Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Punctuated continuity: The technological trajectory of advanced


biomass gasiers
Arjan F. Kirkels n
School of Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, Netherlands

H I G H L I G H T S

 Advanced biomass gasication, as important enabling technology for biofuels and the bio-based economy, has been lacking success despite decades of
research and development.
 We try to explain this by reconstructing its technological trajectory.
 We focus on processes of variation and selection, and interaction between local demonstration projects and the upcoming technological eld.
 The development of the technology over each period shows strong variation.
 Long RD&D times in combination with major changes in the socio-economic context have resulted in discontinuities that even affected premium
technologies.

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 5 November 2013
Received in revised form
22 January 2014
Accepted 24 January 2014
Available online 11 February 2014

Recent interest in biofuels and bio-reneries has been building upon the technology of biomass
gasication. This technology developed since the 1980s in three periods, but failed to break through.
We try to explain this by studying the technological development from a quasi-evolutionary perspective,
drawing upon the concepts of technological paradigms and technological trajectories. We show that the
socio-economic context was most important, as it both offered windows of opportunity as well as
provided direction to developments. Changes in this context resulted in paradigm shifts, characterized by
a change in considered end-products and technologies, as well as a change in companies involved. Other
inuences on the technological trajectory were rm specic differences, like the focus on a specic
feedstock, scale and more recently biofuels to be produced. These were strengthened by the national
focus of supporting policies, as well as specic attention for multiple technologies in policies of the USA
and European Commission. Over each period we see strong variation that likely benetted the long term
development of the technology. Despite policy efforts that included variation and institutionalization, our
case shows that the large changes in socio-economic context and the technological challenges were hard
to overcome.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Advanced biomass gasiers
Technological trajectory
Technological paradigm
Variation
Selection

1. Introduction
Over the past few years, energy from biomass has received
ample interest, with special attention for biofuels, bio-reneries
and the concept of a bio-based economy. Crucial to these developments is the technology of biomass gasication. Biomass gasication is the thermochemical breakdown of biomass at high
temperature and frequently also at high pressure. Input can be a
diversity of biomass feedstock, although each requires a somewhat
specialized technology. In the gasier, the feedstock is converted

Tel.: 003 140 247 5761.


E-mail address: a.f.kirkels@tue.nl

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.036
0301-4215 & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

to syngas (also called producer gas) that mainly consists of carbon


monoxide and hydrogen. Clean syngas can subsequently be converted in several products: heat, power, chemicals and fuels like
methanol and Fischer-Tropsch diesel.
Biomass gasiers come in a variety of designs. Typically applied
at smaller scale are the updraft and downdraft gasiers. Simple
updraft gasiers produce syngas full of contaminants and are
mainly applied in heat applications. Downdraft gasiers produce
cleaner syngas that is mainly applied for power production by
engines. At larger scales there is a diversity of uidized bed and
entrained ow designs that, combined with extensive gas cleaning, can produce clean syngas for the production of biofuels,
chemicals and power. We focus on the latter category of advanced
gasiers.

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182

Advanced gasication tted social concerns well over the past


decades. As such, it received a lot of interest and support (Kirkels
and Verbong, 2011), but only became applied in a few research,
development and demonstration (RD&D) niches. This raises questions from an innovation perspective. What is limiting the success
of this technology? And what does this mean for its future
application? Only recently, the long-term development of biomass
gasiers has been studied. Hellsmark, (2010) takes a Technological
Innovation Systems (TIS) perspective on European countries that
dominated developments in biomass gasication - Sweden, Finland, Germany and Austria. Kirkels and Verbong, (2011) provide an
overview of global long term developments in biomass gasication
based on multiple indicators and literature, showing that interest
came in three distinct waves: in the early 1980s with a focus on
methanol production; in the 1990s with a focus on power
production by Integrated Gasication Combined Cycles (IGCC);
and after 2000 with a focus on biofuels.
In this paper we will follow a complementary approach.
We will reconstruct the technological development of advanced
gasiers and try to answer the following questions: 1) what has
inuenced the initial momentum and focus of the technological
path; and 2) what impact did the developments in the technological path have on the success and failure of the technology. For
the latter, we will address four sub-questions: a) what have been
the dominant technologies and companies; b) what have been
dominant research themes and lessons learned; c) to what extent
did this result in patterns of variation, selection and (dis)continuous technological paths over time; and nally d) how did this
inuence the promise and failure of the technology? We will
conduct extensive literature study and construct an overview of
demo plants in order to answer these questions for each of the
three periods identied by Kirkels and Verbong. In the next
paragraphs we will introduce the concepts that we will be building
upon, followed by the methodology. Next we will describe for each
period the empirical results. And nally we will come to conclusions and discussion.

2. Conceptual framework
We use an evolutionary perspective on technological change,
starting from the work by Dosi, (1982) and Nelson and Winter,
(1982). It is evolutionary in the sense that it includes processes of
variation, selection and retention. Variation comes from early
engineering efforts in RD&D, in a phase characterized by high
uncertainties, little alignment and no lock-in. Sources of variation
are rm-specic differences and bounded rationality. Selection
mainly takes place upon market introduction: picking technologies that perform best in a given socio-economical context. And
nally retention, or continued existence, is driven by processes of
success and institutionalization, e.g. setting standards, sharing
knowledge, etc.
As our interest is in both continuous technological change as
well as discontinuities, we will be drawing upon the notions of
technological paradigms and technological trajectories by Dosi,
(1982). Dosi starts from a broad notion of technology as:
a set of pieces of knowledge, both directly practical (related to
concrete problems and devices) and theoretical (but practically
applicable although not necessarily already applied), know-how,
methods, procedures, experience of success and failures and also,
of course, physical devices and equipment.1
Based on this, he dened technological paradigms (or research
programs) in analogy of Kuhns notion of scientic paradigms as:
1

Dosi, 1982, p151/152.

171

an outlook, a set of procedures, a denition of the relevant


problems and of the specic knowledge related to their solution.2
According to Dosi, the technological paradigm embodies strong
prescriptions on the directions of technological change to pursue,
and those to neglect. The identication of a technological paradigm relates to the generic tasks to which it is applied, the
material technology it selects, the physical or chemical properties
it exploits and the technological and economic dimensions and
trade-offs it focusses upon. These dene an idea of progress as the
improvement of the trade-offs related to those dimensions.
As such Dosi sees continuity in technological development, or
development that adds up to a technological trajectory, as a pattern
of normal problem solving within the technological paradigm to
achieve progress; while discontinuities are associated with the
emergence of a new paradigm. Some of the characteristics of a
technological trajectory are: it consists of a series of small
innovations (local incremental variations) that built upon each
other and as such are cumulative; once a path has been selected
and established, it shows a momentum of its own and as such it
might be difcult to switch from one trajectory to an alternative
one; there are complementarities among trajectories; and it is
doubtful whether it is possible a priori to compare and assess the
superiority of one technological path over another.
Geels, (2002) and Rip and Kemp, (1998) have argued against
such a narrow perspective on technological change, as this put too
much emphasis on the embedding of routines in the minds of
engineers. The outcome of the innovation process is also determined by other social groups like policy makers, users and
scientists. More recent innovation theories, like the eld of
Transition Studies that includes theories of Strategic Niche Management and the Technological Innovation Systems, take this
criticism into account and approach technological change as a
quasi-evolutionary process (Faber et al., 2005; Raven, 2006). The
process is called quasi-evolutionary, as the variation of technologies is not random. Researchers and RD&D departments do take
into account both what they consider most promising technologies based on performance in lab or merely by expectations, as
also the perceived future socio-economic context in which the
technology will have to perform. These approaches put more
emphasis on cognitive rules like goals, problem agendas and
expectations. According to Geels and Raven, (2006) expectations,
visions and beliefs have the dynamic of self-fullling prophecies,
because they guide research and development activities that work
towards realizing them. While shared cognitive rules and expectations create stable trajectories of technological change, change in
the direction of the technological trajectories depends on a change
in the content of cognitive rules and expectations.
Geels and Raven argue (2006) that it is at the level of
communities or emerging elds that the emerging technological
trajectory can be found see Fig. 1. This level is building upon
(series of) local projects, characterized by actors directly involved
in those projects and local variability (local networks, project
denitions, skills). The global network consists of actors who have
some distance to the project. It refers to an emerging eld or
community. It is characterized by abstract, generic knowledge
shared within the community (theories, technical models, agendas, expectations, etc.). The translation of local outcomes into
generic lessons and cognitive rules requires aggregation activities
(e.g. standardization, model building) and the circulation of
knowledge and people to enable comparison between local
practices and formulation of generic lessons (e.g. by conferences,
workshops, proceedings, journals, etc.). According to Geels and
Raven, the interplay between local projects and the global

Dosi, 1982, p148.

172

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182

Fig. 1. Technical trajectory carried by local projects [Geels and Raven, 2006].

community is important, as feedback mechanisms between both


can explain dynamics in developments.
This notion of technological trajectories by Geels and Raven as
directed by shared frames leaves ample room for variation as:
(1) local projects leave room for local interpretation and adjustments; and (2) especially early on, rules are not shared by everyone and efforts might have not yet aligned. Only over time, with
more alignment of rules and possible institutionalization, this will
result in a more guided and stable search. This is amplied as the
selection environment also tends to prefer existing solutions
owing to economies of scale and lock-in effects (Geels and
Raven, 2006). However, Bakker et al., (2012) and Raven, (2006)
argue that guided variation and pre-selection can also result in
early appearance of dominant designs in RD&D.
Following the global-local distinction by Geels and Raven, we
conclude that studying the global level would not be sufcient for
reconstructing the technological trajectory. There is an additional
contribution to be found by studying local projects and demo
plants. First, according to Dosi technological knowledge is much
less well articulated than scientic knowledge. Existing physical
devices embody the achievements in the development of a
technology and as such are of special interest.
Second, constructing demo plants involves heterogeneous actor
groups. These projects provide a place for early interaction
between the variation (scientists and engineers) and selection
environment (project owners, nancers, buyers, suppliers, regulators, etcetera). At this level also these actors become visible and
can be mapped and analyzed (Geels and Raven, 2006).
Third, demonstration plants can also be seen as an early
indicator of success: demo plants dene a certain stage of maturity
of the technology; multiple actors share a belief in the technology
that justies investing in it; and the applied technology is
preferred over alternative existing technologies.
And nally, biomass gasication plants are a congurational
technology: they contain several components biomass pretreatment, feeding, gasier, gas cleaning, nal conversion that are
interdependent. Problems in one component as well as the
interaction between components will affect the overall performance. Fleck, (1994) stresses that for such a congurational
technology local demonstration projects are crucial to facilitate
learning by trying.

