### BNL-91286-2009-I R



## Evaluation of Gas, Oil and Wood Pellet Fueled Residential Heating System Emissions Characteristics

Roger J. McDonald

Decem ber 2009

Energ y Sciences and Technology Departme n t/Energ y Resources Division


### Brookhaven National Laboratory P.O. Box 5000 Upton, NY 11973-5000 www.bn l.gov

Notice : Th is m a nus cript h a s be e n author ed b y e m p lo y e es of Bro o khaven S c ien c e As s o ciates

, L L C under Contrac t No. DE -AC02-98CH10 886 with the U.S. Dep a rtm e nt of Energ y

. Th e pub lisher b y a ccep ti ng the

m a nuscript for p ublic ation a c kno wledges th at the United States G o vernment r e tain s a non- e xclusiv e , p a id-up

, irrevocable, wor l d-wide license to publish or repr oduce the publis hed form of this ma nuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Gov e r n ment purposes.

### DISCLAI M ER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United Sta t es Govern m e nt. Neither th e United States Governm e nt nor any agency thereof, nor any of their em pl oyees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their em ployees, m a kes any warranty, express or implied, or

assum e s any legal liability or responsibil ity for th e accu racy, com p leteness, or any third party’s use or the results of such us e of any inform ation, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or re presents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade nam e , trademark, m a nufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or im ply its endorsem e nt, recomm end a tion, or favoring by the United States Governm e nt or any agency thereof or its contractors or sub c on trac tors. The views and opinions of authors expresse d herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Gov e rnm e nt or any agency th ereof

.Evaluation of Gas, Oil and Wood Pelle t Fueled Residential Heating System Emissions Characteristics



### Brookhaven National Laboratory Energy Sciences and T echnology Department Energy Resources Division

December 2009

Roger J. McDonald

Under Agreement No. 8909 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

Managed by Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC For the United States Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10866Legal Notes

NYSE R DA

This report was prepared by Brookhaven National Laboratory in the course of perform i ng work contracted for and sponsored by th e New York State Energy Research and Developm en t Authority (NYSERDA). The opi nions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect thos e of NYSER DA or the State of New York, and reference to any specific product, service, or m e thod does not constitute an i m plied or expressed

recomm endation or end o rsem ent of it. Furt her, NYSE R DA and the State of Ne w York

m a ke no warranties or representations, expressed or im plied, as to the f itness f o r particular p u rpose or m e rchantability of an y product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, com p leteness or accuracy of a ny process, m e thods, or other inform ation contained, described, disclose d, or re ferred to in this re port. NYSER DA, t h e State of New York, and the contractor m a ke no r e presentati ons that the use of any product, apparatus,
process, m e thod, or other inform ation will not infringe priv ately owned rights and will

assum e no liability for any loss, injury, or dam a ge resulting from , or occurring in connection with, the use of infor m a tion containe d, described, disclosed, or referred to in this r e por t.

United States Department of Energy

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Gove rnm e nt. Neithe r the Un ited State s Governm e nt nor any agency thereof, nor any of their em ployees, nor any of their cont ractors, sub c o n tractors, o r their em ployees

m a kes any warranty, express or implied, or assu m e s any legal liabili ty or responsibility for the accuracy, com p leteness, o r usefulness of any infor m ation, apparatus, prod uct, or process disclosed, or represents that its us e would not infringe pr ivately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade nam e , tradem ark, m a nufacturer, or o t herwise, doe s not neces sarily constitu te or im ply its endorsem e nt, recomm en dation, or favoring by the United States Governm e nt or any agency, con t racto r or sub c ontractor th ereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state o r reflect those o f the United States Governm e nt or any agency, contracto r , or su bcontractor thereof.

A c know ledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the va luable contributions of m a ny peopl e who have either worked on parts of th is projec t or provided va luable cr itiq ue of the man y drafts of this report including C.R. Krishna , PH.D., Tho m as A. Butcher, Ph.D., Yu suf Celebi, George W e i, Wei Lin Litzke all fr om Brookhaven National Laboratory, and John E. Batey o f Energy Research Center Inc. and of course the project m a nagers at NYSERDA which included Ray m ond Albrecht (retired), Nathan Russell and Peter Douglas.

iiTable of Contents

Legal Notes

.................................................................................................................... ..... ii Acknowledgem e nts ............................................................................................................ ii Executive S u mm ary

.......................................................................................................... vii I. Introduction

................................................................................................................ ..... 1 A. Overview

.................................................................................................................... 1 B. Report Organization

................................................................................................... 2 II. Background

................................................................................................................. ... 3 A. Fuel Use De m ographics and Current Fuel Specifications

......................................... 3 B. Fuel Characteristics

.................................................................................................... 3 C. Prior Research in Em i ssions fr om Residential Heating System s

............................... 4 D. Fine Particulate Em issions a nd Related Air Quality Concerns

.................................. 5 E. Considerations Related to Pending Ch anges in Diesel Fuel Specifications

............... 7 F. MANE-VU

................................................................................................................. 7 G. I m portance of Sulfur Content in P e troleum He a t i n g F u e l s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 H. Middle Distillate Fuel Cost and Product Supply Concerns

....................................... 9 I I I

. T e s t P l a n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 11 A. List of Equipm ent Included in the Project

.............................................................. 11 B. Test Plan

................................................................................................................... 11 IV. Measurem ent Technique

............................................................................................. 13 V. Results

.................................................................................................................... ......17 A. Oil-fired cast iron boiler and flam e reten tion head burner, firing various fuels

...... 17 B. Oil-fired warm air furnace, with flam e retentio n head burn e r and vario u s fuels

..... 25 C. Gas-fired cast iron boiler, atm o spheric burner and electronic spark ignition

.......... 28 D. Gas-fired warm air furnace, in-sh o t i nduced d r aft burner with spark ignition

........ 30 E. Gas-fired condensing alum inu m b o iler, prem ixed power burner, spark ignition

..... 32 F. Oil-fired condensing steel boiler, flam e re tention head burner, with various fuels

. 33 G. Oil-fired condensing furnace with flam e retention head burner, various fuels

....... 38 H. Oil-f i red cast iron boiler with combustion gas recircul ation burner (blue flam e)

... 40 I. W ood pellet stove; drop down over fed, ope n burner grate, and electric ignition

.... 42 J. Pellet stove, over fed burner, enclosed se lf-clean burn grate, electric ignition

......... 44 K. W ood pe llet stove, horizontal under feed, open grate, with m a nual gel ignition

.... 46 V I

. C o n c l u s i o n s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 A

. R e s u l t s f o r O i l

- f i r e d H e a t i n g A p p l i a n c e s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 B. Discussion of Biodiesel Blends

................................................................................ 51 C. Results for Gas-fired Heating Appliances

................................................................ 52 D. Results for W ood Pellet Stoves Ma nufactured in the United States

........................ 53 E. Co m p arison of Results for all Residential Heating Appliances

............................... 54 VII. Recomm endations

..................................................................................................... 55 Appendix A: Exam ples of Fuel Analysis Results

............................................................. 57 Appendix B: List of Abbr eviations and Sy m bols .............................................................58

iiiList of Figu res

Figure 1. Schem a tic of the PM 2.5 Measurem ent

............................................................. 15 Figure 2. Cast iron boiler and PM 2.5 Dilution Tunnel Sam p ler

...................................... 19 Figure 3. BNL and EPA Staff Con ducting Sim u lations PM 2.5 Measurem ents

.............. 21 Figure 4. Cast iron boiler fuel ed with ULS diesel fuel

..................................................... 23 Figure 5. Atmospheric gas-fired hydronic boiler

.............................................................. 28 Figure 6. Gas-fired warm air furnace with in-shot induced draft burner

.......................... 31 Figure 7. Gas-fired condensing boiler

.............................................................................. 32 Figure 8. Oil-fired condensi ng steel boiler during PM 2.5 dilution tunnel testing

........... 34 Figure 9. Cast iron boiler fired with biodiesel for com p arison purposes

.......................... 37 Figure 10. Oil-fired condensing warm air furnace, 95% AFUE rating

............................ 38 Figure 11. Co m bustion gas recircul ation (blue flam e) burner

.......................................... 41 Figure 12. P e llet stove with drop dow n over fed, open burner grate, electric ignition

..... 42 Figure 13. S t ove, overfed burner, enclosed self -clean burn pot/grate, electric ignition

... 44 Figure 14. P e llet stov e, side feed burner, ope n bu rner grate, and m a nual gel ign ition

..... 46 Figure 15. Cast iron boiler, PM 2.5 as a f u n c t i o n o f s u l f u r c o n t e n t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 16. Cast iron boiler PM 2.5 mg/MJ, m g /kg, m g /dscm for three fuels

................... 50 Figure 17. P M 2.5 for conventional and condensing, boilers and furnaces

...................... 51 Figure 18. P M 2.5 em ission factors f o r gas furnace, boiler and condensing boiler

.......... 52 Figure 19. T h ree stoves evaluated fo r PM 2.5 and PM > 2.5 Microns

............................. 53 Figure 20. Co m p arison of average P M 2.5 em i s s i o n s f o r f i v e h e a t i n g f u e l o p t i o n s

. . . . . . . . . 54

ivList of Tables

Table 1. PM 2.5, oil-fired cast iron boiler, retention head burner, steady-state firing N o . 2

..... 19 Table 2. PM 2.5, oil-fired cast iron boiler, retention head burner, cyclic operation, (E PA)

..... 20 Table 3. Flue gases, oil-cast iron boiler, flam e retention burner firing No. 2 fuel

.................... 20 Table 4. PM 2.5, oil-fired cast iron boiler with flam e retention head burner firing LS fuel

..... 21 Table 5. Flue gases, oil-f i red cast iron boile r with flam e retention head burner LS fuel

.......... 22 Table 6. PM 2.5, oil-fired cast iron boiler w ith flam e retention head burner firing UL S

........... 22 Table 7. Flue gases, oil-f i red cast iron boiler with flam e retention head burner firing U L S

..... 23 Table 8. PM 2.5, oil-fired cast iron boiler, flam e re tention head burner steady state, No. 2

..... 24 Table 9. Flue gases, oil-f i red cast iron boile r with flam e retention head burner, No. 2

............ 24 Table 10. P M 2.5, oil-fired cast iron boiler, re tention head burner, No. 2, cyclic operation

..... 24 Table 11. P M 2.5, oil-fired warm air furn ace, retention head burner, No. 2 fuel

...................... 25 Table 12. Flue gases, oil-fired warm air furn ace, retention head burner, N o . 2 fuel

................. 25 Table 13. P M 2.5, oil-fired warm air furn ace, retention head burner, LS fuel

.......................... 26 Table 14. Flue gases, oil-fired warm air fu rnace, retention head burner, L S fuel

..................... 26 Table 15. P M 2.5, oil-fired warm air furn ace, retention head burner, ULS fuel

....................... 27 Table 16. Flue gases, oil-fired warm air fu rnace, retention head burner, U L S fuel

.................. 27 Table 17. P M 2.5, gas-fired cast iron boiler, atm o spheric burner, steady state operation

......... 28 Table 18. Flue gases, gas-fire d cast iron boiler, atm o spheric burner, steady state operation

..... 29 Table 19. P M 2.5, gas-fired cast iron boile r, atm o spheric burner, cyclic operation

.................. 29 Table 20. P M 2.5, gas-fired furnace, indu ced draft burners, steady state operation

................... 30 Table 21. Flue gases, gas-fired furnace, i nduced draft burners, steady state operation

............. 30 Table 22. P M 2.5, gas-fired furnace, i nduced draft burners, cyclic operation

........................... 31 Table 23. P M 2.5, gas-fired condensing al um inum boiler, prem ixed power burner

................. 32 Table 24. Flue gases, gas-fired condensing aluminum boiler, prem ixed power burner

............ 33 Table 25. Flue gases, oil-fired condensing steel boiler, flam e retention burner, No. 2 fuel

...... 33 Table 26. P M 2.5, oil-fired condensing steel boi ler, flam e retention burner, No. 2 fuel

........... 34 Table 27. P M 2.5, oil-fired condensing steel boiler, flam e retention burner, ULS fuel

............ 35 Table 28. Flue gases, oil-fired condensing stee l boiler, flam e retention burner, ULS fuel

....... 35 Table 29. P M 2.5, oil-fired condensing steel boiler, flam e retention burner, biodiesel

............ 36 Table 30. Flue gases, oil-fired condensing stee l boiler, flam e retenti on burner, biodiesel

....... 36 Table 31. P M 2.5, oil-fired cast iron boiler, fl ame retention head burner, biodiesel fuel

.......... 37 Table 32. Flue gases, oil-fired cast iron boiler, flam e retention head burner, biodiesel fuel

...... 37 Table 33. P M 2.5, oil-fired condensing warm air furnace, retention head b u rner, No. 2

.......... 38 Table 34. Flue gases, oil-fired condensing warm air furnace, retention head burner, N o . 2

..... 39 Table 35. P M 2.5, oil-fired condensing warm ai r furnace, retention head b u rner, LS fuel

....... 39 Table 36. Flue gases, oil-fired condensing warm air furnace, retenti on head burner, L S

......... 39 Table 37. P M 2.5, oil-fired condensing warm air furnace, retention head b u rner, ULS

........... 40 Table 38. P M 2.5, oil-fired condensing warm air furnace, retention head b u rner, ULS

........... 40 Table 39. Flue gases, cast iron boiler with com b u s tion gas recirculation burner, ULS

........... 41 Table 40. P M 2.5, cast iron boiler with co m bustion gas recirculation burner, ULS

................. 41 Table 41. P M 2.5, wood pellet stove, drop down over fed, open burner grate

.......................... 43 Table 42. Flue gases, wood pellet stove, drop down over fed, open burner grate

..................... 43 Table 43. P M 2.5, pellet stove, over fed burner, closed self-clean burn grate

........................... 45 Table 44. Flue gases, pellet stove, over fe d burner, closed self -clean burn grate

...................... 45

vTable 45. P M 2.5, wood pellet stove, horiz ontal under feed burner, open grate

....................... 47 Table 46. Flue gases, wood pellet stove, hor izontal under feed burner, open grate

.................. 48

viExecutive S u mmary

This study has m easured the em issions from a wide range of heating equipm ent burning different fuels including several liquid fuel options, utility supplied natural gas and wood pellet resou r ces. The major effort was placed on generating a database for the m a ss

em ission rate of fine particulates (P M 2.5) for the various fuel types studied. The fine particulates or PM 2.5 (less than 2. 5 m i cr ons in size) were m easured using a dilution tunnel technique following the m e thod described in US EPA CTM-03 9. The PM 2.5

em ission results are expressed in several units for the benefit of scientists, engineers and adm i nistrato rs. The m easurem ents of gaseous em issions of O 2 , CO 2 , CO, NO x and SO 2
were m a de using a com bustion analyzer based on electrochem i cal cells These

m easurem ents a r e pr ese n ted f o r e a c h of the r e siden tia l h eating syste m s tested. This analyzer als o provides a steady state effi ciency based on stack gas and tem p erature

m easurem ents and these values are included in the repo rt. T h e gaseous results are within the ranges expected from prior em ission stud ies with the enhancem ent of expanding these

m easurem ents to fuels n o t avai lab l e to earlier res earchers. Based on m easured excess air levels and ultim ate ana l ysis of the f u el’s che m ical com p osition the gaseous em ission results are as expected and fall within the range provided for e m ission factors contained in the US-EPA AP 42, Em ission Factors Volu me I, Fifth Edition. Since there were no unexpected findings in these gaseous m easure m en ts, the bulk of the re port is centered on the em issions of fine part iculates, or PM 2.5.

The fine particu l ate (PM 2.5) results for the liqu i d fuel fired heating sys t em s indicate a very strong linear relationship between the fine particulate em issions and the sulfur content of the liquid fuels being studied. This is illustrated by the plot contained in the f i rst f i gure on the nex t page which clea rly illu strates the lin ear r e la tions hip between the

m easured mass of f

i ne particula t e pe r unit of energy, express e d as m illigr a m s per MegaJoule (m g/MJ) versus the different sulfur cont ents of four different heating fuels. These were tested in a conventional cast iron boi ler equipped with a flame retention head burner. The fuels included a t ypical ASTM No. 2 fuel oil wi th sulfur below 0.5 percent (1520 average ppm S), an ASTM No. 2 fuel oi l with very high sulfur content (5780 pp m S), low sulfur heating oil (322 ppm S) and an ultra low sulfur dies el fuel (11 ppm S). Three additional oil-fired heating system types were also tested with no rm al heating fuel, low sulfur and ultralo w sulfur fuel. They in cluded an o il-fired warm air furnace of convention a l design, a high efficiency condensing warm air furnace, a condensing hydronic boiler and the conventional hydronic boile r as discussed above. The linearity in the resu lts was observe d with all of the dif f e rent oil-fired equipm ent types (as shown in the second figure on the next page). A linear regression of the data resulted in an Rsquared value of 0.99 i ndicating that a very good linear relationship exits. This m eans that as sulfu r decreas es the PM 2.5 em issions are reduced in a linear m a nner within the sulfur content range tested. At the ultra low sulfur level (15 pp m S) the amount of PM 2.5 had been reduced dram atically to an average of 0.043 m g /MJ.

viiCas t I r o n Bo i l e r , Fl am e Ret e nti on Head Bu r n er With Four Distill ate Fuels, Sulfur Range 11-5780 ppm

y = 0.0355x
R 2 = 0.9969

0 50 100 150 200 250

0 1000 2 000 3000 40 00 5 000 60 00 7 000
Su lfu r pp mPM mg/kg

Cast iron boiler, PM 2. 5 as a function of sulfu r content

C o n v ent i on a l and C o nde n s ing Oil Fir e d He ating A p pl iance s

W i th Middle Distil late Fuels , S u lf ur Range 11-15 20 p p m

y = 0. 000 9x
R 2 = 0. 98 92 y = 0. 001 4x
R 2 = 0

. 99 07 y = 0. 00 13x
R 2 = 0

. 99 99

y = 0. 0013 x R 2 = 0. 996 1

0 0. 5

1 1. 5

2 2. 5

3

0 5 00 1000 1500 20 00 2 500

Su l f ur ppmPM 2.5 mg/MJ

Bo ile r Fu r n ace Co nd. Boi l e r Co nd. Fur na ce L i ne a r (Bo ile r)
Li n e ar ( F ur n ace )
L i ne a r (Co nd. Boil e r )
L i ne a r (Co nd. Furn a c e )

viii PM 2.5 for conventional and condensing, boilers and furnacesh r e e d i f f e r e n t g a s

- f i r e d h e a ting system s were tested. These included a conventional inh r e e w o o d p e l l e t s t o v e s w e r e i n cluded in this study. W ood pe llet properties vary greatly

i s c u s s i o n : currently have m a ny choices to h eat their ho m e s. These choices include

o s u mm arize, natural gas has low PM 2.5 em issions but m oderate carbon dioxide

Transitioning the sulfur content of fuel oil to ultr a low leve ls (less than 15 ppm ) results in T shot induced draft warm air furnace, an atm o s p h e r i c f i r e d h y d r o n i c b o i l e r a n d a h i g h efficiency hydronic boiler. The particulat e (PM 2.5) m easured ranged fro m 0.011 to 0.036 m g /MJ (as shown in the fi rst figure on the next page).

T depending on the raw material source used in th eir m a nufacture. All th ree stoves tested were fueled with prem i u m (low as h) wood pe llets obtained in a single batch to provide f o r unif o rm ity in the test f u el. Unlike the oil and gas f i red system s, the wood pellet sto v es had m easurable am ounts of particulates sized above the 2.5-m i cron si ze that defines fine particulates (less than 2. 5 m i crons). The fi ne particulate em issions rates ranged from 22 to 30 m g / M J with an av erage value of 25 m g /M J for the three stoves tested (as shown in the second figure on the next page).

D Ho m e owner s burning natural gas, heating oil, w ood. Natural gas use results in very low levels of PM 2.5 e m issions but being a hydrocarbon fuel it em its substantial levels of carbon dioxide. ASTM No. 2 fuel oil fired heating applianc es produce PM 2.5 levels that are about 130 tim es higher than natural gas and higher em i ssion levels of carbon dioxide. W ood p e llet

f i red heatin g applianc e s m a de in the Untie d States p r od u c e P M 2

. 5 l e v e l s t h a t a r e approxim a tely 15 tim e s higher than ASTM No. 2 fuel oil and fro m about 590 to 1850 tim es the le vels possib l e with eith e r utility ga s or ultra low sulf ur oil f u eled applia nces. Wood pellet heating fuel is often selected ove r other form s o f wood fuel choices based on EPA and DOE guidance. This gu idance suggests that the use of wood pelle t appliances is a good choice becaus e they are co ns idered to be the lowes t em itters of particulates when

com p ared to other type of wood burning appliances. W ood pe llet fuel is a renew a ble resource that absorbs carbon dioxide during the natural growth cycle. T h is is considered to be a bene f it in helpin g to m itigate global c l im ate changes by ef f ectively reduc ing the carbon dioxide em issions that otherwise would be attributed to the use of wood p e llet fuel. Like wood, biodiesel is also a renewabl e fuel and also absorbs carbon dioxide in the growth cycle of the crop plants u s ed to produce the raw m a t e r i a l s f o r b i o d i e s e l production, for exam ple soybean or other s eed crops. Biodiesel can be blended with ASTM heating No. 2 or ultra low sulfur heat in g oil. In either cas e it would effectively reduce the em issions of carbon dioxide based on its renewable nature. T h e extent of the carbon dioxide reduction would be proportional to the a m o unts of biod iesel used in the blends.

