biomass gasification and pyrolysis formatted full report

7/24/2019 Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis Formatted Full Report

1/41


2/41

Biomass gasification & pyrolysis June 2015

Biomass gasification & pyrolysis:How UK support for 'energy innovation' leads to business failuresand particularly inefficient and dirty biomass power stations

june 2015

Report author:Almuth ErnstingAcknowledgements:With special thanks to Raemond Bradford & Tim Hill for their expert advicelayout:Oliver Munnion

biofuelwatch.org.uk

1


3/41


Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction

Scope of this report

How does biomass gasification and pyrolysis work?

A short history of biomass gasification

A very short history of biomass pyrolysis

Biomass gasification around the world todayMain technical challenges associated with biomass gasification

Biomass pyrolysis: A global overviewMain technical challenges associated with biomass pyrolysis

How efficient are advanced conversion biomass plants?

Conventional biomass combustionasification!yrolysis

Are biomass gasifiers cleaner or more polluting than biomasscombustion plants"

The UKs experience with biomass gasification and pyrolysis schemes#essons not heeded$ A%&%E ' the UK(s first failed biomass gasifier&adly advised$ How Highland Council bought into biomass gasificationtechnology and lost )**+, million-hree UK biomass gasifiers in operation"

reen .nvestment &an/ boosts Canadian gasifier company 0e1terra(sbusiness2avid !i/e3 his 45 6or more7 advanced conversion companies and ),5million losses to investors

A closer loo/ at other companies involved in UK biomass gasification

Conclusions from the UK Governments support for biomass gasificationand pyrolysis

references

3

5

7

9

12

15

16*8

18*9

21

:*:*:4:4

24:;:,:trategy :5*:3developing advanced gasification technologies3especially biomass gasification3 is vital toachieving low?carbon targets in different sectors+-he government has made particularly generoussubsidies available for electricity from biomassand waste gasification and pyrolysis+

-his &iofuelwatch report focuses on biomass6including waste wood7 rather than non?biomass

waste gasifiers and pyrolysis plants+ However3 thepolicy framewor/ and subsidies are largelyidentical for both3 and the technologies ' andtherefore the technical challenges ' are verysimilar+ -he findings in the report will therefore

be relevant to Municipal >olid @aste gasifiersand pyrolysis reactors3 too+

&iofuelwatch has identified ;5 biomass andpyrolysis plants with a capacity of at least * M@

which have been proposed across the UK inrecent years+ At least 9 such plants have been

built3 though some of them may never have beenfired up+ = of these gasifiers have failed and

been shut down+ -wo have been redesigned andre?opened+ One of them 6supposedly a pyrolysisplant rather than a gasifier7 appears to havegenerated no energy as yet and the other one3according to the most recent published evidence3

was operating at less than one?tenth of itscapacity for the first five months3 indicating

technical problems+ One company claims to havebuilt another biomass gasifier but &iofuelwatchcould find no planning consent for that one andthere are contradictory statements from twoother companies that also claim to be behind thisplant+ &y comparison3 &iofuelwatch is aware of*4 conventional biomass power stations built inthe UK with at least *, M@ capacity3 none of

which have been shut down+

2espite the failure of eight biomass gasifiers3 atleast *; biomass gasification and pyrolysis

plants hold planning consent as of May :5*,

6including those reportedly built7 and at least twoof them are under construction+ Clearly3 biomassgasification and pyrolysis has attractedsignificant interest from companies ' but thetechnologies have been beset with seriousproblems+

&iomass pyrolysis lin/ed to electricity generationis a new and entirely unproven technology ' sofar it has not been done successfully anywhere in

the world+

&iomass gasification3 on the other hand3 is not anew technology+ .t was discovered in the *=thcentury and there were attempts to develop it fortown gas( in the *9thcentury+ .t was used todrive hundreds of thousands of cars in Europeduring @orld @ar : 6although not withouttechnical and health and safety problems7 and ithas been promoted for heat and electricity inmany countries since the *985s+ 2espite thislong history3 biomass gasification technologiesremain beset with technical difficulties and a

very high failure rate+ -his is particularly thecase for biomass gasifiers designed to supplyelectricity rather than steam for heating orcooling only+ >ome biomass gasifiers have beengenerating electricity for several years but thesetend to be ones involving either collaborations

between companies and research institutes orcollaborations between companies with differenttypes of e1pertise+ >uccess appears to depend oncompanies being able and willing to invest in

overcoming technical problems and upgradingplants over long periods+ >uch plants aree1pensive to build3 e1pensive to operate andprone to far greater problems than conventional

biomass plants+ At best they offer Bust minorefficiency gains3 with the worst being lessefficient than most conventional plants+

lobally3 interest in biomass gasificationrevolves around the potential for producingclean syngas3 which is chemically similar tonatural gas 6though less energy dense7+ >yngas

can be burned in gas engines and gas turbines3

3


5/41


which are more efficient than the steam turbinesused by conventional power stations burningsolid fuels+ &urning clean syngas would intheory also emit less pollution than burning

biomass3 but only where gasifiers operatewithout technical problems+ urthermore3research and development is underway in

various countries to refine syngas into transportfuels and to use it for various industrialpurposes+

.n the UK3 however3 the recently built gasifiersand two new ones which have received sufficientinvestment to be built3 as well as most of thecurrently proposed gasifiers3 do not involveproducing and using any clean syngas at all+

-hey involve burning dirty gas to power a steamturbine3 in particularly inefficient plants+ -hesedevelopments conseDuently ma/e no meaningfulcontribution to any technology developments

worldwide and3 li/e other biomass gasifiers3 arebeset with /ey technical challenges+ -hesechallenges are mostly due to the highly e1plosivegases involved and the fouling and corrosion of/ey plant components+

-his report e1amines individual biomass gasifierdevelopments and most of the companies

involved+ -he first biomass gasifier ever built inthe UK remains the most ambitious proBect yet+-he company set up to build it went intoliDuidation in :55:+ A peer?reviewed study wassubseDuently conducted about the proBect+ -heauthors found that a lac/ of effective scrutinyand oversight contributed to the failure of it andthat the offer of deployment?related subsidies6i+e+ renewable electricity subsidies paid per unitof electricity generated7 may have led to poortechnology choices+ -he lessons from thisproBect(s failure have not been learned+ >ubsidies

for electricity generation coupled withderegulation or barrier removal( arecornerstones of the UK government(s strategy forsupporting energy innovation( in general+ -hee1perience with biomass gasification andpyrolysis plants suggests that this policyapproach has had entirely unintendedconseDuences$

%ather than driving technology innovation(3 ithas driven a proliferation of small companies3

many of them sharing the same directors andnone of them with any trac/ record in designingand operating such comple1 and challengingtechnologies+ ailed gasifier schemes have led totens of millions of pounds of investors( money

being lost+ or e1ample3 two company directors32avid !i/e and 2avid 0airn3 have been directorsof companies directly responsible for two failed

biomass gasification schemes3 which lostinvestors a total of ),5 million+ -hey were also

behind another ultimately unsuccessful biomassgasifier venture which was ta/en over by anothercompany that subseDuently went into liDuidation+

%emar/ably3 the companies associated with thesesame directors3 despite the disastrous trac/

records of their gasifier ventures3 have beengreatly boosted by the reen .nvestment &an/3which recently Boined a consortium building awaste wood gasifier in -yeseley3 &irmingham+-he consortium has chosen a main developer

with directors lin/ed to three failed biomassgasifiers3 and on top of this has chosen aCanadian company3 0e1terra3 to deliver the /eytechnology+ 0e1terra has built three biomassgasification power plants to date3 and not a singelone has been successful+ One was closed afterthree accidents described as potentially lethal(

by a spo/esperson of the university where it wasinstalled3 another failed soon after it opened3 andcommissioning of the third has so far beendelayed by over a year+ urthermore3 if this newgasifier is to succeed3 it will be less than :*efficient ' far below what many conventional

biomass plants achieve+

-he /ey losers of the government(s unsuccessfulpolicy of promoting biomass gasification andpyrolysis have primarily been investors3including investors participating in the

government(s subsidised Enterprise .nvestment>cheme+ Health and safety and air emissionsris/s associated with both technologies have alsoput local residents at a particularly high ris/3 oneeven greater than living close to conventional

biomass plants+ ires3 e1plosions and e1cessivepollution have been associated with biomassgasifiers and pyrolysis pilot plants outside theUK and3 in >cotland3 a waste gasifier wasresponsible for hundreds of air Duality permit

breaches3 a fire and an e1plosion+

4


6/41


Introduction

.n 2ecember :5*4 the reen .nvestment &an/ 6.&7 announced funding for Fthe first gasificationplant of its /ind in the UKG i+e+ the first advanced conversion( biomass plant that would generateelectricity+ -he hope3 according to the .&(s Chief E1ecutive3 was that it would Foffer a positivedemonstration effect that others will followGiiI+-his .&?funded gasifier is now being built in -yseley3in &irmingham+ .f it successfully operates then it will indeed be the first UK biomass plant of this typeto do so+ &ut it is by no means the first such plant to have been built in the UK