3. Methodology
Following a quasi-evolutionary perspective, we will try to
reconstruct the technological trajectory of advanced biomass

gasiers based on literature study. As such we will focus on


processes of variation and selection, continuity and discontinuity.
We will follow the analytical distinction made by Geels and Raven,
(2006) between the community level and local projects. For the
community level we mainly studied overview articles and status
reports, to identify preferred technology, the state of the technology, research themes and expectations. For the local level we
identied demo plants, presenting an overview in tables including
site, manufacturer, technology, feedstock, size and status.
Over the late 1970s and early 1980s exposure in scientic
journals has been limited. However, this was a period of high
RD&D intensity, as Kirkels and Verbong, (2011) show. This is
documented in the proceedings of various conferences that are
at the basis of our study. These include the Bioenergy 80 and 84
conferences; the (bi)-annual European Biomass Conferences
(1980-2010); the IEA International conferences on thermochemical biomass conversion (1985-2001); four VTT conferences on
Power production from biomass (1993-2002); an EC international
workshop and conference (1984, 1989); and two expert meetings
on pyrolysis and gasication organized by PyNe and GasNet
networks (1997, 2003).
Gasier technology can be classied as an open technology: its
development is inuenced by developments in related technologies like small-scale gasiers, coal gasication and thermochemical technologies like combustion and pyrolysis. We take this into
account whenever literature suggests it was relevant.

4. 1970s and 1980s: methanol as transport fuel


The 1970s can be characterized by high oil prices and concerns
regarding depletion and dependency on oil. From about 1979
onwards biomass gasication took off - as shown in chemical
abstracts on biomass gasication (Overend, in Stassen and van
Swaaij, 1982) and biomass-gasication related patents (Kirkels and
Verbong, 2011). A variety of manufacturers and technologies were
involved, e.g. see Hodam, Williams and Lesser, (1982), Klass,
(1985), Reed, (1980) and Shand and Bridgwater, (1984).
Developments in advanced biomass gasication concentrated
on methanol production to replace oil-based fuels. This focus
required a new, more advanced generation of gasiers. This
received attention from the USA, Canada, Sweden, and the
European Community - see Table 1 for an overview of RD&D
plants. Emphasis was given to the development of gasiers. The
subsequent conversion to methanol was considered commercially
available. Both the USA and Europe chose for an exploratory
strategy - both developed multiple technologies in parallel to nd

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182

173

Table 1
Pilot projects on advanced biomass gasiers for methanol production in the early 1980s.
Consortium/contractors
(country)
1

John Brown Wellman (UK)

Reactor type

 Double uidized

bed, circulating
carrier for oxygen
and heat.
Double uidized
bed, circulating heat
carrier

Circulating uidized bed


(CFB)
Bubbling uidized bed
(BFB)
Indirectly heated
uidized bed

Lurgi (D)

3
4

Creusot-Loire (F) ASCAB/


Framatome/Stein Industrie
AGIP Nucleare/Italenergie (I)

Omnifuel/Biosyn (CA)

Bubbling uidized bed

Royal Institute of
Technology/Studsvik
Energiteknik (SE)

Batelle-Columbus
Laboratories (USA)
Institute of Gas Technology
(USA)
SERI (now NREL) (USA)

Bubbling uidized bed,


high temperature lter
and catalytic reformer;
MINO process
Indirectly heated
uidized bed, dual bed
Bubbling uidized bed;
RENUGAS process
Downdraft Upscaled
SynGas 1985
Indirectly heated
uidized bed, re tube
with heat exchanger

8
9
10

University of Missouri-Rolla
(USA)

Method

 Gasication with


Capacity
[kg wood/hr]

Pressure
[bar]

Site

440-900

Smethwick
(UK)

320-450

Frankfurt (D)

100-320
2.500
500-800

1 7-30
1

Le Creusot
(F) Clamecy (F)
Toscana (I)

10.000
 4.000*

16-20
????

10-15
300-500

30
10-30

154-1400

0.2-1

160-500

6-24

38
560-900
20-375

11
1
1

chemically bound
oxygen; air blown
Gasication with
steam, separate
combustion of char
for heat

Oxygen or oxygen/steam
blown
Oxygen or oxygen/steam
blown
Pyrolysis, combustion
part of product gas
separately for heat;
steam and oxygen blown
Pressurized, oxygen (or
air) blown

Oxygen and steam (or


air) blown; add. xed
bed oxygen blown
catalytic reformer
Air blown
Pressurized, oxygen
blown
Pressurized, oxygen
blown
Air blown

St. Juste-deBretenires
(Quebec, CA)
Degrad des
Cannes (French
Guyana)
Stockholm (SE)
Studsvik (SE)

Columbus, Ohio
(USA)
Chicago, Illinois
(USA)
Golden,
Colorado (USA)
Rolla, Missouri
(USA)

1-4 Beenackers and van Swaaij, 1983, 1986; Grassi and Pirrwitz, 1983; Kaltschmitt et al., 1998; Strub, 1984
5 Hogan, 1992, 1993; Cort, in Kaltschmitt et al., 1998
6 Beenackers and van Swaaij, 1983; Blomkvist et al., 1983; Strm et al. 1985
7-10 Klass, 1987, p50-52; Schiefelbein, 1989; Stevens, 1994, p23-43.
n

The Omnifuel plant at Degrad des Cannes was rated at 30.000 t/year of dry wood, which at 8000-8600 operating hours is equivalent with 35004000 kg per hour.

out what would work best. Overall, these development programs


were technologically successful to the extent that no further
exploration of concepts was required at the end of the 1980s
and up-scaling to demo plants was considered (Beenackers and
van Swaaij, 1983, 1986; Hogan, 1992; Klass, 1985, 1987; Miles and
Miles, 1989; Stevens, 1994; Strm et al., 1985; Strub, 1984).
In the late 1970s and early 1980s it was considered that the
production of methanol required the production of clean mediumcaloric-value syngas. Such a plant was likely to be sized at tens of
mega Watt: economies of scale and the large market dictated a
large size, while the dispersed availability of biomass was limiting
it. To achieve both clean syngas production and reasonable scale,
two different concepts were explored: the directly-heated and the
indirectly-heated gasier.
The directly-heated gasiers were blown by pure oxygen. Some
extra oxygen was supplied to the gasier to combust some of the
biomass, which provided the energy to keep the gasication
process running. Experience with the Purox process and the SERI
gasier indicated that this might be feasible. Recommendations
were made to support research on energy efcient small scale
oxygen plants. Alternatively, the oxygen could be bought in from
nearby large-scale oxygen facilities, which limited the number of
suitable locations and increased operational costs.
The second option used indirectly-heated gasication or pyrolytic gasication. In this process, the gasier receives oxygen

from steam as medium or from a bed material that chemically


binds oxygen (e.g. in the John Brown process). The process is
driven by externally generated heat, most often a second vessel in
which part of the biomass is combusted. Heat exchange between
both vessels is based on exchange of bed material that takes the
role of heat accumulator. The structural complexity of indirectlyheated gasiers adds to the investment cost for the gasier,
but operational costs are lowered as no oxygen needs to be bought
in. These gasiers, although not as well developed as oxygen
gasiers, promised higher efciencies and lower overall costs and
received signicant support, especially in the USA (Beenackers and
Maniatis, 1984; Reed, 1980)
Another focal point was pressurized gasication. No pressurized biomass gasiers existed yet (Reed, 1980) and the technology
would likely be more complex. However, pressurized gasication
seemed attractive as it could have a positive effect on the overall
economics, as the subsequent methanol synthesis required pressurized operation anyway.
While the advanced concepts were explored in RD&D, simpler,
small-scale, xed-bed gasiers already found application in the
market for low-end applications. Given the policy interest in highend applications, a handful manufacturers of these updraft and
downdraft gasiers did consider entering this market segment by
the use of oxygen, pressurized operation and the use of catalyst
(Beenackers and van Swaaij, 1986; Reed, 1980). However, the updraft

