A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

Biomass Support for the China 

Renewable Energy Law: 

International Biomass Energy 

Technology Review Report 

January 2006 

Center of Renewable Energy Development 

Beijing, China 

Energy Research Institute 

Beijing, China 

National Development and Reform Commission 

Beijing, China 

Subcontract Report 

NREL/SR-710-40626 

October 2006 

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 
Biomass Support for the China 

Renewable Energy Law: 

International Biomass Energy 

Technology Review Report 

January 2006 

Center of Renewable Energy Development 

Beijing, China 

Energy Research Institute 

Beijing, China 

National Development and Reform Commission 

Beijing, China 

NREL Technical Monitor: D. Lew 

Prepared under Subcontract No. ACO-4-44015-01 

Subcontract Report 

NREL/SR-710-40626 

October 2006 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov 

Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle 

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

This publication received minimal editorial review at NREL 

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
Contents 

1 OVERVIEW...................................................................................................................................1 

1.1 TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION OVERVIEW....................................................................................1 

1.2 TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION IN THE SOME COUNTRIES..............................................................1 

1.2.1 United States....................................................................................................................1

1.2.2 Europe..............................................................................................................................2

1.2.3 Other countries ................................................................................................................3

2 DIRECT-FIRED POWER GENERATION....................................................................................4 

2.1 TECHNOLOGY PROCESS............................................................................................................4 

2.2 TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION......................................................................................................5 

2.2.1 United States....................................................................................................................5

2.2.1 Europe..............................................................................................................................6

2.3 TECHNOLOGY ECONOMIC ........................................................................................................7 

3 GASIFICATION POWER GENERATIONS.................................................................................9 

3.1 TECHNOLOGY PROCESS............................................................................................................9 

3.2 TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION....................................................................................................10 

3.2.1 TPS CFB gasification.....................................................................................................10

3.2.2 Battelle/FERCO project .................................................................................................10

3.2.3 Värnamo plant................................................................................................................ 11

3.2.4 ARBRE plant .................................................................................................................. 11

3.3 TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICS ....................................................................................................11 

4 CO-FIRED POWER GENERATION POWER...........................................................................13 

4.1 TECHNOLOGY PROCESS..........................................................................................................13 

4.1.1 Blending biomass with coal on the fuel pile...................................................................13

4.1.2 Cofiring with separate injection.....................................................................................13

4.1.3 Gasification-based cofiring............................................................................................14

4.2 TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION....................................................................................................15 

4.2.1 Greenidge generation station in US...............................................................................15

4.2.2 Bailly generation station in US......................................................................................16

4.2.3 Ottumwa generation station in US.................................................................................16

4.2.4 Elsamprojekt at the Studstrup power station in Denmark..............................................16

4.2.5 Østkraft power plants in Denmark.................................................................................16

4.3 TECHNOLOGY ECONOMIC ......................................................................................................16 

5 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION GENERATION POWER...............................................................18 

5.1 TECHNOLOGY PROCESS..........................................................................................................18 

5.2 TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION....................................................................................................19 

 iii
5.3 TECHNOLOGY ECONOMY .......................................................................................................20 

6 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION IN CHINA...........................23 

6.1 DIRECT-FIRED GENERATION POWER.......................................................................................23 

6.1.1 Technology feature .........................................................................................................23

6.1.2 Available range and market potential in future..............................................................24

6.2 GASIFICATION GENERATION POWER.......................................................................................24 

6.2.1 Technology feature .........................................................................................................24

6.2.2 Available range and market potential in future..............................................................25

6.3 COFIRING GENERATION POWER..............................................................................................25 

6.3.1 Technology feature .........................................................................................................25

6.3.2 Available range and market potential in future..............................................................26

6.4 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION GENERATION POWER ........................................................................26 

6.4.1 Technology feature .........................................................................................................26

6.4.2 Available range and market potential in future..............................................................26

 iv
1 Overview 

1.1 Technology utilization overview 

A

B

s a clean renewable energy, the biomass energy has been widely used in the world. The total 

consumption of biomass is 1300 Mtce in the whole world every year. The modern biomass technology 

trends toward high efficiency and cleanness. The main technology includes heating, electricity 

generation, gas, making liquid fuels and so on. In these technologies, the electricity generation is the 

easiest utilization way for biomass to expand the scale and enter the market widely. Therefore, it 

becomes the main utilization technology in the world. At present, the total installed capacity of 

biomass was about 50 million kWh in the whole world. 

iomass generating electricity includes agriculture and forest waste generation, MSW generation 

and biogas generation etc. There are mainly four biomass technologies for generation power, which is 

shown in Table1. These technologies are widely used in the world. The technology feature and 

utilization status will be analysis in this report. 

Table 1: Biomass generation power Technologies 

Technology Conversion 

Process 

Biomass Feedstock Generation method 

Direct-fired Thermochemical Agriculture and forest waste 

 Municipal solid waste 

Steam turbine 

Gasification Thermochemical Agriculture and forest waste 

 Municipal solid waste 

External combustion engine 

Gas turbine

Co-fired Thermochemical Agriculture and forest waste 

Municipal solid waste 

Steam turbine 

Anaerobic 

Digestion 

Biochemical 

(anaerobic) 

Animal manure 

Agricultural waste 

Landfills 

Wastewater 

External combustion engine

1.2 Technology utilization in the some countries 

1.2.1 United States 

In United States, biomass generation power is a proven commercial electricity generation option. 

With about 9,733 MW in 2002 of installed capacity, biomass is the single largest source of non-hydro 

renewable electricity (EIA Renewable Energy Annual 2002). This 9,733 MW of capacity includes 

about 5,886 MW of forest product and agricultural residues, 3,308 MW of generating capacity from 

municipal solid waste, and 539 MW of other capacity such as landfill gas (EIA Renewable Energy 

 1
Annual 2002) The majority of electricity production from biomass is used as base load power in the 

existing electrical distribution system. 

More than 500 facilities around the country are currently using wood or wood waste to generate 

electricity. The majority of the capacity is produced in Combined Heat and Power (CHP) facilities in 

the industrial sector, primarily in pulp and paper mills and paperboard manufacturers. To generate 

electricity, the stand-alone power production facilities largely use non-captive residues, including 

wood waste purchased from forest products industries and urban wood waste streams, used wood 

pallets, some waste wood from construction and demolition, and some agricultural residues from 

pruning, harvesting, and processing. In most instances, the generation of biomass power by these 

facilities also reduces local and regional waste streams. 

