Commercializing New Biomass Energy Technologies - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Commercializing New Biomass Energy Technologies PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 75ca0a-NzM0M



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Commercializing New Biomass Energy Technologies

Description:

Commercializing New Biomass Energy Technologies Eric D. Larson Princeton Environmental Institute Princeton University USA International Society of Sugar Cane ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:44
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 40
Provided by: A822
Learn more at: http://www.issct.org
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Commercializing New Biomass Energy Technologies


1
Commercializing New Biomass Energy Technologies
  • Eric D. Larson
  • Princeton Environmental Institute
  • Princeton University
  • USA

International Society of Sugar Cane
Technologists International Sugarcane Biomass
Utilization Consortium Third Meeting, 28 June 1
July, 2009 Shandrani Resort, Mauritius
2
My goals in this talk
  • Discuss context for a new sugarcane-biomass
    energy technology initiative.
  • Overview of thermochemical and biochemical
    biomass conversion technologies.
  • Discuss gasification-based technologies and
    economics, including co-gasification of biomass
    with coal and CO2 capture and storage.
  • Provide some technology cost and performance
    estimates that might be useful for
    back-of-envelope project calculations.
  • Wrap-up thoughts/questions for further ISBUC
    discussions.

3
What Future Oil Prices ?
Low Price, Reference Case, and High Price
projections are from the U.S. Department of
Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual
Energy Outlook 2009 (March 2009). Subsequently
(April 2009) EIA revised Reference Case
projection to reflect expectation that world
recession would last longer than expected in AEO
2009.
4
Climate Change Issues/Opportunities
  • To avoid dangerous climate change (?T gt 2oC),
    global GHG emissions by 2050 must be
  • ½ current emissions level, or
  • Less than ¼ of projected 2050 business-as-usual
    emissions.
  • IEA projects GHG emissions price in 2030 in OECD
  • 90/t for 550 ppmv stabilization
  • 180/t for 450 ppmv stabilization
  • Biomass will become much more valuable (including
    possibility for negative GHG emissions when
    biomass is used with CO2 capture and storage
    (CCS).

Source International Energy Agency, Energy
Technology Perspectives, 2008
5
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on CCS
  • Based on observations and analysis of current CO2
    storage projects (several storing 106 tCO2/yr),
    natural systems, engineering systems, and models
  • CO2 injected underground is very likely to stay
    there for gt 100 yrs.
  • CO2 injected underground is likely to stay there
    gt 1000 yrs.
  • Large potential for CO2 storage in deep
    sedimentary basins

Source B. Metz, O.Davidson, H. de Coninck, M.
Loos, and L. Meyer (eds.), Figure SPM.6b in
Summary for Policymakers, IPCC Special Report
on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage,Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2005.
6
Parallels Between Coal IGCC and BIG/GT
Development?
  • Coal gasification proponents say coal-IGCC is
    superior to conventional technology options
  • higher efficiency than conventional coal power
    plants.
  • Inherently much lower air emissions than
    conventional power plants.
  • electricity generating cost in U.S. not higher
    than new conventional coal plant.
  • But IGCC is not a routine commercial option for
    new coal power (despite first major demonstration
    in 1970s) because
  • Conventional plants can meet emissions
    regulations with add-on investments.
  • Many existing coal plants are already paid off
    (esp in U.S.), so existing generating costs are
    much lower than for a new conventional coal
    plant.
  • IGCC experience is not yet sufficient to ensure
    low level of risk that goes with new conventional
    coal plant.
  • Lesson new technology must offer significantly
    better economics or opportunity to justify taking
    risks needed to establish it in market.
  • Coal gasification is widely practiced in China,
    but for chemicals.
  • Analogy the PC did not replace the typewriter
    because it significantly improves typing it
    provides many other benefits.

7
New context for thinking about sugarcane biomass
energy
  • High oil (and natural gas) prices likely to be
    sustained
  • energy insecurity in U.S. and China are driving
    big investments in new technologies for transport
    fuels from biomass and coal.
  • Some major private sector players are getting
    involved, e.g. Shell, BP, GE, Sasol, others.
  • Awareness of need for urgent action on climate
    change is growing rapidly (COP 15 - Copenhagen
    will continue to build this awareness).
  • Gasification power from biomass that has only
    marginal economic benefits may not be compelling
    enough reason for commercializing biomass
    gasification liquid fuels or co-production
    appear more promsing.

