Bone Dry

Tonnes (BDt)

Current acquisition cost in Revelstoke

Comments

RCFC pulpwood 14,000 $100/BDt Currently sold to Celgar but biofuels may make an interesting an alternative market.6 The price is based on a fuel cost of $40/m³.

Other pulpwood 26,000 $100/BDt Hemlock pulpwood from other tenure holders in the area.

RCEC surplus (Downie hog fuel)

6,000 n/a RCEC has a contractual right to access 10,000 BDt/yr. Currently, less than 4,000 BDt of this is used by RCEC’s district heating plant; a surplus of approximately 6,000 BDt/yr. is still available until 2024.

Downie hog fuel 30,000 n/a, < $25/BDt

Hog fuel that is not currently being used and is stored in piles at Downie wood yard and at a mill in Malakwa. The fuel is contractually tied up, but contracts are not always being honoured.7

Black wood 10,000 n/a, likely free

Blackwood is used as a base to keep sawlogs clean out of the dirt and mud of the log yard. The resulting blackwood has significant amounts of dirt and gravel but can be used in some biofuel production.8

Slash piles N/A n/a, likely >$50/BDt

No information was given but each ~100,000 m3 of annual allowable cut (AAC) would provide roughly 6,000 BDt of fuel.

5 40,000 BDt of hemlock have an energy content of 736,000 GJ. Revelstoke’s annual propane

consumption is 218,000 GJ, according to Fortis BC‘s filing with BCUC, "2015 - Quarter 2 Cost Report,“ see

http://www.fortisbc.com/About/RegulatoryAffairs/GasUtility/NatGasBCUCSubmissions/Documents/150

603_FEI-Revelstoke_2015_Q2_Gas_Cost_Report_FF.pdf 6 Mike Copperwaite, Manager, Revelstoke Community Forest Corporation, March 13th, 2017 in-person

meeting. 7 Cornelius Suchy, Canadian Biomass Energy Research, January 29, 2017, phone call. 8 Cornelius Suchy, Canadian Biomass Energy Research, February 9, 2017, phone call and e-mail.

P a g e | 8

2.2 Feedstock prices Apart from the resource’s availability, its cost needs to be taken into consideration: pulpwood is available

at a cost of $100 per bone dry tonne (BDt) and hog fuel should be available at around $25 per BDt. Getting

wood from slash piles and sawdust from mills is typically around $50 per BDt, but might be more in the

mountainous terrain of Revelstoke tenures.9 The lower feedstock cost, the better the business case.

2.3 Fibre ownership Apart from the price, the ownership of the feedstock matters when it comes to securing financing. A

feedstock supply agreement with a public company, like city-owned RCFC is more likely to be accepted by

banks than with private entities. Also, RCFC may be in a position, or may be willing, to sign a longer-term

feedstock supply agreement than a private entity. Even though pulp logs more expensive, the fact that

RCFC can guarantee long-term supply may make this feedstock more attractive than lower-cost hog fuel.

Some financing institutions require redundancy in feedstock resource. A project designed for using 40,000

BDt of feedstock a year might have to demonstrate access to twice of this amount. A pricier feedstock,

such as pulpwood, may be used as a backup resource.10

3.0 Revelstoke’s energy use Biofuel produced in Revelstoke should be used locally. Importing fossil fuel while exporting biofuel would

not make economic sense, unless significant higher profits can be obtained in non-local markets. This

chapter surveys the current use of energy in Revelstoke and relates it to biomass resources laid down in

the previous chapter.

3.1 Energy carriers Gasoline is the dominant energy carrier in the community, providing 30% of energy. Electricity is second

at 28%, followed by propane at 18%. Diesel plays a moderate role, contributing 13% to the total energy

demand. Wood is estimated to contribute 10% of the Revelstoke’s energy. The Revelstoke Community

Energy Corporation provides roughly 3% of the community’s energy needs, mainly from biomass.

Traditional wood stoves and pellets provide the remaining 7% of energy use.11 Heating oil is only scarcely

used.

This energy portfolio is typical for resource-based communities in Interior BC. Where Revelstoke is unique

is in its local propane distribution grid. The Revelstoke propane system is Fortis’s BC last one after Whistler

was connected to the natural gas grid before the 2010 Olympics. Extending the natural gas pipe from

Canoe about 100 km to Revelstoke is not economically viable at the current scale of gas consumption.

9 Paul Watkinson, CTO, Highbury Energy, April 17th 2017, “Converting biomass into higher value products”,

slide 4. 10 Cornelius Suchy, Canadian Biomass Energy Research, April 20th 2017, personal communication. 11 City of Revelstoke, “Community Energy and Emissions Plan 2011,“ accessed on April 24th 2017 at

http://revelstoke.ca/DocumentCenter/View/2625

P a g e | 9

FIGURE 1: ENERGY USE AND ENERGY-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS IN REVELSTOKE BY FUEL TYPE

Propane is supplied by Fortis BC and serves more than 1,200 residential accounts and 250 commercial

clients. Revelstoke is the only community that Fortis BC supplies with propane. The utility is eager to get

rid of propane and streamline its gas business to sell only natural gas as an energy carrier. A proposal to

switch the propane system to Liquefied Natural Gas at a cost of $25 million12 to the ratepayer was shelved

in 2016 when propane prices plummeted.

3.2 Vehicle fuel Vehicle fuel is the single largest source of energy used in Revelstoke, constituting 43% of all energy used

and two-thirds of the resulting Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Any strategy to reduce the community’s

carbon footprint will have to take vehicle fuel into consideration

Roughly two-thirds of vehicle fuel is used in gas-powered passenger vehicles and one-third is used by

commercial vehicles .13 The latter is mainly due to Revelstoke having a resource-based economy with large

forest operations. Diesel, being the fuel of choice in many commercial vehicles, plays a more important

role than in more urban centres. Again, this can be largely attributed to the use of heavy machinery in

forestry-related activities. In the winter, snow removal requires a considerable amount of diesel.14

TABLE 2: REVELSTOKE VEHICLE FUEL USE AND RELATED GHG EMISSIONS15.

12 Joe English, Fortis BC, March 1st 2016, “Revelstoke NG Conversion, Presentation to BCSEA,“ , slide 11. 13 BC Government, “City of Revelstoke, Community Energy and Emissions Inventory.” 14 Cornelius Suchy, Canadian Biomass Energy Research, April 20th 2017, e-mail. 15 Numbers exclude non-local transport use such as tourism and intercity trucks not based in Revelstoke.

Diesel13%

Gasoline30%

Heating Oil1%

Propane18%

Electricity28%

Wood7%

Other0%

District heat3%

Energy: 1,200,000 GJ per year

20%

45%2%

25%

4%

3% 0%1%

GHG Emissions: 51,000 t/yr.

P a g e | 10

Use Energy use (GJ)

Energy use Percentage (%)

GHG Emission (tCo2e)

GHG Emission

(%)

Diesel passenger vehicles 15,000 3% 1031 3%

Gasoline passenger vehicles 322,000 64% 20802 63%

Diesel commercial vehicles 132,000 26% 9016 27%

Gasoline commercial vehicles 36,000 7% 2307 7%

Other 1,100 0.2% 66 0.2%

TOTAL automotive fuel 506,100 100% 33,222 100%

3.3 Energy expenditure On a GJ basis, Revelstoke uses twice as much energy in vehicles as for heating homes. Due to the

difference in price and associated taxes, vehicle fuels contribute disproportionately to the overall energy

spending in the community.

FIGURE 2: REVELSTOKE COMMUNITY ENERGY SPENDING AND EXPORTED ENERGY DOLLARS BY FUEL TYPE

A significant amount of energy money – roughly $12 million or $1,600 per resident – leaves Revelstoke

every year (see the table below). Some of this money can be kept in the economy by producing fuel or

energy locally. These estimates are based on the provincial government’s Community Energy and

Emissions Inventory data and fuel-cost estimates.

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

Diesel Gasoline Heating Oil Propane Electricity Wood Other Total

An

nu

al e

ner

gy s

pen

din

g, in

miil

ion

C$

per

ye

ar

$25 Million Annually In Local Energy Spending

Energy dollars staying

Energy dollars leaving

unknown what share

stays in Revelstoke

P a g e | 11

4.0 Biofuel Review A wide range of biofuels can be produced from wood. I focussed on fuels that can be produced at a small-

to- medium scale, that are compatible with existing equipment and that can be sold locally.

I disregarded the following fuels for a variety of reasons:

• Methanol for gasoline is not considered because it has not been accepted in North America in

past decades. Reasons might be that refiners resist mixing methanol with gasoline because of

methanol’s vapour pressure. Even progressive vehicle manufacturers, such as Volvo Group have

made it clear they will not adapt their engines to run on methanol.16 This may be partly due to the

corrosive nature of methanol.

• Biomethanol has only small markets, such as biodiesel production. Ditto for pyrolysis oil.

• Pyrolysis oil is an oil-water suspension that is corrosive and not easily burned in non-stationary

combustion engines.17

• Fuels such as ethanol are not considered as there are competing and well-established suppliers

from the agricultural sector. No small-scale wood-to-ethanol technologies were identified.

• Solid fuels, such as charcoal or activated carbon, have literally no market in Revelstoke.

• Some fuels, such as biocrude, require hydro-treatment in commercial refineries before being

usable. They could not be sold locally without refining.18

Biofuels shortlisted for a more detailed assessment are:

• Dimethyl Ether (DME)

• Fischer-Tropsch diesel

• Renewable Natural Gas

• Proton Power renewable diesel

These fuels are explained in more detail below and in Appendix C.

4.1 Biofuels considered 4.1.1 Dimethyl Ether (DME) Dimethyl Ether, also known as methoxymethane, is produced from methanol. Currently, methanol, a race

car fuel, is mainly synthetized from methane contained in natural gas. Methanol can also be produced

from gasifying wood, making it a renewable fuel.19

16 Eric Switzer, GV Energy, April 25th 2017 in an e-mail 17 Pyrolysis oil is not used frequently in moving equipment engines 18 Dr Jack Saddler, UBC, February 27th 2017 in an e-mail 19 George Olah, “Beyond Oil and Gas: the Methanol Economy.”

P a g e | 12

DME is used as a substitute for propane, but can also be used as a replacement for diesel. DME is not a

drop-in fuel, though. It cannot be mixed with propane (beyond 20%) or diesel. Vehicles will need to be

retrofitted to use DME as a fuel.20

DME is also starting to see increased use as a solvent in the oil-sand industry where it fetches two to three

times the price compared to its fuel price.21

4.1.2 Fischer-Tropsch fuel (FT –fuel) Fischer-Tropsch is a coal-to-liquid process that was developed in Nazi Germany when imported liquid fuel

became scarce. Today the coal-to-liquids process is still used in chemical factories in South Africa and in

China.22 The process has seen a renaissance by replacing fossil coal with biomass as a feedstock. The large-

scale plant of Choren with Daimler, Shell and Volkswagen as minority shareholders, started producing

renewable diesel in 2009 and declared insolvency in 2011.23 Since then, technical improvements have

allowed the process to be downscaled from an industrial scale to a level applicable for Revelstoke.24

FT-fuels are a mix of light, gasoline-like fuels and heavier fuels, more akin to diesel. Fischer-Tropsch fuels

need to be processed mildly before being used as in vehicles. This could be done in Revelstoke.

4.1.3 Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Renewable Natural Gas is methane (CH4) produced from a renewable resource, such as biomass. The term

Renewable Natural Gas has been coined to indicate that it is a substitute for conventional natural gas.

RNG needs to be rather pure to be injected into the natural gas grid. This has been done successfully using

anaerobic digestion of agricultural waste. Fortis BC purchases RNG from a plant in Abbotsford.25

What is new and has not yet been demonstrated in North America is using wood as a feedstock and

gasification as a process to obtain methane. Commercial and demonstration plants exist in Austria, the

Netherlands and Sweden. As for most other gasification technologies, the key lies in cleaning up the

syngas generated and obtaining a high fraction of methane rather than other unwanted gases.

RNG can also be used in stationary engines, such as gas turbines and gas boilers. In Revelstoke, it could

replace propane in the existing underground distribution grid.

20 Gas Technology Institute. “Expert Analysis of the Concept of Synthetic and/or Bio-LPG.” Washington,

DC: Propane Institute, 2010. Accessed April 28th 2017 at

http://www.propanecouncil.org/uploadedfiles/council/research_and_development/fs_15866_biopropa

ne_web.pdf 21 Christopher Kidder, International DME Association, February 7th, 2017, phone call. 22 Harvey, Leslie D. “Energy and the new reality.” Washington, DC: Earthscan, 2010. 23 Rapier, Robert. “What Happened at Choren?” Energy Trends Report., 2011. Accessed April 28th 2017 at http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2011/07/08/what-happened-at-choren/ 24 Providers of Fischer-Tropsch technologies include Velocys (www.velocys.com), Highbury Energy

(www.highburybiofuels.com), and Ineratec (ineratec.de). 25 Fortis BC “Renewable Natural Gas Suppliers” Accessed April 28th 2017 at

https://www.fortisbc.com/NaturalGas/RenewableNaturalGas/OurSppliers/Pages/default.aspx

P a g e | 13

4.1.4 Proton Power Renewable Diesel The Proton Power Renewable Diesel process is a proprietary biomass-to-tank-ready renewable diesel

technology. Proton power claims that its renewable diesel meets ASTM standards, can be blended with

conventional diesel or used straight and is considered a drop-in fuel. So far there are no experiences with

this fuel in commercial application.26

A plant is being developed in Botwood, Newfoundland and Labrador. The process will produce #2 Diesel

fuel and small amounts of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)27.

A detailed description of these fuel production technologies can be found in Appendix A.

4.2 Plant size and conversion efficiency Converting biomass into a fuel requires energy, mainly thermal energy. Usually a part of the feedstock or

some of the process by-products are used to provide this energy. Secondly, some of the fuel produced is

inappropriate for the specific applications (e.g. bunker grade rather than diesel grade).

Turning 40,000 BDt of woody feedstock into renewable natural gas would allow more than twice the

amount of utility gas, that is currently supplied to Revelstoke as propane by Fortis BC, to be generated.

The Fischer-Tropsch process, on the other hand, has lower conversion efficiency for diesel alone. The

residual tail gas, however, allows methane to be co-produced, enhancing overall efficiency. A FT-plant

using 40,000 BDt of feedstock would still be able to produce more diesel than is used in Revelstoke.

Converting the same amount of feedstock into DME would yield more fuel (on a GJ basis) than the Fischer-

Tropsch process, but less than a technology that produces RNG. DME, however, fetches much higher

prices as a solvent than as a replacement for propane or diesel. A strategy could be to sell surplus DME as

a solvent and thereby improve the financial profitability of the system.

In summary: A plant designed for 40,000 BDt would be able to replace all the propane or all the diesel

used in Revelstoke. There would be surplus fuel that could be sold to through traffic, used for power

generation or exported to outside markets.

26 Kelly Burnham, Proton Power, in an e-mail on March 15th 2017 27 CBC Newfoundland and Labrador “Botwood Biofuel Plant One Step Closer to Green Light,” accessed

April 28th 2017 at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/botwood-biofuel-plant-

timber-rights-1.3948864

P a g e | 14

FIGURE 2: PROPANE AND DIESEL USE VS BIOFUEL PRODUCTION POTENTIAL FROM 40,000 TONNES OF WOOD

4.3 Fuel compatibility with existing infrastructure and technologies Most biofuels are not ‘drop-in’ fuels that can be burned directly or by blending with conventional fuels

like fossil gasoline or diesel. Fuels that can be used in an existing gasoline or diesel car without

modification are called drop-in fuels. Examples of drop-in fuels include biodiesel and ethanol. Even those

are usually limited to a specific portion of the fuel volume unless the vehicle in question is a flex-fuel

vehicle. In the case where a drop-in fuel is not produced, modifications are required, to allow the straight

fuel to be used. A conversion or some sort retrofit of the downstream burner, engine or vehicle is required

for most biofuels.

4.3.1 Vehicle fuels Vehicle fuels assessed as part of the study are described below:

• DME is a gas at temperatures above -40°C. Like propane it needs to be compressed to yield

enough energy density to be used as a transportation fuel. Regular propane tanks are used for

storing liquefied DME. For use in compression-type engines everything upstream of the engine,

including the fuel pump, needs to be changed and adapted to DME.28 A truck converted to DME

28 Expert Analysis of the Concept of Synthetic And/or Bio-LPG available at:

http://www.propanecouncil.org/uploadedFiles/Council/Research_and_Development/New_research_programs/Fu

el_Parameters_and_Analysis/REP_15866%20Expert%20Analysis%20of%20Biopropane.pdf

432,000

360,000

216,000

81,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS (RNG) DIMETHYLETHER (DME) FISCHER TROPSCH (FT)

GJ

OF

FUEL

PER

Ye

ar

Diesel

LPG

local propane use

local diesel use

P a g e | 15

can no longer use diesel. Hence, DME vehicles could be limited to local journeys. Modification of

a vehicle from diesel to DME or propane as a fuel takes around one day in an experienced small

shop. It is unclear whether a conversion would affect warranties, particularly in the near-term.

