Emission Reductions from Woody Biomass Waste for Energy as an Alternative to Open Burning

Figures & data

Figure 1. Open pile burn of forest fuel treatment woody biomass in Lake Tahoe Basin.

Table 1. Project data and monitoring

Parameter	Method, Frequency
Biomass weight delivered to energy conversion facility	Transport vehicle weight scale, each separate delivery
Biomass moisture	Representative sample, when biomass source changes
Biomass heating value	Representative sample, when biomass source changes
Transport vehicle miles traveled and gas mileage	Vehicle odometer, fuel dispensing
Processing equipment diesel engine operating hours and fuel usage	Engine hour meter, fuel dispensing
Energy production efficiency of energy conversion facility	Fuel input and useful energy output
Emission factors for open pile burning	Literature review
Emission factors for fossil fuel combustion engines	Engine manufacturer, literature
Emission factor for grinding	Literature review
Emission factor for transport over unpaved roads	Literature review
Emission factors for biomass energy conversion facility	Source testing, annual
Emission factors for displaced energy	Marginal energy supply analysis, source testing

Figure 2. Biomass-for-energy project emission reduction procedure.

Table 2. Equipment and engines for biomass processing and transport

Equipment	Vendor, Model, Year	Engine, Model, Horsepower
Horizontal grinder	Bandit Beast, model 3680, 2008	Caterpillar C18, Tier III, 522 kW
Excavator	Linkbelt, model 290, 2003	Isuzu CC-6BG1TC, 132 kW
Excavator	Linkbelt, model 135, 2003	Isuzu BB-4BG1T, 66 kW
Chip van	Kenworth, 1997	Cummins N14, 324 kW
Chip van	Kenworth, 2006	Caterpillar C13, 298 kW

Table 3. Emission factors for project and baseline operations

Process/Reference	Units	NOx	PM	NMOC	CO	CO2	CH4
Open pile burning5–20	g/dry kg wood	3	6.5	5	63	1833	3
Chip van engine24	g/km traveled	10.6	0.25	0.31	25	1381	0.6
Chip van25	g/km unpaved road	–	300	–	–	–	–
Grinder engine26	g/kWh	3.1	0.18	0.16	4.0	530 ^b	0.32
Excavator engine26	g/kWh	5.6	0.17	0.25	5.4	350 ^b	0.51
Excavator engine26	g/kWh	6.4	0.26	0.31	6.7	370 ^b	0.62
Grinder27	g/green kg wood	–	0.05	–	–	–	–
Biomass boiler22	g/GJ	52	7.7	1.7	73	88,000	4
Natural gas combined cycle23	Kg/MWh	0.016	0.011	0.002	0.005	384	–
California in-state electricity production ^a 28	Kg/MWh	0.08	0.025	0.01	0.13	250	–
Notes: ^aShown for comparison purposes; ^bDetermined from engine diesel fuel usage, operating hours, and rated power output.

Table 4. Emission factors for open pile burning of woody biomass

		Emission Factor (g/kg dry biomass burned)
Source, Reference, Test Conditions, Material Type	Material Type	PM	CO	CH4	NMOC	NOx
EPA AP-42,18 conifer logging slash, piled	Flaming	4	28	1.0	–	–
	Smoldering	7	116	8.5	–	–
	Fire	4	37	1.8	–	–
EPA AP-42,17 pile burn	Unspecified	14	116	4.7	15	–
	Fir, cedar, hemlock	3.4	75	1	3.4	–
	Ponderosa pine	10	164	2.9	9	–
Ward et al.,19 Hardy,10 consume model, 90% consumption efficiency	Dozer piled	6	77	6	4	–
	Crane piled	13	93	11	8	–
	Consume 90% consumption efficiency	9	80	3.8	3.1	–
Jenkins et al.,12 wind tunnel simulator	Almond	5	53	1.3	10	4
	Douglas fir	7	56	1.5	6	2
	Ponderosa pine	6	43	0.9	4.4	3
	Walnut tree	5	71	2.0	7	5
Lutes and Kariher,14 pilot, land clearing piles		7–22	19–29	–	4–16 ^a	0.2–2
Andreae and Merlet,5 literature compilation		5–17	81–100	–	–	–
Janhall et al.,11 literature compilation, forest residues		8	–	–	–	–
Chen et al.,7 laboratory	Ponderosa pine wood	4	17	–	0.5 ^a	0.8
	Ponderosa pine needles	3.3	32	–	3.5 ^a	4.1
Freeborn et al.,8 laboratory, pine, fir, aspen		7	50	–	–	4
McMeeking et al.,16 laboratory, pine, fir		–	90	3.7	5	2.2
Yokelson et al.,20 pilot	Broadcast	8	–	–	2 ^a	3
	Slash	4	–	–	2 ^a	2
	Crowns	–	–	–	4 ^a	3
Notes: ^aTotal hydrocarbons.

Table 5. Emissions comparison: open pile burning vs. biomass energy

	Air Emissions (t)
Operation	NOx	PM	NMOC	CO	CO2	CH4	CO2e ^a
Baseline, open pile burning
Open pile burning	17.37	37.65	28.96	362	10,618	17.37	10,983
Displaced power from grid	0.47	0.28	0.06	1	2,733		2,733
Total	17.84	37.93	29.02	363	13,352	17.37	13,717
Biomass project
Boiler	6.58	0.98	0.22	9	11,178	0.55	11,189
Process and transport
Grinding	0.43	0.52	0.02	1	73	0.04	74
Loading	0.31	0.01	0.01	0	19	0.03	19
Chip van transport	0.91	0.02	0.03	2	118	0.05	119
Total	8.23	1.53	0.28	12	11,388	0.70	11,402
Emissions reductions	9.62	36.39	28.74	350	1,965	16.7	2,315
Percent reduction	54%	96%	99%	97%	15%	96%	17%
Notes: ^aCO2e determined as CO2 + 21 × CH4.

