Bio Coal is the name some use for Torrefied Biomass. The problem with biomass is the MASS. The energy value is typcially low, and the cost to harvest, move, and process the mass is high.
Torrefaction addresses these issues. It is a process which 'concentrates' the energy value of biomass through heating the material in a process similar to making charcoal. It is a low emission, carbon neutral alternative. (Think of how much smaller and lighter the dehydrated food hikers carry is).
Energy Density is one of the principles that alternative energy providers sometimes avoid at their own economic peril.
We've struggled to find a true, all in, no subsidy, no massive leaps of faith, equivalent cost of energy for this technology. Round one of our work is completed and we think that the comparable cost of energy is...
$ 80 to $85 per ton of coal
On a comparitive basis of other renewable, carbon neutral or better energy sources that's pretty darn good.
Next we're going to look at feedstock pricing elasticity. We want to truely measure the "ethanol effect" where industry development drives up feedstock prices to the point of choking off the crush spread.
We're also going to try and get an idea of emissions data. Since most of the volitiles are burned off proponents are suggesting that emissions should be favorable. However I have not yet found any real bag test results. Particulate matter could be a problem, however particulate filters exist today which may solve the problem. Stay tuned
We'll call the equivalent issue in Torrefaction the "Burn Spread", ie the difference in value between the input feedstock (think wood chips) and the economic value of the output (Bio Coal).
So at 11,000 BTU/lb coal on the east coast at $ 120 per ton the "Burn Spread" is $ 40 per ton.
Clearing the first hurdle.
Before we get too excited, we have some more work to do but 80% of the stuff we look at has hit a dead end at this point in the process. At least we've cleared the first hurdle.