T

em issions. Wood pellet fuel has much higher PM 2.5 e m i ssion levels (based on current technology) but effectively lower carbon dioxide em issions due the renewable nature of trees that absorb carbon dioxi de as they grow. ASTM No. 2 fuel as cu rrently us ed has higher em issions of PM 2.5 th an natural gas, much lower PM 2.5 em issions than wood pellet fuel and higher levels of carbon diox ide em issions than both alternatives.

ixPM 2.5 emission factors for gas fu rnace, boiler and condensing boiler

Three stoves evaluated for PM 2.5 and PM > 2.5 Microns PM 2.5 Emis sion F actor s f o r

Sev e r a l Natur a l G a s Fir e d A pplianc e

2

0.0 1 1 0.6 3

0.0 4 3 0.0 1 6 0.9

0.0 6 0.0 3 6 0.1 3 1.9 6

0 0.5

1 1.5

mg/MJ mg/kg C oncentr atio n at 3 % O 2

Fur nac e Bo il e r C o nd ens i ng B o i l e r

0 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0

m g / M J m g/kg mg/ dscm@ 3% O 2 m g /M J mg/ kg m g /dscm@ 3% O2 Sto v e I Stov e J S t ove K

PM Gr eat er t h an 2.5 Mic r o n s PM L e ss t h an 2.5 Micr o n s ( P M 2.5)

xP M 2

. 5 e m i ssions are on the sam e order of m a gnitude as natural gas (see figure below) its higher levels of carbon dioxi de. Natural gas produces about 30 per cen t less

a r

b o n d i o x i d e p e r B t u when com p ared to AST M No. 2 or ultra low sulfur heating oil. l e n d i n g o f ultr a low su lf ur with bio d iese l in th e future is anticipated as a alternative fuel h o i c e a n d t h e r e s u l t i n g f u e l b l e n d w o u l d h a v e v e ry low PM 2.5 em ission s as well as low

e t c a r b o n d i o x i d e e m issions when the renewa ble nature of the fu el is taken into accounted. This report presents ca rbon dioxide data as it was m easured but the analysis of

e n e t c a r b o n d i o x i d e r e d u c t i o n b a s e d o n t h e u s e o f r e n e w a ble fuels is beyond the scope f t h e c u r r e n t project

h e q u e s t i o n o f h o w t o r e d u c e P M 2

. 5 e m issions in areas that currently do not m e et the ia f o r EPA attain m e nt is complex and is not part of the scope of this project. This

r o

j e c t d o e s h o w e v e r p r o v i d e i mportant data that should be useful to the overall decisiona king process with regard to residential he ating technology in Ne w York State as well

s t h e o t h e r N e w E n g l a n d a n d M i d

- A t l a n t i c S t a t es where a m a jority of hom e heatin g is

a s e d o n f u e l c o m b ustion technologies.

Comparison of average PM 2.5 emissi ons for five heating fuel options but still em

c B

c

n

t h

o

T criter
p

m

a b

Comparison of A v erage PM 2.5 for Fi ve Heat i n g Fu el Ty pes f o r Hy dr o n i c B o i l e r s and War m A i r Funa ces

0. 016 0.025 0.49 1. 32
0. 011 0.06 0.51 2. 1 25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Gas U LS LS A S TM N o . 2 W o o d PelletPM2.5mg/MJ Bo i l e r Furnace

N o te: W ood pel let s t ov es inc l ude d

xiEvaluation of Gas, Oil and Wood Pelle t Fueled Residential Heating System Emissions Characteristics

I. Introduction

A. Overview

This project provides an up-to-date evaluation of e m issions fro m residential gas; oil and

w o o d p e l l e t f i r e d h e a t i n g e q u i p m ent. This repor t contains an introduc tion to the topic and i s c u s s e s r e c e n t t r e n d s that im pact the subjec t m a tter. The n the p r oje c t plan is rev i ewed

d i f f e rent ways including factors based on concentratio n, weight an d energy co ntent.

The project has developed em issions prof iles for various equipm ent designs. T h ese include units considered to be of co nventiona l design as well as m o re modern designs. Modern designs can be characterized by low e m ission factors (for exam ple lower nitrogen oxides) and or high therm a l efficien cy. High efficiency generally correlates with the inclusion of a conde nsing heat exchanger that captures latent heat and thereby reduces the ene r gy d i scard e d with the exhau s t gases. This laten t en erg y is typ i ca lly lost as s t e a m vapor contained in th e s t ack gas e s. Different furnace and b o iler units that in corporated condensing technology were evaluated. These units are designed specifically for use with natural gas or heating oil. Efficiency leve ls range up to the 90-95% level for condensing models. Units designed for heating oil fuel were tested using norm a l ASTM No. 2 fuel oil, low su lf ur f u el with sulf ur content below 5 00 ppm
, ultr a low sulf ur

f

u el with s u lf ur below 15 pp m and biodiesel fuel, also considered as an ultra low sulfur content fuel. The gas-f i red units were teste d using gas delive r ed via pipelin e f r om the local utility on Long Island. During the course of the project the project sponsor (NYSERDA) funded an additional task to include m easuring the em issions from wood pellet stoves. Three different wood pellet stoves were tested. Thes e were all of currently m a rketed designs incorporating sidewall venting, variable fuel feed rat e s and forced room air circulation. The wood p e llet units were fired with a pr emium wood p e llet fuel, less than 1% ash content, pr im arily inten d ed f o r residentia l use. While the la rger portion of the partic ulate

em issions of the three w ood pellet stoves were categorized as fine pa rticulates (PM 2.5) these units did have m easurable am ount of particulates sized over 2.5 m i crons in diam eter.

T h e p r o i t y a n d

comm it m e nt by NYSERDA. Phase o n e of the pr oject sought to m easure em issions from a
repres enta tive sam p le of typical utility gas and oil-f i red, r e sidential he ating syste m s as found in hom es and s m all businesses in New York State. Oil-fired heating system s were tested with conventional heating oil (0.2% or 2, 000 pp m sulfur), low sulfur diesel fue l d and the m easurem ent techniques are discussed. The results of all testing are presented including data on the traditional gaseous stack e m issions including carbon m ono xide, calculated carbon dioxide based on oxygen concen t r a t i o n , n i t r o g e n o x i d e s a n d o x i d e s o f sulfur. Em issions are also reported f o r fine par ticulates (PM 2.5) and th ose of larger size (larger than 2.5 m i crons) using a dilution tunnel sam p ling m e thod. These particulate

em i s s i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n v a r i o u s

j e c t w a s o r i g i n a l l y s t ructured in two phases base d o n f u n d i n g a v a i l a b i l

1(500 ppm su lfur), and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (15 ppm s u l f u r )

. D u r i n g p h a s e o was a great deal of em e r g i n n e t h e r e g i n t e r e s t i n r e newable forest based fuels and before phase

n e w a s c o m p l e t e d a modification to the projec t added an additional task to investigate

m

wood pellet s t ov es. These were currently m a rketed as a prim ary heat source for u s e in sm aller open format hom es and also a su pplem ental heat source for
t i n g i n g e n e r a l

. P h a s e t w o o f the project sought to m easure em issions fro m

o r e a d v a n c e d h e a t i n g t e c h n o l o g i e s i n c l u d i ng low NOx burners and condensing heating

n o i l heating tech nology was som e what more

x p a n s i v e d u e to the nature of the fuel a nd the perceived possibilities f o r im provem e nt o the em i s s i o n s f r o

r e s i d e n t i a l h e a

m applian ces (boilers an d furnaces). Phase two also in cluded th e t e s t i n g o f b o t h conventional and advanced, oil-f i red, heat ing technologies wi t h l i q u i d b i o f u e l s (biodiesel).

The larg est portion of the effort was expended in generating th e fine particulate data set for the various equipm ent types m e ntioned ab ove. Originally the project was based on evaluating em issions from gas and oil fi red heating system s

. G i v e n e x i s t i n g E P A

em ission factors for g a s, oil and wood co mbustion ther e was the expecta tion that

em issions would be lowest for gas, sligh tly higher for oil and higher yet for wood

com bustion. The am o u n t o f e f f o r t p l a c e d o

e based on changing fuel characte ristics and equipm ent designs.

B. Report Organiz ation

The m a in report is s t ruc t ured into six secti ons including an introduction, a discussion of background m a terial prim arily related to the topic of oil and gas fired equipm ent, a review of the test plan as followed, a descri p tio n of the measurem ent techniques ap plied,
a presen tation of the project resu lts, a summ ary of findings and finally recomm endat i ons based upon the study.

2II. Background

A. Fuel Use Demographics and Current Fuel Specificatio n s

Utility gas a nd heating o il are wide ly used source s of energy providing sa f e , econom i cal and efficien t space h eating com f ort in approx im ately 100 m illion homes in th e United States. In N e w York State (NYS) the m a jority o f hom e s are heated with these fuels. Gas is used in 3, 292,188 housing units and this represents 47% of ho m e s in NYS. The largest concentration of oilheat use in the nation is found in NYS with 2,336,714 housing units identif i ed as using o i l as the m a in heating f u el (3 3% of all ho m e s in NYS). 1 The United
t a t e s D e p a r t m e nt of Energy’s Energy Info rm ation Agenc y (DOE/EIA) resea r ch on

e i r m a in heating fuel. The

s e o f w o o d pellets to heat living spaces is a growing industry but stil l it represents a very

n g h o m es, less than one percent o f hom e s in the USA. Pelle t t o v e s a n d p e l l e t f u e l u s e s t a r ted in the Pacific Northwest. The popularity of the stoves

s t ates with th e highes t an nual sa les. The East is now the number

one m a rket in the USA. The North Central and Rocky Mountains are nu m b er two, the Pacific Northwest is nu mber three and the Southeast is num b e r four. 4

In NYS approxim a tely 600,000 ho m e s use wood in so m e for m for prim ary or supplem ental space heating. 1 There is no app a rent statis tical inform ation on the num ber of ho m e s currently using wood pellets in NYS. The use of w ood pellets is fairly popular in the North east and New England states. It is expected th at a s i gnificant percentage of the national population of wood pellet units are likely located in NYS. W ith traditional heating fuel energy prices recently in creas ing dram atically, th ere has been a growth spurt in pellet-fueled unit sales. This is also coupl ed with a grow ing environm ental interest in wood sourced fuels as a renewable fuel option in som e ho m e o w ner’s opinions.

B. Fuel Cha r acteristics

The Am erican Society of Testing and Materi als (ASTM) m a intain nationally recognized standard s for specifications defining liquid fuels when used in the United States. Th ese include those for No. 1 (kerosene) and No. 2 (heating oil) fuel o ils tha t are u s ed in most

sm all resid e ntia l and commercial sized f u e l oil bu rnin g equipm ent. In add i tion to specifying physical properties such as dens ity, viscosity and heating value the ASTM S housing characteristics indicat es that the average gas he ated hom e uses 112,300 cubic feet of gas and averag e oil heated hom e consum es 873 ga llons of fuel each y ear. 2 Applying these average uses to N Y S produces an estim a ted fuel use of 369.7 b illion cubic feet of utility gas and over 2.04 billion gallons of oil each year.

According to the Pellet Fuel Institute (PFI), wood pellets as a residential heating fuel are currently consum ed in approxim a tely 800,000 ho m e s nation wide. 3 A g r eat deal of these ho m e s use wood pellets as a supplem ental heat i n g s o u r c e n o t t h

u

sm all f r a c t i o n o f a l l e x i s t i

s was such that the second initial m a rket was in the Northeast. Initially the fuel was transpo r ted f r om the west to the eas t coast. As th e num b er of stoves inc r e a sed in the e a st, local production of pellet fuel began in the east. Then the m a rket expanded to m o st other parts of the country. D u ring the last five ye ars there has been strong growth in the N o r t h e a s t a n d E a s t e r n

3specifies th e m a xi m u m sulfur con t ent of th e f u els. Sulf ur content direc tly impacts

m issions of sulfur oxides and particulates. Th e vast bulk of this m i ddle distillate heating h e A S T M s p e c i f i c a t i o n s

e g a r d i n g s u l f u r l i m its fo r both No. 1 and No. 2 fuels state that they m u st contain no more

e l s w e r e g e n e r a l l y

u n g i b l e a n d w e r e c o n s i d e r e d t h e s a m e product st ored in the sam e tank at fuel term inals.

o n t h e a s h c o n t e n t f t h e f u e l

. P r e m ium pellets used largely for res i dential equipm ent are s p ecified as h a ving

o r R e s e a r c h i n E m i s s i ons fr om Residen t ial Heat ing Systems

u m e rous em ission studies have been conduc ted on oil, gas and wood pellet com bustion e fuel is No. 2 or m o re co mm only referred to as heating oil. T

r than 0.5% (5,000 pp m ) sulfur by weight. Base d upon a yearly survey of US oil refineries the typical sulfur level f o r No. 2 heating fuel over the last decade has been approxim a tely 2,000 ppm . This is well below the lim it establis hed in the ASTM specification. There are also two relatively new specifications, added in June of 2002, that define new low sulfur fuel types, No. 1 Low Sulfur and No. 2 Low Sulfur, which contain no m o re than 0.05% or 500 ppm sulfur by weight. In addition diesel f u el is also a m i ddle distillate fuel and can be considered as an acceptab l e heating oil fu el, if not for regulati ons segregating it by sulf ur con t e n t and colo r (diesel is u n -dyed) for taxation purposes. Di esel al so has cer t ai n specif i ca tion s tha t f u el o il doe s not c u rrently need to m eet, sulfur content below 15 pp m being one of the m o st r e levant to the current project. Dies el m eets f u el oil spec if ica tion but fuel oil does not m e et the dies el specifi c a t i o n

. E a r l y o n , t h e s e f u f As em issio n s from the transpo r tation sect o r b ecam e a major con c e r n t h e t w o w e r e basically separated based on sulfur content. Diesel first had a lim it of 500-ppm sulfur and

more recen tly that was reduced to th e cu rren t ultra low level of 15 ppm

. Utility or “Natural” gas is p r im arily m e thane and can con t ain m i nor am ounts of other

com bustible hydrocarbon based gases. There is a very sm all am ount of sulfur in natural gas and a large portion of this is from the sulfur containing odorants, compounds added to the gas to en able leak detection by its users. The com b ined sulf ur conten t of utility gas is not openly reported in non-propriety docu m en ts and varies depending on geographic location of the source and degree to which it is rem oved. It is on the order of 10-ppm b y weight based on the analysis of the gas deli vered by the local utility on Long Island, NY.

Wood pellets are classified as prem iu m , standa r d o r u t i l i t y g r a d e b a s e d

o less than 1 % ash. Stan dard g r ade pellets can have up to 2% ash by weight and utility grade less than 6% ash. The exact chem ical composition and physical properties of fuel pellets are b a sed upon the raw m a terial and v a ry from place to p l ace d e pending on what types of tree the wood com e s from. There are specifications for minim u m den s ity, physical dim e nsions; m a xi m u m c h loride conten t, which lim its the potential for stove

corros i on an d ash, content that facto r into the cleaning and m a intenance f r equency for the user. Generally the heating value aver ages 8,000 –9,000 Btu per pound (dry basis). 3, 4

C

. P r i

N system s. Very few of these stud ies have atte m p ted to m easure fine particulate (PM 2.5)

em issions using a dilution tunnel based m e thodology on sm a l l r e s i d e n t i a l h e a t i n g appliances. Individually thes e residential em ission sources are not large enough to be of concern, bu t as a dispers e source they are cons id ered to b e a significan t concern. The last

com p rehensive em issions study on residentia l oil heating equipm ent wa s conducted at

4Brookhaven National Laboratory (B NL) in 1990. It answered a lot of questions and som e of

that da ta was im portant in documenting the advances of equipm ent design at that tim e

. This reduction in em issions resulted fro m m a ny years of design im provem e nts since the first oil appliance em issions study conducted by Battelle Laboratory –C olum bus, OH in 1970. W h ile both studies included particulate em issions neither dealt specifically with

m easuring fine particulates (PM 2.5). 5, 6, 6

Currently th e m o st im portan t area of concern is the em ission of fine particulate (PM 2.5) due to health concerns as well as their con t rib u tion to atm o spheric haze. There is also

concern ov er how to m easure it accu rately a nd th e m eaning of those m easurem ents when

com p ared to altern ativ e techniqu es. When using fuel oil, the for m ation of sulfur oxides, sulfates and sulfides are the area of larges t concern. These are obviously linked to the sulf ur conte n t of the f u el. Likewise the pa rt iculate em issions from residential gas fired heating system s had not been a m a jor area of concern based on the low e m ission factors trad ition a lly associa t ed with gas co mbustion.

The potential for PM 2. 5 reduction with heating oil had also been docum ented to so m e extent by the CANMET Energy Technology Center in Canada in an experim e nt where the em ission rate for a range of varying sulfur content fuels from 6,000 d o wn to 500 pp m

a s d e t e r m ined in a sin g le boiler s y stem of the type used in single

- f a m ily reside ntia l

o u r a n d 1

- h o u r s t a n d a rds. Standard s are s e t to protect the health of th e m o st sensitive

.

a r d t o t h e c u r r e n t

m

bient air quality concerning th e N o rtheast. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is in atta inm e nt; this w buildings. T h e results in dicated a basically li near relationship between sulfur content and fine particulates m easured as PM 2. 5. 7

D. Fine Particula t e Emissions and Related Air Quality Co ncerns

The U.S. EPA regulates six air pollutants SO 2 , NO x , O 2 , CO, Pb and particulate. EPA has estab lis hed Nationa l Am bient Air Quality Standards including an nual, 24-ho ur, 8- h hu m a ns. EPA set up a monitori ng network to m easure ambi ent air qu ality. EPA also developed an inventory of e m issions. 8

Initially EPA regulated total suspended pa r t i c u l a t e ( T S P )

. L a t e r P M 1 0
, w h i c h a r e particles sm aller th an 10 m i crons an d recen tly PM 2.5, particulates less than 2.5 m i crons in size were regulated. These fine particulates can be easily trapped in the lungs during

norm a l respiration. The curren t stan dards for PM 2.5, described in m i crogram s per cubic

m e ter of air (ug/m 3) are 65 ug/m 3 – 24-Hour and 15 ug/m 3

– a n n u a l a v e r a g e

. A r eas where concentrations are below the standard s are referred to as non-attainm e n t a r e a s 9

The results f r om local EPA monitoring sta tio ns are m i x e d w i t h r e g

a can affect the issue of aci d rain and secondary partic ulate form a t i o n i n t h e u p p e r atm o sphere. W ith regard to particulate em issions; PM 2.5 – 24 Ho u r

– i s a l s o i n attainm e nt, with PM 2.5 – Annual non attain ment areas include DC, WV, DE PA, NJ, Bronx, NY City & New Haven, CT.

5States with non-attainm e nt ar eas are being required to prepare State Im ple m entation Plans (SIPs) so as to reg a in and/o r mainta in attain m e nt for all regulated em issions. In the Northeast th ere has been considerable effort to d eal with th is problem on a reg i onal b a sis for several reasons. There is a g r eat deal of con cern th at th e differe nt states would have different regulations. An exam ple would be, if the sulfur content lim it imposed on fuel oi l

v a r i e s f o r m s t a t e t o s t a t e , t h i s w o u l d i n c r e a s e c o s t f o r e v e r y o n e

. I t w o u l d u n d u l y

o m p licate the bulk d e livery, sto r age and di sp ensing of the fuel. Lik e -wise the legal

e E a s t e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s , s u lfates are a very portant p a rt of the total am bient p a rticula t es. There has b een consid erable debate over

h e r e g i o n a l P M 2

. 5 picture. A national plan to

m it air qua lity con cern s with m obile sources is well in pla c e f o r vehicle s that use d i esel

r om num e rous

o u r c e s i n c l u d i n g i n p a r t , t h e combustion of ho m e heating o il. This is of particula r

n s e c t o r

. EPA had no PM 2.5 data for residential

e a t i n g s y s t e m s in its em ission inventory until very recently.

n d i t r a t e f o r m e d i n t h e a t m o s p h e r e f r o m gaseous e m issions of sulfur di oxide (SO 2 ) and

t o h a v e , if one were to try to in terp r e t the inv e ntory f d i r e c t l y e m itted PM 2.5 without the benef it of m odeling or chem ically characterized air sam p les. Studies related to coal fired power plants have attributed 40 percent or more c requirem e nts for wood burning appliances m i ght im pose m a rket lim itations if one state does not m a tch the next with regard to allowable applian ce e m ission lim its.

There is general agreem ent that ambient fine particulates (PM 2.5) do have significant potential he alth im pacts and these a r e curren tly b e ing addre s s e d with rega rd to air qua lity. These fine particulates include o r ganic and elem ental carb o n for m ed from combustion sources, acid aerosols that are produced as co m bustion products cool and m i x with

am bient air, road dust, and other sources. In t h i m the past decade about w h at size particulates should be regulated and what consideration should be given to com p osition vers us sim p ly to tal m a ss in regulations. The total m a ss of particulates under 2.5 microns is now the fo cus. Environm e n tal regulators are currently working to put in place program s to m eet th e EPA am bient air stand a rds for PM 2.5. In the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions the com bustion of distillate o il in stationary and mobile sources is a very im porta n t p a r t o f t l i f u el as discu ssed ear lie r. Am bient PM 2.5 inclu d es sulf ates and is em itted f

s interest in N e w York State where over 2, 300,000 households use oilheat as the primary heating fuel. The EPA has reported the m a jor types of PM 2.5 as being carbon, sulfates, ammonia and nitrate in descending order based on data fro m regional m onitoring stations. Th e m a jor sources acco rdin g to EPA ar e from all types of oil co mbustion, large industrial processes and the tr a n s p o r t a t i o h

The issue of co m bustion related P M 2.5 is complex and it results from ground level prim ary em i ssions of PM 2.5 and also seconda ry PM 2.5 that results fro m atm o sph e ric chem ical reactions of gaseous pollutants. A s i g n if icant po rtion of the P M 2.5 is lik ely generated fro m ground sources as it form s ra ther rapidly once the com bustion products hit the am bient a i r. The princ i pal ty pes of secon d ary particles are amm o nium s u l f a t e a

n oxides of nitrogen (NOx), reacting with a mmonia (NH3). The m a in sources of SO 2 are the com bustion of fossil fuels in boilers and the m a in sources of NOx are com bustion of f o ssil f u el in boiler s an d m obile sources. Secondary particles co m p rise approxim a tely 50% of PM 2.5 am bient concentrations th roughout the East and m a ny western urban areas. Thus, direct em issions have only about one half the im p a c t o n P M 2

. 5

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s t h a t t h e y w o u l d a p p e a r

o

6of the PM 2.5 from this type of upper at m o sph e re reaction causing secondary PM 2.5. Prim arily this is reported as a sulfate relate d problem although so m e research papers have suggested th at m e rely lim iting sulfur in the foss il fuel m a y not reso lve the PM 2.5 issue. This is because in the absence of SO 2 , addition a l NOx in the atm o sphere would likely react with th e ammonium in its place and just d i splace on e form of PM 2.5 with ano t her. One point to underline is that the PM 2.5 concern is not a sim p le problem to analyze and another im p o rtant point is th a t solv ing one pote n tia l pollu ta nt pathway m a y create a new pathway to open up.