174

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182

technology produced polluted gas, while the downdraft technology


was hard to scale up. Therefore both were considered less suitable a realization that grew over time.
Already by 1983 interest started to decline, and by 1985 efforts
came to a standstill: oil prices were low and government based
RD&D funding stopped - which in turn resulted in less projects
realized and reduced RD&D output. We found that for the second
half of the 1980s construction of plants and their performance
were underexposed in literature. This is probably due to the lack of
success of these projects as well as the drop of interest by the
relevant community. We will provide a reconstruction.
In the 1985-1986 US solicitation for funds, the proposals
for demonstrating a near-commercial gasier were withdrawn
(Bain et al., 2003). In Europe, the Clamency plant was built over
the period 1986-1989, signicantly scaling up the Creusot Loire
technology and applying it under pressurized conditions. Test runs
were made in 1990 and subsequently the plant was stopped, as
the French government stopped supporting gasication research
(Cort, in Kaltschmitt et al., 1998; Marcellin, in Bridgwater and
Evans, 1993). Omnifuel found application in a plant in French
Guyana. The plant was built in 1987, tested for a few days, but
never operated. Several technical problems have been reported
(Cort, in Kaltschmitt et al., 1998). In 1985 it was decided to
build the Kemira Oy plant in Finland. It started operation in 1988
using Rheinsbraun0 s HTW technology. Although this technology
has not been included in Table 1, as its development focused on
lignite gasication (Harmsen, 2000), this specic plant was of
relevance as it produced ammonia from peat. Its operation was
proof of the technical feasibility, although several technical problems were reported, among others due to the heterogeneous
quality of the peat. The plant was shut down in 1990, at least
partially based on economics (Kaltschmitt et al., 1998; Koljonen
et al., 1993).
Both this overview and literature suggest that advanced gasiers that were installed in the late 1980s had been initiated when
energy prices were still high, and were frequently abandoned
based on their techno-economic performance (Kaltschmitt et al.,
1998; Kirkels and Verbong, 2011; Miles and Miles, 1989; Stevens,
1994). In addition, attention shifted to (fast) pyrolysis, especially in
Europe (Diebold and Stevens, 1989; Grassi, 1988).
At the community level, we see community formation by the
upcoming of biomass conferences from 1980 onwards. And from
the second half of the 1980s cooperation started in IEA tasks on
bio-energy. Bridgwater, (1990) concludes, based on a worldwide
database of activities in thermochemical conversion over this
period, that mainly academics, governments, industrial research
and development and manufacturers were involved - in line with
the ndings of our overview. Industries involved in large-scale
gasication were mostly research institutes and process industries,
like pulp and paper industry supplier, boiler manufacturers and
industry dedicated to gasication. There seems to have been only
limited interest by automotive industry and a lack of involvement
of methanol and petrochemical industry (Kliman, 1983; Klass,
1985).
But what were the lessons learned? Both Reed, (1980) and
Stevens, (1994) indicate that applications in the late 1970s and
early 1980s were to a signicant extent skill based. As this did not
provide a solid basis to develop advanced and properly working
concepts, they became accompanied by more fundamental studies. As such, technologies turned out costlier and took longer to
develop than initially anticipated. Also, biomass was not easy-to-handle-coal, but rather different from coal. It had different
characteristics that required different technology and handling.
And by the mid-1980s the emerging insight was that gas cleaning
and especially tar was a persistent problem and catalysis was
given more attention. Other issues included system integration,

reaction mechanisms and kinetics, and broadening the scope of


fuels considered (Baker et al., 1986; Beenackers and Maniatis,
1984; Beenackers and van Swaaij, 1990; Bridgwater, 1984; Diebold
and Stevens, 1989; Miles and Miles, 1989; Stevens, 1994).
To conclude, in the early 1980s biomass gasication initially
received interest as it was perceived as a relative easy technology
that could reduce oil dependency by producing methanol. This
anticipated application inuenced the technological focus on the
production of clean medium-caloric-value syngas. Strategies to
develop the technology paid special attention to variation the
parallel exploration of concepts along two technological paths:
oxygen-blown, directly-heated gasiers and indirectly-heated
gasiers. To improve progress along these trajectories, ongoing
efforts became accompanied by more fundamental studies of fuels
and gasication. After the exploration of the concepts, interest
seems to have broadened to the congurational aspects of the
technology, with more attention for system integration and gas
cleaning which proved to be a persistent problem. In the second
half of the 1980s the concepts were evaluated. In both Europe and
the USA this resulted in pre-selecting the best technologies at that
time. However, this selection was hardly effectuated as demoprojects were discontinued, mainly due to the drop in oil prices
which on its turn resulted in a drop of interest.

5. 1990s to 2004: IGCC for high-efciency power generation


By the end of the 1980s energy policy had refocused: nuclear
energy and coal were considered no longer attractive, and
attention for global warming strengthened commitments to
renewables. Power from biomass was considered one of the more
promising renewables at the short term (Kaltschmitt et al., 1998;
Williams and Larson, 1989). Low-efciency steam turbines had
already found application for converting biomass to power. Now
the higher-efciency Integrated-Gasication Combined Cycle
(IGCC) started to draw attention: it redened potential power
output and improved cost efciency (Bain, 1993; Grassi, 1993;
Johansson, 1993; U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), 1992; Williams
and Larson, 1993).
The biomass IGCC option was already recognized in the early
1980s, see for example Beenackers and van Swaaij, (1984) and
Reed, (1980), but at that time failed to receive support. This
changed by the late 1980s. Coal-based IGCC, including hot gas
cleaning and pressurized circulating-uidized-bed (CFB) combustion, received signicant attention. Natural gas became more
applied for power generation using combined-cycle technology.
And biomass combustion by CFB found application over the 1980s,
especially in the USA. This provided many relevant learning
experiences with respect to biomass as fuel, CFB technology and
system integration. Two leading designs by the companies Lurgi
and Ahlstrom even found application in CFB gasiers (Bain, 1993;
Koornneef et al., 2007; U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), 1992;
Watson, 1997; Williams and Larson, 1989).
Given the progress in all these areas, a short development time
of biomass IGCC was to be expected (Hall, 1997; Larson et al.,
1989). However, initially a much wider range of technologies to
realize high-efciency biomass-to-power conversion was brought
under the attention: steam injected turbines (STIG), pyrolysis oil either in turbines or in co-ring, indirectly-heated turbines,
ceramic turbines, etc. Dominant views in both the USA and Europe
saw IGCC as a promising concept, but not the rst one to blossom
(Bain, 1993; Grassi and Bridgwater, 1990, 1993; Larson et al., 1989).
Only by the early 1990s expectations started to align and IGCC
became the focal point of attention. At that time mainly Finland,
Sweden and the USA were involved. They all concentrated on

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182

large-scale pressurized gasication (Rensfelt, 1991; Stevens, 1992;


U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), 1992).
To realize IGCC application, several types of gasiers were
considered. Fixed-bed updraft technology looked promising in
combination with hot gas cleaning, keeping tars in vapor phase
and combusting them in the turbine (Larson et al., 1989; Williams
and Larson, 1993). Others considered medium-caloric-value gasiers to be better suited for gas turbines (Solantausta and
Beenackers, 1989; Stevens, 1994). But neither of these ideas
received a lot of support.
In contrast to this, air-blown uidized bed technology was now
considered proven and commercially available and became widely
applied - see Table 2. This included both the bubbling (BFB) and
circulating (CFB) type (Bridgwater, 1993; Grassi and Bridgwater,
1990; Johansson, 1993; Larson et al., 1989). Note that Table 2
represents both plants as well as plans - as only the Vrnamo plant
was operated for longer periods of time. Other plants were
constructed, but were less successful, like the ARBRE, Hawaii and
Vermont plant. Others never materialized, but contributed by
system analysis, feasibility studies and design - like the ones in
Brazil, Minnesota and North Holland.
From the table we can identify several leading manufacturers.
Foster Wheeler developed pressurized gasication and was
involved in the successful Vrnamo plant. Based on this it was
pre-selected as possible technology for the Brazilian plant. It also
was participating in plans for up scaled plants in Finland. In the
late-1990s, it supplied two large-scale biomass gasiers for coring in coal plants. These latter are not included in the table as
we did not consider them high-end applications. But at the time
Foster Wheeler was the only manufacturer that had several
relatively large-scale biomass gasiers operational.
TPS participated in several atmospheric plants. It build upon an
atmospheric CFB gasier for lime kilns (Bridgwater, 1993). In
addition, it drew upon experience with catalysts and gas cleaning
from its research and the MINO process it worked upon in the
1980s, as was shown in Table 1. It became selected in the Brazil
project based on its lower specic investment costs, lower risk and
better technological readiness - in which it out-competed Foster
Wheeler (CHESF, 1995). Only the ARBRE plant was realized, but it
closed almost immediately upon completion.
IGT technology, involving pressurized gasication, found application in the Hawaii demo plant. It licensed its technology to
Enviropower/Carbona. As such it was considered for application in
several European plants, in the USA for the Minnesota project and
in India.
Two interlinked parameters determined the two trajectories of
technological development: size and pressure. Pressurized operation, including pressurized gas cleaning, was more efcient as the
gas turbine needed pressurized operation anyway - but it also was
more complex, less proven and added investment costs. Larger
sizes of 5080 MWe, or even up to 100 MWe, were considered
realistic for Scandinavian and US conditions. For smaller scales of
2050 MWe atmospheric operation seemed to be the logic choice,
with more established, but less efcient gas cleaning. This lower
range was considered by Europe, including several Scandinavian
municipalities. Over time there was an ongoing debate about the
relevant ranges of scales. (Bridgwater, 1995; Larson et al., 1989;
Maniatis et al., 1997; Palonen et al., 1996; Rsch et al., 1998; Salo
and Kernen, 1996; Salo and Patel, 1997; Solantausta et al., 1995; U.
S. Department of Energy (DoE), 1992; Wiln and Kurkela, 1998).
Demo plants played an important role in demonstrating the
technology and learning, especially for system integration and
unproven parts: pressurized gasication, gas turbines, and gas
cleaning. Extensive gas cleaning was required to prevent corrosion
and tar condensation (Beenackers and van Swaaij, 1990;
Bridgwater, 1993; Johansson, 1993). Note that due to differences

