Evaluation of co-firing as a cost-effective short-term sustainable CO2 mitigation strategy in Germany

Table 3 Characteristics of the considered biomass refinement levels

	Wood chips	Industry pellets	Torrefied biomass
Calorific value (MJ/kg)	9–10^c	17^c	19–22^c
Maximum co-firing ratio (%)	10^a	30^b	50^c
Reductionof efficieny (%)	9.4^a	4.7^d	0^d
Maximum co-firing rate (%)	10	30	50
Fuel prices in 2020 (€/MWh)	27.27^e	33.18^e	36.87^e
Transportation costs (€/MWh)	4.97^e	6.85^e	8.63^e
Investment costs for retrofitting (€/MW_el)	346,000^f	154,000^f	38,000^f
Depreciation and debt services for retrofitting (€/MW_el*a)	37.85^g	16.82^g	4.21^g
Allocation of biomass (hard coal) (€/MWh)	8.32^h	3.7^h	0.92^h
Allocation of biomass (lignite) (€/MWh)	5.55^h	2.47^h	0.62^h

^a[28]^b[29]^c[30]^dAssumptions based on [29,30,31]: torrefied biomass co-firing without performance loss; mean value of wood chips and torrefied biomass performance loss for industry pellets^eCalculation according to the approach in Additional file 1: Table S2-4^f [28, 32,33,34], Conversion rate of US Dollar to EUR, 1.3^gInvestment costs as annuity with an amortisation period of 15 years at 8% interest rate^hAnnuity allocated to biomass fuel consumption based on the mean hours of operation at full load of lignite (6814 h/a) and hard coal power plants (4547 h/a) as given in [27]

ISSN: 2192-0567