Punctuated continuity: The technological trajectory of advancedbiomass 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 ofresearch 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 premiumtechnologies.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 5 November 2013Received in revised form22 January 2014Accepted 24 January 2014Available online 11 February 2014

Keywords:Advanced biomass gasiersTechnological trajectoryTechnological paradigmVariationSelection

a b s t r a c t

Recent interest in biofuels and bio-reneries has been building upon the technology of biomassgasication. 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 thesocio-economic context was most important, as it both offered windows of opportunity as well asprovided direction to developments. Changes in this context resulted in paradigm shifts, characterized bya change in considered end-products and technologies, as well as a change in companies involved. Otherinuences on the technological trajectory were rm specic differences, like the focus on a specicfeedstock, scale and more recently biofuels to be produced. These were strengthened by the nationalfocus of supporting policies, as well as specic attention for multiple technologies in policies of the USAand European Commission. Over each period we see strong variation that likely benetted the long termdevelopment of the technology. Despite policy efforts that included variation and institutionalization, ourcase shows that the large changes in socio-economic context and the technological challenges were hardto overcome.

& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Over the past few years, energy from biomass has receivedample interest, with special attention for biofuels, bio-reneriesand the concept of a bio-based economy. Crucial to these devel-opments is the technology of biomass gasication. Biomass gasi-cation is the thermochemical breakdown of biomass at hightemperature and frequently also at high pressure. Input can be adiversity of biomass feedstock, although each requires a somewhatspecialized technology. In the gasier, the feedstock is converted

to syngas (also called producer gas) that mainly consists of carbonmonoxide and hydrogen. Clean syngas can subsequently be con-verted in several products: heat, power, chemicals and fuels likemethanol and Fischer-Tropsch diesel.

Biomass gasiers come in a variety of designs. Typically appliedat smaller scale are the updraft and downdraft gasiers. Simpleupdraft gasiers produce syngas full of contaminants and aremainly applied in heat applications. Downdraft gasiers producecleaner syngas that is mainly applied for power production byengines. At larger scales there is a diversity of uidized bed andentrained ow designs that, combined with extensive gas clean-ing, can produce clean syngas for the production of biofuels,chemicals and power. We focus on the latter category of advancedgasiers.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Energy Policy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.0360301-4215 & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

n Tel.: 003 140 247 5761.E-mail address: a.f.kirkels@tue.nl

Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182

Advanced gasication tted social concerns well over the pastdecades. As such, it received a lot of interest and support (Kirkelsand Verbong, 2011), but only became applied in a few research,development and demonstration (RD&D) niches. This raises ques-tions from an innovation perspective. What is limiting the successof this technology? And what does this mean for its futureapplication? Only recently, the long-term development of biomassgasiers has been studied. Hellsmark, (2010) takes a TechnologicalInnovation Systems (TIS) perspective on European countries thatdominated developments in biomass gasication - Sweden, Fin-land, Germany and Austria. Kirkels and Verbong, (2011) provide anoverview of global long term developments in biomass gasicationbased on multiple indicators and literature, showing that interestcame in three distinct waves: in the early 1980s with a focus onmethanol production; in the 1990s with a focus on powerproduction 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 advancedgasiers and try to answer the following questions: 1) what hasinuenced the initial momentum and focus of the technologicalpath; and 2) what impact did the developments in the technolo-gical path have on the success and failure of the technology. Forthe latter, we will address four sub-questions: a) what have beenthe dominant technologies and companies; b) what have beendominant research themes and lessons learned; c) to what extentdid this result in patterns of variation, selection and (dis)contin-uous technological paths over time; and nally d) how did thisinuence the promise and failure of the technology? We willconduct extensive literature study and construct an overview ofdemo plants in order to answer these questions for each of thethree periods identied by Kirkels and Verbong. In the nextparagraphs we will introduce the concepts that we will be buildingupon, followed by the methodology. Next we will describe for eachperiod the empirical results. And nally we will come to conclu-sions 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 ofvariation, selection and retention. Variation comes from earlyengineering efforts in RD&D, in a phase characterized by highuncertainties, little alignment and no lock-in. Sources of variationare rm-specic differences and bounded rationality. Selectionmainly takes place upon market introduction: picking technolo-gies that perform best in a given socio-economical context. Andnally retention, or continued existence, is driven by processes ofsuccess and institutionalization, e.g. setting standards, sharingknowledge, etc.

As our interest is in both continuous technological change aswell as discontinuities, we will be drawing upon the notions oftechnological 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 toconcrete problems and devices) and theoretical (but practicallyapplicable 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 researchprograms) in analogy of Kuhns notion of scientic paradigms as:

an outlook, a set of procedures, a denition of the relevantproblems and of the specic knowledge related to their solution.2

According to Dosi, the technological paradigm embodies strongprescriptions on the directions of technological change to pursue,and those to neglect. The identication of a technological para-digm relates to the generic tasks to which it is applied, thematerial technology it selects, the physical or chemical propertiesit exploits and the technological and economic dimensions andtrade-offs it focusses upon. These dene an idea of progress as theimprovement of the trade-offs related to those dimensions.As such Dosi sees continuity in technological development, ordevelopment that adds up to a technological trajectory, as a patternof normal problem solving within the technological paradigm toachieve progress; while discontinuities are associated with theemergence of a new paradigm. Some of the characteristics of atechnological trajectory are: it consists of a series of smallinnovations (local incremental variations) that built upon eachother and as such are cumulative; once a path has been selectedand established, it shows a momentum of its own and as such itmight be difcult to switch from one trajectory to an alternativeone; there are complementarities among trajectories; and it isdoubtful whether it is possible a priori to compare and assess thesuperiority of one technological path over another.

Geels, (2002) and Rip and Kemp, (1998) have argued againstsuch a narrow perspective on technological change, as this put toomuch emphasis on the embedding of routines in the minds ofengineers. The outcome of the innovation process is also deter-mined by other social groups like policy makers, users andscientists. More recent innovation theories, like the eld ofTransition Studies that includes theories of Strategic Niche Man-agement and the Technological Innovation Systems, take thiscriticism into account and approach technological change as aquasi-evolutionary process (Faber et al., 2005; Raven, 2006). Theprocess is called quasi-evolutionary, as the variation of technolo-gies is not random. Researchers and RD&D departments do takeinto account both what they consider most promising techno-logies based on performance in lab or merely by expectations, asalso the perceived future socio-economic context in which thetechnology will have to perform. These approaches put moreemphasis on cognitive rules like goals, problem agendas andexpectations. 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 worktowards realizing them. While shared cognitive rules and expecta-tions create stable trajectories of technological change, change inthe direction of the technological trajectories depends on a changein the content of cognitive rules and expectations.

Geels and Raven argue (2006) that it is at the level ofcommunities or emerging elds that the emerging technologicaltrajectory can be found see Fig. 1. This level is building upon(series of) local projects, characterized by actors directly involvedin those projects and local variability (local networks, projectdenitions, skills). The global network consists of actors who havesome distance to the project. It refers to an emerging eld orcommunity. It is characterized by abstract, generic knowledgeshared within the community (theories, technical models, agen-das, expectations, etc.). The translation of local outcomes intogeneric lessons and cognitive rules requires aggregation activities(e.g. standardization, model building) and the circulation ofknowledge and people to enable comparison between localpractices and formulation of generic lessons (e.g. by conferences,workshops, proceedings, journals, etc.). According to Geels andRaven, the interplay between local projects and the global

1 Dosi, 1982, p151/152. 2 Dosi, 1982, p148.

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182 171

community is important, as feedback mechanisms between bothcan explain dynamics in developments.

This notion of technological trajectories by Geels and Raven asdirected by shared frames leaves ample room for variation as:(1) local projects leave room for local interpretation and adjust-ments; and (2) especially early on, rules are not shared by every-one and efforts might have not yet aligned. Only over time, withmore alignment of rules and possible institutionalization, this willresult in a more guided and stable search. This is amplied as theselection environment also tends to prefer existing solutionsowing to economies of scale and lock-in effects (Geels andRaven, 2006). However, Bakker et al., (2012) and Raven, (2006)argue that guided variation and pre-selection can also result inearly appearance of dominant designs in RD&D.

Following the global-local distinction by Geels and Raven, weconclude that studying the global level would not be sufcient forreconstructing the technological trajectory. There is an additionalcontribution to be found by studying local projects and demoplants. First, according to Dosi technological knowledge is muchless well articulated than scientic knowledge. Existing physicaldevices embody the achievements in the development of atechnology and as such are of special interest.

Second, constructing demo plants involves heterogeneous actorgroups. These projects provide a place for early interactionbetween the variation (scientists and engineers) and selectionenvironment (project owners, nancers, buyers, suppliers, regula-tors, etcetera). At this level also these actors become visible andcan be mapped and analyzed (Geels and Raven, 2006).

Third, demonstration plants can also be seen as an earlyindicator of success: demo plants dene a certain stage of maturityof the technology; multiple actors share a belief in the technologythat justies investing in it; and the applied technology ispreferred over alternative existing technologies.

And nally, biomass gasication plants are a congurationaltechnology: they contain several components biomass pretreat-ment, feeding, gasier, gas cleaning, nal conversion that areinterdependent. Problems in one component as well as theinteraction between components will affect the overall perfor-mance. Fleck, (1994) stresses that for such a congurationaltechnology local demonstration projects are crucial to facilitatelearning by trying.

3. Methodology

Following a quasi-evolutionary perspective, we will try toreconstruct the technological trajectory of advanced biomass

gasiers based on literature study. As such we will focus onprocesses 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 thecommunity level we mainly studied overview articles and statusreports, to identify preferred technology, the state of the technol-ogy, research themes and expectations. For the local level weidentied demo plants, presenting an overview in tables includingsite, manufacturer, technology, feedstock, size and status.

Over the late 1970s and early 1980s exposure in scienticjournals has been limited. However, this was a period of highRD&D intensity, as Kirkels and Verbong, (2011) show. This isdocumented in the proceedings of various conferences that areat the basis of our study. These include the Bioenergy 80 and 84conferences; the (bi)-annual European Biomass Conferences(1980-2010); the IEA International conferences on thermochemi-cal biomass conversion (1985-2001); four VTT conferences onPower production from biomass (1993-2002); an EC internationalworkshop and conference (1984, 1989); and two expert meetingson pyrolysis and gasication organized by PyNe and GasNetnetworks (1997, 2003).

Gasier technology can be classied as an open technology: itsdevelopment is inuenced by developments in related technolo-gies like small-scale gasiers, coal gasication and thermochemi-cal technologies like combustion and pyrolysis. We take this intoaccount whenever literature suggests it was relevant.

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

The 1970s can be characterized by high oil prices and concernsregarding depletion and dependency on oil. From about 1979onwards biomass gasication took off - as shown in chemicalabstracts on biomass gasication (Overend, in Stassen and vanSwaaij, 1982) and biomass-gasication related patents (Kirkels andVerbong, 2011). A variety of manufacturers and technologies wereinvolved, e.g. see Hodam, Williams and Lesser, (1982), Klass,(1985), Reed, (1980) and Shand and Bridgwater, (1984).

Developments in advanced biomass gasication concentratedon methanol production to replace oil-based fuels. This focusrequired a new, more advanced generation of gasiers. Thisreceived attention from the USA, Canada, Sweden, and theEuropean Community - see Table 1 for an overview of RD&Dplants. Emphasis was given to the development of gasiers. Thesubsequent conversion to methanol was considered commerciallyavailable. Both the USA and Europe chose for an exploratorystrategy - both developed multiple technologies in parallel to nd

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

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182172

out what would work best. Overall, these development programswere technologically successful to the extent that no furtherexploration of concepts was required at the end of the 1980sand up-scaling to demo plants was considered (Beenackers andvan Swaaij, 1983, 1986; Hogan, 1992; Klass, 1985, 1987; Miles andMiles, 1989; Stevens, 1994; Strm et al., 1985; Strub, 1984).

In the late 1970s and early 1980s it was considered that theproduction of methanol required the production of clean medium-caloric-value syngas. Such a plant was likely to be sized at tens ofmega Watt: economies of scale and the large market dictated alarge size, while the dispersed availability of biomass was limitingit. To achieve both clean syngas production and reasonable scale,two different concepts were explored: the directly-heated and theindirectly-heated gasier.

The directly-heated gasiers were blown by pure oxygen. Someextra oxygen was supplied to the gasier to combust some of thebiomass, which provided the energy to keep the gasicationprocess running. Experience with the Purox process and the SERIgasier indicated that this might be feasible. Recommendationswere made to support research on energy efcient small scaleoxygen plants. Alternatively, the oxygen could be bought in fromnearby large-scale oxygen facilities, which limited the number ofsuitable locations and increased operational costs.

The second option used indirectly-heated gasication or pyr-olytic gasication. In this process, the gasier receives oxygen

from steam as medium or from a bed material that chemicallybinds oxygen (e.g. in the John Brown process). The process isdriven by externally generated heat, most often a second vessel inwhich part of the biomass is combusted. Heat exchange betweenboth vessels is based on exchange of bed material that takes therole of heat accumulator. The structural complexity of indirectly-heated gasiers adds to the investment cost for the gasier,but operational costs are lowered as no oxygen needs to be boughtin. These gasiers, although not as well developed as oxygengasiers, promised higher efciencies and lower overall costs andreceived signicant support, especially in the USA (Beenackers andManiatis, 1984; Reed, 1980)

Another focal point was pressurized gasication. No pressur-ized biomass gasiers existed yet (Reed, 1980) and the technologywould likely be more complex. However, pressurized gasicationseemed attractive as it could have a positive effect on the overalleconomics, as the subsequent methanol synthesis required pres-surized operation anyway.

While the advanced concepts were explored in RD&D, simpler,small-scale, xed-bed gasiers already found application in themarket for low-end applications. Given the policy interest in high-end applications, a handful manufacturers of these updraft anddowndraft gasiers did consider entering this market segment bythe use of oxygen, pressurized operation and the use of catalyst(Beenackers and van Swaaij, 1986; Reed, 1980). However, the updraft

Table 1Pilot projects on advanced biomass gasiers for methanol production in the early 1980s.

Consortium/contractors(country)

Reactor type Method Capacity[kg wood/hr]

Pressure[bar]

Site

1 John Brown Wellman (UK) Double uidizedbed, circulatingcarrier for oxygenand heat.

Double uidizedbed, circulating heatcarrier

Gasication withchemically boundoxygen; air blown

Gasication withsteam, separatecombustion of charfor heat

440-900 1 Smethwick(UK)

2 Lurgi (D) Circulating uidized bed(CFB)

Oxygen or oxygen/steamblown

320-450 1 Frankfurt (D)

3 Creusot-Loire (F) ASCAB/Framatome/Stein Industrie

Bubbling uidized bed(BFB)

Oxygen or oxygen/steamblown

100-3202.500

1 7-30 Le Creusot(F) Clamecy (F)

4 AGIP Nucleare/Italenergie (I) Indirectly heateduidized bed

Pyrolysis, combustionpart of product gasseparately for heat;steam and oxygen blown

500-800 1 Toscana (I)

5 Omnifuel/Biosyn (CA) Bubbling uidized bed Pressurized, oxygen (orair) blown

10.0004.000*

16-20????

St. Juste-de-Bretenires(Quebec, CA)Degrad desCannes (FrenchGuyana)

6 Royal Institute ofTechnology/StudsvikEnergiteknik (SE)

Bubbling uidized bed,high temperature lterand catalytic reformer;MINO process

Oxygen and steam (orair) blown; add. xedbed oxygen blowncatalytic reformer

10-15300-500

3010-30

Stockholm (SE)Studsvik (SE)

7 Batelle-ColumbusLaboratories (USA)

Indirectly heateduidized bed, dual bed

Air blown 154-1400 0.2-1 Columbus, Ohio(USA)

8 Institute of Gas Technology(USA)

Bubbling uidized bed;RENUGAS process

Pressurized, oxygenblown

160-500 6-24 Chicago, Illinois(USA)

9 SERI (now NREL) (USA) Downdraft UpscaledSynGas 1985

Pressurized, oxygenblown

38560-900

111

Golden,Colorado (USA)

10 University of Missouri-Rolla(USA)

Indirectly heateduidized bed, re tubewith heat exchanger

Air blown 20-375 1 Rolla, Missouri(USA)

1-4 Beenackers and van Swaaij, 1983, 1986; Grassi and Pirrwitz, 1983; Kaltschmitt et al., 1998; Strub, 19845 Hogan, 1992, 1993; Cort, in Kaltschmitt et al., 19986 Beenackers and van Swaaij, 1983; Blomkvist et al., 1983; Strm et al. 19857-10 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.

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182 173

technology produced polluted gas, while the downdraft technologywas 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 effortscame to a standstill: oil prices were low and government basedRD&D funding stopped - which in turn resulted in less projectsrealized and reduced RD&D output. We found that for the secondhalf of the 1980s construction of plants and their performancewere underexposed in literature. This is probably due to the lack ofsuccess of these projects as well as the drop of interest by therelevant community. We will provide a reconstruction.

In the 1985-1986 US solicitation for funds, the proposalsfor demonstrating a near-commercial gasier were withdrawn(Bain et al., 2003). In Europe, the Clamency plant was built overthe period 1986-1989, signicantly scaling up the Creusot Loiretechnology and applying it under pressurized conditions. Test runswere made in 1990 and subsequently the plant was stopped, asthe French government stopped supporting gasication research(Cort, in Kaltschmitt et al., 1998; Marcellin, in Bridgwater andEvans, 1993). Omnifuel found application in a plant in FrenchGuyana. The plant was built in 1987, tested for a few days, butnever operated. Several technical problems have been reported(Cort, in Kaltschmitt et al., 1998). In 1985 it was decided tobuild the Kemira Oy plant in Finland. It started operation in 1988using Rheinsbraun0s HTW technology. Although this technologyhas not been included in Table 1, as its development focused onlignite gasication (Harmsen, 2000), this specic plant was ofrelevance as it produced ammonia from peat. Its operation wasproof of the technical feasibility, although several technical pro-blems were reported, among others due to the heterogeneousquality of the peat. The plant was shut down in 1990, at leastpartially based on economics (Kaltschmitt et al., 1998; Koljonenet al., 1993).

Both this overview and literature suggest that advanced gasi-ers that were installed in the late 1980s had been initiated whenenergy prices were still high, and were frequently abandonedbased 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 inEurope (Diebold and Stevens, 1989; Grassi, 1988).

At the community level, we see community formation by theupcoming of biomass conferences from 1980 onwards. And fromthe second half of the 1980s cooperation started in IEA tasks onbio-energy. Bridgwater, (1990) concludes, based on a worldwidedatabase of activities in thermochemical conversion over thisperiod, that mainly academics, governments, industrial researchand development and manufacturers were involved - in line withthe ndings of our overview. Industries involved in large-scalegasication were mostly research institutes and process industries,like pulp and paper industry supplier, boiler manufacturers andindustry dedicated to gasication. There seems to have been onlylimited interest by automotive industry and a lack of involvementof methanol and petrochemical industry (Kliman, 1983; Klass,1985).

But what were the lessons learned? Both Reed, (1980) andStevens, (1994) indicate that applications in the late 1970s andearly 1980s were to a signicant extent skill based. As this did notprovide a solid basis to develop advanced and properly workingconcepts, they became accompanied by more fundamental stu-dies. As such, technologies turned out costlier and took longer todevelop than initially anticipated. Also, biomass was not easy--to-handle-coal, but rather different from coal. It had differentcharacteristics that required different technology and handling.And by the mid-1980s the emerging insight was that gas cleaningand especially tar was a persistent problem and catalysis wasgiven more attention. Other issues included system integration,

reaction mechanisms and kinetics, and broadening the scope offuels considered (Baker et al., 1986; Beenackers and Maniatis,1984; Beenackers and van Swaaij, 1990; Bridgwater, 1984; Dieboldand Stevens, 1989; Miles and Miles, 1989; Stevens, 1994).

To conclude, in the early 1980s biomass gasication initiallyreceived interest as it was perceived as a relative easy technologythat could reduce oil dependency by producing methanol. Thisanticipated application inuenced the technological focus on theproduction of clean medium-caloric-value syngas. Strategies todevelop the technology paid special attention to variation theparallel exploration of concepts along two technological paths:oxygen-blown, directly-heated gasiers and indirectly-heatedgasiers. To improve progress along these trajectories, ongoingefforts became accompanied by more fundamental studies of fuelsand gasication. After the exploration of the concepts, interestseems to have broadened to the congurational aspects of thetechnology, with more attention for system integration and gascleaning which proved to be a persistent problem. In the secondhalf of the 1980s the concepts were evaluated. In both Europe andthe USA this resulted in pre-selecting the best technologies at thattime. However, this selection was hardly effectuated as demo-projects were discontinued, mainly due to the drop in oil priceswhich 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: nuclearenergy and coal were considered no longer attractive, andattention for global warming strengthened commitments torenewables. Power from biomass was considered one of the morepromising renewables at the short term (Kaltschmitt et al., 1998;Williams and Larson, 1989). Low-efciency steam turbines hadalready found application for converting biomass to power. Nowthe higher-efciency Integrated-Gasication Combined Cycle(IGCC) started to draw attention: it redened potential poweroutput and improved cost efciency (Bain, 1993; Grassi, 1993;Johansson, 1993; U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), 1992; Williamsand Larson, 1993).

The biomass IGCC option was already recognized in the early1980s, see for example Beenackers and van Swaaij, (1984) andReed, (1980), but at that time failed to receive support. Thischanged by the late 1980s. Coal-based IGCC, including hot gascleaning and pressurized circulating-uidized-bed (CFB) combus-tion, received signicant attention. Natural gas became moreapplied 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 learningexperiences with respect to biomass as fuel, CFB technology andsystem integration. Two leading designs by the companies Lurgiand 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 timeof biomass IGCC was to be expected (Hall, 1997; Larson et al.,1989). However, initially a much wider range of technologies torealize high-efciency biomass-to-power conversion was broughtunder 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 Europesaw 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 IGCCbecame 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) 170182174

large-scale pressurized gasication (Rensfelt, 1991; Stevens, 1992;U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), 1992).

To realize IGCC application, several types of gasiers wereconsidered. Fixed-bed updraft technology looked promising incombination with hot gas cleaning, keeping tars in vapor phaseand combusting them in the turbine (Larson et al., 1989; Williamsand Larson, 1993). Others considered medium-caloric-value gasi-ers to be better suited for gas turbines (Solantausta andBeenackers, 1989; Stevens, 1994). But neither of these ideasreceived a lot of support.

In contrast to this, air-blown uidized bed technology was nowconsidered proven and commercially available and became widelyapplied - see Table 2. This included both the bubbling (BFB) andcirculating (CFB) type (Bridgwater, 1993; Grassi and Bridgwater,1990; Johansson, 1993; Larson et al., 1989). Note that Table 2represents both plants as well as plans - as only the Vrnamo plantwas operated for longer periods of time. Other plants wereconstructed, but were less successful, like the ARBRE, Hawaii andVermont plant. Others never materialized, but contributed bysystem analysis, feasibility studies and design - like the ones inBrazil, Minnesota and North Holland.

From the table we can identify several leading manufacturers.Foster Wheeler developed pressurized gasication and wasinvolved in the successful Vrnamo plant. Based on this it waspre-selected as possible technology for the Brazilian plant. It alsowas participating in plans for up scaled plants in Finland. In thelate-1990s, it supplied two large-scale biomass gasiers for co-ring in coal plants. These latter are not included in the table aswe did not consider them high-end applications. But at the timeFoster Wheeler was the only manufacturer that had severalrelatively large-scale biomass gasiers operational.

TPS participated in several atmospheric plants. It build upon anatmospheric CFB gasier for lime kilns (Bridgwater, 1993). Inaddition, it drew upon experience with catalysts and gas cleaningfrom its research and the MINO process it worked upon in the1980s, as was shown in Table 1. It became selected in the Brazilproject based on its lower specic investment costs, lower risk andbetter technological readiness - in which it out-competed FosterWheeler (CHESF, 1995). Only the ARBRE plant was realized, but itclosed almost immediately upon completion.

IGT technology, involving pressurized gasication, found appli-cation in the Hawaii demo plant. It licensed its technology toEnviropower/Carbona. As such it was considered for application inseveral European plants, in the USA for the Minnesota project andin India.

Two interlinked parameters determined the two trajectories oftechnological development: size and pressure. Pressurized opera-tion, including pressurized gas cleaning, was more efcient as thegas turbine needed pressurized operation anyway - but it also wasmore complex, less proven and added investment costs. Largersizes of 5080 MWe, or even up to 100 MWe, were consideredrealistic for Scandinavian and US conditions. For smaller scales of2050 MWe atmospheric operation seemed to be the logic choice,with more established, but less efcient gas cleaning. This lowerrange was considered by Europe, including several Scandinavianmunicipalities. Over time there was an ongoing debate about therelevant ranges of scales. (Bridgwater, 1995; Larson et al., 1989;Maniatis et al., 1997; Palonen et al., 1996; Rsch et al., 1998; Saloand 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 thetechnology and learning, especially for system integration andunproven parts: pressurized gasication, gas turbines, and gascleaning. Extensive gas cleaning was required to prevent corrosionand tar condensation (Beenackers and van Swaaij, 1990;Bridgwater, 1993; Johansson, 1993). Note that due to differences

in circumstances (scale, sort and quality of biomass, componentsapplied) these rst demo plants were often one of a kind andspecically designed for their task, frequently requiring on sitemodications.

However, the demo projects showed it was a bumpy road totake. Each plant encountered technical problems. Gas cleaning andtar condensation proved to be especially persistent problems, butalso biomass feeding frequently resulted in problems. However,many scholars consider the non-technical problems as moresubstantial. These included, but were not limited to, acquiringproper biomass (e.g. Biocycle and North Holland), permitting (e.g.Energy Farm), knowledge and capabilities, and last but not leastthe high investment costs and overall economics that did not showthe anticipated reduction due to learning curves (e.g. North Hol-land, 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 wereexplored. Black liquor is a highly-corrosive byproduct of the paperindustry for which specic gasiers were developed by MTCI,Chemrec and Weyerhauser. And in biomass gasiers there wasfrequent experimenting with waste feedstock, like RDF and tires.Also specic waste- and plasma-gasiers were under develop-ment. Finally, biomass gasication was applied for co-ring inexisting pulverized-coal boilers - offering limited adaptation of thepower plant and limited operational risk (Kaltschmitt et al., 1998;Maniatis, 1998).

At the community level knowledge exchange was stimulatedby new and increased networking activities, involving bothexperts and more heterogeneous actors. It showed in expertmeetings and in IEA conferences and tasks. But also in theEuropean Biomass Conference, that over the 1990s showed anincrease in participants and visitors, and that was linked to anindustry exhibition (Kirkels, 2012). The demonstration effortsrequired the involvement of more heterogeneous actors: turbineor feedstock suppliers and actors involved in catalysis, feedingsystems, construction, nancing, etcetera. We are under theimpression that especially feedstock industry and utilities startedto show involvement at the community level. In parallel with thedemonstration efforts a signicant research effort was made, bothby manufacturers and research institutes. Main topics included,but were not limited to pressurized gasication, gas cleaning andcatalysis, agro-fuels and socio-economic issues. In addition, mod-eling was needed to acquire a more fundamental and detailedunderstanding of what was going on in gasiers in order to be ableto prevent problems and optimize designs (Beenackers andManiatis, (1992); Bridgwater, 1995; Connor et al., 1997; Elliottand Maggi, 1997; Kurkela et al., 1993; Maniatis, 1998; Maniatiset al., 1998).

Just after 2000, developments came to a halt: natural gastechnology was preferred in the power sector due to its very lowspecic investment costs; biomass combustion and co-combustionwere closer-to-market; wind become the renewable of choice; andpower companies were no longer interested in innovative buthigh-cost alternatives as the electricity markets became liberalized(Jger-Waldau and Ossenbrink, 2004; Kirkels, 2012).

To conclude, the socio-economic context initially drove theinterest in biomass gasication in this period. Technologicaldevelopment benetted from the insights of the 1980s as well asprogress in a variety of related elds. Based on all these, a shortdevelopment time was expected, as the attention for demonstra-tion plants also illustrates.

The initial policy interest in high-efciency power resulted indiversity 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

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182 175

Table 2Plants 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.

Site (country) Consortium/contractors

Manufacturer Technology (type, MWe, pressure, medium) Status/year Capacity[ton/d]

Feedstock

Vrnamo (SE) Sydkraft/Ahlstrom Foster Wheeler -Bioow technology

Pressurized CFB; 6 MWe9 MWth; 20-24 bar;hot gas clean up

Studies late 80s; cooperation 1991; 1993 start gasier,1995 turbine; 2000 stop, uneconomical

90-100 Wood

Vega (SE) Eskilstuna Vattenfall Tampella Power/Enviropower

Indirectly red IGCC, pressurized BFB; 20-25bar, air blown; 65 MWth60 MWe

Initiated 1990; 1994 terminated - due to largeinvestment cost and power balance countries

720 biomass

Brazil WBP-SIGAMEBahia state

World Bank,Electrobas

TPS Atmospheric CFB; 30-32 MWe Planning 1991-1998; design completed; notconstructed; plans terminated by 2004

435 Eucalyptus

Mariestad (SE) Gullspng Kraft TPS/VBB Atmospheric CFB; 16 MWe 17 MWsteam 9 MWth 1991-1992 feasibility studypre-project study(FI) Imatran Voima Oy

(IVO) IVOSDIG processAir blown, steam injected gas turbine no steamturbine

1991 some tests; mid 90s on hold; requiredsignicant investment support

Wet fuels: peat,biomass

Bors (SE) Bors Energi AB TPS Atmospheric CFB, 70 MW IGCC Planned early 90s; failed to acquire funding;terminated mid 90s

Oad chips

Gaspi, Tampere (FI) Enviropower Air blown pressurized IGCC; 15 -20 MWth;dolomite as bed catalyst, hot gas clean up

Test facility. At least operated 1993-1995 80 Wood chips

Hawaii (USA) HC&S - Paiamill

PICHTR/WEC IGT Renugas Pressurized BFB, air-oxygen blown; 10-21 bar;5MWe

1989 request; 1994 start project; 1998 nalized;technical difculties; gas turbine never installed

40-100 bagasse

ARBRE (UK) - EC projYorkshire Eggb. PowerStation

Arbre EnergyLimited (AEL)

TPS Atmospheric CFB; 8 MWe; tars cracked insecond CFB

1993 start; 1998-2001 construction; (non)technicalproblems; 2003 terminated

138 SRF (willow, poplar),later sludge added

Energy farm (I) - EC proj DiCasina, close to Pisa

Biolettrica (ENEL,Lurgi a.o.)

Initially Lurgi, later onCarbona

Atmospheric CFB; 12 MWe; 1.4 bar Pressurized BFB

1993 start; 1998 design completed, constructionstart; non-technical delay; 2003 terminated

200-336 SRF plantations -poplar;wood chips/residues

Biocycle (DK) - EC projAssens, Maribo Kotka(FI)

Elsam/Elkraft a.o. Enviropower/Carbona Pressurized air blown CFB; 7 MWe7-8 MWth;22bar; hot gas cleanup

1993/94 start; DK cancelled - competitionnatural gas; transferred to Kotka

1997 abandoned due to closure wood supplier

84 Willow, wood, latereucalypt. plantation.

Wood residue.

North Holland (NL) ENW TPS or Lurgi Atmospheric CFB; 30 MWe 1993 start; 1998 plans terminated lack of biomassand not competitive

Demolition wood, parkwood, RDF

Burlington, Vermont (USA)McNeil power station

Batelle/FERCO Batelle Atmospheric, indirectly heated; air/steamblown; 8-15 MWe

1994 design; 1997 operating; 2002 mothballed; noteconomic; gas turbine never installed

180-300 Tree chips, residuewood

Summa (FI) transferred tonekoski (Fi)

Tampella (Kvaerner)Enso/Metsliitto

Foster Wheeler IGCC demo plants; 60-70 MWe 1994-1996; repowering paper mill; not realized,too limited investment subsidy

New Bern mill (USA) Weyerhaeuser Batelle/FERCO 39 MWe Feasibility study, 1994-1995 Waste biomass millMinnesota Alfalfa project(USA)

MVAPC Carbona Pressurized CFB; air and steam blown; 20 bar;75 MWe

Studies/planning 1994-1999; terminated, unable tomeet deadline

1000 Alfalfa stem material

A.F.K

irkels/Energy

Policy68

(2014)170

182176

gasiers. Two trajectories were explored in parallel: atmosphericsmall-scale gasiers and pressurized large-scale gasiers. Govern-ment based demo-programs seem to have institutionalized andcentered ongoing efforts, effectively resulting in pre-selection oftechnologies.

The shift in attention between the 1980s and the 1990s, as wellas the discontinuity in interest in the late 1980s, resulted also in adiscontinuity with respect to technologies and manufacturers.Some of the leading technologies of the 80s, like the Creusot-Loire and Omnifuel technologies, no longer played a role. Others,like TPS and IGT, worked on other technologies or adapted theiroriginal design. Another leading manufacturer came up, FosterWheeler, based on its experience with gasication for heatapplications, and in uidized bed biomass combustion.

Several factors seem to have affected the lack of progress overthis period, including amongst others issues of gas cleaning andsocio-economic issues like lack of learning curve and economicperformance. As a result of these, and of the large changes in theexternal context, attention shifted to biofuels after 2000.

6. After 2000: biofuels

Since the 1990s and especially shortly after 2000, the policy-and market-interest in liquid biofuels increased considerably inEurope and the USA (Costello and Finnell, 2002; Hall, 1997). In linewith this trend, RD&D on biomass gasication refocused after2000 on two topics. The rst was the production of ultra cleansyngas, a basic requirement for whatever fuel there was to beproduced. This also benetted from the increased interest inbio-hydrogen and fuel cells at that time. The second topic wasthe concept of a bio-renery, dened in analogue with a petrolrenery: an industrial site where multiple products areco-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 generationbiofuel technology that can use woody biomass. As such it has alarger feedstock base, larger greenhouse gas reduction potentialand less interference with the food supply compared to rstgeneration biofuels that are based on agricultural crops. The othersecond generation technology is based on biochemical conversionand was also pursued after 2000. Apparently, there was a strongdiversity of technologies that gasication had to compete withover the past decade.

Fuel production imposed different requirements on the tech-nology than IGCC did: the synthesis gas needed to be ultra clean;the relative amounts of main components (hydrogen and carbonmonoxide) became important for the subsequent chemicalconversion; and production was considered most economical atsignicant larger scale. Just after 2000, some argued that entrainedow was the only technology that could meet these requirements(Hamelinck and Bain, 2003; Kavalov and Peteves, 2005). Otherspreferred BFB, as it had been widely demonstrated and testedunder high temperature and pressure (Ciferno and Marano, 2002).

Table 3 shows an overview of pilot and demo plants, bothoperational and under construction. It shows that ultimately fourdifferent technologies were explored in parallel: uidized bedgasiers, indirectly-heated gasiers, entrained ow gasiers andhybrid technologies. In general, both uidized bed and entrainedow gasiers operate under pressurized conditions using steamor oxygen as medium. Hybrid technologies encompass both athermochemical and a biochemical step, like the technologiesdeveloped by Coskata, ZeaChem and Iowa State University (Bacovskyet al., 2010; E4tech, 2009; Hellsmark and Jacobsson, 2012).

In addition, different sorts of feedstock inputs and output fuelshave been considered.

Both the technologies for waste gasication by plasma gasiersand black liquor gasication had matured and their developmentsalso started to consider fuel production. Especially black liquordevelopments seemed relevant for three reasons: rst, the Chem-rec efforts contributed signicantly to the European efforts andpromise (Hellsmark, 2010); second, recent reports indicate thatThermochem 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 tech-nology and Chemrec0s black liquor technology.

Until 2005, mainly test and trial plants were constructedconcentrating on clean syngas production. After 2005, pilot anddemo plants were erected to produced biofuels. Several scholarsindicate that there was a strong drive to upscale (Bacovsky et al.,2010; E4tech, 2009; EBTP, 2013). In the food-versus-fuel debatearound 2007/2008 biofuels became criticized. It strengthenedattention for second generation biofuels that also becameembedded in legislation and policies (Bacovsky et al., 2010;Hellsmark, 2010; Sorda et al., 2010). However, this did not reducetheir risk, as the bankruptcy of Range Fuels (2011) and Choren(2011) show - two of the leading demonstration efforts at thattime. This seems not to have halted developments, with newdemonstration plants under way: UPM Stracel (France), Ajos(Finland, licensed Choren0s Carbo-V technology), BioTfuel (France)(EBTP, 2013).

Of the companies involved in advanced gasiers, several couldbuild on experience with IGCC efforts over the 1990s - likeChemrec and actors around Vrnamo. Other companies alreadyhad extensive experience with biomass gasication in otherapplications, like Repotec (combined heat and power) and Choren.The latter started its development in the 1990s. Building on formerEast-Germany0s knowledge and experience in coal- and lignite-gasication, it designed entrained-ow gasiers to producebiofuels - which at that time did not receive a lot of enthusiasm(E4tech, 2009; Hellsmark, 2010; Kavalov and Peteves, 2005). Andnally there are also relatively newcomers in the eld.

The gasication companies that dominated the 1990s develop-ments had a hard time competing, as technologies diversied. TPSgot involved in the CHRISGAS efforts to revitalize the Vrnamoplant - that failed. TPS led for bankruptcy and is no longer active(Hellsmark, 2010).

Lurgi sold its biomass CFB technology to Envirotherm - that hasnot planned any projects since. Lurgi remained involved by itsdecentralized pyrolysis and syngas technology, as applied in theKIT process (E4tech, 2009; Hellsmark, 2010).

The international technology group Andritz took over Carbona.Carbona constructed a CHP plant in Skive, Denmark. In an effort tobecome a large FT biodiesel producer, global forestry companyUPM started cooperation with Carbona (Bacovsky et al., 2010;E4tech, 2009; Hellsmark, 2010).

Foster Wheeler initially refocused its efforts on co-combustionand gasication of household waste, but was reluctant to enterthis market. By 2010, a NSE Biofuels Oy/Foster Wheeler demoplant went online to demonstrate the production of ultra cleansyngas. However, by 2012 the project was abandoned when it wasnot awarded funding (EBTP, 2013; Hellsmark, 2010).

At the community level we see a shift. Until 2000 the commu-nity was based on biomass gasication. Although this continued tosome extent, after 2000 the focus was much more on the broaderoverarching theme of biofuels. It brought new dynamics, also withrespect to community formation, e.g. by the upcoming of confer-ences and journals on biofuels and bio-reneries and specialinterest groups like the European Biomass Technology Platform.These were not specically focused on biomass gasication. In the

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182 177

Table 3Gasication 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 andPower; SNG Synthetic Natural Gas; FT Fischer-Tropsch; DME Dimethyl Ether; MWth MWthermal; t/a ton/yearSources: Bacovsky et al., 2010; Bain, 2011; E4tech/NNFCC 2009; Kolb, 2011; Waldheim, 2012.