8
Basic Biomass Conversion Options
advanced technology options
Ethanol
Biochemical
Alt. Liquid fuels
Bagasse, Trash
Gasification
Electricity
B
D
Combustion
Electricity
9
Biochemical conversion of biomass
Raw Biomass
Pretreatment
Ethanol
Recovery Distillation
Fermentation
Hydrolysis
Solids separation
Steam power generation
Enzyme production
Process steam electricity
  • Current technology
  • Separate pretreatment ? hydrolysis using
    purchased enzymes (cellulases) to liberate C5 and
    C6 sugars ? C6 fermentation.
  • C5 fermentation has been demonstrated at pilot
    scale.
  • Near future technology
  • Pretreatment combined enzyme hydrolysis and
    fermentation
  • More future technology
  • Consolidated bioprocessing one reactor for
    enzyme production, hydrolysis, fermentation.
  • May 2009 study from U.S. National Academy of
    Sciences
  • Ethanol yield with current known technology 260
    liters/dry t biomass
  • Future-technology yield 330 liters/dry t biomass

10
Gasification-based conversion of biomass
11
Biofuel substitutes for ?
Conventional Fuel
Ethanol
Gasoline
Mixed alcohols
Diesel
Methanol / MTG
LPG
Fischer Tropsch
Paraffin
Dimethyl ether
Kerosene
Biocrude
Crude oil
HYDROLYSIS
GASIFICATION
12
Fuels that can be made via gasification
  • Fischer-Tropsch Liquids (FTL)
  • Diesel substitute naphtha/gasoline co-product
  • Technology from 1930s, large interest in
    coal-to-FT today
  • Dimethyl ether (DME)
  • Similar to LPG (25 blend with LPG acceptable)
  • Excellent diesel fuel, but needs pressurized fuel
    systems
  • Large production from coal in China, Iran
  • Substitute natural gas (SNG)
  • Syngas methanation technology is commercial
  • Low temperature of biomass gasification favors
    CH4
  • Hydrogen (H2)
  • Technology for H2 from syngas is commercial
  • Can provide the H2 needed for NH3 production

13
Comparing thermochemical and biochemical systems
Thermochem Biochem
Process sensitive to feedstock type/quality? No Yes
Fuel/power/chemicals flexibility? High Low
Drop-in fuels to replace petroleum fuels? Yes Maybe
Potential for co-processing with coal? High Low
CCS potential with liquid fuels production Higher Lower
Commercial or near-commercial components? Yes No
RD advances needed to achieve potential? No Yes
Significant RD efforts ongoing (in U.S.)? No Yes
Ready for commercial-scale demonstration? Yes No
Familiar to sugarcane biomass industry? No Yes
Projected specific investment costs for fuels? Higher Lower
Black technology features Red development
status Blue key hurdles
14
Gasification-based fuels from biomass and/or coal
  • All conversion component technologies are
    commercial (or near-commercial in the case of
    biomass gasification).
  • CO2 removal is intrinsic part of the process.
  • Projects to demonstrate CO2 capture from coal and
    storage at mega-scale (gt 106 tCO2/yr injection)
    are in active development in USA, Europe,
    Australia, and China will require 10 years to
    gain confidence needed for widespread
    implementation.

15
CCS for biomass
  • Coal is target for most CCS developments, but if
    CCS works for coal, it can also be considered for
    biomass
  • With CCS, biomass goes from carbon neutral to
    carbon-negative as a result of geological
    storage of photosynthetic CO2.
  • Attractive approach co-process biomass with
    coal
  • Economies of scale of coal conversion.
  • Low cost of coal as feedstock.
  • Negative CO2 emissions of biomass offsets
    unavoidable coal-derived CO2 ? net-zero GHG
    emission fuel can be produced.
  • One commercial operation already co-gasifying
    coal and biomass (Buggenum IGCC, Netherlands) for
    power generation several U.S. projects in
    development for fuels.

16
Three designs for coal/biomass co-processing with
CCS.
17
Coal/Biomass co-processing for Fischer-Tropsch
diesel and gasoline, with CO2 capture for storage
18
Carbon/GHG flows for coal/biomass system with
CCS.40 of input energy from biomass gives 0
GHG emissions
19
Net lifecycle GHG emissions with alternative
fuels from coal and/or biomass relative to
petroleum-derived fuels
20
Amount of biomass needed with different
technologies to make fuels having zero net
lifecycle GHG emissions
  • One liter of fuel from biomass via thermochemical
    or biochemical processing requires about same
    amount of biomass feedstock.
  • Co-processing biomass with coal to make a liter
    of zero-GHG liquid fuels requires half or less as
    much biomass as a pure biofuel.

