Estonia has two of the world’s largest oil shale firing circulating fluidized bed (CFB) units with a designed electrical capacity of 215 MW each. The units are based on double boiler CFB technology provided by Foster Wheeler Energia OY. The units are located at Eesti and Balti power plants (EPP and BPP). The paper presents analyses of data obtained from tests of oil shale and biomass co-combustion in the full-scale CFB boiler located at BPP. The tests were conducted at nominal boiler load: 100% (314 t/h), with a biomass thermal input of 15%. During the experiments ash samples from the furnace chamber (bottom ash), INTREX, super-/reheater (SH, RH), economizer (ECO), and air preheater (APH), and from all four fields of the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) were taken. Samples of fly ash for determining the mass division (total suspended particulates PM10 and PM2.5) were taken after the ESP. The gas analysis was performed at the ESP inlet. Analysis of the chemical composition of ash was carried out. The specific consumption of oil shale per useful heat and gross electricity were found and other techno-economic characteristics determined.
It was found that oil shale and biomass co-combustion reduced CO2 emission by 14.6% and ash formation by 16% when compared with conventional oil shale CFB combustion. The SO2 emissions remained in the limits of 20–30 mg/Nm3. Total suspended particulates PM10 and PM2.5 did not change compared to conventional oil shale CFB firing. The CFB boiler efficiency even increased slightly, when it is known that in case of coal and biomass co-combustion it decreases. Therefore, oil shale and biomass co-combustion can be considered as a viable option and near-term solution for reducing the environmental impact of oil shale-based power production.
1. Plamus, K., Soosaar, S., Ots, A., Neshumayev, D. Firing Estonian oil shale of higher quality in CFB boilers – environmental and economic impact. Oil Shale, 2011, 28(1S), 113–126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/oil.2011.1S.04
2. Plamus, K., Ots, A., Pihu, T., Neshumayev, D. Firing Estonian oil shale in CFB boilers – ash balance and behaviour of carbonate minerals. Oil Shale, 2011, 28(1), 58–67.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/oil.2011.1.07
3. Lüschen, A., Madlener, R. Economic viability of biomass cofiring in new hard-coal power plants in Germany. Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. in Press, 2013.
4. Roos, I., Soosaar, S., Volkova, A., Streimikene, D. Greenhouse gas emission reduction perspectives in the Baltic States in frames of EU energy and climate policy. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 2012, 16(4), 2133–2146.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.01.013
5. Konist, A., Pihu, T., Neshumayev, D., Siirde, A. Oil shale pulverized firing: boiler efficiency, ash balance and flue gas composition. Oil Shale, 2013, 30(1), 6–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/oil.2013.1.02
6. Pihu, T., Konist, A., Neshumayev, D., Loosaar, J., Siirde, A., Parve, T., Molodtsov, A. Short-term tests on firing oil shale fuel applying low-temperature vortex technology. Oil Shale, 2012, 29(1), 3–17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/oil.2012.1.02
7. Arro, H., Prikk, A., Pihu, T. Combustion of Estonian oil shale in fluidized bed boilers, heating value of fuel, boiler efficiency and CO2 emissions. Oil Shale, 2005, 22(4S), 399–406.
8. Hotta, A., Parkkonen, R., Hiltunen, M., Arro, H., Loosaar, J., Parve, T., Pihu, T., Prikk, A., Tiikma, T. Experience of Estonian oil shale combustion based on CFB technology at Narva Power Plants. Oil Shale, 2005, 22(4S), 381–398.
9. Pihu, T., Arro, H., Prikk, A., Rootamm, R., Konist, A. Corrosion of air preheater tubes of oil shale CFB boiler. Part I. Dew point of flue gas and low-temperature corrosion. Oil Shale, 2009, 26(1), 5–12.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/oil.2009.1.01
10. Suik, H., Pihu, T., Molodtsov, A. Wear of the fuel supply system of CFB boilers. Oil Shale, 2008, 25(2), 209–216.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/oil.2008.2.03
11. Suik, H., Pihu, T. Warranty reliability of CFB boiler burning oil shale. Oil Shale, 2009, 26(2), 99–107.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/oil.2009.2.02
12. Parve, T., Loosaar, J., Mahhov, M., Konist, A. Emission of fine particulates from oil shale fired large boilers. Oil Shale, 2011, 28(1S), 152–161.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/oil.2011.1S.07
13. Hupa, M. Interaction of fuels in co-firing in FBC. Fuel, 2005, 84(10), 1312–1319.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2004.07.018
14. Vamvuka, D., Pitharoulis, M., Alevizos, G., Repouskou, E., Pentari, D. Ash effects during combustion of lignite/biomass blends in fluidized bed. Renew. Energ., 2009, 34(12), 2662–2671.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.05.005
15. Doshi, V., Vuthaluru, H. B., Korbee, R., Kiel, J. H. A. Development of a modeling approach to predict ash formation during co-firing of coal and biomass. Fuel Process. Technol., 2009, 90(9), 1148–1156.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2009.05.019
16. Basu, P., Butler, J., Leon, M. A. Biomass co-firing options on the emissions reduction and electricity generation costs in coal-fired power plants. Renew. Energ., 2011, 36(1), 282–288.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.06.039
17. Aho, M., Envall, T., Kauppinen, J. Corrosivity of flue gases during co-firing Chinese biomass with coal at fluidised bed conditions. Fuel Process. Technol., 2013, 105, 82–88.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2011.05.020
18. Pronobis, M. The influence of biomass co-combustion on boiler fouling and efficiency. Fuel, 2006, 85(4), 474–480.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2005.08.015
19. EVS-EN 12952-15:2003: Water-Tube Boilers and Auxiliary Installations. Part 15. Acceptance Tests.
20. Neshumayev, D., Ots, A., Parve, T., Pihu, T., Plamus, K., Prikk, A. Combustion of Baltic oil shales in boilers with fluidized bed combustion. Power Technology and Engineering, 2011, 44(5), 382–385.
21. Arro, H., Prikk, A., Pihu, T. Calculation of qualitative and quantitative composition of Estonian oil shale and its combustion products. Part 1. Calculation on the basis of heating value. Fuel, 2003, 82(18), 2179–2195.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-2361(03)00125-X
