DOCSLIB.ORG

Biomass and Natural Gas to Liquid Transportation Fuels (BGTL): Process Synthesis, Global Optimization, and Topology Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Biomass and Natural Gas to Liquid Transportation Fuels (BGTL): Process Synthesis, Global Optimization, and Topology Analysis Christodoulos A. Floudas Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering Princeton University Natural Gas and Biomass Natural Gas Biomass • Abundant supply in the United States • Prices more stable • Low prices than natural gas • Utilization of stranded • Reduce greenhouse gas reducesA hybrid biomassgas and emissions in the environmental life cycle analysis damage natural gas energy system can bring synergistic outcomes. Ensuring sustainability of . High fluctuation of prices production over long horizon BGTL Important Questions Q1: Can we produce liquid transportation fuels (gasoline, diesel, kerosene) using only biomass and natural gas? Q2: Can we address Q1 with a 50% reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions? Q3: Can we address Q1 and Q2 without disturbing the food chain? Q4: Can Q1, Q2, and Q3 be addressed at competitive prices compared to petroleum? Q5: Can we develop a framework for a single BGTL plant that considers (i) multiple natural gas conversion pathways, (ii) any plant capacity, and (iii) any product combination? Conceptual Design Feed biomass and natural gas to produce gasoline, diesel, and kerosene via a synthesis gas (syngas) intermediate Syngas is converted to liquid hydrocarbons via Fischer-Tropsch, MTG, or MTOD CO2 can either be vented, sequestered, or consumed/recycled via the water-gas-shift reaction Simultaneous heat, power, and water integration included during synthesis Develop input-output mathematical models for each unit in the refinery Baliban, R. C., Elia, J. A., Floudas, C. A., Biomass and Natural Gas to Liquid Transportation Fuels: Process Synthesis, Global optimization, and Topological Analysis, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 52, 3381-3406, 2013. Process Synthesis Strategy Unit Operation Feedstock / Process Unit Cost Input-Output Product / Superstructure Functions Models Byproduct Costs Process Synthesis Mathematical Model Economic Analysis Incorporated in Process Optimal Process Topology Synthesis Model [1] Baliban, R. C., Elia, J. A., Floudas, C. A., Comp. Heat Exchanger Chem. Eng., 35, 1647-1690, 2011. [2] Baliban, R. C., Elia, J. A., Floudas, C. A., Comp. Network Chem. Eng., 37, 297-327, 2011. Superstructure [3] Baliban, R. C., Elia, J. A., Misener, R., Floudas C. A., Comp. Chem. Eng., 42, 64-86, 2012. Add Heat [4] Baliban, R. C., Elia, J. A., Weekman, V. W., Floudas, C. A., Comp. Chem. Eng., 47, 29-56, 2012. Exchanger [5] Baliban, R. C., Elia, J. A., Floudas, C. A., AIChE J., Investment 59, 505-531, 2013. Costs [6] Baliban, R. C., Elia, J. A., Floudas, C. A., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 52, 3381-3406, 2013. [7] Baliban, R. C., Elia, J. A., Floudas, C. A., Energy Env. Break Even Oil Price Sci., 6, 267-287, 2013. BGTL Process: Biomass and Natural Gas to Liquids Biomass Ash / Hydrogen Oxygen Vent Biomass Syngas Sand Sulfur Generation Syngas Treatment Acid Gas Oxygen Raw Syngas Steam Clean Sour Syngas Water Recycle Natural Hydrocarbon Gases Gas Natural Gas Production Conversion Methanol Hydrogen Olefins Steam Vent Oxygen Hydrogen Organic Liquid Steam Electricity Product Upgrading Oxygen and Heat, Power, Butane Hydrogen