To: Professor Joseph Pekny & Professor Jeff Siirola From: ChE 450 Group 30 (Gaelen McFadden, Miriam

Mudenge, Kevin Paul, Brian Pohl and Chris Weinkauf) Date: April 27, 2012 Subject: Proposal for Torrefaction Process plant of Tennessee Switchgrass Professor Pekny and Professor Siirola, Introduction: Coal fired power plants produce large amounts of carbon dioxide emissions which have been a major focus for environmental protection over the past few years. We were tasked to create a torrefaction process that was capable of producing material to replace the use of coal in a 500 KWh power plant. This was a very open ended project, however it was loosely directed between the design of the process and the costing and economic portion of the process that were split between the team members. Staff Suggestions: We do not recommend the building of a torrefaction process for switchgrass, because the cost of raw switchgrass itself is more expensive than coal. Even with the sale of coproducts, the return on investment is negative for every case we performed an analysis on (25, 50, and 100% pellet replacement). However, if the cost of coal increased in the near future to approximately $400 per ton, the torrefaction process would be profitable for the 25% with carbon tax case. If the process were to be built, we would suggest running the torrefaction reaction at 270C, and the optimum residence time for 45 minutes. This gave a product that had a heating value greater than 7500 BTU/lb. The process is also environmentally safe due to the content of the byproducts resulted. In addition, the 25% cases would be the most economical, since the cost of a ton of torrefied product actually increases due to the amount of collection sites that would need raw material transportation to the different torrefaction sites. Also, we recommend that some experimentation be performed on differing moisture contents for raw switchgrass to see if it affects the final product quality. Finally, more equipment design needs to be performed to better account for switchgrass processing for torrefaction. Most of the listed equipment only gave information based on hardwood chips and/or pellets. Despite the rapid changes that the worlds energy systems are undergoing, we see little room for the torrefaction process. It has significant issues with cost that make natural gas, current coal reserves and other potential new energy sources available at lower costs. Even if coal was taxed and increased in price in a few years, the risk that our process would be supplanted by natural gas or other energy before the 20 years required to return investment would be completed. This process is simply not economically feasible at this time or in the foreseeable future due to other available technologies.

Sincerely, Gaelen McFadden, Miriam Mudenge, Kevin Paul, Brian Pohl and Chris Weinkauf Group 30

INTRODUCTION Background Recently, there has been a huge emphasis from the government and other organizations for the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Some of the renewable sources include solar, wind, biomass etc. Biomass is being extensively looked at as a possible replacement for coal in electric power generation stations. According to Bergman et. al, the currently most utilized fuel used from biomass is pellets, which are limited in supply and also do not have the same burning quality as coal due to the fibrous nature of the source after being crushed (Bergman, Boersma, Zwart, & Kiel, 2005). New methods are being researched to improve the quality of the biomass fuel, and also to improve the amount being produced in order to substitute a considerable amount of coal with this source of fuel. One of the methods that has been employed to improve the quality of the resultant biomass fuel is torrefaction. Torrefaction is an irreversible thermochemical preprocessing step that removes bulky water in biomass, in the absence of air, before it is processed into fuel. Problem Definition For this project we were assigned switchgrass as our biomass source, and Tennessee as our region of production. Switchgrass is a perennial grass native to North America, and it was previously commonly used for livestock feeding. It grew wildly on prairie land and according to a paper done on a survey done on Tennessee farmers willingness to grow it, it was not purposely grown by farmers since the net profit and market for switchgrass was very small (Jensen, Ellis, Menard, English, Clark, & Walsh, 2005). Switchgrass is high in cellulose and C6-hemicellulose, and moderate in lignin. It also contains bulk water. Pyrolysis of switchgrass produces char, some methanol, hydroxymethylfurfural and cresol. The task is to develop an economical, efficient, and an environmentally friendly torrefaction process that could produce enough product that can be used to substitute for some or all of the coal requirement for a large 500MWe electricity generating boiler. Objectives and Approach The main objective was to show that torrefaction can be used on a larger scale than it is being currently used, and that show ways to make the process economical and produce quality product. To achieve this objective we had consider variables like cost, efficiency of the equipment and process, temperature, time, and the resultant amount and quality of product we will produce. For instance, we had to evaluate the transportation costs, capital costs, choose a temperature for our reaction, considering the reactive characteristics of the components in switchgrass, how many hours in a year our plant will run, and the cost of our resultant product. To begin we assumed that Tennessee produced enough switchgrass to meet our energy requirement. We then set our reaction temperature at 270C, and that the product we make will be sold. We also assumed that the area of production is a square and that the divided sections of the area are adjacent to each other. We also had to research the current methodologies available, the equipment sizing, details on the reaction mechanisms of the pyrolysis of switchgrass, the effects and EPA ratings for the by-products, and some other numeric data (like the current price of coal, in order to know our target pricing for our final product). After we collected all the data we needed, we modeled a process and found how many of each equipment type we need, their prices, and the resultant product amount based on the equipment efficiencies. We also considered different case scenarios from the process simulations. For instance, how would on-site and off-site torrefaction compare, and how different numbers and locations of the power plant would affect the outcome. We also performed a sensitivity analysis helped determine what quantity of different parameters would result in what kind of profit margin.