Original Equipment Manufacturers such as Ford, Volvo, Mack and others plan to manufacture or

have started to produce DME-fuelled vehicles, similar to existing propane and natural gas

vehicles.29

• Fischer-Tropsch diesel is one of the few drop-in fuels that is certified for use in existing vehicles.

It meets ASTM standards.

• Renewable natural gas can be used as a vehicle fuel just like conventional natural gas. The gas

needs to be compressed or liquefied to store sufficient energy in the tank. As with conventional

natural gas vehicles, there is some loss of performance, but the benefits include quieter operation

and often very significant fuel-cost savings compared to gasoline or diesel.30

• Proton Power Renewable Diesel: Proton claims that its proprietary fuel synthesis process is able

to produce a synthetic diesel that meets #2 diesel standards. At the time of writing this study it

remained unclear what experiences and tests have been made so far.

Table summarizes the findings regarding compatibility of biofuels with existing vehicle engines. Except for

natural gas, all of the fuels assessed provide performance that is materially identical or superior to that of

conventional fuels such as diesel and gasoline.

TABLE 3: VEHICLE BIOFUEL OPERATION PERFORMANCE

# Fuel Use in Drop-in fuel Operational performance

Cold weather performance

1 Dimethyl Ether (DME)

Compression engines

No Same or better performance, lower particulate emissions

Good performance in Sweden during heavy duty truck demonstrations

2 Fischer-Tropsch Renewable Diesel

Compression engines (Some processes co-produce gasoline)

Yes Higher cetane content => improved performance; reduced particulate emissions

Good, may require blending, but offers cold weather performance superior to biodiesel. The chemical makeup is more similar to conventional diesel than biodiesel

3 Renewable Natural Gas

Ignition engines

Yes, for natural gas, no for propane

Reduced torque; quieter; reduced PAH and other air contaminant emissions

Good, Compressed Natural Gas is widely used in cold-climate fleets throughout Canada

4 Proton Power Renewable Diesel

Compression engines

Yes Meets #2 diesel standards; similar to conventional diesel

Good, may require blending, but offers cold weather

29 Christopher Kidder, International DME Association, February 7th, 2017, phone call. 30 “Study of Opportunities for Natural Gas in the Transportation Sector,” available at:

http://www.xebecinc.com/pdf/Marbek-NGV-Final-Report-April-2010.pdf

P a g e | 16

performance superior to biodiesel.

4.3.2 Utility Gas Utility gases are fuels, such as natural gas, town gas and, in Revelstoke, propane, that are transported

through gas pipes to homes and businesses. Utility gases have several uses, including space heating,

cooking, drying and water heating. Industries use gas for process heat applications such as the dry kilns at

Downie Timber Ltd. Propane is also used for backup and or peaking heat at RCEC’s district heating plant.

Not all utility gases are interchangeable. Propane does not work in natural gas boilers and vice versa. For

example, if Revelstoke were to convert its gas grid over to LNG or renewable natural gas, burner nozzles

need to be replaced for all appliances. This was part of Fortis BC’s budgeted capital cost of $25 million for

converting Revelstoke’s propane grid to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). A conversion from propane to

natural gas was completed in Whistler, British Columbia during the mid-2000s.

For a gas burner to operate with two or more gases, the gases need to have similar combustion heat

output. This is measured by the Wobbe index. Fuel gases with similar Wobbe indices are interchangeable.

The table below shows that DME may be used in conjunction with methane, but not with propane.

TABLE 4: WOBBE INDICES OF VARIOUS UTILITY GASES

Utility Gas Type Wobbe Index (MJ/ M3)

Natural gas / methane (low-calorific) 39 – 45 Natural gas (High-calorific) 45.5 – 55 Propane 73.5 – 87.5 Propane-air mixture Same as natural gas Town gas/ Syngas 22.5 – 30 DiMethyl Ether 51

If Revelstoke’s propane system were to be converted to a biofuel, the peaking and backup needs would

need to be met through storage or a conventional fuel source. Currently, Fortis BC stores propane in

moderately-pressurized tanks that keep the gas liquid. Natural gas, on the other hand, can either be stored

as compressed natural gas (CNG) or as liquefied natural gas. CNG containers have a pressure of 3600 psi,

20 times that of a propane tank. CNG tanks are significantly more expensive than propane tanks and only

contain one half of the energy.31

Liquefying natural gas reduces its volume by a factor 600 compared to its gaseous state, more than double

the density of CNG.32 LNG requires cryogenic (very low temperature) storage in super-insulated thermos-

31 Based on CNG values at 3600 psi from Hexagon Lincoln. Hexagon Lincoln. “Titan Specifications,” accessed April

25th, 2017 from: http://www.hexagonlincoln.com/mobile-pipeline/titan/titan-specifications/titan-specifications Propane values from: National Energy Board. “Energy Conversion Tables” Accessed April 25th, 2017 from: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/tl/cnvrsntbl/cnvrsntbl-eng.html 32 See NEB above.

P a g e | 17

like containers. Some gas still evaporates and must be flared or vented if there is no demand. Hence LNG

is referred to as a “use it or lose it” fuel.33 Propane, on the other hand, can be kept liquefied indefinitely.

DME’s storage properties are similar to propane storage but have flame properties closer to natural gas

due to the similar Wobbe index, as illustrated in Table 4 above. However, no DME-compatible appliances

and burners currently appear to be on the market. General Electric does manufacture gas turbines

certified to work on DME. DME-fuelled home appliances, such as furnaces and ranges, have been tested

in Japan and Korea.

A third option for meeting peak load and backup could be provided by blending propane with air. This is

frequently done for critical infrastructure such as hospitals that, by code, require a second fuel other than

natural gas as a back-up. At the right mix, propane-air mixtures have the same Wobbe Index as natural

gas.34

4.4 Biofuel markets To minimize transport and marketing costs, biofuel produced in Revelstoke would best be sold and used

in Revelstoke. Fuel prices are higher in Revelstoke than in many other parts of the province. Gasoline and

diesel prices are generally up to 20% higher in Revelstoke than in neighbouring communities. Utility

propane from Fortis BC has been priced 50% to 100% higher than natural gas in the Lower Mainland.

Finally, a biofuel produced could sell carbon intensity credits under the BC Clean Fuel Standard and the

federal clean fuel standard.

4.4.1 Conventional fuel prices Comparing retail prices of various conventional fuels, gasoline is the most expensive energy in Revelstoke,

followed by diesel. Producing automotive fuels would make more sense than producing a fuel that

replaces propane, the lowest-cost fuel even after a 21% increase in April 2017 – see the chart below. The

price difference between heating oil and diesel is only due to different levels of taxation.

4.4.2 Clean Fuel Standard credit prices In British Columbia, the permit trading price in 2016 under the low-carbon fuel standard is $171 per tonne

of CO2-equivalent,35 if the fuel sold by a supplier over a year exceeds the intensity standards. This amounts

to $0.25 per litre of gasoline and $0.38 per litre of diesel. Assuming the federal compliance cost will be

the same as the existing British Columbian standard, the value of the permits would be $10.35 per GJ of

propane and $8.60 per GJ of natural gas.

4.4.3 DME as a solvent According GV Energy of Calgary, a company producing DME from natural gas, renewable DME can be sold

at a price of $1 to $2 per kg as a solvent to the oil sector. Extracting crude from oil sands using DME leads

to a large reduction (70% to 80%) in greenhouse gas emissions compared to traditional steam extraction.

33 Westport Innovations and Clean Energy Compression. “CNG and LNG: what is better for your fleet?” Accessed

April 27th, 2017 from: “http://www.westport.com/file_library/files/webinar/2013-06-19_CNGandLNG.pdf 34 Algas SDI, ”What is propane-air?” accessed April 27th, 2017 from https://algas-sdi.com/resources/more-about-

transportable-gases/what-is-propane-air 35 Government of BC, “Renewable & Low Carbon Fuel Requirements Regulation“, accessed on April 25th, 2017 at

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/electricity-alternative-energy/transportation-energies/renewable-

low-carbon-fuels

P a g e | 18

Due to the federal Clean Fuel Standard, oil sands crude producers are under political and regulatory

pressure to improve their carbon footprint. DME allows a clean, non-toxic means to reduce or eliminate

energy-intensive steam generation.

Figure 3 below compares retail prices, including carbon credits obtainable under the Clean Fuel Standard,

for various fuels and for DME sold as a solvent. The biggest opportunity for biofuel lies in selling DME as

a solvent outside Revelstoke, where it fetches up to 2.5 times the price of propane. The market price for

DME as a solvent is unclear and there is a high uncertainty attached to it, expressed in a price range of $1

to $2 per kg.

FIGURE 3: FUEL PRICES IN REVELSTOKE INCLUDING CARBON CREDITS UNDER THE CLEAN FUEL STANDARD IN

COMPARISON TO PRICE OF DME AS A SOLVENT (IN % OF PROPANE PRICE AND $/GJ)

Converting a cubic metre of wood into DME for solvents can generate approximately $90-$250 dollars of

gross revenue ($250-$470 per BDt). DME replacing diesel would yield revenue of $105 per m3 ($263 per

BDt). By contrast, FT diesel at $1.48 per litre ($1.1 retail price + $0.38 carbon credit) yields a gross revenue

of $82 per m3 of wood ($207 per BDt). Renewable utility gas at $29.05 per GJ yields a gross revenue of

only $136 per m3 of wood ($333 per BDt). As the capital cost of a DME plant is similar to the other

technologies of the same scale, the business case for DME is stronger than that of other biofuels. Figures

need to be updated to take carbon credits into account.

4.5 Biofuel assessment I compared the four fuels mentioned above according to a set of criteria. These include, on the production

side, the scale, conversion efficiency, and feedstock requirements. Water and wastewater impacts were

also considered. Finally, I rated the market value of each fuel. The table below summarizes the

assessment.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Heating oil Diesel Fortis Propane Gasoline DME solvent

Re

tail

pri

ce in

20

17

an

d C

FS p

rem

ium

, in

clu

din

g ca

rbo

n t

ax, i

ncl

. GST Clean Fuel Standard premium

Retail price in 2017, incl. taxes

$1.1 per litre + $0.38 per litre

$18.7 per GJ + $10.35 per GJ

$1.3 per litre + $0.25 per litre

$1 to $2 per kg

137%

109% 100%

157%

243%

$0.7 per litre + $0.38 per litre

121%

P a g e | 19

TABLE 5: BIOFUEL ASSESSMENT TABLE

# Fuel Complexity of the process

Infrastructure compatibility

Conversion efficiency

Waste water

Market value

Overall assessment

1 Dimethyl Ether (DME)

o o + o ++ +

2 Fischer-Tropsch (FT) diesel

- ++ o - o o

3 Renewable Natural Gas (RNG)

+ o ++ o - o

4 Proton Power renewable diesel

+ ++ O -- o o

-- Very poor, - poor, o neutral, + good, ++ very good

Using the criteria laid down, DME is the most favourable biofuel. Fischer-Tropsch diesel’s main advantage

is that it produces a drop-in fuel. Renewable natural gas (RNG) also fares well, but has a low market value.

Proton Power’s renewable diesel would be an interesting solution, but it produces large amounts of waste

water. There are constraints to Revelstoke’s waste water treatment plant36 which puts Proton Power’s

process at a disadvantage.

5. Technology review The following section describes the technical characteristics of the fuel production process. Additionally,

matters of scale, technological maturity and a general suitability of the technology for fuel production are

discussed.

5.1 Brief technology description Turning wood into a burnable gas or liquid fuel is at least a two-step process. Initially wood is turned into

a gas by applying heat, hydrogen/oxygen or steam. The resulting synthesis gas, also called ‘syngas,’

consists of some basic chemicals, such as hydrogen, carbon-monoxide and methane. In a second step,

using catalysts, these gases are chemically converted into pure methane or other types of liquid fuels. The

graph below illustrates the concept. There are also pre-processing steps, such as chipping logs and drying

the feedstock; these are part of almost every gasification-based wood-to-energy conversion and not

shown in the graph below.

36 Penny Page-Brittin, Environmental Coordinator of the City of Revelstoke in a conversation with Thomas Cheney

on March 13th, 2017.

P a g e | 20

FIGURE 4: TWO-STAGE PROCESS OF CONVERTING WOOD INTO A LIQUID FUEL

The downstream chemical synthesis process is well understood and mature for fossil-fuel based synthetic

hydrocarbons. Natural gas, for example, has been turned into methanol for many decades. The upstream

gasification process is also well understood, though, again, mainly for fossil coal. The first street lights and

cinemas in 19th century European cities like London were fueled by ‘lime gas’ created by gasifying coal.37

Wood has a much more complex chemical structure than lignite or anthracite coal. Gasifying wood creates

soot and tars. Both need to be removed prior to the second step, chemical syntheses. The gas cleaning

processes can be more challenging than the gasification itself. Moreover, the ratio of gases, such as carbon

monoxide to hydrogen, need to be adjusted to maximize the yield of fuel in the downstream process.

Additionally, the interface between the first and the second step can create challenges.

In summary, the following general factors should be watched for when assessing the technical maturity

of a wood-to-fuel technology:

1. Has the technology demonstrated that it can produce clean syngas from wood in a consistently

high quality? Soot and tars often build up over time, causing the downstream processes to fail in

the mid-term, after more than 1,000 hours of operation.

37 The phrase, “He is in the lime light“ refers to the use of lime gas in early movie theatres.

P a g e | 21

2. If there is a combination of two technologies, such as upstream gasification and downstream

chemical synthesis, are the two technologies compatible?

3. Is the technology already available at the scale proposed? Scaling technologies up or down can

create unforeseen challenges.

No technology on the market that meets all of these requirements yet a number of technologies have the

potential to become commercialized in the medium-term, over the next five to ten years.

5.3 Technology suppliers According to the Canadian firm Sixth Element Sustainable Management, 38 in 2014, more than 300

companies worldwide dealt with some form of pyrolysis or gasification. Seventy of these were based in

Canada. As with most technology cycles only a fraction survived the initial hype. These have either had

sufficient start-up capital to survive the initial years or their technology appeared to be promising enough

to attract venture capital over the long-term.

For the four biofuels identified above, we selected and contacted several potential technology suppliers.

They all use either gasification or pyrolysis processes. They are thermo-chemical in nature, i.e. they use

heat to break and alter the chemical structure of wood.

In some cases, these are two technology providers, one for upstream gasification or pyrolysis technology

and one for the downstream fuel synthesis. These processes are explained in more detail in the appendix.

The table below summarizes technology suppliers I have assessed.

TABLE 6: BIOFUEL TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

# Fuel Upstream gasification

Downstream fuel synthesis

Comments

1 Dimethyl Ether (DME) WoodRoll, Royal Dahlman, Repotec, Highbury Energy, Proton Power

GV Energy, Air Liquide, Haldor Tropsoe, Ineratec, Johnson Matthey,

GV Energy considers a plant using 40,000 BDt/year a minimum size

2 Fischer-Tropsch Renewable Diesel

Highbury Energy, Royal Dahlman, Repotec

Korea Institute of Energy Research, Royal Dahlman, Repotec, Haldor-Tropsoe, Johnson Matthey, Velocys, Ineratec,

Downstream fuel synthesis is a mature technology. The challenge is creating a clean syngas from biomass and integrating it with a FT catalyst. For small-scale production, a low-wax, high-temperature system should be used

3 Renewable Natural Gas WoodRoll, Royal Dahlman, Repotec, Highbury Energy,

KIT, Haldor-Tropsoe, Royal Dahlman, Paul Scheer Institute

A variety of catalysts are available on the market

4 Proton Power renewable diesel

Proton Power Proton Power Proprietary renewable diesel fuel synthesis system

38 Accessed April 28, 2017, http://www.6esm.com/our-focus-2/biomass-pyrolysis/

P a g e | 22

5.4 Technology scale The scale of the technology is constrained by the feedstock available in Revelstoke. I used 40,000 BDt of

pulpwood that are available as an upper limit. Of this 12,000 BDt are under the direct control of RCFC.

Any project requiring more than 12,000 BDt will need to secure feedstock supply agreements with

multiple owners.

None of the technologies listed above are fully commercialized. While there is a technology risk involved

with the current state of maturity, there are also opportunities to get access to funding and subsidies that

commercial projects do not have. An initial project will then have demonstration character rather than

being built for immediate profits from biofuel production. A demonstration project will need to be just

large enough to show an industrial scale, while also minimizing capital expenditure. While companies like

GV Energy consider a plant using 40,000 BDt a minimum size to demonstrate commercial viability,

Highbury and the Korean Institute of Energy Research feel that a plant based on 1,000 to 2,000 BDt of

input a year is sufficient39. Swedish WoodRoll’s technology uses approximately 12,000 BDt per year40. As

a comparison: RCEC’s district heating plant uses approximately 4,000 green tonnes or 2,500 BDt a year.