At least :; biomass gasification and pyrolysis plants with at least * M@ capacity have receivedplanning consent across the UK**I+ 9 biomass gasifiers have been builtiiiiI3 although some of thosemay never once have been fired up+ Out of those 9 plants3 = have failed and been shut down+ -wo ofthose have been redesigned and reopened$ One of them operated at less than *5 of its capacity andno more recent information has been published+ -he other does not appear to have generated anyenergy as yet+ One other plant was reported by a company to have been commissioned butcontradictory information has been published by two other companies and &iofuelwatch could findno planning consent for it+ -hus3 out of 9 biomass gasification plants reportedly opened3 not oneappears to have operated successfully so far+

&y comparison3 &iofuelwatch is unaware of any dedicated biomass power station using conventionaltechnology that has been commissioned and then closed down in the UK ' *4 such conventionalplants with at least *, M@ capacity are in operation at present:+ Clearly3 operating a biomass gasifieris beset with far greater technical difficulties and challenges than operating a conventional biomass

plant+

0onetheless3 at the time of writing this report3 at least *; biomass gasification or pyrolysis plantshave planning permission 6e1cluding those with planning consents that have been abandoned by thedevelopers but including two already built7 advanced conversion( biomass plants have planningpermission in the UK3 five planning decision are pending3 and two others have been publiclyproposed3 although full planning applications have not yet been published+ -his does not include theeven larger number of similar plants proposed and being developed that would use Municipal >olid

@aste rather than biomass+

-hus3 despite maBor technical problems3 companies( interest in advanced conversion( of biomass isgrowing+ -he reason for this is simple$ A successfully operated advanced conversion( plant 6whether

it uses biomass or Municipal >olid @aste7 attracts more subsidies per unit of electricity than anyother power plant4+-he overnment(s &ioenergy >trategyiiihighlights the Fcrucial roleG which it sees

1 This includes ones for which planning consent has expired and developments not pursued any further by the

developer! This does not include coal power stations converted to biomass" Tilbury B was operated on 1##$ biomass for about

two years and then closed down and %ronbridge ower 'tation( currently operated on 1##$ biomass( is scheduled toclose at the end of !#1) However( these have been amongst the largest biomass users worldwide and economicconsiderations related to such large*scale wood pellet sourcing appear to have played a role in the operators+decisions to close these plants , rather than technical barriers

- 'uch ./dvanced 0onversion+ plants attract ! Renewable bligation 0ertificates per megawatt hour which is higherthan the rate available for conventional biomass power plants The only renewable electricity technologies thatattract a higher rate of subsidies are tidal stream and wave power

2https"33wwwgovuk3government3uploads3system3uploads3attachment4data3file3!11!5!3ro4banding4levels4!#1-416pdf7

5
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211292/ro_banding_levels_2013_17.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211292/ro_banding_levels_2013_17.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211292/ro_banding_levels_2013_17.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211292/ro_banding_levels_2013_17.pdf


7/41


for advanced biomass conversion in Fdelivering low carbon energy going forwardG and high subsidieshave been chosen as the main way of incentivising the development of such technologies+

-his report will start with an overview of the two technologies classed as advanced biomassconversion($ biomass gasification and biomass pyrolysis+ .t will then give a brief global and historicaloverview of the development of both and loo/ at whether such plants have been operated successfullyin other countries+ -his is followed by a discussion of how efficient and clean ' or otherwise ?

biomass gasifiers and pyrolysis plants can be e1pected to be and what determines their efficiencylevels and air emissions+ -his general overview is then followed by an in?depth discussion of thee1perience of failed and proposed biomass gasification and pyrolysis plants in the UK+ Have thelessons from the failed proBects been learned" @hat are the chances of the planned new developmentsovercoming the problems encountered in the past" @ould the plants that are being built or proposedproduce more efficient and cleaner energy from biomass than conventional power stations" Andfinally3 what lessons can be drawn from the UK(s policy to incentivise advanced biomass conversion(plants"

6


8/41


Scope of this report-his report focuses on two technologies for converting biomass to electricity;6including combinedheat and power plants7$ gasification and pyrolysis+ &oth are classed as advanced biomass conversion(under UK subsidy rules+ -he report does not discuss the impacts of large?scale biomass use forelectricity and heat generation in general i+e+ the impacts on forests and climate change+ &iofuelwatchhas documented and discussed those in detail elsewhereiv+ Air Duality impacts are considered only inso far as emissions from gasification and pyrolysis plants are compared to those from standardcombustion biomass plants+

@e attempt to answer the following Duestions$

*+ Are biomass gasification and pyrolysis proven technologies"

:+ Are there technical problems associated with these technologies and3 if so3 what are they andcould they negatively affect nearby communities or wor/ers 6e+g+ through health and safetyris/s or pollution7"

4+ Are biomass gasifiers and pyrolysis plants more or less efficient than standard biomass powerplants" @hat ma/es individual plants more or less efficient"

;+ 2o biomass gasifiers and pyrolysis plants cause more or less air pollution than standardbiomass power plants"

,+ 2oes the UK government(s support for biomass gasification and pyrolysis ' especially theirrules for subsidising both technologies ' promote the most efficient and least polluting typesof advanced conversion plants("

-he report does not loo/ at gasification and pyrolysis plants which rely on Municipal >olid @aste orother non?biomass waste+ However3 gasification and pyrolysis uses the same technologies regardlessof which type of solid fuel is used,+ urthermore3 UK subsidy rules and rates are identical for

biomass and for energy from waste advanced conversion(+ -his means that the conclusions drawnwill be relevant to those concerned about energy from waste gasifiers and pyrolysis plants+

-he main focus of the report is on proposed3 operating3 and abandoned biomass gasification and

pyrolysis proBects with a minimum capacity of * M@ in the UK+ @e have identified ;5 such schemesv

for which planning applications 6including scoping reDuests7 have been submitted


9/41


where full planning applications are still pending3 we accessed consultation documents published bythe developers+ @e also searched for and used information published by the developer6s7 and anyadditional information publicly available+ or those plants said to be operational3 we consultedOfgem data to see whether any renewable electricity subsidies have been received ' a pro1y forevidence of electricity generation+ Our list may not be e1haustive as far as advanced conversionplants not yet built and commissioned are concerned+ or e1ample3 one company3 AggregateMicropower Holdings3 states that they are raising investment for five biomass gasifiersvi3 but we haveonly been able to find details of one of these+

However3 before discussing these ;5 UK schemes3 we present an overview of how the technologieswor/3 a historical overview3 and a global overview of the current state of the technologies and of themain motives behind investments in them+ @e draw on a wide range of literature3 includingpublications by the .nternational Energy Agency3 studies commissioned by the UK government3 andpeer?reviewed studies+

-here is significant international interest in using biomass gasification and pyrolysis as the first

stages for producing liDuid transport biofuels from solid biomass+ &iofuel production would involvecomple1 further refining of either the gas obtained from biomass gasification or pyrolysis3 or the bio?oil obtained from pyrolysis+ &iofuel production of this type is not commercially viable so far and norefinery of this type has been proposed in the UK+ -he report therefore does not loo/ at this potentialapplication3 nor does it loo/ in detail at the potential uses for char3 which may be a by?product ofgasification and is either a by?product or a primary product of pyrolysis+ -his report only focuses onheat and power generation from the two technologies+

commissioned but for which we could find no planning records , even though our planning search revealedunrelated planning applications for the same site= the Tyseley gasifier currently under construction2about which the>reen %nvestment Bank has published details7= a gasifier built and shut down in ?ewry biomass gasifier2about

which company and media reports7( and the /RBR@ gasifier built and shut down in @ggborough 2about which apeer*reviewed study has been published7

8


10/41


How does biomass gasification andpyrolysis work?-here are three possible ways of converting biomass 6or for that matter any solid fuel7 into electricityandJor heat$ Conventional combustion3 gasification3 and pyrolysis+ Here we shall focus on plants thatgenerate electricity 6although they may also ma/e use of heat7$

.n a conventional biomass or coal power station3 the fuel is combusted in the presence of air=+As the biomass or coal burns3 it reacts with the o1ygen in the air and most of it turns into a hot mi1 ofgases 6e1cept for the unburnable residue which remains as ash7+ -he hot gases from the burning

biomass or coal3 heat water to produce super?heated steam+ -hat steam then passes through a steamturbine which generates electricity+

2iagram of a solid?fuel steam power plant >ource$http$JJ*+bp+blogspot+comJ?L0enbEhvfoJUcl5g?OcyB.JAAAAAAAAAE.Jv4aOpC*p#N/Js*


11/41


-he idea behind biomass gasification is that biomass is heated not in normal air3 but with limitedo1ygen+ -his produces a different composition of hot gases3 which the .nternational Energy Agencyviiand many others call producer gas(9and which can then be cleaned of different pollutants and tars+-he cleaned up gas is called syngas(+ >yngas3 unli/e the dirtier producer gas3 can be burned to powernot Bust steam turbines3 but also gas turbines3 Combined Cycle power plants 6i+e+ ones combining a gasturbine and a steam turbine to increase efficiency73 or gas engines+ However3 if the producer gas is notcleaned then it can only be used as fuel for a boiler that provides steam for a turbine or3 otherwise3for providing heat only+ -his is the least efficient form of generating electricity through biomassgasification+ Either ash or a small amount of char is left behind as a waste or by?product3 but thema1imum amount of char derived from gasification is much smaller than what can be produced withpyrolysis+

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

Biomass pyrolysisinvolves e1posing biomass to high temperatures in the absence of o1ygen for ashort period of time+ !yrolysis produces different Duantities of pyrolysis oil 6bio?oil(73 producer gas6which can be transformed into syngas through gas cleaning73 and char ? depending on the specificpyrolysis technology used+

A range of different technologies and designs can be used in biomass combustion plants3 biomassgasifiers3 and biomass pyrolysis plants+ or e1ample3 conventional biomass and also biomass gasifierplants can use different boiler technologies3 some of which are more efficient3 some of which aresuitable for larger or smaller plants only3 and some of which are only suitable for certain types of

biomass+ 2ifferent pyrolysis processes are distinguished by the temperatures and the length of timefor which biomass is e1posed to heat+ A range of different types of pyrolysis plant technologies are

being developed+ An overview of different biomass gasifier technologies can be found at$www+ieatas/44+orgJappJwebrootJfilesJfileJpublicationsJactPsheetsJ.EAP@hatPisPgasification+pdfanda description of all of the different biomass pyrolysis technologies being developed can be found at$

www+mdpi+comJ*99


12/41


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

11
http://www.ratical.org/renewables/pyrolytic.gifhttp://www.ratical.org/renewables/pyrolytic.gif


13/41


A short history of biomassgasification&iomass gasification to produce wood gas( is not a new technology+ .ts discovery and earlydevelopment dates bac/ to the *= thcentury+ .n *8=93 a rench engineer3 !hilippe #e &on3 wrote aboutdistilling wood to produce gas+ He later obtained a patent for this3 although there is no record of himhaving turned such a process into practiceviii+ .n *8=,3 another rench inventor3 Qean !ierreMinc/elen3 reported using the first gas lightsi1+ as lighting became commonplace in cities such as#ondon during the early *9thcentury+ >ome of that gas would have been produced from wood andpeat but most of it was coal gas3 which came to be /nown as town gas3( and was widely used until it

was replaced by natural gas after @orld @ar :+

rom the early *9:5s there was renewed interest in wood gas3 this time as a transport fuel+ -he &ritishinventor -homas Hugh !ar/er is said to have built the first car to run on wood gas in *95*1 thoughhis invention of an oil?burning steam powered car and a very first electric vehicle are betterdocumented1i+ 2uring the early *9:5s3 eorge .mbert developed the first wood gasifier suitable for a

vehicle1iiand commercial wood gas vehicles began to be built3 especially in rance+ &y *9:93 around*3==5 vehicles in rance ran on wood gas and the number increased to around 83=55 in *94=+ &oth0aLi ermany and fascist .taly heavily promoted the development and use of wood gas as a transportfuel1iii+@ood gas use in transport pea/ed during the >econd @orld @ar when access to oil becamedifficult in Europe+ .t was most widespread in ermany but also widely used in >weden3 rance3inland3 2enmar/3 >witLerland3 Austria and the 0etherlands1iv+&ut although ermany reportedly builtup to half a million wood gas cars3 wood gas cars were never without problems ' which is why petrolsupplies were reserved for the armies+

Car running on wood gas3 ermany3 *9;;

12


14/41


A study of @orld @ar : wood gas vehicles in inland1v3 wood gas vehicles details these problems$

Cars driven with wood gas were slower and less efficient than those run on petrol ' they hadto be pushed up even small hills

-he wood gas generators had to be cleaned and maintained regularly+ @ood needed to beloaded more often than petrol tan/s would be filled and engines too/ up to *, minutes longerto start up

#arge Duantities of polluting soot were emitted

2rivers had to be careful to avoid a ris/ of e1plosion from flames or hot charcoal

Constant supplies of chopped wood o f the right type were reDuired and those were difficult to

come by3 especially in cities -he most serious problem of all was carbon mono1ide 6CO7 poisoning$ At least ,?*, people a

year were /illed from CO poisoning but around half of all drivers using wood gas ' includingbus drivers ? suffered some level of CO poisoning and3 over a two year period3 uccess( however was measured purely in terms of a plant continuing to operate+ %eplacement ofdiesel3 rather than clean and efficient energy production3 was the main motivation for installing

biomass gasifiers at the time+!ollution ' especially with liDuid effluents ' was identified as a

significant concern+ .n one case3 *,/g of highly to1ic phenols were discharged every hour+

*, years later3 a similar survey of small?scale biomass gasifiers3 this time commissioned by theerman government3 was published1viii+ rom the *995s3 investment in biomass gasifiers was nolonger confined to developing countries and the :5*5 report loo/ed at e1periences in ermany as

well as in .ndia3 >ri #an/a3 and various African countries+ &y :5*53 so the study suggested3 small?scalebiomass gasification had become no more reliable or successful than it had been during the *9=5sand similar difficulties were being e1perienced everywhere3 not Bust in poor countries3 but also inermany+ -here3 ,5 biomass gasifiers had been installed between :555 and :5*5$

However3 Fmany have been ta/en out of operation after some months of trial+ >ome plants went up inflames and developers went ban/rupt+ -he few plants that achieved more or less continuous

operation were operating under special circumstances$ -hey were part of university research

13


15/41


programmes or were operated by the developers themselves+ Moreover3 in almost all cases about oneto two years of adaptation were necessaryG+

#ac/ of reliable technology3 high costs for technology support and repairs3 and dangerous threats tothe environment and to health and safety3 were seen as the main obstacles to the technology+ -heauthors suggested that these problems may have been overcome by operators of large biomassgasifiers in >candinavia3 though they did not in fact study such plants+

&iomass gasification is thus a relatively old( technology but one which3 for the past century3 hasremained beset with technical problems+

14


16/41


A very short history of biomasspyrolysisHumans have used biomass pyrolysis for thousands of years ' to produce charcoal+ Charcoal wasused in cave paintings older than 453555 years and was being produced in significant Duantities bythe time the &ronLe Age started over ,3555 years ago1i1+ However3 the idea of using pyrolysis toproduce bio?oil and gas to generate energy is a very recent one+ -he first commercial( 6or at leastlarger than laboratory?scale7 pyrolysis plants to have been built3 appear to have been ones built by2ynamotive plants in @est #orne and uelph in Ontario+ -hese were opened in :558J5= but onlyoperated for a short period+

15


17/41


Biomass gasification around theworld today-oday3 interest in biomass gasification worldwide is motivated by four main obBectives$

-he development of drop in( transport biofuels made from solid biomass3 based on therefining of syngas derived from biomass gasification$ -his type of biofuel production remainsin the early %esearch and 2evelopment stage

-he use of clean syngas derived from biomass gasification for a variety of chemicals and

other materials currently produced from fossil fuels$ -hese uses also remain in the early%esearch and 2evelopment stages

Mainly small?scale biomass gasifiers promoted in developing countries to increase overallenergy supply and access and in the hope of reducing dependence on diesel

&iomass gasification for heat andJor electricity generation as a contribution towardsrenewable energy targets and3 potentially3 a way of generating energy from biomass moreefficiently and with less air pollution than would be possible in a conventional biomass plant+

All commercial investments in biomass gasification in the UK are for electricity generation 6with and

without cogeneration of heat7+

-he .nternational Energy Agency 6.EA7 has published a map of biomass gasifiers worldwide$www+ieatas/44+orgJcontentJthermalPgasificationPfacilities+ Although this mapJlist is far fromcomplete it shows a significant number of investments and it also confirms that some biomassgasifiers have now been operating for several years3 some for over a decade3 although *8 cancelled3stopped3 or suspended proBects are listed+ Unfortunately3 no independent information about thestatus3 operation3 or potential problems of any of the gasifiers listed is available and at least one ofthe companies listed by the .EA as operating four such plants 6>tirling 2K7 has gone out of business11+-hose proBects which appear to have been successful ' i+e+ which have been operating for several

years ' have tended to either involve collaborations between companies and research institutes orlong?term company commitments to continually invest in adBusting upgrading and optimising plants

in order to resolve technical problems+ >ubsidies appear to be essential in all cases ' althoughconventional biomass power plants also generally rely on subsidies+

or e1ample3 an = M@ combined heat and power gasifier in uessing has been operational since:55:+ -his is a steam?blown gasifier using dry wood as fuel+ According to the company3 F%enet?