E

. C o n s i d e r a t i o n s R e l a t e d t o P e n d i n g C h a n g e s i n D i e s e l F u el Specifications

) to 50 0 pp m

. The plans

a l l f o r a p h a s e d t r a n s i t i o n t h r o u g h t h e y e a r 2 0 1 0 w h e n a l l d i e s e l f u e l

, o n

- r o a d a n d o f f

There has been past interest on the part of the NYS legislature and the Departm e nt of Environm en tal Conservation concerning the possible beneficial im pacts of fu r t h e r reducing the sulfur content of heating fuel dow n to ultra

- low levels (ULS) of less than 15
ppm

. This interes t was and is asso ciated w ith recent chang e s th at h a ve occurred in the other part of the light distilla te fuel m a rket. Diesel fuels (No. 1 D and No. 2D) and heating fuels (No. 1 and No. 2 ) are bo th con s idered m i ddle distillates and in fact for m a ny years were basically the sam e fuel with m i nor differences usually accomm odat e d by the use of fuel perform a nce additives in diesel fuel on ly when required. An example would be an additive to boost the cetane level to m eet di esel specifications. The differ e nce between a No. 1 and No. 2 fuel, be it with heating oil or diesel fuel, is in general defined by the viscosity lim its. Earlier transpo r ta tion sector p r ogram s had in sever a l metropo litan c ities already demonstrated on a sm all scale the clean air benefits of usi ng ULS (No. 1) diesel in localized application s . The m o st recent activity in the NYS legislature has been to propose legislation th at will m a ndate the use of ULS as heating fuel in New York State’s non-attainm e nt areas starting in 2011. 10

The reason f

o r this n a tional shif t to the new u l tra-low su lf ur f u el is re la ted to im proved air qua lity. I n a nationa l ef f o rt to enhance am bient air qua lity, the US EPA m a ndated that diesel fuels for highway vehicles shift to 15-pp m sulfur s t arting in 2006, followed in 2007 by off road diesel fuel shifting fro m 5,000 pp m ( m aximu m

c road, m u st be Ultra Low Sulf ur (ULS) with a maxim u m of 15-ppm sulfur by weight. The shif t towar d s the ULS f u el has allowed vehicle m a nuf acturer s to utilize ca taly tic converter technologies for diesel engines to reduce tailpipe em issions. The use of these catalytic co nverters was not poss i b l e with h i gh er fuel sulfu r concen trations becau s e the sulf ur would poison th e c a taly tic m a teria l s r e ndering them useless. The use of ULS diesel allows for reductions in both NOx a nd fine particulates, PM 2.5.

F. MANE- VU

The Mid-Atlantic/Nor th east Visib i lity Union (MANE-VU) has been form ed to de velop an approach to im prove air in the r e gion. This organiz a tion is reac ting to the Federa l Clean Air Act and Regional Haze rule that requires that the various states with nonattainm e nt areas within their bo rders create State Im ple m entation Plans (SIP s) to address reasonab l e p r ogress in correcting th e curren t le vel of air quality. In the prim ary regions

7where oilheat is the most popular, the indivi dual states have join ed this group to for m ulate a joint regional plan. This plan includes Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) f o r large sou r c e em itters; lim iting sulf ur in dis t illa te and re sid u al f u el oils used in the region and includes a 90% reduction in sulfur dioxi de em issions fro m 167 electric
genera ting u n it stacks. This plan also calls for a continued evaluation of other control

m easures. The goal is to reduce th e particu l ate levels in the air that contribute to the for m ation of haze and reduce visib i lity. There is a general co nsensus that m o st pollutants that affect v i s i b i l i t y a l s o c ontribute to unhealthy concentrati ons of fine particulates and

z o n e

. 11

h e s t a t e s o f M a i n e , N e w H a mpshire, Verm ont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,

l l a t e f u e l o i l

. T h e latest plan being proposed

o u l d c a l l f o r lim iting s u lf ur in hea t ing oil in tw o stages. The first would be to transition

o reduce air pollutants

e s u l t i n g f o rm the transporta tion s ector it ha s already b e en virtu a lly elim inated from

e l s

. T h e m o st recen t change is the 2006 shift to ultra-lo w sulfur conten t i e s e l a t l e s s t h a n 1 5

- p p m

. o

T Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvani a, Delaware, Maryland, the District of Colu m b ia along with the Penobscot Indian Nation and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

com p rise the voting m e mbers of M ANE-VU. It was for m ed to encourage a coordinated approach to m eeting the requirem e nts of EPA' s regional haze rules a nd reducing visibility im pair m e nt in m ajor national parks and wilderness areas in the Northeast and MidAtlantic region. MANE-VU provides techni cal assessm ents and assistance to i t s

m e mbers, evaluates linkages to other regiona l air po llu tion issue s , pro v ides a f

o ru m f

o r discussion, and encourages coordinated acti ons. MANE-VU also facilitates coordination with other regions.

BNL has presented prelim inary data from this project at various venues docum enting the chang e s in fine particulates (PM 2.5) as a function of the variation of sulfur content in different fuel oils tested. Representatives from MANE-VU have participated at these

m eetings. MANE-VU is currently having o ngoing discussions with key stakeholders regarding lim iting sulfu r conten t i n d i s t i

w to less than 500-ppm in New York, New Jersey

, Pennsylvania and Delaware starting in 2012 (this m a y possibly be delayed until 2014 ) with the other states following by 2014. The second stage would be to lim it sulfur c ontent to less than 15-ppm in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware by 2016 and in the other states by 2018. 12

G. Importa n ce of Sulfu r Content in Petroleu m Heating Fuels

Sulfur is an elem ent and in m a ny instances an essential com ponent of all living cells, it’s also an o l d traditional medicin e and it’s also used in num erous comm ercial app l ications and industries. However, generally speaki ng sulfur is a problem for the petroleu m industry. It has been an issue for gasoline a s w e l l a s d i e s e l

. T

r transpo r tatio n f u d

When burned, sulfur form s seve ral oxides, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) being the predom inant one, but also sulfites (S O 3 ) and sulf ates (SO 4 ). None of these ar e good for the oilheat industry. Sulfur dioxide in the flue products contributes to seconda ry fine particulate for m ation in the upper atmosphere by m eans of photochem i stry driven by sunlight. S u lfur

8dioxide is also one of th e air em issions that alte rnate hea tin g f u els supplie rs like to point out when making com p arisons to their own produc t that generally have very low levels of sulfur dioxide em issions. Sulf ites and sulfates also cont ribute to the prim a r y f i n e particulate (PM 2.5) produced by oilheating sy stem s accounting for the largest portion of the particu l ates m easured.

Sulf ates f o rm sulf uric acid aeroso l s that reac t with the iro n in the m e tal walls of heat exchangers to for m iron-sulfates. Mo re than half of the fouling deposits rem oved fro m a

w e l l t u n e d o i l

- f i r e d h e a t i n g s y s t e m c onsists of iron sulfates and these non-carbon related

e p o s i t s a r e t h e m o st difficult to remove due to their ten a city, b i ndin g with the m e tal

s r e s u lting f r om a cle a ner he at exch anger are also ass o ciated with the

e d u c t i o n i n f o u l i n g d e p o s i t s

. 13

e p o t e n tia l

e d u c t i o n i n s u l f u r o x i d e e m issions by using low sulfur fuel oil in N e w York St ate is

e p o t e n t i a l r e d u c t i o n o f

u l f u r o x i d e e m issions fo r the US is 140,000 tons a year.

i c e s

. A s with m o st energy typ e s these p r ices are un regulated

n d a r e d e t e r m ined by the laws of supply an d dem a nd. Th ey represent a freely traded d walls.

A prior NYSERDA m a rket de monstration proj ect involving low sulfur fuel oil has proven the nu m e rous benefits for the consum e r and the oilheat m a rketer with abso lutely no detrim ental effects over a three-year trial of the low sulfur (500-ppm ) fuel in over a thousand hom e s located in Albany, NY. The prim ary benefi ts of using d i s t i l l a t e f u e l o i l with redu ced sulfur con t ent are: an80% reduction in sulfur oxide em issions and lo wer service costs for ho m e o w ners by reducing the ra te of fouling deposits on heat exchange surfaces in boilers and furnaces. A sm all incr ease in system efficiency (1-2% per year) and f u el cos t sav i n g

r

The immediate benefit of using 50 0-ppm sulfu r fuel in place of nor m a l heating oil in New York State and the US would b e a substan tial decrease in sulfur oxide em issions by reducing f u e l sulf ur f r om 0.20% to 0.05%. The em ission rate per m illio n Btu of f

u el oil that is burned decreases fro m 0.20 to 0.05 pounds of SO 2 based on research by BNL and the Energy Research Center Inc. (Easton, CT) using US EPA e m issions factors. The benefit to New York can be estim a ted based on the US Census d a ta from 20 00 and
average f u el consum ption f i gures re sulting in a n estim a ted f u el oil us e of 2.3 billion gallons a year. This is equi valent to 322 trillion Btu of oil a year at 140,000 Btu per gallon. By applying the em ission rates for nor mal and low sulf ur f u e l o i l

, t h

r 67,620,000 pounds or 33,800 tons of sulfur oxi de per year. T h

s

H. Middle Distillate Fuel Cost and Product Supply Conc erns

Fuel costs are an issue of concern as is the question of supply sources and logistics. This is an even more sensitive area of concern for heating fuels because d u ring the w i nter heating season the supply pressures during peri o d s of very cold tem p eratures can cause dram atic increases i n f u e l p r

a commodity where the price can change fro m d a y to day or even hour to hour. When
tem p erature s d r o p a n d d e m a nd increases m a ny addition a l bu yers ente r th e m a rket. M a ny repres ent interruptible ra te na tura l ga s users th a t switch to an alterna tive f u el, hea ting oil, as required under their contracts with the gas utilities that provide lower prices for gas in

9exchange fo r th e ab ility to d r op gas delivery to these cust om ers during periods of high dem a nd. As a result m o re buyers enter the heat ing oil m a rk et and drive the prices up as the inventory drops. These extrem e p e riods of cold weather can also cause fuel deliveries to the term inals m o re dif f icult or im possible du e to harbors and rivers freezing over.

A t t h e 1 5

- p p m s u l f u r l e v e l t h a t E P A h a s m a nda ted for diesel fuel starting in 2006 the c o st

f 9 0 0

- g a l l o n s , w h ich is very typical in NYS . As a point of reference the c u rrent

n t a x e d c o s t d i f f e r e n t i a l b e t w e e n l o w s u l f u r No. 2 (500-ppm S) fuel and standard heating

n e r g y ’ s Energy Infor m ation Agency (DOE/EIA-032(93) P e l l e t F u e l I n s t i t u t e ( P F I), http://www.pelletheat.org/ 3/residential/index.htm l differential has been estim a ted to be as low as five cents b a sed on EPA estim ates or as high as fifteen cents based on API estim ates on a per gallon basis. If this were to be applied to heating fuels, this translates to a range of $45 to $135 per household per year to be able to go down to the 15-pp m sulfur level. This range assumes an annual fuel

u s a g e o

u fuel oil (2000 ppm typical) has ranged from less than two to about four cents per gallon or less than $18 to $36 projected per year for the sam e typ i cal NYS h o m e. The a c tual reported cost differential for ULS di esel fu el during the first two years has ranged fro m approxim a tely 15 to 25 cents per gallon.

References, Section II 1 Patterns and Trends, New York State En ergy Profiles: 1993-2007, New York State Energy Research and Developm ent Authority, January 2009 2 U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f E 3 4 Personal communication with Dan Henry, Vice President of Advanc ed Technology Hearth & H o m e Technologies and Mem b er of PFI 5 Em issions Characteristics of Modern Oil Heat ing Equipment, R. Krajewski, Y. Celebi, R. Coughlan, T. Butcher and R.J. McDona ld, Brookhaven National Laboratory, July 1990, BNL- 52249 6 Investigation of Particulate Em issions fro m Residen tia l Oil Fired Res i dential Hea ting Units, R. E. Barrett, D. W

. Locklin and S. E. Mille r (Battelle Columbus Laboratory) EPA-650/2-74-026, March 1974 7 Assessing PM 2.5 Emissions from Distilla te F u el Oil Hea t ing, S. W i n Lee (CANMET Energy Technology Center-Ottawa), Paper No . 02-13, Proceedings of the 2002 National Oilheat Research Alliance Technolo gy Sy m posiu m , BNL-52670, August 2002 8 http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/cleanup.htm l 9 http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/
t a l c o n s ervation law, i n

l a t i o n t o r e q u i r i n g a reduction in sulfur for all heating oil used in non-attainm e nt areas, 10 Asse m b ly Bill: A6896, Title: An act to am end the enviro nm e n

r e http://as s e mbly .s tate.ny

. us /
11 ht t p : / / www. mane vu. o r g / Mid-Atlantic, Northeast Visibility Union 12 MANE-VU Statem e n t on Controls In MANE-VU June 20, 2007 13 NYSERDA Lo w Su lfur Ho m e Heating Oil De m onstration Project, John E. Batey an d Roger J. McDonald, BNL-7456-2005-IR, June 2005

10III. Test Plan

Phase one of the project sought to m easure e m issions from a representative sam p le o f typical natural gas and oil-fire d, residential heating system s as found in ho m e s and sm all

u s i n e s s e s i n N e w Y o r k S t a t e

. O i l

- f i r e d h eating system s were tested with conventional

( w a t e r )

.

c l u d e d i n t h e P r o j e c t

d b u r ner and various fuels

n itio n

p o w e r b u r n e r , s p a r k i g n i t i o n

b o i l e r , e q u i p p e d w i t h b l ue f l am e retention head burner and fuel oil

u r n e r , open bu rner grate, m a nual gel ignition

a n d a d j u s t e d f o r p r o p e r c o m bustion air i g n to vary t h e ai r-fuel ratio and or draft

f f t o very slightly increas ed co mbustion air per adjustm e nt

2 t h e c o mbustion products, which was used to determ ine carbon dioxide levels by in strum e nt ca lcula tio n based on the fuel chem ical composition. Sm oke levels were m easured using ASTM Method D-2156 for distillate fuels. Early evalua tion tests using oil and gas fi red system s were conducted and b heating oil (at 0.2% or 2,000-ppm su lfur), low sulfur diesel fuel (at 500-pp m sulfur), and ultra-low su lfur diesel fu el (at 15 ppm sulfur). During phase one there was a great deal of

em erging interest in renewable forest based fuels and before phase one was com p leted a modification to the p r oject a dded a n additiona l task to inv e stig ate the em issions f r om wood pellet stoves that were currently being m a rketed as a supplem ental heat source for residential heating. Phase two of the proj ect sought to m easure em issions from more advanced heating technologies including lo w NOx burners, gas and oil fired condensing boilers and furnaces. Phase two also incl uded the testin g of both c onventional and advanced, oil-fired, heating t echno lo gies with liq ui d biofuels (biodiesel). One reason for this was to see if a condensing heat exchange r could help elim inate e m issions due to the scrubbing of em i s s i o n s i n t o t h e c o n d e n s a t e

A

. L i s t o f E q u i p m e n t I n

1. Oil-fired cast iron boiler, equipped with flam e r e t e n t i o n h e a 2. Oil-fired warm air furnace, with flam e retentio n head burn e r and vario u s fuels 3. Gas-f i red sectional c a s t iron bo ile r, atm o spheric burner and elec tronic s p a r k i g 4. Gas-fired warm air furnace, in -shot induced draft burner an d electronic spark ign i tio n 5. Gas-fired condensing alum inu m b o iler, prem i x e d 6. Oil-fired condensing steel boiler, with flam e retention head burner, with various fuels 7. Oil-fired condensing warm air furnace, fl am e reten tion head burner an d various fu els 8

. O i l

- f i r e d c a s t i r o n 9. W ood pellet stove, over feed burner, ope n burner grate, electric ignition 10. W ood p e llet stove, over feed burner, closed self-cleaning bur n grate, electric ignition 11. W ood pellet stov e, s i d e f e e d b

B. Test Plan

E a c h u n i t w a s e v a l u a t e d f o r c o r r e c t o p e r a t i o n

w i t h i n t h e lim its of the equipm ent’s de s conditions. Gas supply pressures were ch ecked to conf orm to the m a nu f a c t u r e r s requirem e nts. Oil-fired system s were adjusted to operate by first finding the trace smoke
p o i n t a n d t h e n b a c k i n g o standards used by the oil heat industry.

Measurem ents of combustion em issions we re perform e d for each h eating a p p l i a n c e tested. These included gaseous em issions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO ), carbon m o n o x i d e a s w e l l a s o x y g e n c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n

11i n d i c a t e d o n l y s m all differences between op eration und er steady s t ate and cy clic

o n d i t i o n s

. S o m e of these early tests indicat ed a slightly higher level of particulates c would be measured under steady state conditions in com p arison to cyclic tests. In other cases th is trend reversed . Under eith er operating test condition, cyclic or steady state, the results were very close. Te sting under cyclic conditions was quite po s s ible when the

em ission factor was high enough to allow for te sts in a tim e ly m a nner. Th is was not the case with th e units w ith very low e m ission factors and this coul d have required many weeks for each tes t (m eaning a sing le run) to accum u late a sufficient sample size to be weighted accurately. The project schedule woul d not allow f o r this. As a result and with the concurrence of the NYSER DA project m a nager all subse quent tests were run under steady state conditions.

12IV. Measurement Tech nique

The basic flue gas em issions data was obtaine d using an elecronic analy zer with electrochem ical cells capable of m easuring oxygen, CO, NO, NO 2 a nd SO 2 as well as m easuring stack gas temperature and determ ining steady state efficiency. The acceptance of portable electrochem i cal-based analyzers by state and fe deral environ m ental agencies has grown significan tly over the past decade. Num e rous third party o r ganization s have tested and evaluated the techno lo gy and found that n o t only do es it satisfy the accu racy requirem e nts of many c o m p liance-testing progra m s , but also it offers a m o re affordable and better tim e m a naged solution. C oupled with great cross utilization capability that can identif y im provem e n t s i n t h e c o m b ustion, p r ocess and product qual ity , these an alyzers

m a ke a valu able asset to m a ny types of co m bustion research. The specific analyzer used in this pro j e c t was a Testo Model 35 0 equipped with low range CO and NOx capabilities. This specific device was evaluated, tested and its perform a nce verified under the US EPA’s Environm ental Technology Verifica tion Program (ETV) by the Advanced Monitoring System s (AMS) Center, one of six technology areas under E T V and operated by Battelle (Colum bu s, OH) in cooperatio n with the EPA’s National Exposure Laboratory.

Fine particulate m easurem ents wer e conducted by a series of tests to determ ine the gravim etric am ounts o f particulates below 2.5 m i crons (PM 2.5). This m easurement technique is based on US EPA Conditiona l Tes t s Method ( C TM) 39 for Measurements of PM2.5 and PM10 Emissions by Dilution Tu nnel Sampling (Constant Sampling Rate Procedures) . This m e thod was developed for larger em issions sources like oil or gasf i red power generation utilities or m a nuf acturing plan ts. These units have s t ack dim e nsions sized in several feet not a few in ches as in our application. The m e thod was modified to accomm odat e the tighter geom etry found with residen tial heating app liance vents. The prim ary m odi fication included not us ing the p a rticle s i zing cyclones ex cept for the wood pellet stove evaluations . T h ese cyclones are normally used inside the stack and are intended to f unction at the stack tem p erat ure. A review of the liter a tu re on em issions fro m gas and m i ddle distillate oil-fired a ppliances re sulted in sev e ral referen c es indica ting th at the pa rticle sizes wer e well below 2.5 m i cron, and act ually below 1 m i cron in size. Th is allowed us to r e view th e situation w ith our project m a nager and the decision was to forgo the use of the cyclones for No. 2 heating oil fuel and gas-fired appliances. This dec i sio n was not a pplicab le to the investig ation of wood pellet sto v es. In th is case a single cy clo n e was em ployed that captured particles larg er than 2.5 m i crons. Due to the
extrem ely sm all diam et er flues (4-inch) us ed with wood pellet st oves the procedure was again m o dified and the cyclone was installed ou tside the f l u e and e quipped with a high
tem p erature heater tape and autom a tic con t ro lle r to m a inta in the tem p era t ure at the s a me level as the internal stack tem p erature.

At the test c onditions es tablis hed, a series of three m easurem ents were m a de. The three

sam p les we re obtained at the sam e operati ng conditions and provided data evaluation based on the standard deviation for statistical reasons. If the standard deviation was quite high due to one m easurem ent that test was repe ated to se e if m o re consisten t da ta was obtainable.

13F u e l o i l s a mples were sent to r e liable comm ercia l tes ting labora t orie s f o r analys is of

a s p o s s i b l e

. W h en evaluati ng the wood pellet stoves the sam p le flue gas

a s s e s t h rou gh a cyclon e, with a cu t-off sized for 2.5 m i crons, which is heated to and

e i g h e d u s i n g t h e a n a l ytical balance to determ in e

e a m ount of particu l ate m a terial recovered. A sim ilar tech nique using an acetone wash density, heating values and chem ical cons tituents including hydrogen, c a r b o n , s u l f u r , nitrogen, ash and oxygen by weight. Likewise a sam p le of the wood pellets was sent to a laboratory with a strong reputation for solid fu el analys is. In the case of the utility gas inform ation regarding the analysis of the gas was supplied by the local gas utility. This inform ation coupled with calculations for fl ue gas volum etric flows inclusive of excess air determ inations allowed for calculations of the total volume of flue product at a given firing ra te d u ring ea ch run. Test rep o rt ex am ples are provided in the Appendix .

The sm oke m easure m en t was obtained using a “Bacharach ” sm oke tester des i gned to confor m to ASTM D12 56-94 (1999), Standard Test Method for Sm ok e Density in Flue Gases from Burning D i stillate Fu els. The “B acharach” s m oke tester is a m a n u a l l y operated smoke pum p us ed to set up the air fuel ratio.