 In the early 1990s, nearly all of the biogas electricity was produced in the United States. In 

2001,the United States is still the largest producer with 4.9 TWh. At present, the biogas technology is 

mainly based on flexible liner systems and Co-digestion systems in US. 

1.2.2 Europe 

 In Europe, biomass currently contributes about 60% of the renewable energy sources share (98% 

of renewable heat and 8% of renewable electricity) and is believed to be the renewable energy 

resource with the largest growth potential. Electricity generation from biomass is significant in 

Sweden, Finland and Denmark in CHP schemes. Biomass is used for power generation to a lesser 

extent in other countries and usually as co-generation or as a recent response to environmentally 

driven policy initiatives. As gasification and other advanced processes are still in the development 

and demonstration phase, most current deployment is conventional steam cycle technology. There is 

a minor amount of co-firing with coal in Sweden. Most of the biomass CHP schemes in Europe are 

operating in pulp and paper industries, followed by forest industry and CHP for large district heating 

systems. The largest producers of electricity from biomass are Finland, Sweden and Austria. The 

share of biomass electricity generation in its total electricity generation reached 11% in Finland, and 

in the Sweden and Austria, electricity generation based on biomass accounted for more than 2% of 

total electricity generation in 2001. 

At present, most of the growth production of electricity from biogas has taken place in European 

countries. The United Kingdom is the largest producer in Europe, with 2.9 TWh in 2001. Germany 

produced nearly 2 TWh in 2001. Most of the European Plants are small or medium sized farm scale 

plants using 1-20m3

 per day. Nine large farm-scale plants in Germany use more than 20m3 per day. 

There are also several plants of this size in concentrated livestock areas of northern Italy, the 

Netherlands, and Denmark. Germany and Denmark were the most dynamic countries in terms of 

installing farm digesters during this time and this continues to the present day. 

 2
1.2.3 Other countries 

 In 2000, the total installed ASEAN capacity of renewable energy for electricity generation was 

20,942.46 MW (Table 2), among which 8.94% is from biomass power. In ASEAN, the potential of 

biomass for power generation is promising: about 50,000 MW for all biomass resources in Indonesia 

(NRSE-SSN Report, 2001); approximately 3,000 MW in Thailand (EC-ASEAN Cogen, 2002); about 

1,117 MW in palm oil industry of Malaysia (PTM, 2003); about 60-90 MW from bagasse and 352 

MW from rice hulls in the Philippines (NRSE-SSN Report, 2001); and 250 MW from bagasse in 

Vietnam (UN-ESCAP, 2000). About 920 MW in installed capacity could be expected from over 19 

million tons of residues in ASEAN wood industry (UN-ESCAP, 2000). Many of this potential could 

be developed through cogeneration. 

Table 2: Biomass energy for power generation in ASEAN (2000) in MW 

Country Biomass Total 

INDONESIA 302 4940.40 

Malaysia 213 2446.34 

Philippines 21 4691.5 

Singapore 220 220 

Thailand 1230 4218.47 

ASEAN-10 1986 20942.46 

 3
2 Direct-fired power generation 

2.1 Technology process 

Most of today’s biomass power plants are direct-fired systems that are similar to most fossil fuel 

fired power plants. In this technology biomass is burned in an excess of air to produce heat, which is 

in turn used to raise high-pressure steam in a boiler. The energy stored in the steam is converted into 

electricity by expanding it through a turbine, which in turn drives an electrical generator. 

The two common boiler designs used for steam generation with biomass are stationary- and 

traveling-grate combustors (stokers) and atmospheric fluidized combustors. 

In an electricity-only process, the steam is expanded down to a very low pressure in a condenser. 

In CHP operation, a portion of the steam is extracted to provide process heat. 

All biomass combustion systems require feedstock storage and handling systems. In a typical 

feed system for wood chips, the whole tree chips are delivered to the plant gate by either truck or rail. 

Fuel chips are stored in open piles, and fed by conveyor belt through an electromagnet and disc screen, 

then fed to surge bins above the boiler by belt conveyors. From the surge bins the fuel is metered into 

the boiler’s pneumatic stokers by augers. Figure1 shows the technology process flow of the generation 

power form wood. 

Figure 1: Directed-fired generation power 

 4
If the feedstock is the straw, it may be stored is stored and handled to the firing system via crane 

and feeding lines. A completely new system has been developed for the feeding of the straw whereby 

the straw bale is pushed against two vertical screws which by means of their rotation shred the straw 

and pass it to a horizontal set of screw stokers that by means of counter rotation press the straw into 

the form of a gas-proof plug through an almost rectangular feeding tunnel and then on to the grate. 

With two of these systems, the plant is capable of at full load consuming 19 big bales, equal to 10 

tones of straw, per hour. This system is used in a straw directed-fired CHP in Danish, which shown in 

Figure2. 

Figure 2: Straw directed-fired CHP 

2.2 Technology utilization 

2.2.1 United States 

The direct-fired boiler/steam turbine technology is mature and main generation power 

technology in US. The biomass power boilers are typically in the 20-50 MW range (the largest 

approaches 75 MW). The small capacity plants tend to be lower in efficiency. Although techniques 

exist to push biomass steam generation efficiency over 40%, actual plant efficiencies are in the low 

20% range. 

Table 3 lists the 8 power plants in USA after 1990. The types of biomass fuels used are 

abbreviated: “mill” refers to mill wastes, etc. Many boiler types are represented: two traveling grate 

stoker boilers, six water-cooler vibrating grate boilers, three fixed-grate boilers. From this table, the 

mill waste, urban waste and forest are the main biomass fuel. 