175

in circumstances (scale, sort and quality of biomass, components


applied) these rst demo plants were often one of a kind and
specically designed for their task, frequently requiring on site
modications.
However, the demo projects showed it was a bumpy road to
take. Each plant encountered technical problems. Gas cleaning and
tar condensation proved to be especially persistent problems, but
also biomass feeding frequently resulted in problems. However,
many scholars consider the non-technical problems as more
substantial. These included, but were not limited to, acquiring
proper biomass (e.g. Biocycle and North Holland), permitting (e.g.
Energy Farm), knowledge and capabilities, and last but not least
the high investment costs and overall economics that did not show
the anticipated reduction due to learning curves (e.g. North Holland, Vrnamo) (Bain et al., 2003; De Lange and Barbucci, 1998;
Kaltschmitt et al., 1998; Maniatis, 1998; Salo, 1998; Piterou et al.,
2008).
In the late 1990s, related gasication technologies were
explored. Black liquor is a highly-corrosive byproduct of the paper
industry for which specic gasiers were developed by MTCI,
Chemrec and Weyerhauser. And in biomass gasiers there was
frequent experimenting with waste feedstock, like RDF and tires.
Also specic waste- and plasma-gasiers were under development. Finally, biomass gasication was applied for co-ring in
existing pulverized-coal boilers - offering limited adaptation of the
power plant and limited operational risk (Kaltschmitt et al., 1998;
Maniatis, 1998).
At the community level knowledge exchange was stimulated
by new and increased networking activities, involving both
experts and more heterogeneous actors. It showed in expert
meetings and in IEA conferences and tasks. But also in the
European Biomass Conference, that over the 1990s showed an
increase in participants and visitors, and that was linked to an
industry exhibition (Kirkels, 2012). The demonstration efforts
required the involvement of more heterogeneous actors: turbine
or feedstock suppliers and actors involved in catalysis, feeding
systems, construction, nancing, etcetera. We are under the
impression that especially feedstock industry and utilities started
to show involvement at the community level. In parallel with the
demonstration efforts a signicant research effort was made, both
by manufacturers and research institutes. Main topics included,
but were not limited to pressurized gasication, gas cleaning and
catalysis, agro-fuels and socio-economic issues. In addition, modeling was needed to acquire a more fundamental and detailed
understanding of what was going on in gasiers in order to be able
to prevent problems and optimize designs (Beenackers and
Maniatis, (1992); Bridgwater, 1995; Connor et al., 1997; Elliott
and Maggi, 1997; Kurkela et al., 1993; Maniatis, 1998; Maniatis
et al., 1998).
Just after 2000, developments came to a halt: natural gas
technology was preferred in the power sector due to its very low
specic investment costs; biomass combustion and co-combustion
were closer-to-market; wind become the renewable of choice; and
power companies were no longer interested in innovative but
high-cost alternatives as the electricity markets became liberalized
(Jger-Waldau and Ossenbrink, 2004; Kirkels, 2012).
To conclude, the socio-economic context initially drove the
interest in biomass gasication in this period. Technological
development benetted from the insights of the 1980s as well as
progress in a variety of related elds. Based on all these, a short
development time was expected, as the attention for demonstration plants also illustrates.
The initial policy interest in high-efciency power resulted in
diversity of technologies that were brought forward in conferences
an indication of strong variation. Only over time these aligned:
rst concentrating on IGCC; and nally on air-blown uid-bed

176

Table 2
Plants and plans for biomass IGCC application, late 1980s till 2003. CFB Circulating Fuidized Bed; BFB Bubbling Fluidized Bed; IGCC Integrated Gasication Combined Cycle; MWe MWelectricity; MWth MWthermal.
Sources: Beenackers and Maniatis, 1998; Bridgwater, 1993; Hellsmark, 2010; Kaltschmitt and Bridgwater, 1997; Kaltschmitt et al., 1998; Knoef, 2005; Sipil and Korhonen, 1993, 1996, 1998; Sipil and Rossi, 2002.
Consortium/
contractors

Manufacturer

Technology (type, MWe, pressure, medium)

Status/year

Capacity
[ton/d]

Feedstock

Vrnamo (SE)

Sydkraft/Ahlstrom

720

biomass

Brazil WBP-SIGAME
Bahia state
Mariestad (SE)
(FI)

World Bank,
Electrobas
Gullspng Kraft

 435

Eucalyptus

Bors (SE)

Bors Energi AB

TPS/VBB
Imatran Voima Oy
(IVO) IVOSDIG process
TPS

Atmospheric CFB; 16 MWe 17 MWsteam 9 MWth


Air blown, steam injected gas turbine no steam
turbine
Atmospheric CFB, 70 MW IGCC

Enviropower

Air blown pressurized IGCC; 15 -20 MWth;


dolomite as bed catalyst, hot gas clean up
Pressurized BFB, air-oxygen blown; 10-21 bar;
5MWe
Atmospheric CFB; 8 MWe; tars cracked in
second CFB

Studies late 80s; cooperation 1991; 1993 start gasier,


1995 turbine; 2000 stop, uneconomical
Initiated 1990; 1994 terminated - due to large
investment cost and power balance countries
Planning 1991-1998; design completed; not
constructed; plans terminated by 2004
1991-1992 feasibility study pre-project study
1991 some tests; mid 90s on hold; required
signicant investment support
Planned early 90s; failed to acquire funding;
terminated mid 90s
Test facility. At least operated 1993-1995

Wood

Vattenfall

Pressurized CFB; 6 MWe 9 MWth; 20-24 bar;


hot gas clean up
Indirectly red IGCC, pressurized BFB; 20-25
bar, air blown; 65 MWth 60 MWe
Atmospheric CFB; 30-32 MWe

90-100

Vega (SE) Eskilstuna

Foster Wheeler Bioow technology


Tampella Power/
Enviropower
TPS

Gaspi, Tampere (FI)


Hawaii (USA) HC&S - Paia
mill
ARBRE (UK) - EC proj
Yorkshire Eggb. Power
Station
Energy farm (I) - EC proj Di
Casina, close to Pisa

PICHTR/WEC

IGT Renugas

Arbre Energy
Limited (AEL)

TPS

Biolettrica (ENEL,
Lurgi a.o.)

Initially Lurgi, later on


Carbona

Biocycle (DK) - EC proj


Assens, Maribo Kotka
(FI)

Elsam/Elkraft a.o.

Enviropower/Carbona

North Holland (NL)

ENW

TPS or Lurgi

Atmospheric CFB; 30 MWe

Burlington, Vermont (USA)


McNeil power station
Summa (FI) transferred to
nekoski (Fi)
New Bern mill (USA)
Minnesota Alfalfa project
(USA)

Batelle/FERCO

Batelle

Tampella (Kvaerner)
Enso/Metsliitto
Weyerhaeuser
MVAPC

Foster Wheeler

Atmospheric, indirectly heated; air/steam


blown; 8-15 MWe
IGCC demo plants; 60-70 MWe

Batelle/FERCO
Carbona

 Atmospheric CFB; 12 MWe; 1.4 bar


 Pressurized BFB
Pressurized air blown CFB; 7 MWe 7-8 MWth;
22bar; hot gas cleanup

39 MWe
Pressurized CFB; air and steam blown; 20 bar;
75 MWe

Wet fuels: peat,


biomass
Oad chips
80

Wood chips

1989 request; 1994 start project; 1998 nalized;


technical difculties; gas turbine never installed
1993 start; 1998-2001 construction; (non)technical
problems; 2003 terminated

40-100

bagasse

 138

SRF (willow, poplar),


later sludge added

1993 start; 1998 design completed, construction


start; non-technical delay; 2003 terminated

200-336

SRF plantations -poplar;


wood chips/residues

 1993/94 start; DK cancelled - competition




 84

natural gas; transferred to Kotka


1997 abandoned due to closure wood supplier

1993 start; 1998 plans terminated lack of biomass


and not competitive
1994 design; 1997 operating; 2002 mothballed; not
economic; gas turbine never installed
 1994-1996; repowering paper mill; not realized,
too limited investment subsidy
Feasibility study, 1994-1995
Studies/planning 1994-1999; terminated, unable to
meet deadline

 Willow, wood, later


eucalypt. plantation.

 Wood residue.

180-300

1000

Demolition wood, park


wood, RDF
Tree chips, residue
wood

Waste biomass mill


Alfalfa stem material

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182

Site (country)

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182

gasiers. Two trajectories were explored in parallel: atmospheric


small-scale gasiers and pressurized large-scale gasiers. Government based demo-programs seem to have institutionalized and
centered ongoing efforts, effectively resulting in pre-selection of
technologies.
The shift in attention between the 1980s and the 1990s, as well
as the discontinuity in interest in the late 1980s, resulted also in a
discontinuity with respect to technologies and manufacturers.
Some of the leading technologies of the 80s, like the CreusotLoire and Omnifuel technologies, no longer played a role. Others,
like TPS and IGT, worked on other technologies or adapted their
original design. Another leading manufacturer came up, Foster
Wheeler, based on its experience with gasication for heat
applications, and in uidized bed biomass combustion.
Several factors seem to have affected the lack of progress over
this period, including amongst others issues of gas cleaning and
socio-economic issues like lack of learning curve and economic
performance. As a result of these, and of the large changes in the
external context, attention shifted to biofuels after 2000.

6. After 2000: biofuels


Since the 1990s and especially shortly after 2000, the policyand market-interest in liquid biofuels increased considerably in
Europe and the USA (Costello and Finnell, 2002; Hall, 1997). In line
with this trend, RD&D on biomass gasication refocused after
2000 on two topics. The rst was the production of ultra clean
syngas, a basic requirement for whatever fuel there was to be
produced. This also benetted from the increased interest in
bio-hydrogen and fuel cells at that time. The second topic was
the concept of a bio-renery, dened in analogue with a petrol
renery: an industrial site where multiple products are
co-produced in an energetically and economically optimized way
(Costello and Finnell, 2002; Maniatis, 2001; Maniatis et al., 2003;
Kirkels, 2012).
Biomass gasication is considered to be a second generation
biofuel technology that can use woody biomass. As such it has a
larger feedstock base, larger greenhouse gas reduction potential
and less interference with the food supply compared to rst
generation biofuels that are based on agricultural crops. The other
second generation technology is based on biochemical conversion
and was also pursued after 2000. Apparently, there was a strong
diversity of technologies that gasication had to compete with
over the past decade.
Fuel production imposed different requirements on the technology than IGCC did: the synthesis gas needed to be ultra clean;
the relative amounts of main components (hydrogen and carbon
monoxide) became important for the subsequent chemical
conversion; and production was considered most economical at
signicant larger scale. Just after 2000, some argued that entrained
ow was the only technology that could meet these requirements
(Hamelinck and Bain, 2003; Kavalov and Peteves, 2005). Others
preferred BFB, as it had been widely demonstrated and tested
under high temperature and pressure (Ciferno and Marano, 2002).
Table 3 shows an overview of pilot and demo plants, both
operational and under construction. It shows that ultimately four
different technologies were explored in parallel: uidized bed
gasiers, indirectly-heated gasiers, entrained ow gasiers and
hybrid technologies. In general, both uidized bed and entrained
ow gasiers operate under pressurized conditions using steam
or oxygen as medium. Hybrid technologies encompass both a
thermochemical and a biochemical step, like the technologies
developed by Coskata, ZeaChem and Iowa State University (Bacovsky
et al., 2010; E4tech, 2009; Hellsmark and Jacobsson, 2012).

177

In addition, different sorts of feedstock inputs and output fuels


have been considered.
Both the technologies for waste gasication by plasma gasiers
and black liquor gasication had matured and their developments
also started to consider fuel production. Especially black liquor
developments seemed relevant for three reasons: rst, the Chemrec efforts contributed signicantly to the European efforts and
promise (Hellsmark, 2010); second, recent reports indicate that
Thermochem is also looking at the gasication of forest residues
(E4tech, 2009); and third, scholars like Kavalov and Peteves,
(2005) point at the many similarities between the Choren technology and Chemrec0 s black liquor technology.
Until 2005, mainly test and trial plants were constructed
concentrating on clean syngas production. After 2005, pilot and
demo plants were erected to produced biofuels. Several scholars
indicate that there was a strong drive to upscale (Bacovsky et al.,
2010; E4tech, 2009; EBTP, 2013). In the food-versus-fuel debate
around 2007/2008 biofuels became criticized. It strengthened
attention for second generation biofuels that also became
embedded in legislation and policies (Bacovsky et al., 2010;
Hellsmark, 2010; Sorda et al., 2010). However, this did not reduce
their risk, as the bankruptcy of Range Fuels (2011) and Choren
(2011) show - two of the leading demonstration efforts at that
time. This seems not to have halted developments, with new
demonstration plants under way: UPM Stracel (France), Ajos
(Finland, licensed Choren0 s Carbo-V technology), BioTfuel (France)
(EBTP, 2013).
Of the companies involved in advanced gasiers, several could
build on experience with IGCC efforts over the 1990s - like
Chemrec and actors around Vrnamo. Other companies already
had extensive experience with biomass gasication in other
applications, like Repotec (combined heat and power) and Choren.
The latter started its development in the 1990s. Building on former
East-Germany0 s knowledge and experience in coal- and lignitegasication, it designed entrained-ow gasiers to produce
biofuels - which at that time did not receive a lot of enthusiasm
(E4tech, 2009; Hellsmark, 2010; Kavalov and Peteves, 2005). And
nally there are also relatively newcomers in the eld.
The gasication companies that dominated the 1990s developments had a hard time competing, as technologies diversied. TPS
got involved in the CHRISGAS efforts to revitalize the Vrnamo
plant - that failed. TPS led for bankruptcy and is no longer active
(Hellsmark, 2010).
Lurgi sold its biomass CFB technology to Envirotherm - that has
not planned any projects since. Lurgi remained involved by its
decentralized pyrolysis and syngas technology, as applied in the
KIT process (E4tech, 2009; Hellsmark, 2010).
The international technology group Andritz took over Carbona.
Carbona constructed a CHP plant in Skive, Denmark. In an effort to
become a large FT biodiesel producer, global forestry company
UPM started cooperation with Carbona (Bacovsky et al., 2010;
E4tech, 2009; Hellsmark, 2010).
Foster Wheeler initially refocused its efforts on co-combustion
and gasication of household waste, but was reluctant to enter
this market. By 2010, a NSE Biofuels Oy/Foster Wheeler demo
plant went online to demonstrate the production of ultra clean
syngas. However, by 2012 the project was abandoned when it was
not awarded funding (EBTP, 2013; Hellsmark, 2010).
At the community level we see a shift. Until 2000 the community was based on biomass gasication. Although this continued to
some extent, after 2000 the focus was much more on the broader
overarching theme of biofuels. It brought new dynamics, also with
respect to community formation, e.g. by the upcoming of conferences and journals on biofuels and bio-reneries and special
interest groups like the European Biomass Technology Platform.
These were not specically focused on biomass gasication. In the

Site (country)

Consortium

Gssing (AU)

Repotec
TU-Vienna/Repotec/
CTU/Paul Scherrer
Institute
GoBiGas: Gothenburg Repotec technology
Energy/Repotec/Metso
Chemrec/Volvo/
Chemrec
Preem/Total/Delphi

Rya (SE)
Pite (SE) - Smurt
Kappa Kraftliner
Mill
Vrnamo (SE)

Chicago (USA)

Freiberg (DE)

Technology

Status/year

FICFB, atm. steam blown, CHP/SNG/FT

2002 demo plant 2005-2008 adaptation for SNG and FT 8 MWth

Wood chips Wood


residue

FICFB, SNG retrottinig CFB combustion plants

2006 committed, 2010 decision taken

32 MWth

Wood pellets

Entrained ow, oxygen blown, pressurized;


methanol/DME/hydrogen

1997 initiated 2004-2012 DME pilot project

5 MWth

Black liquor
lignocellulosic

2004-2010 Chrisgas project, rebuilding for fuel 2011


mothballed: difculty forming alliances, attracting
industrial funding, IPR problems
2005 rebuilding test plant

18 MWth

Wood chips?

3-7 MWth?

Forest residues
wood pellets/
chips
Forest residues

Sydkraft/Foster Wheeler Upgraded to steam/oxygen blown CFB; pressurized 22


Chrisgas/Vxjo
bar; DME/methanol/hydrogen/FT
VVBGC/Linnaeus
University (TPS, Volvo)
Andritz/Carbona/UPM/ Carbona
Pressurized, directly heated, oxygen and steam blown
IGT
BFB, FT

CFB, oxygen and steam blown, atmospheric or


2006 trials 2010 operational demo
NSE Biofuels Oy/Foster Foster Wheeler
pressurized, FT
Wheeler/Stora Enso/
VTT
Choren/Daimler/VW/
Choren Industries GmbH Carbo-V process; oxygen blown, entrained ow, 6 bar; 1998 pilot operational; 2003-2008 construction demo
Shell
3 step: low temp, high temp, entrained ow; FT diesel plant (beta) 2011 led insolvency

Gridley Aberdeen
(USA) Hawaii (USA)
Livingston (USA)
Sherbrook (CA)
Westbury (CA)
Edmonton (CA))
Temiscaming (CA)

Bioliq-process: decentralized pyrolysis centralized


entrained gasication; oxygen blown, 80 bar;
methanol to gasoline and diesel
Indirectly heated, pressurized, entrained ow;
devolatilization low temp steam reforming high
temp; ethanol/mixed alcohols
Multi stage, steam blown, indirectly heated;
Pearson Technology/
entrained ow gasier; FT production of ethanol and
ClearFuels Technology
methanol
(Rentech owned)
Enerkem (Biosyn
Bubbling uidized bed, pressurized 2-10 atm, air or
technology)
oxygen enriched air and steam blown; ethanol and
methanol
Tembec Chemical Group Ethanol

Warrenville (USA)
Madison (USA)
Boardman (USA)

Coskata Westinghouse
Plasma
ZeaChem

Hybrid technology: plasma gasier bioreactor;


ethanol
Ethanol, mixed alcohols. Hybrid technology:

Themo Recovery
International
Iowa State University
BECON techn.
CUTEC

Atmospheric BFB, steam blown, indirect heating pulse


enhanced technology; FT diesel
Thermal ballasted latent heat BFB gasier; ethanol, FT
liquids, biodiesel, pyrolysis oils
CFB, FT liquids

Startech/Future Fuels
InEnTec

Plasma; atmospheric; hydrogen/methanol


Plasma; atmospheric; oxygen or steam; hydrogen/
methanol/ethanol
SNG

Karlsruhe (DE)

KIT/Lurgi/Sdchemie/
VW (Future Energy)

Denver (USA) - K2A


Soperton (USA)

Durham (USA)
Boone (USA)
Clausthal-Zellerfeld
(DE)
Wilton (USA)
a.o. Puerto Rico S4
(USA)
Petten (NL)

Zeachem/GreenWood
Resources

Karlsruhe Institute of
Technology (incl former
FZK)
Range Fuels, Inc.

ECN

Capacity

0.5 MWth
12 MWth
1 MWth
45 MWth

Feedstock

Wood chips,
divers Dry wood
chips
Straw/agricultural
residues

2008 construction demo 2010- gas purication and


synthesis added

5 MWth

2008 pilot operational, mixed alcohols 2007 demo


construction; 2011 bankruptcy

1 MWth
25 MWth

Wood & wood


waste

2002-2004 pilot Gridley;??? facility Aberdon 2006construction validation plant Hawaii 2008 operational
pilot Livingston
2003 pilot operational 2010 gasier operational 2010
start construction Edmonton (comm.)