PROCESS DESIGN The process figures for the flow diagram, process flow and instrumentation, and block flow diagram can be found in Appendix B, Figures B.1, B.2, and B.3. Process Description The raw material, Tennessee switch grass, is brought to the torrefaction site in large bails on flatbed trucks. The bails of raw material are sent via conveyer belt to be broken up by a crusher. From here it is moved by conveyer belt to a hammer mill where it is further reduced in size. Once the grass has been reduced in size to approximately 2mm in size it is sent to a pelletizer where the raw material is formed into pellets in order to increase the density of the material before it is sent to the torrefaction reactor. Once the pellets have been formed they are sent to the reactor where the raw material is torrefied. This produces the main torrefied product as well as some volatile co-products. The main torrefied product is sent via conveyer belt to a storage silo where it is kept until it can be loaded onto trucks and sent to the power plant. The co-products are separated using a system of three distillation columns which separates the volatile products from one another to a purity that allows for their resale. As shown on Figure A.1 in the Appendix, there is a pre-reactor system boxed. These processes are located at the torrefaction sites, except in the case where we are substituting 25% of coal, then all these processes occur in the same place because it is more economical to have the torrefaction on-site. Torrefaction Kinetics, Material and Heat Balances for the Reactor Initially, our group decided to evaluate the products of the torrefaction process by modeling each reaction and adding or subtracting the products and reactants used. This process had the benefit of also evaluating the amount of energy gained or lost during each reaction, making generating the net energy gain and loss easy to calculate. However, detailed kinetics were not given for each reaction, and it quickly became apparent that it would become cumbersome to process each reaction for a series of temperatures. Calculating the resulting energy and mass changes for several temperatures gained importance when we were trying to choose the best temperature for the torrefaction reactor. Therefore, this process was abandoned and a new direction was chosen for generating the products. Our second attempt, involved calculating the amount of moles of every chemical species used or generated in the reactor. In order to do this, a spreadsheet was generated with a column for each molecule and a different row for every temperature. The number of moles for each molecule in the reactor depends on the reactions it goes through, and the extent of each reaction is based upon the temperature at which it occurred. For example, if a process started at 100C and ended at 200C, then at 150C it would have an extent of 0.5. Therefore, the extent of reaction could be represented in excel with a conditional statement that looks at whether or not the temperature is within reaction change and, if it is, subtracts the minimum temperature and divides by the length of the temperature range. By doing this, a single excel formula could be used to represent the number of moles of a species for all temperatures, and then it could be applied over the entire temperature range. The actual reactions represented by these statements were taken from the literature included in the project statement. The following is a description what affects each of the molecular species in the torrefaction reactor: Hemicellulose degrades completely from 100 to 270C, turning into water and glucose until only carbon is left. It is represented by an extent of reaction times the total amount of hemicellulose molecules. Cellulose also degrades into water glucose and carbon from 100 to 330C. Therefore it is represented by an extent of reaction multiplied by the total number of cellulose molecules.

Lignin demethoxylates from 160-230C, which only fractionally affects the number of moles. Its degradation does not begin until 230C and lasts until 280C. Therefore, it is once again represented by a single conditional statement. Bulk water is lost from the biomaterial in the initial drying stages of hemicellulose and cellulose. Therefore, it must be represented by two conditional statements, one for each drying process. The amount of water vapor in the air contains many different reactions. Since all steps that generate water take place above 100C, it is assumed that any water generated immediately vaporizes. For every mole of cellulose and hemicelluloses degraded, 5 water molecules are generated. For every 100 molecules of water removed from hemicelluloses and 500 molecules of water removed from cellulose, one molecule of glucose is generated which further breaks down into three molecules of water (and one molecule hydroxymethylfurfural). One molecule of water is generated per monomer of lignin during the process of demethoxylation. One water molecule is removed from the amount of vaporized water for every formula unit of hemicelluloses and cellulose during hydrolysis. A net value of two water molecules is lost from the vaporized water when lignin is hydrolyzed. The water vaporized during the drying stages of hemicelluloses and cellulose must also be added to the amount of vaporized water. All of these reactions are represented using conditional statements multiplied and divided by the appropriate values in excel. One molecule is formed per formula unit cellulose and hemicellulose during the hydrolytic depolymerization. These are all degraded during the monomer degradation stages described for both cellulose and hemicellulose. This means that there is no glucose left in the reactor by 290C. One molecule of hydroxymethylfurfural is generated from each molecule of glucose lost by hemicellulose from 190 to 250C, and from each molecule of glucose lost by cellulose from 230 to 290C. A conditional statement is generated to represent each reaction. One molecule of methanol is generated per formula unit lignin during the demethoxylation reaction. This occurs from 150 to 230C. This is represented by a single conditional statement. One mole of cresol and one mole of creosote were generated per mole of lignin during the depolymerization step from 220 to 280C. This is represented by a single conditional statement in each column. Charcoal is generated as the end result of the breakdown and complete water removal from hemicellulose and cellulose. We assumed that this process begins after the initial drying and ends after the devolatization temperature range, so for hemicelluloses it occurs from 120 to 270C, and for cellulose the process occurs from 170-330C. One carbon (charcoal) atom is generated per cellulose and hemicelluloses degraded. This is generated from two conditional statements. After having found the amount of all molecular species in the reactor at any time, we could choose the temperature at which the reactor would run. We chose 270C for several reasons. First, it is high enough that all volatiles have been vaporized. By this temperature a significant fraction, 66% in this case, of the mass has been lost, increasing the energy density. There is also enough lignin left at this temperature to bind together the pellets of torrefied material. After the mass balances were all completed the energy balance for the reactions was conducted. The energy required was split into the reactions and the volatile co-products. The energy required for each reaction was calculated by using the heat of formation for the specific reactant and the heat capacity for the change in temperature. Each of these values was found from papers that dealt with the reactions of each specific material. Each of these heats of formation were at a reference temperature of 25 C which as stated earlier was changed to the temperature value at which the reaction was progressing using the specific heat capacity. These values were then multiplied by the total grams of the product from the end of the torrefaction reactor. All of the co-products were vaporized at the operating temperature; therefore the energy input required is the heat of vaporization for each of