 5
Table 3: Biomass direct-fired generation power plant in USA 

Plant Location Fuels Boiler Scale 

(MWe) 

Electricity 

generation 

(GWh/yr) 

Heat rate 

(Btu/kWh

) 

Fuel 

consumption

s (Tons/yr) 

Tracy California Ag, 

urban 

1 water-cooler 

vib grate 

18.5 130 14000 214000 

Grayling Michigan Mill, 

forest 

1 traveling 

grate stoker 

40 200 13600 320000 

Willams 

Lake 

British 

Columbia 

Mill 1 water-cooler 

vib grate 

60 558 11700 768000 

Multitrade Virginia Mill 3 fixed grate 

stokers 

80 133 14000 219000 

Ridge Florida Urban, 

tries, 

LFG 

1 traveling 

grate stoker 

40 200 16000 376000 

Camas 

(cogen) 

Washington Mill 1 water-cooler 

vib grate 

17 65 17000 194000 

Snohomish 

 (cogen) 

Washington Mill, 

urban 

1 sloping 

grate 

39 205 17000 410000 

Okeelanta 

(cogen) 

Florida Bagasse, 

urban 

3 water-cooler 

vib grate 

74 454 13000 694000 

2.2.1 Europe 

In Europe, a number of combustion technologies for CHP and Condensing power production 

from biomass are commercially available. The market for large scale CHP from biomass combustion 

is established in Sweden, Finland and Denmark. 

For fixed bed boilers, there were some small, medium and large commercial power plants in 

Europe. However, the fluidized bed boiler is mainly in large scale CHP. Smaller boilers with 

acceptable capital costs have been developed but need further demonstration. 

Denmark is a larger country as biomass CHP. At the beginning of this millennium Denmark had 

installed biomass fueled combined heat and power plants with a total power capacity of 200 MWe. 

Biomass CHP generation is accounts for 1.5 percent of the total capacity for electricity production in 

Denmark. The detail operating data on eight biomass direct-fired plants are listed in Table4. 

 6
Table 4: Operating data on ten biomass-fired plants and systems 

Data Unit Junckers 

K-71

Junckers 

K-81

Novopan1 Enstedv. 

EV32

Masnedø 

Unit 122

Vejen2 Hjordkær3 Assens3

Power 

output 

MW 9.4 16.5 4.2 39.7 9.5 3.1 0.6 4.7 

Heat 

output 

MJ/s Process 

steam 

Process 

steam 

Process 

steam + 

dist.heat 

20.8 9.0 2.7 10.3 

Steam 

pressure 

bar 93 93 71 200 92 50 30 77 

Steam 

temperatur

e 

°C 525 525 450 542 522 425 396 525 

Fuels Chips bark 

Sawdust 

Sander dust 

Chips 

Bark 

Sawdust 

Sander dust 

Chips 

Bark 

Sawdust 

Sander dust 

Straw 

chips 

Straw 

chips 

Waste 

Straw 

chips 

Chips 

Bio-waste 

Various 

bio-fuels 

chips 

Electrical 

eff.(gross) 

% 28 21 16 27 

Overall 

officiency 

91 83 86 87 

Notes: 

1) Industrial systems. 

2) Owned by power corporations. 

3) District heating plants. 

2.3 Technology economic 

In US, these small plant sizes (which lead to higher capital cost per kilowatt-hour of power 

produced) and low efficiencies (which increase sensitivity to fluctuation in feedstock price) have led 

to electricity costs in the 8-12 ¢/kWh range. Using conventional combustion technology without 

cogeneration, the estimated cost to generate electricity from biomass ranges from 5.2 to 6.7 cents per 

kilowatt-hour in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. In present, the capital investment is from 

$2,000/kW to about $1275/kW in US. 

In Europe, the biomass direct-fried electricity technical and cost performance is shown in Table 

5. 

 7
Table 5: Biomass direct-fried Electricity technical and cost performance 

Parameter 1990 1995 2000 

TYPICAL UNIT SIZE (MW) 5-25 28 5-25 

Fuel efficiency (%) 18-24 22-20 29 

Load factor 100 100 100 

Construction time (years) 2 2 1.5 

Economic lifetime (years) 20 20 20 

Capital cost (ECU (1990)/kWh) 1392-2634 1600-2205 1600-2200 

Operation & maintenance cost (ECU (1990)/kW) 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Fuel cost (ECU (1990)/kWh) 0.01-0.04 0.01-0.04 0.01-0.03 

 8
3 Gasification power generations 

3.1 Technology process 

Generally, biomass gasification is a thermal conversion technology where a solid fuel is converted 

into a combustible gas. A limited supply of oxygen, air, steam or a combination serves as the 

oxidizing agent. The product gas mainly consists of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, 

methane, water, nitrogen, but also contaminants like e.g. small char particles, ash and tars. After 

cleaning the gas makes is suitable for boiler, engine use, and turbine use to produce heat and power 

(CHP). 

This gas from biomass gasification is usually used as fuel in a combined cycle power generation 

cycle involving a gas turbine topping cycle and a steam turbine bottoming cycle in US, which is a 

gasification combined cycle (GCC) system. Figure3 shows the technology flow of this system. 

Figure 3: Biomass Gasification Combined Cycle System 

The biomass technology includes many technologies, such as downdraft gasification, updraft 

gasification and fluidized bed gasification and so on. Based on an extensive review of gasifier 

manufacturers in Europe, USA and Canada, the main technology type used in the commercial 

gasification plants is shown as follows: 

z 75% of the designs were downdraft type, 

 9
z 20% of the designs were fluidized bed systems, 

z 2.5% of the designs were updraft type, and, 

z 2.5% were of various other designs. 

3.2 Technology utilization 

At present, the biomass gasification technology is very near to commercial availability with mid-size 

plants operating in Finland, the UK, the Netherlands, and Vermont. A cogeneration application of 

biomass gasification power could exceed 80%. 

Pilot and demonstration units incorporating biomass gasification to fuel gas turbines are now under 

development the US, Brazil and the EU; indeed, the first such unit, at Värnamo in Sweden, was 

commissioned in 1993 and has been in test operation for three years. Centers of activity include the 

Renugas process unit in Hawaii, the UGas process unit of Carbona (formerly Tampella) in Finland, 

Imatran Voima Oy in Finland and TPS Termiska Processer AB in Sweden, working with the ARBRE 

project in UK and the Bahia project in Northeast Brazil. Both the US DOE and the European 

Commission are actively involved in biomass power demonstration programmes. Some case of 

technology utilization is as follows.

