The Benefits of Biomass Gasification for Buildings Reliant on Propane or Electric Grids

We were recently introduced to a commercial application of biomass gasification during our visit the Deep Portage Learning Center in Hackensack, Minnesota.   What we learned surprised us.

Biomass gasification relies on renewable energy source such as cord wood, wood pellets, and agricultural crop wastes.  The technology is relatively simple, efficient, and utilizes the secondary burning of gaseous compounds that are otherwise lost to the atmosphere.   The process of gasification occurs in two phases.   The first occurs in what is essentially a conventional fuel chamber where temperatures in excess of 400°F results in combustion products such as charcoal, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane, various phenols, acetone and acetic acid.   High-temperature refractory liners in the primary chamber minimize the buildup of ash.  Downward induction utilizing controlled air flow then directs fine ash particulates and syngas into the secondary chamber where they are combusted at temperatures in excess of 2,000°F.  Overall, the process is efficient (87-93%) and significantly reduces emissions associated with less complete, lower-temperature combustion.

The ecology purest may at first cringe at the idea of punctuated carbon release, but closer analysis reveals that carbon emissions compare favorably with natural gas and propane – especially when considering emissions and embodied energy associated with production and distribution.  Other potential drawbacks include higher particulate emissions in congested areas or regions prone to thermal inversions.  Logistical requirements for fuel access and storage may also pose obstacles to facility operations.

The costs of high efficiency gasification systems are only slightly higher than comparable natural gas-fired furnaces and high efficient hot water tanks.  Heat distribution utilizes conventional systems including radiant and forced air ducts.  Efficient, controllable storage systems provide around the clock demand without continual combustion.    The real benefits become apparent when comparing gasification costs to those of electric and propane heat.  Vast rural areas in cold climates are not served by natural gas and are therefore reliant on propane as the primary heating fuel.   Regions having less than 5,400 heating degree days are typically reliant on either propane or electric grids – resulting in exorbitant energy costs proportional to relatively short periods of heating demands.

Case Study: Deep Portage Learning Center
The Deep Portage Learning Center, a 60,450 sf facility in Hackensack, Minnesota, has recently integrated several renewable initiatives, including two cord wood gasification systems, a wind turbine, solar PVC solar hot water heating, and modest building envelope improvements.  Prior to 2010, propane represented the center’s primary heating fuel with an average annual use of 30,000 gallons at $2.00/gallon.   Through gasification of 70 cords of wood annually at an average cost of $160/cord, the center has reduced energy costs by approximately $40,000 annually.  Although their local cord wood supply is plentiful, they are already experimenting with local brush species and non-conventional cord wood that may further reduce costs and environmental impacts.

Deep Portages’s creative energy plan serves as a good example of why biomass gasification deserves a seat at the table when evaluating alternative energy sources.   Given its advantages and disadvantages, the greatest benefits are realized by residential and light commercial buildings that are reliant on propane or electric grids but are located near reliable biomass sources.

Case Study: Use of Particle Counters to Identify Contaminant Sources in Buildings

Tenants of a mixed-use office suite reported several unexplained health effects that were purportedly associated with building occupancy.  These effects include headache, respiratory problems, eye irritation, and discomfort associated with unpleasant tastes and odors.  The structure was previously affected by water damage from interior flooding.  The building tenants therefore suspected that ailments could somehow be linked to mold contamination related to the flooding event.

Study Design
This case study involved a 11,000 sq. ft. facility containing office space, warehouse, and a small-scale metal machining area.  We reviewed reports and remediation plans related to the earlier water damage.  The distribution of water damage was found to be highly localized.  Furthermore, the scope of building repairs was more than adequate given the type of flooding and its distribution.  Assessment of the building enclosure showed no evidence of moisture-related problems that might account for concealed mold within exterior walls.

Our initial building walkthrough revealed that the machining room shared ceiling plenums and supply air distribution systems with offices, common areas, and warehouse.  Although the two high-speed milling machines were operated within enclosures under independent air exhaust, containment was incomplete and mill wastes were freely exposed to the common atmosphere.  Milling was therefore suspected as the primary contaminant source and the likley cause of reported ailments.  To test this hypothesis, we performed real-time monitoring of airborne particles at 27 locations during operating and non-operating conditions.   Settled dust samples from represented surfaces, including the supply air distribution system, were analyzed for unknown material identification by means of polarized light microscopy, epi-reflected light microscopy, Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-Ray spectrometry (EDX), and Attenuated Total Reflection Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry (ATR-FTIR).

Results
Our findings indicated that milling operations, not mold, represented the most likely source of airborne particles.  Because the milling process was poorly contained, particles were capable of cross-contaminating other areas of the building by means of ambient air movement and cross contamination of supply air ducts.  Concentrations were highest in areas that shared the same supply air (milling area, conference room, and reception area).  Airborne particles in the machining room were extremely high during pre-milling periods and increased more than two-fold while the milling machines were operating.   Unknown materials identifications of settled dust revealed high levels of fine metal particles and various compounds consistent with metalworking oils and fluids.   Concentrations of biological particles were deemed normal.

 

Conclusions
Hand-held particle counters can provide a reliable, cost-effective means for monitoring and trouble-shooting suspected air quality concerns.  In this case, monitoring provided a useful indicator of airborne contaminant source and probable pathways for occupant exposure.

The Minnesota Energy Code: A State of Confusion?

States must comply with the U.S. Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA), which requires that commercial building codes meet or exceed the standards set forth by ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1.  These requirements address the design of the building envelope, lighting systems, HVAC systems, and other energy-using equipment. Minnesota’s current commercial energy code became effective on June 9, 2009 and adopts ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2004 with amendments.   All commercial structures and high-rise residential buildings in areas that have adopted and enforce the code are required to comply with the state commercial energy code using one of three compliance paths as outlined by ASHRAE 90.1: 1) Prescriptive Option (i.e. Tables 5.5-6 or 5.5-7);  2), Trade-Off Option (i.e. COMcheck); or 3) Energy Cost Budget Option (i.e. whole building modeling).

The Problem:  Where’s the exterior insulation?
We have noticed a number of commercial projects employing steel-framed wall assemblies without continuous outbound insulation.  Assuming compliance path #1, the Prescriptive Option, we would expect to see continuous R-3.8 at the exterior face of these assemblies as required by ASHRAE 90.1 2004 (Tables 5.5-6 and 5.5-7).

Perhaps compliance is achieved through path #2, the Trade-Off Option, which offers a more flexible and cost effective compliance path.   The Trade-Off Option employs the simulation software COMcheck to achieve trade-offs in thermal performance of building envelope components as long as the minimum performance criteria are met.  But according to the Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry (Inquiry #2011-02), COMcheck is not yet available for Minnesota’s current commercial energy code.  Moreover, the minimum thermal performance for the referenced steel-framed construction is not met.  For example, the maximum U-Factor for a steel-framed wall is 0.084, but Table A3.3 of ASHRAE 90.1 indicates a U-Factor of 0.109 for steel-framed walls with R-19 cavity insulation.   Either way, our steel-framed construction does not comply using the Trade-Off Option.

Our last compliance option involves an Energy Cost Budget, which would entail a robust analysis using building energy simulation software.   While some of these projects may be utilizing whole-building modeling, we know first-hand that many do not.

Conclusion
We can only speculate regarding the apparent disconnect between current mandates and enforcement practices.  But it is clear that energy initiatives are missing the mark on basic design requirements of ASHRAE 90.1.

Resources

  1. Whole Building Design Guide: Energy Codes and Standards
  2. Department of Energy: Building Energy Codes Program – Minnesota