these products. These values were multiplied by the grams of co-product produced to give the energy input required. The total energy input required was then the sum of the reaction energy requirements and the heat required to vaporize all of the volatiles.

Equipment Design Our group was tasked with designing a reactor for the torrefaction of switchgrass. While looking up different methods and designs of reactors currently in use for torrefaction processes we came upon the Wyssmont dryer. This system does multiple unit operations required for the overall torrefaction process in one unit; being that it can dry, torrefy and cool the material. Because of the reactors extensive range of uses, our group decided to pursue this type of reactor for our system. First, the heat and mass balances for the Wyssmont dryer were calculated based on our kinetic model. From these values we were able to determine the amount of torrefied product that was needed to replace coal based on the heating value of the material produced. Using these values that we calculated we contacted Wyssmont and received some information on the specifications on the systems that they already produce. From the information provided to us from the Wyssmont Company we were able to determine whether any of their preexisting systems would satisfy the needs of the torrefaction process that we were proposing. The system that we chose to use was 9.2 m (30ft) in diameter and 14.8 m (48ft) tall. The data sent by Wyssmont, which were used in our chosen reactor, included specifications for the equipment used in the operation of the dryer, such as enough fans to circulate the steam being used to heat the system, a tray system, rotary valves used to transport the material vertically between trays and a feeder for the insertion of raw materials. Using a preexisting companys equipment for the torrefaction process removed the necessity for designing a completely new reactor for the process. The temperature of the dryer was chosen based on multiple factors; some of which were the amount of coproduct produced and the amount of lignin in the final torrefied product. The temperature needed to be high enough to remove most of the moisture from the raw material while remaining low enough that there was some lignin in the final pellets to hold them together. The amounts of co-product produced also varied based on the temperature, with the total volatile gas production reaching a maximum at around 300C. A temperature of 270 C was chosen because it provided the best mixture of drying material with minimal co-product production. This unit had the capability of processing (95000lbs) of raw material and produced (68400lbs) of torrefied product with a calorific content of (8500 Btu/lb). The balebuster that was chosen for our process was the Haybuster model 2800, which was able to process 25 tons/hr. Two busters were needed for each Wyssmont reactor. The hammer mill that was chosen for our process was the Schute-Buffalo Hammermill model 15200, which was able to process 50 tons/hr. The pelletizer that was chosen was the Liyang Degao Agro Machinery Ltd. model 1500, which was able to process about 15 tons/hr. Three pelletizers were needed for each Wyssmont reactor. The distillation columns that are used to purify the volatile co-products were designed based on the necessary purities given in the project statement for co-product sale. There were three columns in all and each of them was designed using Aspen Plus with the DSTWU shortcut method. The cost was then estimated using the formulas from Project 2 Part C. Calculation of Torrefied product Composition and Performance In doing the calculations for the material and energy balances, the composition of the final torrefied product was obtained. The composition of the components in the final product can be seen in Figure C.1 and C.2 in Appendix C.

Control Process Narrative The process begins with circular bales of raw material, which are dropped off at the torrefaction site where they are stored in silos. When the torrefaction process is running bales are unloaded from storage on to the first conveyer belt which has its speed measured and reported to a central computer system. The bales are transported via the conveyer to the crusher which breaks the bales using a dual auger system that is controlled using a switch. Because there is a very minimal possibility that this section of the process can fail it is only monitored whether it is operational, which is also sent to the central computer system. From the crusher the material is sent via conveyer belt, which is monitored the same way as the first, to a hammer mill which further decreases the size of the material. This system is monitored using compressed air which is shot through the system and measured by a flow meter. If the flow of air is reduced by more than 25% of normal flow then a signal will be sent to the main computer system showing that the process is blocked and will require maintenance. From the hammer mill the material is sent to a pelletizer via conveyer belt. The pelletizer is used to densify the material and is controlled by a pressure plate that measures the force applied to create the pellets. If this force is 25% less than the starting force, a signal is sent to the main computer that the stage is blocked and will require maintenance to unblock the stage. From here, the pellets move via conveyer belt to the torrefaction reactor. The temperature of the reactor is generated from steam that is flowed counter currently to the pellets and is mixed using fans installed within the reactor. The temperature of the reactor is measured with temperature probes. If the temperature deviates from the set point of 270 C, then a signal is sent to a valve located on the steam inlet to the reactor to change the flow rate accordingly. The conveyer belts within the reactor are controlled with the central computer system to rotate at a given speed to allow the material to remain within the reactor for the specified residence time. From the reactor the main torrefied product is sent via conveyer belt to be stored in silos until it is shipped to the power plant. The volatile co-products are sent to the system of 3 distillation columns where they are separated for resale. These outlet concentrations from these columns are measured and output in the central computer system. Variations in the concentration show that the columns are operating incorrectly and modifications to the reflux ratio or utility usage will need to be modified. Distribution of Plants and Supply Chain Analysis Transportation of material is one of the biggest costs for our project. Therefore it was the biggest consideration on deciding the location and distribution of plants. Each 100 sq mile collection center collects 100,000 short tons of switchgrass per year. Each reactor requires 380,000 tons per year. As explained in Appendix D Figures D.4, D.5, and D.6, it is significantly cheaper to transport product to the power plant than the hay bales to the plants. We therefore approximated to 4 collection centers per site and placed the plants at the corner of the site. The math is posted in Appendix D but the results are on Table D.9. We therefore recommend that plants be located in a distributed fashion as shown in the Appendix D Figures D.4, D.5, and D.6 (The power plant is in the center. Triangles are torrefaction sites. The small grid is the collection center distribution, the large square denote the collection centers delivering to each torrefaction site):

SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS An FMEA analysis was done on the process to determine the possible failures points, which were ranked based on three parameters; severity, frequency of occurrence, and detectability. The failures were ranked on a scale of 1-10 for each parameter, then the 3 numbers were multiplied to give the Risk priority Number (RPN), that is RPN= Severity*Frequency*Detect-ability. Severity was most considered in ordering the order from most critical to least critical. Some of the super-critical failures have been discussed. The complete FMEA data can be found in Appendix E. As this process involves large throughputs of flammable, fine powder, safety in design is a critical factor. To address this concern, we will follow OSHA guidelines, especially 1910.1043 as cotton dust will be in similar composition to the dust produced by our product. A solution to this problem is to have good ventilation in the plant, reducing ignition and heat sources, and performing visual inspection of conveyance equipment daily for dust buildup. Frequency and detect-ability will be reduced from 8 to 1, and the RPN to 9. Potential pressure build up in reactor can be solved by installing pressure release valves and adding more monitoring sensors. This will reduce detect-ability from 8 to 3 and RPN from 160 to 80. Coproduct/byproduct process issue can be reduced by making the plant well ventilated and adding sensors at key locations, along with HAZMAT training for all staff, and cautionary awareness throughout plant. This reduces severity reduced to 6. Detect-ability reduced to 3. RPN becomes 54. The torrefaction plant can be held to a variety of environmental standards, based solely on the products of the torrefaction process that meet the atmosphere. Since it was decided to use a series of columns to distill our effluent into its constituents, and since it was decided that the water stream was the only product not being sold but instead released into the environment, the standards of the Environmental Protection Agency only apply to the water product. The water distillate stream comes from one of the three columns used to purify these products to a level at which they could be sold. The water comes out of the column in liquid form, and because it would be uneconomical to recompress and recycle the product as steam, this water is going to be released as a liquid. Therefore, the EPA laws governing water contamination apply as this fluid is becoming part of the nearby ecosystem. The only contaminants available to pollute the water are cresol, hydroxymethylfurfural and methanol. Most of these are removed in the distillation column because the water is being released at 99.99% purity; however the EPA regulations still apply. The following are the standards for each of these pollutants: Methanol is not listed as a hazardous substance, priority pollutant or toxic pollutant according to the Clean Water Act, meaning that the EPA does not consider it particularly dangerous to humans upon ingestion. Hydroxymethylfurfural is not regulated by the EPA. The EPA has classified cresol as a possible carcinogen due to incomplete human and animal data. Because of its possibly toxic nature, it should not be ignored when released into wastewater that could be later used as drinking water. The maximum toxic level for p-cresol that the EPA is currently aware of is 0.05 mg/kg/day. This translates to a mass ratio of 5E-8 g cresol/g water. Our mass fraction before distillation is 3.5E-3 g cresol/g water. Our distillation process removes over 99.999 percent of the cresol from the volatiles stream in the column designated for cresol retrieval. Cresol is not just lost in this column, trace amounts can be found in the products of all the distillation processes. However, even if all of the cresol not lost in that distillation column was only found in the water stream, then the mass fraction becomes 3.5E-8, which is below the current threshold for cresol content.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Approach and General Information Economic analysis was performed based on the total production costs per ton of torrefied product. This analysis was chosen because it will be easier to see if the whole process is economical and also how it compares to a ton of coal produced. Since the total production cost includes many different parameters, it is likely that it does have an error, but the error would be about 30% the estimated result. This is means that the value estimated is safe enough to employ. The total equipment costs were done in an excel sheet model and they do include the Bare Module Cost Factor, which accounts for the direct and indirect costs in purchasing the equipment. It can be adjusted using the pressure and materials of construction. Capital investment was used to estimate repair and maintenance costs. Equipment ratio was done using the costs of utilities and feedstock, taking into consideration the insurance, taxes, manufacturing costs, and depreciation. Depreciation was set for a twenty year period, using the reactor as the main piece of equipment to gauge with; since it is the main piece of equipment we focused on, and also costs a considerable amount. Assuming that the price per ton of material would be uniform for the next twenty years, we used that price ($47.20/ton of torrefied product, which is the current cost per ton of coal), to estimate the total production costs. We used the current price per ton of coal to make sure that our process produces a material that is affordable compared to coal. The calculations gave us what the feedstock should be, the utilities and labor costs, and how much investment would be put in during this depreciation time. We found the number of shifts, and number of operators per shift for the 100% case, 50% case, and 25% case. In each case, we assumed an 12 hr shift and 4 shifts total taking into account holiday days and time off (sick leave, vacation etc). Since the production costs showed great dependence on the feedstock costs, we accounted for the sensitivity to feedstock costs, and labor. Total Capital Investment and Production Costs Table F.1 in Appendix F shows a detailed and complete breakdown of how total capital investment were estimated, for each of the cases (100%, 50%, and 25%). The main difference in costs was the equipment pricing, since different number of equipment was needed for each of the different cases. Figures F.1, F.2, and F.3 shows an illustration of total production cost per ton of torrefied material calculated. The most costly items were raw material, transportation, and labor. The main difference between the total production costs for each case was due to the difference in equipment number, which translated into more manpower to operate them, and also affected, repairs and maintenance. The cost of transportation also increased as more product was created. The cost would be reduced if there was an increase in the price of coal. Conclusion From all the three cases, comparing the estimated capital investment and total production costs showed that the 25%case with carbon tax is much more economical. The return on investment was 14.95% which gave the least loss margin. This implies that it would be more feasible to start substituting for 25% of coal. Since this case is established as the ideal case, it would produce 60 tons/hour of torrefied product given that the design would work without a hitch and optimal conditions are maintained all year round. For this case and the other two cases, the process would be profitable if the cost of coal went up to around $400 per ton.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The main objective was to show that torrefaction can be used on a larger scale than it is being currently used, and that show ways to make the process economical and produce quality product. We found that torrefaction definitely improves the quality and grindability of the product material. We found that the optimum temperature to perform torrefaction is 270C, and the optimum residence time would be 45 minutes. This temperature was conducive to produce biomass product that had good combustibility characteristics due to the reaction scheme of the components. This process provides an estimated efficiency of 80%, if operated at optimum conditions. Since the dryer/reactor was the process rate determining equipment, we based efficiency on mainly this equipment, and translated it to the entire process. The process is also environmentally sound due to the ratings and content of the byproducts resulted. The collection of these byproducts also accounts to part of the profits we make since we will be selling them too. The biggest difference between the different cases of production is in the costing, largely influenced by transportation and equipment costs. The transportation costs vary due to the number and placement of the distributed torrefaction sites, and the equipment costing varying due to the varying number of equipment needed for each different case based on the unit/reactor ratio.

