Description of FP6 Project NETBIOCOF. Non-technical barriers for biomas co-firing.

1. LITHUANIAN UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTUREBBN SECTION “BIOENERGY IN THE BALTIC SEA REGION: ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY, CONFLICTS AND CHANCES" RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2007TECHNICAL AND NON-TECHNICAL BARRIERS FOR BIOMASS CO-FIRINGJonas Saladis, LFRILithuanian Forest Research Institute

2. CONTENT • Description of FP6 Project NETBIOCOF. • Non-technical barriers for biomas co-firing. • Technical barriers for biomas co-firing

3. FP6 Coordination Action Project NETBIOCOF – Integrated European Network for Biomas Co-firing SES6-CT-020007-(SES6) Project was funded by European Commission. Project duration: 2005.08.15-2007.08.15. Project coordinator TTZ-Bremerhaven, Germany. Project partner in Lithuania – Lithuanian Forest Research Institute

4. The primary aim of the FP6 Coordination Action ProjectNETBIOCOF is to promote European co-operation between research organisations devoted to biomassco-firing, fostering the uptake of innovative technologies toexpand the use of biomass co-firing in new and existing powerplants, with emphasis in the New Member States.

5. The specific strategic objectives on the NETBIOCOF Co-ordination Action (1) • To co-ordinate current research activities in the all Europe in order to promote cooperationand avoid overlapping and duplication of efforts. • 2. To encourage the establishment of permanent communication links between researchcenters, business and other stakeholders in Europe, promoting the know-how exchange andexpertise in relation to biomass co-firing. • 3. To develop adequate recommendations for biomass co-firing implementation in targetedEuropean countries, focussed on the socio-economic, technological, climate conditions,legal and political requirements.

6. NETBIOCOF koordinavimo veiklos projekto specifiniai strateginiaitikslai (2) 4. To initiate and guide future R&D activities on an European level by mapping currentresearch activities and forming research clusters in order to fulfill the scientific andtechnological needs for the further implementation of biomass co-firing. 5. To disseminate and promote biomass co-firing as a sustainable energy source option.

7. The scientific and technological objectives of the NETBIOCOF Co-ordination Action • To assess on-going research in biomass co-firing in Europe, identifying the gaps inknowledge and the barriers for the cooperation of R&D activities in an European scope. • 2. To document the state-of-the-art in the European biomass co-firing sector, with a specialfocus on East and Central European applications, in order to identify successful experiencesthrough the region. • 3. To identify technical and non-technical barriers for the biomass co-firing furtherimplementation in Europe, in order to propose local and global strategies to overcome them.

8. PARTNERS OF NETBIOCOF

9. MANAGEMENT SCHEME

10. WORK PACKAGES OF NETBIOCOF

11. DELIVERABLES OF NETBIOCOF

12. PROJECT WEB-PAGEwww.netbiocof.net

13. NON-TECHNICAL BARRIERS • • Political • • Legal • • Economic and financial • • Environmental • • Social • • Political • • Lack in information

14. Political barriers: • Framentation of ecause of absence of common promotion system for the electricity and heat production from RES. • Lack of planning security caused by unstable political and legal framework conditions. • Biomass co-firing is not always approached, as a singled defined issue.

15. Legal barriers (1): • - Changes to the rules on co-firing of energy crops in connection with the lack of awareness of biomass breeds perception of higher risk compared to other fuels; • - Changing legislation and more stringent emission limits that make co-combustion of biomass or waste application more difficult. • - Policy costs in connection to existing poor or expensive fuel supply infrastructure; • - Insufficient legislative and market incentives for co-firing, existence of federal countries with different regulations in the same country

16. Legal barriers (2): • - Carbon impact & renewable obligation certificates (ROC) is not taken as priority; • - Lack of subsidies (in some cases the waste biomass generated in Spain is even bought by third countries where subsidies are very high, despite of transport costs: e.g.: UK and Denmark where the governments are granting companies with high subsidies in order to fulfill the Kyoto Protocol); • - Uncertainty what government support (such as tax exemptions) can be expected over the long lifetime of a co-firing plant.

17. Environmental barriers : • Potential destruction of environment by uncontrolled deforestation; • Lack of knowledge about the environmental impact assessment for this specifically technology, • Smell of some kinds of biomass and the smell of methane, especially where silages are used in case of gasification of biomass, has been identified as a potential cause for health concerns in plant operators and surrounding populations, • Increase of emission and noise of biomass transport to the power plant are considered as a negative factor for the surrounding populations, • Lack of application or regulation concerning reforestation encourage owners, attracted by rapid benefit, to offer to industry energy crops that are of superior quality and uncontrolled amount.

18. Economical and financial barriers : • Lack of available biomass in a country and the need to import it, • Lack of effectiveness and the high prices of the process of collecting, transportation and treatment. • Lack of specific logistic infrastructures. • Instability and oscillation of the biomass prices and insecure supply and hinders investment, • Lack of established, transparent market and the associated logistics for biomass for energy generation; • Lack of indigenous biomass market (e.g. biomass plantations, etc); • Lack of adopted technology to national available conditions.

19. Social barriers : • Lack of potential to create long term, secure supplementary jobs, although tendencies exist, even for handicapped personnel; • Loyalty to existing long-standing fuel supply contracts & lack of infrastructure in an extended meaning also having an economic feature, • Lack of research programs in the field of co-firing taking in consideration specific country conditions, • Increasing of road transport can be a nuisance on the living comfort near the co-firing plant, which is therefore identified as harmful and not “green”, • In general, a source of energy based in burning anything has a negative perception to the general public.

20. Barriers from lack of information : • Lack of information for public and other interested parties for the biomass co-firing regarding the available technologies, best practice examples, impact on the environment (reduction of CO2, SO2 ...), job creating, financial scheme etc. • Success stories are analysed from the financial benefit, and less from social and environmental benefit, but they are characterised by a great social impact. • Lack of information connected to individual country and in its conditions. • Lack of demonstrations actions and projects support in all kind of applications of the biomass, as well as information regarding the available resources and technologies.

21. TECHNICAL DARRIERS • Insufficient infrastructure for biomass for energy • Biomass fuel pre-processing and preparation • Combustion system and operation • Flue gas clean-up system • By-product use

22. Insufficient infrastructure for biomass for energy barriers: • Short- and long term biomass availability for co-firing plant need to be examined. • Collection and logistics of wood biomass from forest or agricultural land has in some cases proved problematic and costly. • lack of adequate long term experience on forest residue exploitation and management can result in nutrient balance disturbances.

23. Biomass fuel pre-processing and preparation barriers: • Lack of designing of biomas storage places in earlier designed boilers. • Uneven quality of the received biomass . • Problems of biofuel conditioning and cleaning from unwanted materials . • Additional investments required for implementation of changes on the existing infrastructure.

24. Combustion system and operation barriers: • Lowerheating value of biomass is compared to the fossil fuels. • Problems related to the burning of very wet biomass using direct co-firing technology. • Slagging, fouling and chlorine-based corrosion problems in the boiler.

25. Flue gas clean-up system barriers: • Technical modifications might be necessary in co-firing plants to avoid concentrations of hazardous contaminant emissions above the legal limits. • The higher content of alkaline when biomass is co-fired can cause ageing and deactivation ofthe catalytic NOx emission abatement equipment. • Emissions of heavy metals might also exceed the limit values. Such problems can be solved by avoiding the use of materials as demolition wood. • Limits set by national and international law (especially in Europe) are usually very stringent . Amount of investments is required to control the emissions.

26. By-product use barriers: • Mixing of ashes coming fromcoal and biomass co-firing can result in differences in quality and consequently deteriorationof chances for its future use. • With the introduction of new standards accepted by EU14as the EN 450-1 and EN 450-2 for “Fly ash for concrete”, a range of biomass material is nowincluded if the amount of biomass material does not exceed 20% of the total fuel.

27. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION