Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A2-46190

July 2009

Market Assessment of Biomass 

Gasification and Combustion 

Technology for Small- and 

Medium-Scale Applications

David Peterson and Scott Haase 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A2-46190

July 2009

Market Assessment of Biomass 

Gasification and Combustion 

Technology for Small- and 

Medium-Scale Applications

David Peterson and Scott Haase 

Prepared under Task No. IGST.9034
NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

government or any agency thereof.

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

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

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

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

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

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

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

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Mark Sinclair, Executive Director of the Clean Energy States 

Alliance, and Charles Kubert for their support of this project. In addition, we thank those vendors 

who provided information on their companies and technologies. 

Title page images courtesy of the Biomass Energy Resource Center and A3 Energy Partners.

The project team included Alexander Dane. 

Laboratory Point of Contact

Scott Haase

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Phone: (303) 275-3057 

E-mail: scott.haase@nrel.gov
v 

List of Acronyms

CESA Clean Energy States Alliance

CHP combined heat and power 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mbtu one million (1,000,000) Btu

MSW municipal solid waste 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

ORC Organic Rankine Cycle 

TAP Technical Assistance Project

WWTP wastewater treatment plant
vi 

Executive Summary

At the request of the Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA), the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory prepared this market assessment of gasification and direct combustion technologies 

that utilize solid biomass to generate heat, power, or combined heat and power (CHP) for smallto medium-scale applications. Solid biomass refers to primarily wood and agricultural resources. 

The report contains the following: 

• An overview of solid biomass resources in the United States. 

• Description of gasification and combustion conversion technologies that utilize solid 

biomass to generate heat, power, and CHP. 

• Discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of gasification and combustion technologies. 

• Assessment of the commercial status of gasification and combustion technologies. 

• Summary of gasification and combustion system economics. 

• Market potential for small- to medium-scale gasification and combustion systems. 

• An inventory of direct combustion system suppliers. 

• An inventory of gasification technology companies. 

The major findings and conclusions of the market assessment include the following: 

• Direct combustion boiler systems that generate heat, power, or CHP are available 

commercially from a number of manufacturers. 

• Close-coupled gasification boiler systems to generate heat, power, or CHP are 

commercially available from a number of manufacturers. 

• Two-stage gasification systems designed to generate heat, power, or CHP largely are in 

development, with a number of technologies currently in the demonstration phase. 

• A searchable database of operating combustion and gasification systems designed to 

generate heat, power, or CHP is needed for all projects built in the United States. 

• A national assessment of the market potential for direct combustion and gasification 

systems that generate heat, power, or CHP should be commissioned. 

• An online registry of all operating small-scale and community-scale direct combustion 

and gasification systems that convert biomass into heat, power, or CHP in the United 

States should be created and maintained. 
vii 

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ iv

List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... v

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... vi

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ vii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. viii

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Goals and Methodology ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Solid Biomass Resources Overview .................................................................................... 1

2. Conversion Technologies .......................................................................................................... 6

2.1. Direct Combustion ............................................................................................................... 6

2.2. Gasification .......................................................................................................................... 7

2.3. Direct Combustion and Gasification Strengths and Weaknesses ........................................ 8

3. Commercial Status of Conversion Technologies .................................................................... 9

3.1. Direct Combustion ............................................................................................................... 9

3.1.1. Harney County District Hospital (Oregon) ....................................................................... 9

3.1.2. Darby Public Schools (Montana) .................................................................................... 10

3.2. Gasification ........................................................................................................................ 10

3.2.1. Close-Coupled Gasification ............................................................................................ 11

3.2.1.1. Middlebury College Biomass Gasification Plant ................................................. 12

3.2.1.2. North Country Hospital........................................................................................ 12

3.2.2. Two-Stage Gasification .................................................................................................. 12

4. Project Costs ............................................................................................................................ 13

4.1. Installed Costs .................................................................................................................... 13

4.2. Fuel Costs........................................................................................................................... 14

5. Market Potential ..................................................................................................................... 15

6. Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 16

6.1. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 16

6.2. Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 16

7. References ................................................................................................................................ 17

Appendix A. Biomass Resource Assessment ............................................................................ 18

Crop Residues ........................................................................................................................... 18

Forest Residues ......................................................................................................................... 18

Primary Mill Residues .............................................................................................................. 18

Secondary Mill Residues .......................................................................................................... 18

Urban Wood Waste ................................................................................................................... 18

Methane Emissions from Landfills ........................................................................................... 18

Methane Emissions from Manure Management ....................................................................... 18

Methane Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plants .......................................................... 18

Appendix B. Direct Combustion System Manufacturers ........................................................ 19

Appendix C. Direct Combustion, Direct-Fired, and Indirect-Fired Technology Companies

....................................................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix D. Gasification Technology Companies .................................................................. 22
viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Total U.S. renewable energy consumption, 2007 ............................................................ 2

Figure 2. Total biomass resources available in the United States by county, 2005 ....................... 4

Figure 3. Example of two-stage gasification .................................................................................. 7

Figure 4. Diagrams of (A) fixed-bed and (B) fluidized-bed gasification systems .......................... 8

Figure 5. KÖB wood pellet boiler and pellet silo installed at Harney County District Hospital, 

Burns, Oregon ........................................................................................................................ 10

Figure 6. Uniconfort close-coupled gasification system ............................................................... 11

Figure 7. Nexterra Energy Corporation facility at University of South Carolina ......................... 12

Figure 8. Community Power Corporation’s unit (under the awning) in California ...................... 13

Figure 9. Simple payback period for various prices of wood and natural gas ............................. 15

List of Tables

Table 1. Examples of Solid Biomass Resources ............................................................................. 2

Table 2. Wood Chips and Pellets Comparison ............................................................................... 6

Table 3. Strengths and Weaknesses of Conversion Technologies .................................................. 9

Table 4. Installed Costs for Direct Combustion Systems ............................................................. 14

Table 5. Comparison of Various Fuels ($ per Mbtu) .................................................................... 15
1 

1. Introduction

The Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA)—a nonprofit organization composed of clean energy 

funds and state agencies from 18 member states—requested technical assistance from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) through the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

(DOE) Technical Assistance Project (TAP). CESA requested a market assessment of small- and 

medium-scale biomass gasification technologies that use solid biomass to generate heat, power, 

or combined heat and power (CHP). Solid biomass refers to wood and agricultural resources.

1.1. Goals and Methodology

The primary purpose of this report is to provide CESA members with a market assessment of

small- and medium-scale biomass gasification and combustion technology. For this purpose, this 

assessment provides: 

• An overview of solid biomass resources available in the United States. 

• Description of gasification and combustion conversion technologies that utilize solid 

biomass to generate heat, power, and CHP. 

• Discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of gasification and combustion technologies. 

• Assessment of the commercial status of gasification and combustion technologies. 

• Summary of gasification and combustion system economics. 

• Market Potential for small to medium-scale gasification and combustion systems. 

• An inventory of direct combustion system suppliers. 

• An inventory of gasification technology companies. 

The report focuses on biomass gasification and combustion systems with a capacity of less than

5 MW or 50 million Btu/hour (Mbtu/hr), but it does not provide a review of residential-scale 

systems. Primary applications considered for the report were thermal, CHP, and district heating. 

To be included in the direct combustion technology company list, systems must be commercially 

available in the U.S. market. For gasification technology, companies listed in the inventory 

should have in development technology that is intended for distribution in the U.S. market.

The authors obtained the information contained in this report through phone interviews with 

experts from both inside and outside of NREL, industry representatives, company Web sites, 

publicly available reports, and presentations prepared by NREL technical staff. Mention of a 

company or a process in this report does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement by 

NREL or DOE. It is the authors’ intent to update this report periodically. If a company wishes to 

be considered for possible inclusion in future issues, please contact the laboratory point of 

contact listed in the Acknowledgments. 

1.2. Solid Biomass Resources Overview

Renewable energy resources account for 6.7% of the total energy consumed in the United States 

[1]. If liquid biofuels are included, then biomass energy constitutes the greatest source of 

renewable energy in the United States. Figure 1 shows that biomass energy (consisting of wood 

energy, biofuels, and waste energy) currently provides more than half of the renewable energy 

consumed in the United States, with approximately two-thirds of the total biomass energy being 

used to generate heat, power, or CHP through wood energy. 
2 

Figure 1. Total U.S. renewable energy consumption, 2007 [1]

The feasibility of a system that utilizes solid biomass to generate heat, power, or CHP largely 

depends on the availability of feedstocks. Table 1 provides a list of potential solid biomass 

feedstocks. Although all of these resources are possible feedstocks, wood residues are used by a 

significant majority of operating biomass facilities that generate heat, power, or CHP in the 

United States. 

Table 1. Examples of Solid Biomass Resources

Wood Residues Agriculture Residues Energy Crops

Mill residues

(sawdust, etc.) 

Urban wood waste

Forest thinnings

Corn stover

Wheat straw

Rice hulls

Sugarcane bagasse

Animal waste

Switchgrass

Hybrid willow

Hybrid poplar

Locating and quantifying potential sources of available feedstock is vital to the success of a 

biomass project. Figure 2 provides a graphical representation of the geographic distribution of 

potential biomass resources in the United States (Appendix A lists and defines the biomass 

resources included in Figure 2). Agricultural, forest, and mill residues represent approximately 

70% of the total biomass resources shown. 
3 

Starting in fall 2009, county-level biomass resource estimates will be available on line through 

an interactive mapping and analysis tool.a

 

a The Biomass Assessment Tool was developed by NREL using funding from the Environmental Protection Agency. The tool is 

available at http://rpm.nrel.gov/biopower/biopower/launch. 

Past resource assessment efforts usually were static 

and did not allow user analysis or manipulation of the data. This new tool enables users to select 

a location on the map, quantify the biomass resources available within a user-defined radius, and 

then estimate the total thermal energy or power that could be generated by recovering a portion 

of that biomass. The tool acts as a preliminary source of biomass feedstock information; 

however, it cannot take the place of an on-the-ground feedstock assessment.
4 

Figure 2. Total biomass resources available in the United States by county, 2005 [2]
5 

A number of other factors also dictate whether a local feedstock can be used, including: 

• Costs associated with the collection, preparation, storage, and transportation of the 

biomass resource. 

• Sustainability of the resource. 

• Quality and composition of biomass. 

• Ease of converting the biomass resource to energy. 

Biomass resource availability is the most important issue in terms of the economics and longterm project sustainability, therefore projects that can utilize a reliable, onsite supply of fuel—

such as sawdust at a wood products plant or wastes from agriculture processing operations—

have a distinct advantage. For projects without an onsite fuel supply, securing adequate, longterm feedstock supplies can be expensive and difficult. A number of industry representatives 

interviewed for this report consider securing a feedstock supply the prime hurdle for larger-scale

biomass project development because of the difficulty in finding a supplier willing or able to 

sign a long-term contract. This is particularly important because a long-term contract for biomass 

supply often is required to secure project financing.

As noted, woody biomass resources are by far the most commonly utilized solid biomass 

feedstock. Woody biomass systems typically are designed to handle either wood chips or pellets. 

Wood chips can be a byproduct of a mill or chipped from scrap wood or whole trees. Although 

the ideal wood chip is uniform in size and free of dirt, some systems are designed to utilize 

lesser-quality wood chips. Pellets are a refined wood product and have a lesser moisture content 

and greater density as compared to wood chips. The characteristics of wood chips and pellets are 

summarized in Table 2. Additional general information on wood chip and pellet characteristics 

can be found in the following publications. 

• Where Wood Works: Strategies for Heating with Woody Biomass 

http://www.communitybiomass.com/docs/WhereWoodWorks-Online_1_3.pdf

(accessed June 26, 2009). 

• Wood Heat Solutions: A Community Guide to Biomass Thermal Projects 

http://www.uoregon.edu/~cwch/documents/biomass_lowres.pdf

(accessed June 26, 2009). 
6 

Table 2. Wood Chips and Pellets Comparison 

Wood Chips Pellets

• Well-suited for larger applications

• A less expensive fuel than pellets

• Irregular quality (moisture content, 

ash content, size)

Photos courtesy of Biomass Energy 

Resources Center 

• Typically used in smaller commercial 

applications (less than 10,000 sq ft)

• A more expensive fuel

• A commodity fuel available from a 

number of sources

• Pellets systems tend to be less 

expensive, take up less space, and 

are more automated than wood-chip 

systems

• Consistent size, moisture, and heat 

content

2. Conversion Technologies

Technologies that convert solid biomass resources into energy for heat, power, and CHP fall into 

two general categories, direct combustion and gasification. 

2.1. Direct Combustion

In the United States and around the world, direct combustion is the most common method of 

converting biomass resources into heat, power, or CHP. A direct combustion system burns the 

biomass to generate hot flue gas, which is either used directly to provide heat or fed into a boiler 

to generate steam. In a boiler system, the steam can be used to provide heat for industrial 

processes or space heating, and a steam turbine can be used to generate electricity.

The two principle types of direct combustion boiler systems that utilize biomass are fixed-bed 

(stoker) and fluidized-bed systems. In a fixed-bed system, the biomass is fed onto a grate where 

it combusts as air passes through the fuel, releasing the hot flue gases into the heat exchanger 

section of the boiler to generate steam. A fluidized-bed system instead feeds the biomass into a

hot bed of suspended, incombustible particles (such as sand), where the biomass combusts to 

release the hot flue gas. Manufacturers of fluidized-bed systems claim that this technology 

produces more complete combustion of the feedstock, resulting in reduced SO2 and NOx

emissions and improved system efficiency. Fluidized-bed boilers also can utilize a wider range 

of feedstocks. Fluidized-bed systems, however, have greater parasitic loads than stokers. Given 

proper emissions-control technology, both systems can meet stringent emissions limits.
7 

Direct combustion biomass facilities that produce electricity through a steam turbine have a 

conversion efficiency of 15% to 35%, depending upon the manufacturer; a CHP system can have 

an overall system efficiency of as much as 85%. The efficiency of a direct combustion biomass 

system is influenced by a number of factors including: (1) moisture content of the biomass; 

(2) combustion air distribution and amounts; (3) operating temperatures and pressures; (4) fuel 

feed handling, distribution, and mixing; and (5) furnace retention time. 

Although most direct combustion systems generate power utilizing a steam-driven turbine, a few

companies are developing direct combustion technologies that use hot, pressurized air or another 

medium to drive the turbine. One emerging application is the potential to couple an Organic 

Rankine Cycle (ORC) power generator to a biomass hot-water source. ORC technology uses hot 

water to heat a compressed working fluid that has a lower boiling point than water. In this 

manner, electricity can be produced from low-temperature (approximately 185°F and greater), 

low-pressure sources such as biomass hot-water boilers.b

2.2. Gasification

Gasification systems—instead of directly burning the fuel to generate heat—convert biomass

into a low-Btu to medium-Btu content combustible gas, which is a mixture of carbon monoxide, 

hydrogen, water vapor, carbon dioxide, tar vapor, and ash particles. In a close-coupled 

gasification system, the combustible gas is burned directly for space heat or drying, or burned in 

a boiler to produce steam. Alternatively, in a two-stage gasification system, tars and particulate 

matter are removed from the combustible gas, resulting in a cleaner gas suitable for use in a

genset, gas turbine, or other application requiring a high-quality gas (Figure 3). 

Figure 3. Example of two-stage gasification

Courtesy of Frontline Bioenergy

 

b For additional information on ORC, see http://www.gmk.info/ORC_process.603.html?#. 
8 

Fixed bed and fluidized bed are the main categories of gasification conversion technologies, both 

using similar types of equipment as that used in direct combustion systems (see Figure 4). Fixedbed systems—in which the biomass is piled on top of a grate inside the gasification chamber—

are a simple, inexpensive, proven technology, but typically they produce a gas with lower heat

content. Fluidized-bed gasification systems, in which the combustible gas is generated by 

feeding the biomass into a hot bed of suspended, inert material, generally offer improved 

performance, but with greater complexity and cost. The fluidized bed design produces a gas with 

low tar content but a greater level of particulates as compared to fixed-bed systems. Advantages 

that fluidized-bed gasification systems have over fixed-bed gasification systems include 

improved overall conversion efficiency and the ability to handle a wider range of biomass 

feedstocks.

Figure 4. Diagrams of (A) fixed-bed and (B) fluidized-bed gasification systems [3]

Although most biomass resources are suitable for gasification systems, certain high moisture 

fuels might be uneconomic because of high drying costs. In addition, some agricultural residues 

generate a combustible gas that requires special processing before it can be utilized in a boiler, 

turbine, or engine. 

2.3. Direct Combustion and Gasification Strengths and Weaknesses

Direct combustion and gasification systems each have a number of general strengths and 

weaknesses (see Table 3). 

Pyrolysis

Reduction

Combustion

Gas, Tar, Water

Ash

Biomass

Air

 

 

 

 

Pyrolysis

Reduction

Combustion

Gas, Tar, Water

Ash

Biomass

Air

 

 

 

 

A B
9 

Table 3. Strengths and Weaknesses of Conversion Technologies

Strengths Weaknesses

Direct 

Combustion 

• Proven, simple, lower-cost technology

• Equipment is widely available, 

complete with warranties

• Fuel flexibility in moisture and size

• Lenders comfortable with technology

• Greater NOx, CO, and particulate 

emissions

• Inefficient conversion process when 

generating power alone—some 

advanced designs are improving 

efficiency

• Requires water if generating power 

with a steam turbine

Gasification

• Lower NOx, CO, and particulate 

emissions

• Potential for more efficient conversion 

process when generating power

• Virtual elimination of water needs if 

generating power without a steam 

turbine (close-coupled systems 

excluded)

• Technology is in the development 

and demonstration phase (closecoupled systems excluded)

• Need fuel of uniform size and with 

low moisture content

3. Commercial Status of Conversion Technologies

3.1. Direct Combustion

Systems that employ direct combustion to convert biomass into energy for heat, power, and CHP 

are widely utilized and commercially available for small- and medium-scale applications. Direct 

combustion boiler systems are used for a variety of facility heating purposes and have a solid 

track record in the field. Additionally, nearly all of the U.S. facilities using biomass to produce 

power utilize direct combustion technology. 

Appendix B provides a non-exclusive list of direct combustion system suppliers that offer 

commercially available small- to medium-scale direct combustion systems. The systems

manufactured by these suppliers range from power-plant scale to small-business scale. Most of 

the systems are fixed-bed technology designed to utilize wood residues as fuel, and usually are 

located either onsite at wood manufacturing operations that produce mill residues or in close 

proximity to accessible feedstock sources. The following two examples examine small- to 

medium-scale applications of direct combustion technology in the United States. 

3.1.1. Harney County District Hospital (Oregon)

Harney County District Hospital—a 55,000-square-foot facility—installed a 0.5 Mbtu/hr wood 

pellet boiler manufactured by KÖB (Austria) to offset fuel oil, propane, and electricity use [4] 

(see Figure 5). The boiler supplies domestic hot water and heat to the facility by feeding hot 

water into a water-source heat pump system. Although the pellet boiler completely eliminated 

use of heating oil, propane boilers were installed as a backup heat source. In supplying heat to 

the facility the boiler uses 100 tons of pellets annually, most of which are delivered once every 

6 months by a local pellet manufacturer. The pellet boiler’s cost totaled $250,000 and resulted in

annual savings of $58,000. The payback period on the system is estimated to be 5 years. 
10 

Figure 5. KÖB wood pellet boiler and pellet silo installed at Harney County District Hospital, 

Burns, Oregon

Courtesy of A3 Energy Partners

3.1.2. Darby Public Schools (Montana)

With the assistance from the “Fuels for Schools and Beyond” program [5], a biomass boiler 

system was built in Darby, Montana, to offset heating oil use by supplying heat to three existing 

schools on a single campus. A 3 Mbtu/hr Messersmith direct combustion boiler was integrated 

into a central heat distribution system to provide hot water and low-pressure steam to 

82,000 square feet of building space. It burns 750 tons of wood chips annually. Feedstocks are

obtained from forest thinning on the nearby public and private lands. During the first year of 

operation the boiler system offset 79% of heating oil use. The total project cost for the wood 

energy system was $556,000, and the simple payback period is estimated to be approximately 

10 years.

Other direct combustion systems currently are being developed. One such technology is a nonboiler, direct combustion CHP system which, instead of using a steam turbine to generate power, 

uses another medium—such as pressurized air—to drive the turbine. Appendix C provides a 

short list of companies involved in the development of non-boiler direct combustion CHP 

systems in the United States. 

3.2. Gasification

The market readiness of solid-biomass gasification technology greatly depends on how the 

system utilizes the combustible gas produced. Close-coupled biomass gasification-boiler 

systems—in which the gas is fed into and directly burned in a boiler to produce steam for heat 

and power—to a great extent are a viable, commercially available technology. Two-stage

gasification systems—in which the combustible gas is conditioned (cleaned) and then utilized in 

an engine, a turbine, or as a natural gas substitute—currently are in the developmental and 

demonstration stage. 
11 

3.2.1. Close-Coupled Gasification

Appendix D provides a non-exclusive list of companies currently developing gasification 

projects in the United States. Note that most companies produce close-coupled biomass 

gasification-boiler systems. ChipTec Wood Energy is the most established manufacturer of 

commercially available small- to medium-scale close-coupled systems. Additionally, Uniconfort, 

an established Italian manufacturer, now is marketing small- to medium-scale systems (Figure 6) 

in the United States through Alternative Energy Solutions, a subsidiary of Wichita Boiler. 

Figure 6. Uniconfort close-coupled gasification system

Courtesy of Alternative Energy Solutions 

A number of companies specialize in medium to large-scale systems, close-coupled gasificationboiler systems. Nexterra partnered with Johnson Controls to install a large-scale CHP system at 

the University of South Carolina (see Figure 7), as well as a future system to provide heat at 

DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Both facilities will use locally harvested wood 

feedstocks. A couple of companies—Primenergy and PRM Energy—predominantly have 

installed industrial-scale heating systems fueled by onsite biomass, mostly agricultural residues 

at processing sites. 
12 

Figure 7. Nexterra Energy Corporation facility at University of South Carolina

Courtesy of Nexterra Energy Corp. 

The following are examples of close-coupled gasification system applications in Vermont. 

3.2.1.1. Middlebury College Biomass Gasification Plant [6]

In February 2009, Middlebury College began operation of a 29 Mbtu/hr ChipTec close-coupled 

gasification boiler system. Consuming roughly 20,000 tons of local wood chips per year, the 

system will generate steam for the college’s district energy system, which provides heating, 

cooling, and domestic hot water to the campus. The system is expected to offset more than 1 

million gallons of fuel oil consumed annually by the existing boiler plant. The payback period 

for the $12-million system is estimated to be approximately 11 years. 

3.2.1.2. North Country Hospital

In response to rising energy costs, North County Hospital in Newport, Vermont, installed a 

combined heat, cooling, and power biomass close-coupled gasification system in 2005 [12]. The 

system utilized a ChipTec gasifier and Hurst boiler to produce steam, generating electricity 

through a steam turbine, usable heat, and cooling through an absorption chiller. The system cost 

for the 121,000-square-foot facility totaled approximately $2 million, and the annual estimated 

cost savings of the system is $250,000. 

3.2.2. Two-Stage Gasification

A number of companies currently are developing two-staged gasification technology, in which

the combustible gas is not burned directly, but instead is conditioned and either fed into an 

engine/turbine to generate power or used as natural gas substitute for industrial heating. Most—if 

not all—two-stage technology is in the demonstration phase of the development process and is 
13 

not commercially available. Current technology barriers revolve around efficiently removing 

impurities from the combustible gas, as well as the low heating value of the conditioned gas.

A small-scale two-stage gasification system example, Community Power Corporation (CPC) has 

demonstrated a series of 5-kW to 100-kW modular biomass CHP systems at a number of 

locations across the United States. Intended for use at remote locations in need of distributed heat 

and power, CPC’s gasification technology converts biomass fuels into a clean, combustible gas, 

which is fed into an engine to generate power. CPC currently has a system operating in 

California that utilizes walnut shells as a feedstock (shown in Figure 8). A medium- to largescale example of two-stage gasification technology, Frontline Bioenergy has installed a system at 

a Minnesota ethanol plant that utilizes corn stover as a feedstock. The conditioned gas produced 

serves as a direct substitute for natural gas used in the corn ethanol plant’s processes. 

Figure 8. Community Power Corporation’s unit (under the awning) in California

Courtesy of Community Power Corporation

4. Project Costs

4.1. Installed Costs

Installed costs for systems that generate heat, power, or both from solid biomass resources are

variable and very project specific. Table 4 lists project costs for a number of systems installed 

within the last 5 years. 
14 

Table 4. Installed Costs for Direct Combustion Systems [7]

Facility Name Location

Boiler Size

(Mbtu/hr

output) Project Type

Wood 

Fuel 

Type

Total 

Project 

Cost

Bismarck Public 

Works Facility Bismarck, ND 1.0 Direct combustion, stand alone Chips $220,000

Harney District 

Hospital Burns, OR 0.8

Direct combustion system tied to 

heat-pump system Pellets $269,000

Troy School 

District Troy, MT 0.7

Direct combustion system installed 

in existing steam-boiler room Pellets $298,755

Townsend School 

District Townsend, MT 2.2

Direct combustion system using 

existing hot-water boilers Pellets $425,000

Thompson Falls 

School District

Thompson 

Falls, MT 1.6

Close-coupled gasification system 

installed in stand-alone building 

and tied to existing steam system Chips $455,000

Victor School 

District Victor, MT 2.6

Direct combustion system installed 

in and tied to an existing steam 

system Chips $684,000

Philipsburg School 

District Philipsburg, MT 3.9

Direct combustion boiler tied to an 

existing system Chips $970,000

City of Craig Craig, AK 4.0

Close-coupled gasification system 

installed in stand-alone building 

and tied to existing steam system Chips $1,400,000

University of 

Montana, Western Dillon, MT 14.0

Close-coupled gasification system 

added to an existing steam system Chips $1,400,000

University of South 

Carolina Charleston, SC 72.0

Close-coupled gasification CHP 

central district steam system Chips $16,000,000

The variable total project cost likely is a reflection of the other costs associated with developing 

a project outside of the direct combustion or gasification unit cost. These additional costs can 

include the following elements [7]. 

• Feasibility study

• Detailed engineering investigation

• Design fees and expenses

• Buildings permit costs

• Air-quality permit costs (including

engineering fees)

• Chip storage/boiler building costs

• Mechanical and electrical costs incurred

for boiler-building interior

• Feedstock handling-system costs

• Stack costs

• Buried-pipe costs

• Mechanical and electrical integration

costs associated with existing boilers

• Remoteness factor (where applicable)

• Construction contingencies

• Escalation factors

4.2. Fuel Costs

Project economics are affected dramatically by both the cost of solid biomass feedstock as well 

as the price of the lowest-price fossil fuel alternative (often natural gas, propane, or heating oil). 

Figure 9 illustrates how the simple payback period of a 3 Mbtu/hr system with a total installed 

capital cost of $850,000 is influenced by variations of the price of wood and natural gas. If wood 

is $15/ton and natural gas is $7/Mbtu, for example, then the simple payback term is 11 years. If 

wood is $15/ton and natural gas is $3/Mbtu, then the simple payback is approximately 48 years. 
15 

Figure 9. Simple payback period for various prices of wood and natural gas [8]

Table 5 shows a comparison of the cost of various fuels per million Btu of energy produced. The 

value listed under “efficiency” is the estimated efficiency of the appliance that is converting the 

fuel to end-use energy. 

Table 5. Comparison of Various Fuels ($ per Mbtu)

c

Source Units

Cost to User

per unit ($ U.S.) Efficiency Btu/unit $ per Mbtu

Chipped biomass $/green ton $50.00 75% 13,500,000 $4.94

Wheat straw bales $/ton $55.00 70% 14,000,000 $5.61

Natural gas $/therm $0.50 85% 100,000 $5.88

Wood/ag pellets $/ton $130.00 80% 15,000,000 $10.83

Natural gas $/therm $1.00 85% 100,000 $11.76

Wood/ag pellets $/ton $160.00 80% 15,000,000 $13.33

Hardwood pellets $/ton $185.00 80% 16,600,000 $13.93

Natural gas $/therm $1.50 85% 100,000 $17.65

Fuel oil $/gallon $2.25 85% 135,000 $19.61

Natural gas $/therm $1.75 85% 100,000 $20.59

Propane $/gallon $2.25 85% 91,600 $28.90

Electricity $/kWh $0.10 100% 3,413 $29.30

5. Market Potential

There are no completed studies that estimate the overall market potential for small- and 

community-scale direct combustion and gasification systems that convert biomass into heat, 

 

c Data provided by Scott Haase, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2009).