Recommendations We recommend that more starting moisture content feed be studied and tested to see if the extra water affects the product, equipment design, or costs in any way. We also recommend a further look into the 25% case with the carbon tax, based on the economic evaluation. This case provides for the least production costs, greatest payoff, and most sound capital investment. Research on the different transportation means and better technological tools should be done too to see if the economical situation is improved. Also, an optimum location should be established in relation to the electricity generating plants surrounding the region to see if this is economically feasible and environmentally. Equipment designs should be improved to better process switchgrass. Most equipment available have been widely tested on wood chips, but very few have worked on the equipment to improve/ modify them for the use of fibrous biomass material like switchgrass. More research should be done on equipment that is being made or modified in design to specifically process switchgrass, in order to establish if this improves the production of the torrefied biomass.

Works Cited 1. Bergman, P. C., A. R. Boersma, R. W. Zwart, and J. H. Kiel. "Torrefaction for Biomass Co-firing in Existing Coalfired Power Stations." (2005). Print. This was the first paper that was used to give us our main background knowledge for the torrefaction process. 2. Canada. Natural Resources Canada Alternative Energy Division. Resource Efficient Agricultural Production. A Process and Energy Analysis of Pelletizing Switchgrass. By R. Jannasch, Y. Quan, and R. Samson. Print. Many aspects in this paper helped us finalize the design and order of the unit operations for the overall torrefaction process. It also gave a detailed account of switchgrass torrefaction. 3. Comer, Kevin. The Chariton Valley Biomass Project. Cofiring Coal with Switchgrass. ANTARES Group Incorporated, 30 Mar. 2006. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. 4. Englisch, Martin. Torrefaction Fundamentals and Basic Principles of Torrefaction. Torrefaction Fundamentals and Basic Principles of Torrefaction. Osterreichisches Forschungsinstitut Fur Chemie Und Technik, 2010. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. 5. Gurbuz, Elif I., Stephanie Wettstein, David M. Alonso, and James A. Dumesic. Catalytic Conversion of Hemicellulose and Cellulose to Fuels and Chemicals. Rep. Madison: Department of Chemical Engineering University of Wisconsin. Print. This report was used to determine the components of the degradation reactions that occurred within the reactor and gave ideas for molecular approximations. 6. Hong, B. D., and E. R. Slatick. "Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Coal." U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). US Energy Information Administration. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html>. 7. Jackson, Sam. Biomass Supply Chain Development in Tennessee. Genera Energy LLC, 17 Nov. 2010. Web. 12 Apr. 2012.This Powerpoint presentation was very helpful in determining the supply chain of how the raw switchgrass is gathered and then transported to the torrefaction sites. 8. Jensen, Kim, Pam Ellis, Jamey Menard, Burton English, Christopher Clark, and Marie Walsh. Tennessee Farmers' Views of Producing Switchgrass for Energy. Rep. Knoxville: Bio-Based Energy Analysis Group, 2005. Print. 9. Jurasek, Lubo, Livia Kristofova, Yujun Sun, and Dimitris S. Argyropoulos. "Alkaline Oxidative Degradation of Diphenylmethane." Canadian Journal of Chemistry 79 (2001): 1394-401. Print. This journal article was used to approximate the heat of formation of lignin, used in the heat balance for the torrefaction reactor. 10. Kallio, Markku. Critical Review on the Pelletizing Technology. Rep. no. IEE/09/758/SI2.558286. Intelligent Energy Europe, 2011. Print. 11. Lindo, Gerald, Sudhagar Mani, and Jim Kastner. Torrefaction Reaction Kinetics of Southern Pine Wood. Tech. Athens: Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering University of Georgia, 2009. Print. Although it was not the same raw material as our specified material it still gave basic ideas on the process of torrefaction. 12. Mascal, Mark, and Edward B. Nikitin. Direct, High-Yield Conversion of Cellulose to Biofuel. Tech. Angewandte Chemie Ein Zeitschrif Der Desellschaft Deutscher Chemiker, 2008. Print. This report was used for the heat of formation of cellulose which was used in the energy balance for the torrefaction reactor.