Divers

2003 demo operational

0.8 5 MWth
8.5 MWth
1 MWth
0.8 MWth
7.5 MWth
100.00 t/ain
13000 t/aout

2003 pilot operational 2009 demo operational

?? 0.2 MWth

2010 pilot under construction

4500 t/aout

92-03 multiple MTCI black liquor plants 2003 pilot


operational
2002 construction 2009 pilot operational

3500 t/aout
1 MWtht

2008 operational

0.4 MWth

Various plants 3.8-7.5 odt/d; 2006- syngas program


2001- several in operation

 1-1.5 MWth
0.8-1.5 MWth

2004 lab scale; 2008 pilot plant

0.8 MWth

Lignocellulosic
Electricity poles
Municipal waste
Spent sulphite
liquor
Various Wood
chips/nat. gas
Lignocellulosic,
sugar, wood, chips
black liquor
Forestry residues
Grains, oil seeds,
vegetable oil
Straw, wood,
residues
Waste
Waste
Multiple, wood
pellets

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182

Varkaus (FI)

Manufacturer

178

Table 3
Gasication plants for biofuel (pilot and demo, operational or under construction) after 2000. FICFB Fast Internally Circulating Fluidized Bed; CFB Circulating Fluidized Bed; BFB Bubbling Fluidized Bed; CHP Combined Heat and
Power; SNG Synthetic Natural Gas; FT Fischer-Tropsch; DME Dimethyl Ether; MWth MWthermal; t/a ton/year
Sources: Bacovsky et al., 2010; Bain, 2011; E4tech/NNFCC 2009; Kolb, 2011; Waldheim, 2012.

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182

eld of biomass gasication, we observed that utilities showed less


interest, as could be expected. From the start, just after 2000, both
automotive and oil industries started to show interest in and join
the biomass gasication eld (Hamelinck and Bain, 2003;
Hellsmark, 2010).
Main research efforts over this period were less well articulated. They seem to include some of the struggles of the past:
providing a clean synthesis gas, becoming more economically
competitive, up scaling and system integration - although a variety
of other (non) technical issues also received attention (Babu, 2005;
Lightner, 2009; Maniatis et al., 2003; OBP Ofce of the Biomass
Program, 2005; Rensfelt and Gobel, 2003).
To conclude, although the attention for biofuels and IGCC were
partly overlapping in time, they constitute a discontinuity.
A strong indication can be found in the focus of RD&D efforts: in
the 1990s demo plants received most attention, while after 2000
efforts concentrated on RD&D and subsequently on test plants.
Also traditional companies had a hard time surviving, while new
leading companies were up coming. The technological focus was
mainly on fuel production and on ultra clean syngas. Developments were characterized by strong variation. We identied four
different technological paths that were developed in parallel. But
there also was variation in feedstock considered and biofuels
produced. And gasication technology has to compete with a
broader range of both rst and second generation technologies.

7. Conclusions and discussion


We set out to reconstruct the technological trajectory of
advanced biomass gasiers by providing an overview of demo
plants (local level) and developments in research (global level), the
results of which are summarized in Table 4. Our rst research
question was what has inuenced the initial momentum and focus
of biomass gasiers0 technological path. Over each period the
strongest inuence seems to have been the socio-economic
challenges of the time. This provided the interest and the
momentum to commit to developing the technology. But it also
offered guidance to the engineering community that translated
these socio-economic challenges in technological requirements,
which we showed to be different over the periods considered.
Other inuences on the technological trajectory have been
technological progress and company specic differences, including
preference for feedstock and scale and - more recently - type of
biofuels to be produced.
The inuence of technological progress in gasication and
related technological elds is most apparent in the late 1980s
and the early 1990s upcoming of interest in IGCC. The inuence of
preferred feedstock is apparent in two ways: rst, typically technologies are developed or optimized for a specic feedstock; second,

179

waste and black liquor set specic requirements to the technology


and developed in separate, although interrelated technological
trajectories. The inuence of scale showed in the 1990s, when both
small-scale atmospheric gasiers and large-scale pressurized gasiers were developed. Over the 1980s and after 2000, the requirement of (very) large scales was considered as a side condition for
the technology to develop.
The company specic differences, like feedstock and scale, were
strengthened by policies. Although the power plant suppliers and
process industry typically serve an international market, the
overview shows a strong national focus of governments supporting national product champions. It indicates that national industries, resources, policies and actors might have been of signicant
interest.
Our second research question was how developments within
the technological path have inuenced the success and failure of
the technology. By the end of each period we could identify
preferred manufacturers. However, over longer time periods this
did not lead to dominance or a strong competitive advantage.
Companies showed to be locked in a specic design and had a hard
time adapting to paradigm shifts. It did not only result in a regular
shake out of technologies and manufacturers getting rid of losers
that for some reason at that time are considered less t as could
be expected by the evolutionary processes of variation and
selection. We showed that also premium technologies had a hard
time to survive.
Each of these paradigm shifts had a distinctive different impact
on the promise of the technology. The shift between the 1980s and
1990s seems not to have hold back the promise of the technology,
as all countries involved at the time considered the technology
ready for demonstration. We explain this by three reasons: the
progress made in the eld in the 1980s; the complexity of the
technology, as air-blown gasiers were considered less complicated than the medium-caloric-value gasiers of the 1980s; and
the progress made in related technological elds.
Although Kirkels and Verbong, (2011) portray the developments since the 1990s as one on continuous growing interest in
gasication, our study comes with a more differentiated conclusion. The paradigm shift between the 1990s and 2000s came with
a refocusing on the more complicated clean-syngas production of
medium caloric value. This resulted in a shift in manufacturers
involved and a large variation in technologies. The attention
changed from demo plants in the 1990s towards research, developments and pilot plants after 2000. This indicates a set back with
respect to the perceived maturity of the technology and the timeto-market.
Our overview indicates how the community evolved. In the
1980s it was an upcoming community within the energy from
biomass eld. It mainly involved researchers, governments and
institutions. Over the 1990s the community broadened and

Table 4
Characterization of technological development of advanced biomass gasiers.
1980s methanol as fuel








Methanol fuel as future replacement for oil fuel


Requires clean syngas
Exploration gasier concepts
Oxygen blown & indirectly heated gasiers
Issues: fundamentals fuels and gasiers; later on
gas cleaning
Leading companies/technologies: Creusot-Loire;
Batelle-Columbus; IGT; Omnifuel; MINO

1990s-2004 IGCC for power

 IGCC as high-efciency biomass-to-power








technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions


Demonstration plants
Air blown BFB and CFB, atmospheric and
pressurized
Technical issues: pressurized gasication, gas
cleaning, IGCC, biomass feeding
Non-technical issues: economics, bringing down
costs by learning curve
Leading companies/technologies: Foster
Wheeler, TPS

Since 2000 biofuels

 Biofuels to address global warming, oil dependency


and agricultural policy

 Initial RD&D: clean syngas, bio-reneries


 Variety gasication trajectories: uid bed, indirectly
heated, entrained ow, hybrid technologies

 Diversity of feedstock and biofuels


 Issues: clean syngas, economics, upscaling, system
integration

 Later: demo plants, failures, new efforts

180

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182

starting to involve more heterogeneous actors, including some


utilities and feedstock companies. After 2000 we saw the upcoming interest by automotive and petrochemical industry. Over this
period, the biomass gasication community became embedded in
a much broader community working on biofuels.
With respect to dominant research themes and lessons learned,
our study shows that initially biomass gasication was perceived
to be a new technology that would not be hard to master. When
actors became aware that both the feedstock and the technology
were more complex, more fundamental studies started to be
conducted. Also gas cleaning turned out to be most relevant and
not easy to handle. With the attention shifting to demo plants,
initially in the 1990s and later after 2000, other aspects started to
receive attention: biomass feeding, system integration, up scaling
and improving economics all of which we perceive as quite
typical for this stage of plant development, as compared to, for
example, the development of uid bed combustion (Koornneef
et al., 2007; Watson, 1997).
Variation can be important for technological development, as it
is a way of overcoming uncertainty, diversify learning experiences
and as such contribute to a more robust technological development. Our study shows that especially early on in each period,
characterized by the upcoming social and political interest in the
technology, a wide variety of ideas were plugged. Only over time
these aligned when government applied pre-selection of technologies to support and pursue within their RD&D programs.
But also within these programs there was large technological
variation. One source of this variation seems to be rm specic
differences facilitated by the national focus of innovation policies,
which resulted in signicant variation at the global eld level.
Another source is to be found in the policies pursued by the USA
and the European Commission. Both are characterized by relatively large budgets and explicitly supported multiple technologies
in parallel. Especially after 2000 we see large variation that can be
explained by multiple factors: the market that does not have a
clear preference on what biofuels to produce; the technology of
the 1990s (air-blown uid bed) that probably was most mature at
the time, but there was no consensus whether it would be the
appropriate technology to produce clean syngas on large scale;
and the maturing over time of other gasication technologies, like
entrained ow and hybrid technologies.
As such, we conclude that lack of progress in the eld of
gasication is unlikely to be caused by lack of variation. On the
contrary, for the period after 2000 the level of variation raises
concerns of too much variation, which would result in lack of focus
and scattered funding. However, a normative measure of what
level of variation is suitable is lacking. So far, from literature we did
not pick up any major signals that the level of variation was
problematic.
A nal aspect that draws our attention is the long development
time of several decades. In addition, according to IEA, (2011) it still
requires decades to prove the gasication-to-biofuels technology
and come to a reasonable diffusion in the market. Long development times are quite typical for energy and process plants and
more specic for gasication-related technologies, as these are
complex and systemic technologies that are to a signicant extent
knowledge driven (Martin, 1996; Watson, 1997; Harmsen, 2000).
Our study suggests that these long lead times are hard to
manage or even survive by companies depending on an immature
technology and government support especially given the
dynamic socio-economic context. Innovation literature suggests
reducing uncertainties by variation (robust technological development) and by institutionalizing efforts e.g. by providing stable
frameworks and consistent policies. In our case of biomass
gasication both were applied: variation we already discussed in
detail; while institutionalization was provided by RD&D programs

and more recently biofuel legislation. However, our case also


shows the limitations of both approaches to overcome the impact
of socio-economic dynamics over a long time frame of decades.
This case touches upon the inherent uncertainties of these long
term innovation processes. It is a warning, especially for policy
makers and innovation scientists, against belief in easy solutions
and too optimistic views of steering long term innovation
processes.

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Geert Verbong and two anonymous
reviewers for providing me with constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement.
References
Babu, S. (2005, March). Observations of the current status of biomass gasication.
Opgeroepen op April 2013, van IEA Bioenergy: http://www.ieabioenergy.com/
LibItem.aspx?id=184.
Bacovsky, D., Dallos, M., Wrgetter, M., 2010. Status of 2nd generation biofuels
demonstration facilities in June 2010. IEA Bioenergy Task 39
Bain, R.L., 1993. Electricity from biomass in the United States: status and future
directions. Bioresource Technology, 8693
Bain, R., 2011. United States country report, IEA Bioenergy, task 33. NREL, Golden,
Colorado
Bain, R., Amos, W., Downing, M., Perlack, 2003. Biopower technical assessment:
state of the industry and technology. NREL, Golden, Colorado
Baker, E., Brown, M., Moore, R., Mudge, L., Elliott, D., 1986. Engineering analysis of
biomass gaser product gas cleaning technology. Pacic Northwest Laboratory,
Richland
Bakker, S., van Lente, H., Meeus, M., 2012. Dominance in the prototyping phase The case of hydrogen passenger cars. Research Policy, 871883
Beenackers, A., Maniatis, K., 1998. Biomass & Bioenergy 15 (3), 193273.
Beenackers, A., Maniatis, K., 1984. Conclusions of the workshop on evaluation of
themochemical gasication reactors for biomass. In: Bridgwater, A. (Ed.), Thermochemical processing of biomass. Buttersworths, London, pp. 319325 (Red)
Beenackers, A.,Maniatis, K. (1993/1994). Gas cleaning in electricity production via
gasication of biomass: conclusions of the workshop. In A. Bridgwater (Red.),
Advances in thermochemical biomass conversion 1992 (pp. 540-546). Glasgow:
Blackie Academic & Professional.
Beenackers, A., van Swaaij, W., 1984. Gasication of biomass, a state of the art
review. In: Bridgwater, A. (Ed.), Thermochemical processing of biomass. Butterworths, London, pp. 91136 (Red)
Beenackers, A., van Swaaij, W. (1990). Gasication of biomass. Need for further
R&D. Biomass for energy and industry, 5th EC conference 1989 (pp. 2.524-2.533).
Brussels and Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities/Elsevier
Applied Science.
Beenackers, A., van Swaaij, W., 1986. Introduction to the biomass to synthesis gas
pilot plant programme of the C.E.C. and a rst evaluation of results. In:
Beenackeers, A., van Swaaij, W. (Eds.), Advanced gasication. Solar energy
R&D in the European Community, energy from biomass, 8. Commission of the
European Communities, Brussels and Luxembourg, pp. 227 (Red).
Beenackers, A., van Swaaij, W. (1983). Methanol from wood, a state of the art
review. Energy from biomass, 2nd EC conference 1982 (pp. 782-798). Brussels
and Luxembourg: ECSC. EEC, EA EC/Applied Science Publishers.
Blomkvist, G., Liinanki, L., Lindman, N., Sjberg, S.-O. (1983). Swedish gasication
research and process development at RIT. Energy from biomass, 2nd EC
Conference 1982 (pp. 896-900). Brussels and Luxembourg: Commission of the
European Communities/Applied Science Publishers.
Bridgwater, A., 1990. A survey of thermochemical biomass processing activities.
Biomass 22, 279292.
Bridgwater, A., 1993. A preliminary study on the technical and economic feasibility
of wood gascation for power generation. Consultants on process engineering
Ltd, Knowle
Bridgwater, A., 1995. The technical and economic feasibility of biomass gasication
for power generation. Fuel, 631653
Bridgwater, A., 1984. The thermochemical processing system. In: Bridgwater, A.
(Ed.), Thermochemical processing of biomass. University of Aston/Butterworths, Birmingham/London, pp. 3552 (Red)
Bridgwater, A., Evans, G., 1993. An assessment of thermochemical conversion
systems for processing biomass and refuse. Aston University/DK Teknik
CHESF; CIENTEC, CVRD, ELECTROBAS, Shell Brasil, Shell International Petroleum
Company. (1995). Brazilian BIG-GT demonstration project (WBP). Technology
selection - nal report..
Ciferno, J.P., Marano, J.J., 2002. Benchmarking Biomass Gasication Technologies for
Fuels, Chemicals and Hydrogen Production. US Department of Energy, NETL
Connor, M., Diebold, J., Sjstrm, K. (1997). Workshop on the fundamentals of
thermochemical biomass conversion. In A. Bridgwater, & D. Boocock (Red.),

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182

Developments in thermochemical biomass conversion (pp. 1617-1620). London:


Blackie Academic & Professional/Chapman & Hall.
Costello, R., Finnell, J. (2002). Biomass in the U.S. Federal Government: activities
and strategies. Twelfth European biomass conference. Biomass for energy, industry
and climate protection. (pp. 10-16). Florence: ETA Florence and WIP Munich.
De Lange, H., Barbucci, P., 1998. The Thermie Energy Farm project. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 219224
Diebold, J., Stevens, D., 1989. Progress in pyrolysis and gasication of biomass: an
overview of research in the United States. In: Ferrero, G., Maniatis, K., Buekens, A.,
Brigwater, A. (Eds.), Pyrolysis and Gasication, Luxembourg 1989. Elsevier Applied
Science/EEC, London and New York/Brussels and Luxembourg, pp. 1427 (Red)
Dosi, G., 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested
interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research
Policy, 147162
E4tech. (2009). Review of technologies for gasication of biomass and wastes.
Elliott, D., Maggi, R. (1997). Workshop report: catalytic processes. In A. Bridgwater,
& D. Boocock (Red.), Developments in thermochemial biomass conversion (pp.
1626-1630). London: Blackie Academica & Professional/Chapman & Hall.
EBTP European Biofuels Technology Platform. (2013, 01 28). Biomass to Liquids (BtL).
Opgeroepen op 2013, van http://www.biofuelstp.eu/btl.html.
Faber, A., van den Bergh, J., Idenburg, A., Oosterhuis, F. (2005). Survival of the
Greenest. Evolutionary economics and policies for energy innovation. 6th
Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics. Lissabon.
Fleck, J., 1994. Learning by trying: the implementation of congurational technology. Research Policy, 637652
Geels, F., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconguration processes:
a multi-level perspective and a case study. Research Policy, 12571274
Geels, F., Raven, R., 2006. Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development
trajectories: ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973-2003).
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 375392
Grassi, G., 1993. Overview of thermochemical conversion R&D activities of the CEC.
In: Bridgwater, A. (Ed.), Advances in thermochemical biomass conversion, Interlaken 1992. Blakie Academic & Professional/Chapman & Hall, Glasgow/London,
pp. 5262 (Red)
Grassi, G., 1988. The European R&D programme. In: Bridgwater, A., Kuester, J. (Eds.),
Research in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion. Elsevier Science Publishers,
Essex - New York, pp. 1630 (Red)
Grassi, G., Bridgwater, A., 1990. Biomass for energy, industry and the environment.
A strategy for the future. Commission of the European Communities/Edizioni
Esagono - Sesto San Giovanni, Brussels/Luxembourg
Grassi, G., Bridgwater, A., 1993. The opportunities for electricity production from
biomass by advanced thermal conversion technologies. Biomass and Bioenergy,
339345
Grassi, G., Pirrwitz, D. (1983). The European Community0 s research and development programme for energy from biomass. 2nd European biomass conference,
(pp. 659-663).
Hall, D., 1997. Biomass energy in industrialised countries - a view of the future.
Forest ecology and management, 1745
Hamelinck, C.,Bain, R. (2003). Syngas for synfuels - workshop report. In A. Bridgwater (Red.), Pyrolysis and gasication of biomass and waste, proceedings of an
expert meeting 2002 (pp. 693-696). Berks: CPL Press.
Harmsen, R. (2000). Forces in the development of coal gasication (PhD thesis).
Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.
Hellsmark, H., 2010. Unfolding the formative phase of gasied biomass in the
European Union. Chalmers University of Technology, Gteborg
Hellsmark, H., Jacobsson, S., 2012. Realising the potential of gasied biomass in the
European Union - policy challenges in moving from demonstration plants to a
larger scale diffusion. Energy Policy, 507518
Hodam, R., Williams, R., Lesser, M., 1982. Engineering and economic characteristics
of commercial wood gasiers in North America. Hodam & Associates, Inc.
Golden, Colorado: SERI, Solar Energy Research Institute
Hogan, E., 1993. Overview of Canadian thermochemical biomass conversion
activities Advances in thermochemical biomass conversion, 1992 Interlaken
Switzerland. Blackie Academic or Professional, Glasgow, pp. 1525
Hogan, E. (1992). Thermochemical conversion R&D activities in Canada. Biomass for
energy, industry and environment; 6th EC conference 1991 (pp. 624-628).
Brussels and Luxembourg: ECSC, EEC, EAEC/Elsevier Science Publishers.
IEA. (2011). Technology roadmap biofuels for transport. IEA.
Jger-Waldau, A., Ossenbrink, H., 2004. Progress of electricity from biomass, wind
and photovoltaics in the European Union. Renewable and sustainable energy
reviews, 157182
Johansson, T., 1993. Biomass-based power generation in Europe. On the technical
and economical feasibility of wood production, and wood gasication for gas
turbine power generation. University of Lund, Lund, Sweden
Kaltschmitt, M., Bridgwater, A. (Red.), 1997. Biomass gasication and pyrolysis,
state of the art and future prospects. European Commission/CPL Scientic
Limited, Brussels and Luxembourg/Newbury
Kaltschmitt, M., Rsch, C., Dinkelbach, L., 1998. Biomass Gasication in Europe.
Ofce for ofcial publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
Kavalov, B., Peteves, S., 2005. Status and perspectives of biomass-to-liquid fuels in
the European Union. Ofce for Ofcial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
Kirkels, A., 2012. Discursive shifts in energy from biomass: a 30 year European
overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41054115
Kirkels, A., Verbong, G., 2011. Biomass gasication: still promising? A 30 year global
overview. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 471481

181

Klass, D., 1987. Energy from Biomass and Wastes: 1985 Update and Review.
Resources and Conservation, 784
Klass, D., 1985. Energy from biomass and wastes: a review and 1983 update.
Resources and Conservation, 157239
Kliman, M.L., 1983. Methanol, natural gas, and the development of alternative
transportation fuels. Energy, 859870
Knoef, Harrie, 2005. Handbook Biomass Gasication. BTG biomass technology
group, Enschede
Kolb. (2011). Country report Germany for IEA task 33 Thermal gasication of biomass
(nal 3).
Koljonen, J., Kurkela, E., Wiln, C., 1993. Peat-based HTW-plant at Oulu. Bioresource
Technology, 95101
Koornneef, J., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., 2007. Development of uidized bed combustion - an overview of trends, performance and cost. Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science, 1955
Kurkela, E., Stahlberg, P., Laatikainen, J., Simell, P., 1993. Development of simplied
IGCC-processes for biofuels: supporting gasication research at VTT. Bioresource Technology, 3747
Larson, E., Svenningsson, P., Bjerle, I., 1989. Biomass gasication for gas turbine
power generation. In: Johansson, T., Bodlund, B., Williams, R. (Eds.), Electricity.
Efcient end-use and new generation technologies, and their planning implications. Lund University Press, Lund, pp. 697739 (Red)
Lightner, V. (2009, June). U.S. Department of Energy, Biomass Program, growing
America0 s energy future. Opgeroepen op December 2012, van Biomass Research
and Development: http://www.usbiomassboard.gov/pdfs/doe_budget_over
view_biomass_program_valri_lightnerjg.pdf.
Maniatis, K., 1998. Overview of EU Thermie gasication projects. Power production
from biomass III, gasication and pyrolysis R&D&D for industry. VTT Energy,
Espoo, pp. 934
Maniatis, K., 2001. Progress in Biomass Gasication: An Overview.. In: Bridgwater,
A. (Ed.), Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion. Blackwell, Oxford,
pp. 132
Maniatis, K., Guiu, G., Riesgo, J. (2003). The European Commision perspective in
biomass and waste thermochemical conversion. In A. Bridgwater (Red.),
Pyrolysis and gasication of biomass and waste, proceedings of an expert meeting
2002 (pp. 1-18). Berks: CPL Press.
Maniatis, K., Papadoyannakis, M., Segerborg-Fick, A., 1998. Biomass and waste:
themochemical conversion activities in EC programmes. In: Kopetz, E., Weber,
T., Palz, W., Chartier, P., Ferrero, G. (Eds.), Biomass for energy and industry. C.A.
R.M.E.N, Rimpar, pp. 264267 (Red)
Maniatis, K., Rensfelt, E., Solantausta, Y. (1997). Conclusions of the workshop
0
Applications for thermochemical processes0 . Developments in thermochemical
biomass conversion (pp. 1631-1635). London: Blackie Academic & Professional/
Chapman & Hall.
Martin, J.-M., 1996. Energy technologies: systemic aspects, technological trajectories, and institutional frameworks. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 8195
Miles, T., Miles, T.j, 1989. Overview of Biomass Gasication in the USA. Biomass, 163168
Nelson, R., Winter, S., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap
Press, Cambridge (Mass.)
OBP Ofce of the Biomass Program, 2005. A strong energy portfolio for a strong
America. DoE, USA
Palonen, J., Lundqvist, R., Stahl, K., 1996. IGCC technology and demonstration. In:
Sipil, K., Korhonen, M. (Eds.), Power production from biomass II with special
emphasis on gasication and pyrolysis R&DD. VTT, Espoo, pp. 4154 (Red)
Piterou, A., Shackley, S., Upham, P., 2008. Project ARBRE: lessons for bio-energy
developers and policy makers. Energy Policy, 20442050
Raven, R., 2006. Towards alternative trajectories? Recongurations in the Dutch
electricity regime. Research Policy, 581595
Reed, T., 1980. A survey of biomass gasication. Volume III - Current technology and
research. Solar Energy Research Institute, Golden
Rensfelt, E., 1991. Gasication for power productions. In: Grassi, G., Bertini, I. (Eds.),
1st European forum on electricity production form biomass and solid wastes by
advanced technologies. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels and
Luxembourg, pp. 6579 (Red)
Rensfelt, E., Gobel, B., 2003. Strategies for development and implementation of
biomass gasication Pyrolysis and gasication of biomass and waste. CPL Press/
Aston University, Newbury/Burmingham, pp. 681686
Rip, A., Kemp, R., 1998. Technological change. In: Rayner, S., Malone, E. (Eds.), Human
choice and climate change, 2. Batelle Press, Columbus, pp. 327399 (Red).
Rsch, C., Kaltschmitt, M., Dinkelbach, L., 1998. Research, development and demonstration. In: Kaltschmitt, M., Rsch, C., Dinkelbach, L. (Eds.), Biomass gasication
in Europe. European Commission, Brussels/Luxembourg, pp. 159182 (Red)
Salo, K., 1998. Kotka Ecopower IGCC-project, the attempt to transfer the Biocycle
project to Finland. Biomass and bioenergy, 225228
Salo, K., Kernen, H., 1996. Biomass IGCC. In: Sipil, K., Korhonen, M. (Eds.), Power
production from biomass II with special emphasis on gasication and pyrolysis
R&DD. VTT, Espoo, pp. 2339 (Red)
Salo, K., Patel, J., 1997. Integrated gasication combined cycle based on pressurized
uidized bed gasication. In: Bridgwater, A., Boocock, D. (Eds.), Developments
in thermochemical biomass conversion. Blackie Academic & Professional/
Chapmann & Hall, London, pp. 9941005 (Red)
Schiefelbein, G., 1989. Biomass thermal gasication research: recent results from
the United States DOE's research program. Biomass, 145159

182

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182

Shand, R., Bridgwater, A., 1984. Fuel gas from biomass: status and new modelling
approaches. In: Bridgwater, A. (Ed.), Thermochemical processing of biomass.
Butterworths & Co (Publishers) Ltd, London, pp. 229254 (Red)
Sipil, K., Korhonen, M., 1993. Bioresource Technology 46, 1188.
Sipil, K., Korhonen, M., 1996. Power production from biomass II with special
emphasis on gasication and pyrolysis R&DD. VTT, Espoo (Red)
Sipil, K., Korhonen, M., 1998. Power production from biomass III; Gasication and
pyrolysis R&D&D for industry. VTT, Espoo (Red)
Sipil, K., Rossi, M., 2002. Power production from waste and biomass IV; advanced
concepts and technologies. VTT, Espoo (Red)
Solantausta, Y., Beenackers, A. (1989). Workshop 3 - Gasication technology and
economics. In G. Ferrero, K. Maniatis, A. Buekens, & A. Bridgwater (Red.),
Pyrolysis and gasication (pp. 396-398). Brussels and Luxembourg: Elsevier
Science Publisher/Commission of the European Communities.
Solantausta, Y., Bridgwater, A., Beckman, D., 1995. Feasibility of power production
with pyrolysis and gasication systems. Biomass and Bioenergy, 257269
Sorda, G., Banse, M., Kemfert, C., 2010. An overview of biofuel policies across the
world. Energy Policy, 69776988
Stassen, H., van Swaaij, W. (1982). Application of biomass gasication in developing
countries. Energy from biomass, 2nd E.C. Conference (pp. 705-714). Brussels and
Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities/Applied Science
Publishers.
Stevens, D., 1992. Biomass conversion: an overview of the IEA Bioenergy Agreement Task VII. Biomass and Bioenergy, 213227

Stevens, J., 1994. Review and Analysis of the 1980-1989 Biomass Thermochemical
Conversion Program. NREL, Golden, Colorado
Strm, E., Liinanki, L., Sjstrm, K., Rensfelt, E., Waldheim, L., Blackadder, W., 1985.
Gasication of biomass in the MINO-process. In: Egneus, H., Ellegard, A. (Eds.),
Bioenergy, 84. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd, London, pp. 5764 (Red).
Strub, A., 1984. The Commission of the European Communities R&D Programma
'Energy from Biomass'. In: Bridgwater, A. (Ed.), Thermochemical processing of
biomass. Butterworths, pp. 110 (Red)
U.S. Department of Energy (DoE). (april 1992). Electricity from biomass, a development strategy. DoE.
Waldheim, L. (May 2012). IEA Biomass Agreement Task 33, Country report Sweden
2012. Waldheim Consulting.
Watson, W. (1997). Constructing success in the electric power industry: combined
cycle gas turbines and uidised beds (PhD thesis). Sussex: SPRU, University of
Sussex.
Wiln, C., Kurkela, E., 1998. Biomass gasication in Finland. In: Kaltschmitt, M.,
Rsch, C., Dinkelbach, L. (Eds.), Biomass gasication in Europe. European
Commission, Brussels/Luxembourg, pp. 113132 (Red)
Williams, R., Larson, E., 1993. Advanced gasication based biomass power generation. In: Johansson, T., Kelly, H., Reddy, A., Williams, R. (Eds.), Renewable
energy. Sources for fuels and electricity. Island Press, pp. 729785 (Red)
Williams, R., Larson, E., 1989. Expanding roles for gas turbines in power generation.
In: Johansson, T., Bodlund, B., Williams, R. (Eds.), Electricity. Efcient end-use
and new generation technologies, and their planning implications. Lund
University Press, Lund, pp. 503553 (Red)

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi