1
Commercializing New Biomass Energy Technologies
Eric D. LarsonPrinceton Environmental Institute
Princeton UniversityUSA
International Society of Sugar Cane TechnologistsInternational Sugarcane Biomass Utilization Consortium
Third Meeting, 28 June – 1 July, 2009Shandrani 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.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
Imp
ort
ed C
rud
e O
il P
rice
, $2
007
Do
llar
s p
er B
arre
l
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Historical Data
High Price Case
Reference Case
Revised Rerference Case
Low Price Case
> $100/bbl by 2012-2015
4
Climate Change Issues/Opportunities
• To avoid dangerous climate change (ΔT > 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
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Power sector
Industry
Buildings
Transportation
Business-as-usual emissions 62 GtCO2eq
Targeted emissions 14 GtCO2eq
GHG Emissions, Gt CO2 equivalent per year
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
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 > 100 yrs. – CO2 injected underground is likely to stay there > 1000 yrs.
• Large potential for CO2 storage in deep sedimentary basins
Prospects for Holding CO2
Highly ProspectiveLow to High Prospective
Non Prospective
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
Biochemical
BCombustion
Gasification
D
Ethanol
Electricity
Electricity
Alt. Liquid fuels
Bagasse, Trash
advanced technology options
9
Biochemical conversion of biomass
• 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.
Pretreatment
FermentationRecovery &Distillation
Enzymeproduction
Solidsseparation
Steam & powergeneration
Ethanol
Process steam & electricity
Raw Biomass
Hydrolysis
Combining of two steps proposed: simultaneous saccharification and fermentation – SSF
Combining of three steps proposed: consolidated bioprocessing – CBP
• 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
Air, O2, and/or steamBagasse, Trash
Gasification(1 to 30 bar)
Drying Sizing
Gas cleaning
Gas Turbine Heat Recovery Steam Turbine
Electricity
Process steamBGCC
Water Gas Shift(CO+H2O H2+CO2)
CatalyticSynthesis
Distillation or Refining
CO2 Removal
Steam & PowerGeneration
Process steam/elec.
LiquidFuel
CO, H2, CH4, CO2
Biomass to Liquids
FermentationDistillation or Refining
Steam & PowerGeneration
Process steam/elec.
Alcohols
Hybrid thermochem/biochem fuels production (one example)
11
Methanol / MTG
Fischer Tropsch
Dimethyl ether
Mixed alcohols
Biocrude
Ethanol
Diesel
Paraffin
LPG
Kerosene
Gasoline
Biofuel substitutes for Conventional Fuel
Crude oil
GASIFICATION
HYDROLYSIS
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
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
R&D advances needed to achieve potential? No Yes
Significant R&D 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
Comparing thermochemical and biochemical systems
Black – technology featuresRed – development statusBlue – key hurdles
14
Gasification-based fuels from biomass and/or coal
Feed Preparationand Gasification
GasConditioning
Acid GasRemoval
Liquid FuelSynthesis
Refining
PowerGeneration
feedstock
OxygenProduction
airOnsiteElectricity
FinishedFuels
CO2 H2S,COSVent to atmosphere
or compress for transport/injection.
• 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 (> 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.
H2S, CO2removal
PressurizedGasification
Gas cooling& cleaning
Air separation unit
oxygen
airUnderground
Storage
WaterGas Shift
CO2
Coal
Biomass
SyngasConversion
PressurizedGasification
Gas cooling& cleaning
H2S, CO2removal
PressurizedGasification
Gas cooling& cleaning
Air separation unit
oxygen
airUnderground
Storage
WaterGas Shift
CO2
CoalBiomass
SyngasConversion
H2S, CO2
removalPressurizedGasification
Gas cooling& cleaning
Air separation unit
oxygen
airUnderground
Storage
WaterGas Shift
CO2
CoalBiomass
SyngasConversion
SYNFUELS and/or
ELECTRICITY
PressurizedCFBG
oxygen
SYNFUELS and/or
ELECTRICITY
SYNFUELS and/or
ELECTRICITY
17
Coal/Biomass co-processing for Fischer-Tropsch diesel and gasoline, with CO2 capture for storage
FB Gasifier& Cyclone
Chopping & Lock hopper
oxygen
biomassTar
Cracking
steam
CO2
Gasification& Quench
Grinding & Slurry Prep
water
coal
SyngasScrubber
Acid GasRemoval
F-TRefining
F-TSynthesis
CO2
FlashRefrigeration
Plant
slag
Flash
methanol
CO2
syngas
Water GasShift
150 bar CO2
to pipeline
Re
ge
ne
rato
rH2S + CO2
To Claus/SCOT
HC
Re
cove
ry
RecycleCompr.
finished gasoline & diesel blendstocks
unconverted syngas+ C1 - C4 FT gases
raw FT product
Refinery H2 Prod
syncrudelight ends
purge gas PowerIsland
net exportelectricity
gascooling
expander
ATRoxygen steam
dry ash
gascooling
Filter
flue gas
oxygen
OxygenPlant
air
18
Carbon/GHG flows for coal/biomass system with CCS.~40% of input energy from biomass gives ~0 GHG emissions
elec
tric
ity
to g
rid
bio
mas
s u
pst
ream
em
issi
on
s
coal
up
stre
am e
mis
sio
ns
char
coal
flu
e g
ases
gri
d e
lect
rici
ty
dis
pla
ced
ph
oto
syn
thes
is
veh
icle
tai
lpip
e
CO2
storage
fuel
biomassConversion
Fu
el t
ran
spo
rt/d
istr
ibu
tio
n
ATMOSPHERE
19
Net lifecycle GHG emissions with alternative fuels from coal and/or biomass relative to petroleum-derived fuels
Coal-FTLCoal-gasoline (MTG)
Coal-FTL w/CCSCoal-MTG w/CCSCurrent Ethanol
EthanolCoal/bio-MTG w/CCS
Coal/bio-FTL w/CCSBio-FTL
Bio-MTGEthanol w/CCSBio-FTL w/CCS
Bio-MTG w/CCS
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.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
GJ
bio
ma
ss
pe
r GJ
liq
uid
fue
l (L
HV
) Coal
Biomass
Co-processing for FTL, MTG
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
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 20 40 60 80 100GHG Emission Price, $ per tCO2 equiv.
Petrol ($100/bbl)
Petrol ($50/bbl)
Production costs (“Nth” plant) for alternative biomass-based liquid fuels.*
Assumptions: Biomass input rate ~1500 dry t/day; biomass price, $1.5/GJHHV; coal price, $1.7/GJHHV; capital charge rate = 0.15/yr.
Petroleum gasoline
$100/bbl crude oil
$50/bbl crude oil
$ p
er l
iter
of
gas
oli
ne
equ
ival
ent
(200
7$)
23
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 20 40 60 80 100GHG Emission Price, $ per tCO2 equiv.
Ethanol
Ethanol-CCS
Petrol ($100/bbl)
Petrol ($50/bbl)
Production costs (“Nth” plant) for alternative biomass-based liquid fuels.*
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)
Petroleum gasoline
$100/bbl crude oil
$50/bbl crude oil
$ p
er l
iter
of
gas
oli
ne
equ
ival
ent
(200
7$) Capex
(106 2007$)Gasoline eq
(bbl/d)Power(MWe)
GHG(vs. oil)
B-FTL 363 2178 15.7 -0.14B-FTL-CCS 370 2178 11.1 -1.35C/B-FTL-CCS 718 4936 34.1 -0.02C/B-FTL-El-CCS 740 4002 126 -0.01Ethanol* 156 1941 2.0 0.17Ethanol-CCS 158 1941 0.6 -0.22
24
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 20 40 60 80 100GHG Emission Price, $ per tCO2 equiv.