Austria3 a competence networ/ on energy from biomass3 consisting of e1perts from universities andindustry started to develop this process further to a commercial stage+ 2uring the last years a lot ofimprovements could be reachedG11i+ Continuous development and the involvement of many e1pertshas allowed this plant to be operated relatively successfully+ Also3 a smaller biomass gasificationcombined heat and power plant in Oberdorf3 >witLerland3 has been operational since :558+ .t is run

by a cooperative enterprise but has involved collaboration with *5 companies3 a regional authority3and three not?for?profit organisations11ii+

16
http://www.ieatask33.org/content/thermal_gasification_facilitieshttp://www.ieatask33.org/content/thermal_gasification_facilities


18/41


Main technical challenges associated with biomass gasification

Efficient energy generation through biomass gasification depends on clean syngas3 i+e+ gas ofa Duality similar to natural gas and therefore capable of being burned in gas turbines and

engines+ -his is discussed further below+ Effective gas cleaningis one of the maindifficulties associated with this technology

&iomass gasification at temperatures below *3455oC produces gas with a range of heavyhydrocarbons+ -hese are collectively /nown as tars+ .f tars build up3 they cause fouling(3

which means they clog up vital eDuipment and prevent it from wor/ing properly+ -his couldinclude clogging up of air emissions mitigation systems3 and create greater air pollution as aresult11iii+ .t can also reDuire plants to be shut down+ Avoiding andJor brea/ing down tars is amaBor challenge+ Using dry wood can reduce but not eliminate problems+ Higher combustiontemperatures can also reduce problems but may not be practicable+ !lasma arc gasificationhas been proposed as one solution3 however we have been unable to find any e1amples ofoperating plasma arc biomass gasifiers in Europe and none of the biomass gasifiers everproposed in the UK would have used that technology

-here are health and safety risks associated with any plant that involves handling largeDuantities of woodchips and pellets3 since wood dust is highly e1plosive and wood can self?ignite+ However3 biomass gasification carries additional ris/s because producer gas andsyngas are highly e1plosive+ -o prevent an e1plosion when pressure builds up inside agasifier3 operators may be forced to vent dirty producer gas straight into the atmosphere3

bypassing the various mitigation systems designed to clean it+ -hese ris/s were e1emplified bya Municipal @aste gasifier in >cotland$ &etween :559 and :5*4 6when the plant(s permit wasfinally removed*573 there were at least == bypass stac/ activations resulting in unlawfully highair emissions+ 0onetheless3 an e1plosion eventually did occur3 as did a maBor fire11iv+

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

17


19/41


Biomass pyrolysis: A global overview-he U> 2epartment of Energy3 the European Union3 and various other governments support %esearchand 2evelopment into biomass pyrolysis+ -he .nternational Energy Agency has set up a platform tofacilitate cross?country collaboration to develop this technology11v+ -he technical challengesassociated with bio?oil and syngas production through pyrolysis are significantly greater than thoseassociated with biomass gasification+ .t is widely accepted that more %esearch and 2evelopment arereDuired before this technology can become commercially viable11vi+

.nterest in advancing this technology3 despite the significant technical obstacles3 is primarilymotivated by the Duest for second?generation biofuels$ Although pyrolysis or bio?oil itself is not ofhigh enough Duality to be burned in car engines3 it could3 at least in theory3 be refined into transport

biofuels+ !yrolysis is thus one of several pathways for turning solid biomass into liDuid biofuelswhich is being researched+

Entrepreneurs3 researchers3 and others promoting the use of biochar also have an interest in biomasspyrolysis+ &iochar is being promoted as a soil amendment which is claimed to ma/e soils more fertile3to help seDuester carbon long?term3 and to have various other benefits+ .n reality3 the scientificevidence so far shows that these claims are highly Duestionable and that biochar use cannot be reliedon to have such desired impacts+ &iochar has been discussed by &iofuelwatch elsewhere11vii+ !yrolysischar of the right Duality can also be used as activated carbon(+ Activated carbon is char with very finepores which can be used to filter different contaminants from water or from flue gases 6e+g+ mercuryfrom coal power plants7+

However3 optimising pyrolysis for char production means using slow pyrolysis(3 i+e+ e1posingbiomass to temperatures averaging ;55oC for a relatively long period+ >low pyrolysis yields around45 bio?oil3 4, char3 and 4, gas ' with lower temperatures resulting in more char production+ &y

varying the temperature and length of time that the biomass is e1posed to heat3 different Dualities ofchars can be produced+ However3 slow pyrolysis ' with lower temperatures ' produces less bio?oiland bio?oil that is of lower Duality and thus even more difficult to refine into transport fuels+urthermore3 e1posing biomass to heat for longer periods reDuires more energy11viii+

E1posing biomass to higher temperatures for much shorter periods ' called fast and flash pyrolysis 'results in ,5?8, production of bio?oil3 which is of a higher Duality than that produced through slowpyrolysis+ However3 it produces far less char+ Moreover3 char produced at high temperature appears

less li/ely to improve crop yields than char produced through slow pyrolysis because it is lessal/aline and has other chemical properties which ma/e it less easy for plants to absorb nutrients11i1**+>low pyrolysis is also used to produce activated carbon ? though the pyrolysis is then followed byfurther treatment of the carbon111

.n short3 pyrolysis can either be optimised to produce char for use as biochar or for conversion toactivated carbon3 or to produce bio?oil as a fuel3 but not both+ As for syngas production3 gas yieldsalso drop with higher temperatures and companies interested primarily in producing and usingsyngas will always opt for gasification 6which yields 95 gas3 rather than a mere *5?45 from fastand flash pyrolysis7+

11 ?ote that this is appears to be a general trend , but the interaction between different biochars with different soilsand crops is highly complex and so far impossible to predict with any accuracy

18


20/41


-he prospect of a highly?efficient pyrolysis plant which produces bio?oil as a useful fuel3 cleansyngas to produce energy and commercially useful char3 is thus a very remote prospect indeed+

.n fact3 Bust one company ' 2ynamotive ' appears to ever have built pyrolysis plants 6two in Ontario7with the purpose of selling biochar and bio?oil+ &oth closed down after a short period+

-he largest e1isting commercial biomass pyrolysis proBects we identified3 were developed by ortumand Ensyn and are both heavily subsidised+ A third such plant3 called the Empyro !roBect( is currentlyunder construction in Hengelo in the 0etherlands+ -he aim is that this flash pyrolysis plant willproduce steam3 electricity3 pyrolysis oil and organic acid+ -his proBect3 too has been subsidised6through the 8thramewor/ !rogramme of the European Commission111i+

-he innish company ortum3 together with other corporate partners3 started commissioning apyrolysis plant capable of producing up to ,53555 tonnes of bio?oil in 0ovember :5*4+ -hey werestill carrying out test?runs when a maBor e1plosion occurred in March :5*;3 inBuring three

wor/ers111ii+ Commissioning restarted in >eptember :5*; but ortum do not e1pect the plant to be

fully operational until autumn :5*,+ &io?oil is burned in ortum(s e1isting combined heat and powerplant in Qoensuu in inland3 which is adBacent to the new pyrolysis plant and which otherwise burnswood and peat+

Ensyn3 a 2elaware?registered company wor/ing in strategic alliance( with Honeywell subsidiary UO!##C3 claims to have built a fast pyrolysis plant with a capacity for producing 4 million gallons ofFrenewable fuel oilG 6i+e+ bio?oil7 a year in %enfrew3 Ontario3 as well as *, smaller fast pyrolysis plantsin the U>3 five of them commercial ones in @isconsin3 with new developments underway in Malaysiaand &raLil+ -hey started in April :5*; and have produced 48 million gallons of bio?oil over :,

years111iii+ Ensynhas received substantial subsidies for their investments+ .f the figures they cite arecorrect3 then Ensyn would appear to have achieved commercialisation of larger?scale biomasspyrolysis ' contradicting the .nternational Energy Agency -as/ orce on pyrolysis3 who believe that

several challenges will have to be overcome before this could happen111iv

+ -hey would have achievedwhat no other company in the world has managed and ortum(s claims about having built the world(sfirst commercial bio?oil combined heat and power plant would be incorrect+ .ndependent researchinto and analysis of Ensyn(s e1perience3 as well as into evidence of actual Duantities of bio?oilproduced and any technical obstacles encountered3 would seem highly valuable+

Main technical challenges associated with biomass pyrolysis

A :5*: peer?reviewed technological review of biomass pyrolysis111vconcluded$

FConversion of biomass to bio?fuel has to overcome challenges such as understanding the trade?offbetween the siLe of the pyrolysis plant and feedstoc/3 improvement of the reliability of pyrolysisreactors and processes to become viable for commercial applications+++ &io?oil production through

pyrolysis is still an immature technology and is not commercially feasible yet+ !yrolysis bio?oil needsto overcome many technical3 economic and social barriers to compete with tradition fossil fuelsG+

One of the challenges consists of producing bio?oil of a high enough Duality to be used as aheating fuel and modifying engines3 turbines3 and boiler combustion systems so that bio?oilcan be efficiently burned without damaging the plant(s components through slagging andcorrosion+

2ifferent pyrolysis technologies have been developed but there are challenges associated with

19


21/41


each of them111vi+ or e1ample3 one technology offers reliable pyrolysis reactors which can bescaled up ' but heat?transfer and thus efficiency remains unproven at larger scales+ Anothertechnology overcomes the problems with heat?transfer3 but it has not yet been possible toscale it up and there are problems with char attrition(3 i+e+ with char particles brea/ing up andcontaminating the bio?oil3 ma/ing it less usable+

-here are particular health and safety problems associated with pyrolysis111vii+ #i/egasification3 pyrolysis produces highly e1plosive and flammable gases+ urthermore3pyrolysis gases are to1ic and one accident in a municipal solid waste pyrolyser in ermany3led to an entire neighbourhood being evacuated and several wor/ers and residents beingadmitted to hospital for observation111viii+

20


22/41


How efficient are advancedconversion biomass plants?Conventional biomass combustion

&urning biomass to generate electricity is an inefficient process$ Most biomass power stationsoperate at :5?45 efficiencies3 i+e+ they lose 85?=5 of the energy contained in the feedstoc/111i1+>maller plants tend to be less efficient than larger ones3 but even the very largest and most efficientplants that burn wood to generate electricity only3 still waste over


23/41


syngas with a different energy content

-he siLe of the gasifier$ As is the case with biomass combustion plants3 smaller units tend tobe less efficient than larger ones+ .t is not the overall siLe of the proBect that matters in thisconte1t ' it is the siLe of the individual units+ >ome medium?siLed biomass gasifiers proposed

would consist of several very small units or modules(+

.n a biomass gasifier which produces and combusts cleaned syngas3 it is always necessary to firstcool down the dirty producer gas in order to clean it+ 2uring this cooling process3 a proportion of theoriginal energy contained in the biomass will be lost+ According to the .nternational Energy Agency(s-as/ orce on biomass gasification3 during gasification F85?=5 of the energy contained in theinitial solid fuel is transferred to the chemical energy of producer gas 6remaining :5?45 accountsfor heat and losses7G1lii+ -he greater efficiency of a gas engine or gas turbine ' compared to a steamturbine3 on which a conventional biomass plant relies3 ' can more than compensate for this energyloss+ &urning clean syngas to power a steam turbine3 on the other hand would result in a significantenergy loss compared to what a conventional biomass plant would achieve+

As one peer?reviewed study about biomass gasification published in :5*; states$

F-he challenge of this system biomass gasification reliant on a steam turbineI is related to the netelectrical efficiency3 which is e1tremely low 6*5:57+ -he high capital cost and the limitation ofboiler and steam turbines lead companiesI to avoiding this technology for power generation frombiomass gasification gas+G1liii

However3 none of the biomass gasifier proposals that have been made in the UK which rely onpowering a steam turbine involve any cleaning of the producer gas+ -his means that their efficiency

will simply be comparable 6i+e+ comparably low7 to that of a comparable conventional biomass plant+.n reality3 though3 the efficiency of those proposed gasifiers tends is particularly low*;+ -his is largely

due to the very small siLe of the proposed individual units or modules+ -his also applies to the-yseley development which is supported by the reen .nvestment &an/$ &ased on published figures3the e1pected efficiency would be a mere :5+ -his seemingly illogical technology choice3 as we shallsee below3 is a perverse result of the UK government(s subsidy rules for bioenergy+

@hat about gasifiers which power a gas turbine or engine with cleaned syngas" -hese can achieveslightly greater efficiencies than conventional biomass of the same siLe despite the loss of energyduring gas cooling+ -his is due to the fact that gas engines and gas turbines are more efficient thansteam turbines+ -he uessing biomass gasifier in Austria3 mentioned above3 achieves :5?:, electricefficiency3 but =5 overall efficiency due to a high level of heat use ' though it is not clear from thecitation whether this is gross or net efficiency3 i+e+ whether use of energy to run the plant is includedin the figure 1liv+ -his is a high efficiency level for a combined heat and power plant3 but it is one that

can be achieved by a well?designed combined heat and power biomass combustion plant too+ Anothercompany planning to build a , M@ biomass gasifier with a gas engine in &ulgaria3 states that they willachieve 85 overall efficiency and :


24/41


Pyrolysis

!yrolysis3 as we have seen above3 yields bio?oil3 producer gas 6which can be cleaned to becomesyngas7 and char in varying proportions+ .n theory3 optimum efficiency would rely on cleaning theproducer gas and burning it in a gas engine or turbine and also burning the bio?oil as efficiently aspossible3 while /eeping non?fuel char yields as low as possible+ &ut no plant in the world has ever

been built which ma/es use of all three products ' and world(s only pyrolysis plant designed toproduce bio?oil and combined heat and power is not yet fully commissioned+ .n the absence of anyreal e1perience with pyrolysis plants for energy generation3 we cannot credibly predict how efficientthose might be+

Are biomass gasifiers cleaner or more polluting than biomass

combustion plants?

As we have discussed elsewhere1lvi3 burning virgin wood in power stations emits appro1imately asmany pollutants as burning coal in similar plants3 but more of some pollutants and less of others+&urning chemically treated waste wood emits a greater range of pollutants and many of them ingreater Duantities+

.f the producer gas from biomass gasification is cleaned to such a high standard that it can be burnedin gas engines or turbines3 then the emissions will be significantly lower than those from biomasscombustion plants ' as long as the plant operates smoothly+ As we have seen above3 technicalproblems with such plants are almost universal and they can include dirty producer gas being ventedstraight into the atmosphere to prevent pressure build?up and an e1plosion+

Net cleaning of the producer gas is costly and not necessary in order to run an inefficient steamturbine ' although burning dirty producer gas will increase boiler corrosion and ma/e boilermaintenance more costly+ -hus3 a biomass gasifier that powers a steam turbine can be e1pected toemit similar types and levels of pollutants as a comparable biomass combustion plant+ &ut again3 this

would only apply if such a gasifier was to operate smoothly+ @hich3 as we have seen3 is unli/ely to bethe case ? at least for the first year or two of operation+ Even without any incidents reDuiring ventingof dirty producer gas3 freDuent shutdowns and start?ups of such a plant will result in significantpea/s in the emission of dio1in and furans and other air pollutants1lvii+ -echnical problems thustranslate into very real pollution and public health concerns+

23


25/41


The UKs experience with biomassgasification and pyrolysis schemes

Lessons not heeded: ARBRE the UKs first failed biomass gasifier

.n ebruary *9983 >elby 2istrict Council granted planning consent for the UK(s first biomassgasification proBect3 and arguably for the most ambitious such proBect yet proposed in this country+-he A%&%E 6FArable &iomass %enewable EnergyG7 proBect was developed by a consortium of fourcompanies in response to a European Commission call for biomass gasification demonstrationproBects+ -he European Commission grant was to cover ;5 of the cost3 although costs escalated andit therefore only covered :=+ .n addition3 the developers were guaranteed UK subsidies for electricitygeneration+ -he A%&%E plant3 located in Eggborough3 was built as an .ntegrated asificationCombined Cycle 6.CC7 power plant ' in theory a particularly efficient3 low?pollution type of biomassplant which3 however3 has never been technically proven+ .n :55*3 the plant was finally fired up+ &ut itnever operated successfully and in :55:3 the proBect went into liDuidation+ A peer?reviewed study hassince loo/ed at the obstacles faced by the proBects and the reasons it did not succeed1lviii3 due to acombination of technical3 organisational3 and financial problems+ as cooling and cleaning wasdescribed as the proBect(s Achilles heel(+ -he authors concluded$ F

FArguably3 there was insufficient control and monitoring by the organisations andcompanies involved in !roBect A%&%E+ -his lac/ of control seems to have e1acerbated thedegree of technical errors and the failure to address these errors in sufficient time+!erhaps the /ey policy message to emerge from the case is that effective scrutiny andoversight of publicly funded demonstration proBects is reDuired throughout theirdevelopment3 especially when bodies that might usually be performing this function in acommercial setting 6e+g+ ban/s7 are not involved in this capacityG+

-hese lessons3 as we shall see3 have not been heeded$ -he government has since increased subsidyrates for biomass gasification and pyrolysis but e1ercises virtually no oversight or control overproBects+ !lanning policy reDuires planning authorities to ignore any Duestions about the technicalfeasibility of proBects+ !lanners must assume that any plant will operate in full accordance with its

Environmental !ermit and that the conditions in the permit will be fully enforced by the EnvironmentAgency1li1+-his is despite the fact that the literature about biomass gasifiers shows that they cannot bee1pected to operate smoothly for at least the first one or two years3 and even though the Environment

Agency 6or their >cottish eDuivalent3 >E!A7 will only revo/e permits in the most e1tremecircumstances+ And3 as we shall see below3 the reen .nvestment &an/(s support for the -yseley

biomass gasification proBect raises Duestions about their level of diligence+

24


26/41


Badly advised: How Highland Council bought into biomassgasification technology and lost 11.5 million

rom :55:3 Highland Council embar/ed on a biomass proBect in @ic/$ -hey would build a combinedheat and power plant which would use residues from nearby tree plantations to heat local housingand sell electricity to the grid+ ew would fault the idea+ -he plant was to meet local heating needs

with local wood3 it could be run on local tree plantation residues3 it was to involve one of the very fewlocal heating networ/s built in the UK3 and it was to be highly efficient+ Unfortunately3 as it turned out3the arms?length company set up by Highland Council3 Caithness Heat and !ower3 became convincedthat a biomass gasifier' using gas engines which relied on effective gas cleaning ? provided them

with a credible and efficient choice+ :;8 houses were lin/ed up to the new district heating networ/+@hen technical problems became apparent3 Highland Council too/ full control of the scheme+ -rialswere started in October :55= but by 2ecember that year3 an e1pert report advised that the plant wouldnever wor/+ -he Council had to provide heat and hot water to the :;8 homes with an oil boiler ' apolluting3 high carbon source of heating+ Eventually3 a private company agreed to replace the defunct

gasifier with a conventional biomass combustion plant to supply and e1pand the heating networ/+And this combined heat and power plant is reportedly wor/ing well+

-he >cottish public sector auditor3 Audit >cotland3 decided to carry out a full investigation into howHighland Council had lost )**+, million and issued a highly critical report l+ Much of their criticismrelated to the way in which the Council had dealt with the arms?length company responsible forchoosing the gasification system ' including the lac/ of scrutiny+ Audit >cotland was uneDuivocalabout the reason why the scheme failed$

FUltimately3 the proBect failed because the company procured e1perimental( and high ris/gasification technology which could not be commissioned successfullyG+

.t seems unfortunate that no similar level of scrutiny has ever been paid to the UK and that the>cottish government supports measures for biomass gasification and pyrolysis3 mainly throughrenewable electricity subsidy rules+

Three UK biomass gasifiers in operation?

