DOCSLIB.ORG

Advanced Biofuels – Potential for Cost Reduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Advanced Biofuels – Potential for Cost Reduction IEA Bioenergy: Task 41: 2020:01 Advanced Biofuels – Potential for Cost Reduction Authors Adam Brown, Energy Insights Ltd, UK Lars Waldheim, Waldheim Consulting, Sweden Ingvar Landälv, Fuel & Energy Consulting, Sweden Jack Saddler, University of British Columbia, Canada, IEA Bioenergy Task 39 Mahmood Ebadian, University of British Columbia, Canada, IEA Bioenergy Task 39 James D. McMillan, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, USA, IEA Bioenergy Task 39 Antonio Bonomi, CNPEM, Brazil Bruno Klein, CNPEM, Brazil Acknowledgements. The work was carried out under Task 41 of the IEA Bioenergy Technology Cooperation Programme, and was made possible through funding provided by the European Commission, DG ENER, and through in kind contributions from Germany, Netherlands and Sweden. The Authors would like to thank Dr Kyriakos Maniatis, (European Commission, DG ENER) for providing help and guidance throughout the study. They also benefitted for advice and guidance from an Advisory Group made up of members of the IEA Bioenergy Executive Committee including Jim Spaeth (Chairman), Birger Kerckow, Kees Kwant, Åsa Forsum, Jonas Lindmark, Luc Pelkmans. They also received comments and help from a number of other experts including Franziska Műller -Langer (DBFZ Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum gemeinnützige GmbH, Germany), Patrick Lamers (NREL), Thomas Kolb and Nicolaus Dahmen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany). The Authors would al like to thank Stamatis Kalligeros (Hellenic Naval Academy) for assistance with the final layout and editing. They would also like to thank industry players who provided information and opinions for the study. They are acknowledged in the text. Copyright © 2020 IEA Bioenergy. All rights Reserved Published by IEA Bioenergy The IEA Bioenergy TCP is organised under the auspices of the International Energy Agency (IEA) but is functionally and legally autonomous. Views, findings and publications of the IEA Bioenergy TCP do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the IEA Secretariat or its individual member countries. Contents CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... 3 Figures ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 Tables ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 9 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 12 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 12 1.2 The Sub-Group for Advanced Biofuels (SGAB) Cost Study ......................................................... 13 1.3 Project objectives .................................................................................................................................. 13 2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 14 2.1 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Scope ......................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Data Analysis and Modelling .............................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Benchmarking Costs ............................................................................................................................. 16 3. INFORMATION ON CURRENT COSTS OF PRODUCTION ..................................... 16 3.1 HVO ............................................................................................................................................................ 17 3.2 Bio-methane via anaerobic digestion .............................................................................................. 18 3.3 Ethanol from lignocellulosic sugar via fermentation .................................................................. 19 Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 19 SGAB cost data ............................................................................................................................................................ 20 New Information ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 Corn fibre to cellulosic ethanol ............................................................................................................................. 21 3.4 Synthetic fuels via gasification........................................................................................................... 23 Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 23 SGAB - Cost data for thermal processes ............................................................................................................. 24 Production of alcohols and hydrocarbons from biomass and waste ................................................... 24 FT Products ............................................................................................................................................................. 25 New Information ................................................................................................................................................... 25 Project and data analysis .................................................................................................................................... 27 Review of production costs ............................................................................................................................... 27 3.5 Pyrolysis oil and upgrading ................................................................................................................ 30 Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 30 3.6 Summary - current cost estimates .................................................................................................... 32 4. COST REDUCTION POTENTIAL ........................................................................... 35 4.1 Medium term cost reductions ............................................................................................................ 35 Lignocellulosic ethanol ............................................................................................................................................ 35 Reducing feedstock costs ................................................................................................................................... 36 Reducing capital costs ......................................................................................................................................... 36 Reducing operating and maintenance costs ................................................................................................ 36 Overall medium-term cost reduction potential .......................................................................................... 36 Thermal routes to advanced biofuels ................................................................................................................. 39 Impact of feedstock cost and conversion efficiency....................................................................................... 40 Improving financing rates ...................................................................................................................................... 41 Summary of medium-term cost reduction potential ..................................................................................... 43 4.3 Potential for long term cost reduction ............................................................................................ 43 Impact of learning-based cost curves for large-scale deployment ........................................................... 43 4.4 Cost reduction - overall summary and conclusions ..................................................................... 46 5. FEEDSTOCK – COSTS AND AVAILABILITY ........................................................... 47 5.1 Costs and Prices ..................................................................................................................................... 47 Municipal Wastes....................................................................................................................................................... 47 Processing residues .................................................................................................................................................. 48 Collectable residues .................................................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • What Is Still Limiting the Deployment of Cellulosic Ethanol? Analysis of the Current Status of the Sector

    What Is Still Limiting the Deployment of Cellulosic Ethanol? Analysis of the Current Status of the Sector

    applied sciences Review What is still Limiting the Deployment of Cellulosic Ethanol? Analysis of the Current Status of the Sector Monica Padella *, Adrian O’Connell and Matteo Prussi European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate C-Energy, Transport and Climate, Energy Efficiency and Renewables Unit C.2-Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, Italy; [email protected] (A.O.); [email protected] (M.P.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 16 September 2019; Accepted: 15 October 2019; Published: 24 October 2019 Abstract: Ethanol production from cellulosic material is considered one of the most promising options for future biofuel production contributing to both the energy diversification and decarbonization of the transport sector, especially where electricity is not a viable option (e.g., aviation). Compared to conventional (or first generation) ethanol production from food and feed crops (mainly sugar and starch based crops), cellulosic (or second generation) ethanol provides better performance in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions savings and low risk of direct and indirect land-use change. However, despite the policy support (in terms of targets) and significant R&D funding in the last decade (both in EU and outside the EU), cellulosic ethanol production appears to be still limited. The paper provides a comprehensive overview of the status of cellulosic ethanol production in EU and outside EU, reviewing available literature and highlighting technical and non-technical barriers that still limit its production at commercial scale. The review shows that the cellulosic ethanol sector appears to be still stagnating, characterized by technical difficulties as well as high production costs.
  • The Sustainability of Cellulosic Biofuels

    The Sustainability of Cellulosic Biofuels

    The Sustainability of Cellulosic Biofuels All biofuels, by definition, are made from plant material. The main biofuel on the U.S. market is corn ethanol, a type of biofuel made using the starch in corn grain. But only using grain to produce biofuels can lead to a tug of war between food and fuel sources, as well as other environmental and economic challenges. Biofuels made from cellulosic sources – the leaves, stems, and other fibrous parts of a plant – have been touted as a promising renewable energy source. Not only is cellulose the most abundant biological material on Earth, but using cellulose to produce biofuels instead of grain can have environmental benefits. Cellulosic biofuel sources offer a substantially greater energy return on investment compared to grain-based sources. However, environmental benefits are not guaranteed. The environmental success of cellulosic biofuels will depend on 1) which cellulosic crops are grown, 2) the practices used to manage them, and 3) the geographic location of crops. Both grain-based and cellulosic biofuels can help lessen our use of fossil fuels and can help offset carbon dioxide emissions. But cellulosic biofuels are able to offset more gasoline than can grain-based biofuels – and they do so with environmental co-benefits. Cellulosic Biofuels Help Reduce Competition for Land Cellulosic fuel crops can grow on lands that are not necessarily suitable for food crops and thereby reduce or avoid food vs. fuel competition. If grown on land that has already been cleared, cellulosic crops do not further contribute to the release of carbon to the atmosphere. Because many cellulosic crops are perennial and roots are always present, they guard against soil erosion and better retain nitrogen fertilizer.
  • Pv/Battery Waste Management in the Context of Rural Electrification Support on Pv/Battery Waste Management for a Rural Electrification Program

    Pv/Battery Waste Management in the Context of Rural Electrification Support on Pv/Battery Waste Management for a Rural Electrification Program

    PV/BATTERY WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION SUPPORT ON PV/BATTERY WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR A RURAL ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM Amy Author, Bode Author, and Catherine Author National Renewable Energy Laboratory David Author and Emily Author Other Organization Document elaborated by Factor November 2016 PV/BATTERY WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION SUPPORT ON PV/BATTERY WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR A RURAL ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM Document elaborated by Factor November 2016 This publication was reproduced from the best available copy submitted by the subcontractor and received no editorial review at NREL. NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. Available electronically at SciTech Connect http:/www.osti.gov/scitech Available for a processing fee to U.S.
  • Strategic Electrification and Codes