B-FTL
B-FTL-CCS
Ethanol
Ethanol-CCS
Petrol ($100/bbl)
Petrol ($50/bbl)
Production costs (“Nth” plant) for alternative biomass-based liquid fuels.*
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)
Petroleum gasoline
$100/bbl crude oil
$50/bbl crude oil
$ p
er l
iter
of
gas
oli
ne
equ
ival
ent
(200
7$) Capex
(106 2007$)Gasoline eq
(bbl/d)Power(MWe)
GHG(vs. oil)
B-FTL 363 2178 15.7 -0.14B-FTL-CCS 370 2178 11.1 -1.35C/B-FTL-CCS 718 4936 34.1 -0.02C/B-FTL-El-CCS 740 4002 126 -0.01Ethanol* 156 1941 2.0 0.17Ethanol-CCS 158 1941 0.6 -0.22
25
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100GHG Emission Price, $ per tCO2 equiv.
B-FTLB-FTL-CCSC/B-FTL-CCSC/B-FTL-El-CCSEthanolEthanol-CCSPetrol ($100/bbl)Petrol ($50/bbl)
Production costs (“Nth” plant) for alternative biomass-based liquid fuels.*
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)
Petroleum gasoline
$100/bbl crude oil
$50/bbl crude oil
$ p
er l
iter
of
gas
oli
ne
equ
ival
ent
(200
7$) Capex
(106 2007$)Gasoline eq
(bbl/d)Power(MWe)
GHG(vs. oil)
B-FTL 363 2178 15.7 -0.14B-FTL-CCS 370 2178 11.1 -1.35C/B-FTL-CCS 718 4936 34.1 -0.02C/B-FTL-El-CCS 740 4002 126 -0.01Ethanol* 156 1941 2.0 0.17Ethanol-CCS 158 1941 0.6 -0.22
26
Investment estimate for gasifier-GTCC power (Nth plant, U.S. site, 2007 prices)
Average Maximum Average MaximumInput biomass
Megawatts, LHV 255 766 255 766Megawatts, HHV 280 841 280 841Millions of dry tonnes per year (85% capacity factor) 0.401 1.202 0.401 1.202
Electricity, MWGross production 127 381 117 351Onsite consumption 7.5 22.6 16 46.8Net electricity sales 119 358 101 304
Plant capital costs, million 2007$Air separation unit (ASU), and O2 and N2 compression 53 92 52 90 Biomass handling, gasification, and gas cleanup 128 314 145 350 All water gas shift, acid gas removal, Claus/SCOT - - 30 57 CO2 compression - - 10 20 Gas turbine topping cycle 36 82 33 76 Heat recovery and steam cycle 45 111 53 135
Total plant cost (TPC), million 2007$ 262 598 322 727 Specific TPC, $ per kW 2,192 1,670 3,179 2,389
BIG-GTCC-V BIG-GTCC-CCS
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)
Average Maximum Average Maximum
Levelized cost of electricity production, $ per MWhCapital charges 45.4 34.6 65.8 49.4 O&M charges 11.8 9.0 17.1 12.8 Biomass (@ $1.43/GJ HHV average cost) 12.0 12.0 14.1 14.1 CO2 emissions charge - - - - CO2 disposal charges - - 9.5 6.5 Total electricity cost, $/MWh 69.1 55.5 106.5 82.9
BIG-GTCC-V BIG-GTCC-CCS
CARBON EMISSION PRICE = ZERO
Weighted cost of bagasse ($15/dry t) + trash ($40/dry t).
US $ per MWh
(including 10% return on investment)Electricity Selling Price, US$ per MWh (2007 levels)
price
Debt fraction of capital investment 55% Equity fraction of capital investment 45% Real cost of debt 4.4% Real cost of equity 10.2% Corporate income tax rate 39.2% Non-fuel O&M (% of capital cost per yr) 4%
Is this a compelling case for BIG-GT commercialization ?