A third factor to consider is the footprint of the plant and its potential location in Revelstoke. The largest

space requirement of any biomass plant is usually for storing the feedstock. A plant located at Downie

Timber Ltd or at RCFC’s log sorting yard would make use of the fact that the wood fibre is already stored

there. The City of Revelstoke owns property within Downie’s mill that is currently partly used by RCEC’s

district heating boiler plant. Locating the biofuel project near the boiler plant would allow waste heat

generated by the process to be fed into the district heating system. Using the waste heat would enhance

its overall economic and environmental performance of the biofuel production plant. It is unlikely though

that a 40,000 BDt-plant would fit into the property and space available adjacent to the district heating

plant, though. A larger plant would have to be either located at large site such as the RCFC log sorting

yard. If an utility gas is produced, an interesting location would be the industrial area close to where Fortis

BC has its propane tanks for the gas distribution utility.

A smaller 1,000 to 2,000 BDt facility would likely be easier to implement as it would face fewer challenges

in securing feedstock, acquiring financing and obtaining suitable land. Capital costs for a plant of this size

are in the range of $10 million to $20 million41. A 40,000 BDt-plant would likely require around $80 million

in initial capital investment42.

Regardless of the size, certain technologies require more space than others. Air-blown gasification is not

recommended for local biofuel production plants, because it produces significantly less calorifically dense

syngas, increasing the size of the fuel synthesis equipment. None of the technologies shortlisted are of

this type.

39 Dr. Paul Watkinson, Highbury Energy, February 17th, 2017 in person meeting at UBC 40 Magnus Folkelid, Cortus AB, March 24th, 2017 in person meeting at Vancouver, BC 41 Dr. Paul Watkinson, Highbury Energy, February 17th, 2017 in person meeting at UBC 42 Discussions with various suppliers including Enerkem, Cortus AB, Highbury Energy and Cortus AB

P a g e | 23

5.5 Feedstock requirements and sources The technologies listed above can be classified into small- medium-, and large-scale concept. A small plant

would use less than 2,000 BDt a year, a medium scale, 15,000 BDt a large scale 40,000 BDt a year.

Technology suppliers for these three scales are given in the table below.

TABLE 7: SCALE OF BIOFUEL TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

Technology scale Feedstock requirements

Technology suppliers

Footprint (excl. wood storage)

Potential feedstock

Small-scale Up to 2,000 BDt/year

• Highbury & K.I.E.R. 2 x 10 x 10 m • RCEC’s surplus • Downie’s hog fuel

Medium-scale Up to 15,000 BDt/year

• Cortus WoodRoll • Agnion Possible scaled-down large-scale technologies:

• Royal Dahlman

• Repotec

<0.5 ha (1.25 acres) • RCFC pulp wood • Downie’s hog fuel

Large-scale Up to 40,000 BDt/year

• GV Energy • Proton Power • Royal Dahlman • Repotec

4 ha (10 acres) • RCFC & others’ pulpwood

• Downie’s hog fuel

5.5.1 Small-scale technologies A small-scale plant would consume approximately 5 BDt a day, i.e. less than 2,000 BDt a year. Examples

for a technology this size would be a combination of Highbury’s gasification plant and KIER’s Fischer-

Tropsch plant.

The Highbury plant would be a factor 10 larger than its current laboratory scale plant capable of using 0.5

BDt a day. KIER would have to downscale its 20-tonne a day plant by a factor 2. My requests for footprints

have not been answered by either one of these two companies, but I would estimate the two plants to be

10 x 10 m each, excluding feedstock storage or fuel storage. A small-scale plant could likely be located

next to the existing district heating boiler house.

5.5.2 Medium-scale technologies A medium-scale plant would consume 10,000 to 15,000 BDt of wood per year and would produce

approximately 3,000 to 5,000 tonnes of DME per year. An example would be a 7.5MWSyngas plant which

would require 12,000 BDt of wood per year. This syngas plant would be combined with a skid mounted

methanol and DME plant. Scaling up similar technologies but smaller size I estimate that the entire plant

would require less than 0.5 ha or 1.25 acres, excluding feedstock storage. It remains to be seen if a plant

this size could be sited near the existing district heating plant to facilitate waste heat utilization.

Providers of a gasification technology of that scale that are sufficiently mature include:

• Agnion43 (Germany)

43 http://www.agnion.net/

P a g e | 24

• Cortus WoodRoll44 (Sweden)

The following companies may be able to downscale their technology to 12,000 BDt a year input:

• Royal Dahlman45 (Holland)

• Repotec46 (Austria)

• Proton Power47 (USA)

Of the above, Agnion and Cortus appear to be the best technologies for a medium-scale approach. The

Fast Internally Circulating Bed Technology employed by the Royal Dahlman and Repotec is typically

oriented to plants 2-10 times larger. Proton Power is currently setting up a demonstration plant in

Labrador. This will tie up human and financial resources until the plant has been tested and proven.

Another benefit of a smaller system is that it would be easier to finance as a demonstration facility.

Furthermore, a smaller-scale system reduces the risk of market offtake for the DME fuel. That said, the

long-term market potential for renewable DME should facilitate long-term development of a 40,000 BDt

larger plant.

5.5.3 Large-scale technologies A large-scale plant would produce roughly 40,000 BDt/yr. and would produce around 12,000 tonnes of

DME per year. There will be economy-of-scale effects that reduce the capital and operating costs per liter

of DME capacity. However, this approach would be more difficult to finance based on the nascent market

for DME. Another challenge for a large-scale plant is ensuring that there is a sufficient long-term fibre

supply to provide a bankable project.

Providing a land area sufficient for a large biofuel plant in the vicinity of the RCEC system would create

challenges. Biofuel production, in most cases, requires a large area for fuel storage. A 40,000 BDt/yr.

biofuel production would require roughly 125 BDt of wood per day and several hectares of land, excluding

fuel storage. During my site visit on March 13th, 2017 I could only identify RCFC’s wood sorting yard or an

area along Westside Road that could accommodate a plant of this size. Feeding surplus heat into the

district heating system would not be possible at any of these locations.

Providers of a gasification technologies that are sufficiently mature and scale appropriately include:

• GV Energy

• Proton Power (renewable diesel)

• Royal Dahlman

• Repotec

• Cortus WoodRoll (25 MWwood input plant under development)

A very large-scale plant using 100,000 BDt a year of feedstock has been demonstrated by Canadian firm

Enerkem. The technology is tailored towards municipal solid waste rather than wood as a feedstock.

Enerkem uses direct oxygen-blown, gasification, a technology that uses high purity oxygen rather than air.

44 http://www.cortus.se/ 45 http://www.royaldahlman.com/ 46 http://www.repotec.at/ 47 http://www.protonpower.com/

P a g e | 25

Indirect gasification is a far more common and more viable technology at the scale being considered by

Revelstoke.

5.6 Technology assessment The technology assessment is divided into two subtypes known as an upstream and a downstream

process. The upstream processes involve the conversion of biomass in to a clean syngas such as

gasification and gas cleaning. The downstream processes involve converting the clean syngas in to a fuel

project such as RNG or DME. While upstream and downstream processes can be vertically-integrated such

as the Proton Power Renewable Diesel system, it is possible to mix and match gasification and fuel

synthesis technologies. Relative to biomass gasification, the upstream fuel synthesis technologies tend to

be quite mature due to extensive volumes of syngas used (from fossil fuel sources) in industry. By contrast,

biomass gasification involves greater complexity from the chemical characteristics of the gas produced,

gas cleaning and feedstock handling. Biomass is more chemically reactive than coal, for example, and

hence produces a gas with a greater diversity of chemical compounds.

5.6.1 Upstream gasification technology The criteria examined related to upstream synthesis include the technical maturity, process complexity,

the footprint (area needed for plant construction), conversion efficiency. The results are illustrated in

table 8.

TABLE 8: SYNGAS (UPSTREAM) PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

# Fuel Technology maturity

Complexity of the process

Footprint Conversion efficiency

Overall assessment

1 Highbury - o ++ o O

2 Royal Dahlman + o - ++ +

3 Repotec + o - o O

4 Agnion + + ++ - +

5 Cortus WoodRoll o + ++ + +

6 Proton Power o + ++ + +

- Very poor, - poor, o neutral, + good, ++ very good

The recommended technologies for the small-scale (15,000 BDt/yr.) plant include indirect fluidized bed

gasification and pyrolysis/hybrid gasification systems due to their low capital cost at a small-scale

• Cortus’s WoodRoll and Agnion’s HeatPipe reformer gasifiers appear to be the best option to

implement a small-scale gasification system.

• The double fluidized bed gasifier technologies provided by firms such as Highbury Energy,

Repotec, and Royal Dahlman is not particularly suitable for this production scale. A pilot plant

certainly presents opportunities however.

For the large-scale plant (40,000 BDt/yr.) the recommended technologies are indirect fluidized bed

gasification, pyrolysis/hybrid gasification, and possibly oxygen – blown gasification. These are concept for

2022 or later. With the current incentives a number of technical breakthroughs and commercial

consolidation can be expected by then. For now for the large scale-plant concept, potential system

providers include Royal Dahlman and Repotec.

P a g e | 26

5.6.2 Downstream synthesis technology Gasifiers and subsequent gas cleaning technologies are the main cost drivers, the addition of additional

downstream synthesis technologies are not as costly. For the downstream technologies, a variety of

technologies were assessed. The scope of supply does vary between providers. Chemical processing

equipment is likely to be procured from a variety of suppliers. However, the choice of catalyst system (s)

is a critical decision in plant design. Table 9 demonstrates the broad array of the products available on the

market. Some range from containerised products or skid mounted chemical synthesis modules to larger

plants that need to be largely constructed on site. At the current state of development skid-mounted or

containerised products are better suited to the situation in Revelstoke. Collaborating with companies such

as Zeton which manufactures demonstration units for various chemical synthesis processes is another

approach. Such partnerships reduce risk associated from process downscaling.

TABLE 9: DOWNSTREAM SYNGAS-TO-FUEL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT TABLE

# Fuel Technology maturity

Complexity of the

process

Footprint Conversion efficiency

Overall assessment

1 KIER (FT) + + ++ - ++

2 GV Energy (DME) ++ -- o + ++

3 Haldor Tropsoe (DME) ++ - o + + 4 Haldor Tropsoe (SNG) ++ - o + +

5 Ineratec (Various) - ++ ++ o ++

6 Johnson Matthey (ME) ++ + o ++ +

7 Maverick Synfuels (ME) - ++ ++ o +

8 Gastechno o - ++ -- -

9 Oberon Fuels + + ++ + +

10 Royal Dahlman (SNG) ++ o O ++ +

11 DemoSNG (SNG) - ++ ++ - ++

12 Repotec (SNG) + o + + +

13 Velocys (FT) o + + + +

14 Chembiopower (DME) - + o + +

15 Zeton (multi) ++ ++ ++ + ++

DME= Dimethylether, FT= Fischer-Tropsch fuel, ME= methanol, SNG=Synthetic Natural Gas

P a g e | 27

6.0 Conclusion and recommendations Changes in the regulatory environment, such as the Clean Fuel Standards are creating a market for

renewable fuels. At the same time wood-to-fuel technologies are constantly maturing. These factors could

allow Revelstoke’s forest tenure holders to turn its underpriced pulpwood into feedstock for high value

biofuel. The fact that the City of Revelstoke has a community forest corporation, a district heating system,

a propane distribution system, access to rail and to the Trans-Canada highway make it a prime location

for the bioenergy industry.

At the time of writing this report there was no technology that was completely commercialized and that

Revelstoke could build on. While this involves risk, it also holds the opportunity to capitalize on

government subsidies to establish a demonstration plant and eventually build a local bio-economy. Both

would be a medium- to long-term development. The economic benefits for Revelstoke could be sizeable;

currently at least $12 million are leaving the local economy every year.

I reviewed a range of biofuels and a number of technologies. Dimethyl Ether (DME) appears to be a good

choice, partly because it can be used as a vehicle fuel and as a propane substitute alike. More importantly

there are high-priced markets for DME as a solvent in the oil sands in Alberta.

From a technology point of view, I recommend looking at European firms that, due to progressive policies

and high fuel costs, have developed wood-to-fuel technology earlier than their North American

competitors. Rather than recommending a single technology supplier I suggest narrowing down

technologies by the size appropriate for a small- to medium-scale plant at a location on Downie Timber

sawmill site, preferably near the district heating plant.

Technology suppliers for a small-scale plant could be Canadian such as Highbury Energy in combination

with the Korean Institute of Energy Research’s (KIER) Fischer-Tropsch Technology. My research and

interaction with both make me believe though that they are both, from a technical and managerial point

of view not as developed as Swedish Cortus-WoodRoll. Cortus offers medium-scale plants.

A small-scale plant would use up to 2,000 bone-dry tonnes (BDt) annually that could be served by hog fuel

from Downie’s that RCEC has contractual rights to. A mid-size plant would consume up to 15,000 BDt a

year, roughly the amount of hemlock that RCFC harvests yearly. As a comparison, RCEC’s biomass boiler

uses approximately 2,500 BDt a year.

Revelstoke has initial experience with converting biomass to energy. However, a mid-size plant would be

a significant step up. A phased-in approach could be an initial small demonstration plant followed in

several years’ time by a mid-size commercial plant. Further research and discussions with technology

suppliers would be needed to settle for the best size of an initial plant.

In summary, I would like to give the following recommendations:

1. Focus on DME as a fuel because of its high value-added applications.

2. Start with a small to medium-size plant that can be fit next to RCEC’s boiler plant at Downie

Timber. Waste heat from the gasification process could be fed into the district heating system.

DME produced could be used in Downie’s and RCEC’s propane boilers.

3. Use low-cost hog-fuel as a feedstock during the early phase. Pulpwood may be used once the

plant is scaled-up.

P a g e | 28

4. Keep the conversation with Highbury Energy open, but focus on cooperation with European

gasification technology suppliers, such as Swedish Cortus or German Agnion.

5. Start negotiations with companies like GV Energy regarding production and off-take of DME.

6. Disregard Proton Power’s renewable diesel technology – a commercial plant is currently being

built in Newfoundland. Obtaining finance for a similar plant will be difficult until the first plant has

been tested and proven.

7. Develop a bioenergy strategy for Revelstoke. An initial demonstration plant would be part of a

five to ten-year plan. Revelstoke has all the ‘ingredients’ to position itself as a host for bioenergy

projects.

Next steps A. Conduct a feasibility study for a small- to medium-size wood-to-DME plant located next to the

boiler plant at Downie Timber. Funds for this may be available through Columbia Basin Trust,

provincial or federal funds.

B. Enter into discussions with technology suppliers, the National Research Council (NRC),

universities, Fortis BC, and funding agencies. Particular focus should be given to federal funding

made available in the 2017 budget.

For further considerations regarding a project development see Appendix C.

P a g e | A1

Appendix A: Description of gasification and pyrolysis systems Pyrolysis and gasification systems are used to convert solid biomass into a gas which can then be reacted

to make synthetic fuels such as Fischer-Tropsch diesel, DiMethyl Ether (DME) and Renewable Natural Gas

(RNG). Gasification works by combining a a small amount of oxygen or steam to chemically convert wood

into carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen as well as some hydrocarbons such as tars and

methane. Biomass gasification systems are often classified by the method of heat generation. Indirect

gasification creates heat necessary for the gasification process outside of the gasification chamber

whereas direct gasification produces the heat required for gasification through the oxidisation of some of

the feed material.

Types of direct gasifiers include oxygen or air-blown fluidized bed gasifiers as well as entrained flow

gasifiers. Indirect gasifier types include Fast Internally Circulating Fluidized Bed gasifiers, heat pipe

systems as well as indirect entrained flow systems. Gasification can occur at a broad range of

temperatures from roughly 500°C to over 1600°C. One challenge with gasification technologies is

controlling the nitrogen content of the gas. For synthetic fuel production, oxygen-blown and indirect

gasification is used to produce a low nitrogen-content syngas. Nitrogen is problematic as it reduces the

specific heat energy of the gas and increases the volume of the gas stream, increasing both operational

and capital costs. Unlike carbon dioxide which can be removed by acid gas removal processes, nitrogen’s

relative inertness means it can only be removed by more expensive and difficult processes such as

cryogenic distillation.

Pyrolysis by contrast uses heat to evaporate and thermally decompose the volatile components of

biomass. Pyrolysis is different than gasification in that it typically uses the lower temperatures than

gasification ranging from 200°C to 760°C. Pyrolysis processes can be separated into slow and fast pyrolysis

processes. Fast pyrolysis processes are primarily used to create a bio-oil product. Slow pyrolysis processes

are used to create biocarbon or biochar as well as a combustible gas. Examples of companies employing

pyrolysis systems are Enysn, Proton Power include BC Biocarbon.

Direct Gasification

Direct gasification for biofuel production almost invariably uses pure oxygen as a gasification agent. With

direct gasification, a small amount of oxygen is added to convert the biomass into carbon monoxide and

hydrogen and provide the heat for gasification. The amount of oxygen is less than that require for

complete (stochiometric) combustion such as happens in a wood chip boiler. The two main families of

oxygen-blown gasifiers are circulated fluidized bed gasifiers and entrained flow gasifiers. Fluidised bed

gasifiers gasify wood by having it contacting a hot bedding material, usually sand that is blown so that it

acts like a fluid. Direct entrained flow gasification requires the use of a flame in the gasifier to heat the

material. The material is then injected at high pressures where it is converted into a tar-free syngas as it

is entrained in the downward jet of air. To avoid nitrogen dilution in the syngas, most direct-blown

gasifiers used for biofuels use pure oxygen rather than air. This requires the use of expensive oxygen

production equipment. Direct gasification technologies are often applied for large-scale production

facilities (> 100,000 BDt/yr.). In certain cases, the increased pressurisation allowed for by oxygen-blown

direct gasification enables a more compact plant layout and reduction in capital cost.

P a g e | A2

Direct Entrained Flow Gasification

Entrained flow gasification technology is a mature technology with decades of use in coal gasification.

With direct entrained flow gasification, fuel is injected into the gasification chamber with oxygen. A flame

provides the heat for the gasification within the chamber. Entrained flow gasifiers typically employ

temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees Celsius and high pressures of between 15-30 bar or greater. Due

to the high temperatures in the gasifier, the metals in the fuel melt and flow out of the gasifier as slag.

This slag then cools to form a solid, glass-like material.

Entrained flow gasifiers were used in Sweden to convert black liquor at a pulp mill into DME. A key

advantage of entrained flow gasifiers is their tar-free syngas. Challenges with the entrained flow

gasification include the high capital cost at small scales and the challenges of injecting solid biomass at

high pressures. An entrained flow gasifier requires that the fuel be ground in to small particles which

requires significant energy expenditure. A concept using pyrolysis slurry called Bioliq has been developed

by the Karlsruhe Institute for Technology to mitigate the injection challenge from biomass feedstocks.

Due to the requirement for pure oxygen and frequent application at high pressures, entrained flow

gasifiers are typically applied only at a large scale. However, there are examples of small-scale, indirectly-

heated entrained flow gasification such as the WoodRoll system produced by Cortus AB of Sweden. Due

to the scale limitations, direct entrained flow gasification is not a recommended for Revelstoke.

Directly heated Fluidized Bed Gasifiers

Fluidized bed gasifiers work by converting biomass into a gas by injecting it into a chamber where the fuel

floats on a fluidised bed of sand kept aloft by a jet of gas. Using a fluidised bed rather than a fixed bed

gasification system provides fuel flexibility and ensures complete conversion of the biomass into a gas. It

also leads to lower tar levels than fixed bed, updraft gasifiers. The temperature of fluidised bed gasifiers

mush be regulated to prevent alkali elements from slagging and agglomerating with the bed materials.

Directly heated fluidized bed gasifiers are commonly used in Finland as part of combined heat and power

plants. However, these plants use air rather than pure oxygen and are significantly larger than the biofuel

plant sizes being considered in Revelstoke. Due to the relative simplicity of the chemical processing

involved in power (e.g. tar-cracking) rather than biofuel production, nitrogen containing syngas is

acceptable. In biofuel production, the greater number of chemical processing steps means the nitrogen

dilution has a disproportionate effect on capital costs and operational efficiency. In RNG production, the

nitrogen cannot easily be removed from the RNG stream and would make the economic production of

pipeline-grade RNG unachievable.

Indirect gasification

One common syngas production system for medium-scale applications is the indirectly heated fluidised

bed gasifier. To produce a low-nitrogen synthesis gas, the gasification process is separated from the

combustion process. The gasification process is an endothermic process meaning it requires significant

energy input. This energy is typically provided by the combustion of char (an exothermic or energy-

releasing reaction), which is then used to energize the process. To gasify wood, wood fuel is injected into

the gasifier where it contacts a hot medium (usually sand) and steam. This causes the wood to chemically

react to form hydrogen, CO2, CO, water and other organic compounds. The resulting gas and char then

travels with the sand (known as the bedding material), to a cyclone where the char and sand is separated

from the syngas which is processed further. The char is then sent to the combustion chamber where air

P a g e | A3

is added as the oxidising agent to combust the char. The char combustion heats the bedding material. In

the combustor the flue gas leave through the top, and little to no nitrogen passes in the gasifier. Indirectly-

heated gasification technologies avoid the requirement of a costly oxygen separation plant while still

producing a low-nitrogen syngas.

Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis is commonly used to convert wood into a gas and subsequently liquids or gaseous fuels. While

pyrolysis may have some superficial similarities with gasification, the process of pyrolysis involves the

evaporation and thermal cleaving of macropolymers rather than a chemical reaction with oxygen, steam

or another reactant. To drive a change in the phase of the biomass, pyrolysis uses heat to break the

chemical bonds of the biomass. The breakage of these bonds means the solid biomass compounds are

converted primarily in to gaseous or condensable liquid compounds. Pyrolysis processes can be used to

produce gaseous, liquid and solid products. Examples of solid pyrolysis products include biochar or

biocarbon which are used as a soil amendment and coal substitute. A liquid fuel produced by pyrolysis is

pyrolysis oil (also known as fast pyrolysis liquids) which can be used as fuel for industrial and institutional

heating, power generation, or be upgraded into vehicle fuels by further refining.

Tar removal

Tar removal from syngas has been called the Achilles’ Heel of biomass gasification. This is because tars

cause clogging and can deactivate catalysts. To avoid this biofuel production systems must be designed

to effectively control or eliminate tar. The three main types of tar removal processes used to produce a

clean biomass-based syngas are catalytic tar cracking, thermal tar reforming and organic oil scrubbing.

Catalytic tar cracking involves reacting the tars with a catalyst to convert them into carbon dioxide, carbon

monoxide and hydrogen. Thermal tar control involves heating the syngas to a high temperature <1000°C

which causes the tars to simply dissociate into carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide or hydrogen. The final

method involves organic oil scrubbing. In this case, the gas stream is sent through a stream of oil which

removes the tars from the syngas stream. Organic oil scrubbing is the most common approach used in

small-scale Synfuel and electricity production based on fluidized bed gasification. Organic oil scrubbing

using biodiesel has been applied for tar control in Güssing, Austria using biodiesel. Another process,

marketed by Royal Dahlman of the Netherlands, known as the OLGA process can handle high tar loads

which allows the gasifier to be run more efficiently than with the biodiesel scrubbing process. However,

the OLGA system is more complex than the RME scrubbers.

Tar removal is not a significant issue with coal and petcoke gasification because these fuels are far less

volatile than biomass and require significantly higher gasification temperatures. There higher

temperatures mean syngas has a much simpler chemical structure (Primarily CO and H2)) Some interesting

approaches to tar control have been developed by Highbury Energy. Highbury Energy uses a catalyst

module within the gasifier to replace the large and expensive tar cracking module. Another approach has

been developed by Cortus AB in their WoodRoll Technology. The WoodRoll technology borrows the

proven tar cleaning abilities of entrained gasifiers by increasing the temperature to a level where the tars

and other organic compounds such as methane dissociate in to carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and

hydrogen. To make the entrained flow technology viable at a small scale, the WoodRoll combusts the tar-

rich gases in sealed tubes which penetrate the gasification chamber. As there is no mixing of the

combustion gases and the gasification stream, air can be used as the oxidizing agent to generate the heat.

P a g e | A4

In the gasification chamber, char and steam are injected making the process similar to the inherently low-

tar coal gasification processes, but one that is suitable for a small-scale biofuel production.

Innovations in Small-Scale Synthesis

Production of biofuels from lignocellulosic feedstocks such as wood have been thought of as large-scale

processes that required several hundreds of tonnes of wood input to be viable. Technological changes

now mean that biofuel plants can be economically operated at scale significantly smaller than in the past.

For example, commercial plant proposals were typically proposed in the range of 500 to 2000 bone dry

tonnes of biomass per day. Now, designs such as the WoodRoll are designed to operate at scales of

around 30 bone dry tonnes per day. Advances in modular construction, gasification, and more robust,

compact fuel synthesis equipment make smaller biofuel synthesis system viable.

P a g e | A5

Appendix B: Description of Fuel Types

The three main types of fuel investigated were Fischer-Tropsch Renewable Diesel, Renewable Natural Gas,

Dimethyl Ether as well as the Proton Power Renewable Diesel.

Renewable Natural Gas

Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) is a natural gas substitute created from renewable feedstocks such as wood,

food waste or manure. There are two main processes used to produce RNG, anaerobic digestion and

catalytic methanation. Because wood is not easily digested by microorganisms, catalytic methanization

was the sole production method investigated. Catalytic methanation involves converting syngas into

methane by reacting it over a catalyst. After catalytic methanation, the water and carbon dioxide is

removed in order to allow it to meet pipeline gas quality standards. Renewable natural gas from wood is

currently being produced in Sweden, the Netherlands and Austria.

Renewable Natural Gas is known as Synthetic Natural Gas. It is usually compatible with the existing

infrastructure although some minor adjustments might be needed to meet gas interchangeability

requirements. Furthermore, RNG is one of the most efficient ways to convert wood into a biofuel that can

be used to fuel compressed and liquefied natural gas vehicles.

RNG was previously considered a fuel primarily suitable for large scale production, but new technologies

applying innovations such as controlled catalyst degradation have led to small-scale production systems

that are competitively priced with larger-scale RNG plants. Examples of small-scale RNG technologies

include Agnion and the DemoSNG from Germany.

Fischer-Tropsch Renewable Diesel

In terms of the fuels assessed, the most mature fuel in Fischer-Tropsch (FT) diesel. FT diesel is produced

by reacting a syngas (consisting of hydrogen and carbon monoxide) over a catalyst to produce diesel fuel

or a wax, and in some gases, small components of gasoline. In the case that a wax is produced, as is the

case with low-temperature FT processes, the wax is converted into liquid fuel by reacting it with hydrogen

in a hydrotreatment (reacting with hydrogen). Fischer-Tropsch diesel from coal is currently widely used in

South Africa and was used in WWII Germany. Fischer-Tropsch is considered a drop-in fuel, meaning it can

meet existing diesel standards and does not effect engine warranties. FT fuels also lead to significantly

lower air pollution emissions due to its low aromatic compounds and being practically sulphur free. FT

fuels have been tested successfully in cold climates, including a successful test on a transit bus in

Fairbanks, Alaska.

Dimethyl Ether

Dimethyl Ether (DME) is a gas which can be compressed to a liquid at low pressures not unlike propane.

DME has a variety of applications including a non-toxic solvent for oil extraction, an environmentally-safe

aerosol as well as energy uses. DME can be used as diesel fuel substitute, a heating and cooking gas and

a fuel for power generation. DME also has similar combustion properties to natural gas. DME is primarily

manufactured through the dehydration of methanol derived from natural gas or coal. However, the

chemistry of converting syngas into the methanol is the same whether originates from fossil or biological

P a g e | A6

sources. What is important is that a clean, tar-free syngas is produced with the correct hydrogen to carbon

ratio (usually 2:1). There are several mature gasification technologies that can meet these specifications.

There are significant DME demonstrations in the US including Martin Trucking which has operated a

converted semi-trailer fleet on DME. Furthermore, demonstrations in Sweden illustrated DME’s strong

performance in cold climate applications. Volvo and Mack offer DME-fuelled models of many trucks and

Ford is currently testing pickup trucks and diesel cars on DME. While there are no commercial kits for

converting vehicles to DME currently on the market, the process is very similar to the common propane

conversions. An advantage of DME relative to propane is that the efficiency and reliability benefits of the

diesel engine are retained due to DME’s high cetane content (better than diesel). With propane or natural

gas, conversion to the spark ignition cycle is necessary, with its inherent disadvantages. DME can be used

in LPG vehicles at low blends. The City of Vancouver ran a propane truck on a 12% DME blend. DME blends

of up to 20% have been in introduced in to the LPG supply of countries such as China.

Proton Power Renewable Diesel

Proton Power operates a proprietary wood to renewable diesel process which results in synthetic

hydrocarbons. By contrast, conventional biodiesel has different properties as it is a methyl ester. Biodiesel

is manufactured by combining biological oils (e.g. canola, palm, corn) with methanol and lye. The Proton

Power fuel production process begins with the production of a pyrolysis gas and biochar. Further

processing (by a proprietary process) leads to the creation of renewable synthetic diesel, water, wood

vinegar and char. The fuel meets the ASTM #2 fuel standard which means it can be used without blending

during the summer. In order to meet the ASTM #1 winter diesel standards blending is required. An full

scale commercial plant is planned in Labrador.

P a g e | A7

Appendix C: Development considerations The following are considerations regarding development of a demonstration plant:

Demonstration Plant

In order to advance the development of the local biofuel plant the next step should be to approach

companies that are interested in developing a demonstration plant. For example, Highbury Energy is

currently looking for a community, ideally in British Columbia, to build a demonstration plant. The pilot

plant would consume a relatively small amount of wood, on the order of ~1,500 Bone Dry Tonnes per

year. However, pilot plants could be significantly larger than what Highbury has proposed. European

companies are also interested in gaining a foothold in the North American and Canadian Market. For

example, Cortus AB manufactures small-scale syngas plants which consume 12,000 Bone Dry Tonnes per

Year. While there is a plant approved in California, they do not have a Synfuel-oriented plant in North

America. Typically, the more mature a technology is, the larger the demonstration plant is expected to

be. For example, the Highbury Energy technology is immature, whereas Cortus’ WoodRoll Plant will build

a 7.5 MWth input demonstrator to replace a 500-kW demonstration plant.

Fuel Synthesis Technologies

Technology demonstration can go beyond the syngas production technologies. Once a syngas is created

there are many opportunities to convert it into a variety of products ranging from Renewable Natural Gas

to DME. There are several companies examining small-scale syngas to fuel technologies such as INERATEC,

DemoSNG and Maverick Synfuels. Such companies could use a gasifier in Revelstoke as a test bed for

technology development.

A Commercial Plant Should Be Pursued Eventually

After, or perhaps in conjunction, with the development of a demonstration plant, a local commercial plant

should be developed. A commercial plant would use a mature technology although early

commercialization would suffice. In fact, an early commercial technology may be eligible for grants from

organizations such as Sustainable Development Technology Canada. Venture capital can also fund proof

of concept plants through investment in a technology company. However, venture capital tends to be

relatively impatient wanting very high rates of return and an exits strategy (selling the firm) in a period of

five years of less.

Local Ownership

Ideally, local ownership of the plant would be preferable, possibly through a cooperative or social

enterprise. A Joint Venture between a biofuel production company and the Revelstoke Community Forest

Corporation or Revelstoke Community Energy Corporation is another potential model. Joint ventures are

often employed by first nations groups to develop renewable energy. While Revelstoke has more capacity

than a typical indigenous band council, a joint-venture can help the people of Revelstoke have greater

control over their forests and energy use. The achievement of social objectives could also be achieved by

a memorandum of understanding and attaching social and economic development conditions to a fuel

supply agreement.

P a g e | A8

Appendix D: Policy context Clean Fuel Standard (CFS) Covering Utility Gases

The federal government has annouced a Clean Fuel Standard for both vehicle fuels but also utility gases.

A Clean Fuel Standard requires that fuel sold in Canada does not exceed a set carbon intensity. When a

fuel supplier sells low carbon fuel (a carbon intensity less than the fuel standard), they can sell

credits. These credits can be sold to companies which have a carbon intensity above the limit. The CFS

will cover transportation fuels, utility gases and heating fuels.

Currently, British Columbia has a low carbon fuel standard that will reduce the carbon intensity of vehicle

fuels by 10% by 2020. By contrast, the recent federal announcement will also include utility gas fuels such

as propane and natural gas. The CFS does not require specific technologies to be employed. Rather fuel

suppliers can reduce their fuel’s carbon intensity in the most cost-effective way. For example, a supplier

with a carbon intensity above the limit could purchase tradable compliance mechanisms from suppliers

who have a low carbon intensity. Historically, there was no requirement for utility gas companies to

reduce their GHG intensity. The Clean Fuel Standard fundamentally changes the renewable natural gas

business in Canada. Renewable & Low Carbon Fuel Requirements Regulation“,

Clean Energy Fund

The federal government has also announced hundreds of millions of dollars to help study and

commercialize various renewable energy technologies including biofuels. The early commercial status of

many SNG and other biomass liquids to technologies suggests that clean energy funds could be acquired

for demonstration and First of a Kind commercial plant.

Renewable Portfolio Standards

The Canadian Gas Association has set a target of 5% renewable natural gas by 2025 and 10% renewable

natural gas by 2030. There is been some discussion of provincial standards requiring renewable natural

gas or propane substitutes but this is quite preliminary. The fact that there are aspirational targets for

renewable natural gas suggests there is a growing interest in the topic. One reason for this is that there

is pressure on the natural gas industry to demonstrate how it will stay relevant as society moves to a low

carbon economy.