21
Yields of low/zero net GHG liquid fuels per t
biomass

  • Pure biomass cases with CCS (BTL-RC-CCS and
    BTG-RC-CCS) have strong negative GHG emissions,
    so some petroleum-derived fuel can be used and
    still have overall GHG emissions 0.

22
Production costs (Nth plant) for alternative
biomass-based liquid fuels.
100/bbl crude oil
Petroleum gasoline
50/bbl crude oil
per liter of gasoline equivalent (2007)
Assumptions Biomass input rate 1500 dry t/day
biomass price, 1.5/GJHHV coal price,
1.7/GJHHV capital charge rate 0.15/yr.
23
Production costs (Nth plant) for alternative
biomass-based liquid fuels.
Capex (106 2007) Gasoline eq (bbl/d) Power (MWe) GHG (vs. oil)
B-FTL 363 2178 15.7 -0.14
B-FTL-CCS 370 2178 11.1 -1.35
C/B-FTL-CCS 718 4936 34.1 -0.02
C/B-FTL-El-CCS 740 4002 126 -0.01
Ethanol 156 1941 2.0 0.17
Ethanol-CCS 158 1941 0.6 -0.22
100/bbl crude oil
Petroleum gasoline
50/bbl crude oil
per liter of gasoline equivalent (2007)
Assumptions Biomass input rate 1500 dry t/day
biomass price, 1.5/GJHHV coal price,
1.7/GJHHV capital charge rate 0.15/yr.
Ethanol from U.S. National Academy of Sciences
study (May 2009), which projects achievable
future yield of 334 lit/dry tonne switchgrass
with capex as indicated above. FTL estimates are
based on analysis by Princeton Univ. researchers
(e.g., see paper from Pittsburgh Coal Conference
2008, www.princeton.edu/pei/energy/publications)
24
Production costs (Nth plant) for alternative
biomass-based liquid fuels.
Capex (106 2007) Gasoline eq (bbl/d) Power (MWe) GHG (vs. oil)
B-FTL 363 2178 15.7 -0.14
B-FTL-CCS 370 2178 11.1 -1.35
C/B-FTL-CCS 718 4936 34.1 -0.02
C/B-FTL-El-CCS 740 4002 126 -0.01
Ethanol 156 1941 2.0 0.17
Ethanol-CCS 158 1941 0.6 -0.22
100/bbl crude oil
Petroleum gasoline
50/bbl crude oil
per liter of gasoline equivalent (2007)
Assumptions Biomass input rate 1500 dry t/day
biomass price, 1.5/GJHHV coal price,
1.7/GJHHV capital charge rate 0.15/yr.
Ethanol from U.S. National Academy of Sciences
study (May 2009), which projects achievable
future yield of 334 lit/dry tonne switchgrass
with capex as indicated above. FTL estimates are
based on analysis by Princeton Univ. researchers
(e.g., see paper from Pittsburgh Coal Conference
2008, www.princeton.edu/pei/energy/publications)
25
Production costs (Nth plant) for alternative
biomass-based liquid fuels.
Capex (106 2007) Gasoline eq (bbl/d) Power (MWe) GHG (vs. oil)
B-FTL 363 2178 15.7 -0.14
B-FTL-CCS 370 2178 11.1 -1.35
C/B-FTL-CCS 718 4936 34.1 -0.02
C/B-FTL-El-CCS 740 4002 126 -0.01
Ethanol 156 1941 2.0 0.17
Ethanol-CCS 158 1941 0.6 -0.22
100/bbl crude oil
Petroleum gasoline
50/bbl crude oil
per liter of gasoline equivalent (2007)
Assumptions Biomass input rate 1500 dry t/day
biomass price, 1.5/GJHHV coal price,
1.7/GJHHV capital charge rate 0.15/yr.
Ethanol from U.S. National Academy of Sciences
study (May 2009), which projects achievable
future yield of 334 lit/dry tonne switchgrass
with capex as indicated above. FTL estimates are
based on analysis by Princeton Univ. researchers
(e.g., see paper from Pittsburgh Coal Conference
2008, www.princeton.edu/pei/energy/publications)
26
Investment estimate for gasifier-GTCC power (Nth
plant, U.S. site, 2007 prices)
Bagasse plus 50 of trash from 2 million tcane/yr
6 million tcane/yr
MW Electric Export to Grid ?
Investment cost ?
27
Electricity selling price for stand-alone
gasifier-GTCC power plant (Nth plant U.S. price
estimate)
Financial assumptions (U.S. conditions)
28
Some numbers potential yields from sugarcane
biomass
Liquid Fuels Production From 50 of bagasse
trash (0.14 tonnes dry biomass total per tc)
29
Mauritius potential electricity, fuels,
fertilizer from sugarcane
Potential ( of current) Current Actual ?
Electricity Generation (GWh/year) Electricity Generation (GWh/year) 2300
100 bar steam cycle 590 (26) 2300
BIG-GT power 1050 (46) 2300
Transport Fuel (106 liters/yr gasoline equivalent) Transport Fuel (106 liters/yr gasoline equivalent) 1300
Sugar ethanol 315 (24) 1300
Biomass ethanol 165 (13) 1300
Biomass FTL 194 (15) 1300
Coal/Biomass FTL 440 (34) 1300
Ammonia Fertilizer (tonnes of contained N) Ammonia Fertilizer (tonnes of contained N) Ammonia Fertilizer (tonnes of contained N)
Biomass ammonia 1,825,000 (200x) 8800
30
Summary thoughts
  • Gasification is technologically close to being
    commercial.
  • Economics of gasification for power have not been
    sufficient to get over the hump since idea
    first recognized 25 years ago.
  • Coal gasification (and past biomass IGCC)
    experience suggest gasification must provide
    disruptive benefits to succeed.
  • Electricity production may not be disruptive
    enough.
  • Liquid fuel production may be disruptive enough.
  • Gasification is well suited to make
    fuels/chemicals in addition to power.
  • Co-production of fuel and power may be most
    disruptive of all.
  • World oil price volatile co-production is a
    hedging strategy.
  • Strong GHG mitigation policy needed to avoid
    planetary overheating such policies will also
    help protect co-producer against oil price
    collapse.
  • Carbon-based fuels/power with low lifecycle GHG
    emissions will grow in value, and negative GHG
    emissions potential of biomass is likely to be
    high value in long term.
  • Gasification strategy that foresees it as
    technology platform for fuels/chemicals/ power
    co-production may provide a compelling motivation
    for commercialization.
  • Sugarcane industry is unique in having experience
    with large-scale biomass handling, with liquid
    fuels production, with power generation, and (in
    Mauritius) with coal use.
  • But commercializing gasification will require a
    big effort.

31
Past BIG-GT commercialization efforts
32
Challenges to commercializing biomass gasification
  • Engineering
  • Efficient biomass drying, e.g. using
    low-temperature waste heat
  • Gasifier feeding of bagasse/trash (more for
    pressurized gasification)
  • Tar cracking/gas cleaning
  • Operational reliability and availability
  • Financial
  • Finding the money
  • Demonstrating the competitiveness
  • Investment cost
  • OM cost
  • Fuel cost
  • Energy or product price
  • Institutional
  • Getting support from the right partners
    (engineering, finance, institutional)
  • Getting the right institutional and
    organizational arrangement to carry forward the
    demonstration and continue on to commercial
    deployment.

33
Some considerations for ISBUC
  • Past work (e.g., Arbre, Varnamo, and other
    projects) provides information needed to design a
    commercial-scale gasification installation.
  • A minimum scale is needed to be convincing as a
    commercial demonstration and to achieve
    acceptable economics. What should be the scale?
  • What should be produced? Power? Fuel? Power and
    Fuel?
  • How about co-processing biomass and coal in an
    already-commercial coal gasifier?
  • What are ISBUCs long-term objectives beyond a
    demonstration project?

34
  • Thank you!

35
Scale of Sugarcane Processing Plants in Southeast
Brazil
4000
3000
2000
Approximate dry t/day recoverable biomass
1000
0
Source UNICA, Ranking de Produção,www.unica.com.b
r/referencia/estatisticas.jsp
36
Fischer-Tropsch liquids (FTL) from coal w/ or w/o
CCS.
37
Fischer-Tropsch liquids (FTL) from biomass w/ or
w/o CCS
  • B-FTL, B-FTL-CCS

38
GHG Emissions of Alternative Biomass-Based Liquid
Fuels
39
Trajectory of GHG emissions price (in 2007
/tCO2eq) that translates to a levelized GHG
emissions price of 50/tCO2eq
Levelized GHG Emissions Price, 2016-2035
About PowerShow.com