28
Some numbers: potential yields from sugarcane biomass
Liquid Fuels Production From 50% of bagasse + trash (0.14 tonnes dry biomass total per tc)
Electricity Generation kWh per tonne cane* Steam cycle, 67 bar, 490oC 108 Steam cycle, 100 bar, 520oC 118 Gasification-GTCC 210 Liquid Fuels Production Liters per tonne cane* Ethanol Current technology [1] 38.7 Future (2015?) technology [2] 50.1 FT Diesel + FT Gasoline** [3] Diesel-equivalent liters 29.5 Ethanol-equivalent liters 50.1 Dimethyl ether DME liters 63.2 LPG-equivalent liters 47.4 Diesel-equivalent liters 33.6 Ethanol-equivalent liters 56.7 Nitrogen Fertilizer Production Kg of contained N per tonne cane*** Ammonia 365 1. Andrew McAloon, Frank Taylor, Winnie Yee (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Eastern Regional
Research Center, Agricultural Research Service) and Kelly Ibsen, Robert Wooley (NREL), “Determining the Cost of Producing Ethanol from Corn Starch and Lignocellulosic Feedstocks, A Joint Study Sponsored by: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Energy,” NREL/TP-580-28893, October 2000.
2. Aden, A., Ruth, M. Ibsen, K., Jechura, J., Neeves, K., Sheehan, J., Wallace, B., Montague, L., Slayton, A., and Lukas, J., Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Report # NREL/TP-510-32438, Golden, CO, June 2002.
3. Kreutz, T.G., Larson, E.D., Liu, G. and Williams, R.H. “Fischer-Tropsch Fuels from Coal and Biomass,” 25th Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, 9/29 – 10/2/2008, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Ethanolfromsugar
Ethanolcurrent
Ethanolfuture
B-FTL B-DME C/B-FTL-CCS
Lit
ers
pe
r to
nn
e c
an
e liters gasoline equiv/tc
liters ethanol equiv/tc
Electricity Generation kWh per tonne cane* Steam cycle, 67 bar, 490oC 108 Steam cycle, 100 bar, 520oC 118 Gasification-GTCC 210 Liquid Fuels Production Liters per tonne cane* Ethanol Current technology [1] 38.7 Future (2015?) technology [2] 50.1 FT Diesel + FT Gasoline** [3] Diesel-equivalent liters 29.5 Ethanol-equivalent liters 50.1 Dimethyl ether DME liters 63.2 LPG-equivalent liters 47.4 Diesel-equivalent liters 33.6 Ethanol-equivalent liters 56.7 Nitrogen Fertilizer Production Kg of contained N per tonne cane*** Ammonia 365 1. Andrew McAloon, Frank Taylor, Winnie Yee (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Eastern Regional
Research Center, Agricultural Research Service) and Kelly Ibsen, Robert Wooley (NREL), “Determining the Cost of Producing Ethanol from Corn Starch and Lignocellulosic Feedstocks, A Joint Study Sponsored by: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Energy,” NREL/TP-580-28893, October 2000.
2. Aden, A., Ruth, M. Ibsen, K., Jechura, J., Neeves, K., Sheehan, J., Wallace, B., Montague, L., Slayton, A., and Lukas, J., Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Report # NREL/TP-510-32438, Golden, CO, June 2002.
3. Kreutz, T.G., Larson, E.D., Liu, G. and Williams, R.H. “Fischer-Tropsch Fuels from Coal and Biomass,” 25th Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, 9/29 – 10/2/2008, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Surplus Electricity (100% bag + 50% trash + meeting mill process steam and electricity needs)
Nitrogen Fertilizer Prod (50% bag + 50% trash)
29
Mauritius potential electricity, fuels, fertilizer from sugarcane
Potential (% of current) Current Actual ?
Electricity Generation (GWh/year)
~ 2300100 bar steam cycle 590 (26%)
BIG-GT power 1050 (46%)
Transport Fuel (106 liters/yr gasoline equivalent)
~ 1300Sugar ethanol 315 (24%)
Biomass ethanol 165 (13%)
Biomass FTL 194 (15%)
Coal/Biomass FTL 440 (34%)
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
Varnamo (Sweden) operation 1993-1999 • 20 MWbiomass GTCC + district heating.
• > 8,500 hours pressurized gasification • > 3,600 hours integrated operation. • Technical success, but larger scale needed for
successful economics.
ARBRE (UK) low-P gasifier, 8 MWe GTCC • Successful partial commissioning (2000/01)• Institutional problems end project in 2002.