The PM2.5 m easurem ent sys t em ’s schem a tic is shown in Figure 1. The stack g a s is

sam p led through a nozzle of know dim e nsions lo cated in th e stack at co nditions as close
t o i s o k i n e t i c p contro lled at the s t ack temperature. The probe a nd the sam p le f l ow m e ter ventu r i, w h ich is used to measure the s a m p le flow rate, are also kept heated. The sam p led gas is cooled and dilu ted to near am bient co nditions by m i xing, at the m i xi ng cone, with HEPA filtered

am bient cool dry air at about 65-70 0 F as shown. The com b ined gas stream has sufficient tim e in the residence cham ber fo r p a rticulates to for m and/ o r c o n d e n s e b e f o r e t h e y a r e trapped by the 142-mm filter. A computer is used to control tem p eratures, to m a intain f l ow rates a s particula t e builds up on the f ilte r a n d to colle ct the exper i m e ntal data. The

norm a l f ilter is de sicc ate d and weigh e d to the ne arest 1/10 milligram using an ana l ytica l balance (Mettler Toeldo AG104) before and af ter sam p ling to determ ine the m a ss of PM 2.5 particulates collected. The stack conditi ons (oxygen concentration) and the sam p ling f l ow rates c a n be used to rela te th is to st ack concentration and hen ce to the fuel burning
rates. Two types of f

ilte rs ar e used. The gr avim etric sam p les are co lle cted on borosilic ate glass m i crofiber filters with woven glass cl oth bonded with PTFE (Tefl on). This is done in tr iplica te f o r reasonab l e st atistics. The protoco l followe d (CTM-39) for setting up and operating th e sam p ling system is more com p lex than suggested in th is outline of the procedure. The com p lete m e thod can be downloaded fro m the US EPA’s website. 1

The com p ac t size of the dilu tion tunnel sam p ler used in th is project provides for the ability to w a sh down with ace ton e and sub s equent particulate residue recovery. The acetone rins e and residu e is collected in pre-weighted alum inum tins. Then the acetone is evaporated in a hood and the re s i d u e i s w t h was used to recover the sam p le from the sizing cyclone when used in the testing o f the three wood pellet stoves. Several other resear ch organizations have conducted dilution tunnel sam p ling using v e ry large ap paratus th at preclude an accurate recovery of this residue.

14Figure 1. Schematic of the PM 2.5 Measurement

Concurrent with the beginning of this work, BNL hosted a re search team from the US EPA tasked with conducting a detailed speciation pr ofile of the fine particulates for a typical residential oil-fired boiler. T h is proj ect involved testing a single unit with a single

sam p le of fu el and was conducted over a thre e-day period. The EPA team utilized a very large custo m -built dilu tion tunnel s a m p ler. Th is m easure m ent sys t em has been deployed to conduct speciation profiles for various di fferent types combustion system s generating

i n e p a r t i c u l a t e m a ter. This was done to determ ine if there are any u n i q u e e m i s f s i o n s

i a l v e n d o r o f e m issions sampling equi p m ent and was based on the EPA design

e v e l o p e d f o r EPA CTM-039. This design was generated by another arm o f the US EPA characteristics from these generic so urce types that cou l d th en be traced in th eir detailed air quality monitoring stations located throughout the country. This would then enable them to apportion am bient particu l ate concen tr ations to be the result of these various generic sources. The EP A dilution tunnel in volved a large truckload of equipm ent an d

com ponents. This em issions sam p ler was a m odi fied dilution sam p ling s y stem like that used by Hild em ann et al. 2

After researching different possibilities BNL had acquired a very co m p act dilution

sam p ler obtained under the US DOE cost shar e portion of this project. It was built by a

o m m e r c c d

15tasked with instrum e ntation deve lopm ent f o r m u ltiple u s ers, who are intere sted in conducting f i ne particulate m easurements for compliance to E P A regulations.

The availability of both d ilution tunnel sam p lers allowe d BNL to conduct a direct sim u ltaneous side-by-side com p arison of th e two m easurement system s. W h ile the EPA researchers were at BNL conducting their pr oject BNL ran its m easurem ent system in parallel sampling off the sam e stack at the sam e tim e. This pr ovided BNL an opportunity to evaluate the perform a nce of its co mpact d ilu tion sam p ler agains t a la r g er vers ion of a modified dilution sam p ling system s like that used by Hildem a nn et al. 2

The boiler tested was a conven tional cast iron boiler equipped w ith a flame retention head burner. In this case, at EPA’s request th e boiler was tested under cyclic on and off conditions according to the duty cycle sp ecified in ASHRAE Standard 103-1193. The unit was fired with conventional ASTM No. 2 heating oil with a su lfur content of 1,440
ppm

. The test was repeated three tim es over the course of three days. The gravim etric fine particulate em ission factor m e asured by the EPA group was reported as 49 +/- 5 mg/kg. The BNL measurem ent using the com p act dilu tion s a m p ler was 46 m g /kg with a standard deviation of 8 m g /kg. Th ese can be com p ared to the existin g em ission factor listed in EPA AP-42, a value of 57 m g /kg. As will be d i scussed in this repo rt the particulate levels m easured are stron g ly im pacted by the sulf ur conten t of the fuel. 3

References, Section IV 1 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/em c/ctm

. h t m l 2 Hildem ann, L. M.; Cass, G. R.; Markow sk i, G. R. A dilution s t ack sam p ler f o r collection of organic aerosol em issio n s: Design, characterizati on and field tests. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 1989
, 10 , 193-204, 1989. 3 P h y s i c a l a n d C h i ssion, Micael D.

a y s , L e e B e c k

, e t )

, 2496-2502 , 27 e m ica l Characterization of R e s i d e n t i a l O i l B o i l e r E m

a l

. , E nvironm ental Sc i e n c e T e c h n o l o g y , 2 0 0 8
, 4 2 ( 7 H February 2008

16V. Results

L i s t o f H e a t i n g E q u i p m e n t Included in the Em issions Characterization P r oject

i t h v a r i o u s f u e l s

. O i l

- f i r e d c o n d e n s i n g w a r m air furnace, fl am e reten tion head burner an d various fu els

h t h e

a s e o u s e m issions m easured.

r e tention head burner, firing various fuels

a s a 5

- section design with a nom inal fuel input of

States Departm e nt of En ergy (DOE)) funding, see Figure 2.

The use o f this m easurem ent s y stem required the d e velopm ent of a con s isten t

m e thodology for its use based on the CTM-039 m e thod. The technique requires careful preparations in clean prep/recovery laboratory (chem i cal lab) before the test is conducted. Then the sampling system is set up in the HVAC co m b ustion-tes ting laboratory. The

m easurem ents are con ducted and m onitored to verif y that cond itions rem a in in approxim a tely steady state and isokinetic condi tions within reasonabl e ranges. Ancillary

m easurem ents like s t ack gas and f l ow m eas urem ents also need to be perform e d and recorded. The length of system operation and sampling run tim e depends on the fuel type. It can b e an ywhere from a day up to a week for the cleanes t fuels. Then post-test s a mple filter conditioning and weighing is perform e d. The dilutio n tunnel is washed down for residue recovery and a sam p le m a ss determ ina tio n after aceto n e eva poration is perform e d in th e sam p le prep /re c ov ery labora to ry. The routine procedure now us ed was the resu lt of several m o n t hs of m i stakes and im provem e nts. 1. Oil-fired cast iron boiler, equipped with flam e retention head bur ner and various fuels 2. Oil-fired warm air furnace, with flam e retentio n head burn e r and vario u s fuels 3. Gas-f i red sectional c a s t iron bo ile r, atm o spheric burner and elec tronic s p ark ign itio n 4. Gas-fired warm air furnace, in -shot induced draft burner an d electronic spark ign i tio n 5. Gas-fired condensing alum inu m b o iler, prem ixed power burner, spark ignition 6. Oil-fired condensing steel boiler, with flam e r e t e n t i o n h e a d b u r n e r , w 7 8. Oil-fired cast iron boiler, equipped bl ue flam e retention head burner fuel oil 9. W ood pellet stove, over feed burner, ope n burner grate, electric ignition 10. W ood p e llet stove, over feed burner, closed self-cleaning bur n grate, electric ignition 11. W ood pellet stov e, s i de feed burner, open bu rner grate, m a nual gel ignition

The results are pres ented in tabular for m for each unit tes t e d . First the particula t e d a ta will be pre s ented and immediately af ter th e gas e ous em issions data will f o llow. Th e sole exception is the first table where the gaseous emissions were poorly docu m ented and are included in a note a t ta ched to the table f o r r e f e rence. All othe r data will f o llow the
genera l f o r

m at of f

i rst a tab l e with particul ate rela ted da ta f o llowed by a tab l e w i t g

A

. O i l

- f i r e d c a s t i r o n b o i l e r a n d f l a m e

The f i rst unit tested was a section a l cast iron residential oil-f i red boiler equipped with a flam e r e t e n t i o n h e a d b u r n e r

. T h i s u n i t w 1.45 GPH with a DOE output of 175,000 Btu/hr and an AFUE rating of 85 %. This unit provided the opportunity to develop and refine th e m easurement techn i ques. In particular the dilution tunnel sampler was a new rese arch tool purchased by B N L u s i n g U n i t e d

17During the t e s t i n g of the f i rst unit th ree d i f f e re nt types of fuels were tested with varying

u l f u r c o n t ent. These in cluded nom inal heat ing oil (ASTM No. 2) with various sulfur

ono xide
t

2 ), CO,

h

o u t t o be
t h e A S T M

, 0 0 0

- p p m sulfu r . Due to the two different fuel sam p les,

o u r t e s t r u n s w e r e c o n d u c t e d t o s e e i f a ny significant differences were observable. The

r d

e v i a t i o n ) o f 5 m g /kg fo r the four tests or in alte rnate un its, 1.32 m g /MJ with STDEV of

y , a n d v o l u m e flows. When

r e s e n t i n g r e s u l t s f o r n a t u r a l g a s f i r e d a p p l i a n c e s a n d w o o d p e l l e t s t o v e s s o m e o f the s levels in the range of 1440 to 5870-pp m , low sulfur fuel at less than 500-ppmand ultralow-sulfur at less than 15 ppm sulfur. Gaseous em issions m easurem e n t s u n d e r t h e beginning of the project were lim ited to oxygen, stack tem p e r a t u r e a n d c a r b o n m (CO) concentration while the PM 2.5 m e t h o d w a s d e v e l o p e d u n d e r t h e U S D O E c o s shared portion of the w o rk. Later as the routine was developed a m o r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d

com bustion analyzer was used (Testo 350) which recorded c a r b o n d i o x i d e ( C O nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), oxygen as well stack tem p e r a t u r e a n d efficiency d a ta. Due to early procedure dev e lopm ent tr ials and er ror s t h e t e s t s w i t regular (No. 2) fuel were run a second tim e. In this c a se the f u e l u s e d t u r n e d much higher in sulfur content (5870-ppm ). This was actually highe r t h a n specification of less than 5000-ppm. This un it was tested under both cyclic and steady state conditions.

Table 1 pre s ents th e data f

o r the f i rst test s e r i es f o r the o il-f i re d cast iron b o ile r, equipp ed with a flame retention head burner using AS TM No 2 heating oil with no m i nal sulfur content under steady state conditions. The test laboratory’s m a in fuel tank holds 1,000 gallon of NO. 2 heating fuel and a fuel delivery occurred in the m i ddle of the tests. T h is resulted in two different fuel sulfur contents that were bo th in what is considered the

no m i nal range, approxim a t e l y 2 f
average p a rticu l ate lev e l m easured was 60 mg/kg of fuel with a S T D E V ( s t a n d a d 0.12 m g /MJ. The particulate lev e ls are al so ex pressed as pounds per m illion Btu and pounds per 1,000 gallons that are m o re convenient f o r m a king com p arison to conventional em ission databases that use these units.

In subseque nt tab l es, th e data p r ese n ted will be lim ited to th e m o re im portan t f actor s and not include quite as m u ch detail in term s o f fuel f l o w s , e n e r g p term s will b e sligh tly d i f f e rent appr opria te to the f u el and em ission f actors commonly used in th e lite ratu re.

The stack sam p les for oil and gas em issions m easure m en ts were all conducted at 0.4 cubic feet per m i nute with a 12.5 dilution ratio. These were selected following a series of tests during developm e n t of the measurem ent m e thodology. Higher and lower dilution ratios up to 20:1 were tested, which shorte ned or length e n e d the re sid e nce tim e. Af ter

exam ining the resu lts it was dete r m ined that 12.5:1 was an adequa te dilu tion ration. Again, these tests were conducted at approxi m a tely isokinetic conditions by selecting a nozzle to m a tch f l ow rate to f l ue gas velocity in the stack.

18Table 1
Oil-fired ca st iron boiler, equipped w i t h flame rete ntion hea d burner in ste a d y state op e r a t i o n Fuel Type ASTM No. 2 ASTM No. 2 ASTM No. 2 ASTM No. 2 Fuel Sulfur p p m 1700 1700 1440 1440
Fuel Flo w gp h 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
Lbs /hr 10.68 10.68 10.68 10.68
Btu /lb 1969 6 1969 6 1934 2 1934 2
Btu /minute 3506 3506 3442 3442
kJ /min ute 3699 3699 3632 3632 kg fuel 399.62 323.25 116.58 97.52 Oxygen % 5.2 4.8 4.9 4.9 PM 2.5 sampl e mass mg 204.7 189.2 73.2 59.7
R un time minutes S t e a d y S t a t e

4950 4004 1444 1208
V o l u m e s a m p le dcf 1980.0 1601.6 577.6 483.2 Volume samp le m3 56.07 45.35 16.36 13.68 Volume dcp / lb 234.4 228.7 230.1 230.1 Volume dc p ft3 / hr 2503.2 2442.0 2457.1 2457.1

Volume d c p m3/min 1.18 1.15 1.16 1.16
Tot a l st a ck v o lume d c p m 3 5847.9 2 4614.6 6 1674.4 9 1400.8 2 Average S T D E V PM 2.5 mg/dscm 3.7 4.2 4.5 4.4 4.2 0

. 4 PM 2.5 mg/dscm @ 3% O 2 4.2 4.6 5.0 4.9 4.7 0

. 4 PM 2.5 mg/MJ 1.17 1.30 1.43 1.39 1.32 0

. 1 2 PM 2.5 mg/kg 53.4 59.6 64.3 62.7 60.0 4

. 8
Lbs /MMBtu 0.0027 0.0030 0.0033 0.0032 0.0031 0

. 0 0 0 3
Lbs. /100 0 ga llons 0.38 0.43 0.46 0.45 0.43 0

. 0 3

o t e : N o d e t a i l e d g a s e o u s e m ission data were re c o r d e N d d u r i n g t h i s o f s e r i e s o f t e s t s u s e d for the developm ent of the PM 2.5 t e st procedure. The oxyg en level was m onitored and ranged from 5.2-4.9 % with an average of ~ 4.9 %, the CO 2 was ~ 12.1 %, and CO was ~ 6 pp m with a stack tem p erature of ~370 O F and an efficiency of ~86%.

Figure 2. Cast iron boiler and PM 2.5 Dilution Tunnel Sa mpler

19T a b l e 2 p r e s e n t s t h e d a t a f o r a s e c o n r i e s f o r t h e o i l

- f i r e d c a s t i r o n boiler,

e

n t u n d e r o n o f f i a s b a s e d o n S t a n d a r d 1 0 3

- S p e c i

, the operating cycle followed a 9. 7- i m e a n d a 3 3

. 3

- m “ o f f ” repeated through a 12-hour test period.

e st r uns were co mpleted in this m T h i s w s e r i e s t s m e ntioned

w h e r e B N L h a d t h e o p t y t o e s t in conjunction with tests conducted E P A
, s e e F i g u r e 3 U S E P of researchers to BNL to

u d y o f a r e s i d e n t i a r e d b o h e g r a i c r e s u t a i n e d b y B L i n a r y v a l u e s o b t a i n E P A t h e i o d a e n t e d b o i l e r w a s o p e r a t e d c l i c s o n o t i l i t y t o r e r t

o n l e v e l s o f P M 2

. 5 w i t h t h e o f s t e a t a t e o p e n

. T h e d i l u o n

r o v i d e e g r a t e t a s m r u n i t m o f f u e l o r m s s

e n e r g y

. T h e a l u e e p o r t e a f i n e u l a t e e m ission
g / k g ( 1

. 0 6 ) o f n e d

. m p ares very closely to the

. 0 2 m g / M J ) s t a n d v i a t i o n g / k g ined by BNL.
p are fav o rably with the EPA AP- 42 value of 57 m g / T

o i l e r , e q u i p i t h flam n t i o n h u r n e r i n i c o e r a t i o n d t e s t s e q u i p p e d w i t h f l a m e retention head burner us ing ASTM No 2 heating oil with nom i nal

s u l f u r c o n t e c y c l i c o p e r a t i n g c ond i t i o n s

. T h e c y c l n g p a t t e r n w ASHRAE 1 0 3 1 1 9 3

. f i c a l l y

m i n u t e “ o n ” t i n u t e t i m e , T h r e e t a n n e r

. a s t h e s o f t e

e a r l i e r p o r t u n i r u n i t s t b y t h e U S

c o n d u c t a s t . T h e A h a d sent a team l o i l

- f i i l e r

. T v i m et r l t s o b N

a n d p r e l i m e d f r o m i n a c y d u r i n g p a t t e r n t e s t p e r t h ere i s r e p r e s

r u e a b i n T a ble 3

. T h e p o

c o n c e n t r a t i a s c a s e d y s r a t i o t i
t u n n e l t e c h n i q u e d o e s p a n i n t d r e s u l a ss p e a s s a p e r u n i t v a l u e o f f i n a l v E P A r d w a s p a r t i c f a c t o r o f 4 9 + /

- 5 m m g /M J f u e l b u r T h i s c o

v a l u e , 4 6 m g / k g ( 1 w i t h a a r d d e o f 8 m d e t e r m B o t h v a l u e s c o m k g

. a b l e 2
Oil-fired ca s t i r o n b p e d w e r e t e e a d b c y c l p Fuel Type A S T M N o

. 2 o

. 2 o

. A S T M N A S T M N 2 Fuel Sulfur p p m 1 4 4 0 4 0 4 4 0 1 4 1
Fuel Flo w gp h 1

. 5 0 5 0 1

. 1.50
Lbs. / hr 1 0

. 7

. 6 0

. 8 1 0 1
Btu /lb. 1 9 3 4 2 1934 2 3 4 2 1 9
Btu /minute 3 4 5 7 3 3 4 3 1 3 4 9
kJ /min ute 3 6 4 7 0 8 5 3 6 2 3 6 l i c Cy c

kg fuel 28.62 13.27 13.29 Oxygen % 3.098 2.819 3.072 PM 2.5 sampl e mass mg 15.5 5.6 7.6
R un time minutes - burner 353 165 1 6 2 A v e r a g e STDEV
P M 2

. 5 m g / k g 48.7 37.1 51.9 45.9 7.8 PM 2.5 mg/MJ 1.08 0.82 1.15 1.02 0.17
U S EPA R esi dential Oil Boiler (R OB ) Ev aluation of Fine Partic ulates PM 2.5 mg/kg 54.3 47.7 44.0 48.1 5.2 PM 2.5 mg/MJ 1.20 1.05 0.97 1.06 0.12

Table 3
Reside ntial oil cast iron boiler w i th fl ame rete ntio n burner firi ng No. 2 fuel (EPA Series )
Rea d ing Num ber 1 2 2 4 Average Avg. @ 3% O 2 St ack Te mp. 0 F 386.8 399.3 349.9 343 369.8 * * * * Oxygen % 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 * * * *
CO 2 % 13 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 * * * * CO pp m 6 6 6 6 6 6.2 Efficiency 86.9 86.7 87.9 88.1 87.4 * * * *

20Figure 3. BNL and EP A S t a f f C o n d i m u l a t i o n s P M 2

. 5 M e u c t i n g S a s u r e m e n t s

T e

o m o r e t h a n 5 0 0

- y en analyzed this fuel
t e n t o f 3 2 2

- p p m n b e s een in Table 4, the fine particulate em ission f u el was signif i c a w e r a t / k g ( 0

. 4 M J ) w h en com p ared to

s u r e d f o r c o n v e n t i o n a l m d i stillate heating fuel at 60 m g /kg.

T a b l e Oil-fired ca s t i r o n b o i u i p p e d m e r e t e h e a d burner h e t h i r d s e t of tests with this boiler was with highway use d i esel fuel d e f i n e d a t t h e t i m

a s h a v i n g n p p m s u l f u r b w e i g h t ( L S D i e s e l )

. W h h a d a s u l f u r c o n

. As c a f actor f o r th i s n tly l o 2 2 m g 9 m g / that m e a i d d l e

4
l e r , e q w i t h f l a n t i o n

s e l L l
F u e l S u l f u r p p m 3 3 2 332
Fuel Flo w gp h 1.50 1.50
Lbs /hr 1 0

. 7 4 10.74
B t u / l b 1933 1933 3 3
B t u / m i n u t e 3 4 6 1 3461

J / m i n ute 3651 3651 O x y g e n % 3.5 4.0
P M 2

. 5 s a m p l e mass mg 2 7

. 4 31.1 t e a d y S S t a t e Fuel Type L S D i e S D i e s e

k

Run time min u tes 1372 1795 Average STDEV PM 2.5 mg/dscm 1.8 1.5 1.6 0.2 PM 2.5 mg/dscm @ 3% O 2 1.8 1.6 1.7 0.1
P M 2

. 5 m g / M J 0.52 6 0

. 4 9 0.04
P M 2

. 5 m g / k g 23.3 2 0

. 8 2
L b 0

. 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 7
0

. 1 6 0.01 0

. 4
22.0

s /MMBtu 0.0012 0.0012 0

. Lbs. /100 0 ga llons 0.15 0.16

21Table 5
Oil-fired ca st iron boiler, equipped w i t h flame rete ntion hea d burner LS fue l
Rea d ing Num ber 1 2 Average Average @ 3 % O 2 St ack Te mp. 0 F 343 366 354.5 * * * * Oxygen % 3.5 3.8 3.7 * * * *
CO 2 % 88.1 12.9 50.5 * * * * CO pp m 5 6 6 5.7 Efficiency 88.1 87.8 88.0 * * * *

The f ourth set of tests (Figure 4) with this bo ile r utilized ultra low s u lf ur diesel f u el (ULS), then being developed to m e et futu re m a ndated EPA requirem e nts for a cleaner on- highway diesel fuel as introduced in the fall of 2006. BNL had o b tained a lim ited quantity of fuel m eeting ASTM No.1 D specifi cations. The only ULS fuel type available at the tim e was fro m sm all pilot plants producing fuel for field trials in the transportation

e c t o r

. Unlike the previous tests, the te sts using ULS diesel required m u ch longer

o p e f o r

c c u r a t e w e i g h i n g

.