13. "Methanol [Material Safety Data Sheet]." Microbial ID Chemicals. 5 May 2005. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://www.midi-inc.com/pdf/MSDS_Methanol.pdf>. This paper helped us find MSDS data on methanol and its effects on the environment. 14. "National Recommended Water Quality Criteria." EPA. Washington, DC: Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 8 Jan. 2008. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nrwqc-2006.pdf>. This paper helped us find EPA ratings and regulations for the different byproducts, coproducts and products we had from our process. 15. Nimlos, Mark N., Emily Brooking, Michael J. Looker, and Robert J. Evans. "Biomass Torrefaction Studies with a Molecular Beam Mass Spectrometer." Prep. Pap.-Am. Chem. Soc. 48.2 (2003). Print. 16. Persson, Kristoffer, Ingemar Olofsson, and Anders Nordin. Biomass Refinement by Torrefaction. Rep. Energy Technology and Thermal Process Chemistry Umea University. Print. This was one of the first sources that was viewed and gave a good background for the torrefaction process. It also provided a temperature range that was used for the reactions that took place within the reactor. 17. Sheng, C., and J. Azevedo. "Estimating the Higher Heating Value of Biomass Fuels from Basic Analysis Data." Biomass and Bioenergy 28.5 (2005): 499-507. Print. 18. Tumuluru, Jaya S., Shahab Sokhansanj, Christopher T. Wright, Richard D. Boardman, and J. R. Hess. Review on Biomass Torrefaction Process and Product Properties and Design of Moving Bend Torrefaction System Model Development. Tech. Idaho National Laboratory, 2011. Print. 19. Van Den Berg, D., and P. De Visser. Thermal Conversion of Switchgrass. Rep. Biomass Technology Group. Print. 20. Verevkin, Sergey P., Vladimir N. Emelyanenko, Elena N. Stepurko, Richardas V. Ralys, Dmitry H. Zaitsau, and Annegret Stark. "Biomass-Derived Platform Chemicals: Thermodynamic Studies on the Conversion of 5Hydroxymethylfurfural into Bulk Intermediates." Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research (2009): 10087-0093. Print. This journal article was used for the heat of formation of hydroxymethylfurfural, which was used for the heat balance for the torrefaction reactor. 21. Wattanoanoi, Weerapong, Onarin Khumsak, and Nakorn Worasuwannarak. "Upgrading of Biomass by Torrefaction and Densification Process." IEEE First Conference on Clean Energy and Technology (2011). Print. 22. Weisselberg, Edward, Joseph Bevaequa, and Robert Borre. System for Drying and Torrefaction. Wyssmont Company Inc, assignee. Patent US 2012/0073157 A1. 29 Mar. 2012. Print. This patent describes the dimensions and physical setup of the Wyssmont dryer, which was the torrefaction reactor that we decided to use for our process. 23. Wright, Mark M., Justinus A. Satrio, Robert C. Brown, Daren E. Daugaard, and David D. Hsu. Techno-Economic Analysis of Biomass Fast Pyrolysis to Transportation Fuels. Tech. no. NREL/TP-6A20-46586. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2010. Print. This report gave us a better idea of the economic aspect of the torrefaction process and the costs for the transportation of materials. 24. A diagram of the locations where switchgrass is grown in the state of Tennessee. Digital image. United States Department of Agriculture, 2012. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.

Appendix
A. Block Flow Diagram

Figure A.1: Figure of the Block Flow Diagram

B. Process Diagrams

Byproduct Recovery 1

Figure B.1: Figure of the process flow diagram

Water and Byproducts

Switchgrass Bales

Haybuster Hammermill Pelletizer

Wyssmont Dryer/Reactor/Cooler

Pure Cresol Product

Byproduct Recovery 2

Pure Methanol Coproduct Switchgrass Pellets

Byproduct Recovery 3

Pure HMF Coproduct Steam to Reactor

Steam Reboiler
Pure Water Recycle Solid Torrefied/Cooled Switchgrass Pellet Product

Water Replacement

PID Controller

Byproduct Recovery 1

Haybuster

Wyssmont Dryer/Reactor/Cooler
S-4

Hammermill Pelletizer

Byproduct Recovery 2
Temperature Controller Concentration Indicator

Figure B.2: Figure of the process and instrumentation diagram

T

Working Indicator

Byproduct Recovery 3
P General Alarm Air Flowmeter Pressure Guage Concentration Indicator PID Controller Concentration Indicator

Steam Reboiler

S-21 Control Computer

C. Product Compositions

Solid Product Composition (% mass)

0.00 Hemicellulose 21.99 31.92 7.43 7.87 0.32 0.58 Cellulose Lignin Glucose Creosote Charcoal 59.30 Other Ash

Figure C.1: Figure of the composition of the solid product

Vapor Product Composition (% mass)

0.35% 2.47% 10.05% Water HMF Methanol Cresol 87.13%

Figure C.2: Figure of the compositions of the vapor product D. Methodology of Transportation costs: To determine transportation costs, we began with a mass balance; we determined that we needed to process 650,000 kg/hour (720 tons/hr) to provide enough product to power a 500 MWe power-plant. To produce this volume, we found that we needed 16 reactors. As such, we could have a maximum of 16 torrefaction sites. For the purposes of the assignment, we were told to approximate Tennessee to be square and then further be divided into 260 sq. km (100 sq mile) increments. Each 260 sq. km (100 sq. mile) area

was assumed to have a collection center in the center of the area that produced 345,000,000 kg/year (100,000 ton/year) and to be square. It was approximated thusly:

Figure D.1: The State of Tennessee

The star is the center of Tennessee and where the power plant was assumed to be. The center of each grid square is a collection center. Another assumption was that transportation occurred in straight lines (as the crow flies). We began by modeling a central torrefaction site with all of the reactors located at the powerplant. This would remove the need to transport product. The cost per ton per mile of moving raw switchgrass to the plant was $0.20. We were also given 3 cases; one where torrefied product powered 100% of the power plant, another 50%, another 25%. Using a mass balance, this meant that they required 58, 29 and 15 collection centers respectively. This is represented thusly:

Figure D.2: Centralized Plant and Collection Centers.

Red is the border for the 100% case, green is the border for the 50% case and blue is the border for the 25% case. Filled in squares are not used in their colors case. The distance from the power plant (the star) to the center of each of the squares was then calculated. These distances were added up to give the total transport distance. Table D.1: Centralized Distance Calculations for 25% 25% Center Side Corner Distance(km) 11 25 34 Number 4 8 3 Total Distance(km) 372

Table D.2: Centralized Distance Calculations for 50% 50% 25% Middle Outer Center 25% side Corner Side Side Distance(km) 11 25 34 41 47 Number 4 8 4 8 5 Total Distance(km) 1102 Table D.3: Centralized Distance Calculations for 100% 100%
50% 50% 25% Middle Outer 50% Lower 25% side Corner Side Side Corner Side 25 34 41 47 57 57 8 4 8 8 4 8 Upper Side 69 6

Center Distance(km) Number Middle Side Distance(km) Number 61 8 11 4

Total Distance(km) 3773 With the cost per kg per km known as $0.00014($0.20 per ton per mile), we can use the total mass being shipped in each case to find the yearly cost of transportation for a centralized torrefaction site.

Table D.4: Transportation Costs of a Centralized Torrefaction Site 100% 50% 25% Distance(km) 3773 1102 372 Cost/(km*kg) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Mass(kg) 5213191540 2606595770 1303297880 Cost/kg $0.53 $0.15 $0.05 Yearly Cost $2,753,712,035.26 $402,145,595.40 $67,875,753.59 We felt that distributing the plants to take advantage of the lower cost of transporting product$0.000035 per kg per km ($0.05 per ton per mile) and reduce overall costs. To that end, we found that if each reactor was given its own torrefaction site, we needed 350,000,000 kg/year (380,000 tons/year) or about 4 collection centers per reactor. Placing react reactor at the center of a group of 4 collection areas would then minimize costs. On the following diagrams the triangles represent a torrefaction site. A macro balance was performed for each case and it was found we required 4 reactors for the 25% case, 8 reactors for the 50% case and 16 reactors for the 100% case. This gave use 4, 8, and 16 torrefaction sites respectively. We then distributed torrefaction sites to minimize cost of transporting product.