3.2.1 TPS CFB gasification 

The first commercial TPS CFB gasification process was built for Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) 

gasification at Greve in Chianti and started commercial operation in 1993. RDF pellets are fed into the 

lower section of two 15 MWth capacity CFB gasifiers, at a rate of about 3 t/h. The air blown TPS 

gasifier operates at a temperature of about 875 °C. The fuel gas has a heating value of 8 MJ/Nm3. The 

overall power generation efficiency is about 19 to 20%. The gas produced in second gasifier is 

supplied to the neighboring cement factory for a direct combustion in the cement kiln. At present the 

owner of the plant is installing a modern second boiler and fuel gas cleaning equipment in order to 

generate electricity from the second gasifier as well to a total capacity of 6.7 MWe. The plant has been 

operated intermittently due to difficulty in obtaining continuous supply of RDF pellets. 

3.2.2 Battelle/FERCO project 

 

The Battelle/FERCO project in the US was built at the McNeil power plant in Burlington, Vermont. 

The 200 ton per day project employs the low pressure Battelle gasification process that consists of two 

reactors: (a) a gasification reactor in which the biomass is converted into a MCV gas and residual char 

at a temperature of 700- 850°C, and (b) a combustion reactor that burns the residual char to provide 

heat for gasification. Heat transfer between reactors is accomplished by circulating sand between the 

gasifier and combustor. Since the gasification reactions are supported by indirect heating, the primary 

fuel gas is a medium calorific value fuel gas. The estimated HHV of this fuel gas is 17.75 MJ/Nm3

. 

Full plant operation was achieved in mid 2000 using wood chips. 

 10
3.2.3 Värnamo plant 

The plant in Värnamo produces about 6 MWe electricity to the grid as well as 9MWth to the district 

heating system of the city of Värnamo, from a total fuel input equivalent to 18 MW. The accumulated 

operating experience amounts to about 8500 hours of gasification with more than 3600 hours of gas 

turbine operation on gas. A successful test programme was completed in 2000 addressing fuel 

flexibility and NOx emission problems. Fuels including wood, bark, forest residues, willow grown on 

energy crops, straw and RDF have been used without any major operating problem. 

3.2.4 ARBRE plant 

Construction of the ARBRE plant, situated just South of Selby, North Yorkshire, UK started in July 

of 1998. Construction is now been completed and all equipment has been installed. The plant will 

provide a net electrical output of 8 MWe with an efficiency of 30.6%. The sale of electricity to the 

grid is supported by the NNFO programme in the UK. The gas after compression to about 20 bars is 

fired in an ABB Alstom Typhoon gas turbine (the same as in the Värnamo plant). The exhaust gas 

from the gas turbine exits at approximately 475 °C. The steam produced is used to generate 5.5 MWe 

in a steam turbine. Waste heat is used for drying the biomass fuel. 

3.3 Technology Economics 

In United State, some research institutes have very noticed the biomass gasification. Through a 

research report form NERL, the cost of the different type biomass-based integrated gasification 

combined cycle (IGCC) systems has been describe. Table6 lists the detail cost and economic analysis 

in different case. Among: 

Case 1 means the gasifier systems will choose high-pressure gasifier and aero-derivative gas turbine 

Case 2 means the gasifier systems will choose high-pressure gasifier in greenfield plant 

Case 3 means the gasifier systems will choose high-pressure gasifier and advanced utility gas 

turbine 

Case 4 means the gasifier systems will choose low-pressure indirectly heated gasifier and utility gas 

turbine 

Case 5 means the gasifier systems will choose low-pressure air-blown gasifier and utility gas turbine 

 11
Table 6: IGCC Cost and economic summary for NREL cases 

Item Case1 Case2 Case3 Case4 Case5 

Output (MWe) 56 56 132 122 105 

Efficiency (%) 36.01 36.01 39.70 35.40 37.9 

Capital cost ($/KW) 1588 1696 1371 1108 1350 

Operation cost ($1000/yr) 13433 13675 28703 27983 23442 

In Europe, the biomass gasification is mainly used in the large CHP plants. Tthe detail cost of 

technology is shown in Table7. 

Table 7: Biomass gasification Electricity technical and cost performance 

Parameter 1995 2000 2005 

Typical unit size (MW) 6 32 33 

Fuel efficiency (%) 33 40 44 

Load factor 5 100 100 

Construction time (years) 3 2.5 2 

Economic lifetime (years) 20 20 20 

Capital cost (ECU (1990)/kWh) 5000 2100 1470 

Operation & maintenance cost (ECU (1990)/kW) / 0.011 0.008 

 12
4 Co-fired power generation power 

4.1 Technology process 

Cofiring is a family of technologies. These include blending biomass with coal on the fuel pile, 

separately injecting biomass into a boiler, and gasifying biomass for subsequent firing in an electricity 

generating system. 

4.1.1 Blending biomass with coal on the fuel pile 

This simple approach to blending biomass with coal for subsequent introduction into the boiler is 

the first and least cost approach to co-firing. This can be accomplished at low percentages (e.g.<5 

percent by mass, depending upon pulverizer type) in pulverized coal (PC) boilers when wood waste is 

the biofuel. It can be accomplished at higher percentage, typically up to about 20 percent by mass, 

when applied to cyclone boilers. The typical system of blending biomass with coal on the fuel pile is 

shown in Figure3. 

Figure 4: A typical stoker boiler conveyor system receiving premixed coal and biomass 

4.1.2 Cofiring with separate injection 

This approach involves separately preparing the biomass – sawdust, switchgrass, etc. – and then 

firing it in the boiler (shown in Figure4). In this approach, the biomass bypasses the pulverizers. It 

may be introduced into the burner or, if the boiler is tangentially fired (T-fired), it may be blown 

directly into the firebox. A T-fired boiler functions as a single burner with multiple injection points. 

The biomass is introduced simply at another injection point. This approach, which involves more 

equipment than blending on the coal pile, can accomplish higher percentage cofiring in PC boilers. It 

 13
can be used for NOx reduction. It can also be used for capacity recovery if wet coal and pulverizer 

capacity limit the steaming rate of the boiler. 