Site (country) Consortium Manufacturer Technology Status/year Capacity Feedstock

Gssing (AU) TU-Vienna/Repotec/CTU/Paul ScherrerInstitute

Repotec FICFB, atm. steam blown, CHP/SNG/FT 2002 demo plant 2005-2008 adaptation for SNG and FT 8 MWth Wood chips Woodresidue

Rya (SE) GoBiGas: GothenburgEnergy/Repotec/Metso

Repotec technology FICFB, SNG retrottinig CFB combustion plants 2006 committed, 2010 decision taken 32 MWth Wood pellets

Pite (SE) - SmurtKappa KraftlinerMill

Chemrec/Volvo/Preem/Total/Delphi

Chemrec Entrained ow, oxygen blown, pressurized;methanol/DME/hydrogen

1997 initiated 2004-2012 DME pilot project 5 MWth Black liquorlignocellulosic

Vrnamo (SE) Chrisgas/VxjoVVBGC/LinnaeusUniversity (TPS, Volvo)

Sydkraft/Foster Wheeler Upgraded to steam/oxygen blown CFB; pressurized 22bar; DME/methanol/hydrogen/FT

2004-2010 Chrisgas project, rebuilding for fuel 2011mothballed: difculty forming alliances, attractingindustrial funding, IPR problems

18 MWth Wood chips?

Chicago (USA) Andritz/Carbona/UPM/IGT

Carbona Pressurized, directly heated, oxygen and steam blownBFB, FT

2005 rebuilding test plant 3-7 MWth? Forest residueswood pellets/chips

Varkaus (FI) NSE Biofuels Oy/FosterWheeler/Stora Enso/VTT

Foster Wheeler CFB, oxygen and steam blown, atmospheric orpressurized, FT

2006 trials 2010 operational demo 0.5 MWth12 MWth

Forest residues

Freiberg (DE) Choren/Daimler/VW/Shell

Choren Industries GmbH Carbo-V process; oxygen blown, entrained ow, 6 bar;3 step: low temp, high temp, entrained ow; FT diesel

1998 pilot operational; 2003-2008 construction demoplant (beta) 2011 led insolvency

1 MWth45 MWth

Wood chips,divers Dry woodchips

Karlsruhe (DE) KIT/Lurgi/Sdchemie/VW (Future Energy)

Karlsruhe Institute ofTechnology (incl formerFZK)

Bioliq-process: decentralized pyrolysiscentralizedentrained gasication; oxygen blown, 80 bar;methanol to gasoline and diesel

2008 construction demo 2010- gas purication andsynthesis added

5 MWth Straw/agriculturalresidues

Denver (USA) - K2ASoperton (USA)

Range Fuels, Inc. Indirectly heated, pressurized, entrained ow;devolatilization low tempsteam reforming hightemp; ethanol/mixed alcohols

2008 pilot operational, mixed alcohols 2007 democonstruction; 2011 bankruptcy

1 MWth25 MWth

Wood & woodwaste

GridleyAberdeen(USA) Hawaii (USA)Livingston (USA)

Pearson Technology/ClearFuels Technology(Rentech owned)

Multi stage, steam blown, indirectly heated;entrained ow gasier; FT production of ethanol andmethanol

2002-2004 pilot Gridley;??? facility Aberdon 2006-construction validation plant Hawaii 2008 operationalpilot Livingston

0.85 MWth8.5 MWth1 MWth

Divers

Sherbrook (CA)Westbury (CA)Edmonton (CA))

Enerkem (Biosyntechnology)

Bubbling uidized bed, pressurized 2-10 atm, air oroxygen enriched air and steam blown; ethanol andmethanol

2003 pilot operational 2010 gasier operational 2010start construction Edmonton (comm.)

0.8 MWth7.5 MWth100.00 t/ain

LignocellulosicElectricity polesMunicipal waste

Temiscaming (CA) Tembec Chemical Group Ethanol 2003 demo operational 13000 t/aout Spent sulphiteliquor

Warrenville (USA)Madison (USA)

Coskata WestinghousePlasma

Hybrid technology: plasma gasierbioreactor;ethanol

2003 pilot operational 2009 demo operational ?? 0.2 MWth Various Woodchips/nat. gas

Boardman (USA) Zeachem/GreenWoodResources

ZeaChem Ethanol, mixed alcohols. Hybrid technology: 2010 pilot under construction 4500 t/aout Lignocellulosic,sugar, wood, chips

Durham (USA) Themo RecoveryInternational

Atmospheric BFB, steam blown, indirect heating pulseenhanced technology; FT diesel

92-03 multiple MTCI black liquor plants 2003 pilotoperational

3500 t/aout black liquorForestry residues

Boone (USA) Iowa State UniversityBECON techn.

Thermal ballasted latent heat BFB gasier; ethanol, FTliquids, biodiesel, pyrolysis oils

2002 construction 2009 pilot operational 1 MWtht Grains, oil seeds,vegetable oil

Clausthal-Zellerfeld(DE)

CUTEC CFB, FT liquids 2008 operational 0.4 MWth Straw, wood,residues

Wilton (USA) Startech/Future Fuels Plasma; atmospheric; hydrogen/methanol Various plants 3.8-7.5 odt/d; 2006- syngas program 1-1.5 MWth Wastea.o. Puerto Rico S4(USA)

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

2001- several in operation 0.8-1.5 MWth Waste

Petten (NL) ECN SNG 2004 lab scale; 2008 pilot plant 0.8 MWth Multiple, woodpellets

A.F.K

irkels/Energy

Policy68

(2014)170

182178

eld of biomass gasication, we observed that utilities showed lessinterest, as could be expected. From the start, just after 2000, bothautomotive and oil industries started to show interest in and jointhe biomass gasication eld (Hamelinck and Bain, 2003;Hellsmark, 2010).

Main research efforts over this period were less well articu-lated. They seem to include some of the struggles of the past:providing a clean synthesis gas, becoming more economicallycompetitive, up scaling and system integration - although a varietyof other (non) technical issues also received attention (Babu, 2005;Lightner, 2009; Maniatis et al., 2003; OBP Ofce of the BiomassProgram, 2005; Rensfelt and Gobel, 2003).

To conclude, although the attention for biofuels and IGCC werepartly overlapping in time, they constitute a discontinuity.A strong indication can be found in the focus of RD&D efforts: inthe 1990s demo plants received most attention, while after 2000efforts concentrated on RD&D and subsequently on test plants.Also traditional companies had a hard time surviving, while newleading companies were up coming. The technological focus wasmainly on fuel production and on ultra clean syngas. Develop-ments were characterized by strong variation. We identied fourdifferent technological paths that were developed in parallel. Butthere also was variation in feedstock considered and biofuelsproduced. And gasication technology has to compete with abroader range of both rst and second generation technologies.

7. Conclusions and discussion

We set out to reconstruct the technological trajectory ofadvanced biomass gasiers by providing an overview of demoplants (local level) and developments in research (global level), theresults of which are summarized in Table 4. Our rst researchquestion was what has inuenced the initial momentum and focusof biomass gasiers0 technological path. Over each period thestrongest inuence seems to have been the socio-economicchallenges of the time. This provided the interest and themomentum to commit to developing the technology. But it alsooffered guidance to the engineering community that translatedthese socio-economic challenges in technological requirements,which we showed to be different over the periods considered.

Other inuences on the technological trajectory have beentechnological progress and company specic differences, includingpreference for feedstock and scale and - more recently - type ofbiofuels to be produced.

The inuence of technological progress in gasication andrelated technological elds is most apparent in the late 1980sand the early 1990s upcoming of interest in IGCC. The inuence ofpreferred feedstock is apparent in two ways: rst, typically techno-logies are developed or optimized for a specic feedstock; second,

waste and black liquor set specic requirements to the technologyand developed in separate, although interrelated technologicaltrajectories. The inuence of scale showed in the 1990s, when bothsmall-scale atmospheric gasiers and large-scale pressurized gasi-ers were developed. Over the 1980s and after 2000, the require-ment of (very) large scales was considered as a side condition forthe technology to develop.

The company specic differences, like feedstock and scale, werestrengthened by policies. Although the power plant suppliers andprocess industry typically serve an international market, theoverview shows a strong national focus of governments support-ing national product champions. It indicates that national indus-tries, resources, policies and actors might have been of signicantinterest.

Our second research question was how developments withinthe technological path have inuenced the success and failure ofthe technology. By the end of each period we could identifypreferred manufacturers. However, over longer time periods thisdid not lead to dominance or a strong competitive advantage.Companies showed to be locked in a specic design and had a hardtime adapting to paradigm shifts. It did not only result in a regularshake out of technologies and manufacturers getting rid of losersthat for some reason at that time are considered less t as couldbe expected by the evolutionary processes of variation andselection. We showed that also premium technologies had a hardtime to survive.

Each of these paradigm shifts had a distinctive different impacton the promise of the technology. The shift between the 1980s and1990s seems not to have hold back the promise of the technology,as all countries involved at the time considered the technologyready for demonstration. We explain this by three reasons: theprogress made in the eld in the 1980s; the complexity of thetechnology, as air-blown gasiers were considered less compli-cated than the medium-caloric-value gasiers of the 1980s; andthe progress made in related technological elds.