 

 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Wood Price [$/green ton]

Simple Payback Period [years]

$3 

$5 

$7 

$9 

Natural 

Gas Price 

[$/MMBtu]

Incremental Annual Costs

Incremental Capital Cost Simple Payback Period =

Annual Costs include O&M and Fuel
16 

power, or CHP. The potential to utilize the technology, however, is significant in many parts of 

the United States. A majority of the market will be the retrofitting of existing fossil-fuel heating 

systems with biomass boilers; however, the integration of biomass systems into new construction 

projects should be considered whenever possible. 

The market potential for small- and community-scale direct combustion and gasification systems 

that convert biomass into heat, power, or CHP has not been properly addressed at the national 

level. Several states, however, have done assessments of the market potential for these systems.

Michigan, for example, commissioned a 2007 report to examine the market potential for woody 

biomass retrofit opportunities in boiler operations within the state [7]. The analysis of an existing 

boiler database identified 2,300 existing boilers for which retrofits with a wood-fired heating 

system could result in a projected simple payback period of less than 20 years. A similar study 

was conducted in Montana in 2006 [9]. 

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1. Conclusions

The market for small- and community-scale direct combustion and gasification systems that 

convert biomass into heat, power, or CHP is developing slowly but steadily. There are countless 

communities, facilities, and utilities that are either developing or evaluating prospective biomass 

applications. The market readiness of conversion technologies varies widely however. Systems 

that employ direct combustion or close-coupled gasification to convert biomass into heat, power, 

or CHP are commercially available from multiple manufacturers. Systems that utilize two-stage 

gasification are near-commercial technologies and most manufacturers are actively testing 

demonstration and pilot units. 

6.2. Recommendations

The following are some suggestions for follow-up actions for interested states, communities, or 

facilities: 

• Entities wishing to support the development of gasification applications and technologies 

should consider funding demonstration projects of near-commercial technologies in their 

states.

• Interested vendors that wish to be included in an updated version of this report should 

contact Scott Haase at National Renewable Energy Laboratory, phone: 303-275-3057; 

e-mail: scott.haase@nrel.gov. 

• A national assessment of the market potential for small- and community-scale direct 

combustion and gasification systems that convert biomass into heat, power, or CHP 

should be commissioned. 

• A central clearinghouse or registry of small- to medium-scale systems should be created 

and maintained. The registry should be searchable online and include a GIS mapping 

function.
17 

7. References 

1. Energy Information Administration (May 2008). U.S. Energy Consumption by Energy Source. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html. Accessed June 

26, 2009. 

2. Milbrandt, A. (2005). A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass Resource 

Availability in the United States. NREL/TP-560-39181. Golden, CO: National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory. 

3. Bain, R. (2006). “Biomass Gasification Presentation.” Presented at the USDA 

Thermochemical Conversion Workshop. NREL Biorefinery Analysis and Exploratory Research 

Group. 

4. http://www.sustainablenorthwest.org/community-biomassworkshop/JB_Harney%20Co%20Hospital.pdf (accessed July 17, 2009). 

5. http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fpl_gtr173.pdf (accessed July 17, 2009). 

6. “Middlebury College Biomass Plant” (December 2008). BioCycle. Vol. 49, No. 12; p. 46. 

7. CTA Architects and Engineers et al. 2007. “Exploring Woody Biomass Retrofit Opportunities 

in Michigan Boiler Operations submitted to Southeast Michigan RC&D Council, 2007.” 

http://michiganwoodenergy.org/ctareport.php. Accessed June 23, 2009. 

8. McNeil Technologies (June 2003). “Feasibility Study of a Biomass Energy System for 

Boulder County Parks Department” p. 20. http://www.colorado.gov/energy/images/uploads/pdfs/ 

BCPOS_Final_Biomas_Report_web.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2009. 

9. CTA Architects and Engineers et al. 2006. “Biomass Boiler Market Assessment.” 

http://www.fuelsforschools.info/pdf/Final_Report_Biomass_Boiler_Market_Assessment.pdf. 

Accessed June 23, 2009. 

10. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Timber Product Output Database 

(2002).

11. United States Census Bureau (January 2004). “2000 Population Data.” BioCycle Journal, 

State of Garbage in America. 

12. http://www.nrbp.org/publications/biomass-chp/appendixa.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2009. 
18 

Appendix A. Biomass Resource Assessment [2]

Crop Residues

The following crops were included in this analysis: Corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, sorghum, 

barley, oats, rice, rye, canola, dry edible beans, dry edible peas, peanuts, potatoes, safflower, 

sunflower, sugarcane, and flaxseed. The quantities of crop residues that can be available in each 

county are estimated using total grain production, crop-to-residue ratio, moisture content, and 

consideration of the amount of residue left on the field for soil protection, grazing, and other 

agricultural activities [10]. 

Forest Residues

Forest residues are logging residues and other removable material left after carrying out 

silviculture operations and site conversions. Logging residue comprises unused portions of 

trees—cut or killed by logging and left in the woods. Other removable materials are the unused

volume of trees that are cut or killed during logging operations [10]. 

Primary Mill Residues

Primary mill residues include wood materials (coarse and fine) and bark generated at 

manufacturing plants (primary wood-using mills) when round wood products are processed into 

primary wood products, such as slabs, edgings, trimmings, sawdust, veneer clippings and cores, 

and pulp screenings [10].

Secondary Mill Residues

Secondary mill residues include wood scraps and sawdust from woodworking shops—furniture 

factories, wood container and pallet mills, and wholesale lumberyards. Data on the number of 

businesses by county was gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau [11]. 

Urban Wood Waste

This analysis includes wood residues from municipal solid waste (MSW) (wood chips and 

pallets), utility tree trimming and private tree companies, and construction and demolition sites 

[11]. 

Methane Emissions from Landfills

The methane generation depends on three key factors: Total waste in place, landfill size, and 

location (arid or non-arid climate). Data is from EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program, 

2003.

Methane Emissions from Manure Management

The following animal types were included in this analysis: Dairy cows, beef cows, hogs and pigs, 

sheep, chickens and egg layers, broilers, and turkey. The methane emissions were calculated by 

animal type and manure management system. Data is from USDA’s National Agricultural 

Statistics Service, 2002.

Methane Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plants

The methane generation of wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) is estimated using the 

methodology from the EPA “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–

2003” [11]. 
19 

Appendix B. Direct Combustion System Manufacturers 

Company

Headquarters

Biomass

Fuels System Size Comments Contact Info

A3 Energy Partners

Portland, OR

Wide range 

of biomass

0.25 to

8.5 Mbtu/hr

Distributor of KÖB 

Systems (Weissmann 

Systems) 

Andrew Haden

503-706-6187

andrew@a3energypartners.com

www.a3energypartners.com/

Advanced Recycling 

Equipment

St. Marys, PA

Wide range 

of biomass

0.75 to 

60 Mbtu/hr

Fixed-bed boiler 

systems for heat

814-834-4470

areinc@alltel.net

www.advancedrecyclingequip.com

AFS Energy 

Systems 

Lemoyne, PA

Wood 3 to 27 Mbtu/hr Fixed-bed boiler 

systems for heat

717-763-0286

info@afsenergy.com

www.afsenergy.com

Bioheat USA

(Fröling)

Lyme, NH

Pellets, 

wood chips

0.07 to

0.2+ Mbtu/hr

Fixed-bed boiler 

systems for heat 

800-782-9927

info@bioheatusa.com

www.bioheatusa.com

Biomass Combustion Systems

Worcester, MA

Wood 3 to 40 Mbtu/hr Fixed-bed boiler 

systems for heat

508-798-5970

info@biomasscombustion.com

www.biomasscombustion.com

Central Boiler

Greenbush, MN

Wood 

(e.g., pallets, 

crates) 

0.25 to

2 Mbtu/hr

Small-scale furnace 

for forced air, boiler, 

or radiant floor 

heating system

218-782-2575

infor@centralfireplace.com

www.centralboiler.com

Energy Products of 

Idaho

Coeur d'Alene, ID

Wide range 

of biomass

15 to

160 Mbtu/hr

Fluidized-bed boiler 

systems for heat, 

power, or CHP

208-765-1611

epi2@energyproducts.com

www.energyproducts.com

Fink Machine (KÖB)

Enderby, British 

Columbia, Canada

Wood 0.27 to

8.5 Mbtu/hr

Fixed-bed boiler 

systems for heat Fink 

Machine is the 

Canadian vendor for 

KÖB (Austria)

250-838-0077

info@finkmachine.com

www.finkmachine.com

Heatmor

Warroad, MN Wood 0.45 to

0.8 Mbtu/hr Small-scale furnace

218-386-2769

woodheat@heatmor.com

www.heatmor.com

Hurst Boilers

South Coolidge, GA

Wide range 

of biomass

0.4 to

56 Mbtu/hr

Fixed-bed boilers for 

heat; can be used for 

power production via 

a steam turbine

877-994-8778

info@hurstboiler.com

www.hurstboiler.com

King Coal Furnace 

Corp Bismark, ND Wood 3.4 to34 Mbtu/hr

Fixed-bed, staged 

combustion system

701-255-6406

kingcoal@btinet.com

www.kingcoal.com

McBurney 

Norcross, GA Wood 20 to

80 Mbtu/hr

Medium- to largescale boiler systems 

for industry

770-925-7100

info@mcburney.com

www.mcburney.com

Messersmith 

Bark River, MI Wood 0.5 

to10 Mbtu/hr

Fixed-bed boiler 

systems for heat

906-466-9010

sales@burnchips.com

www.burnchips.com
20 

Company

Headquarters

Biomass

Fuels System Size Comments Contact Info

Pro-Fab Industries

Arborg, Manitoba, 

Canada

Wood, corn 0.75 to

2.5 Mbtu/hr

Pre-Fab makes the 

Pelco, a light 

industrial, hot-water 

boiler

204-364-2211

info@profab.com

www.profab.com

Propell Energy

Jaffrey, NH Pellets 0.5 to

10 Mbtu/hr

Automatic pellet 

systems for 

commercial and 

industrial systems

603.532.4668, ext.214

jgoodyear@propellenergy.com

www.propellenergy.com

SolaGen

St. Helens, OR

Chips, 

pellets

0.5 to

50 Mbtu/hr

Chip or pellet systems 

for commercial and 

industrial applications

503-366-4210

solagen@solagenic.com

http://www.solageninc.com/

Wellons, Inc. 

Vancouver, WA Wood 5 to 10 Mbtu/hr

Boiler systems 

designed for the 

forest products 

industry

360-750-3500

sales@wellons.com

www.wellonwusa.com
21 

Appendix C. Direct Combustion, Direct-Fired, and Indirect-Fired

Technology Companies

Company

Headquarters Fuels

System 

Size

Approximate 

Number of

Units 

Operating in 

the United 

States Comments Contact Info

AgriPower, Inc., 

New York, NY Variety 300 kW 1 

Utilizes an “open” 

Brayton Cycle process 

in CHP unit, using hot 

air (the working fluid) to 

drive the turbine

516-829-2000

www.agripower.com

Zilkha Biomass 

Energy, 

Houston, TX

Wood

1.5 MW 

to

4.5 MW

1 

CHP pressurized direct 

combustion system; 

only operating unit is 

colocated with a New 

England wood pellet 

production facility

713-979-9962

lweick@zilkhabiomass.com

www.zilkha.com
22 

Appendix D. Gasification Technology Companies 

Company

Headquarters

Use of 

Gas Fuels

System 

Size

Approximate 

Number of

Units Operating in the 

United States Comments Contact Info

AdaptiveARC 

San Diego, CA Diverse Wood, 

ag, MSW

100+ tons 

biomass 

per day 

0 

(prototype 

phase) 

Cool plasma arc 

gasification 

858-525-1133 

info@adaptiveARC.com 

www.adaptiveARC.com 

Alternative Energy 

Solutions 

(Uniconfort) 