    Strategic Electrification and Codes

    Strategic Electrification and Energy Codes February 2021 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................3 Shifting the Code Conversation to Carbon .................................................................................................................4 Carbon Reduction through Strategic Electrification ...............................................................................................4 Combustion-Free Requirements ............................................................................................................................4 Code Adoption, Stretch Codes, and Electrification Opportunities in Code ................................................................5 Regional Code Adoption Landscape .......................................................................................................................5 Stretch Codes in the Region ...................................................................................................................................6 DC Stretch Code- Appendix Z .................................................................................................................................6 IECC 2021: Opportunities and Setbacks .................................................................................................................7 Electrification in Codes ...............................................................................................................................................8
  • Energy Recovery from Waste Incineration—The Importance of Technology Data and System Boundaries on CO2 Emissions

    Energy Recovery from Waste Incineration—The Importance of Technology Data and System Boundaries on CO2 Emissions

    energies Article Energy Recovery from Waste Incineration—The Importance of Technology Data and System Boundaries on CO2 Emissions Ola Eriksson 1,* and Göran Finnveden 2 1 Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, University of Gävle, SE 801 76 Gävle, Sweden 2 Division of Environmental Strategies Research–fms, Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Sciences and Engineering (SEED), School of Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden; goran.fi[email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +46-26-648145 Academic Editor: George Kosmadakis Received: 19 October 2016; Accepted: 12 April 2017; Published: 15 April 2017 Abstract: Previous studies on waste incineration as part of the energy system show that waste management and energy supply are highly dependent on each other, and that the preconditions for the energy system setup affects the avoided emissions and thereby even sometimes the total outcome of an environmental assessment. However, it has not been previously shown explicitly which key parameters are most crucial, how much each parameter affects results and conclusions and how different aspects depend on each other. The interconnection between waste incineration and the energy system is elaborated by testing parameters potentially crucial to the result: design of the incineration plant, avoided energy generation, degree of efficiency, electricity efficiency in combined heat and power plants (CHP), avoided fuel, emission level of the avoided electricity generation and avoided waste management. CO2 emissions have been calculated for incineration of 1 kWh mixed combustible waste. The results indicate that one of the most important factors is the electricity efficiency in CHP plants in combination with the emission level of the avoided electricity generation.
  • For Cellulosic Ethanol Production 1 DESCRIPTION of the Formicobio

    For Cellulosic Ethanol Production 1 DESCRIPTION of the Formicobio

    Appendix 1 formicobio™ technology 1 (2) for cellulosic ethanol production 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE formicobio™ TECHNOLOGY Chempolis’ formicobio™ is a technology for the production of cellulosic sugars and further ethanol. The technology has been specially developed for non-food raw materials (e.g. bamboo, bagasse, straws, oil palm biomass, and other agricultural residues), and it is based on selective fractionation of biomass with fully recoverable biosolvent containing formic acid. The formicobio™ technology avoids the main problems associated with other technologies developed for non-food raw materials and represents a true third- generation (3G) technology for the production of cellulosic sugars and further ethanol. The technology enables co-production of platform chemicals, such as acetic acid and furfural, which are used as raw materials in the production of paints, adhesives, and plastics, and as solvent and raw material for resins. Furfural can also be converted into synthetic diesel or gasoline ingredient by hydrogenation. In addition, combustion of co-produced solid biofuel (biocoal) can generate all the energy needed in biorefinery, with some surplus to be used in other production. The formicobio™ technology offers two principal options for the production of cellulosic ethanol: a) Production of ethanol from cellulose and chemicals from hemicelluloses b) Production of ethanol from cellulose and hemicelluloses with co-production of chemicals from hemicelluloses The principle of the technology (Option a) has been described as a simple block diagram in the picture below. The main steps in the process are the following: ‐ Selective fractionation of biomass with a fully recoverable biosolvent (i.e. formicodeli™). Fractionation takes place in a much lower temperature and pressure than pretreatment in typical 2G technologies.
  • Black Liquor Gasification

    Black Liquor Gasification

    Black Liquor Gasification Summary and Conclusions from the IEA Bioenergy ExCo54 Workshop This publication provides Wood and Wastes the record of a workshop organised by IEA Bioenergy. CO2 Pool Black liquor gasification is an interesting option for production of synthesis gas that can subsequently be converted to a variety of motor fuels. The technology can be integrated into modern, Carbon ecocyclic, kraft pulp mill Dioxide Pulp and Paper biorefineries. USA and Sweden lead developments in this field. It is of interest primarily among countries with strong pulp and paper industries and national policies which promote substitution of petrol and diesel by biofuels. IEA Bioenergy IEA BIOENERGY: ExCo:2007:03 INTRODUCTION a large pulp and paper industry. It is thus of great interest to convert the primary energy in the black liquor to an This publication provides a summary and the conclusions energy carrier of high value. from a workshop organised by IEA Bioenergy. It was held in conjunction with the 54th meeting of the Executive Worldwide, the pulp and paper industry currently processes Committee in Ottawa on 6 October 2004. The purpose of the about 170 million tonnes of black liquor (measured as dry workshop was to present the developments of black liquor solids) per year, with a total energy content of about 2EJ, gasification for the production of energy and/or biofuels making black liquor a very significant biomass source (see for transport and discuss the remaining barriers, either Figure 1). In comparison with other potential biomass technical or strategic, that need to be overcome in order sources for chemicals production, black liquor has the to accelerate the successful demonstration of black liquor great advantage that it is already partially processed and gasification technologies and subsequently their penetration exists in a pumpable, liquid form.
  • Annual Biodiesel and Renewable Di

    Annual Biodiesel and Renewable Di

    141.422 Definitions for KRS 141.422 to 141.425. As used in KRS 141.422 to 141.425: (1) "Annual biodiesel and renewable diesel tax credit cap" means: (a) For calendar years beginning prior to January 1, 2008, one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000); (b) For the calendar year beginning on January 1, 2008, five million dollars ($5,000,000); (c) For calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2009, but before January 1, 2021, ten million dollars ($10,000,000); (2) "Annual biodiesel, renewable diesel, and renewable chemical production tax credit cap" means, for calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2021, ten million dollars ($10,000,000); (3) "Annual cellulosic ethanol tax credit cap" means five million dollars ($5,000,000), unless the annual cellulosic ethanol tax credit cap is modified pursuant to KRS 141.4248, in which case the cap established by KRS 141.4248 shall be the annual cellulosic ethanol tax credit cap for that year. Any adjustments to the annual cellulosic ethanol tax credit cap made pursuant to KRS 141.4248 shall be made on an annual basis and shall not carry forward to subsequent years; (4) "Annual ethanol tax credit cap" means five million dollars ($5,000,000), unless the annual credit cap is modified pursuant to KRS 141.4248, in which case the cap established by KRS 141.4248 shall be the annual ethanol tax credit cap for that year. Any adjustments to the annual ethanol tax credit cap made pursuant to KRS 141.4248 shall be made on an annual basis and shall not carry forward to subsequent years;
  • Role of Natural Gas Networks in a Low-Carbon Future

    Role of Natural Gas Networks in a Low-Carbon Future

    The Role of Gas Networks in a Low-Carbon Future December 2020 Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3 The Role of Natural Gas ............................................................................................................................... 6 Natural Gas Today .................................................................................................................................... 6 The Potential Role of Natural Gas Networks in a Low-Carbon Future .................................................... 7 Local Distribution Company Strategies to Decarbonize Gas ....................................................................... 8 Increasing Energy Efficiency and Optimizing Energy Use ...................................................................... 9 Reducing Methane Emissions Across the Value Chain .......................................................................... 15 Decarbonizing Gas Supply ..................................................................................................................... 19 Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration .......................................................................................... 24 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 26 M.J. Bradley & Associates | Strategic Environmental Consulting Page | 1
  • Assessing the Costs and Benefits of the Green New Deal's Energy Policies

    Assessing the Costs and Benefits of the Green New Deal's Energy Policies

    BACKGROUNDER No. 3427 | JULY 24, 2019 CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS Assessing the Costs and Benefits of the Green New Deal’s Energy Policies Kevin D. Dayaratna, PhD, and Nicolas D. Loris n February 7, 2019, Representative Alexan- KEY TAKEAWAYS dria Ocasio-Cortez (D–NY) and Senator Ed The Green New Deal’s govern- OMarkey (D–MA) released their plan for a ment-managed energy plan poses the Green New Deal in a non-binding resolution. Two of risk of expansive, disastrous damage the main goals of the Green New Deal are to achieve to the economy—hitting working global reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions of 40 Americans the hardest. percent to 60 percent (from 2010 levels) by 2030, and net-zero emissions worldwide by 2050. The Green Under the most modest estimates, just New Deal’s emission-reduction targets are meant to one part of this new deal costs an average keep global temperatures 1.5 degrees Celsius above family $165,000 and wipes out 5.2 million pre-industrial levels.1 jobs with negligible climate benefit. In what the resolution calls a “10-year national mobilization,” the policy proposes monumental Removing government-imposed bar- changes to America’s electricity, transportation, riers to energy innovation would foster manufacturing, and agricultural sectors. The resolu- a stronger economy and, in turn, a tion calls for sweeping changes to America’s economy cleaner environment. to reduce emissions, but is devoid of specific details as to how to do so. Although the Green New Deal This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/bg3427 The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
  • WHEREAS, a National Carbon Tax Will Benefit the Economy, Human Health

    WHEREAS, a National Carbon Tax Will Benefit the Economy, Human Health

    RESOLUTTON NO. 102-2018 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME URGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO ENACT A REVENUE-NEUTRAL TAX ON CARBON. BASED FOSSIL FUELS WHEREAS, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels, are causing rising global temperatures; and WHEREAS, the average surface temperature on Earth has been increasing steadily, and cunent estimates are that the average global temperature by the year 21OO will be 2 degrees Fahrenheit to '11.5 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the cunent average global temperature, depending on the level of GHG emissions trapped in the atmosphere; and WHEREAS, the global atmospheric concentration of carlcon dioxide (CO2) exceeded 410 parts per million (ppm) in June 2018, the highest level in three million years and clearly out of synch with long term geological pattems; and WHEREAS, scientific evidence indicates that it is necessary to reduce the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 from the current concentration of more than 400 ppm to 350 ppm or less in order to slow or stop the rise in global temperature; and WHEREAS, global warming is already leading to large-scale problems including ocean acidification and rising sea levels; more frequent, extreme, and damaging weather events such as heat waves, storms, heavy rainfall and flooding, and droughts; more frequent and intense wildfires; disrupted ecosystems affecting biodiversity and food production; and an increase in heat-related deaths; and WHEREAS, further global warming poses an
  • 2017 District of Columbia Energy Conservation Code

    2017 District of Columbia Energy Conservation Code

    2017 District of Columbia Energy Conservation Code 2017 District of Columbia Energy Conservation Code 2017 District of Columbia Energy Conservation Code First Printing: September 2020 COPYRIGHT © 2014 International Code Council, Inc. (for 2015 International Energy Conservation Code®) COPYRIGHT © 2020 Government of the District of Columbia (for new text) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. This 2017 District of Columbia Energy Conservation Code contains substantial copyrighted materi- als from the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code®, third printing, which is a copyrighted work owned by the Interna- tional Code Council, Inc. (“ICC”). Without advance written permission from the ICC, no part of this book may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means, including, without limitation, electronic, optical or mechanical means (by way of example, and not limitation, photocopying, or recording by or in an information storage retrieval system). For information on use rights and permissions, please contact: ICC Publications, 4051 Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, IL 60478. Phone 1- 888-ICC-SAFE (422-7233). The 2017 District of Columbia Energy Conservation Code contains substantial copyrighted material from the ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1—2013, which is a copyrighted work owned by ASHRAE. Without advance written permission from the copyright owner, no part of this book may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means, including, without limita- tion, electronic, optical or mechanical means (by way of example, and not limitation, photocopying, or recording by or in an infor- mation storage retrieval system). For information on permission to copy material exceeding fair use, please contact: ASHRAE Publications, 1791 Tullie NE, Atlanta, GA 30329.