Water Integration Production Oxygen Gasoline Diesel Kerosene Propane Air Water Boiler Feed Water Water Feedstocks and Process Inputs Process Outputs Biomass Syngas Generation Oxygen Steam Biomass Output Ash Gasifier1 Input CO2 Biomass Oxygen Biomass Biomass Dryer Lockhopper Biomass Gasifier with Hydrogen Recycle1 Output Ash CO2 Steam PSA Offgas Reformed Gases Biomass Syngas to reverse 2 Tar Cracker water-gas-shift Biomass Syngas to bypass reverse water-gas-shift [1] Baliban, R. C., J. A. Elia, and C. A. Floudas, I&ECR, 2010: 49(16), 7343. [2] Spath, P et al., NREL, 2005, TP-510-37408. Natural Gas Conversion Steam Steam ATR Reformed Auto Thermal Gases Reformer1 SMR Reformed Recycle Natural Steam Reformer2 Gases Gas Oxygen SPNG POM Raw Partial Oxidation to Methanol SULGRD Methanol Mixture Sulfur Guard Oxygen Olefins OCO-F INNG OCO-CO Water Knock 2 Input Natural OCO CO Removal Out 2 Gas Oxidative Coupling to Olefins Catalyst CO Natural Gas for Wastewater 2 Utility Generation OCO-CAT IN AIR Catalyst Flue Gas Input Air Reoxidation Syngas Cleaning and CO2 Recovery Reformed gases Recycle CO Oxygen Forward / 2 Reverse Water Gas OUT Shift CO2 CO Recycle Sequestered CO 2 2 Comp. Hydrogen Biomass Oxygen syngas Reformed CO2 Seq. Comp. gases Sour Forward / OUTV Reverse Water Outlet Vent Gas Shift Recovered Hydrogen Reformed CO2 Recovered gases CO2 Sulfur SCRUB Sour Syngas Acid Gas Scrubber Biomass Removal syngas Sulfur-rich System Wastewater acid syngas Syngas Flash Clean Gas Sulfur-free acid syngas Wastewater Dry Syngas [1] Kreutz, T.G., E.D. Larson, G. Liu, R.H. Williams, 25th Pittsburgh Coal Conference, 2008. [2] NETL, 2010, DOE/NETL-2010/1397. Hydrocarbon Production Purpose of process units Convert synthesis gas to raw hydrocarbon product Remove aqueous phase and oxygenated species from raw hydrocarbon effluent Key topological decisions Hydrocarbons generated via methanol conversion or Fischer-Tropsch synthesis Methanol to Gasoline (MTG) or Methanol to Olefins and Diesel (MTOD) Fischer-Tropsch catalyst: Cobalt/Iron Low-wax/high-wax Fischer-Tropsch Fischer-Tropsch Units Catalyst type Cobalt (no water-gas-shift reaction) Iron (water-gas-shift reaction) Forward water-gas-shift (fWGS) Reverse water-gas-shift (rWGS) Temperature o High-temperature (HT - 320 C) o Mid-temperature (MT - 267 C) o Low-temperature (LT - 240 C) Wax production Minimal (Min-Wax: for maximum gasoline) Nominal (Nom-Wax: to increase diesel) Fischer-Tropsch Production Clean Gas Hydrogen Hydrogen Cobalt LT Nom- Steam Steam Wax FT3 Iron MT fWGS Iron-MT fWGS Cobalt HT Min- Min-Wax FT2 Nom-Wax FT1 Wax FT3 Wax CO2 Hydrogen Hydrogen PSA Offgas Iron HT rWGS Hydrocarbons CO Min-Wax FT3 2 Reformed Gases PSA Offgas Hydrogen Iron LT rWGS Reformed Gases Nom-Wax FT3 FT Hydrocarbons Hydrogen Wax FT FT Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons [1] Kuo, J. C. W., Aditya, S. K., Bergquist, P. M., Di Mattio, A. J., Di Sanzo, F. P., Di Teresi, E., Green, L. A., Gupte, K. M., Jagota, A. K., Kyan, C. P., Leib, T. M., Melconian, M. G., Schreiner, M., Smith, J., Taylor, J. A., Warner, J. P., Wong, W. K., Mobil Research and Development, DOE/PC/30022-10, 1983. [2] Kuo, J. C. W. et al., Mobil Research and Development, DOE/PC/60019-9, 1985. [3] Dry, M. E., Catalysis Today, 2002: 71(3-4), 227. Hydrocarbon Upgrading Purpose of process units Convert raw hydrocarbon product to final liquid fuels Recover light gases for treatment Key topological decisions Upgrading of Fischer-Tropsch