Wichita, KS

Close

coupled 

Wood, 

ag. 

residues 

1 to 20 

Mbtu/hr 

1 (25 in 

development for 

2009–2010 in

the United 

States); 3,500 

installed 

worldwide

Alternative Energy 

Solutions, a subsidiary of Wichita Boiler, 

is the exclusive 

North American 

licensee for 

Uniconfort (Italy); 

close-coupled gasification systems that 

produce heat, power, 

and CHP

316-201-4143 

info@aesenergy.net 

www.aesenergy.net 

ChipTec Wood 

Energy 

South Burlington, VT

Close

coupled Wood 1.5 to 125 

Mbtu/hr 175+ 

Crossdraft boiler 

systems; large scale 

close-coupled 

gasifiers 

800-244-4146 

chiptec@ together.net 

www.chiptec.com 

Nexterra Energy

Vancouver, British 

Columbia, Canada

Close

coupled 

Wood, 

switchgrass, 

e-grass, 

misc. 

paper 

7 to 144 

Mbtu/hr 

1 (4 in 

development, 

including at Oak 

Ridge National 

Lab); 3 in 

operation in 

Canada 

Systems are 

operating at pulppaper mills; system 

to be built at Oak 

Ridge National Lab 

to displace existing 

natural-gas steam 

plant utilizing locally 

sourced woody 

biomass 

604-637-2502 

cdunaway@nexterra.ca 

www.nexterra.ca

Primenergy

Tulsa, OK

Close

coupled 

Wood, 

corn fiber, 

carpet 

scraps 

18 Mbtu/hr 

(or more) 6; 1 in Italy

Updraft, fixed-bed 

gasification systems; 

most systems have 

onsite feedstocks 

918-835-1011 

bteitze@ primenergy.com 

www.primenergy.com 

PRM Energy 

Systems

Hot Springs, AR

Close

coupled 

Variety of 

biomass; 

rice husk/

straw 

13 to 118 

Mbtu/hr; 

1–15 MW

5 to 6 in the 

United States; 

25 worldwide

Close-coupled 

gasification systems 

that produce heat, 

power, and CHP; 

most systems have 

onsite feedstock; 1 

project has wood 

waste brought to an 

ethanol plant to 

provide heat

501-767-2100 

info@prmenergy.com 

www.prmenergy.com 

Frontline Bioenergy

Ames, IA

Two

staged 

Wood 

residues, 

corn 

stover, 

switchgrass 

100 

Mbtu/hr 1 

The integrated 

biomass gasification 

system currently in

operation utilizes 

wood and ag wastes 

to offset natural gas 

use at an ethanol 

plant in Minnesota

515-292-1200 

www.energyproducts.com 
23 

Company

Headquarters

Use of 

Gas Fuels

System 

Size

Approximate 

Number of

Units Operating in the 

United States Comments Contact Info

Community Power 

Corp. 

Littleton, CO

Two

staged 

Variety of 

biomass 5 to100 kW

1 operating 24

hrs/day 7 days 

per week; 6 

demonstration 

units

Small-scale, modular 

gasifier-genset unit 

designed to provide 

distributed CHP

303 933-3135 

rwalt@gocpc.com 

www.gocpc.com 

Energy & Environmental Research 

Center (EERC)

Grand Forks, ND

Two

staged 

Variety of 

biomass 

100 kW to

1 MW

2 (both 

demonstration 

units) 

Developing a 

microgasification 

technology that 

utilizes the combustible gas in a 

piston engine 

generator for power 

production 

701-777-5120 

dschmidt@undeerc.org 

www.undeerc.org 

Cratech 

Tahoka, TX

Diverse 

use 

Variety of 

biomass 

5, 10, and 

20 MW

0 

(2 in 

development) 

Developing a 

pressurized fluidizedbed gas turbine 

system 

806 327 5220 

info@cratech.com 

http://cratech.com 

Diversified Energy

Gilbert, AZ

Diverse 

use 

Variety of 

biomass 

50 to 300 

Mbtu/hr 1 (pilot plant)

Developing a molten 

metals–based 

gasification 

technology 

480-507-0297 

business@ 

diversified-energy.com 

www.diversifiedenergy.com 

Thermogenics 

Albuquerque, NM

Diverse 

use 

Variety of 

biomass 

2 to 200 

Mbtu/hr 1 Bottom-fed inverted 

downdraft gasifier

505-463-8422 

thermogenics@ 

thermogenics.com 

www.thermogenics.com 
F1147-E(10/2008) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

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

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

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

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

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

July 2009

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical report

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Market Assessment of Biomass Gasification and Combustion 

Technology for Small- and Medium-Scale Applications

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08-GO28308

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

D. Peterson and S. Haase

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-7A2-46190

5e. TASK NUMBER

IGST.9034

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401-3393

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-7A2-46190

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

This report provides a market assessment of gasification and direct combustion technologies that use wood and 

agricultural resources to generate heat, power, or combined heat and power (CHP) for small- to medium-scale 

applications. It contains a brief overview of wood and agricultural resources in the U.S.; a description and discussion 

of gasification and combustion conversion technologies that utilize solid biomass to generate heat, power, and CHP; 

an assessment of the commercial status of gasification and combustion technologies; a summary of gasification and 

combustion system economics; a discussion of the market potential for small- to medium-scale gasification and 

combustion systems; and an inventory of direct combustion system suppliers and gasification technology companies. 

The report indicates that while direct combustion and close-coupled gasification boiler systems used to generate 

heat, power, or CHP are commercially available from a number of manufacturers, two-stage gasification systems are 

largely in development, with a number of technologies currently in demonstration. The report also cites the need for a 

searchable, comprehensive database of operating combustion and gasification systems that generate heat, power, or 

CHP built in the U.S., as well as a national assessment of the market potential for the systems.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

biomass; biopower; gasification; combined heat and power; CHP; wood heat; direct combustion

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18