Figure5: A separate-feed cofiring arrangement system for a pulverized coal boiler 

4.1.3 Gasification-based cofiring 

The gasification approach to cofiring has significant potential, for it permits the use of biomass in 

natural gas-fired systems: boilers and CCCT installations. Gasification-based cofiring has been 

demonstrated in Lahti, Finland. In gasification- based cofiring, biomass is first fed to a gasifier in 

order to generate a producer. While it is the most capital-intensive approach to cofiring, it is also the 

most flexible in terms of the base fuel considered (coal, oil, natural gas) and the electricity generating 

system appropriate to its application. A retrofit of coal-fired power boilers using fluidized bed 

biomass gasification system is shown in figure 5.

 14
Figure 6: A retrofit of coal-fired power boilers using fluidized bed biomass gasification system 

4.2 Technology utilization 

Biomass cofiring has been successfully demonstrated and practiced in a full range of coal boiler 

types and sizes, including pulverized coal boilers, cyclones, stokers, and fluidized beds. At least 182 

separate boilers and organizations in the United States have cofiring biomass with fossil fuels. Of the 

182 cofiring operations mentioned above, 114 (or 63%) have been at industrial facilities, 32 at 

utility-owned power plants, 18 at municipal boilers, 10 at educational institutions, and 8 at federal 

facilities. 

In Europe, most existing coal fired plant uses pulverized fuel (PF) technology. Biomass fuels must 

be ground to a small size to be used in these installations. 

For analysis the biomass cofiring technology utilization, some case in practice is shown as follows. 

4.2.1 Greenidge generation station in US 

 

In 1994, Greenidge generating station construction a cofiring demonstration, which focusing upon 

wood waste preparation and firing in 2 105MWe T-fired boiler on the Finger Lakes in New York State. 

This project was supported from New York State Energy Research and Development Administration 

and EPRI. It developed an approach to wood waste preparation and firing including the grinding of all 

biomass rather than screening, and separate injection of the biomass rather than screening, and 

separate injection of the biomass into the boiler. For achieving economic and environmental benefits, 

the project fires biomass at a rate of 5-10. 

 15
4.2.2 Bailly generation station in US 

 

The project, designed, installed, and tested by Foster Wheeler Development Corporation, involves 

#7 boiler, a 160MWe cyclone-fired boiler consuming on the order of 67t/h of coal. The demonstration 

involves blending clean urban wood waste. The opportunity fuel system was installed in late 1998 and 

early 1999. 

4.2.3 Ottumwa generation station in US 

 

The demonstration at the Ottumwa Generation station is the final significant cofiring demonstration 

currently underway. This project is being funded by USDOE-EERE through the Golden Field Office. 

It is also being supported technically by the NREL. The project is the largest unit to demonstrate 

significant cofiring in the US. It is the first unit to project a long-term demonstration of cofiring with 

sweitchgrass, rather than a wood waste. In this demonstration, the switchgrass will be cofired with 

PRB coal in a 726MWe twin furnace T-fired boiler. 

4.2.4 Elsamprojekt at the Studstrup power station in Denmark 

 The Studstrup demonstration was initiated in 1995, when engineering and construction commenced 

for cofiring straw into a 380 MWe pulverized coal boiler supplying to a 152MWe condensing turbine 

and to a district heating system. The boiler used for the cofiring demonstration, which is a 

conventional wall-fired boiler with 12 burners located on three rows. The Studstrup demonstration 

operated for two years, until the boiler was decommissioned. During that time, tests were conducted 

concerning straw handling, cofiring combustion, fouling and slagging, corrosion, impact of selective 

catalytic reduction catalysts, and overall emissions. 

4.2.5 Østkraft power plants in Denmark 

At Østkraft, Unit 6 was put into operation in 1995. At loads varying from 0-65%, the boiler is 

coal-fired on grate with supplementary firing with wood chips. At boiler loads above approx. 65% of 

the boiler nominal output, the boiler is fired with oil. Coal firing takes place by means of four 

spreaders on to a traveling grate, while the wood chips are fired by means of four pneumatic feeders 

situated above the coal spreaders. The system electrical power output (gross) is 16 MWe and the heat 

output is 35 MJ/s. The boiler operates at a pressure of 80 bars, and the steam temperature is 525 °C. 

The boiler is capable of being fired with a combination of coal and wood chips in the ratio 80% coal 

and 20% wood chips in terms of energy contribution. 

4.3 Technology economic 

Investment levels are very site specific and are affected by the available space for yarding and 

storing biomass, installation of size reduction and drying facilities, and the nature of the boiler burner 

 16
modifications. Investments are expected to be in $100 - 700/kW of biomass capacity, with a median in 

the $180 - 200/kW range. 

The capital costs to set up a cofiring capability divide into two classes, depending on whether the 

biomass is blended with coal or fired separately form the coal. Blending requires no separate flow and 

injection path for the biomass fuel and is usually much lower in cost, on the order of $50-$100/kW 

versus $175/$200/kW for separate feed. Note that these costs are expressed per unit of power capacity 

on biomass, not on total capacity of the unit. Hence, a 100 Mwe boiler cofired at 10% by heat is 

getting 10Mwe from the biomass fuel, and a $200/kW cost of capital modifications for a separated 

feed system means a total of 10Mwe on biomass times $200/kW, or $2000000 in capital invested to 

modify the plant. Per unit of total capacity of the plant, the unit cost is $20/kW. 

Table 8 lists the technology economic parameter for retrofit different boiler type. Costs as low as 

$50 to $100/kW of biomass power can be achieved for stokers, fluidized beds, and low-percentage 

(Less than 2% biomass on a heat basis) cofiring in cyclone and PC boilers. For heating applications, 

this is equivalent to about $3 to $6/lb per hour of steaming capacity. 

Retrofits for high-percentage cofiring (up to 15% of the total heat input) at a pulverized coal (PC) 

boiler are typically about $200/kW of biomass power capacity. Smaller applications such as those at 

federal facilities have higher per-unit costs because they cannot take advantage of economies of scale. 

For example, a small-scale stoker application that requires a completely new receiving, storage, and 

handling system for biomass could cost as much as $350/kW of biomass power capacity. 

Table8: Biomass cofiring power generation technology economics (vs. 100 percent coal) 

Parameter Stoker 

(Low cost) 

Stoker 

(High cost) 

Fluidized 

bed 

Pulverized 

coal 

Pulverized 

Coal 

Plant scale 15 15 15 100 100 

Heat from biomass (%) 20 20 15 3 15 

Biomass power 3 3 2.3 3 15 

Unit cost ($/kW)1 50 350 50 100 230 

Total cost for retrofit ($) 150000 1050000 112500 300000 3450000 

Net annual cost savings 

($/yr)2

199760 199760 149468 140184 700922 

Payback period (years) 0.8 5.3 0.8 2.1 4.9 

Notes: 

1.Unit costs are on a per kW of biomass power basis (not per kW of total power). 

2.Net annual cost savings = fuel cost savings – increased O&M costs. 

 17
5 Anaerobic Digestion generation power 

5.1 Technology process 

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is the bacterial fermentation of organic material. This produces biogas, 

which is typically made up of 65% methane and 35% carbon dioxide with traces of nitrogen, sulphur 

compounds, volatile organic compounds and ammonia. This biogas can be combusted directly in 

modified gas boilers or can be used to run an internal combustion engine. The calorific value of this 

biogas is typically 17 to 25 MJ/m3

. Typically, between 40% and 60% of the organic matter present is 

converted to biogas. The remainder consists of an odor free residue with appearance similar to peat 

which has some value as a soil conditioner and also, with some systems, a liquid residue which has 

potential as a fertilizer. 

Figure 7: Anaerobic digestion technology process flows 

All anaerobic digesters consist of the following basic components (figure6): feedstock storage and 

handling system, digestion tank, and gas and residue recovery systems. The digestion tank requires 

mixing systems which can either be mechanical or achieved by bubbling the biogas through the 

organic slurry. The digester can be either above or below ground level and should be insulated. In 

Northern Europe the digester would be fitted with internal heat exchangers to maintain temperatures 

close to the optimum for the bacteria, which produce the methane. For a farm digester of the 

mesophilic type this is 30°C to 35°C. Centralized anaerobic digestion plants (CAD plants) can be 

mesophilic or thermophilic (about 55°C). Thermophilic systems offer several advantages, including 

higher methane production, faster throughput, better pathogen and virus 'kill' and the prospect of 

 18
compost production to a consistent standard. However, thermophilic systems are more expensive and 

require greater levels of control. 

The digesters operate mainly as plug flow systems with fresh material being fed into the mixed 

batch, which is allowed to spill out into the overflow. A recent development has been to adapt 

digesters for higher dry matter wastes such as farmyard manure with substantial quantities of straw. 

The biogas has a calorific value typically between 50% and 70% that of natural gas and can be 

combusted directly in modified natural gas boilers or used to run internal combustion engines. Apart 

from biogas, the process also produces a digestate, which may be separated into liquid and solid 

components. The liquid element can be used as a fertilizer and the solid element may be used as a soil 

conditioner or further processed to produce higher value organic compost. The detail anaerobic 

digestion process is shown in figure 7. 

Figure 8: Overview of the anaerobic digestion process 

5.2 Technology utilization 

Technologies for anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge, industrial sludge and wastewater are fully 

commercialized, and they need no further R&D support and are not covered in this information. 

Anaerobic digestion of animal manure and organic wastes are still under development and are treated 

in detail here. The EU energy potential of sludge is given as 20,000 GWh/year, which is equivalent 

to 2500 MW/y. In comparison to the figures for agricultural and MSW feedstock this is about 20% of 

the total potential. However, the treatment of sewage sludge by AD is likely to see a greater 

immediate increase in EU countries compared to other feedstock due to the banning of sea dumping 

of this waste. 

 19
The technology of anaerobic digestion is now well developed and a range of digesters from 70m3

capacity to 5,000m3

 is commercially available. The size and type depends on the manufacturer and the 

quantity and type of the material to be digested. Smaller digesters tend to use the biogas for heat 

production whereas larger units can generate up to about 2 MW of electricity. 

Table 9 is from Report on International Best Practice for Industrial Scale Biogas Technology and 

Commercial Development, which lists 12 biogas technology cases in different country. 

Table 9: List of Case Studies of biogas technology 

Name Type Volume (m3

) Design Type Country 

Hanford Farms Pig Waste 785 Gas Mixed UK 

Biogasanlage Neudecker Centralized 2,520 Plug flow and 

Mixed 

Germany 

BIOENERGIE WITTE GMBH 

& CO. 

Centralized 1,206 Stirrer Mixed Germany 

Biogasanlage Loick Centralized 970 Stirrer Mixed Germany 

Hegndal Farm Biogas Plant Pig Waste 800 Stirrer Mixed Denmark 

Thorsoe Environment & Biogas Centralized 4,600 Stirrer Mixed Denmark 

Ribe Biogas Limited Centralized 5,235 Stirrer Mixed Denmark 

Slachthuis De Rese Roger Industrial 1,000 Stirrer Mixed Belgium 

Hall & Woodhouse Industrial 3,300 Mixed, Variable 

Volume 

UK 

Khorat Thailand ABR Power Industrial 100,000 Gas Mixed, 

Flexible Liner 

Thailand 

Rocky Farm Pig Waste 9,600 Flexible Liner Philippines

Leprino Foods Industrial 12,120 Gas Mixed USA 

5.3 Technology economy 

For the above cases, the detail economical analysis is shown in Table10. In each case, the costs, 

charges and benefits are also project specific. For example the Khorat plant could be even more 

profitable if all the biogas produced was used to generate electricity. However, it was part of the third 

party arrangement that the digestion system would primarily satisfy the fuel demands of the boilers on 

site, resulting in only 50% of the gas being available for electricity generation. 

In some cases, CHP sets have been purchased which are larger than required by the biogas plant but 

the cost is included in the capital estimate of the project. 

 20
Table 10: Capital Costs of Case Study Plants. 

Name Capital 

Cost 

(US$) 

Dig. 

Volume 

(m3

) 

Capital 

Cost 

(US$/m3

)

Operating

Cost 

(US$/m3

) 

Payback

Time 

(yrs) 

Grant 

(% of 

capital) 

Biogas 

(m3

/d) 

Biogas 

Benefit 

(US$/m3

)

Year 

Hanford 

330,150 785 421 2.47 7 - 1,000 0.1933 1983

Neudecker 

1,627,200 2,500 651 - 6 - 3,300 0.2283 2001

Witte 

600,000 1,206 498 1.66 7 25 2,000 0.2000 1998

Loick 

1,454,400 970 1499 - 6 30 2,640 - 2001

Hegndal 

1,200,000 800 1500 4.75 6 30 2,740 0.2667 2000

Thorsoe 

3,400,000 4,600 739 10.15 10 22 8,990 0.2288 1994

Ribe 

3,860,000 5,235 737 11.65 6 39 13,000 0.2667 1990

Slachthuis 

990,000 1,000 990 - - - 2,640 - 1995

Hall & 

Woodhouse 900,000 3,300 273 - 2 - 1,200 - 1994

Khorat 

- 100,000 - - - - 100,000 - 2002

Rocky 

Farm 

- 9,600 - 0.02 3 - 960 0.0814 2000

Leprino 

Foods - 12,120 - - - - - - - 

In other cases, the installations have qualified for demonstration grant funding which would only be 

awarded if the plants would not otherwise proceed (i.e. the grant had to be enabling funding). 

Capital costs vary widely with the size of the project and the peripheral equipment installed, and 

ranges from US$0.33m to US$3.9m. The capital cost per m3

 of installed digester capacity ranges from 

US$273 to US$1,500. The lowest price (Hall & Woodhouse) was a project undertaken on a design 

and self-build basis resulting in significant cost savings. The nearest competitive commercial quote 

for this contract on a direct purchase basis was 200% of this figure which would bring it in line with 

the other plants. In fact, most of the installations are between US$400-700/m3

 but there is no clear 

trend allowing for inflation, size or location. 

 21
Operating costs, where available, are between US$0.02/m3

 for a low cost flexible liner system 

(Rocky Farm), which does not import additional wastes to a high of about US$10-12/m3 for two large 

centralised plants at Ribe, and Thorsoe. These plants operate their own fleet of vehicles and must 

accept and transport waste from many sources, as well as returning the treated effluent. 

A significant number of plants received capital grants or subsidized electricity buy-back rates 

from the grid. In order for these subsidies to be effective, the ability to access the grid must be 

uncomplicated. 

 22
6 Feasibility analysis of technology utilization in China 

The biomass power generation, especially large-scale generation, is at beginning phase in China. At 

present, the technology has been done R&D, but there are big technology gap between internal and 

international biomass power generation. The technology by own has not been mature. The most 

technology is still trial and not constructed the demonstration. 

There is very wide area in China. At the same time there is very difference in natural and cultural 

condition, such as geography, climate, work method, economic standard and so on. Therefore, in 

China, there is very different in production, collection and utilization of biomass feedstock for 

generating power. For above all technologies, it can adapt to the difference region in China. However, 

because China has the special status, anyone technology is not used in all region of China. 

As far as it is concerned, the biomass generation power of China should the basic principle, namely 

there is no the best technology, only the most adapted technology. The technology is selected at last 

according to detail survey of natural resource, cultural condition, and environment in local. 

The feasibility analysis of biomass technology utilization is as follows. The analysis about available 

range in China is primary frame. Therefore, if the technology is used at fact, it should be surveyed and 

trailed. It is noted that the feasibility analysis is based on the Renewable Energy Law, which 

implementing in January 1,2006, and Trail regulation of renewable electricity price and cost sharing 

management. 

6.1 Direct-fired generation power 

6.1.1 Technology feature 

Direct-fired generation power adopts the traditional technology flow, which is the boiler and steam 

turbine and generator. It has very long history. In China, there is good technology foundation of fossil 

fuel generation power. At the same time, there exists a lot of power plant with installed capacity 

below 50MW, which is all used this technology to generate power. 

Because the direct-fired generation power use the high temperature and high pressure steam as 

medium, the disposal system about water and steam is relative complex and the investment is more 

expensive. The installed capacity of generator will be increased continuously and the critical and 

supercritical steam turbine will be widely used in the future to reduce the cost. These advance 

technology will effectively increase the benefit of the biomass direct-fired generation power in the 

scale. 

Furthermore, the biomass feedstock preparation and processing system, such as feedstock 

collecting, handling, transporting and processing, is mature in the international large-scale biomass 

generation power. Therefore, these technologies can be used for reference during constructing 

demonstration project in China. 

 23
6.1.2 Available range and market potential in future 

The agriculture production is based on the family work method, and each family has very small 

land (the detailed resource analysis is shown in Assessment Report of Biomass Resource in China), 

therefore, the rural family only supplies 2-4 tons crop straw for biomass generation power every year. 

It will be very difficult to collect these straws if the large-scale biomass power plant is built in China. 

Therefore, the scale of straw power generation should be strictly controlled to ensure the sustaining 

feedstock supply for power generation. 

A straw generation power plants with 25MW installed capacity need consume 200 thousand tons 

straw feedstock. The consumption about 200 thousand tons will be purchased from 100 thousand 

household of rural resident. The purchase work will be very heavy burden. Moreover, with the 

feedstock cost increasing, the benefit of project will be influenced. At last, the power plant will be 

forced to reduce the scale, as result, the benefit from the scale will wholly disappear. 

The technology can be used in some region such as Heilonjiang, Jilin and Xinjiang, where has very 

large cultivated area each people and some national farm. If the straw power plant is constructed in 

these regions, the straw purchase will be easy and the cost will be low. 

It is well know that there are largest populations of China in the word. The city with population 

above 4000 thousand people is about 11, 2000-4000 thousand people is about 22 cities, and 

1000-2000 thousand people is about 141 cities (the data is from nation statistic bureau in 2003). In 

these cities, it will be a better choice to adopt the direct-fired technology to proposal MSW. Based on 

the statistic data form National environment protection department, the output of MSW is about 

0.5tons per person every year. If there are 1000 thousand population in the city, the output of MSW 

will reach 500 thousand tons, which can supply MSW direct-fired generation power with 15MW 

installed capacity. Therefore, the direct-fired generation will have widely market in the disposal MSW 

of China. 

6.2 Gasification generation power 

6.2.1 Technology feature 

The gasification technology includes fluidized bed gasification and fixed bed gasification. The fuel 

gas has the higher temperature in fluidized bed gasification and need match the reheat generator. 

Therefore, this technology usually adopts Gasification Combined Cycle power generation (GCC). At 

present, the large scale IGCC has reached 200MW-installed capacity. The complex technology 

process and expensive investment has been balance by the large scale. Therefore, the large scale is an 

advantage of IGCC, which is same as the direct-fired technology. 

The fixed bed gasification is a traditional technology, which includes gasifier, engine and generator. 

This technology has simple process and cheap investment. However, the scale is limited in the key 

 24
equipment, namely fixed bed gasifier. The diameter of gasifier using coal or coke is about 3m, and the 

capacity is about 4000m3

/h. If considering the biomass with good reaction active, the capacity will be 

reach 6000-8000m3

/h. The heat value of biomass fuel gas from fixed bed gasifier is about 

1200-1400kcal/m3

, which can match with a 3-4MW internal combustion engine. Therefore, for the 

biomass power plant, it is difficult to bring economic benefit depending on the scale. 

6.2.2 Available range and market potential in future 

The available range and market potential of biomass IGCC technology is similar to straw 

direct-fired generation power, which is not detail described. 

The fixed bed gasification of straw generation power is adapted to the status in China although it is 

limited in the scale. There are very widely markets in the most region of China. A straw power plant 

with 10MW installed capacity need 80000 tons straw, which is supplied by 20000 households of rural 

family. Therefore, the installed capacity should be controlled below 10MW in these regions where 

there are small land area per person. The fixed bed gasification can widely develop in these regions. 

Because the fixed bed gasification has simple system and cheap investment, the economic benefit can 

be ensured in the small scale. In the future, in the most region of China, the fixed bed gasification 

technology will be widely used. 

6.3 Cofiring generation power 

6.3.1 Technology feature 

The nearest term low-cost option for the use of biomass is cofiring with coal in existing boilers. 

The cofiring generation can make full use the existing power plant and equipment, such as 

turbo-generator, condensers, cooling towers, ash removal systems and so on. The main retrofitted 

system includes boiler and preparation and processing for biomass feedstock. Cofiring utilizing 

biomass has been successfully demonstrated and is currently practiced in the full range of coal boiler 

types, including pulverized coal boilers, stokers, cyclones, and bubbling and circulating fluidized 

beds. 

At present, for ensuring the economic benefit and feedstock supply, the share of heat input is not 

usually beyond 20% in the most of biomass cofiring power plant. Potential negative impacts 

associated with cofiring biomass fuels includes the possibility for increased slagging and fouling on 

boiler surfaces when firing high alkali herbaceous biomass fuels such as switchgrass, and the potential 

for reduced fly ash marketability due to concerns that commingled biomass and coal ash will not meet 

existing fly ash market. 

 25
6.3.2 Available range and market potential in future 

In theory, the cofiring technology is adapted to all operating power plants. However, at present, it is 

no feasible method to solve the measure of biomass electricity generation in the cofiring power plant, 

which is a largest obstacle in the development of biomass cofiring generation power. 

In January 2006, for Renewable Energy Law implementing, NDRC promulgate Trail regulation of 

renewable electricity price and cost sharing management. In this regulation, the subsidy of cofiring 

technology is not clearly defined. However, the share of cofiring feedstock is defined that the cofiring 

project will be considered as the fossil fuel power project if the share of heat consumption of 

electricity generation exceeds 20%, which will be give the normal electricity price at the local. For the 

biomass cofiring power plant through retrofit coal power plant, it is difficult to exceed 80% of share 

in cofiring. Therefore, these retrofit biomass cofiring power plant have no preferential electricity price, 

which will directly influence the economic benefit of power plant. If the measure method of cofiring 

generation power is not solved, the power plant will have not gain the preferential electricity price. 

Without the incentive policy of preferential price, the cofiring technology will be limited. 

6.4 Anaerobic digestion generation power 

6.4.1 Technology feature 

The digester design has currently mature in the world. There are many different digester designs 

currently available and they have been developed to handle different substrates and optimize different 

aspects of the process. The average size is about 1.3 ~2.6 m3

 biogas producing form substrate per 

day. The most of biogas project is medium and small scale, which is 1-20 m3 substrate per day. 

The overall conversion efficiency for electricity is normally around 33%. The economic value of 

biogas as a fuel gas is similar to the electricity, which it can be used to produce, but in addition about 

50% of the heat is recoverable as hot water from the cooling circuit of the engine. Therefore, these 

units are often referred to as combined heat and power or CHP sets. Micro-turbines are also being 

considered for the generation of electricity from biogas. Efficiencies higher than 40-45% are claimed 

but they are more expensive at present. 

Furthermore, the solids and liquids separated form digestion can be used as a high-grade fertilizer. 

The byproduct sales can improve the profitability of the enterprise. 

6.4.2 Available range and market potential in future 

Because the content of water is high and the solid is low in animal excrement, there is obstacle 

in the pyrogeneration technology using. However, the technology of biochemistry for producing 

biogas is very mature. 

 26
At present, the average scale of the husbandry is relative small. With the urbanization of country 

developing rapidly, the average scale of the husbandry will enlarge through resetting the husbandry, 

which will provide the good condition for the utilization for animal excrement. 

There are above 1.3 billion populations in China, which is a large and stable market for protein 

consumption. Therefore, the animal husbandry development is a inevitable current. At present, the 

husbandry is lack of strict disposal for the excrement so as to pollute the environment around. 

Therefore, the control of waste discharge in husbandry should be enhanced. The generation power 

technology in husbandry is mature. At the same time, Renewable Energy Law provides the guarantee 

of economic benefit for this technology utilization. The technology of disposal excrement will be paid 

attention and widely used. 

 27
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

October 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE

Subcontract Report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Biomass Support for the China Renewable Energy Law: 

International Biomass Energy Technology Review Report, January 

2006 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/SR-710-40626 

5e. TASK NUMBER

IGIN.6031 

6. AUTHOR(S)

Center of Renewable Energy Development, Beijing, China; Energy 

Research Institute, Beijing, China; National Development and 

Reform Commission, Beijing, China 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Center of Renewable Energy Development, Beijing, China; Energy 

Research Institute, Beijing, China; National Development and Reform 

Commission, Beijing, China 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

ACO-4-44015-01 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

NREL/SR-710-40626 

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

NREL Technical Monitor: Debra Lew 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

Subcontractor report giving an overview of the biomass power generation technologies used in China, the U.S., and 

Europe. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

International Programs; China; Biomass; agricultural waste; forest waste; municipal solid waste; animal manure; 

China Renewable Energy Law; renewable policy in China 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19b. TELEPONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18