product ZSM5 upgrading Standard upgrading Recycle of light gases Gas turbine Fuel combustor Natural gas conversion Simultaneous Heat/Power Recovery Incorporate heat engines with distinct operating conditions into the system to simultaneously minimize the hot/cold utilities and the recovered electricity Lower amounts of utilities and recovered electricity reduce the overall cost of the process increased profitability To Pump (b,c’) From Economizer (b,c’) To Superheater (b,t’) c’ ≠ c c’ ≠ c t’ ≠ t Operating Conditions Pump (b,c) Economizer Boiler b B B Condenser Pressures (c): 1, (b,c) P b, Tsat(P b) 5, 15, 40 bar Condenser c PC , T (PC ) Superheater (b,t) c sat c B B P b, Tsat(P b) to Tt Boiler Pressures (b): 25, 50, 75, 100, 125 bar Precooler (b,c,t) Turbine (b,c,t) Turbine Inlet Temp. (t): 500, 600, 700, 800, 900°C From Precooler (b’,c,t’) To Turbine (b,c’,t) b’ ≠ b, t’ ≠ t c’ ≠ c [1] Duran, M. A. and I. E. Grossmann, Simultaneous optimization and heat integration of chemical processes, AIChE J., 32, 123, 1986. [2] Floudas, C. A., A. R. Ciric, and I. E. Grossmann, Automatic synthesis of optimum heat exchanger network configurations, AIChE J., 32, 2, 276, 1986. [3] Holiastos, H., V. Manousiouthakis, Minimum hot/cold/electric utility cost for heat exchange networks, Comp. & Chem. Eng., 26, 1, 3, 2002. Objective Function Summation representing overall cost of liquid fuels production F Feedstock costs (Cost ) El Electricity cost (Cost ) Seq CO2 sequestration cost (Cost ) CW Makeup freshwater cost (Cost ) U Levelized unit investment cost (Cost ) Overall model size: 16,739 continuous variables, 33 binary variables, 16,492 constraints, and 345 nonconvex terms (nonconvex MINLP) Case Studies Three case studies illustrate optimal topologies for 10,000 barrel/day BTL refinery GDK: Gasoline, diesel, kerosene in US ratios MD: Maximum production (≥75%) of diesel MK: Maximum production (≥75%) of kerosene Four case studies illustrate effect of capacity for GDK refinery Extra-small capacity (1,000 barrels/day) Small capacity (5,000 barrels/day) Medium capacity (10,000 barrels/day) Large capacity (50,000 barrels/day) 50% lifecycle GHG emissions compared to petroleum-based processes Biomass type: Forest residues (45 wt% moist.) Process Results: Topological Analysis Operating temperatures for biomass gasification (BGS), auto- thermal reforming (ATR), and water gas shift (WGS) are selected by the optimization model Production of liquid fuels via Fischer-Tropsch or methanol conversion Cobalt LTFT unit is Operating temperature Capacity o used for US ratio and ( C) selected by MINLP 10,000 BPD model maximum kerosene Operating FT Unit Methanol Case Temperatures FT Gas CO2 Study Low Nom. Upgrading Turbine Seq. BGS ATR WGS MTG MTOD Wax Wax Co US Ratios 900 1000 - - ZSM-5 Y - - - LTFT Max Diesel 900 1000 - - - - - Y - - Max Co 900 1000 - - Fract. - - - - Kerosene LTFT Methanol synthesis is used for A gas turbine and CO2 US ratios and maximum diesel sequestration are not utilized Process Results: Topological Analysis Topological differences are highlighted for different capacities Natural gas conversion pathway is always through auto-thermal reforming Consistent gasifier Cobalt LTFT unit is Output Fuels temperature as used as refinery United States capacity increases capacity increases demand ratios Operating FT Unit FT Methanol Gas CO Capacity Temperatures 2 Upgrading Turbine Seq.
Recommended publications
  • Paper 20Th World Energy Congress Rome 2007

    Paper 20Th World Energy Congress Rome 2007

    BTL: a solution to increase energy efficiency in the Brazilian alcohol business 1 Dr. Eduardo Falabella Souza-Aguiar Coordinator - GTL Cell CENPES - PETROBRAS Avenida Jequitibá, 950, Quadra 7, Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil 2 Sirlei Sebastião Alves de Sousa Senior Consultant - GTL Cell FUJB - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, UFRJ Avenida Jequitibá, 950, Quadra 7, Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil 3 Fernando Barbosa de Oliveira Process Engineer - GTL Cell CENPES - PETROBRAS Avenida Jequitibá, 950, Quadra 7, Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil 1. Introduction Due to 1973 oil crisis, the Brazilian government, then run by a military junta, initiated in 1975 the ProÁlcool program. The ProÁlcool or Programa Nacional do Álcool (National Alcohol Program) was nationwide program financed by the government to phase out all automobile fuels derived from fossil fuels (such as gasoline) in favor of ethanol. It began with the anhydrous alcohol to blend with the gasoline. This mixture has been used since then and is now done with 24% of alcohol and 76% gasoline [1]. The decision to produce ethanol from fermented sugarcane was based on the low cost of sugar at the time. Other sources of fermentable carbohydrates were tested such as the manioc [1]. Sugarcane is in itself an enormously efficient production unit: every ton has an energy potential that is equivalent to 1.2 barrels of petroleum. Brazil is the largest sugarcane world producer, having the lowest production costs, followed by India and Australia. On average, 55% of Brazilian sugarcane is turned into alcohol [2]. Sugarcane is grown in Brazil’s Central-South and North-Northeast regions, with two harvest periods.
  • Blending Hydrogen Into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: a Review of Key Issues

    Blending Hydrogen Into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: a Review of Key Issues

    Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues M. W. Melaina, O. Antonia, and M. Penev NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Technical Report NREL/TP-5600-51995 March 2013 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues M. W. Melaina, O. Antonia, and M. Penev Prepared under Task No. HT12.2010 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report 15013 Denver West Parkway NREL/TP-5600-51995 Golden, Colorado 80401 March 2013 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 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.
  • LLNL Underground Coal Gasification: an Overview of Groundwater

    LLNL Underground Coal Gasification: an Overview of Groundwater

    David W. Camp Joshua A. White Underground Coal Gasification: An Overview of Groundwater Contamination Hazards and Mitigation Strategies March 2015 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNL-TR-668633 Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore Na- tional Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or useful- ness 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 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. v Acknowledgements This work was funded by a 2012 Applied Science Grant from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE- AC52-07NA27344. The authors wish to thank Duane Matt and other members of the OSM Underground Coal Gasification Working Group for their support and recommendations. We also thank the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) for earlier funding that allowed LLNL to begin investi- gating groundwater contamination issues.
  • Storing Syngas Lowers the Carbon Price for Profitable Coal Gasification

    Storing Syngas Lowers the Carbon Price for Profitable Coal Gasification

    Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center Working Paper CEIC-07-10 www.cmu.edu/electricity Storing syngas lowers the carbon price for profitable coal gasification ADAM NEWCOMER AND JAY APT Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, Tepper School of Business, and Department of Engineering and Public Policy, 254 Posner Hall, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) electric power generation systems with carbon capture and sequestration have desirable environmental qualities, but are not profitable when the carbon dioxide price is less than approximately $50 per metric ton. We examine whether an IGCC facility that operates its gasifier continuously but stores the syngas and produces electricity only when daily prices are high may be profitable at significantly lower CO2 prices. Using a probabilistic analysis, we have calculated the plant-level return on investment (ROI) and the value of syngas storage for IGCC facilities located in the US Midwest using a range of storage configurations. Adding a second turbine to use the stored syngas to generate electricity at peak hours and implementing 12 hours of above ground high pressure syngas storage significantly increases the ROI and net present value. Storage lowers the carbon price at which IGCC enters the US generation mix by approximately 25%. 1 Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center Working Paper CEIC-07-10 www.cmu.edu/electricity Introduction Producing electricity from coal-derived synthesis gas (syngas) in an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facility can improve criteria pollutant performance over other coal-fueled technologies such as pulverized coal (PC) facilities [1-5] and can be implemented with carbon capture and sequestration.
  • DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐Up

    DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐Up

    Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program DRAFT INTERIM PROJECT REPORT DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐up Prepared for: California Energy Commission Prepared by: California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis OCTOBER 2014 CEC‐500‐11‐020, TASK 8 Prepared by: Primary Author(s): Matthew D. Ong Robert B. Williams Stephen R. Kaffka California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis 1 Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Contract Number: 500-11-020, Task 8 Prepared for: California Energy Commission Michael Sokol Contract Manager Aleecia Gutierrez Office Manager Energy Generation Research Office Laurie ten Hope Deputy Director Energy Research and Development Robert Oglesby Executive Director DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express his gratitude and appreciation to the following individuals for their various contributions to the development of this report: California Biomass Collaborative Robert Williams, Project Supervisor Dr. Stephen Kaffka, Project Manager Dr. Bryan Jenkins, Contract Manager American Biogas Council Bioenergy Association of California.
  • Biomass with CO2 Capture and Storage (Bio-CCS)

    Biomass with CO2 Capture and Storage (Bio-CCS)

    Biomass with CO2 Capture and Storage (Bio-CCS) The way forward for Europe This document has been prepared on behalf of the Advisory Council of the European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP) and the Steering Committee of the European Biofuels Technology Platform (EBTP). The information and views contained in this document are the collective view of the ZEP Advisory Council and EBTP Steering Committee and not of individual members, or of the European Commission. Neither the ZEP Advisory Council, the EBTP Steering Committee, the European Commission, nor any person acting on their behalf, is responsible for the use that might be made of the information contained in this publication. European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants Contents KEY CONCLUSIONS........................................................... ....................................................................... 4 1 WHY EUROPE NEEDS TO GO CARBON-NEGATIVE ....................................................................... 5 1.1 More powerful technologies are now needed to keep global warming below 2°C........................5! 1.2 Bio-CCS: the only large-scale technology that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere.... ........... 5! 1.3 The EBTP/ZEP Joint Taskforce Bio-CCS: uniting high-level European stakeholders ................. 6! 2! CO2 CAPTURE AND STORAGE.......................................................................................................... 7! 2.1! CCS could provide almost 20% of global
  • Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas

    Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas

    DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) 2021 Project Peer Review Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from Biogas March 25, 2021 WBS: 3.5.1.405 Terry Marker Gas Technology Institute This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information 1 Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas Project Overview 2 Project Overview Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from Biogas • Goal is to produce 100 gallons of Jet Fuel from Biogas using the Cool GTL Process – GTI will demonstrate a new simple GTL process which converts biogas, CO2, and methane directly to jet, gasoline, and diesel – Show the technology to be significantly lower cost, and more efficient than previous GTL processes- produce jet fuel at < $3/GGE – Also complete modeling, engineering, technoeconomic and LCA for Cool GTL biogas commercial process- advance from TRL 3 to 5 3 3 Cool GTL • Converts CO2-rich methane, ethane and propane to high-quality gasoline, diesel and jet fuel • Works well for any gas containing CO2 or CO • Uses unique CO2/steam reforming catalyst to directly make 2:1 H2/CO synthesis gas • Uses unique combined Fischer-Tropsch and wax-cracking reactor • Simple and compact with unique catalysts in each stage 4 SM Unique Cool GTL Technology Novel Features Beneficial Results • Unique bi-reforming catalyst • Modular, low-cost GTL • Unique wax cracking-FT catalyst • Small footprint • Unique electric reformer design • Great economics • Distributed plant locations Two patents issued Current GTL Cool GTLSM and several others pending 5 SM
  • Coal Biomass to Liquid Fuels

    Coal Biomass to Liquid Fuels

    Small-Scale Coal-Biomass to Liquids Production Using Highly Selective Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis n Background Co-conversion of coal with some biomass to liquid fuels can help to reduce CO2 emissions because of the neutrality of biomass with respect to CO2 emissions. An NETL study [Affordable, low cost diesel fuel from domestic coal and biomass, DOE/NETL2009/1349, January 2009], in fact, has indicated that addition of even moderate amounts of biomass to coal for the production of liquids can potentially reduce Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) CO2 emissions relative to petroleum diesel baseline; for example, 20% less CO2 is produced with 8% biomass addition, with Carbon Capture, Storage, and Utilization (CCUS). Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS) is a leading technology for converting syngas from gasification to hydrocarbons in coal to liquids (CTL) and coal-biomass to liquids (CBTL) processes. However, conventional FT catalysts produce undesirable waxes (C21+) that need to be upgraded to liquids (C5-C20) by hydrotreating. This adds significantly to the cost of FTS. Development and commercialization of a cost-effective gasification/FTS-based CBTL process to produce renewable gasoline and diesel can reduce the nation’s dependency on oil imported from foreign countries, help to stabilize the prices at the pump, and lower the emission of greenhouse gases. PLEASE CONTACT PARTICIPANTS PROJECT COST Santosh Gangwal Doe Technical Project Officer Chevron Energy DURATION Total Project Principal Investigator Arun Bose Technology Start Date Value Southern Research
  • Harmon of Energ THIRD REVIS Onisation of Definitions Rgy

    Harmon of Energ THIRD REVIS Onisation of Definitions Rgy

    Harmononisation of Definitions of Energrgy Products and Flows THIRD REVISISION OF THE DEFINITIOIONS Part 1: Flows IEA,A, Paris, 21 December 2009 Table of Contents Page Note by Tim Simmons ............................................................................................................................. 5 Flow Structure ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Definition of National Territory (not in flow classification) ................................................................... 9 Supply .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Production .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Receipts from Other Sources ................................................................................................................. 16 Imports and Exports .............................................................................................................................. 18 International Marine Bunkers ................................................................................................................ 21 International Aviation Bunkers ............................................................................................................. 22 Stocks (not in flow classification) ........................................................................................................
  • Alternative Fuel Policy

    Alternative Fuel Policy

    The City of Ypsilanti Alternative Fuel Policy Prepared by John Sherwood Mechanic Department of Public Services ALTERNATIVE FUEL POLICY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Ypsilanti seeks to be at the forefront of the implementation of alternative fuel technology. The City’s goal is to increase the usage of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) each year as technology allows while monitoring each new technological advancement to suit the application and departmental needs. Currently, the capital costs for AFVs are greater than conventional vehicles. In addition, some alternative fuels are also more expensive than conventional unleaded or diesel fuels. It is recommended that the City purchase three types of Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFV) (1) Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles, (2) Flex Fuel vehicles, and (3) Hybrid vehicles. If the City actively pursues these AFV options, an expanded alternative fuel infrastructure must be developed either as a city-owned facility or in partnership with other agencies in Washtenaw County. Capital improvements needed for the alternative fuel infrastructure will be costly. Although the City is not mandated by federal or state regulations to purchase alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) or use alternative fuels, considerable efforts have been made since 1999 to analyze available alternative fuel vehicle options for City use. The City has made vehicle and equipment purchasing decisions based upon operational issues, fiscal concerns and responsible environmental stewardship. When selecting AFVs, consideration is given to the end user application and their operational functions since the size and location of fuel tanks impact the storage, functionality and useful bed space of the vehicles. Other issues include availability of fuel supply, ability to refuel without long delays, driving range between fuel stops, vehicle usage by on-call staff including responding to emergency or disaster situations and the availability of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) vehicles.
  • Summary of Current Status of Alternative Fuels and Vehicles

