ISBUC

1

• The feasibility of implementing gasification
  technology in the sugar industry
• an Australian perspective
• P.A. Hobson

ISBUC Third meeting Mauritius 29 June 3
July 2009
2
The feasibility of implementing gasification
technology in the sugar industry an Australian
perspective

• Gasification initial interest
• Drivers
• Preliminary studies
• Queensland Biomass Integrated Gasification
  program
• Development of the business plan
• Outcomes from the QBIG program
• Subsequent work
• Current directions
• Pre-processing of bagasse (torrefaction)
• Second generation biofuels

3
Gasification some preliminary studies

• Early 1980s Tests commissioned on catalytic
  gasification for methanol production (Battelle
  Labs, US)
• Renewable Energy (2000) Act
• Mandated 2 new renewable(9500 GWhe) capacity by
  2010 continuing to 2020
• 40 per MWh penalty for not meeting renewable
  power targets
• Preliminary SRI study on integrating gasification
  and factory operations (1998)
• Two-fold increase in power generation relative to
  conventional steam
• Precursor to Queensland Biomass Integrated
  Gasification project
• Australian milling industry and Sugar Research
  and Development Corporation

4
Preliminary study- impact of factory process
steam (2 M tonne crop)
5
Preliminary study- impact of additional fuel on
power generation efficiency
6
Preliminary study- year round power generation
with additional fuel from trash(2 M tonne crop)

• Crushing season
• Minimum bagasse consumed to meet process demands
• Sufficient surplus bagasse/ trash stored to fully
  utilise gasifier and GT in off-season
• Off-season
• All stored bagasse consumed

7
Preliminary study- whole of (Australian) industry
export capacityCrop size 37 M tonnes
8
Preliminary study - site visits

• Varnamo, Sweden
• Sydkraft
• 6MWe/ 9MWth
• 22 bara, CFB
• Maui island, Hawaii
• IGT technology
• 100 tons/ day
• 21 bara, BFB
• Burlington, US
• Battelle technology
• 200 tons/ day
• 2 bara, indirect CFB
• Morwell, Australia
• HRL technology
• 5 Mwe GT
• 25 bara, CFB

9
Preliminary study HRL IDGCC (brown coal)
technology
10
Preliminary study some conclusions

• Approximately 100 increase in power export
• Pressurised BIG/CC appropriate to Australian
  industry
• Higher capital cost offset by greater efficiency
  for BIG/CC installations greater than 50 MWe
• All mills would have a BIG/CC capacity gt 50 MWe
• For maximum efficiency potential
• Process steam demand lt 40 SOC or
• An additional 25 fibre
• Pressurised feeding of bagasse is problematic
• Low bulk density compared with other biomass
• Bagasse binds in screw feed systems
• Large amount of additional fibre to fully utilise
  capacity in off-season
• Additional 66 of existing bagasse supply
• Approximately 350,000 tonnes storage for 2 M
  tonne factory

11
Development of the QBIG program

• Project team
• Formed prior to development of scoping study
• Team members
• Power Industry - Stanwell Corporation Ltd
• State Government Office of Energy
• RD providers SRI, University of Queensland
• Scoping study/ business case
• Critical assessment of conversion technologies
• Evaluation of power export potential and GHG
  mitigation
• Fully costed research plan
• Study externally reviewed
• Secured funding
• A 5m
• Power industry and State Government

12
Queensland Biomass Integrated Gasification
program (QBIG)

• Initiated in 2000
• Ultimate aim of commercial demonstration of high
  pressure BIGCC
• Phase I Strong focus on sugar industry specific
  feasibility issues
• Bagasse gasification kinetics
• Pressurised feeding
• Ash characterisation
• Fuel availability
• Financial viability
• Phase II - Demonstration

13
QBIG Gasification kinetics

• Bench scale reactor
• 900 C
• 25 bara
• Entrained flow
• Departure from TGA
• Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model
• Implementation of char reactivity data
• Assist Phase II design

• Focus on char
• Initial char yield
• Subsequent char gasification rate

14
QBIG Pressurised feeder

• Bagasse particularly difficult to feed!
• Continuous feeder developed
• Tested to 25 barg
• Minimal leakage with bagasse
• Leakage problems with bagasse/ woodchip blend
• Demonstrated at 75 of 15 MWth
  commercial demonstration scale

• Design criteria
• High volume
• Continuous
• High pressure
• Sealed

15
QBIG fuel availability

• Whole of cane biomass harvesting
• Factory separation
• QBIG separator
• Demonstrated at commercial scale (150 tch)
• Low cane losses (lt 1)
• High trash recovery (98)

16
QBIG Financial viability

• Multiple scenarios - factory integration, fuel
  and operational
• Conventional steam and IG/CC compared
• Conversion of existing boiler to HRSG reduces
  capex for IGCC
• Steam plant dominated by fuel costs, IG/CC by
  capital costs
• Figures below based on 2000 2002 costs
  revenues (very different now!)

17
QBIG Outcomes

• Phase I
• Essentially complete
• Ash characterisation deferred to phase II
• Phase II
• Australian renewable energy target scheme
  inadequate
• Value of RECs lower than anticipated
• Initial projections of A40 per MWh
• Actual value dropped to A16 per MWh
• Bid at the time to increase 2 federal target to
  5 rejected
• Escalating capital costs
• Decision by main stakeholders not to proceed

18
Integration of gasification in the Australian
sugar industry

• Major feasibility study
• Federal and Queensland state funded Sugar
  Industry Renewable Energy program
• Industry-wide staged introduction
• Technical and financial analysis
• Some findings include
• Confirms QBIG economic study
• Optimum mix of conventional and IG/CC power would
  deliver 66 of the federal renewable target of
  9500 GWh
• Capex 2.8 times conventional steam - a major
  impediment
• High cost of trash at A15 - A25 per tonne
  reduces IG/CC viability
• Lapse of federal governments renewable energy
  target in 2020 provides insufficient revenue
  certainty for emerging technology

19
Current directions whats changed?

• Mandated Renewable Energy Target
• Originally 9,500 GWh new capacity
• Extended to 45,000 GWh by 2020
• Carbon Pollution Reduction scheme
• Implementation by 2010
• Emissions reduction relative to 2000
• Long-term target 60 by 2050.
• Medium-term 5 to25 by 2020.

20
Current directions

• Diversification - value adding to fibre
• Current projects at QUT - fuel and chemicals
• Flash pyrolysis for furfural production
• Biorefinery demonstration plant
• Ionic liquids for fractionation
• Value adding to lignin
• Hydrolysis of cellulose to C6 sugars
  fermentation to ethanol
• Direct liquefaction of bagasse
• Hydrothermal liquefaction for bagasse
  fractionation
• Phenolic compounds from lignin
• Levulinic acid from cellulose
• Torrefaction
• Use of catalysts to reduce residence time
• Impact of pre-processing on supply chain
  logistics and costs

21
Gasification technology

• Flexible power, fuels, chemicals
• Efficient
• Power export increased by factor of 2.5
• 330 L ethanol per tonne dry fibre
• 140 L diesel per tonne dry fibre
• Issues
• Lack of commercial demonstration
• Economies of scale
• Material handling
• Transport
• Large scale storage
• Feeding

22
Torrefaction as a pre-process - strategic
advantage

• Coal-like energy density and handling properties
• Capitalises on decades of coal technology
  development
• Synergies with short and long term development
  horizons
• Conventional power generation (co-firing)
• Advanced cycle power generation (IG/CC,
  pressurised combustion)
• Coal to liquid fuel production (Fischer Tropsch
  hydrocarbons and alcohols)
• Emerging technologies (supercritical
  gasification, direct liquefaction,
  hydropyrolysis)
• Low technical and commercial risk
• Engineering challenge reduced to development of
  a low pressure/ temperature pre-process
• Utilisation of significant existing coal RD
  facilities

23
The torrefaction process

• 200 - 300C
• Near atmospheric pressure
• Absence of air
• Residence time of 10 30 mins
• Volatilisation of hemicellulose component
• Feedstock thickness lt 4cm
• Heating rate
• lt50C/min

off-gas
30
10
torrefied product
dry biomass
100
70
Torrefaction
90
100
90
1.3
Energy densification 1 x
70
Energy
Mass
24
Torrefied biomass

• Typically 24 MJ/kg (HHV)
• Hydrophobic (maintains 3 moisture)
• Stable in long term storage
• Friable
• 10 of the comminution energy required for
  untreated biomass
• Compatible with conventional coal milling
  equipment
• Readily pelletised
• 50 of energy required to pelletise raw biomass
• High residual lignin (bonding agent)
• Volatiles retained
• 50 to 60 volatiles retained
• Rapid combustion/ gasification
• A smokeless fuel

25
Comparison with other pre-processes

• Supply chain study by Uslu (et al., 2008)
• Process efficiency
• Torrefied and then Pelletised Bagasse (TPB) - 94
• Pelletised biomass - 84
• Bio-oil (from flash pyrolysis) - 64
• Cost of biofuel production using TPB
• 86 of cost using pelletised biomass
• 63 of cost using pyrolysis

26
Comparison of pelletised torrefied biomass (TOP)
with pelletised and unprocessed biomass1

• 1Kiel, J. (2007) IEA Bioenergy Task 32 workshop
  Fuel storage, handling and preparation and
  system analysis for biomass combustion
  technologies, Berlin

27
Preliminary financial evaluation
Torrefaction plant
Fischer Tropsch (FT) diesel
Mill A
Biomass to liquid fuel (BTL) plant
Mill B
55
Year round operation
Mill C
110
Maintenance season
Mill D
165
Crushing season
Mill E
220 km
28
Torrefaction - material inputs
29
Torrefaction - financial inputs
30
Storage transport costs
31
Gasification and biofuel production

• Conversion efficiencies (energy basis)
• Biomass to syngas 80
• Syngas to FT diesel 71
• Capital cost based on Boerrigter (2006)
• Assumed same as CTL1 costs after pre-processing
• CTL estimated by inflating known GTL2 costs
• Additional reactor costs
• Additional oxygen enrichment
• Operating fixed percentage of capex
• Assume long term 50 excise discount or
  equivalent for renewable fuels

1CTL Coal to liquid fuels 2GTL Gas to
liquid fuels
32
Diesel production costs
33
Impact of pre-processing on gasification costs

• TPB has lower transport costs than bagasse for
  distances greater than 100 km
• Break-even (15 IRR) oil price for diesel
  production
• 97 US/ bbl without local TPB production and
  transport
• 76 US/ bbl with local TPB production and
  transport
• Potential for further reduction in costs
• Accessing TPB from greater distances (i.e. gt 200
  km)
• TPB from biomass sources other than bagasse
• Co-firing in CTL plants (e.g. SASOL)
• Integration of advanced cycle power plants (IG/CC)

34
In conclusion ...

• Development of a good business case worth doing
  well but can be a costly process
• Ideally syndicate members should be identified
  prior to preparation of the business case
• Peer review prior to issue
• Robust financial analysis investigating key
  drivers
• Look for highest value end product
• Focus RDD on sugar industry specific issues
• Should be technically well differentiated from
  other/ previous projects
• Minimise technical risk - look for opportunities
  to utilize proven/ commercial technology

35
Acknowledgements

• Compagnie Sucrière du Sud and Queensland
  University of Technology for their sponsorship
• Jean Claude Autrey and Manoel Regis Leal for the
  invitation to attend this meeting

36
Thank you