2005 . Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Diesel Heavy Duty Vehicles , Sacramento , CA : California Air Resources Board .

 Google Scholar

1997 . Emission Inventory, Section 7.10, Unpaved Road Dust (Non-Farm Roads) , Sacramento , CA : California Air Resources Board .

 Google Scholar

2005 . Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Off-Road Diesel, Table B-12 , Sacramento , CA : California Air Resources Board .

 Google Scholar

1996 . Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Chapter 12, Log Sawing and Debarking , Research Triangle Park , NC : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards .

 Google Scholar

2007 . Source Test Report 2007 Compliance and Accuracy Test Audit Sierra Pacific Industries McBurney Wood Fired Boiler Lincoln California , Auburn , CA : Prepared by the Avogadro Group for the Placer County Air Pollution Control District .

 Google Scholar

2008 . Source Test Report 2008 Compliance and Accuracy Test Audit Roseville Electric, Roseville Energy Park Roseville California , Auburn , CA : Prepared by the Avogadro Group for Placer County Air Pollution Control District .

 Google Scholar

Proposed Regulation for a California Renewable Electricity Standard; California Air Resources Board, June 3, 2010, and 2007 Net System Power Report; California Energy Commission, CEC-200–2008-002-CMF, April 2008.

 Google Scholar

1996 . Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Section 13.1, Prescribed Burning , Research Triangle Park , NC : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards .

 Google Scholar

1992 . Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Section 2.5, Open Burning , Research Triangle Park , NC : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards .

 Google Scholar

Ward , D. , Hardy , C. , Sandberg , D. and Reinhardt , T. Mitigation of Prescribed Fire Atmospheric Pollution through Increased Utilization of Hardwood, Piles Residues, and Long-Needled Conifers. Part III: Emissions Characterization . Final Report IAG DA-AI179-85BP18509 . 1989 . U.S. Department of Energy; Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR

 Google Scholar

Hardy , C. Guidelines for Estimating Volume, Biomass, and Smoke Production for Piles Slash . General Technical Report PNW-GTR-364 . 1996 . U.S. Department of Agriculture; Forest Service; Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR

 Google Scholar

Jenkins , B. , Turn , S. , Williams , R. , Goronea , M. , Abd-el-Fattah , H. , Hehlschau , J. , Raubach , N. , Chang , D. , Kand , M. , Teague , S. , Raabe , O.G. , Campbell , D.E. , Cahill , T.A. , Pritchett , L. , Chow , J. and Jones , A.D. Atmospheric Pollutant Emission Factors from Open Burning of Agricultural and Forest Biomass by Wind Tunnel Simulations . CARB Report No. A932-196 . 1996 . California Air Resources Board: Sacramento, CA

 Google Scholar

Lutes , C. and Kariher , P. Evaluation of Emissions from the Open Burning of Land-Clearing Debris . EPA-600/R-96-128; NTIS PB97-115356 . 1998 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; National Risk Management Research Laboratory: Research Triangle Park, NC

 Google Scholar

Andreae , M. and Merlet , P. 2001 . Emissions of Trace Gases and Aerosols from Biomass Burning . Global Biogeochem. Cycles , 15 : 995 – 966 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Janhall , S. , Andreae , M. and Poschl , U. 2009 . Biomass Burning Aerosol Emissions from Vegetation Fires: Particle Number and Mass Emission Factors and Size Distributions . Atom. Chem. Phys. Discuss. , 9 : 17183 – 17217 .

 Google Scholar

Chen , A. , Moosmuller , H. , Arnott , P. , Chow , J. , Watson , J. , Susott , R. , Babbitt , R. , Wold , C. , Lincoln , E. and Hao , W. 2007 . Emissions from Laboratory Combustion of Wildland Fuels: Emission Factors and Source Profiles . Environ. Sci. Technol. , 41 : 4317 – 4325 .

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Freeborn , P. , Wooser , M. , Hao , W. , Ryan , C. , Nordgren , B.L. , Baker , S.P. and Ichoku , C. 2008 . Relationships between Energy Release, Fuel Mass Loss, and Trace Gas and Aerosol Emissions during Laboratory Biomass Fires . J. Geophys. Res. , 113 doi: 10.1029/2007JD008679

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McMeeking , G.R. , Kreidenweis , S.M. , Baker , S. , Carrico , C.M. , Chow , J. , Collett , J.L. Jr. , Hao , W.M. , Holden , A.S. , Kirchstetter , T.W. , Malm , W.C. , Moosmüller , H. , Sullivan , A.P. and Wold , C.E. 2009 . Emissions of Trace Gases and Aerosols during the Open Combustion of Biomass in the Laboratory . J. Geophys. Res. , 114 : D19210 doi: 10.1029/2009JD011836

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yokelson , R. , Griffith , W. and Ward , D. 1996 . Trace Gas Emissions from Laboratory Biomass Fires Measured by Open-Path Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy: Fires in Grass and Surface Fuels . J. Geophys. Res. , 101 : 20167 – 21080 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar