Coal and biomass cofiring:

fundamentals and future trends 5

María V. Gil, Fernando Rubiera
Instituto Nacional del Carb
on, INCAR-CSIC, Oviedo, Spain

Chapter Outline

5.1 Introduction 117

5.2 Biomass characterization and properties 119
5.2.1 Chemical properties 120
5.2.2 Thermochemical properties 120
5.3 Coal and biomass cofiring technologies 121
5.3.1 Direct cofiring 121
5.3.2 Indirect cofiring 122
5.3.3 Parallel cofiring 122
5.4 Cofiring ratios 123
5.5 Technical and logistical issues of cofiring 123
5.5.1 Biomass type and availability 123
5.5.2 Biomass pretreatment 124
5.5.3 Biomass burning 127
5.5.3.1 Fuel conversion 127
5.5.3.2 Deposits and corrosion 128
5.5.3.3 Combustion modeling 128
5.5.4 Cofiring boiler types 129
5.6 Environmental issues: flue gas and ash from cofiring 132
5.6.1 CO2 emissions 133
5.6.2 NOx and SOx emissions 133
5.6.3 Ash 134
5.7 Oxy-fuel cofiring 134
5.8 Future trends of biomass cofiring 135
5.9 Concluding remarks 137
Acknowledgments 137
References 137

5.1 Introduction
According to the Technology Roadmap on Delivering Sustainable Bioenergy of the
International Energy Agency (IEA), the current rate of bioenergy deployment is

New Trends in Coal Conversion. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102201-6.00005-4

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
118 New Trends in Coal Conversion

well below the levels required within IEA long-term climate models. Acceleration is
urgently needed to ramp up the contribution of bioenergy across all sectors. Moreover,
bioenergy is a complex subject with many potential feedstocks, conversion processes,
and energy applications. It interacts strongly with the agriculture, forestry, and waste
management sectors, and its prospects are linked to the growth of a broader bio-
economy (IEA, 2017).
The use of renewable energy is nowadays an unavoidable measure to attain sustain-
able development in the world. However, combustion of fossil fuels is still the main
source of energy on the earth and a major contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide
emissions, which are directly related with the global warming and climate change con-
cerns. Coal is a cheaper and more abundant resource than other fossil fuels, such as oil
and natural gas, while at the same time it is a reliable fuel for power production (Tof-
tegaard et al., 2010). Over 40% of the worldwide electricity is produced from coal
(IEA, 2016), and it is expected that coal plays an important role on the energy supply
if the global energy demand continues to rise in the near future.
Biomass is considered as a renewable energy source for mitigating greenhouse
gases (GHGs), nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxide emissions. Biomass is carbon neutral,
and it has low contents of nitrogen and sulfur. Combustion of biomass is the most inex-
pensive option of converting biomass fuels to energy. The carbon dioxide generated
from the combustion of biomass has been previously removed from the atmosphere
by the photosynthesis process while the plant grows, hence net carbon emissions
are null. Biomass can be derived from different organic matter resources such as dedi-
cated energy crops, forestry and agriculture residues, seaweed, animal manure, and
organic wastes. Thus, biomass can be classified based on its origin into the following:
(1) primary residues such as wood, straw, cereals, maize, etc., obtained from the by-
products of forest products and food crops; (2) secondary residues such as saw and pa-
per mills, food and beverage industries, apricot seed, etc., derived from processing
biomass material for industrial and food production; (3) tertiary residues such as
wastes and demolition wood, etc., that are derived from other used biomass materials;
and (4) energy crops (Bhuiyan et al., 2018).
Biomass cofiring consists of burning biomass along with coal in coal-fired power
plants to generate electricity. Biomass cofiring with coal is recognized as one of the
most attractive short- to medium-term options for using biomass in the power gener-
ation industry. Solid biomass cofiring involves the combustion of wood chips or pel-
lets in coal-fired power plants, whereas gas biomass cofiring means the firing of
gasified biomass with natural gas or pulverized coal (PC) in gas power plants (indirect
cofiring) (Agbor et al., 2014). In this context, cofiring of biomass with coal may be
considered a bridge between the energy production systems based on fossil fuels
and those based on renewable energy sources, which would contribute to reduce
CO2 emissions and the dependency on fossil fuels. In addition, the use of biomass
in combination with coal in the same power plant would avoid the typical problems
associated with small biomass-fired power plants, i.e., high specific cost (due to the
larger size of coal power plants) and low efficiency, while at the same time it would
reduce the risk of a biomass shortage (Valero and Us
on, 2006). Modern coal power
plants are more efficient than smaller-scale dedicated biomass power plants. There
Coal and biomass cofiring: fundamentals and future trends 119

is no need for continuous biomass supply because the plant can burn coal if biomass is
not available. Biomass cofiring in coal-fired power plants therefore offers significant
advantages: modern coal-fired power plants are highly efficient (>44%), they have
coal supply facilities that also facilitate biomass supply, and they also have advanced
flue gas cleaning equipment, which in some cases may obviate separate cleaning for
biomass. During the last years, different forms of biomass have been co-combusted
in existing coal-fired boilers, where biomass is used as a supplementary fuel to substi-
tute for up to 10% of the coal in terms of energy content. The costs of adapting existing
coal power plants for cofiring biomass are significantly lower than building new dedi-
cated biomass systems (Fernando, 2005).
Relying solely on biomass is risky due to unpredictable feedstock supply because
of the seasonal nature of biomass resources as well as poorly established supply infra-
structure in many parts of the world. Other constraints of generating power solely
from biomass are the low heating values and the fuel’s low bulk densities, which
create the necessity of transporting large amounts of biomass (Agbor et al., 2014).
Biomass cofiring for power generation provides an effective way to overcome these
challenges because cofiring plants have the option to revert to dedicated coal combus-
tion for mitigating the effect of biomass fuel shortages (Karampinis et al., 2014). On
the other hand, the energy use of biomass can add value to the forestry and agriculture
sectors of developing and emerging countries. Likewise, industries such as construc-
tion, manufacturing, food processing, and transportation may be beneficiaries of
cofiring.
Although biomass and coal cofiring provides the benefit of reduction of GHG emis-
sions to the atmosphere, it presents some logistical and performance issues that should
be analyzed, such as the availability of biomass resources, their transport to the power
plant, the different cofiring technologies, as well as the technological and environ-
mental issues associated with biomass cofiring.

5.2 Biomass characterization and properties

The characteristics of the biomass vary widely from one type and category to another
due to their diverse nature. Biomass can also be classified into several categories based
on their properties: woody biomass, herbaceous biomass, straw-derived biomass,
aquatic biomass (kelp, etc.), and wastes (manure, sewage, refuse containing biological
material, etc.). The method of utilizing a particular type of biomass typically depends
on which category it belongs to. The moisture content is a primary deciding factor in
choosing which energy conversion process to use. The aquatic biomass and wastes
generally have the highest moisture content, and they are more suited to be treated
by biochemical methods (fermentation and anaerobic digestion). Woody biomass
has the lowest moisture levels, whereas herbaceous biomass has intermediate values.
Most industrial applications have been focused on thermochemical processes (com-
bustion, gasification, and pyrolysis), which use woody biomass and low-moisture va-
rieties of herbaceous biomass (Madanayake et al., 2017).
120 New Trends in Coal Conversion

Biomass differs significantly from coal in terms of physical and chemical proper-
ties, as well as composition and energy content. Biomass usually contains less carbon,
more hydrogen and oxygen, less sulfur and nitrogen, more volatile matter (VM), lower
heating value, and lower bulk density. These properties affect the design, operation,
and performance of cofiring systems.

5.2.1 Chemical properties

As mentioned above, the moisture content in biomass is high compared with coal.
Biomass usually has less fixed carbon (FC) and more VM than coal, and it also has
a lower ash content. Biomass typically has a VM/FC ratio of >4.0, whereas the
VM/FC ratio for coal is almost always <1.0 (Tillman, 2000). Thus, for biomass fuels,
the predominant form of combustion will take place via the gas phase oxidation of the
volatile species (Wang et al., 2009).
The nitrogen and sulfur contents in the biomass are low, and therefore, emissions of
nitrogen and sulfur oxides from these elements will probably be minimal, which favors
clean combustion conditions (Vamvuka et al., 2003a).
In comparison with coal, biomass contains a higher proportion of oxygen and
hydrogen and less carbon, which reduces its heating value because the amount of en-
ergy contained in CeO and CeH bonds is lower than in CeC bonds (Munir et al.,
2009). However, the higher oxygen content in the biomass indicates that it will
have a higher thermal reactivity than coal (Haykiri-Acma and Yaman, 2008).
The ash analysis is very important to predict the behavior of a solid fuel during com-
bustion because it provides information of the inorganic elements present, which are
responsible for many of the drawbacks of biomass combustion. The ash fusion temper-
atures can offer an approximate prediction of the slagging tendency of the fuel because
fusion of ash is the basis of slag formation. Other slagging indices have also been
defined, such as the proportion of basic oxides to acidic oxides in the ash, or other
ones that also incorporate the sulfur content, although these indices have all been defined
for coal. Because the ash resulting from biomass and coal combustion varies signifi-
cantly in composition, these indices may not be reliable in predicting slagging/fouling
in biomass. Biomass ash deposition depends primarily on sodium and potassium chlo-
rides, sulfates, hydroxides, etc., whereas coal ash consists of an aluminosilicate system.
However, they could be useful in predicting the ash behavior of biomass/coal blends,
which contain low percentages of biomass (Madanayake et al., 2017).

5.2.2 Thermochemical properties

When compared with fossil fuels, biomass fuels usually contain less heating value. The
heating value or calorific value of a solid fuel is usually considered as the principal
thermochemical property for comparing solid fuels because it represents the amount
of energy released during the combustion of the fuel. However, it cannot be used to
predict the efficiency of the combustion system. The maximum efficiency that can
be attained is a function of the flame temperature, which in turn depends on both
the calorific value and the chemical composition of the fuel. The chemical composition
Coal and biomass cofiring: fundamentals and future trends 121

dictates the amount of air required for combustion (stoichiometry), and if less air is
required, less nonreacting components of the air (mostly N2) need to be heated to
the flame temperature (Madanayake et al., 2017). The higher O content of biomass
means that less air is required for combustion, compared with typical hydrocarbon
fuels (Jenkins et al., 1998). Hence, biomass fuels have the potential to achieve higher
combustion efficiencies compared with other hydrocarbon fuels. The higher volatility
of biomass improves its reactivity and ignition characteristics compared with coal, and
this usually results in a lower activation energy barrier to devolatilization and oxidation
(Agbor et al., 2014).

5.3 Coal and biomass cofiring technologies

Several authors (Agbor et al., 2014; Al-Mansour and Zuwala, 2010; Dai et al., 2008)
have listed three technological configurations for cofiring biomass with coal in power
plants: direct cofiring, indirect cofiring, and parallel cofiring (Fig. 5.1). The approaches
differ in terms of the boiler system design as well as the percentage of biomass to be
cofired. In most cases, biomass cofiring in coal power plants takes place by mixing
biomass with coal before burning, but biomass can also be gasified and burned in sepa-
rate burners, after which the gaseous fuel or steam is mixed with the boiler stream of
the coal-fired power plant. The last cofiring scheme is usually more suitable for
biomass fuels containing problematic compounds or when the ash quality is of impor-
tance for subsequent sale or disposal. The most common type of cofiring facility imple-
mented in existing coal-fired power plants is a large, coal-fired power plant, although
related coal-burning facilities, such as cement kilns, coal-fired heating plants, and in-
dustrial boilers, could also be used.

5.3.1 Direct cofiring

Direct cofiring is the simplest, cheapest, and most widespread method of cofiring
biomass with coal in a boiler, usually a PC boiler, mainly due to the relatively low

Flue gas + Flue gas + Flue gas +

mixed ash coal ash coal ash

Boiler Boiler Boiler

Coal Coal Coal
Gasifier Boiler
Biomass Biomass Biomass

Biomass Biomass
ash ash
Direct co-combustion Indirect co-combustion Parallel co-combustion

Figure 5.1 Schematic presentation of cofiring technology options.

122 New Trends in Coal Conversion

capital cost required because the needed additional installations in an existing coal-
fired power plant are kept to a minimum. Direct cofiring of biomass and coal takes
advantage of the high efficiencies obtainable in large coal-fired power plants and im-
proves combustion due to the higher volatile content of the biomass, although it pre-
sents several limitations such as the tendency of producing ash deposition, the limited
range of cofiring, and the lack of flexibility to use different types of biomass (Roni
et al., 2017). Biomass is directly fed into the furnace with coal. Biomass can be milled
jointly with the coal in the same milling equipment (typically less than 5% in terms of
energy content) or premilled and then fed separately into the same boiler. Common or
separate burners can be used, with the second option enabling more flexibility with re-
gard to biomass type and quantity. As more modifications are introduced, higher cap-
ital investment is required, and a more significant technological risk is involved if the
modifications also affect the boiler itself. However, the degree of control that can be
achieved on combustion conditions is greater, and the risk to boiler operation through
the impact of biomass is minimized. In most cases, the biomass thermal input in direct
cofiring schemes is around 10% owing to technical and economical restraints (Karam-
pinis et al., 2014). This limitation could be minimized by torrefying and densifying
biomass so that it behaves more like coal in terms of energy content and grinding
behavior (Tumuluru et al., 2012).

5.3.2 Indirect cofiring

Indirect cofiring involves gasification of the solid biomass in a separate gasifier, where
it is converted into a fuel gas that is then burned with coal in the same boiler. Although
it is more expensive because of the additional gasifier, this option allows for a greater
variety of biomass types and higher percentages of biomass to be used. Indirect cofir-
ing can reduce slagging because biomass does not directly feed into the coal furnace,
and it allows for a separate collection of residues. As the gas can be injected in many
cases directly into the furnace, the plant can avoid the energy conversion losses and
expensive flue gas cleaning, which are common issues in biomass gasification. How-
ever, depending on the biomass fuel quality and the presence of chlorine and alkalis,
flue gas cleaning could be required (Basu et al., 2011).

5.3.3 Parallel cofiring

In parallel cofiring systems, biomass and coal are fed into separate boilers, and the
steam generation from biomass is then mixed with steam from the conventional boiler.
Biomass preprocessing, feeding, and combustion activities are carried out separately.
This method allows for high biomass percentages and is frequently used in pulp and
paper industrial facilities where dedicated biomass boilers are used for bark and waste
wood. Although the cost of parallel cofiring is significantly higher than the direct op-
tion, it is still lower than a dedicated biomass power plant, and it may assist in opti-
mizing the combustion process and in utilizing difficult fuels with high alkali and
chlorine contents (Dai et al., 2008). The efficiencies that can be achieved are higher
than a stand-alone biomass power plant, whereas the operation of the coal boiler is
Coal and biomass cofiring: fundamentals and future trends 123

not affected by the addition of a biomass fuel. Combustion residues are also produced
separately and can be handled independently.

5.4 Cofiring ratios

The optimum cofiring ratios for selected combustion blends of biomass and coal must
be determined considering costs and performance of the plants. Cofiring more than
20% of biomass in terms of energy content is technically feasible. Depending on
the plant setup and the cofiring technology, substitution of more than 50% of coal
could also be achieved (IEA-ETSAP and IRENA, 2013). However, in most cases,
cofiring level in most commercial applications is up to 5%e10% (as energy content).
To control the furnace efficiency and production, the effect of biomass particle size,
biomass injection rate, thermal and fluid-dynamic behavior, as well as the design of the
burner are very important. Usually, the boiler types used for biomass cofiring record
little or no loss in total boiler efficiency after adjusting combustion output for the
new fuel mixture. Therefore, the efficiency of biomass feedstock combustion to elec-
tricity may range from 33% to 37% when biomass feedstock is cofired with coal. The
net electric efficiency of a typical biomass cofiring plant usually ranges from 35% to
44% (Agbor et al., 2014). R€ udiger et al. (1996) suggested that comparatively higher
burnout was observed with up to 20% thermal input of biomass. In addition, it has
been found that the physical and chemical properties of the biomass fuels had a direct
impact on the characteristics of the flame with the variation of cofiring proportions.
The main differences were observed in the flame ignition points and brightness,
although the flame stability was also affected by the addition of biomass (no more
than 20% by weight) (Lu et al., 2008).

5.5 Technical and logistical issues of cofiring

The biomass cofiring technology presents certain difficulties and drawbacks. These is-
sues are primarily caused by the difference in properties between coal and biomass.
The main drawbacks associated to the biomass cofiring may be related to the inherent
characteristics of the biomass as a fuel, i.e., quality and availability, biomass logistics
issues (handling, storage, transportation, preprocessing as drying or milling), price of
the biomass, or size of the biomass particles for burning and possibilities for injecting
biomass into the boiler. Other important groups of drawbacks of cofiring are related to
the biomass combustion process (performance), to the deposit formation (slagging and
fouling) and corrosion, to the flue gas from the burning process (cleaning), and to the
ash generated during combustion (landfill costs, applications).

5.5.1 Biomass type and availability

Biomass feedstock includes forestry and agriculture residues, residues from pulp and
paper industries, animal manure, wastes such as sawdust or bark from the timber
124 New Trends in Coal Conversion

industry, waste wood, and energy crops. Using wastes for cofiring would minimize the
environmental problem associated with its disposal. Woody biomass is considered to
be the most convenient option for cofiring activities due to its naturally low content in
ash, sulfur, and nitrogen, but other biomass feedstocks, such as forest residues, mill
residues, or agricultural products such as straw, switchgrass, corn stover, rice hulls,
and olive pits, could be used in cofiring with coal.
Important barriers associated with cofiring biomass and coal can be the unstable
supply of biomass and the availability of quality biomass fuels, which limit the per-
centage of biomass that can be fired. The costs of biomass acquisition and transporta-
tion determine to a large extent the economic feasibility of cofiring. The acquisition
costs depend on possible competition with other biomass energy uses (e.g., biofuels)
or nonenergy applications. A stable and cheap flow of biomass is needed to sustain a
biomass cofiring project. The price of biomass is strongly dependent on the following:
(1) the feedstock’s origin, type, and composition; (2) the cost of handling, preparing,
and transporting the feedstock; and (3) the plant’s geographic location. The transpor-
tation cost over long distances is influenced strongly by the energy density or the heat-
ing value of the biomass feedstock (Agbor et al., 2014).

5.5.2 Biomass pretreatment

Drying, size reduction, storage, transport, feeding, and handling of biomass fuels pre-
sent problems in achieving stable conditions. Biomass produces a nonfriable, fibrous
material during milling, grinding, or any other process used to reduce the particle size.
It is generally unfeasible to reduce biomass to the same size or shape as coal. The shape
and size of biomass particles result in very low packing densities and could create chal-
lenges when pneumatically or otherwise transporting biomass fuels. Thus, the pretreat-
ment of the biomass involves changing it into a form which can be integrated into the
fuel chain of the generation plant without much change to the plant itself. Cofeeding of
blended fuels, such as coal and biomass, presents more problems than separate
feeding. However, if the proportion of biomass in the coal is small (<10% on an en-
ergy basis), the effect of biomass addition has been found to be almost insignificant
(Sami et al., 2001).
Various measures can be applied to avoid or reduce problems in biomass or blends
feeding, such as biomass densification as pellets and briquettes, or torrefaction. These
techniques can be effectively used to reduce their high moisture content and increase
the heat value per volume of biomass, which will improve their transportation and stor-
age and reduce the transportation costs (Agbor et al., 2014). Verma et al. (2017)
reviewed the different technologies used for biomass drying to reduce its inherent
moisture content. On the other hand, a recent publication by Madanayake et al.
(2017) has reviewed the state of the art of biomass pretreatment techniques as precur-
sors to combustion or cofiring. These authors aimed to place a particular emphasis on
torrefaction and leaching, which are potentially two of the most important strategies to
improve the fuel properties of biomass.
Leaching. One of the main concerns with using biomass is its high alkali content,
which causes a number of ash-related problems. The alkali (K) and alkaline earth (Ca)
Coal and biomass cofiring: fundamentals and future trends 125

metals react with other inorganic nonmetallic components to produce deposit-forming

compounds. These deposits result in slagging in grate-fired combustors, fouling of heat
transfer surfaces, and bed agglomeration in fluidized bed combustors (FBCs). The
fouling impedes the heat transfer rate, whereas the slagging obstructs fuel feeding,
combustion, and ash removal. The presence of Cl and S also results in the formation
of acidic products on combustion, which causes accelerated corrosion of metal sur-
faces within the combustion system. Leaching or washing of the biomass with water
or an acid has been demonstrated as an effective method to reduce the content of alkali
and alkaline earth metals as well as Cl. Leaching can occur naturally if the biomass is
exposed to rain before harvesting (lower cost but dependent on local weather condi-
tions), or it can be carried out as an artificial process based on soaking the biomass
for a controlled period of time and consisting of a combination of mechanical dewater-
ing and rinsing processes (Madanayake et al., 2017).
Torrefaction. It is desirable to bring the physical properties of biomass as close to
those of coal as possible, which would make it possible to use existing conventional
power plants to fire biomass with minimal modifications of the handling and combus-
tion equipment. Torrefaction is a thermal pretreatment of biomass in two different
ways: dry torrefaction or wet torrefaction. Dry torrefaction is the biomass heating in
the absence of oxygen at temperatures of 200e300  C for nearly an hour, thus creating
a charcoal-like substance with reduced moisture, small particle size, minimal biolog-
ical degradation, and increased energy density. With torrefaction, moisture content is
reduced, which means a reduction of the H and O content of the biomass, and hence a
reduction in the H/C and O/C ratios, increasing the heating value. A further result of
the torrefaction is that the propensity to reabsorb water by the biomass is reduced,
which allows the fuel to be stored stably for extensive periods of time without its mois-
ture levels increasing significantly. Also, this treatment makes the biomass resistant to
microbial colonization, which means that there would be less tendency for biodegra-
dation to occur during storage (Madanayake et al., 2017). The poor grindability of
biomass is another issue that can be alleviated by torrefaction. Raw biomass tends
to be highly fibrous in nature, and the fibers form linkages which result in a resistance
to milling/pulverizing. Torrefied biomass has been observed to lack these fibers, as
well as to reduce the size of the particles at a microscopic level and make them
more spherical, which improves the grindability and flowability of biomass, as well
as their handling characteristics (Arias et al., 2008a; Gil et al., 2015). After torrefac-
tion, biomass can be milled and compressed to very dense pellets (black pellets) or bri-
quettes because torrefied biomass still has a low bulk density, which is challenging in
terms of transportation logistics (Tumuluru et al., 2012).
Wet torrefaction (or hydrothermal carbonization) also results in many of the
mentioned beneficial effects of dry torrefaction, although the two mechanisms differ.
Wet torrefaction is also known as hydrothermal pretreatment because it uses hot com-
pressed H2O as a treatment medium (as opposed to a N2 environment in dry torrefac-
tion). The treatment temperature range is generally slightly lower than that of dry
126 New Trends in Coal Conversion

torrefactiondtypically 260  C or lower. The pressure is maintained at about 700 psi.

Both treatments result in the formation of a solid product as well as evolved gases, but
wet torrefaction also produces an aqueous solution consisting primarily of dissolved
sugars. Although both torrefaction strategies result in an improvement in the solid
biomass fuel for combustion/cofiring purposes, wet torrefaction seems the most favor-
able option based on hydrophobicity and energy density (Yan et al., 2009). However,
more extensive research has to be carried out with respect to the advantages and draw-
backs of each technique.
Pelletization. One of the main problems involving the use of biomass as a fuel is its
low density, which leads to high handling and transport costs. Pelletization is a process
to physically densify fine wood particles (e.g., sawdust) into compact, low-moisture,
and low-eroding capsules by applying pressure and heat, which improves the energy
density of the fuel. Advanced (“black”) pellets can also repel water, thus improving
logistics and storage options. The pelletization process consists of three main stages:
drying, grinding/milling, and compaction. The moisture content of the biomass is first
reduced to about 10% by weight with a drying equipment. Following this, the mechan-
ical size reduction can be carried out by using, for example, a hammer mill. A press
mill is then used to compact the dried and milled biomass particles into pellets of
the required size. The particles are bound together by moisture and natural binders
which are released from the biomass itself due to heat, although artificial binders
and stabilizers could also be added. The pellets are then cooled to about 5  C, which
causes further hardening (Madanayake et al., 2017). Both woody and herbaceous
biomass can be pelletized, and pellets could become the most suitable biomass-
derived feedstock for biomass cofiring operations.
Finally, one important aspect that has to be considered with respect to pretreatment
is the overall energy/efficiency benefit. Although the higher energy density of the pre-
treated fuel means lower storage and transportation costs, energy is also consumed in
the treatment processes (particularly in grinding, torrefaction, and compaction). How-
ever, pretreatment is necessary to overcome the issues inherent to fire biomass. The
high costs of pelletization can be justified by better operability of the fuel (handling,
transportation, storage, and feeding), resulting in improved boiler and combustion per-
formance (Dai et al., 2008). Processed biomass has higher energy density than raw
biomass (Fig. 5.2), which makes it suitable for long-distance transportation. While
biomass pretreatment and upgrade facilitate handling and improve combustion effi-
ciency, the energy density of biomass remains lower than that of coal. Therefore,
biomass use is economically viable if resources are readily available locally. Future
studies should be undertaken on the evaluation of the entire process from an economic
standpoint, as this would invariably affect the practical implementation of biomass pre-
treatment on an industrial scale. In addition, according to Madanayake et al. (2017),
there is a lack of standardization in existing research on biomass, and standard proto-
cols with regard to characterization and pretreatment for future research and practical
applications are needed.
Coal and biomass cofiring: fundamentals and future trends 127

35
Coal Coal (anthracite)
30
Solid wood
Energy density (GJ/m3)

25 Wood chips
Processed biomass Sawdust
20 Black liquor

15 Wood pellets
Raw biomass Torrefied wood pellets
10 Pyrolysis oil
Straw (baled)
5
Organic waste
0
0 500 1000 1500
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Figure 5.2 Energy density of biomass and coal.
Adapted from IEA-ETSAP and IRENA (2015).

5.5.3 Biomass burning

5.5.3.1 Fuel conversion
Biomass combustion differs from coal combustion due to differences in their physical
properties and chemical composition. The higher volatiles content and low activation
energy of biomass make the pyrolysis and subsequent volatile oxidation start earlier
than for coal and at lower temperatures. Thus, a substantial fraction of the energy
from the biomass combustion comes from the oxidation of the volatiles, whereas
almost all the energy for coal combustion comes from char oxidation (Chao et al.,
2008). The devolatilization stage of the combustion process of blends of coal and
biomass (5e20 wt.% of biomass) has been studied by thermogravimetry, and higher
thermochemical reactivity was found for the biomass fuel compared with lignite
(Vamvuka et al., 2003b).
Biomass can burn more intensively and may give rise to higher local peak temper-
atures due to its higher reactivity than coal. The earlier release of volatiles from
biomass reduces the ignition temperature compared with coal and promotes flame sta-
bility. Both coal and biomass have similar ignition processes, but biomass fuels may
experience more homogenous and flaming combustion due to higher volatile materials
(Agbor et al., 2014). Flame stability has been found to be little affected by the amount
of biomass added when the addition is less than 20 wt.%. Moreover, premixing
biomass and coal can enhance the combustion of the two fuels, whereas poorly mixed
biomass and coal tend to burn independently at different rates (Lu et al., 2008).
In addition, biomass chars tend to be highly porous and very reactive under the con-
ditions found in pulverized fuel furnaces, while the shape of biomass particles, large and
physically complex, promotes more rapid combustion than the typically spherical shape
128 New Trends in Coal Conversion

of coal particles (Karampinis et al., 2014). Particle shape and size affect char burnout
because biomass does not melt, and irregular shapes are maintained during combustion
(Backreedy et al., 2005). Overall, despite the unfavorable sizing, fuel conversion can be
maintained in high levels, especially when the biomass thermal share is low.

5.5.3.2 Deposits and corrosion

Most biomass cofiring projects use existing coal-fired combustion technologies
because a coal-designed power plant can be suitable for blending biomass with coal
after minimal modifications, making it an attractive proposition economically. A major
problem of biomass firing comes from the deposit formation, corrosion, and erosion
within the boiler system, which are related to the ash formed.
Two modes of deposit formation can occur, i.e., slagging and fouling. Slagging is
dominant in the high-temperature radiative sections of the boiler, such as furnace
walls, and occurs due to molten ashes, whereas fouling is primarily found in the
low-temperature convective sections, such as the heat exchanger tubes, and is related
to ash deposits during cooling (Teixeira et al., 2012). The slag forms when ash gets
fused or partially fused, whereas fouling occurs when alkali compounds condense
on the metal surfaces and also when fly ash is quenched below its melting temperature
and gets deposited (Madanayake et al., 2017). Slag and fouling deposits are primarily
composed of the chlorides, sulfates, hydroxides, and silicates of alkali and alkaline
earth metals. Deposits tend to reduce the heat transfer to tubes, decreasing the combus-
tion efficiency.
Some biomass fuels, such as herbaceous crops, have high alkali (principally potas-
sium) or chlorine content, or both. This can lead to unmanageable ash deposition prob-
lems on heat exchange and ash handling surfaces. Chlorine in combustion gases,
especially at high temperatures, can cause accelerated corrosion of combustion system
and flue gas cleanup components. Woody biomass seems to be less likely to contribute
to corrosion and deposition because it is lower in alkaline and chlorine. Normally high
alkaliecontaining biomasses settle down on the heat transfer surfaces causing Cl
condensation. There is a solution to reduce the alkali chlorides (primarily from the
biomass) while reacting with the sulfur (primarily from the coal) to form alkali sulfates
(Bhuiyan et al., 2018). On the other hand, as fouling, slagging, and corrosion of boiler
surfaces is influenced mostly by alkali and alkaline earth metals (such as K) and Cl,
leaching these elements from the fuel using H2O dramatically improves these ash-
related problems.
A further related problem which is associated to FBCs is the agglomeration of bed me-
dia due to the presence of the biomass ash, which would result in a reduction of heat trans-
fer. This issue is considered noteworthy, as FBC can otherwise be regarded as one of the
more desirable biomass combustor technologies due to the low and stable operating tem-
€
peratures that it uses, as well as the fuel flexibility it affords (Ohman et al., 2000).

5.5.3.3 Combustion modeling

Combustion modeling for coal/biomass blends is complex due to gas and two partic-
ulate phases, as well as the effect of turbulence on chemical reactions. Two chemically
Coal and biomass cofiring: fundamentals and future trends 129

different fuels are involved, with biomass being much more reactive and having higher
volatiles and moisture content than coal. Combustion models based on coal need to be
modified to account for the effects of biomass cofiring on the overall combustion
behavior. To achieve good modeling results, the use of appropriate submodels for
the description of the behavior of biomass particles is very important. Some models
for burning blends of biomass and coal have been developed with a focus on predicting
combustion efficiency, fouling, and emission of pollutants for different fuels and their
mixtures in commercial-scale FBCs (Gayan et al., 2004).
Computacional fluid dynamics (CFD) and modeling techniques are becoming
increasingly important tools to assess the impact of biomass cofiring in the operation


of burners and boilers (Alvarez et al., 2014). They have been shown to be reasonably
effective in predicting the in-furnace temperature profiles and heat fluxes, as well as
slag deposition (Degereji et al., 2012). Future developments in the field of computer
simulation would be extremely useful in predicting ash deposition problems, without
the need for expensive and time-consuming field tests. The current state-of-the-art
CFD-based models are capable of solving the complex interdependent processes
such as fluid flow, turbulence, heat transfer, heterogeneous and homogeneous chemi-
cal reactions involved in cocombustion. However, the complete description of particle
trajectories, chemistry of devolatilization, char oxidation, and volatile combustion is
still, mainly, based on simple models (Tabet and G€okalp, 2015).

5.5.4 Cofiring boiler types

There are some typical boilers used in existing coal-fired power plants that could be
used for cofiring: grated combustors, pulverized fuel combustors (PFCs), FBCs, and
cyclone boilers.
Grated combustion systems. They use grate-fired furnaces and underfeed stokers.
Fuel is directly combusted over a grate with no further processes or circulation of
air. It is the simplest and oldest design for combustion of solid fuels (Fig. 5.3). How-
ever, it is the least efficient and has high flue gas emissions. Temperatures in the com-
bustion chamber may reach 1300e1400  C, which can cause ash melting and
corrosion. Different types of grate furnaces (up to 20 MWth) are available: fixed, mov-
ing, and vibrating. Underfeed stokers are used in small- and medium-scale systems up
to a nominal boiler capacity of 6 MWth (Dai et al., 2008). Water-cooled vibrating grate
boilers for fixed-bed combustion is a well-known technology for power generation
from wood residues. Based on natural circulation, these boilers are designed to burn
low-heating-value (LHV of about 13.8 MJ/kg) wood residues, with 30% humidity.
Wood fuels could be used in the grate combustor without big problems, but for other
biomass types, it is generally sensitive to changes in fuel quality and moisture. Mix-
tures of wood fuels can also be used, but mixtures of fuels with different combustion
behavior and ash melting points, such as blends of wood with straw or grass, would not
be possible. Although the grated boilers present low operational and maintenance
costs, their low thermal efficiency when compared with the FBC and PFC limits the
extensive application of this system.
130 New Trends in Coal Conversion

Secondary air

Fuel

Primary air

Ash

Grated combustor

Figure 5.3 Grated combustor.

Pulverized fuel combustors. In PFCs, the solid fuel has to be mechanically reduced
in particle size, and the fine particles are then introduced pneumatically into the burner
(Fig. 5.4). Pulverized coal combustion (PCC) boilers are the most widespread technol-
ogy used in converting energy from coal to heat energy and electricity due to the high
efficiency and low NOx emissions. The reduced emissions are one of the reasons for
choosing this technology, but the low-energy density of biomass means a higher vol-
ume flow to the boiler and a high volume of locally available biomass. These boilers
could be adapted to direct cofiring with biomass, but fuel properties, along with fuel
blending and feeding, should be carefully controlled. Fuel quality in PFC needs to
be maintained, with a maximum fuel particle size of 10e20 mm, and the moisture con-
tent should be no more than 20 wt.%, which lowers its application in cofiring projects
(Agbor et al., 2014). The burning time requires small particles that will burn out
completely before exiting the furnace.
Fluidized bed combustors. FBCs contain a bed of a medium (such as silica sand or
limestone) mixed with the fuel. The bed acts as a buffer to maintain high combustion
temperatures, even if the fuel contains impurities, high moisture, or low calorific value.
A more efficient heat transfer during combustion results in lower combustion temper-
atures, between 800 and 900  C, which prevents ash sintering and lowers the NOx and
SOx emissions compared with other combustion technologies. The costs for SO2 cap-
ture may be lower because limestone can be added directly to the fluidizing medium at
relatively low cost compared with installing postcombustion scrubbers. An FBC is the
most suitable reactor for cofiring. Also, existing coal-fired FBCs can be easily adapted
to cofiring. There are two major types of FBC systems: bubbling fluidized bed
Coal and biomass cofiring: fundamentals and future trends 131

Secondary air

Fuel
+
Primary air

Ash
Pulverized fuel
combustor (PFC)

Figure 5.4 Pulverized fuel combustor.

combustors and circulating fluidized bed combustors (Fig. 5.5). In general, fluidized
bed boilers can substitute higher levels of coal with biomass than pulverized coal-
fired or grate-fired boilers. Fluidized bed boilers can handle biomass with higher mois-
ture content (10%e50% instead of <25%) and larger particle sizes (<72 mm instead

Secondary air Secondary air

Bed Bed

Fuel Fuel

Primary air Primary air

Ash Ash
Bubbling fluidized bed Circulating fluidized bed
combustor (BFBC) combustor (CFBC)

Figure 5.5 Bubbling and circulating fluidized bed combustors.

132 New Trends in Coal Conversion

of <6 mm) than pulverized boilers (Agbor et al., 2014). They can achieve high fuel-to-
steam efficiency, typically over 90%, even with challenging, low-grade fuels. One
problem that is exclusive to this design is the probability of bed agglomeration occur-
ring when biomass with a high alkali/alkaline earth metal content is used.
Cyclone boilers. They are designed with large, water-cooled burners that are placed
in a horizontal position, and its external furnace can reach combustion temperatures in
the range of 1650 and 2000  C. The boiler allows the fuel’s mineral matter to form a
slag capturing the oversized particles and to combust the fine and volatile fuel particles
in suspension. The intense heat that radiates from this design burns up the layer of slag
formed. For optimum performance, the ash content of the biomass fuels must exceed
6%, volatiles should be greater than 15%, and, except in a dried form, the moisture
content of the fuel must not be less than 20% (Agbor et al., 2014). This technology
is suitable for biomass cofiring, although a few modifications may be necessary to
enhance the feeding and mixing of the biomass and the coal.
Gasifiers. The gasification technology is used in indirect cofiring systems. Fixed bed
gasifiers require mechanically stable fuel particles of limited size (10e30 mm) to facil-
itate passage of gas through the bed (Dai et al., 2008), and they are generally used in
small-scale applications (<10e15 MWe power capacity). The fluidized bed gasification
has been identified as the most effective gasification technology for indirect biomass
cofiring, where both bubbling fluidized bed gasification and circulating fluidized bed
gasification can be applied because they permit the use of a wide variety of biomass fuels
and waste-derived fuels. An efficient performance of fluidized bed gasifiers requires
relatively small fuel particles to ensure good contact with bed material. Entrained
flow gasifiers convert mixtures of fuel and oxygen into a syngas at high temperatures
(>1200  C, even as high as 2000  C) in very short periods of time (a few seconds)
and at high pressures (50 bar). To achieve reliable feeding and high conversion of the
feedstock, particles should be smaller than 1 mm (Maciejewska et al., 2006).
Direct cofiring results in slightly higher efficiencies (around 2% points) than indirect
and parallel cofiring due to the conversion losses in the biomass gasifiers and boilers.
The overall efficiency of direct cofiring falls with higher percentages of biomass due
to fouling and slagging, associated corrosion, especially in pulverized coal-fired or
grate-fired boilers. The overall efficiency of direct cofiring in coal-fired power plants
with fluidized bed boilers is less sensitive to higher levels of biomass, although high
levels require more sophisticated boiler and fuel handling control systems. In general,
cofiring in modern, large, and highly efficient coal power plants results in a biomass con-
version efficiency that is significantly higher than what can be achieved in small
(<10 MW) and medium-scale (10e50 MW) dedicated biomass power plants with effi-
ciencies of 14%e18% and 18%e33%, respectively (IEA-ETSAP and IRENA, 2013).

5.6 Environmental issues: flue gas and ash from cofiring

Biomass cofiring with coal is a useful tool for the reduction of emissions in the power
generation industry, which enables plants that generate electricity through coal power
Coal and biomass cofiring: fundamentals and future trends 133

to reduce their GHG emissions significantly by substituting a portion of their base fuel
with a “carbon-free” fuel such as biomass. Biomass cofiring helps to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions, other airborne emissions such as oxides of sulfur and nitrogen,
as well as trace metals.

5.6.1 CO2 emissions

One of the primary drivers behind adoption of cofiring is the reduction of net CO2
emissions, as biomass is considered to be a carbon-neutral fuel. Biomass cofiring
has the potential to reduce the GHG emissions due to the net CO2 released from the
combustion of biomass being reduced to zero. Although different studies have reported
a wide variation in the CO2 avoidance cost when adopting cofiring, the current
consensus is that biomass cofiring is one of the most cost-effective and easily
deployed, with short implementation times and CO2-mitigation options from the
coal power sector. In any case, the cost of CO2 avoidance by biomass cofiring seems
comparable with that of CO2 mitigation by carbon capture methods, and cofiring has
the advantage of being a more proven and less risky technology.

5.6.2 NOx and SOx emissions

In general, it has been demonstrated that SOx and NOx emissions decrease uniformly
when biomass is cofired with coal (Badour et al., 2012; Leckner and Karlsson, 1993;
Pedersen et al., 1997; Skodras et al., 2002). This is because the biomass contains
comparatively less S than coal, although a greater reduction is predicted during sulfur
retention from coal by alkali and alkaline earth compounds (Ca, K) in the biomass
fuels (Armesto et al., 2003). In biomass cofiring, the main sources of NOx are thermal
NO from the N2 in the air and fuel NO from coal, while NOx emissions from biomass
fuel are minimum. The fuel nitrogen content of biomass is mainly converted to NH3
during combustion, which has a lower conversion to NO than the HCN usually formed
from coal combustion (Gayan et al., 2004). Ammonia may also contribute to the cat-
alytic reduction of NOx under reducing conditions (Sami et al., 2001). In an experi-
mental study of cofiring, where the amount of biomass mixed with coal was in the
range of 0%e16% on the basis of energy input, at a high feed rate of biomass of about
24 t/h in a large-scale (300 MW) coal-fired power plant, there was a drastic reduction
of NOx emissions, about 10% (Wang et al., 2011). Biomass fuels typically produce
higher volatile yields than coals, creating larger fuel-rich regions compared with
coal in the near-burner regions, which promote NOx reduction reactions.
Generally, the flue gas passes to an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or bag filter to
remove particulate matter. The emissions of particulate matter that occur during
biomass combustion are usually higher than those of natural gas or gasified coal.
The effectiveness of the flue gas treatment systems, such as ESPs, might be affected
owing to the increase in flue gas volume during cofiring. Sulfur can be removed using
flue gas desulfurization, whereas oxides of nitrogen can be controlled by modifications
to the burners. Cleanup systems for NOx such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
and selective noncatalytic reduction can also be adopted. Each of these technologies
134 New Trends in Coal Conversion

can be used in cofiring systems with little or no modification (Dai et al., 2008), but the
catalysts of the SCR system are susceptible to poisoning from volatile inorganic com-
pounds, such as alkalis and phosphates, which are expected to be present in increased
amounts in the flue gases from cofiring plants. The issue of the cofiring impact on SCR
operation still requires further research (Karampinis et al., 2014).

5.6.3 Ash
Concrete admixtures represent an important market for some coal combustion ash by-
products. One of the issues associated with biomass cofiring is how to deal with the ash
left over after the combustion of both fuels in the combustor. The cofiring technology
employed determines the nature of the ash left at the end of the combustion process.
The ash contents of different biomass and coal feedstocks differ significantly in
composition, and it is still not appropriate to use fly ash from cofiring wood with
coal. Literature suggests that herbaceous biomass fuels which contain alkali and
chorine may compromise several important concrete properties, but there is not
enough evidence to preclude the fly ash from biomass energy source for the supply
of concrete additive (Bhuiyan et al., 2018).
Fly ash from the gasification of biomass in fluidized beds can be reused as fuel for
power generation because it may have high energy content due to unburned carbon. On
the other hand, potentially, the ash originating from combustion or gasification of
biomass can be used as natural fertilizer or in fertilizer production, as it is rich in
Mg and Ca (Tumuluru et al., 2012).

5.7 Oxy-fuel cofiring

Oxy-fuel combustion is a technology for the GHG abatement. In this technology, fuel
is combusted with the aid of a mixture of oxidizer and recycled flue gas, which pro-
vides a rich stream of CO2. This technology has mainly been widely used for coal com-
bustion (Kanniche et al., 2010; Nakod et al., 2013; Rebola and Azevedo, 2015; Riaza
et al., 2011; Singh et al., 2013), but the literature is scarce for biomass cofiring.
An experimental study evaluated the ignition and burnout performance of coal and
biomass mixtures in oxy-fuel conditions using an entrained flow reactor (EFR) (Arias
et al., 2008b). The results showed that the ignition temperature had strong dependence
on the combustion environment. A delay in the ignition was observed for the burning
with a mixture of 79%CO2e21%O2 compared with air firing. This significantly
affected the flame temperatures. When the O2 fraction in the CO2/O2 mixture was
higher than 30%, early ignition took place at comparatively lower temperatures. It
was concluded that the use of biomass blend has a low impact during air combustion,
but a significant improvement in the burnout of the coal/biomass blends was found un-
der oxy-fuel cocombustion conditions.
Coal and biomass cofiring: fundamentals and future trends 135

The ignition temperature, burnout, and NO emissions of blends of a semianthracite

and a high-volatile bituminous coal with 10e20 wt.% of olive waste have also been
studied under oxy-fuel combustion conditions in an EFR (Riaza et al., 2012). A sig-
nificant reduction in ignition temperature and a slight increase in the burnout value
were observed after the addition of biomass, this trend becoming more noticeable as
the biomass concentration increased. Emissions of NO were significantly reduced
by the addition of biomass to the bituminous coal, although this effect was less notice-
able in the case of the semianthracite.

5.8 Future trends of biomass cofiring

The main challenges of biomass cofiring could be summarized as follows: (1) biomass
cannot compete on an economic point of view with coal (or other fossil energies) due
to low thermal efficiency, high cost, and variable impacts on boiler and milling equip-
ment; (2) biomass typically has low bulk energy density, is wet, and is strongly hydro-
philic, and therefore, requires a great deal of fuel handling technology compared with
its heating contribution; (3) fuel costs may be low, but transportation, preparation,
handling, and storage costs for biomass can rapidly exceed total fuel costs for other
fossil options; (4) potential for increased corrosion rates in boilers due to higher alkali
levels in biomass fuel; (5) biomass fuels can have as much as 50% moisture, which will
reduce efficiencies in the boiler; (6) there is higher possibility that the rate and extent of
boiler slagging will increase because ash fusion temperatures for most biomass fuels
are low (750  C to 1000 o C); and finally, (7) potential emissions and gas cleaning
equipment should be considered, as well as ash utilization.
Regarding the possibilities of increasing the scale of biomass cofiring, incentives
and favorable regulatory and environmental policies will probably be the major factors
encouraging the interest in power generation and cogeneration from biomass energy
sources in the future. Moreover, the guarantee of a stable and cheap supply of biomass,
together with an optimum biomass delivery system, could influence the increase in the
number of cofiring power plants. A dedicated biomass infrastructure (e.g., feeding,
milling, storage, conveying) needs to be introduced into the existing coal system
(Tumuluru et al., 2012). The economic feasibility of cofiring biomass with coal is
determined by the costs of biomass acquisition and transportation. Support by govern-
ments to develop biomass supply chains would be necessary.
Coal-fired power stations that provide both power and heat to district heating net-
works or even industrial facilities may significantly increase the efficiency and the eco-
nomics of biomass cofiring. Cofiring in combined heat and power (CHP) plants is
currently the most competitive option to exploit the biomass energy potential for
both electricity and heat production. Appropriate policies are needed to achieve an effi-
cient use of the available biomass resource by encouraging the use of cofiring in
connection with CHP, as well as incentives for the conversion of power plants into
cofired CHP plants. Likewise, policies should also take into account the cobenefits
136 New Trends in Coal Conversion

from the use of agricultural residues or demolition waste, which would otherwise
constitute a disposal challenge.
The trend in cofiring is to increase the biomass/coal ratio and to utilize a wider range
of biomass fuels. Thus, the development of efficient technologies to cofire new types
of biomass such as energy crops, waste wood, and agricultural residues is needed. The
net electric efficiency of a cofired coal/biomass power plant ranges from 36% to 44%,
depending on plant technology, size, quality, and share of biomass. Although a 20%
cofiring (as energy content) is feasible and more than 50% is technically achievable,
the usual biomass share is below 5% and rarely exceeds 10% on a continuous basis.
However, high biomass shares involve technical issues, such as securing sufficient
biomass, as well as potential combustion problems, such as slagging, fouling (which
reduces heat transfer), and corrosion. A more expensive alternative (in terms of invest-
ment costs) as the introduction of more advanced cofiring modes, such as parallel cofir-
ing or indirect cofiring, in which not only fuel preparation and feeding lines but also
conversion units for biomass and coal are independent, could be an interesting option
in some cases (Tumuluru et al., 2012).
The main difficulties and drawbacks associated to the biomass cofiring technology
are primarily caused by the differences in properties between coal and biomass. There-
fore, pretreatment techniques seem to be a potential and promising way to favor the
development of cofiring. Chemical composition issues of the biomass can be reduced
by methods such as washing and leaching, which can save costs involved in mainte-
nance of cofiring systems and minimize ash-related issues such as slagging and
fouling. The local availability of large quantities of cheap biomass makes biomass
cofiring more economically attractive. However, if local sources are insufficient,
high-energy density and pretreated biomass (e.g., wood pellets) can be used. In these
cases, long-distance transportation and logistics play an important role in the economic
viability. Both handling and combustion characteristics of biomass can be substan-
tially improved through torrefaction and pelletization, which increase the energy den-
sity of biomass, reduce transportation costs, and improve storage performance. The
pelletization of torrefied biomass is a promising option to increase the bulk density
and the net calorific value of biomass to higher levels than the typical pelletization.
Although the biomass pretreatment process has been developed technically, proper
collection and transportation is still required for its efficient utilization, as well as
large-scale application of the pretreatment process has to be developed. Seasonal/
annual fluctuation in biomass supply, due to its biological nature and environmental
diversity, is another important characteristic. Taken together, these issues indicate
that securing good quality feedstock at affordable prices over a plant’s lifetime is
crucial for biomass power projects.
Current operating experience and available solutions indicate that most technical
concerns do not materialize or can be easily solved when cofiring woody biomass at
relatively low thermal shares. As the biomass thermal share increases and more prob-
lematic fuels are utilized, further research and demonstration activities will be needed
to evaluate potential impacts of cofiring (Karampinis et al., 2014).
Coal and biomass cofiring: fundamentals and future trends 137

5.9 Concluding remarks

Biomass cofiring in coal plants can play an important role in increasing the share of
biomass and renewable sources in the global energy mix and reducing emissions of
GHGs and, therefore, it is an attractive option of energy generation from both econom-
ical and environmental points of view. The investment required to adapt or retrofit an
existing conventional coal-fired power plant for biomass cofiring is lower than the cost
of building a new dedicated biomass power plant. Generally, biomass cofiring levels
are still within 5%e10% (as energy content) on a continuous operational basis, which
appears to be no great issues. In this case, direct cofiring of coal and biomass is the
most common approach owing to its low investment costs.
Biomass handling still requires solutions in relation to milling, pretreatment, and
transport. The higher content of volatiles as well as lower carbon content of the
biomass indicate that it provides a lower heating value compared with other traditional
fossil fuels. Combustion behavior significantly depends on chemical and physical
properties, and combustion of biomass therefore provides severe challenges due to
its inherent characteristics that need to be considered properly to have a solution to
implement future improvements. Thus, a better understanding of the characteristics
of biomass for the design of combustion facilities is highly important. In addition,
biomass fuels have a wide range of different physical and chemical properties, which
will determine the type of combustion facilities. Particle deposition, unburned carbon
in ash, and all other related issues, as well as slagging, require further research and
development. There are still huge gaps in the knowledge about the thermal, chemical,
and physical properties of different complex elements which influence the combustion
performance in cofiring conditions. CFD modeling is being progressively used, and it
is a very promising option to determine the flow characteristics, temperature mapping,
and emissions level for different combustion cases.

Acknowledgments
Authors are grateful to the Gobierno del Principado de Asturias (PCTI-GRUPIN14-079) and to
the CSIC (PIE-201780E057) for funding.

References
Agbor, E., Zhang, X., Kumar, A., 2014. A review of biomass co-firing in North America.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 40, 930e943.
Al-Mansour, F., Zuwala, J., 2010. An evaluation of biomass co-firing in Europe. Biomass and
Bioenergy 34, 620e629.


Alvarez, L., Yin, C., Riaza, J., Pevida, C., Pis, J.J., Rubiera, F., 2014. Biomass co-firing under
oxy-fuel conditions: a computational fluid dynamics modelling study and experimental
validation. Fuel Processing Technology 120, 22e33.
138 New Trends in Coal Conversion

Arias, B., Pevida, C., Fermoso, J., Plaza, M.G., Rubiera, F., Pis, J.J., 2008a. Influence of tor-
refaction on the grindability and reactivity of woody biomass. Fuel Processing Technology
89, 169e175.
Arias, B., Pevida, C., Rubiera, F., Pis, J.J., 2008b. Effect of biomass blending on coal ignition
and burnout during oxy-fuel combustion. Fuel 87, 2753e2759.
Armesto, L., Bahillo, A., Cabanillas, A., Veijonen, K., Otero, J., Plumed, A., Salvador, L., 2003.
Co-combustion of coal and olive oil industry residues in fluidized bed. Fuel 82, 993e1000.
Backreedy, R.I., Fletcher, L.M., Jones, J.M., Ma, L., Pourkashanian, M., Williams, A., 2005.
Co-firing pulverized coal and biomass: a modeling approach. Proceedings of the Com-
bustion Institute 30, 2955e2964.
Badour, C., Gilbert, A., Xu, C., Li, H., Shao, Y., Tourigny, G., Preto, F., 2012. Combustion and
air emissions from co-firing a wood biomass, a Canadian peat and a Canadian lignite coal in
a bubbling fluidised bed combustor. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 90,
1170e1177.
Basu, P., Butler, J., Leon, M.A., 2011. Biomass co-firing options on the emission reduction and
electricity generation costs in coal-fired power plants. Renewable Energy 36, 282e288.
Bhuiyan, A.A., Blicblau, A.S., Islam, A.K.M.S., Naser, J., 2018. A review on thermo-chemical
characteristics of coal/biomass co-firing in industrial furnace. Journal of the Energy
Institute 91, 1e18.
Chao, C.Y.H., Kwong, P.C.W., Wang, J.H., Cheung, C.W., Kendall, G., 2008. Co-firing coal
with rice husk and bamboo and the impact on particulate matters and associated polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon emissions. Bioresource Technology 99, 83e93.
Dai, J., Sokhansanj, S., Grace, J.R., Bi, X., Lim, C.J., Melin, S., 2008. Overview and some issues
related to co-firing biomass and coal. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 86,
367e386.
Degereji, M.U., Ingham, D.B., Ma, L., Pourkashanian, M., Williams, A., 2012. Prediction of ash
slagging propensity in a pulverized coal combustion furnace. Fuel 101, 171e178.
Fernando, R., 2005. Fuels for Biomass Cofiring. IEA Clean Coal Centre.
Gayan, P., Adanez, J., de Diego, L.F., García-Labiano, F., Cabanillas, A., Bahillo, A., Aho, M.,
Veijonen, K., 2004. Circulating fluidized bed co-combustion of coal and biomass. Fuel 83,
277e286.
Gil, M.V., García, R., Pevida, C., Rubiera, F., 2015. Grindability and combustion behavior of
coal and torrefied biomass blends. Bioresource Technology 191, 205e212.
Haykiri-Acma, H., Yaman, S., 2008. Effect of co-combustion on the burnout of lignite/biomass
blends: a Turkish case study. Waste Management 28, 2077e2084.
IEA, 2016. Medium-term Coal Market Report 2016. International Energy Agency.
IEA, 2017. Technology Roadmap: Delivering Sustainable Bio Energy. International Energy
Agency.
IEA-ETSAP, IRENA, 2013. Biomass Co-firing, Technology Brief, IEA-ETSAP and IRENA©
Technology Brief E21 e January 2013.
IEA-ETSAP, IRENA, 2015. Biomass for Heat and Power, Technology Brief, IEA-ETSAP and
IRENA© Technology Brief E05 e January 2015.
Jenkins, B.M., Baxter, L.L., Miles, T.R., Miles, T.R., 1998. Combustion properties of biomass.
Fuel Processing Technology 54, 17e46.
Kanniche, M., Gros-Bonnivard, R., Jaud, P., Valle-Marcos, J., Amann, J.-M., Bouallou, C.,
2010. Pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxy-combustion in thermal power plant for
CO2 capture. Applied Thermal Engineering 30, 53e62.
Coal and biomass cofiring: fundamentals and future trends 139