Figure D.3: Sample Torrefaction Site per 4 Collection Centers

Figure D.4: Distribution of Torrefaction Sites in the 25% case

Figure D.5: Distribution of Torrefaction Sites in the 50% case

Figure D.6: Distribution of Torrefaction Sites in the 100% case

To calculate the cost of shipping to a torrefaction site, we took the distance from each collection center to the torrefaction sites. As all the distances were equal, this broke down to 11.3 km (7 miles) per collection center and 45 km (28 miles) total per site. To transport raw switchgrass it costs $0.00014 per kg per km ($0.20 per ton per mile) and so for each torrefaction site it will cost $0.0063 per kg ($5.66 per ton). Each site needs 91,000,000 kg (380,000 tons) and thus the cost is 2.15 million dollars per year per torrefaction site in transportation. The next important cost is the transportation cost from the distributed torrefaction sites to the power plant. This was done using the distribution in Figure D.4 to Figure D.6. Table D.5: Distance of Product Transportation in 25% Case 25% Corners Distance(km) 23 Number of Sites 4 Total Distance 91 Table D.6: Distance of Product Transportation in 50% Case

50% Centers Ends Distance(km) 23 48 Number of Sites 4 4 Total Distance(km) 91 192 Final Distance(km) 283
Table D.7: Distance of Product Transportation in 100% Case

100% Centers Sides Corners Distance(km) 23 51 68 Number of Sites 4 8 4 Total Distance(km) 91 405 272 Final Distance(km) 767
With the distances, the mass and the cost per mass per distance, we were able to calculate the total yearly cost for each of the cases. Using the ratio calculated, we found the kg of product produced per kg of raw material fed.

Table D.8: Transportation Costs of a Distributed Torrefaction Sites

Case: Number of Torrefaction Sites Raw switchgrass cost per site Yearly cost of raw switchgrass transport Total distance for product transport(km) Cost per km per kg Cost per kg Kg per case Yearly cost of product transport Total Yearly cost 100% 16 2150000 $34,400,000.00 3776 $0.00 $0.13 2047138.047 $49,055,198.78 $83,455,198.78 50% 8 2150000 $17,200,000.00 1102 $0.00 $0.04 1023569.024 $9,036,504.53 $26,236,504.53 25% 4 2150000 $8,600,000.00 372 $0.00 $0.01 511784.5118 $1,447,545.20 $10,047,545.20

Comparing the costs from the distributed case to the centralized case, its clear that the distributed accrues significantly less costs. Table D.9: Table of summary of Transportation Costs 100% 35 Million Hay to sites 50 Million Product to Plant Total cost for 85 Million distributed Total cost for 2,600 Million Centralized

50%
18 Million 10 Million 28 Million 400 Million

25%
9.0 Million 1.1 Million 10 Million 67 Million

E. Safety and Environmental Standards

F. Economic Analysis Table F.1: Table of Return on Investment

25% No Tax
Annual Sales Annual Costs Depreciation Income Tax Net Earnings Total Capital Investment ROI 17,105,280 (145,937,398) (27,190,167) 54,607,800 (101,414,485) 546,642,986 -18.55%

25% Tax
16,992,000 (115,499,781) (27,190,167) 43,994,282 (81,703,666) 546,633,675 -14.95%

50% No Tax
34,236,048 (296,174,979) (54,380,335) 110,711,743 (205,607,523) 1,093,281,902 -18.81%

50% Tax
34,236,048 (236,475,698) (54,380,335) 89,816,995 (166,802,990) 1,093,281,902 -15.26%

100% No Tax
68,472,096 (611,533,112) (108,760,669) 228,137,590 (423,684,096) 2,186,557,640 -19.38%

100% Tax
61,944,036 (494,113,004) (108,760,669) 189,325,373 (351,604,264) 2,186,021,087 -16.08%

Table F.2: Table of Equipment

Equipment Name
Wyssmont DryerReactor Haybuster 2800 Schute-Buffalo Hammermill Livang Degao Model 1500 Pelletizer Distillation Column 1 Distillation Column 2 Distillation Column 3 High Pressure Boiler High Pressure Boiler Storage Columns (4 weeks worth) Piping/Conveyors

Height 48 ft 8.5 ft 7.2 ft 8 ft 72 ft 110 ft 24 ft N/A N/A 60 ft N/A

Diameter 30 ft 10.8 ft 5 ft 30 ft 86.9 ft 70.5 ft 22 ft N/A N/A 90 ft N/A

Cost of Each 2200000 40500 397600 367000 11600000 12000000 290000 5900000 790000 5000 270000

Number Needed for 100% Case 16 32 16 48 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

Number Needed Number Needed for 50% Case for 25% Case 8 16 8 24 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 4 12 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Cost of Torrefied Material per Ton ($498.22, 100% Case)

19.2% Raw Switchgrass

Steam

4.8%
3.4%

Process Water Cooling Water

Electricity

1.0% <1%

2.9% 68.5%

Raw Transportation
Pellet Transportation

<1%

Human Operating Costs

Figure F.1: Cost of production per ton of torrefied material for 100% case

Cost of Torrefied Material per Ton ($483.20, 50% Case)

19.8%

Raw Switchgrass Steam

1.8% 0.034777949 <1% 1.0% <1% 3.0%

Process Water Cooling Water

Electricity

Raw Transportation 70.7% Pellet Transportation Human Operating Costs

Figure F.2: Cost of production per ton of torrefied material for 50% Case

Cost of Torrefied Material per Ton ($478.56, 25% Case)

20.2% Raw Switchgrass Steam <1%

1% Process Water

3.5%
3%

Cooling Water Electricity Raw Transportation 71.5% Pellet Transportation

Human Operating Costs

<1 % < 1%

Figure F.3: Cost of production per ton of torrefied material for 25% Case