SIGAME (Bahia), 32 MW, 1991-2003
BAGAÇO (Teste)
FLORESTA SECAGEM NO CAMPO MADEIRA
ESTOCADA NA PLANTA
ESTOQUE DE CAVACOS
GASEIFICAÇÃO
G
TG - 24 MW CALDEIRA DE RECUPERAÇÃO
G
TV-16 MW
SECAGEM
DO GÁS LIMPEZA
5110 ha *
240.250 m 3 /a
* Prodtiv : 47
m 3 /ha.a
CINZAS 0,80 t/h CARVÂO 0,01 t/h
(NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 0,4 m 3 /h a ~33% ÁGUA < 43 m 3 /h
210.000 m 3 / h MP < 35mg/MJ NOx < 40 mgNO 2 /MJ S << 20 mgSO 2 /MJ T < 100
o C
LIMITES: PH 5 - 9 T < 40 O C ÓL&G (M) < 20 mg/l ÓL&G (A) < 50 mg/l NH 3 < 5 mg/l Fenóis < 0,5 mg/l Fe (Sol.) < 15 mg/l Zi < 5 mg/l BOD < 60 mg/l Remoção > 80 %
Projeto - SIGAME
32 MW liq .. 240 GWh /a Ef .>40 % 85% FC
• Low-P gasifier
• Detailed engineering completed, GE turbine modified
• Plantations established
• Institutional problems end project.
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• O&M 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 ISBUC’s long-term objectives – beyond a demonstration project?
34
Thank you!
35
Scale of Sugarcane Processing Plants in Southeast Brazil
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
7000000
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 171 181 191
Number of Mills
To
nn
es o
f ca
ne
pro
cess
ed a
nn
ual
ly
Source: UNICA, Ranking de Produção,www.unica.com.br/referencia/estatisticas.jsp
4000
2000
1000
3000
0
Approximate dry t/day recoverable biom
ass
36
Grinding & Slurry Prep.
Gasification & Quench
Syngas Scrubber
Water Gas Shift
Acid Gas Removal
Methanol Synthesis
Methanol Recovery
MTG reactor
Refining
Refrigeration plant
Flash
Flash
Regeneration
Power Island
Coal
Water Slag
Oxygen plant
Air
Gas cooling
Methanol
CO2
CO2
H2S + CO2 To Claus/SCOT
150 bar CO2 To pipeline
Air
Water
Flue gas
Purge gas
CrudeMethanol
Net export electricity
Gasoline
LPG
Fuel gas
Recycle Compr.
Recycled Syngas
Compression needed only if CCS is utilized.
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
FB Gasifier& Cyclone
Chopping & Lock hopper
biomassTar
Cracking
steam
CO2
Acid GasRemoval
F-TRefining
F-TSynthesis
CO2
FlashRefrigeration
Plant
Flash
methanol
CO2
syngas
150 bar CO2
to pipeline
Re
ge
ne
rato
r
H2S + CO2
To Claus/SCOT
HC
Re
cove
ry
RecycleCompr.
finished gasoline & diesel blendstocks
unconverted syngas+ C1 - C4 FT gases
raw FT product
Refinery H2 Prod
syncrudelight ends
purge gas PowerIsland
net exportelectricity
ATRoxygen steam
dry ash
gascooling
Filter
flue gas
oxygen
OxygenPlant
air
Compression needed only if CCS is utilized.
38
GHG Emissions of Alternative Biomass-Based Liquid Fuels
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5
BTG-RC-CCS
BTL-RC-CCS
EthOH-CCS
BTG-RC-V
BTL-RC-V
CBTL-RC-CCS
CBTG-RC-CCS
EthOH-V
Current EthOH
Relative to crude oil products displaced
39
Trajectory of GHG emissions price (in 2007 $/tCO2eq) that translates to a levelized GHG emissions price of $50/tCO2eq
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Year
GH
G E
mis
sio
ns
Pri
ce,
$/t
CO
2eq
Levelized GHG Emissions Price, 2016-2035