Karampinis, E., Grammelis, P., Agraniotis, M., Violidakis, I., Kakaras, E., 2014. Co-firing of
biomass with coal in thermal power plants: technology schemes, impacts, and future per-
spectives. WIREs Energy and Environment 3, 384e399.
Leckner, B., Karlsson, M., 1993. Gaseous emissions from circulating fluidized bed combustion
of wood. Biomass and Bioenergy 4, 379e389.
Lu, G., Yan, Y., Cornwell, S., Whitehouse, M., Riley, G., 2008. Impact of co-firing coal and
biomass on flame characteristics and stability. Fuel 87, 1133e1140.
Maciejewska, A., Veringa, H., Sanders, J., Peteves, S.D., 2006. Co-firing of Biomass with Coal:
Constraints and Role of Biomass Pre-treatment. EU publications, ISBN 92-79-02989-4.
Catalogue Number LD-NA-22461-EN-C.
Madanayake, B.N., Gan, S., Eastwick, C., Ng, H.K., 2017. Biomass as an energy source in coal
co-firing and its feasibility enhancement via pre-treatment techniques. Fuel Processing
Technology 159, 287e305.
Munir, S., Daood, S.S., Nimmo, W., Cunliffe, A.M., Gibbs, B.M., 2009. Thermal analysis and
devolatilization kinetics of cotton stalk, sugar cane bagasse and shea meal under nitrogen
and air atmospheres. Bioresource Technology 100, 1413e1418.
Nakod, P., Krishnamoorthy, G., Sami, M., Orsino, S., 2013. A comparative evaluation of gray
and non-gray radiation modeling strategies in oxy-coal combustion simulations. Applied
Thermal Engineering 54, 422e432.
€
Ohman, M., Nordin, A., Skrifvars, B.-J., Backman, R., Hupa, M., 2000. Bed agglomeration
characteristics during fluidized bed combustion of biomass fuels. Energy & Fuels 14,
169e178.
Pedersen, L.S., Morgan, D.J., van de Kamp, W.L., Christensen, J., Jespersen, P., Dam-
Johansen, K., 1997. Effects on SOx and NOx emissions by co-firing straw and pulver-
ized coal. Energy & Fuels 11, 439e446.
Rebola, A., Azevedo, J.L.T., 2015. Modelling coal combustion with air and wet recycled flue
gas as comburent in a 2.5 MWth furnace. Applied Thermal Engineering 86, 168e177.


Riaza, J., Alvarez, J., Gil, M.V., Pevida, C., Pis, J.J., Rubiera, F., 2011. Effect of oxy-fuel
combustion with steam addition on coal ignition and burnout in an entrained flow
reactor. Energy 36, 5314e5319.


Riaza, J., Gil, M.V., Alvarez, L., Pevida, C., Pis, J.J., Rubiera, F., 2012. Oxy-fuel combustion of
coal and biomass blends. Energy 41, 429e435.
Roni, M.S., Chowdhury, S., Mamun, S., Marufuzzaman, M., Lein, W., Johnson, S., 2017.
Biomass co-firing technology with policies, challenges, and opportunities: A global review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78, 1089e1101.
R€udiger, H., Kicherer, A., Greul, U., Spliethoff, H., Hein, K.R.G., 1996. Investigations in
combined combustion of biomass and coal in power plant technology. Energy & Fuels 10,
789e796.
Sami, M., Annamalai, K., Wooldridge, M., 2001. Co-firing of coal and biomass fuel blends.
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 27, 171e214.
Singh, R.I., Brink, A., Hupa, M., 2013. CFD modeling to study fluidized bed combustion and
gasification. Applied Thermal Engineering 52, 585e614.
Skodras, G., Grammelis, P., Samaras, P., Vourliotis, P., Kakaras, E., Sakellaropoulos, G.P.,
2002. Emissions monitoring during coal waste wood co-combustion in an industrial steam
boiler. Fuel 81, 547e554.
Tabet, F., G€okalp, I., 2015. Review on CFD based models for co-firing coal and biomass.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51, 1101e1114.
140 New Trends in Coal Conversion

Teixeira, P., Lopes, H., Gulyurtlu, I., Lapa, N., Abelha, P., 2012. Evaluation of slagging and
fouling tendency during biomass co-firing with coal in a fluidized bed. Biomass and
Bioenergy 39, 192e203.
Tillman, D.A., 2000. Biomass cofiring: the technology, the experience, the combustion con-
sequences. Biomass and Bioenergy 19, 365e384.
Toftegaard, M.B., Brix, J., Jensen, P.A., Glarborg, P., Jensen, A.D., 2010. Oxy-fuel combustion
of solid fuels. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 36, 581e625.
Tumuluru, J.S., Hess, J.R., Boardman, R.D., Wright, C.T., Westover, T.L., 2012. Formulation,
pretreatment, and densification options to improve biomass specifications for co-firing high
percentages with coal. Industrial Biotechnology 8, 113e132.
Valero, A., Us
on, S., 2006. Oxy-co-gasification of coal and biomass in an integrated gasification
combined cycle (IGCC) power plant. Energy 31, 1643e1655.
Vamvuka, D., Pasadakis, N., Kastanaki, E., Grammelis, P., Kakaras, E., 2003a. Kinetic
modeling of coal/agricultural by-product blends. Energy & Fuels 17, 549e558.
Vamvuka, D., Kakaras, E., Kastanaki, E., Grammelis, P., 2003b. Pyrolysis characteristics and
kinetics of biomass residuals mixtures with lignite. Fuel 82, 1949e1960.
Verma, M., Loha, C., Sinha, A.N., Chatterjee, P.K., 2017. Drying of biomass for utilising in co-
firing with coal and its impact on environment e A review. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 71, 732e741.
Wang, C., Wang, F., Yang, Q., Liang, R., 2009. Thermogravimetric studies of the behavior of
wheat straw with added coal during combustion. Biomass and Bioenergy 33, 50e56.
Wang, X., Tan, H., Niu, Y., Pourkashanian, M., Ma, L., Chen, E., Liu, Y., Liu, Z., Xu, T., 2011.
Experimental investigation on biomass co-firing in a 300MW pulverized coal-fired utility
furnace in China. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33, 2725e2733.
Yan, W., Acharjee, T.C., Coronella, C.J., V
asquez, V.R., 2009. Thermal pretreatment of
lignocellulosic biomass. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy 28, 435e440.