Although Kirkels and Verbong, (2011) portray the develop-ments since the 1990s as one on continuous growing interest ingasication, our study comes with a more differentiated conclu-sion. The paradigm shift between the 1990s and 2000s came witha refocusing on the more complicated clean-syngas production ofmedium caloric value. This resulted in a shift in manufacturersinvolved and a large variation in technologies. The attentionchanged from demo plants in the 1990s towards research, devel-opments and pilot plants after 2000. This indicates a set back withrespect to the perceived maturity of the technology and the time-to-market.

Our overview indicates how the community evolved. In the1980s it was an upcoming community within the energy frombiomass eld. It mainly involved researchers, governments andinstitutions. Over the 1990s the community broadened and

Table 4Characterization of technological development of advanced biomass gasiers.

1980s methanol as fuel 1990s-2004 IGCC for power Since 2000 biofuels

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

IGCC as high-efciency biomass-to-powertechnology 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

Biofuels to address global warming, oil dependencyand 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

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182 179

starting to involve more heterogeneous actors, including someutilities and feedstock companies. After 2000 we saw the upcom-ing interest by automotive and petrochemical industry. Over thisperiod, the biomass gasication community became embedded ina much broader community working on biofuels.

With respect to dominant research themes and lessons learned,our study shows that initially biomass gasication was perceivedto be a new technology that would not be hard to master. Whenactors became aware that both the feedstock and the technologywere more complex, more fundamental studies started to beconducted. Also gas cleaning turned out to be most relevant andnot easy to handle. With the attention shifting to demo plants,initially in the 1990s and later after 2000, other aspects started toreceive attention: biomass feeding, system integration, up scalingand improving economics all of which we perceive as quitetypical for this stage of plant development, as compared to, forexample, the development of uid bed combustion (Koornneefet al., 2007; Watson, 1997).

Variation can be important for technological development, as itis a way of overcoming uncertainty, diversify learning experiencesand as such contribute to a more robust technological develop-ment. Our study shows that especially early on in each period,characterized by the upcoming social and political interest in thetechnology, a wide variety of ideas were plugged. Only over timethese aligned when government applied pre-selection of technol-ogies to support and pursue within their RD&D programs.

But also within these programs there was large technologicalvariation. One source of this variation seems to be rm specicdifferences 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 USAand the European Commission. Both are characterized by rela-tively large budgets and explicitly supported multiple technologiesin parallel. Especially after 2000 we see large variation that can beexplained by multiple factors: the market that does not have aclear preference on what biofuels to produce; the technology ofthe 1990s (air-blown uid bed) that probably was most mature atthe time, but there was no consensus whether it would be theappropriate technology to produce clean syngas on large scale;and the maturing over time of other gasication technologies, likeentrained ow and hybrid technologies.

As such, we conclude that lack of progress in the eld ofgasication is unlikely to be caused by lack of variation. On thecontrary, for the period after 2000 the level of variation raisesconcerns of too much variation, which would result in lack of focusand scattered funding. However, a normative measure of whatlevel of variation is suitable is lacking. So far, from literature we didnot pick up any major signals that the level of variation wasproblematic.

A nal aspect that draws our attention is the long developmenttime of several decades. In addition, according to IEA, (2011) it stillrequires decades to prove the gasication-to-biofuels technologyand come to a reasonable diffusion in the market. Long develop-ment times are quite typical for energy and process plants andmore specic for gasication-related technologies, as these arecomplex and systemic technologies that are to a signicant extentknowledge driven (Martin, 1996; Watson, 1997; Harmsen, 2000).

Our study suggests that these long lead times are hard tomanage or even survive by companies depending on an immaturetechnology and government support especially given thedynamic socio-economic context. Innovation literature suggestsreducing uncertainties by variation (robust technological develop-ment) and by institutionalizing efforts e.g. by providing stableframeworks and consistent policies. In our case of biomassgasication both were applied: variation we already discussed indetail; while institutionalization was provided by RD&D programs

and more recently biofuel legislation. However, our case alsoshows the limitations of both approaches to overcome the impactof socio-economic dynamics over a long time frame of decades.This case touches upon the inherent uncertainties of these longterm innovation processes. It is a warning, especially for policymakers and innovation scientists, against belief in easy solutionsand too optimistic views of steering long term innovationprocesses.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Geert Verbong and two anonymousreviewers for providing me with constructive feedback and sug-gestions 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 biofuelsdemonstration facilities in June 2010. IEA Bioenergy Task 39

Bain, R.L., 1993. Electricity from biomass in the United States: status and futuredirections. 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 ofbiomass 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.), Ther-mochemical processing of biomass. Buttersworths, London, pp. 319325 (Red)

Beenackers, A.,Maniatis, K. (1993/1994). Gas cleaning in electricity production viagasication 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 artreview. In: Bridgwater, A. (Ed.), Thermochemical processing of biomass. Butter-worths, London, pp. 91136 (Red)

Beenackers, A., van Swaaij, W. (1990). Gasication of biomass. Need for furtherR&D. Biomass for energy and industry, 5th EC conference 1989 (pp. 2.524-2.533).Brussels and Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities/ElsevierApplied Science.

Beenackers, A., van Swaaij, W., 1986. Introduction to the biomass to synthesis gaspilot plant programme of the C.E.C. and a rst evaluation of results. In:Beenackeers, A., van Swaaij, W. (Eds.), Advanced gasication. Solar energyR&D in the European Community, energy from biomass, 8. Commission of theEuropean Communities, Brussels and Luxembourg, pp. 227 (Red).

Beenackers, A., van Swaaij, W. (1983). Methanol from wood, a state of the artreview. Energy from biomass, 2nd EC conference 1982 (pp. 782-798). Brusselsand Luxembourg: ECSC. EEC, EA EC/Applied Science Publishers.

Blomkvist, G., Liinanki, L., Lindman, N., Sjberg, S.-O. (1983). Swedish gasicationresearch and process development at RIT. Energy from biomass, 2nd ECConference 1982 (pp. 896-900). Brussels and Luxembourg: Commission of theEuropean 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 feasibilityof wood gascation for power generation. Consultants on process engineeringLtd, Knowle

Bridgwater, A., 1995. The technical and economic feasibility of biomass gasicationfor power generation. Fuel, 631653

Bridgwater, A., 1984. The thermochemical processing system. In: Bridgwater, A.(Ed.), Thermochemical processing of biomass. University of Aston/Butter-worths, Birmingham/London, pp. 3552 (Red)

Bridgwater, A., Evans, G., 1993. An assessment of thermochemical conversionsystems for processing biomass and refuse. Aston University/DK Teknik

CHESF; CIENTEC, CVRD, ELECTROBAS, Shell Brasil, Shell International PetroleumCompany. (1995). Brazilian BIG-GT demonstration project (WBP). Technologyselection - nal report..

Ciferno, J.P., Marano, J.J., 2002. Benchmarking Biomass Gasication Technologies forFuels, Chemicals and Hydrogen Production. US Department of Energy, NETL

Connor, M., Diebold, J., Sjstrm, K. (1997). Workshop on the fundamentals ofthermochemical biomass conversion. In A. Bridgwater, & D. Boocock (Red.),

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182180

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: activitiesand strategies. Twelfth European biomass conference. Biomass for energy, industryand climate protection. (pp. 10-16). Florence: ETA Florence and WIP Munich.

De Lange, H., Barbucci, P., 1998. The Thermie Energy Farm project. Biomass andBioenergy, 219224

Diebold, J., Stevens, D., 1989. Progress in pyrolysis and gasication of biomass: anoverview of research in the United States. In: Ferrero, G., Maniatis, K., Buekens, A.,Brigwater, A. (Eds.), Pyrolysis and Gasication, Luxembourg 1989. Elsevier AppliedScience/EEC, London and New York/Brussels and Luxembourg, pp. 1427 (Red)

Dosi, G., 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggestedinterpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. ResearchPolicy, 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 theGreenest. Evolutionary economics and policies for energy innovation. 6thConference of the European Society for Ecological Economics. Lissabon.

Fleck, J., 1994. Learning by trying: the implementation of congurational technol-ogy. 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-developmenttrajectories: 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, Inter-laken 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/EdizioniEsagono - Sesto San Giovanni, Brussels/Luxembourg

Grassi, G., Bridgwater, A., 1993. The opportunities for electricity production frombiomass by advanced thermal conversion technologies. Biomass and Bioenergy,339345

Grassi, G., Pirrwitz, D. (1983). The European Community0s research and develop-ment 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. Bridg-water (Red.), Pyrolysis and gasication of biomass and waste, proceedings of anexpert 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 theEuropean Union. Chalmers University of Technology, Gteborg

Hellsmark, H., Jacobsson, S., 2012. Realising the potential of gasied biomass in theEuropean Union - policy challenges in moving from demonstration plants to alarger scale diffusion. Energy Policy, 507518

Hodam, R., Williams, R., Lesser, M., 1982. Engineering and economic characteristicsof commercial wood gasiers in North America. Hodam & Associates, Inc.Golden, Colorado: SERI, Solar Energy Research Institute

Hogan, E., 1993. Overview of Canadian thermochemical biomass conversionactivities Advances in thermochemical biomass conversion, 1992 InterlakenSwitzerland. Blackie Academic or Professional, Glasgow, pp. 1525

Hogan, E. (1992). Thermochemical conversion R&D activities in Canada. Biomass forenergy, 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 energyreviews, 157182

Johansson, T., 1993. Biomass-based power generation in Europe. On the technicaland economical feasibility of wood production, and wood gasication for gasturbine 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 ScienticLimited, 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 inthe European Union. Ofce for Ofcial Publications of the European Commu-nities, Luxembourg

Kirkels, A., 2012. Discursive shifts in energy from biomass: a 30 year Europeanoverview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41054115

Kirkels, A., Verbong, G., 2011. Biomass gasication: still promising? A 30 year globaloverview. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 471481

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 alternativetransportation fuels. Energy, 859870

Knoef, Harrie, 2005. Handbook Biomass Gasication. BTG biomass technologygroup, 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. BioresourceTechnology, 95101

Koornneef, J., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., 2007. Development of uidized bed combus-tion - an overview of trends, performance and cost. Progress in Energy andCombustion Science, 1955

Kurkela, E., Stahlberg, P., Laatikainen, J., Simell, P., 1993. Development of simpliedIGCC-processes for biofuels: supporting gasication research at VTT. Biore-source Technology, 3747

Larson, E., Svenningsson, P., Bjerle, I., 1989. Biomass gasication for gas turbinepower generation. In: Johansson, T., Bodlund, B., Williams, R. (Eds.), Electricity.Efcient end-use and new generation technologies, and their planning implica-tions. Lund University Press, Lund, pp. 697739 (Red)

Lightner, V. (2009, June). U.S. Department of Energy, Biomass Program, growingAmerica0s energy future. Opgeroepen op December 2012, van Biomass Researchand Development: http://www.usbiomassboard.gov/pdfs/doe_budget_overview_biomass_program_valri_lightnerjg.pdf.

Maniatis, K., 1998. Overview of EU Thermie gasication projects. Power productionfrom 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 inbiomass and waste thermochemical conversion. In A. Bridgwater (Red.),Pyrolysis and gasication of biomass and waste, proceedings of an expert meeting2002 (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 workshop0Applications for thermochemical processes0 . Developments in thermochemicalbiomass conversion (pp. 1631-1635). London: Blackie Academic & Professional/Chapman & Hall.

Martin, J.-M., 1996. Energy technologies: systemic aspects, technological trajec-tories, and institutional frameworks. Technological Forecasting and SocialChange, 8195

Miles, T., Miles, T.j, 1989. Overview of Biomass Gasication in the USA. Biomass, 163168Nelson, 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, USAPalonen, J., Lundqvist, R., Stahl, K., 1996. IGCC technology and demonstration. In:

Sipil, K., Korhonen, M. (Eds.), Power production from biomass II with specialemphasis on gasication and pyrolysis R&DD. VTT, Espoo, pp. 4154 (Red)

Piterou, A., Shackley, S., Upham, P., 2008. Project ARBRE: lessons for bio-energydevelopers and policy makers. Energy Policy, 20442050

Raven, R., 2006. Towards alternative trajectories? Recongurations in the Dutchelectricity regime. Research Policy, 581595

Reed, T., 1980. A survey of biomass gasication. Volume III - Current technology andresearch. 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 byadvanced technologies. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels andLuxembourg, pp. 6579 (Red)

Rensfelt, E., Gobel, B., 2003. Strategies for development and implementation ofbiomass 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.), Humanchoice and climate change, 2. Batelle Press, Columbus, pp. 327399 (Red).

Rsch, C., Kaltschmitt, M., Dinkelbach, L., 1998. Research, development and demon-stration. In: Kaltschmitt, M., Rsch, C., Dinkelbach, L. (Eds.), Biomass gasicationin Europe. European Commission, Brussels/Luxembourg, pp. 159182 (Red)

Salo, K., 1998. Kotka Ecopower IGCC-project, the attempt to transfer the Biocycleproject to Finland. Biomass and bioenergy, 225228

Salo, K., Kernen, H., 1996. Biomass IGCC. In: Sipil, K., Korhonen, M. (Eds.), Powerproduction from biomass II with special emphasis on gasication and pyrolysisR&DD. VTT, Espoo, pp. 2339 (Red)

Salo, K., Patel, J., 1997. Integrated gasication combined cycle based on pressurizeduidized bed gasication. In: Bridgwater, A., Boocock, D. (Eds.), Developmentsin thermochemical biomass conversion. Blackie Academic & Professional/Chapmann & Hall, London, pp. 9941005 (Red)

Schiefelbein, G., 1989. Biomass thermal gasication research: recent results fromthe United States DOE's research program. Biomass, 145159

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182 181

Shand, R., Bridgwater, A., 1984. Fuel gas from biomass: status and new modellingapproaches. 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: ElsevierScience Publisher/Commission of the European Communities.

Solantausta, Y., Bridgwater, A., Beckman, D., 1995. Feasibility of power productionwith pyrolysis and gasication systems. Biomass and Bioenergy, 257269

Sorda, G., Banse, M., Kemfert, C., 2010. An overview of biofuel policies across theworld. Energy Policy, 69776988

Stassen, H., van Swaaij, W. (1982). Application of biomass gasication in developingcountries. Energy from biomass, 2nd E.C. Conference (pp. 705-714). Brussels andLuxembourg: Commission of the European Communities/Applied SciencePublishers.

Stevens, D., 1992. Biomass conversion: an overview of the IEA Bioenergy Agree-ment Task VII. Biomass and Bioenergy, 213227

Stevens, J., 1994. Review and Analysis of the 1980-1989 Biomass ThermochemicalConversion 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 ofbiomass. Butterworths, pp. 110 (Red)

U.S. Department of Energy (DoE). (april 1992). Electricity from biomass, a develop-ment strategy. DoE.

Waldheim, L. (May 2012). IEA Biomass Agreement Task 33, Country report Sweden2012. Waldheim Consulting.

Watson, W. (1997). Constructing success in the electric power industry: combinedcycle gas turbines and uidised beds (PhD thesis). Sussex: SPRU, University ofSussex.

Wiln, C., Kurkela, E., 1998. Biomass gasication in Finland. In: Kaltschmitt, M.,Rsch, C., Dinkelbach, L. (Eds.), Biomass gasication in Europe. EuropeanCommission, Brussels/Luxembourg, pp. 113132 (Red)

Williams, R., Larson, E., 1993. Advanced gasication based biomass power genera-tion. In: Johansson, T., Kelly, H., Reddy, A., Williams, R. (Eds.), Renewableenergy. 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-useand new generation technologies, and their planning implications. LundUniversity Press, Lund, pp. 503553 (Red)

A.F. Kirkels / Energy Policy 68 (2014) 170182182

Punctuated continuity: The technological trajectory of advanced biomass gasifiersIntroductionConceptual frameworkMethodology1970s and 1980s: methanol as transport fuel1990s to 2004: IGCC for high-efficiency power generationAfter 2000: biofuelsConclusions and discussionAcknowledgementReferences