7

. s

r a t i n g t i m es (~ 3 days) to accumulate a suf f icient qu antity of par tic ulate (2-5 m g )

a

The m easurem ent results are presen ted in Tabl e 6. W h en analyzed th e sulfur conten t of the ULS fuel was found to be 11 ppm. The pa rticulate m easurem ent data shown in Table 6 indicate even further reductions in the pa r tic ulate em ission level, averaging 1.2 mg/kg (0.025 m g / M J) with U L S. Gaseous flue gas con s titu e n t s a r e f o u n d i n T a b l e

Table 6
Oil-fired ca st iron boiler, equipped w i t h flame rete ntion hea d burner
F u e l T y p e U U L S D i e s el L S D i e s el Fuel Sulfur p p m 1 1 11
Fuel Flo w gp h 1

. 5 0 1

. 5 0
L b s / h r 1 0

. 2 9 1 0

. 2 9
B t u / l b 1 9 8 6 5 1 9 8 6 5
B t u / m i n u t e 3 4 0 7 3 4 0 7 kJ /min u t e 3 5 9 4 3 5 9 4
O x y g e n % 4

. 1 4

. 5 PM 2.5 sampl e m a s s m g 2

. 0 4.8 Steady State

Run time min u t e s 2 6 2 4 4 1 5 0 Average STDEV
P M 2

. 5 m g / d s c m 6 7

. 0 2
P M 2

. 5 m g / d s c m @ 3 % O 2 7 2

. 0 3
P M 2

. 5 m g / M J 0 2 0

. 0 3 1

. 0 2 5 0.01
P M 2

. 5 m g / k g

. 9 2 1

. 4 3 1.18
Lbs / M M B t u 0 0 0 0 46

. 0 0 0 0 7 2

. 0 0 0 0 5 9 0.0000 2
Lbs. /100 0 ga l l o n s 0 6 2

. 0 0 9 8

. 0 0 2 0

. 0 0.102 0.085 0
0

. 0 0.111 0.092 0
0

. 0 0
0 0.36
0

. 0 0

0

. 0 0 0.0080 0

22Table 7
Oil-fired ca st iron boiler, e q u i p p e d e r e t e ntion hea d burner ULS fu el w i t h f l a m R e a d ing Num ber 1 2 Average Average @ 3 % O 2 St ack Te mp. 0 F 329 321.3 325.2 * * * * Oxygen % 4.1 4.3 4.2 * * * *
CO 2 % 1 2

. 6 1 2

. 5 1 2

. 6 * * * * CO pp m 3 3 3 3.2
E f

f i c i e n c y 94.7 88.5 91.6 * * * *

Figure 4. Cast iron boiler fueled w i th ULS diesel fuel

Af t e r s e v n i t s were tes t ed, o ile r, equipp e d with a f l a m e

r e t e n t i o n a s r e

- e v a l u a t e d g t h e r tec hniques developed over

severa l e a s w a s t o h o p e f u lly conf irm that earlier f i ndings were repea t able

. The unit was again tested with fuel delivered t o t h e f u e l s u p p l y t a n k

. T h i s t a n k i s used for all tests at BNL requiring ASTM No. 2 fuel oil. After the tests were conducted fuel resu l i v e d for a s a m p l e s e f o r sulfur and heat ing value analysis. The fuel sulfur turned out to contain 5870-ppm sulfur. This is well above the ASTM

s p e c i f i c a t 2 f u e l o i l

. T h e h e a t i a l u e w a , 9 9 9 Btu/lb. This fuel was used f o r b o t h s a s w e u n d e r c l i c o n a n d o f f use pattern as presented in Tables 8, 9 and 10. T h e c y t t e r n g a i f S H R AE 1 0 3 S t a n d

A s c a n b e s c o n s i d e r a b l y h e particulate, 203 m g /kg (4.6 mg/MJ) for steady state and 224 m g /kg (5.1 m g /MJ) for cyclic opera t i o h t h i s h i g h

s u l f u r c o n i l

. T h i s c a n b e w w s s e d and f o u n d i n T e ) a n d T a b l e c y i s t h d e d r e s u l t

a t w o u l d h a v e h e l p e d t o c o n f i r m earlier fi ndings. It did however once again support the

assum p tion that the tests could be done un der steady state conditions rather than e r a l othe r u t h e o i l

- f i r e d c a s t i r o n b h e a d b u r n e r w u s i n e f i ned

r lier tes t s

. T h i

m a i n

t s were re c e n t o u t

i o n f o r N o

. n g v s 1 8

a s t e a d y s t a t e t e s t s e r i e l l a s a c y

c l i c p a w a s a n t h a t d e i n e d i n A

a r d 1 0 3

- 1 1 9 3

.

s e e n t h e r e w a i g h e r amount of fin

n , w i t t e n t N o

. 2 o c o m p ar e d i t h t h e lo e r v a l u e s as dis c u

a b l e 1 ( s t e a d y s t a t 2 ( E P A c l i c )

. T h w a s n o t e i n t e n t h

23consum ing more tim e t e s t i n g u n d e r c y c l o n s

. It also provided another data point

c o n f i r m

a b l e O b o i l e r , e q e d l a m t i o n h e a d burner, stead y state i c c o n d i t i i ng a relationship between fuel sulfur co ntent and particulate em i s s i o n s

. T 8
i l

- f i r e d c a s t i r o n u i p p w i t h f e r e t e n

e l T y p e A S T M o

. 2 2
5 7 0 7 8 0

e l F l o w gp

u / M i n 3 4 5 4 0 5 S t e F u N ASTM No. 2 A S T M N o

. Fuel Sulfur p p m 8 5 5 7 8 0
F u h 1.49 1.49 1.49
B t 0 3 3 4 0 5
kJ / Min 3592 3592 3592 Oxygen % 5.45 5.53 5.49 PM 2.5 sampl e mass mg 207.5 200.1 237 a d y S t a t e

R un time minutes 1375 1300 1490 Average STDEV PM 2.5 mg/dscm 13.3 13.6 14.0 13.7 0.4 PM 2.5 mg/dscm @ 3% O 2 15.4 15.8 16.3 15.9 0.4 PM 2.5 mg/MJ 4.47 4.59 4.73 4.6 0.1 PM 2.5 mg/kg 197.67 202.67 208.89 203.1 5.6
Lbs /MMBtu 0.0104 0.0107 0.0110 0.011 0.0003
Lbs. /100 0 ga llons 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.4 0.04

Table 9
Oil-fired ca st iron boiler, equipped w i t h flame re te ntion burn e r , stead y state, sulfur = 5, 780-ppm
Rea d ing Num ber 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average Avg. @ 3% O 2 St ack Te mp. 0 F 390.2 394.2 397.4 395.9 397.3 398.1 395.5 * * * * Oxygen % 5.52 5.22 5.23 6.16 5.53 5.46 5.52 * * * *
CO % 1 1

. 5 6 11.79 11.78 11.83 11.56 11.61 11.69 2 * * * * CO pp m 2 2.3 1.9 2.4 2.1 2 2 2.5
N O x ppm 77.7 77.3 77.5 77.6 79.6 79.8 78.3 91.1

2 ppm 218 228 233 231 224 228 227.0 264.2

c i e n c y 86.3 86.4 86.3 86.4 86.2 86.2 86.3 * * * *

Table 10
Oil-fired ca st iron boiler, equipped w i t h fl ame rete ntion hea d burner, c y clic operation Fuel Type ASTM No. 2 ASTM No. 2 ASTM No. 2 Fuel Sulfur p p m 5780 5780 5780
Fuel Flo w gp h 1.49 1.49 1.49
Btu/Min SO
E f

f i

3405 3405 3405
kJ / Min 3592 3592 3592 Oxygen % 5.35 5.20 5.20 PM 2.5 sampl e mass mg 110.7 69.1 99.9 Cyclic

R un time minutes 627 399 637 Average STDEV PM 2.5 mg/MJ 5.0 5.2 5.1 5.1 0.1 PM 2.5 mg/kg 220.4 229.8 223.3 224.5 4.8
Lbs /MMBtu 0.0116 0.0121 0.0118 0.012 0.0003
Lbs. /100 0 ga llons 1.57 1.64 1.59 1.6 0.03

24B. Oil-fired w a rm air furnace, w i th flam e r e t e n t i o n h e a d b u r n e r a n d v a r i o u s f u e l s

A n o ed

w i e t e n t i o n h e a d o i l a p H
, a D O E o u t p u t o f 1 0 d a n A F U E r a t i 8 1

. 6 % u n i t w t e d w i t h t h r e e f u e l s o f d i f o n t e n t ( N o

. 2
, L S l and ULS diesel) and in steady state only. Th e results are presented in Table 11 through Table e a v e r n e p a s i o n rate with norm al heating o i l ( 1 4 4 sulfur) was 95.9 mg/kg (2.1 mg/MJ), with LS diesel (< 500-ppm sulfu r) the em ission rate was 24.9 m g /kg (0.51 m g /M J) and with ULS ( 1 1 s 2

. 6 m g /kg (0.06 m

.

a b l e 1
i r e d w a r m air furnac e, w i th flame reten t ion he ad burner i l

- f i r e d warm air furnace was the next app liance tes t ed . The furnace was equip p t h a f l a m e r b u r n e r w i t h n o m i n a l i n u t o f 0

. 9 G P 1
, 0 0 0 B t u / h r a n n g o f

. T h e a s t e s f e r i n g s u l f u r c d i e s e 1 6

. T h a g e f i r t i c u l a t e e m i s 0 p p m

p p m ) i t w a g / M J )

T 1
O i l

- f

T y p e

F l o w gp h 0

. 6 7 0

. 6 7 0

. 6 7 S t e a d y S t a t e F u e l ASTM No. 2 ASTM No. 2 ASTM No. 2 Fuel Sulfur p p m 1440 1440 1440
F u e l Btu /minute 1536 1536 1536
kJ /min ute 1621 1621 1621 Oxygen % 6.3 6.2 6.2 PM 2.5 sampl e mass mg 82.7 71.5 74.0
1200 1020 1071 Average STDEV
P M 2

. 5 m g / d s c m 6

. 2 6

. 1 6.1 0

. 1
P M 2

. 5 m g / d s c m @ 3 % O 2 7.5 7

. 5 7

. 0

. 0 2
P M 2

. 5 m g / M J 2.1 2

. 2 2 0

. 0 2
P M 2

. 5 m g / k g 95.7 9 6

. 7 9 5 0.7
Lbs / M M 0

. 0

. 0 0 0 0 4
Lbs. /100 0 ga llons 0.69 0

. 6 9 0

. 0.01

T a b l e Oil-fired w a r m air furnac e, w i th f ion he ad burner w i th No. 2 Fuel 1 2 R un time minutes 6.1
4 7.5

. 1 2.1

. 3 95.9
B t u 0.0050 0.0050 0 0 4 9 0.005
6 8 0.69

l a m e reten t
Rea d ing Num ber 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average Avg. @ 3% O 2
0 1 3

. 6 4 2 0

. 9 4 1 6

. 1 4 2

. 2 416.7

e n % 6 6

. 4 6

. 2 % 1 1 0

. 9 1 1

. p m 0 0 0.3

e n c y 8 9

. 3 8 9

. St ack Te mp. F 418.3 4 1 1 4 0 * * * *
O x y g 6.2 6.3 6

. 2

. 1 6

. 4 7 * * * *
CO 2 1 11 11 1

. 2 1 10.9 0 0 * * * *
C O p 0 0 0 2 0
E f

f i c i 89.7 89. 7 8 9

. 7 9

. 3 8 8 9

. 3 5 * * * *

25Table 13
Oil-fired w a r m air furnac e, w i th flame reten t ion he ad burner Fuel Type LS Diesel LS Diesel LS Diesel Fuel Sulfur p p m * 450 450 450
Fuel Flo w gp h 0.67 0.67 0.67
Btu /minute 1537 1537 1537
kJ /min ute 1622 1622 1622 Oxygen % 5

. 5 2 Steady State

6

. 2 3 6.26 PM 2.5 sampl e mass mg 46.8 44.9 48.4
R u n t i m e 1200 1020 1071 m i n u t e s g / d s c m 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6
P M 2

. 5 m g / d s c m @ 3 % O 2 1.8 1.9

. 1 1.9
P M 2

. 5 m g / M J 0

. 5

. 5 4 0
P M 2

. 5 m g / k g 2 3 4

. 5 24.9
L b s /MMBtu 0

. 0 0 0 0 1 3 0

. 0
L b s

. / 1 0 0 0 ga llons 0

. 1

. 1 8 0
b l e )

,

T a b l e air furnac e, w i th f n t i o n b u r n e r - LS (<50 0 p p m s e l f 1 4
Oil-fired w a r m l a m e rete h e a d ) d i e u e l Average STDEV
P M 2

. 5 m 0.1
2 0.1
2 0 0.48

. 5 1 0.03

. 4 2 26.7 1.7
1 2 0

. 0

. 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0.0000 7
7 0 0.19

. 1 8 0.01
* Fuel sulfu r take n as 4 50-ppm (8 0% of maximum all o wa l i k e l y lower.

Rea d ing Num ber 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. Avg. @ 3% O 2 St ack Te mp. 0 F 427.9 422.4 4 1 6

. 426.8 437.4 2 404.2 422.5 * * * *
O x y g e n % 5.63 5.43 5.45 5.65 5.4 5.44 5.50 * * * *
CO % 2
. 4 8 1 1

. 6 3 11.62 11.46 1

. 6 5 1

. 6 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

. 5 8 * * * * CO pp m 0

. 6 0 0

. . 1 1 1 7 0 0

. 0

. 0 0.3
N O x p p m 1 0 0

. 1 0 0

. 9 8

. 1 3

. 6 2

. 7 1 7 93.3 1 0 1 0 9 9

. 8 1 1 5

. 9
S O 2 p p m 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

. 0 1 0

. 5
E f

f i c i e n c y

. 4 85.7 85.7 86 86 8 5 85.3 85.7 * * * *

26- f i r e d w a r m a i r f t t ad burner Table 15
O i l u r n a c e, w i h flame r e e n t ion he Fuel Type U L S D L S D 1 1 U
F u e l S u l f u r p p m 1 1 1 1
F u e l F l o w gp h 0

. 6 2

. 6 2 0
B t u / m i n u t e 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1
k J / m i n ute 1 4 8 9 4 8 9 1 Oxygen % 6

. 5 6

. 4
P M 2

. 5 s a m p l e mass mg 9

. 0 6

. 2 t e a d y S t a t e S

R u n t i m e m i n u t e s 4 1 6 7 4 0 7 7 A v e r a g e S T D E V PM 2.5 mg/dscm 0.2 0

. 0 4
P M 2

. 5 m g 0

. 2 0

. 0 5
P M 2

. 5 m 0.05 0

. 0 6 0

. 0 1
P M 2

. 5 2

. 1 2

. 6 0

. 6
Lbs /MMBtu 0

. 0 0 0 1 5 0

. 0 0 0 1 1 0

. 0 0 0 1 3 0

. 0 0 0 0 3
Lbs. /100 0 ga llons 0.022 0.015 0.018 0.005 0.2 0.1
/ d s c m @ 3 % O 2 0.2 0.2

g / M J 0.07

m g / k g 3

. 0

Note: Two runs only, fuel availab ility constrai ned the number of tests

Table 16
O i l

- f i r e d w a air furnac e, w i e t e n t ion he ad burner w S r m t h flam r e i t h U L f u el
Rea d i n g N u m b 1 5 6 e r 2 3 4 A v e r a g e A v g , @ 3 % O 2 St a c k T e mp. 0 F 4 0 2 4 0 0 0 9

. 9

. 4 4 0 3 9 6 4 5

. 4 4

. 3 3 9 4 0
O x y g e n % 6

. 6 6

. . 4 3 6

. 2 6 .4

. 7 2 6 6

. 3
CO 2 % 11 1 1 0 11 0

. 9 11 0

. 9

. 7 1 1 0
C O p p m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E f

f i c i e n c y 86.2 5

. 8 8 6 8 5

. 7 86.6 85.6 8

. 4 1

. 3 ***

7 ***

. 9 2 ***
0
86.1 ***

27C

. G a s - f i r e d c a s t i r o n b o i l e r , a t mospheri c burner and electronic spark ign i tion

h e t h i r d h e a t i n g a p p l i a n c e t e s t e d w a s a m i d-efficiency natural gas-fired hydronic boiler

e s i g n e d f o r a n i n p u t o f 1 2 6
, 0 0 0 B t u / h r w i t h a 104,000 Btu/hr output and an 81% AFUE, see Figure 5

. The boiler was equippe d with an atmospheric b u rner, in ter m ittent pilo t and vent dam p e r

. T o n s a s w e l l a s cyclic conditions follow i n g t h e A S H R A h e case with the ULS diesel fired appliance tests, this boiler required long peri ods of run tim e to

accum u l a t e a n t i t y o f p a r t i c m a a c c u r a t e w e i g hing. Even with
t h e s e l o n g r 4 t o 7 d a y s ) s a m p g h s u r e t h e r a n g e o f roughly 3 to m s

. T h e r e s u l t s a r e n i es 1 7 , 18 and 1 9 . Under s t eady state operation the particulate em i s s i o n r a v e r a 0

. 9 0 m g / k g ( 0

. 0 1 6 m g /MJ) and under a cyclic operating pattern it averaged 2.7 mg/kg (0.049 m g /MJ). T d

h e g a s b o i l e r w a s t e s t ed under st eady state op erating cond i t i E 1 0 3 cycle pattern. As was t

a s u f f i c i e n t q u u l a t e s s f o r

u n t i m e s (

~ l e w e i t s m e a d w e r e o n l y i n 6 m i l l i g r a s h o w n T a b l
t e a g e d

F i g u r e 5

. A t m o s p h e e d h y d r o n i c b o i l e r

Table 17
Gas-fired s e c tional ca st iron boiler, atmosphe ric b u rner and el ectro nic spa r k ignition r i c g a s - f i r

Fuel Type N a t u t u r r a l G a s N atural Ga s N a a l G a s F u e l S u l f u r p p m 10.5 10.5 10.5
Fuel Flo w cu b i c f t / m i n u 1.934 t e 1.934 1.934
B t u / M i n 1 9 1940 1940 4 0
kJ / Min 2 0 4 7 2 0 4 7 2 0 4 7 Oxygen % 8.24 8.20 8.20 PM 2.5 sampl e mass mg 4.7 5.7 2.7 Steady State

R un time minutes 9825 9909 6145 Average STDEV PM 2.5 mg/dscm 0.042 0.051 0.039 0.04 0.01 PM mg/dscm @ 3% O 2 0.060 0.072 0.055 0.06 0.01 PM 2.5 mg/MJ 0.016 0.019 0.014 0.016 0.002 PM 2.5 mg/kg 0.87 1.04 0.80 0.90 0.1
Lbs /MMBtu 0.0000 37 0.0000 44 0.0000 34 0.0000 38 0.0000 05
Lbs. /MM cu b i c foot 0.037 0.044 0.034 0.038 0.005

28Table 18
Gas-fired s e c tional ca st iron boiler, atmosphe ric b u rner and el ectro nic spa r k ignition
Rea d ing Num ber 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. Avg. @ 3% O 2 St ack Te mp. 0 F 491.9 506.2 507.8 505.2 498.6 499.2 501.5 * * * * Oxygen % 8.26 8.15 8.31 8.29 8.27 8.19 8.25 * * * *
CO 2 % 7.09 7.15 7.06 7.07 7.11 7.12 7.10 * * * *
CO pp m 0.7 0.7 0.7 1 0.4 0.6 1 1.0 NOx ppm 92.9 97 91.9 92.7 99.9 100.1 95.8 135.4
SO 2 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Efficiency 79.5 79.2 78.9 79 79.3 79.3 79.2 * * * *

Table 19
Gas-fired s e c tional ca st iron boiler, atmos pheric b u rner and el ectro nic spa r k ignition Fuel Type Natural Ga s N atural Ga s N atural Ga s Fuel Sulfur p p m 10.5 10.5 1 0

. 5
Fuel Flo w cu bic ft /minute 2.010 2.010 2.010
Btu/Min 2016 2016 2 0 1 6
k J / M i n 2127 2127 2127

x y g e n % 7

. 9 5 7

. 9 5 7

. 9 5
M 2

. 5 s a m p l e m a 3.9
un time minutes

. 0 4 7

. 0 5 0

. 0 5 1 4 9 0.002

. 5 7

. 7 4

. 7 9
b s /MMBtu 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2
b s

. / M M c u b i c foot 1 1

. 1 2

. 1 2 O
P s s m g 6.2 3.8 Cyclic O pera t ion

R 4297 2470 2489 Average STDEV PM 2.5 mg/MJ 0 0 0 0

. 0 PM 2.5 mg/kg 2 2 2 2.70 0.1
L 0

. 0 0

. 0 0

. 0 0.0001 1 0.0000 05
L 0

. 0 0 0.11 0.005

29D

. G a s - f i r e d w a rm air furnace, in-shot induced draft burner w i th spark ignition

h e t h i r d h eating app l iance tes t ed was a m i d-efficiency natural gas-fired warm air

u r n a c e d e s i g n e d f o r a n input of 125 ,000 Btu/hr with a 99,00 0 Btu/hr ou tput and an 8 1 % F U E
, s e e F i g u r e 6

. T h is unit included in-sho t induced draft burners and electric spark

n i t i o n

. T h e g a s f u r n a c e w a s t e s t e d u n d e r s t eady state operating conditions as well as cyclic conditions follow i n g t h e A S H R A b o e

w e i g hing. Even with these long run times (~ 4 d s

n l y i n o 2 m m e s a r e n i n 2 1 a n d 2 2

. U t e t a r a h e c u m n r a t g e d /kg (0.011 m g / M n d r l i r a a t g e d / k g g / M J).

e

d w a r m a i r f u r n duced dr b u r n a n d c t r o p ark ignition T f A i g E 1 0 3 cy cle pattern. This unit like the gas-fired i l e r r e q u i r e d l o n g p e r i o d s o f r u n t i m e to accu mulate a sufficient quan t i t y o f p a r t i c u l a t

m a s s f o r a c c u r a t e a y s ) s a m p l e w e i g h t

m e a s u r e d w e r e o t h e r a n g e o f r u g h l y t o 4 i l l i g r a s

. T h r e s u l t s h o w T a b l e s 2 0
, n d e r s a d y s t e o p e t i o n t p a r t i l a t e e i s s i o e a v e r a 0.63 m g ( 0

. 0 J ) a u n d e a c y c c o p e t i n g p t t e r n i a v e r a 3

. 2 m g 5 8 m

T a b l 2 0
G a s - f i r e a c e, in-shot in a f t e r e l e n i c s t u r a l G s N atural Ga N a t u l G a s Fuel Type N a a s r a Fuel Sulfur p p m 10.5 10.5 10.5
Fuel Flo w cu bic ft /minute 1.925 1.925 1.925
Btu/Min 1931 1931 1931
kJ / Min 2037 2037 2037 Oxygen % 8.35 8.30 8.59 PM 2.5 sampl e mass mg 2.0 1.8 2.2 Steady State

R un time minutes 5630 5928 5996 Average STDEV PM 2.5 mg/dscm 0.031 0

. 0 2 7 0.032 0.030 0.003
P M m g / d s c m @ 3 % O 2 0.045 0.038 0.047 0.043 0.005
P M 2

. 5 m g / M J 0.012 0.010 0.012 PM 2.5 mg/kg 0.65 0

. 5 5 0

. 6 9
Lbs /MMBtu 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 2 9
L b s

. / M M c u b i c foot 0

. 0 2 8

. 0 2 4

. 0 2 9 0.027 0.003

2 1
Gas-fired w a r m a i r f u r n a r a f t n d e l

e a d ing Num b e r 3 5 A v e r a g e A v g 2
. @ 3 % O
ack Te mp. 0 F 4 6 3

. 8 4 5 4

. 4

. 1 7 * * * *

x y g e n % 8

. 3 4 8

. 5 7 O 2 % 7

. 0 4 6

. 9 1 8 9 7

. 0 0 * * * *
O pp m 5

. 8 6 5

. 8 8.3 0.011 0.001
0.63 0.1
0

. 0

. 0

. 0 0.0000 27 0.0000 03
0 0

T a b l e

c e, in-shot in duced d b u r n e r a ectronic s p ark ignition
R 1 2 4 6
St 4 5 5

. 2 4 5 3

. 5 464.2 4 5 5 4 5 7

. O 8

. 3 7 8

. 3 4 8

. 2 9 8

. 6 1 8.42 * * * *
C 7

. 0 3 7

. 0 5 7

. 0 7 6

. C 5

. 8 5

. 8 5

. 4 6
N O x ppm 57.3 55.8 56.3 56.1 54.7 54.7 55.8 80.1
S O 2 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0
E f

f i c i e n c y 80.2 80. 3 80.1 80.1 80.1 80.1 80.2 * * * *

30r a f t b u r n e r F i g u r e 6

. G a s - f i r e d w a rm air furna c i n - s h o c e d d

T a b l

a i r f u r n a c e, in-shot in duced u r n e r e c t r o e w i t h t i n d u

e 2 2
Gas-fired w a r m dr a f t b a n d e l n i c s p ark ignition

F u e l T y p e Natural Ga s N atural Ga s N atural Ga s 1 0

. 5 1 0

. 5 1 0

. 5 F u e l S u l f u r p p m F u e l F l o w cu b i c f t / m i n u t e 1

. 9 5 0 1

. 9 5 0 1

. 9 5 0
Btu/Min 1956 1956 1956
kJ / Min 2064 2064 2 0 6 4
O x y g e n % 9.55 9.55 9.55

a s g 4.0 2.2 2.4 Cycli c Ope r at ion

PM 2.5 sampl e m s m

s 1 8 9 6 R u n t i m e m u t e i n 1 8 9 6 6 4 1 1 A v e r a g e S T D E V
P M 2

. 5 m g / M J 0.078 0

. 0 4 9 0

. 0 4 7 0.058 0

. 0 1 7
P M 2

. 5 m g / k g 4.29 2

. 7 2 2

. 5 7 3.19 0.9
Lbs / M M B t u 0.0001 8 0

. 0 0 0 1 2 0

. 0 0 0 1 1 0.0001 3 0.0000 40
L b s

. / M M c u b i c f o o t 0.18 0

. 1 2 0

. 1 1 0.14 0

. 0 4 0

31E

. G a s - f i r e d c o n d e n s i n g a l u m i n u m b o i l e r , premixed power burner, s p ark ignitio n

h e c o n d e n s i n g a l u m inu m gas-fired boiler (s ee Figure 7) was designed to m odulate its
p u t r a t e f r o m 80,000 up to 200,000 Btu/hr with a therm a l output from 76,000 u p to 190,000 with an AFUE rating of 95%. Tests we re conducted in stead y state only due to the com p lexity of the autom a tic modulati ng control included to enhance the unit’s efficiency. The unit was operate d at an input rate of a pproxim ately 115, 000 Btu/hr. The particulate em ission rate averaged 2. 0 m g /kg of fuel (0.36 mg/MJ) as shown in Table 23. The results of the gaseous em issions m easurem e n ts can be found in Table 24. T i n

F i g u r e 7

. G a s - ensing boiler

a

o ndensing al uminum boiler, premixed po w n e r, spark ign i tion f i r e d c o n d

T b l e 2 3
G a s - f i r e d c e r b u r Fuel Type Natural Ga s N atural Ga s N a t u r a l G a s F u e l S u l f u r p p m 1 1 0

. 5 1 0

. 5 0

. 5
F u e l F l o w cu bic ft /minute 1 1.925 1

. 9 2 5

. 9 2 5
B t u / M i n 1 3 1 2 1288 1290
kJ / Min 1384 1 1 3 3 5 9 6 1 Oxygen % 5

. 8 6 5

. 8 6 5

. 9 2
P M 2

. 5 s a m p l e mass mg Steady State

1 2

. 1 1 0

. 3 7

. 1
R u n t i m e m i n u t e s 8 5963 8 5 6 2 4 6 2 r a g e E V
P M 2

. 5 m g / d s c m 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.01
P M m g / d s c m @ 3 % O 2 0.15

. 1 3

. 1 3

. 1 3

. 0 1 A v e S T D

0 0 0 0 PM 2.5 mg/MJ 0.039 0.034 0.033 0.036 0.003 PM 2.5 mg/kg 2.17 1.87 1.83 1.96 0.2
Lbs /MMBtu 0.0000 92 0.0000 79 0.0000 77 0.0000 83 0.0000 08
Lbs. /MM cu b i c foot 0.092 0.079 0.078 0.083 0.008

32Table 24
Gas-fired c o ndensing al uminum boiler, premixed po w e r burn e r, spark ign i tion
Rea d ing Num ber 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. Avg. @ 3% O 2 Stack Te mpe r ature 0 F 99.2 99.2 99.1 119.3 119 119.2 109.2 * * * * Oxygen % 5.9 5.87 5.86 6.06 5.93 5.91 5.92 * * * *
CO 2 % 8.41 8.42 8.43 8.32 8.39 8.4 8.40 * * * * CO pp m 2.7 2.6 2.6 2 2.1 1.8 2 2.7 NOx ppm 8.9 9 9.2 8.5 9.1 9 9.0 10.7
SO 2 ppm 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.2 Efficiency 89.7 89.7 89.7 89.3 89.3 89.3 89.5 * * * *

F. Oil-fired condensing steel bo iler, flame retention head burner, w i th various fuels

The oil-fired condensing boiler (see Figure 8) was designed with tw o heat exchangers. The prim ary heat exchanger is a unitized thick

- shelle d carbon s t eel boiler with

com bustion cham ber a nd integral steel heat exchanger with a system of re m o vable baffles. Hot gases exiting the prim ary heat exchanger then proceed directly to the secondary heat exchanger fabr icated from corrosion resist ant stainless steel with a condensate drain. The unit is fire d with a high static pressure flam e retention head burner with a nom i nal input of 81,250 Btu/hr, an ou tput rating of 76,000 Btu/hr and an A F UE rating of 95%. This unit was fired with three d i fferent fuels including No. 2 heating fuel, ULS diesel and a soybean derived biodiesel m eeting ASTM specifications as a blending product for use in diesel or heating f u els, see Tables 25 through 30. Particulate em issions averaged 109.8 m g /kg (2.5 m g /MJ) for No. 2 he ating oil, 1.34 m g / k g ( 0

. 0 3 0 m /MJ) for U L S d i e s e l a n d 6 7

. 8 m s u l t s d e t e r m ined when

i r i n g b i o d i e s e l w a s q u i t e u n e x p e c t e d a n d u n e xplainable based on prior conceptions. As a result yet another boil er of cast iron construction (not a cond ensing un it) was tested and
t h e d a s a m e b i o h a d an av e r a g e

. 1 m g /kg (0.3 m g / M J) which was still highe r th an typica e s f o r i e s e l b c h c l o s e r t o t h a t e x p e c t e d f o r n t f u is will c u s s e e r i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n s a n d

r e c a t i o n s ection s o f t h i s

.

T a b l e nd e n i l e r with ASTM No. 2 fuel – steady state g g / k g ( 1

. 7 m g / M J ) f o r b i o d i e s e l

. T h e r e f

t a i s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e s 3 1 a n d 3 2

. T h is unit, see Figure 9, f i r e d w i t h t h e d i e s el fu e l p a r t i c u l a t e e m i s s i o n r a t e o f o n l y 1 2 l v a l u U L S d u t m u

a n u l t r a l o w s u l f u r c o n t e e l

. T h b e d i s d f u r t h

o m m e n d r e p o r t

2 5
Oil-fire d c o s i n g b o d ing Num b e r 4 A v g

. A v g

. c k T e mpe r ature F 0

. 8 167.8 1 6 9

. 4

. 8 1 6
g e n % 3

. 8 7 3.90 4

. 2 5 6 4

2 % 8 0 1 1 2

. 5 2

. 5 8 1 2

. 6 5
p p m 6 1

. 0 7 1.7

x p p m 8 2

. 5 8 2 85.4 85.6 8 5

. 7 8 4

. 3

2 ppm 3 69 9 6 Rea 1 2 3 7 8 @ 3 % O 2 S t a 1 6 2

. 4 1 6 1 1 6 9 1 7 0

. 5 7

. 9 * * * *
O x y 8 3

. 8 4

. 1 4.2

. 0 8 * * * *
CO 12.79 1 2

. 2

. 7 8 1 2 12.6 * * * *
C O 2.7 2

. 2.9 0

. 1.1 2
N O 82.5

. 2 90 SO 53 5 51 6 69.0 2 66
E f

f i c i e n c y 91.9 91. 9 91.8 91.6 91.6 91.6 91.7 * * * *

33Table 26

s i n g l b t e w m b u r Oil-fired co n d e n s t e e o i l e r s t e d i t h f l a e r e t e n t i o n h e a d n e r

e l T y p e A S N o

. A S N o

. A S M N

. 2
1900

e l F l o w g p 0

. 5 7
t u / m i n u t e

/ m i n ute

x y g e n %

. 9 3

. 9 3

. 9 F u T M 2 T M 2 T o Fuel Sulfur p p m 1900 1900
F u h 0.56 0.57
B 1286 1307 1317
k J 1357 1379 1390
O 3 PM 2.5 sampl e mass mg 142.5 143.0 137.5 Steady State

R un time minutes 1531 1490 1480 Average STDEV PM 2.5 mg/dscm 8.2 8.5 8.2 8.3 0.2 PM 2.5 mg/dscm @ 3% O 2 8.6 8.9 8.6 8.7 0.2 PM 2.5 mg/MJ 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 0.05 PM 2.5 mg/kg 108.7 112.2 108.6 109.8 2.0
Lbs /MMBtu 0.0057 0.0058 0.0056 0.0057 0.0001
Lbs. /100 0 ga llons 0.78 0.81 0.78 0.79 0.01

g F i g u r e 8

. O i l

- fir e d condensing ste e r g
. 5 n t e s t i n e l b o i l d u r i n P M 2 d i l u t i o t u n n e l

34Table 27
Oil-fired co n d ensing s t ee l boiler teste d w i th flame reten t ion he ad burner Fuel Type U L S ULS U L S
F u e l S u l f u r p p m 37 37 37
F u e l F l o w gp h 0.58 0.57 0.55
Btu /minute 1 3 3 0 1 1 2 5 3 0 9 4
kJ /min u t e 1 4 0 4 1 1 3 2 3 8 2 4 O x y g e n % 3

. 8 4

. 3 6 3

. 9 2 7
P M 2

. 5 s a m p l e mass mg 5

. 4 Steady State

7

. 4 6.2
R u n t i m e m i n u tes 5 5 5 5 4 6 5 6 7 8 6 2 Average PM 2.5 mg/dscm 0

. 1 2 0.09 9
P M 2

. 5 m g / d s c m @ 3 % O 2 0

. 1 2 0

. 1 0 9 0 0

. 0 2
P M 2

. 5 m g / M J 0

. 0 3 0 2 8 0

. 0 0 5 PM 2.5 mg/kg 1

. 6

. 3
Lbs / M M B t u 0 0 6 5 60 0

. 0 0 0 0 1
Lbs. /100 0 g a llons 0

. 0 1 1

. 0 0 9 8 0

. 0 0 2 STDEV
0

. 0 0.10 0.02
0

. 0 0

. 1
6 0

. 0

. 0 2 6 0.030
1 1.2 1.34 0.2
0.0000 83 0

. 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 7
0 0

. 0 0 0

. 0 1 0

Table 28 Oil-fired co ndensing boiler w i th ULS Fuel –steady state
R e a d ing Num ber 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. Avg. @ 3% O 2 S t a c k T e mpe r ature 0 F 161.4 168.4 188.2 183.1 173.4 172.1 174.4 * * * *
O x y g e n % 4.36 4.36 3.96 3.9 3.85 3.82 4.04 * * * *
CO 2 % 12.43 12.43 12.74 12.77 12.82 12.84 12.67 * * * * CO pp m 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.3 3.1 2.8 3.0 NOx ppm 66.6 66.6 64.3 64.8 65.1 65.2 65.4 69.0
SO 2 ppm 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1
Effic i enc y % 92.1 91.9 91.3 91.5 91.7 91.8 91.7 * * * *

35a b l e 2

n d ensing s t ee l boiler teste d f l a m e t ion he ad burner T 9
O i l

- f i r e d c o w i t h r e t e n

e l T y p e Biodiesel

e l S u l f u r p p 164 164 1 6 4

e l F l o w gp h 0.59 0

. 5 9 0

. 5 9

u /minute 1264 1256 1258
/min ute 1 3 3 4 1 3 2 5 1 3 2 7

x y g e n % 4.4 4 3

. 8
2

. 5 s a m p l e mass mg 1 9 8

. 9 9 4

. 4 9 4

. 0

u n t i m e m i n u t e s 3240 1579 1 3 9 9 A v e r a g e S T D E
2

. 5 m g / d s c m 5.4 5

. 3 5

. 9 5

. 5 0

. 5.9 5.6 6.2 5.9 0

. 3
2

. 5 m g / M J 1.7 1.6 1.8 1

. 7 0

. 0 9 F u Biodiesel Biodiesel
F u m F u B t
k J
O
P M Steady State

R V
P M 3 PM 2.5 mg/dscm @3% O 2 P M PM 2.5 mg/kg 67.6 64.3 71.4 67.8 3.6
Lbs /MMBtu 0.0039 0.0037 0.0041 0.0039 0.0002
Lbs. /100 0 ga llons 0.49 0.47 0.52 0.50 0.03

e Oil-fired co n d e n s i n g m t i o e B i F u a d y s t T a b l

e n 3 0

n r n s t o

ee l b i l e a r , f l r e t e b u r w i t h o d e l i e s e t e l

– s a t e R e a d i n g N u m ber 1 6 2 3 4 5 g

. 2 S t a c k T e m p e r ature 0 F 1 6

. 2 1 1 1 5

. 6 1 7 4 2 0 1

. 3 200.8 1 2

. 1 2

. 5 1

. 1 * * * *

O x y g e n % 4

. 3 3 3 5 4

. 4

. 1 8 4.17 3.8

. 7 6

. 0 9 * * A v Avg. @ 3% O

1 6

4 * *

CO 2 % 12.44 12.47 12.57 12.58 12.85 12.88 12.63 * * * *
CO pp m 1.6 1.4 0.6 0.3 2.1 1.8 1.3 1.4
NOx ppm 59.7 60.3 64 64.1 61.1 61.7 61.8 65.8

SO 2 ppm 4 4 7 7 8 9 6.5 6.9 Efficiency % 91.7 91.6 90.8 90.8 93 93 91.8 * * * *

36Table 31
Oil-fired ca st iron boiler teste d w i th fl ame rete ntio n head burn e r Fuel Type Biodiesel Biodiesel Biodiesel Fuel Sulfur p p m 164 164 164
F u e l F l o w gp h 0.766 0.766 0.766
B t u / m i n u t e 1629 1629 1629
kJ /min ute 1 7 1 9 1 7 1 9 1 7 1 9 Oxygen % 7

. 1 0 6

. 6 9 6.35
P M 2

. 5 s a m p l e mass mg Steady State

3

. 3 3

. 2 4

. 8
R u n t i m e m i n u t e s 3 9 0 4 0 0 4 0 5
P M 2

. 5 m g / d s c m 0

. 7 5 1

. 0 5 P M 2

. 5 m g / d s c m @ 3 % O 2 0.97 0

. 8 9 1.29 PM 2.5 mg/MJ 0

. 2 7 0.25 0.36 0.3 0.06 PM 2.5 mg/kg 1 1

. 1 4 1 0

. 2 3 1 2

. 1 2.4
Lbs /MMBtu
Lbs. /100 0 ga l l o n s 0

. 0 8 1 0

. 0 7 5 0

. 0 9 0.02

T a b 3 2
l

- f i r e d c o n v e n t i o n a s t i r i l e r , f w i t h i e s e l Average STDEV
0.71 0.8 0.2
1.0 0.2

14.80
0.0006 4 0.0005 9 0.0008 5 0.0007 0.0001
0.108

l e O i a l r e s i d e n t i a l c o n bo l a m e retentio n b i o d f u e l
Rea d ing Num ber 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. Avg. @ 3% O 2 S t a c k T e mpe r ature 0 F 360.4 369.1 369.3 369.3 364.6 368.1 366.8 * * * * Oxygen % 7.12 7.13 6.61 6.77 6.36 6.34 6.72 * * * *

CO 2 % 10.37 10.36 10.75 10.63 10.93 10.95 10.67 * * * *
CO pp m 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 NOx ppm 117.5 118.4 117.6 116.6 110.6 109.5 115.0 145.2
SO 2 p p m 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 10.5 13.3 Efficiency % 8 6 8 5

. 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 6 6

. 4

. 5 8 * * * *

Figure 9. Cast iron boiler fired w i th biodiesel for comparison purposes 6

. 1

37G. Oil-fired condensing furnace w i t h n t i o n h e a d b u r n e r , v a r i o u s f u e l s

T h n t i o n h e a d b u r n e r e i re 10) was also designed with two heat exchange rs. The first non-condensing heat exchanger ( p r i l t f r o m a co mmon stainle ss steel. The condensing heat exchanger (secondary) was fabricated from a very corro e s i s t a i n l ess steel (alloy AL294C), which is extrem e l y resistant to the co rrosion environment expe cted fro m use with No. 2 (relatively high in sulfur content). Th e model tested was designed to fire at 0. 5 G P o f 7 5
, 0 0 0 B t u / h r w i t h a output of 73,500 Btu/hr and a AFUE o f 9 5 %. T h r e e d i fferent fuels, No 2 oil (1,440 ppm sulfu r), LS diesel (322
pp m l ( 1 1 p p m sulfu f i n r t i c u l a i s s r r e d and the flue gas analysis data are pr esented in Tables 33 through 38. f l a m e r e t e

e f l a m e r e t e q u i p p e d o l-fired condensing furnace (see Figu

i m a ry) w a s b u

s i v e r n t s t a

H
, a n i n p u t r a t e d

e u n i t w a s t e s t ed with t h ) a n d U L S d i e s e r). The e p a t e e m i o n f a c t o s m e a s u

F i g u r e 1 0

. O i l e d n s w a E r a t

Table 33
Oil-fired co n d ensing w a r m air furnac e, flame rete ntion hea d burner - f

i r c o n d e i n g r m air furnace, 95% A F U i n g

Fuel Type ASTM No. 2 ASTM No. 2 ASTM No. 2 Fuel Sulfur p p m 1440 1440 1440
Fuel Flo w gp h 0.48 0.48 0.48
Btu /minute 1114 1114 1114 Kj /minute 1175 1175 1175 Oxygen % 4.7 5.1 3.1 PM 2.5 sampl e mass mg 152.1 106.3 91.3 Steady State

R un time minutes 2687 1578 1363 Average STDEV PM 2.5 mg/dscm 5.0 5.9 5.9 5.6 0.5 PM 2.5 mg/dscm @ 3% O 2 5.5 6.7 5.9 6.1 0.6 PM 2.5 mg/MJ 1.5 1.9 2.0 1.8 0.24 PM 2.5 mg/kg 70.9 86.5 76.3 7 7

. 9 7.9
Lbs / M M B t u 0.0036 0.0044 0.0047 0.0042 0

. 0 0 0 6
Lbs. /100 0 ga llons 0.51 0.62 0.55 0.56 0.06

38Table 34
Oil condensi ng w a rm air furna ce, w i th flame rete ntion hea d burner w i th No. 2 fuel
Rea d ing Num ber 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average Avg. @ 3% O 2 St ack Te mp. 0 F 91.2 91.2 90.5 90.5 89.7 87.4 90.1 * * * * Oxygen % 4 4.7 4.6 4.7 5.1 5 4.7 * * * *
CO 2 % 12.6 12.2 12.2 12.2 11.9 12.7 12.3 * * * *
CO pp m 8 8 2 1 2 1 4 4 Efficiency 93.6 93. 6 93.6 93.6 93.3 94.6 93.7 * * * *

Table 35
Oil condensi ng w a rm air furna ce w i th flame reten t ion head bur ner Fuel Type LS Diesel LS Diesel Fuel Sulfur p p m 332 332
Fuel Flo w gp h 0.48 0.48
Btu /minute 1080 1080
kJ /min ute 1139 1139 Oxygen % 5.3 5.5 PM 2.5 sampl e mass mg 26.1 49.5 Steady State

R un time minutes 1523 2889 Average STDEV PM 2.5 mg/dscm 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.0002 PM 2.5 mg/dscm @ 3% O 2 1.7 1.8 1.7 0.02 PM 2.5 mg/MJ 0.496 0.502 0.499 0.005 PM 2.5 mg/kg 22.3 22.6 22.4 0.2
Lbs /MMBtu 0.0011 5 0.0011 7 0.0011 6 0.0000 1
Lbs. /100 0 ga llons 0.158 0.160 0.159 0.001 Note: Two runs only, fuel availab ility constrai ned the number of tests

ng w a r m a i r f u r n i th flame rete n t i o n h r n e r w i th L S fuel T a b l e 3 6
O i l c o n d e n s i a ce, w e a d b u Rea d ing Num ber A v e r a g e @ 3 % O 2 St ack Te m p

. 0 F 85

. 4 8 5 85.2 * *
O x y g e n % 5

. 4 5 5

. 5.5 CO % 2 CO pp m 2 0 1 1.2 Efficiency 1 2 Average

* *
* * * *
12.4 12.3 12.4 * * * *

94.7 94.7 94.7 * * * *

39Table 37
Oil condensi ng w a rm air furna ce w i th flame reten t ion head bur ner F u e l T y p e ULS ULS
F u e l S u l m f u r p p 1 1 1 1

g p 0

. 4 5 0

. 4

u t e 1 0 1 5 1 0 1

% 5

. 2 6

. 5 Steady State Fuel Flo w h 5
B t u / m i n 5
kJ /min u t e 1071 1071
O x y g e n PM 2.5 sampl e mass mg 4.1 2.2
R un time minutes 5400 4330 Average STDEV PM 2.5 mg/dscm 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.02 PM 2.5 mg/dscm @ 3% O 2 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.01
P M 2

. 5 m g / M J 0.013 0.015 0.014 0.00
P M 2

. 5 m g / k g 0.98 0.72
Lbs /MMBtu

. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Lbs. /100 0 ga l l o n s 0.01

. 0 1

N o t e : T w o r u n s o n l y , f u e l a v a i l a o n s t r h e n b i l i t y c a i n e d t u m b e r o f t e s t s

c o n d e n s i ng w a r m i t h f l t e n t r n e r i th U L S f
Num ber 1 2 3 4 6 A v g

. @

mp. 0 F 8 6

. 3 8 4

. 6 91.6 87.4 86.4 * *
6

. 3 5 5.9

. 3 2 * * * *
1 1 11.9 1 1 7 11.3 11.70 * *
4 2 1 2 3.9
93.5 93.5 93.4 93.5 93.5 93.5 93.5 * 0.85 0.2
0 3 0

. 0 0.0000 3 0.0000 03
0 0.006 0.001

Table 38
O i l a i r f u r n a ce, w a m e r e i o n b u w u el
Rea d i n g 5 Average 3 % O 2 St ack Te 83.5 85 * *
O x y g e n % 4.4 5 5.3 5 CO 2 % 12.4 11.9

. * *
CO pp m 3 2 0
E f

f i c i e n c y * * *

H

. O i l

- f i r e d cast iron b o iler w i th combus tion gas recirculation burner (blue flame)

T h e c i n a conventional cast iron sectional h r o n i n i t , as shown in Figure 10. The
t e s e s ented in Table s n d 4 e p a r t i c u l a t e e n s w e r e v e r y sim ilar to those obtained for various units equipped with flam e retention head burners ( y e )

. T h e g a s e o u s e m n s r e f l e c d e c r e a s e i n N O c o m p ared to the conventional yellow flam e burn e the United S t ates. This unit was tested using ULS fuel only. Further testing was not warranted based on budget constraints and
t h e s m all insta l l e d i n r y i s t y o i l b u r n e r t e c h in the United
t a t e s

. P r o j ections for future sales are al so ve ry s m all in the U.S. m a rket. o m bus tion gas recirculation (blue flam e) burner (see F i g u r e 1 1 ) w a s e v a l u a t e d
y d c u t h e s a m e boiler
t s r e s u lts a r e p r 3 9 a 0

. T h m i s s i o

l l o w f l a m e i s s i o d a t a t s a x w h e n r used in

e x t r em e l y v e n t o o f t h p e o f n o log y S

40Table 39
C a s t iron boiler w i th com bustion g as recircula t ion burner w i th ULS

e m ent 2 3

e m p eratu r e O F 317.3
% 3

. 8 9 3

. 8 5 3.96
2

. 7 9 1 2

. 8 2
3

. 1 3

. 3

m 4 5

. 2 4 5 4 5

. 5

m 0 0 0

c y % 8 8

. 2 8

. 5 8 8

. 8 8 8

. 5

f i r e d c a s t i r o b u s t i o n g a s r e c i r c u l a t i o n b r n e r a n d U
T y p e U L S
l f u r p p m 37 37 37 M e a s u r 1 Average Avg, @ 3% O 2 S t a c k T 3 3 7

. 4 328.8 327.8 ***
O x y g e n 4

. 1 4 *** CO 2 % 1 2

. 6 1 12.74 *** CO pp m 1

. 6 2.7 3.3
N O x p p 45.2 55.8 SO 2 pp 0 0
E f f i c i e n 8 ***

Table 40
O i l

- n b o i l e r w i t h c o m u L S
F u e l ULS S U L
F u e l S u Fuel Flo w gp h 0.67 0.65 0.68 Btu /minute 1535 1485 1563 Kj /minute 1619 1567 1649 Oxygen % 4.0 4.0 4.0 P Steady State

M 2

. 5 s a m p l e mass mg 7.3 7.6 7.1
Run time min u t e s 4518 5 7 5 1 4 6 7 4 A v e r a g e STDEV
P M 2

. 5 m g / d s c m 0

. 1 2 0.13 0.01
P M 2

. 5 m g / d s c m % O @ 3 2 2 0.14 0.01
P M 2

. 5 m g / M J 0.043 0

. 0 3 5 0

. 0 4 0 0.039 0.004
P M 2

. 0.2
Lbs / M M B t u 0.0001 0 0

. 0 0 0 0 8 0

. 0 0 0 0 9 0

. 0 0 0 0 1 0.14 0.13
0.15 0

. 1 0.14

5 m g / k g 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.8

. 0 0 0 0 9 0
Lbs. /100 0 ga llons 0.014 0.011 0.013 0.013 0.001

Figure 11. Combustio n gas recirculation (blu e flame) bu rner

41I

. W o o d p e g n i tion

T h e e v w a f o r i m u t o f 4

. u n d s p e r h o u F 1 2

. t c o n t s e a t e x c h a n g e r w e r e constructed prim arily out of h eavy g a uge steel s h e e t w i t u t e r c a s o f l i g h t e r g a u l

. T h e d e s i g n i n s e v o tors driving the fuel fed auger, air

c i r c w e r a n d p o w e r b l o w e e u n i t e q u i w ith a control board that included an adjustm e nt knob that varied the fuel input rate by changing the auger

o n / o n o t h e r k n o b o n n t r o l d w a s t o control the air blower speed
t h a t h e f o r c e d c o n v e c e h e a t t r m h e s t o v y c i r c u l a t r o o m a i r t h r o x c h a n g e r b a t o t h m

. T t ’ s d i n c o r p o d a p e l l e t

e d a u g e r t h a t f e d f u e l p e l l e t s t o t h e t op of a downward chute that then dropped the pellets onto the top of th e burner grate. The burn grate was open on the b o ttom allowing the m a j b e d o f f u e l

. T h e c t i o n facing the stove’s glass door) a n d l a r g e ter one b e i n g v e ry hot air jet that p r e d f o r autom a ted ignition. This air jet flowing over an electric hot su rface ign i t e t s t h e d p e l l e t s to th e point of ignition. The unit was also equipped with c o m n a i r b y y e t

a n o t h e w i t h a n a d j u s t a b p e r r a f t c

. I t c o u l d b e s i d e w a ll or vertically vented. The unit was only tested at the m a xi m u put rating determ ined to be 4

. 3 p o t h e s g s u s r i n g t h t s

. T h e s t o v e was operated

u n d e r c o n d i t i o n s u g e o l f o r 1

s e c o n d 5 s e c o n d s r n g i n m e w h l i c b a t t e i s w a s most evident in the wide swings in CO meas w h i c h e s u l t h a n a i r

- f u e l ratio changing over short tim e periods. The NOx level range on the other hand was rela t i v o st like l y ref l e t h e t h a t t h e e s t p o n of bustion N O x e r e l a t e d t o t h O t h o n o u n d

n i t r o g x f o r m a t r t i c m i s s i s w e r i n two size categories, sm aller than 2.5 m i crons and those larger than 2.5 m i crons. The results are presented in Table 4 1 and the gaseous em i ssions data recorded are presented in T a ble 42. l l e t s t o v e ; d r o p d o w n ov er fed, open b u r n e r g r a t e , a n d e l e c t r i c i

f i r s t w o o d p e l l e t s t o v e

r (

~ 3 8
, 0 0 0 B t u / h r )

, s e e a l u a t e d i g u r e s r a t e d T h e h o a m a x

m

p o n e u m i n p

a n d h 5 p o

m e t a l h a n o i n g g e m e t a c l u d e d e r a l m

u l a t i o n b l o d r a f t r

. T h w a s p p e d

f f c y c l e

. A t h e c o b o a r u s e d
p r o v i d e s t t i v a n sfer fro t e b i n g

u g h t h e h e a t e c k i n t o e r o o h e u n i e s i g n r a t e f e

o r p o r t i o n o f t h e f o rced com bustion ai r to flow upward thr o u g h t h e b u r n i n g

e b u r n e r g r ate also had eig h t air in let holes across its front su r f a c e ( d i r t h r e e r h o les on the backside with the cen
t h e i n let f o r t h e o v i d

r h e a a i r a n f o r c e d b u s t i o f l o w s u p p l i e d

r b l o w e r le dam fo r d o n t r o l

m i n

u n d s p e r h o u r bas e d o n e t t i n e d d u e t e s

n e a r s t eady s t a t e

. T h e a r p e l l et feed c o n t r a c t u a l l y c y c l e s o n

a n d o f f f o r 1

. 1 e s u l t i a s o a t c y c u r n p r n

. T h

u r e d

, i s a r t h e c g i n g

e l y n a r r o w m c t i n g f a c t la r g r t i o c o m

m i s s i o n s a r e e r m a l N x v e r s u s s e p o r t i o s r e l a t e d t o f u e l b

e n a n d p r o m pt N O i o n

. P a u l a t e e o n r a t e e r e d e t m i n e d

Figure 12. Pellet stove w i th drop down over fed, open burner grate, electric ignition

42Table 41 Wood pellet stove, drop do w n ove r fed, op en burner grate, electric ig nition

Fine Particul ate (PM 2.5 )
Lbs /hr 4.3 4.3 4.3
Btu /minute 569 569 569 Kj /minute 601 601 601 Oxygen % 13.25 13.25 13.25 PM 2.5 sampl e mass mg 11.1 15.8 14.8 Steady State Operation

(800 1 Btu/lb)

Run time min u tes 75 60 90 Average STDEV PM 2.5 mg/dscm 16 22 15 18 4 PM mg/dscm @ 3% O 2 84 123 77 95 25 PM 2.5 mg/MJ 28 39 24 30 8 PM 2.5 mg/kg 519 718 447 562 140
Lbs /MMBtu 0.065 0.090 0.056 0.070 0.018
Lb /Ton 1.04 1.44 0.89 1.12 0.28 Gram p a rti c ul ate /hr 1.00 1.03 0.93 0.99 0.05

Larger Particula t e (>P M 2.5) Cyclone Catch
PM > 2.5 sa mple ma ss m g 6.1 7.5 5.1 Average STDEV PM > 2.5 mg/dscm 14 21 16 17 4
PM > mg/dscm @ 3% O 2 71 112 81 88 21 PM > 2.5 mg/MJ 24 35 26 28 6 PM > 2.5 mg/kg 444 655 475 524 114
Lbs /MMBtu 0.056 0.082 0.059 0.066 0.014
Lb /Ton 0.89 1.31 0.95 1.05 0.23 Gram p a rti c ul ate /hr 0.86 1.27 0.92 1.02 0.22

Table 42 Wood pelle t stov e, o v er f eed, open gr ate, elec tric ignition
Measurement Ran ge Average Avg. @ 3% Oxygen
T e m p er a t ur e O F 387.1-420.5 403.1   Oxygen % 16.70-18.10 17.5 ** **
CO 2 % 2.72-4.0 6 3.29   NOx ppm 18.3-2 7 .6 22.1 116.4 CO pp m 60.7-1 87.4 117.7 619.7
SO 2 ppm 0-2 1 5.3 Efficiency % 48.7-6 4 .4 58.5 ** **

43J. Pellet sto v e, over fed b u r n e r , e n c l o s a n b u r n g r a t e , e l e c t r i c i g n i t i o n

T h e i n g autom a tic ig nition b a sed a o n v u r f ace ign iter. It was fabricated i r o n a s w e l l a s h e a v y g a u g e steel shee i n c o t e d a se lf -cle aning f e ature d y e t a n o t h e r e l e c t r i c m o t o r

. s e c n i t n i n p u t 00 to / h o u r o r a b o u t 1

. 8

- 7

. 5 pounds of fuel per hour. This unit was operated at

s a m e f u e l i n p u t a s t h e o t ood pellet stoves to m a ke a m o re direct

o f p e r f o r m a n c e

. T h e a c t u a l n s c o d i n t h 4 0 0

–
e s e a n i n g d u c t i l e i r o n f i r e p o t

a m i croprocessor control t h a l o w e d r c g e s

u e l t y p e

. I n a d d i t i o n t o e m iu m o o d e t s ( < 1% ash content) this

u r n s t a n d a r d g r a d d high ash content wood pellets, shelled field

a n d o t h e r b i o m ass fu els with higher ash contents like wheat and black oil d s

. L i k e t h e p r e v i o u s u n i p e a r e t r a n s d f r o m f u e l the b ack of the u n i t t o l f u e e r y c h e p s b y g r a v i t y d o w n t h e c h u t e t d s d a i g h t l y e t h e p o t

. Once the pellets drop fro m the ch ute they fall onto the top of the b u rning fuel bed.

o r c e d t h r o u g h t h e f d f e l o d t h r o a s e r i e n l e t holes in the bottom plate of the burn pot. The bottom plate of the burn pot is hinged. Periodically t h e c o n l o n g e r d e t e c t e d t h e p o t d r o p s a w n i t s g e a m o n s a r

s b y m oving across the b o t t p r o c e s s o r a n d o s o n e d e t e n e d s c l e b a s e t h e t h e f i r i n g r a t e s e l e c t e d n c e t l e a n i y c l e i s m p l e t e d

a n d a u to m a tically re-starts th e bu p r o

.

m ission rates were again d m aller than 2.5

a n d t h o s e l a r g e r t h a n 2

. 5 m i crons. Th e results are presented in Table 43 and the

a t a r e c o r d e d a r e p r e d i n e 4 4 e d s e l f

- c l e

s e c o n d w o o d p e l l e t s t o v e w a s s i m ilar in for m and fu n c t i o n t o t h e f i r s t i n c l u d

e r y h o t air jet us i n g a h o t s from c a s t t

. I t rp o r a t h a t r e q u i r e T h e o n d u h a d a r a n g e o f 1 4
, 6 6 0
, 2 0 0 B t u

a b o u t t h e

com p a r i s o n h e r w t e s t r u w e r e n d u c t e e r a n g e o f 3 4
, 38,400 Btu/hr. The m a jor design differences be i n g t h e l f

- c l ( f

i r e g r a t e ) a n d t a l f o u s t o m i z i n t h e s t o v

o p e r a t i o n t o t h e f p r w p e l l

u n i t w a s d e s i g n e d t o b e a n

c o r n ( k e r n e l s )

, s u n f l o w e r s e e t , t h e l l e t s a g a i n f e r r e t h e storage hop per in t o t h e p o f a n i n t e r n a l d e l i v h u t e

. T f u e l d r o h a t e n b e h i n n d s l a b o v b u r n

Co m b u s t i o n a i r i s f i r e b e r o m b w , f e u g h s o f i

t r o l stops the burn process and once th e f i r e i s n o bottom p l a t e o f t h e b u r n a y o h i n n d a t o r d r i v e c a r p e r b

c l e a n s a n y c l i n k e r o m of the open burn pot. This is all controlled by the m i c r o c c u r a p r r m i h e d u d o n t y p e o f f u e l a n d

. O h e c n g c c o t h e unit feeds m o r e f u e l r n i n g c e s s

P a r t i c u l a t e e e t e r m ined in two size catego r ies, s

m i c r o n s gaseous em i s s i o n s d s e n t e T a b l

.

Figure 13. Stove, overfed burner, enclosed se lf-clean burn pot/grate, elec tric ign i tion

44Table 43 Pellet stove, over fed burner, clos ed se lf-clean burn grate, electric ignition

Fine Particul ate (PM 2.5 )
Lbs /hr 4.3 4.6 4.8
Btu /minute 567 620 633 Kj /minute 598 653 668 Oxygen % 13.25 13.25 13.25 PM 2.5 sampl e mass mg 23.9 19.6 17.2 Steady State Operation

(800 1 Btu/lb)

Run time min u tes 90 62 60 Average STDEV PM 2.5 mg/dscm 24 28 26 26 2 PM mg/dscm @ 3% O 2 71 85 77 78 7 PM 2.5 mg/MJ 20 24 22 22 2 PM 2.5 mg/kg 377 450 409 412 37
Lbs /MMBtu 0.047 0.056 0.051 0.051 0.005
Lb /Ton 0.75 0.90 0.82 0.82 0.07 Gram p a rti c ul ate /hr 0.73 0.95 0.88 0.85 0.11

Larger Particula t e (>P M 2.5) Cyclone Catch
PM > 2.5 sa mple ma ss m g 10.1 8.1 4.7 Average STDEV PM > 2.5 mg/dscm 10 12 7 10 2
PM > mg/dscm @ 3% O 2 30 35 21 29 7 PM > 2.5 mg/MJ 9 10 6 8 2 PM > 2.5 mg/kg 159 186 112 152 38
Lbs /MMBtu 0.020 0.023 0.014 0.019 0.005
Lb /Ton 0.32 0.37 0.22 0.30 0.08 Gram p a rti c ul ate /hr 0.31 0.39 0.24 0.31 0.08

Table 44 Pellet stove, over fed burner, clos ed se lf-clean burn grate, electric ignition
Measurement Ran ge Average Avg. @ 3% Oxygen
T e m p er a t ur e O F 377.6-395.4 386.4   Oxygen % 13.77-16.40 14.76 ** **
CO 2 % 4.35-7.0 2 5.91   NOx ppm 28.3-4 5 .7 38.6 131.4 CO pp m 34.9-9 1 .1 57.7 196.4
SO 2 ppm 0 0 0 Efficiency % 68.1-7 6 .6 73.5 ** **

45K. Wood pellet stove, horiz o n t a l u n d e e n g r a t e , w i th manua l gel ignition

T h e t h i r d p e l l e t s t o v e ( s e e F i g u r heavy steel p l ate and included a few cast iron com pone nts as well. It was desi gned for a fuel input range of 0.75 to 5.5
p o u n r ( 6
, 0 0 0

– 4 4
, 0 0 0 B t u / h r )

. i n g t e s i t w a l o w o f 4.9 to a high of 5.2 pou n d s o f f u e l p e r h o h e e r g r a t e ) t c a n b e s t be described as a rear unde r-fed design with front si de combustion air inlets ( a p p a n u n d e r f e d b u r n e r t y p e ) t t h d o w e l d m e nt where an a r a e d t h e pellets f o rward into the base of the burner pot (g ra te ). The unit wa s t e q e d a u s t a r t f e a t u h e u s e o f a f i r e s t a r g e l e g e a s spread out on top of the fuel bed in the burn pot and ignited with a m a t c h s t a r burn pot had a series of holes for com bustion a i i r s t , p e l l e r e f e d b t h e f u e l auger into the bottom of the bur ner grate. e of the grate they f o r c e d upward towards th e op en burner f ace where l l b A s r n i n g p r o c e e d s t h e a s h p r o d u c e d then falls o f f u g e o b u r n

w i t h unit had a f u el f eed rate adjustm d a n i rcula l o w er adjustm e nt on the control board. It also was equipped with an induced draft blower as

we r e t h e ot he r s t oves

P a r t e s w e r e a g a i n d e t e e d o s i c a t e g o , s m aller than 2.5

m i crons and those larger than 2.5 m i c r o n s e r e s a r e s e n t e T a b l e a n d t h e g a s e d e d a r e p r e s e n i n T e 4 6 r f e e d , o p

e 1 4 ) w a s f a b r icated from

d s p e r h o u D u r t h e t r u n s f i r e d f r o m a

u r

. T b u r n p o t ( o n t h i s u n i

r o x i m a t i n g

. P e l l e s f r o m e i n t e grated storage bin dropped

n i n t o t h e f e e d e r b o d y w u g e r t n s f e r r

n o u i p p w i t h a n t o m a t i c

r e a n d r e q u i r e d t t i n g

. T h l w t o t t h e unit. The front face of the

r

. F t h e t s a y Then by the d sig n a r e t h e p e e t s a r e u r n e d

. t h e b u

e s s p r o c t h e o t e r e d f t h e e r g r ate. As

a l l t h r e e stoves th i s e n t a n a i r c t i o n b

.

i c u l a t e e m i s s i o n r a t r m i n i n t w z e r i e s

. T h
t e d s u l t

a b l e p r

. d i n 4 5

o u s e m i s s i o n s d a t a r e c o r

Figure 14. Pellet stove, side feed b u rner, open burner grate, and manual gel ign i tion

46Table 45 Wood pellet stove, horizontal unde r feed burner, open grate, manual gel ignition

Fine Particul ate (PM 2.5 )
b s / h r 4.9 5.5 5.2
t u / m i n u t e 653 728 696 j / m i n u t e 689 768 734

x y g e n % 13.25 13.25 13.25
M 2

. 5 s a m p l e mass mg 33.7 38.4 35.7 Steady State Operation

(800 1 Btu/lb)

u n t i m e m i n u tes 91 112 110 Average STDEV
M 2

. 5 m g / d s c m 33 30 29 31 2
M m g / d s c m @ 3 % O 2 77 71 67 72 5
M 2

. 5 m g / M J 24 22 21 23 2
M 2

. 5 m g / k g L
B
K
O
P
R
P
P
P
P 451 417 393 421 29
Lbs /MMBtu 0.056 0.052 0.049 0.053 0.004
L b / T o n 0.90 0.83 0.79 0.84 0.06

r a m p a rti c ul ate /hr 1.00 1.03 0.93 0.99 0.05 G

Larger Particula t e (>P M 2.5) Cyclone Catch
PM > 2.5 sa mple ma ss m g 6.1 7.5 5.1 Average STDEV PM > 2.5 mg/dscm 6 6 4 5 1
PM > mg/dscm @ 3% O 2 14 14 10 13 3 PM > 2.5 mg/MJ 4 4 3 4 1 PM > 2.5 mg/kg 82 81 56 73 15
Lbs /MMBtu 0.010 0.010 0.007 0.009 0.002
Lb /Ton 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.15 0.03 Gram p a rti c ul ate /hr 0.18 0.20 0.13 0.17 0.04

47Table 46 Wood pellet stove, horizontal unde r feed burner, open grate, manual gel ignition
Measurement Ran ge Average Avg. @ 3% Oxygen
T e m p er a t ur e O F 410.9-424.1 419.7   Oxygen % 11.69-14.43 1 3

. 2 3 ** **
C O 2 % 6.22-8.8 4 7.36  
5 38.8 CO pp m 0 9
SO 2 ppm 0-15 4 10.9
E f

f i c i e n c y 5

. 9 ** **

+ T h r e e r e a d ings were off scale (>50 0 pp
, t s 5 i n a v m C O ) a k e n a 0 0 p p m e r a g e

. NOx ppm 34.8-4 4

. 105.7
53.5-5 0 0 + 2 569.5

% 71.4-7 8 .2 7

48VI. Conclusions

T

e d i n N e w t a t e

. T h e r e s u t e g a s e o u l a s p d g r a r m ination of fine particulate em issions for a broad

c o f o i l

, g a s l l et em issi ons including liquid fuels of various sulfur

c

. T h e o i l

- f i r e d s u l t s w i l l be reviewed first, followed by those for gasfired heating appliances and then wood-fired pellet stoves. Then a co m p o f r e s u l t s between the dif f e rent fuel options will be pres f t h e e q u i p e s t e d w a s

m r e d and av a i l s t alla tion in the United S t ate s . The ination of fine particulates was based on a dilution t unnel m easure m en t followi ng a conditional test protocol developed by the US-EPA , Conditional Test Method 39 (CTM-039).

. R e s u l t s f o r Oil-f i red Heat ing Appliances

The gaseous m easurem e n ts of O 2 , C O 2 , CO, NOx and SO 2 are presented in the p r evious chapter of this report for each tes t series. Th e results are basically as expected and as reported in prior studies on em i ssion s. Based on excess air levels and ultim a te analysis of the fuel’s chem ical co mposition th e em ission re sults are as expected and fall within the range of emission factors contained in the US-E PA AP 42, Em ission Factors Volum e I, Fif t h Editio n. One are a of the work tha t do es expand on prior kn owledge is the docum entation of gaseous em issions for heating system s fir e d with biod iesel. Since were
no unexpec t ed f i ndings the bulk of this rep o rt discu ssion will be center e d on the

em issions of fine particulates, or PM 2.5.

The results for fine particulate (PM 2.5) indi c a te a very stron g lin ear relationship between the m a sses of fine particulate for the different fuel oils as a function of the sulfur content of

the f u el in question. This is illustrated by the plot contained in Figure 15 which clearly illus t r a tes th e lin ear rela tionship between the m easured m a ss of f

i ne par ticu l ate per unit of energy expressed as m g /MJ versus the diffe rent sulfur contents of four diffe r ent heating fuels when used in th e co nventi ona l cast iron b o ile r equipp ed with a f l am e retention head burner. The fuels included a t ypic a l No. 2 f u el oil with su lf ur below 0.5 percent (1520 average pp m S), a No. 2 fuel oil with very high su lfur content (5780-pp m S), low sulfur heating oil (322-ppm S) and an ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (11-ppm S). The bar chart in Figure 16 is a summ ary of results fo r three fuels (No. 2, LS and ULS) again when fired in the conventional cast iron boiler with a flam e retention head burner. Three dif f e rent em ission ra te u n its with e a c h bar la be le d with th e v a lue g i ven to two sign if icant figures. Three additional heating system types were also tested with norm a l heating fuel, low sulfur and ultralo w sulfur fuel. Thes e in cluded an o il-fired warm air furnace of convention a l design, a high efficiency condensing warm air furnace, a condensing hydronic boiler and the conventional hydronic boile r as discussed above. The linearity in the re sults was observe d with all o f the dif f e rent oil-fired equipm ent types as shown in Figure 17. In this plot only the three fuels were included which explains the difference in the f o rm ula f o r the trend line and R 2 factor (the coefficient o f determ ination which is an indicator of goodness of the fit) of the linear regression analysis. In all four cases the rsquared for the linear regression was 0.99 or better.

h i s p r o j e c t h a s p r o v i d e d a c o mpilation of e m i s s i o n d a t a f o r r e s i d e n t i a l h e a t i n g q u i p m e n t u s e Y o r k S l t s u p d a s e m i s s i o n s a s w e l

r o v i d e a d e t a i l e v i m e t r i c d e t e

o m p a r i s o n a n d w o o d p e

o n t e n t s y s t e m s r e s

a r i s o n

m e n t t ented. All o

a nuf a c t u a b l e f o r i n d e t e r m

A

49Figure 15. Cast iron boiler, PM 2. 5 as a function of sulfu r content 0
0 1000 2000 30 00 400 0 5 000 6 000 700 0

Su lfur pp m

Cast I r o n Bo i l e r, F l a m 0. 5PM 2.5 mg/MJ

e Reten t i o n Head Bu rn er W i t h T h ree D i st illat e Fue ls, Sulf ur R a nge 11- 1520 ppm C ast I r on B o il er , F l a m e R e t e nt i o n H ead B u r n er Wi th F o u r D i st i l l a t e Fu els
, Su lf ur R a n g e 11- 57 80 pp m

4. 5

5

y = 0. 0008x
R 2 = 0. 9978

1. 5

2 2. 5

3 3. 5

4

1

Figure 16. Cast iron boiler PM 2. 5 mg / M J , m 0. 025 1. 18 0. 092 0. 49 22

1. 7 1. 32 60

4. 7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

m g / M J m g / kg m g / d scm @3% O2 UL S 11-p p m S L S 450-p p m S No

. 2 1520-p p m S

g / k g , m g / d s c m f o r t h r e e f u e l s

50Figure 17. PM 2.5 for convention al and condensing, boilers and furnaces

B. Discussion of Biodiesel Blends

As discussed in Section VI, F, the results obt ained while testing with a soy biodiesel were y = 0. 000 9x
R 2 = 0. 98 92 y = 0. 001 4x
R 2 = 0

. 99 07

y = 0. 0013 x R 2 = 0. 996 1

0 0. 5

1 1. 5

2

0 5 00 1000 1500 20 00 2 500PM 2.5 mg/MJ

Bo ile r Fu r n ace Co nd. Boi l e r Co nd. Fur na ce L i ne a r (Bo ile r)
Li n e ar ( F ur n ace )
L i ne a r (Co nd. Boil e r )
L i ne a r (Co nd. Furn a c e ) C o n v ent i on a l and C o nde n s ing Oil Fir e d He ating A p pl iance s

W i th Middle Distil late Fuels , S u lf ur Range 11-15 20 p p m

y = 0. 00 13x
R 2 = 0

. 99 99 2. 5

3

Su l f ur ppm

quite un exp ected. Th e f i rst test was with bi odi e s e l fi r e d i n t o a c o nde n s i ng oi l -fi r e d hydronic boiler. The result was a fine partic ulate em ission of 1.7 m g / M J that was only slight lower then the level found in the sa m e b o iler, which was 2.5 mg/MJ when fired with No. 2 fuel with a typical sulfur c ontent of 1900-ppm s u lfur. The uniqueness of the condensing oil-fired boiler which had been us ed in a prior field dem onstration caused concern that either the c ondensing mode m i ght be exhi biting an unknown pheno menon or that the na tu re of the biof uel was so radic a lly dif f erent as to cause a m a j o r difference in the particulate em issions even though it was very low in sulfur content. In an attempt to resolve this, a conventional oil-fired boiler was tested with the sam e fue l . The result was

an em ission rate of 0.3 mg/MJ, still higher than one would e xpect based on a fuel that is supposed to be nearly sulfur free. This level is about 60 percent of the average value found when using LS (500-ppm S) fuel as dete rm ined during this project equivalent to a fuel with approxim a tely 300-ppm sulfur. Ba sed on the m easurable levels of sulfur dioxide and prior fuel analysis that found sulfur content in soy based biodiesel at a level of 340-pp m the result fro m the conventional boiler seem s reasonable. However the level in the condensing boiler is still about five tim es greater. It would appear that there is

som e thing u nusual occurring with the condens ing boiler. Whether this was an artifact fro m prior use in the field and possible particulates from the boiler being washed up in
t h e f w n

. l u e g a s s t r e a m or som e other pa rticulate generation phenom en o n i s u n k n o

5152 0.9

0 Unfortunately this was the last oil-fired boiler tested during the project. Lim ited funds

rem a ined f o r com p letin g the r e por ting and in f o rm ation d i ssem i nation tasks and the budget would not allow for any additional tests to further investigate this qu estion.

C. Results f o r Gas- fir e d Heating Appliances

Again, the gaseous m e asurem ents of O 2 , CO 2 , CO, NOx and SO 2 are presented in the previous chapter of this repor t and the results are bas i cally as expected and reported in prior stud ies on em issions. Based on excess air levels and ultim ate analysis of the fuel’s

com position, the em ission results are as expected and fall within the range provided for

em ission factors contained in the US-EPA AP 42, Em ission Factors Volum e I, Fifth Edition. Since there were no unexpected finding s, the bulk of this discussion will be centered on the em issions of fine particulates, or PM 2.5.

PM 2.5 Emis sion F actor s f o r

Sev e r a l Natur a l G a s Fir e d A pplianc e

1.9 6

1.5

2

1

Figure 18. PM 2.5 emission factors for gas furnace, boiler and condensing boiler

Three different gas-fired hea ting system s were tested. These included a conventional inshot induced draft warm air furnace, an atm o spheric fired hydronic boiler and a high efficiency hydronic boiler. The particulat e (PM 2.5) m easured ranged fro m 0.011 to 0.036 m g /MJ as shown in Figure 18. Test s included both steady state and cyclic operation. These were very low em ission ra tes and to o b tain these values s a mpling 0.0 1 1 0.6 3

0.0 4 3 0.0 1 6 0.0 6 0.0 3 6 0.1 3

0 . 5

mg/MJ mg/kg C oncentr atio n at 3 % O 2

Fur nac e Bo il e r C o nd ens i ng B o i l e roccurred over long periods of operation. The actual sam p le s i ze co llected ranged form 2 – 12 m g . Although there appears to be a differen ce in the level of e m issions based on the heating sys t em type the actual d i fference is we ll with in the range expec t ed f o r g a s-f i red

e q u i p m ent based on prior studies. In a 1993 study done by the California Institute of

o n t u n n e l d e s i g n s , t h e v a l u e d e t e r m ine d

a s 0

. 0 4 6 m g p e r M J + /

- 0

. 0 1 7 f o r t h e r e s i d e ntial heating units ev aluated in the field

s t o v e s h a d m easurable am ounts of particu l ates sized abo v e the 2.5

- micron s i ze th at defines fine partic u l ates (less th an 2.5

m i crons). The fine particulate em issions ra 2 2 to 30 m g /MJ as indicated in Figu re 1 9 , also inc l uded in the graph are em issions e xpressed in m illigram s per kilogram mg/kg and em ission co ncentratio n as m g pe r dry standard cubic m e ter (m g/dsc m ). Although “Stove I” had larger em issions than the other two they are still within th e s a m e order of m a gnitude relative to each other. In addition to the particulate

em issions being so high it is im portant to note that these stoves had significant levels of carbon m onoxide in their flue products and so special attention should be followed to venting requirem ents to avoid hum a n exposure as with any co m bustion system in a ho m e

. Carbon m o n oxide levels in the exhaust flue averaged between 200 and 600-ppm

. Technology using one of the first original d i l u t i

w which closely m a tches the values ob tained in the curren t stud y.

D. Results for Wood Pellet Stoves Ma nufactu red in the United States
Three pellet stoves were included in this study. W ood pellet prop erties vary greatly depending on the raw material source used in th eir m a nuf acture. All thr ee stoves w e re fueled with wood pellets obtained in a single batch to provide for unif o rm ity in the test fuel. Unlike the oil and gas fired system s the woo d p e l l e t

tes ranged from

Three Pel l e t Stov es Ev al uated for PM 2. 5 and PM > 2

. 5 M i crons

10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 St ov e I o v e J Sto v e K

P M G r eat er t h an 2.5 M i cr o n s P M L e ss t h an 2

. 5 M i cr o n s ( P M 2.5 ) S t

Figure 19. Three stoves evaluated fo r PM 2.5 and PM > 2.5 Microns 0

m g /MJ m g / kg mg /d s c m @ 3 % O 2 mg /MJ m g / kg mg /d sc m@ 3 % O2

53E. Comparison of Results fo r all Residentia l Heating Appliances

A summ ary com p arison of results averaged by fuel types is shown in Figure 20 for the equipm ent included in this study. T h is summ arizes the basic conclusions of the study with regard to fine particulate em issions.

• Gas-fired equipm ent has the lowest current p a r t i c u l a t e e m issions averaging 0.014

h t y p i cal su lfur

F i g u r t i o n s m illigram per m e ga-Joule (m g/MJ).

• Oil-fired units currently have em issions averag ing 1.7 m g / M J w i t levels and this is approxim ately 120 tim es greater when co m p ared to those for gas-fired units; reductions of 71% can be accomplished by using low sulfur fuel oil (500 ppm lim it).

• In the nea r f

u ture when f u el oil will b e required to m eet Ultra Low Sulf ur lim its of 15-ppm sulfur, the pa rtic ulate em issions will be of the sam e order of m a gnitude a s those found for gas fired units. In parts of New York this m a y happen by 2011.

• Wood pellet stoves have em issions averagin g 25 mg/MJ and this is approxim ately 15 tim es greater than those of oil-fired units or approxim a tely 1800 tim e s greater than gas fired units.

• Wood pellet stoves are considered to have the lowest level of all wood fueled heating system s in the United States.

Comparison of A v erage PM 2.5 for Fi ve Heat i n g Fu el Ty pes f o r Hy dr o n i c B o i l e r s and War m A i r Funa ces

0. 016 0.025 0.49 1. 32
0. 011 0.06 0.51 2. 1 25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Gas U LS LS A S TM N o . 2 W o o d PelletPM2.5mg/MJ Bo i l e r Furnace

N o te: W ood pel let s t ov es inc l ude d

e 2 0

. C o m p a r i s o n o f a v e r a g e P M 2

. 5 e m i s s i o n s f o r f i v e h e a t i n g f u e l o p

54VII. Recommendations

This report has identified the em issions to be expected from a wide r a nge of heating equipm ent based on liquid fuel options, util ity supplied gas and wood pellet resources. The greater p a r t o f e f f o r t w a s p l a c e d o n g e nerating a database for the m a ss em ission rate f f i n e p a r t i c u l a t e s ( P M 2

. 5 ) f o r t h e v a r i o u s fuel types studied when fired in residential applian

D i s s

Ho m e o burning natural gas, heating oil, w ood. Natural gas use results in very low levels of PM 2

. 5 A S T M tim e s h t

f i r e h

a p p r o x levels possible with either utility g a s or u ltr a low sulf ur oil f u eled ap plianc es. Wood
p e l

a n d D O
g o o d c e the lowest em itters of particulates when

com p ared to other type of wood burning appliances. W ood pe llet fuel is a renew a ble resource that absorbs carbon dioxide during the natural growth cycle. T h is is considered to be a bene f it in helpin g to m itigate global c l im ate changes by ef f ectively reduc ing the carbon dioxide em issions that otherwise would be attributed to the use of wood p e llet fuel. Like wood, biodiesel is also a renewabl e fuel and also absorbs carbon dioxide in the growth cycle of the crop plants u s ed to produce the raw m a terials for biodiesel production, for exam ple soybean or other s eed crops. Biodiesel can be blended with ASTM heating No. 2 or ultra low sulfur heat in g oil. In either cas e it would effectively reduce the em issions of carbon dioxide based on its renewable nature. T h e extent of the carbon dioxide reduction would be proportional to the a m o unts of biod iesel used in the blends.

To su mm arize, natural gas has low PM 2.5 em issions but m oderate carbon dioxide

em issions. Wood pellet fuel has much higher PM 2.5 e m i ssion levels (based on current technology) but effectively lower carbon dioxide em issions due the renewable nature of trees that absorb carbon dioxi de as they grow. ASTM No. 2 fuel as cu rrently us ed has higher em issions of PM 2.5 th an natural gas, much lower PM 2.5 em issions than wood pellet fuel and higher levels of carbon diox ide em issions than both alternatives. Transitioning the sulfur content of fuel oil to ultr a low leve ls (less than 15 ppm ) results in PM 2.5 e m issions are on the sam e order of m a gnitude as na tu ral gas bu t still em its higher levels of carbon dioxide. Natural gas produces about 30 percent less carbon dioxide per Btu when compared to ASTM No. 2 or ultra lo w sulfur heating oil. Blending of ultra lo w sulf ur with biodies el in the f u ture is anti cip a ted as a alternative fuel choice and th e

s u l t i n g f u e l b l e n d w o u l d h a v e v e r y l o w P M 2.5 em issions as we ll as low net carbon d i s report presents carbon dioxide data as it was m easured but the analysis of the net carbon o

ces.

c u s i o n :

w n e r s currently have m a ny choices to h eat their ho m e s. These choices include

e m issions but being a hydrocarbon fuel it em its substantial levels of carbon dioxide. N o

. 2 f u e l o i l f i r e d h e a t i n g a p p l i a n c es produce PM 2.5 levels that are about 130 i g h e r t h a n n a t u r a l g a s a n d h i g h e r e m i ssion levels of carbon dioxide. W ood p e l l e d e a t i n g applianc e s m a de in the Untie d States p r od u c e P M 2

. 5 l e v e l s t h a t a r e i m a tely 15 tim e s higher than ASTM fuel oil and from about 590 to 1850 tim es the

l e t he atin g f u el is of ten se lected over other f o rm s of wo od fuel choices based on EPA E g u idance. This guidance suggests that the use of wood pellet appliances is a h o i c e b e c a u s e t h e y a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o b

r e

o x i d e e m issions when the re newable nature of the fuel is taken into accounted. T h i

55d i o x i d e r e d u c t i o n b a s e d o n t h e u s e o f r e n e w a b l e fuels is beyond the scope of the current

r o

j e c t

e s s w i t h r e g a r d t o r e s i d e n t i a l h e ating technology in Ne w York State as well

s t h e o t h e r N e w E n g l a n d a n d M i d

- A t l a n t i c S t a t es where a m a jority of hom e heatin g is l c o m b ustion technologies. p

The question of how to reduce PM 2.5 em issions in areas that currently do not m e et the criter ia f o r EPA attain m e nt is complex and is not part of the scope of this project. This project does however provide important data that should be useful to the overall decisionm a k i n g p r o c

a b a s e d o n f u e

56Appendix A: Examples of Fuel Analysis Results

Liquid Fuels Performed by Outsid e Testing Laboratories

57U t i l i t y S u p p l i e d N a t u r a l G a s A n a l y s i s

58U t i l i t y S u p p l i e d N a t u r a l G a s A n a l y s i s

59W o o d P e l l e t L a b o r a t o r y A n a l y s i s P erformed by Outside T e s t i n g

60A p p e n d i x

< less th an > greater th an

~ approxim a tely C carbon CO carbon m o n oxide CO 2 carbon dioxide O oxygen O 2 molecular oxygen H hydrogen S sulfur SO 2 sulfur dioxide SO 3 sulphur trioxide SO 4 sulfate N nitrog en NH 3 ammonia NO nitric oxide or nitrogen monoxide NO 2 nitrogen dioxide NOx NO + NO 2 Pb lead Avg average AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization E fficiency (US DOE rating) ASHRAE Am erican Society of He ating and Refrigeration and Airconditioning Engineers ASME Am erican Society of Mechanical En gineers ASTM Am erican Society for T e sting and Materials ASTM Inter n ationa l Current official designation of ASTM ASTM No. 2 petroleum middle distillat e fuel oil us ed as a heating fuel ASTM No. D1 petroleum middle distillate diesel fuel (kerosen e) used as a transpo r ta tio n f u el with less than 15

- p pm sulf ur content ASTM No. D2 petroleum middle d i stillate diesel fuel used as a transportation fuel with less than 15-ppm su lfur content BART best available retrofit technology Btu British the r m a l unit CANMET Canada Centre for Minera l and Energy Technology, CANMET Energy Technology Centre CTM contingency test m e thod (as in EPA CTM-039) dcp dry com bustion products dcf dry cubic foot (com bustion products) DOE United States Departm e nt of Energy DOE-EIA United States Departm e nt of Energy - Energy Inform ation Agency dscm dry standard cubic m e ter EPA, US EP A United States E nvironm ental Protection Agency ETV US EPA En vironm ental T echnology Verification Program ft foot B : L i s t o f A b b r e v i a t i o n s a n d S y m b o l s

6162 ph gallons per hour

and Development Authority tion products)

ess than 500-ppm sulfur

tu ish thermal unit nstitute

SIP ft 3 cubic foot
g g gram μ g microgram
mg milligram kg kilogram hr hour
μ m micrometers (microns)
m meter

m 3 cubic meter NY New York NYS New York State NYSERDA New York State Energy Res earch dscm dry standard cubic meters (combus J Joule Lb pound LS low sulfur content fuel oil, l kJ kilo-Joule MJ mega-Joule MMB million Br it PFI Pellet Fuel I
ppm parts per million PM 2.5 particulates less than 2.5 microns PM 10 particulates less than 10 microns state implimentation plan TSP total suspended particulates