-wo companies claim to be operating biomass gasifiers in the UK and another company claims tohave built one3 though it is not clear whether they have tried to commission it yet*,+

One of these is a small * M@ plant at a poultry farm near Calthwaite3 north of !enrith+ .n :55


27/41


problems*infin3 2erby3 though they have not announced the commissioning of this plantlvi+ On thesame site3 a biomass gasifier had previously been built and had failed+ According to Clean Energyeneration(s website3 the technology involves the use of engines3 pre?cleaning of syngas and3furthermore3 the production of torrefied wood pellets ' something that appears not to have been

attempted in the UK so far+ !roducing torrefied pellets ' and3 as we have seen above ' generatingelectricity from a gasifier that powers gas engines are both highly comple13 immature andtechnologically challenging processes+ Net Clean Energy eneration appears to have no record ofoperating any other plants in the UK 6and thus no prior e1perience7 and they list no commercialpartners or collaboration with any research institutes+

Green Investment Bank boosts Canadian gasifier companyNexterras business

.n 2ecember :5*43 the reen .nvestment &an/ helped set up and Boined a consortium to finance aFfirst of its /indG biomass gasifier in Tyseley, Birminghamlvii+ As we have seen3 it won(t be the firstbiomass gasifier to be built in the UK3 though it will be a first if it operates successfully+ -he companychosen to provide the gasifier technology is a Canadian firm3 0e1terra+ According to the Boint pressrelease issued by the reen .nvestment &an/ 6.&73 F0e1terra has successfully delivered seven similargasification facilities in the U>A and CanadaG+ &ut have they"

0e1terra(s own website lists eight3 not seven3 gasifier proBects in 0orth America+ Out of the eightgasifiers built3 only three were designed to supply electricity as well as heat+ -he others were built toprovide heat or process steam for industrial use only3 which3 as a @orld &an/ report about biomassgasification already pointed out twenty years agolviii3 is technically much more straightforward than

building a gasifier designed to generate electricity+li1

0e1terra(s first electricity?generating gasifier3 built at the University of >outh Carolina3 was ill?fated$&etween 2ecember :5583 when the developers first tried to operate the plant3 and Qune :5593 there

were three incidents which a senior staff member of the University of >outh Carolina described atpotentially lethal(3 the third of third of which blew a metal plate


28/41


.n October :5*:3 the second 0e1terra gasifier designed to provide electricity and heat wascommissioned at the University of &ritish Columbia+ .n :5*43 the plant(s gas?cleaning system failedso that the gas could no longer be burned in the plant(s engines+-he university decided to continue with this demonstration proBect( in the hope that the problemscould eventually be overcome+ Meantime3 however3 they have been purchasing upgraded( biogas6from anaerobic digestion7 from another company3 and burning that in the enginesl1i+ -his means thatthe biomass gasifier has not successfully operated beyond a short initial period+

-he third such 0e1terra plant was set to be commissioned at a health centre in Michigan in March:5*; but no announcement of it actually being commissioned has been released+ -he University ofMontana3 meantime3 cancelled a similar 0e1terra contract on which they had already spent over half amillion dollars3 amidst public concerns about air Duality impacts l1ii+

-hus3 contrary to the reen .nvestment &an/(s claims3 0e1terra has never delivered a successful plantsimilar to the one being built in &irmingham 6i+e+ a biomass gasifier that successfully generateselectricity7+

On top of this3 although biomass gasifiers that only supply steam for heat are technically lesschallenging3 one of 0e1terra heat only( gasifiers also failed+ -his was a gasifier commissioned at Oa/%idge 0ational #aboratory in :5*: which had to be permanently closed the following year after asystems chec/ found that vital parts were already failing due to corrosion caused by wea/ acids l1iii+

0onetheless3 the reen .nvestment &an/(s support for the -yseley biomass gasifier appears to haveinspired other ban/s and companies to have confidence in 0e1terra(s technology$

.n March :5*,3 a company partnership involving 0e1terra announced that they had obtainedsufficient loan finance to build a *5+; M@ waste wood gasifier in Theddingworthin#eicestershirel1iv+ 0e1terra is to design and supply the gasification?to?steam generation

system+ -he plant will be built on a site for which another company3 !ure !ower Holdings #td3had obtained planning permission for another biomass advanced conversion( plant in :55=+-hat company did not succeed in building the plant and is now in liDuidation+

.n Grays, West Thurrock3 !rocter R amble have decided to partner with 0e1terra and to see/to build a biomass gasifier to provide heat and electricity for their factory as well as electricityto sell to the gridl1v+ A full planning application is currently pending+

A fourth 0e1terra biomass gasifier was granted planning permission in Avonmouthnear &ristol inApril :5*,$ -here3 the !lanning .nspectorate overturned a decision by &ristol City Council to refusethe development due to concerns over its air Duality impacts+

.f 0e1terra(s UK gasifiers were to operate successfully 6which3 Budging by their 0orth Americanrecord3 appears doubtful7 they would become the UK(s least efficient biomass power plants+ &ased onpublished figures3 these plants would achieve particularly low efficiency levels3 as low as :5+;+ -hisis largely due to the fact that all four gasifiers are relatively small units which would power steamturbines+ >uch a process3 as we have seen3 is cheaper to install but significantly less efficient than agasifier powering gas engines or gas turbines+ Of the four proposed 0e1terra plants3 only one 6inrays7 is e1pected to supply heat as well as electricity+ -his would ma/e it more efficient than theother three plants ' but its proBected overall efficiency will still only be 443 whereas efficient

biomass combined heat and power plants can achieve over 85 efficiency+

urthermore3 0e1terra(s plants would do little to advance the research and development of biomass

gasification worldwide+ -his is because the greatest challenge associated with gasification is toproduce clean syngas which can be burned relatively efficiently in gas engines or gas turbines+ Net

27


29/41


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

David Pike, his 30 (or more) advanced conversion companies and 50million losses to investors

0e1terra wasn(t the only winner from the reen .nvestment &an/(s support for the -yseley gasifier+Another big winner was a small company called Carbonarius3 who were appointed as the developersof the plant+ &ut who are Carbonarius"

According to industry media reports of the reen .nvestment &an/ loan3 Carbonarius are Fa Bointventure between >to/e?on?-rent technology developer O?en and property firm -he Una roupl1viG+According to information available onwww+companychec/+co+u/3there is indeed a company calledCarbonarius td' but their only subsidiary 6!"Gen #lymtrek td7 is a company that was set up withthe sole purpose of developing a biomass gasifier in !lymouth+ @e will loo/ at the failure of thatplant below+ -hree out of Carbonarius #td(s five directors3 however3 are also directors of two similarlynamed companies$ -here is Carbonarius$ td3 set up in Quly :5*:3 who own );+;5 6sic7 of shares in acompany called Tyseley Bio"#ower td+ -yseley &io?!ower #td was set up two months before thereen .nvestment &an/ loan for the plant was announced+ And there is Carbonarius% td3 set up Bustthree wee/s before the reen .nvestment &an/ loan3 who describe themselves at -yseley &io !ower?!ower(s parent company 6though the latter was set up first7+ inally3 there is a company calledBirmingham Bio"#ower td3 set up in Quly :5*:3 who own )*5 of -yeseley &io !ower(s shares+ ourof these companies ' all but &na Group' share three of the same directors$ 2avid !i/e3 2avid 0airnand .an &roo/ing+ .an &roo/ing is also a director of Una roup3 as is another of the Carbonarius #tddirectors3 2avid Noung+

.ndeed3 the five companies mentioned above are five out of at least 45 companies of which 2avid !i/eand his associates have been directors since :55,3 all of them in the field of advanced conversion inthe UK+ ive of the companies have been dissolved+ or simplification3 we shall call them the O?enCompanies(3 since the first ** of them had O?en( 6or Ogen(7 in their title+ Altogether3 the record ofthe O?en Companies has been a highly unsuccessful one$

-heir first gasifier was built in 'toke"on"Trent+ -his particular company involved 6!"GenAcme Trek td7 tried to commission it from April :559 to October :5**3 but without success+-hroughout that time3 it operated at Bust 5+


30/41


commissioned+ O?en !lymtre/(s audited accounts3 published April :5*,3 state$ F.n 2ecember:5*;3 the company was advised by the design and build contractor that it was ceasingconstruction+ .n addition3 the main proBect funder to the proBect e1ercised its right under a>ales Agency Agreement+++and reDuired that the Company(s main asset3 the energy centre3 wasmar/eted for sale+ On :8thMarch :5*, the energy centre was sold and proceeds paid to thee1ternal proBect funder+++-he Company has no further significant assets+ -he directors intendto wind the Company up+++-he Company made a loss after ta1 for the year of )4,344;3555+G

Qust whose )4,+44 million were lost is difficult to ascertain+ &iLarrely3 audited accounts forCarbonarius #td3 published at the same time and signed by the same auditor3 report netliabilities of Bust ):;43859 for the same period ' even though their subsidiary had lost over)4, million+ Also for the same period3 Una roup*=3one of the two companies that hold ,5each of Carbonarius #td(s shares3 recorded a profit of )83;to/e?on?-rent3 !lymouth and 2erby 6though not with the companies that acDuired the 2erbyscheme in :5*57+ They have therefore been directors of two biomass gasifier ventures whichhave lost investors a total of -. million, and behind a third biomass gasifier scheme whichultimately led to the bankruptcy of another company and its subsidiary +

0onetheless3 the reen .nvestment &an/(s support for Carbonarius3 has been used by O?encompanies and their directors to attract support for yet more ventures$

A relatively new O?en Company3 Cogen6also with !i/e3 0airn and &roo/ing amongst thedirectors7 has partnered with &alfour &eatty+ #oan funding has been obtained for the ),:million gasifier in Theddingworthmentioned above 6which uses 0e1terra(s technology73 andCogen will be the developer+

!eel Energy3 part of the larger !eel roup3 have partnered with two O?en Companies3 called/oughton Bio #ower tdand 0orthern Bio #ower td6again3 with !i/e3 0airn and&roo/ing amongst the directors7+ -ogether3 they have applied for planning consent for a

waste wood gasifier in ittle /oughton3 near &arnsley+

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

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

29


31/41


1nce Bio"#ower td$ !eel roup holds planning permission for a biomass plant in 1nce2arshes3 Cheshire

Bilsthorpe Bio #ower td$ !eel roup is currently see/ing planning consent*9for aMunicipal >olid @aste gasifier in Bilsthorpe3 although !eel roup has so far announced

Harwoth Estate !roperty roup #td and @ast:-ricity3 rather than this new company3 as theircorporate partnersl

'outhmoor Bio #ower td$ !eel roup holds planning permission for a Muncipal >olid@aste gasifier called >outhmoor Energy Centre near 3nottingleyin 0orth Nor/shire+

Also in :5*,3 they have founded$

/ooton Bio"#ower td$ &iossence holds planning permission for a Muncipal >olid @astegasifier in /ooton #ark, *astham

4artmoor Bio"#owerand 4artmoor !perations td6we could find no e1isting proBect tolin/ this to7

5iverside Bio"#ower td$ %iverside %e>ource %ecovery #td and Cory hold planning consentfor a Municipal >olid @aste gasifier called %iverside %esource %ecovery acility in Be6ley,ondon+

inally3 an O?en Company3 Almondbank #ower td3 is currently proposing a biomass pyrolysisplant in #erth+ -he particular technology they want to use is called steam thermolysis(3 to beprovided by a U> company called Concord &lue+ Concord &lue promises on its website that theirtechnology is commercially proven3 nearly any scale( and that they have five plants in operation andtwo under construction worldwidel11+ An investigative Bournalist in the U> found that two of thesupposedly operating plants have not actually been built3 a third had bro/en down every *5?*, days

before being finally shut in :5*43 and a fourth had been e1perimental and was also closed down dueto technical problems+ A fifth 6in .ndia7 has3 according to the Bournalist(s findings3 been operated

without any electricity being generated ' but has raised serious complaints over air and waterpollution3 the discharge of untreated waste3 and foul odours+ A plant supposedly under constructionin ermany had in fact been abandoned and the only operational Concorde &lue plant3 based in .ndia3has failed to generate any electricity at alll11i+

-ens of millions of pounds in losses to investors clearly haven(t deterred the O?en Companies andtheir directors from see/ing to greatly e1pand their advanced conversion activities+

A closer look at other companies involved in UK biomass

gasificationAs we have seen3 a successful biomass gasification scheme reDuires a high level of technical e1pertiseand e1perience and a company with sufficient funds to /eep upgrading the technology and solveproblems over a long period of time+ .t may also reDuire close collaboration between companies withdifferent types of e1pertise and with researchers+

>o who3 apart from 0e1terra and the O?en roup Companies are the main players in UK biomassgasification"

One of them is 5*ACT *nergy td73edco3 who announced in >eptember :5*:l11iithat they had startede1porting electricity from a : M@ biomass gasifier in 0ewry3 County 2own3 and that they were

15 The application has gone to ublic %n


32/41


planning to double its capacity by the end of :5*4+ -he plant itself belongs to a subsidiary ofKedcoJ%EAC- and their main shareholder3 armer &usiness 2evelopments !lc3 called 0ewry &iomass#td+ #oans for the plant had been provided by Ulster &an/ and %oyal &an/ of >cotlandl11iiiand3 in

Qanuary :5*;3 Ulster &an/ made a further loan available to finally increase the plant(s capacity to ;M@+

.n fact3 the 0ewry gasifier has been a failure+ .t never received any %enewable ObligationCertificatesl11iv3 subsidies of around )=8 per M@h generated to which the operators would have beenentitled:5+.n Qune :5*;3 %EAC- announced that they were loo/ing for an Falternative technologyproviderG to Fta/e full responsibility for the construction3 commissioning and operation of theproBectGl11v+ %EAC-(s own Kedco subsidiaries3 which had been responsible for building and operatingthe plant were put into voluntary liDuidation with a debt of S4+, million 6around ):+, million7 for

which %EAC- accepted no liabilityl11vi+ .n 2ecember :5*;3 %EAC- suspended trading on #ondon(sstoc/ mar/et 6Alternative .nvestment Mar/etl11vii7+ And in May :5*,3 they applied for e1aminership(3i+e+ court?supervised restructuring3 in the High Court of 2ublinl11viii+ -he 0ewry plant remainsmothballed+

-he failed 0ewry plant hasn(t been %EAC-(s only problem+ .n August :5*53 they had obtainedplanning permission for a larger waste wood gasifier in Enfield3 0orth #ondon3 and they hadeventually succeeded in signing a Collaboration Agreement with the oresight roup+ >ince then3planning consent has e1pired3 oresight roup has withdrawn from the agreement and %EAC- has

withdrawn a new planning application+

However3 a company(s financial troubles and previous development failures are not matters deemedrelevant in planning cases+ 0or3 for that matter3 are their legal status and claim on sites ?+ Until *st2ecember :5*;3 %EAC- was see/ing planning consent for another gasifier3 in !lymouth+ -hey

withdrew the application only after the planning officer had recommended that the !lanningCommittee should reBect the application3 following a significant number of local obBections+ %EAC-

continues to see/ planning consent for a waste wood gasifier in Clay Cross 2erbyshire+

Another company with great ambitions in the biomass advanced conversion sector is 'unrise5enewables td+ .ncidentally3 one of the two directors of each of their five local subsidiaries3 Howard2avies3 had previously been a director of @ithion !ower #td and their subsidiary3 &oyle Electricaleneration #td+3 the two companies that went into liDuidation after the failed biomass gasificationproBect in 2erby 6the proBect first initiated by one of the O?en Companies7+ &etween 2ecember :55=and Quly :5*53 >unrise %enewables obtained planning consent for four biomass pyrolysis plants in&arrow?in?urness3 &arry3 Hull and >underland+ However3 the company has not become the world(sfirst successful electricity generator from biomass pyrolysis+ .nstead3 they have changed their plansand have started getting their planning consents changed to biomass gasifiers 6which3 according tothe planning applications3 would use significantly more wood for a relatively small increase in

proBected electricity output7+ At the time of finalising this report3 at least two such planning consentshave been changed3 although Hull City Council has since reBected a further application to allow non?

biomass waste to be gasified there3 too+ A similar application is pending in &arry+

A company called Alternative &se Group#C claimed in its latest annual accounts that they startedbuilding a *: M@ biomass gasifier in Boston, incolnshireduring the year up to May :5*; and thatthe plant would be finished in :5*


33/41


e1perience in this sector+

A particularly active company in the UK(s gasification sector was Bioflame td+ According to a mediareport in 2ecember :5*53 they had secured planning permission for *8 biomass gasifiers3 two of

which had been built and two of which were in the late stages of constructionl11i1+ -he vast maBority of&ioflame(s proBects were smaller than * M@ and have thus not been included in the mapping e1erciseaccompanying this report+ One3 however3 was a :+< M@ waste wood gasifier in Cobham3 >urrey3 for

which >A> @aste #td was see/ing planning permission and which &ioflame was to build+ -he localauthority reBected the application:*3 based on a planning officer(s report which e1posed &ioflame(srecordl111$ 2esigners of /ey components of their plants lac/ed e1perience3 and no Engineering3!rocurement and Construction contract had ta/en overall responsibility for their proBects+ ourplants were constructed simultaneously3 before e1perience with operating a single one had beengained+ At the time of the planning officer(s report 6ebruary :5*;73 a &ioflame gasifier in 4oncasterhad failed to operate successfully since attempts to commission it were first made in :559+ Anotherone3 in Claythorpe3 had been started up in mid?:5593 failed to operate successfully and was shutdown in mid :5**+ A third one3 in Brandesburton, *ast 9orkshire3 was first started up in spring

:5*53 but could not be operated successfully and was shut in :5**+ And the fourth3 in Thurleigh,Bedfordshire,was constructed with serious delays but never commissioned+ .n fact3 at that time the!lanning Officer(s report was written3 &ioflame was already in liDuidationl111i+

Another company that sought to build biomass advanced conversion plants and is also now inliDuidation was #ure #ower Group td+ -hey had tried to obtain planning consent for a waste woodgasifier in /ungerfordand they had been granted planning consent for two other biomass advancedconversion plants$ One was in -heddingworth3 on the same site that Cogen and &alfour &eatty laterobtained a new planning consent for the biomass gasifier which has now attracted funding and is

being built 6see above7+ -he other consented !ure !ower plant was to have been built in /untingdon+.n Qanuary :5*43 a different company3 *nergy :.3 obtained planning consent for a waste woodpyrolysis plant on the same site3 one that is to generate electricity+ Energy *5 plans to produce syngas

to supply to the national grid from *553555 tonnes of mainly waste wood3 but with some virgin woodand plastics mi1ed in+ 0o company in the world has so far succeeded in operating a pyrolysis plantcomparable to either of those planned by Energy *5+

.n Wellingborough, 0orthamptonshire3 a company called arner 5ecycling td3 in partnership witha consultancy firm called !aktree *nvironmental td3 obtained planning consent for a biomassgasifier in :55=3 with several changes to the planning conditions approved subseDuently+ #arner%ecycling has been collecting and chipping waste wood but their director is currently serving asuspended prison sentence over persistent breaches of Environment Agency permitting conditionsand pollution control regulations+ His related business on the same site3 #arner -imber %ecycling #td3

went into liDuidation in :5*4l111ii+ -he planning consent appears to have been ta/en over by a newcompany called Green #lan *nergy td+ reen !lan Energy3 according to their website Faim to

become Europe(s largest developer of biomass gasification plants ' they do not appear to have anye1perience in this field so far and we have found no indication of them having raised funds for the

@ellingborough plant either+

-wo larger companies ? 1nvictus Capitalin Georgemas, Caithnessand /ondain 'windonhaveobtained planning consents for biomass gasifiers but the former has abandoned their plans and thelatter appears to not have pursued them further as yet::+

!1 There had been an active local campaign against this plant The developer appealed against planning refusal butlater withdrew the appeal

!! Honda+s planning consent was granted in arch !#18 and they are still well within the time period for startingconstruction

32


34/41


When a gasifier is not a gasifier the curious case of the proposedEnergy Park Sutton Bridge

Had it not been for 8;?year old Mrs >hirley iles ris/ing thousands of pounds of her own savings ona Qudicial %eview3 then 'utton Bridgewould now be the site of the largest approved biomass gasifierin the country and the developer would be loo/ing for investors+ .n May :5*43 >outh Holland Councilhad granted planning consent for a large ;4?;= M@ biomass gasifier+ -o the delight of largenumbers of local residents3 Mrs iles won the legal case ' the local authority decided not to contest it+#ess than a year later3 the plant was finally refused consent+ -he company behind the development

was a U> firm called #acific Green Technologies 1nc+ -he 0on?-echnical >ummary for theapplicationl111iiidescribed the proposed plant as follows$

F&iomass fuel will be combusted within the main process building to produce radiantheat3 which in turn will heat hot water to produce superheated steam+ -his high pressureand high temperature steam will be passed through a steam turbine and drive a generatorto produce electricity+G

-his is a description of a standard combustion plant+ .f there was any obvious difference between theproposed plant and e1isting conventional biomass plants it was the far lower efficiency of the former$

A mere *9+;3 according to &iofuelwatch(s calculationsl111iv+ -his e1tremely low efficiency was due tothe plant(s design$ .t was to consist of at least *5 units3 each with their own steam turbine and stac/+-he smaller the unit that powers a steam turbine is3 the less efficient the power plant will be+

However3 the same planning application nonetheless described the plant as an Fadvanced conversionfacility 6gasification7G3 strongly suggesting that they were hoping convince Ofgem to accredit the plant

for the higher subsidy rate3 for which gasification plants are eligible+ >ince planning permission wasrefused3 we will never /now whether Ofgem would have agreed with the developers+

Ofgem relies entirely on companies( own reports about the nature of their plants and on companies(own fuel sampling to determine whether the advanced conversion( criteria are met:4+ >etting asidethe ris/ of fraud3 it is Duite possible that a plant such as that proposed in >utton &ridge might have

been accredited as an advanced conversion( plant+ -his is because the overnment(s definition ofgasification( and pyrolysis(3 adopted for the purpose of determining eligibility for subsidiesl111v3 is so

vague that standard combustion plants might slip through the net(+

-here are Bust two reDuirements for a plant to Dualify as a gasifier( for subsidy purposes$

a7 .t needs to meet the overnment(s definition of gasification3 which says$ FFasificationG means thesubstoichiometric i+e+ partial( o1idation or steam reformation of a substance to produce a gaseousmi1ture containing two or all of the following$ o1ides of carbon3 methane and hydrogenG

b7 -he gas needs to have a gross calorific value of at least : MQJm4+ ross calorific value is also calledhigher heating value( and it is a measurement for the amount of energy contained in a cubic metre ofgas 6or other fuel7+

Unfortunately3 in terms of the chemistry involved3 this offers no clear dividing line betweengasification and pyrolysis on the one hand and combustion on the other hand+ !ower stationoperators will almost always stage the inflow of air into the combustion chamber which means that3for a very short period of time3 wood 6or for that matter any solid fuel7 will be gasified+ urthermore3

!- This is a general comment not intended to reflect in any way on acific >reen Technologies %nc or anybody elseinvolved with the 'utton Bridge biomass plant proposal

33


35/41


in chemical terms3 burning wood always involves a pyrolysis( stage+ @hen wood starts to burn3 itschemical structures decompose into a mi1 of gases which contain mainly carbon and hydrogenatomsl111vi+ Even a bonfire involves elements of pyrolysis and gasification ' hence the charredremains left behind ' and the production of gases including o1ides of carbon3 methane andhydrogenl111vii+

urthermore3 the gross calorific value( reDuirement is very wea/+ or e1ample3 U> researchersmeasured the gross calorific value of syngas ta/en from four biomass gasifiers and found it to be

between ;+4 and *8+: MQJm4l111viii+ .t does not seem inconceivable that gases measured during standardbiomass combustion might meet the F: MQJm4G reDuirement set out in the legislation+

Clearly the overnment would not have intended ordinary biomass combustion to be creatively re?defined as gasification( or pyrolysis( ' but the wording of their legislation may nonetheless allow thisto happen+ Ultimately3 what !acific reen -echnologies tried to do would have gone Bust one stepfurther from what 0e1terra3 O?en and other are currently trying to do+ -he single stage( gasifiersproposed by those companies ? which involve no cooling or cleaning of gas and which are to power

steam turbines ? are already a very long way removed from the idea of high?tech( gasifiers3 i+e+ fromgasifiers that produce clean syngas to burn in a gas turbine or engine+

34


36/41


Conclusions from the UKGovernments support for biomassgasification and pyrolysis-he overnment(s approach to supporting low carbon technologies( and energy innovation( has

been outlined by 2ECC as follows$

FT-echnology push is direct funding for demonstration and pre?commercial deployment+

T Mar/et pull is indirect funding3 through mechanisms such as the %enewables Obligation3eed?in -ariffs and Emissions -rading3T &arrier removal aims to address the areas which slow development down3 such as planningand grid issues+Gl111i1

.n short3 the overnment see/s to support technological innovations( through a combination ofpublic subsidies:;and de?regulation+

&iomass gasification and pyrolysis are two of the technologies which the overnment regards as bothinnovative and low?carbon and which3 over many years3 have been receiving support according to the2ECC(s blueprint( outlined above$

F2irect funding for demonstration and pre?commercial deploymentG$ >ignificant funding forresearch into biomass 6and waste7 gasification and pyrolysis technologies and has been madeavailable through government?fund

biomass gasification and pyrolysis formatted full report

Documents