    Summary of Current Status of Alternative Fuels and Vehicles

    1. INTRODUCTION Motor vehicles are the underlying source for two major global issues the United States (U.S.) faces: 1) the dependence on foreign oil from unstable political regions, and 2) the increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a leading contributor of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that affect Earth’s climate. There are 200 million drivers traveling 10 trillion vehicle miles each year in the U.S. In the Denver region alone, vehicles are driven more than 70 million miles each day. Dependence on foreign oil: A matter of U.S. Security The U.S. uses about 14.5 million barrels of oil per day for transportation (which equates to 609 million gallons) and imports more than 60% of its petroleum, two-thirds of which is used to fuel vehicles in the form of gasoline and diesel. The demand for petroleum imports is increasing and with much of the worldwide petroleum resources located in politically volatile countries, the U.S. is vulnerable to supply disruptions. Climate Change While the U.S. contains only 5% of the world’s population, it is responsible for 25% of global GHG emissions. Transportation accounts for 28% of GHG emissions in the U.S., second to electric power Figure 1 (Figure 1). It is the 2006 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions fastest growing by sector (Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent) source of GHGs, Residential accounting for 47% of Commericial 5% the net increase in 6% total U.S. GHG Agriculture emissions since 1990. 8% Trends in Colorado are similar, with Electric Power electric power being 34% the lead source of Industry 19% CO2 emissions at 42%, followed by transportation at 31% Transportation (Figure 2).
  • Comparison Between Hydrogen and Syngas Fuels in an Integrated Micro Gas Turbine/Solar Field with Storage

    Comparison Between Hydrogen and Syngas Fuels in an Integrated Micro Gas Turbine/Solar Field with Storage

    energies Article Comparison between Hydrogen and Syngas Fuels in an Integrated Micro Gas Turbine/Solar Field with Storage Maria Cristina Cameretti, Alessandro Cappiello, Roberta De Robbio * and Raffaele Tuccillo Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, 80125 Naples, Italy; [email protected] (M.C.C.); [email protected] (A.C.); raff[email protected] (R.T.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 9 June 2020; Accepted: 3 September 2020; Published: 12 September 2020 Abstract: In recent years, the use of alternative fuels in thermal engine power plants has gained more and more attention, becoming of paramount importance to overcome the use of fuels from fossil sources and to reduce polluting emissions. The present work deals with the analysis of the response to two different gas fuels—i.e., hydrogen and a syngas from agriculture product—of a 30 kW micro gas turbine integrated with a solar field. The solar field included a thermal storage system to partially cover loading requests during night hours, reducing fuel demand. Additionally, a Heat Recovery Unit was included in the plant considered and the whole plant was simulated by Thermoflex® code. Thermodynamics analysis was performed on hour-to-hour basis, for a given day as well as for 12 months; subsequently, an evaluation of cogeneration efficiency as well as energy saving was made. The results are compared against plant performance achieved with conventional natural gas fueling. After analyzing the performance of the plant through a thermodynamic analysis, the study was complemented with CFD simulations of the combustor, to evaluate the combustion development and pollutant emissions formation, particularly of NOx, with the two fuels considered using Ansys-Fluent code, and a comparison was made.