Title: Commercializing New Biomass Energy Technologies
1Commercializing New Biomass Energy Technologies
- Eric D. Larson
- Princeton Environmental Institute
- Princeton University
- USA
International Society of Sugar Cane
Technologists International Sugarcane Biomass
Utilization Consortium Third Meeting, 28 June 1
July, 2009 Shandrani Resort, Mauritius
2My 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.
3What 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.
4Climate Change Issues/Opportunities
- To avoid dangerous climate change (?T gt 2oC),
global GHG emissions by 2050 must be - ½ current emissions level, or
- Less than ¼ of projected 2050 business-as-usual
emissions. - IEA projects GHG emissions price in 2030 in OECD
- 90/t for 550 ppmv stabilization
- 180/t for 450 ppmv stabilization
- Biomass will become much more valuable (including
possibility for negative GHG emissions when
biomass is used with CO2 capture and storage
(CCS).
Source International Energy Agency, Energy
Technology Perspectives, 2008
5Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on CCS
- Based on observations and analysis of current CO2
storage projects (several storing 106 tCO2/yr),
natural systems, engineering systems, and models - CO2 injected underground is very likely to stay
there for gt 100 yrs. - CO2 injected underground is likely to stay there
gt 1000 yrs. - Large potential for CO2 storage in deep
sedimentary basins
Source B. Metz, O.Davidson, H. de Coninck, M.
Loos, and L. Meyer (eds.), Figure SPM.6b in
Summary for Policymakers, IPCC Special Report
on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage,Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2005.
6Parallels 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.
7New 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.
8Basic Biomass Conversion Options
advanced technology options
Ethanol
Biochemical
Alt. Liquid fuels
Bagasse, Trash
Gasification
Electricity
B
D
Combustion
Electricity
9Biochemical conversion of biomass
Raw Biomass
Pretreatment
Ethanol
Recovery Distillation
Fermentation
Hydrolysis
Solids separation
Steam power generation
Enzyme production
Process steam electricity
- Current technology
- Separate pretreatment ? hydrolysis using
purchased enzymes (cellulases) to liberate C5 and
C6 sugars ? C6 fermentation. - C5 fermentation has been demonstrated at pilot
scale. - Near future technology
- Pretreatment combined enzyme hydrolysis and
fermentation - More future technology
- Consolidated bioprocessing one reactor for
enzyme production, hydrolysis, fermentation.
- May 2009 study from U.S. National Academy of
Sciences - Ethanol yield with current known technology 260
liters/dry t biomass - Future-technology yield 330 liters/dry t biomass
10Gasification-based conversion of biomass
11 Biofuel substitutes for ?
Conventional Fuel
Ethanol
Gasoline
Mixed alcohols
Diesel
Methanol / MTG
LPG
Fischer Tropsch
Paraffin
Dimethyl ether
Kerosene
Biocrude
Crude oil
HYDROLYSIS
GASIFICATION
12Fuels 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
13Comparing thermochemical and biochemical systems
Black technology features Red development
status Blue key hurdles
14Gasification-based fuels from biomass and/or coal
- All conversion component technologies are
commercial (or near-commercial in the case of
biomass gasification). - CO2 removal is intrinsic part of the process.
- Projects to demonstrate CO2 capture from coal and
storage at mega-scale (gt 106 tCO2/yr injection)
are in active development in USA, Europe,
Australia, and China will require 10 years to
gain confidence needed for widespread
implementation.
15CCS 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.
16Three designs for coal/biomass co-processing with
CCS.
17Coal/Biomass co-processing for Fischer-Tropsch
diesel and gasoline, with CO2 capture for storage
18Carbon/GHG flows for coal/biomass system with
CCS.40 of input energy from biomass gives 0
GHG emissions
19Net lifecycle GHG emissions with alternative
fuels from coal and/or biomass relative to
petroleum-derived fuels
20Amount 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.
21Yields 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.
22Production costs (Nth plant) for alternative
biomass-based liquid fuels.
100/bbl crude oil
Petroleum gasoline
50/bbl crude oil
per liter of gasoline equivalent (2007)
Assumptions Biomass input rate 1500 dry t/day
biomass price, 1.5/GJHHV coal price,
1.7/GJHHV capital charge rate 0.15/yr.
23Production costs (Nth plant) for alternative
biomass-based liquid fuels.
100/bbl crude oil
Petroleum gasoline
50/bbl crude oil
per liter of gasoline equivalent (2007)
Assumptions Biomass input rate 1500 dry t/day
biomass price, 1.5/GJHHV coal price,
1.7/GJHHV capital charge rate 0.15/yr.
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)
24Production costs (Nth plant) for alternative
biomass-based liquid fuels.
100/bbl crude oil
Petroleum gasoline
50/bbl crude oil
per liter of gasoline equivalent (2007)
Assumptions Biomass input rate 1500 dry t/day
biomass price, 1.5/GJHHV coal price,
1.7/GJHHV capital charge rate 0.15/yr.
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)
25Production costs (Nth plant) for alternative
biomass-based liquid fuels.
100/bbl crude oil
Petroleum gasoline
50/bbl crude oil
per liter of gasoline equivalent (2007)
Assumptions Biomass input rate 1500 dry t/day
biomass price, 1.5/GJHHV coal price,
1.7/GJHHV capital charge rate 0.15/yr.
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)
26Investment estimate for gasifier-GTCC power (Nth
plant, U.S. site, 2007 prices)
Bagasse plus 50 of trash from 2 million tcane/yr
6 million tcane/yr
MW Electric Export to Grid ?
Investment cost ?
27Electricity selling price for stand-alone
gasifier-GTCC power plant (Nth plant U.S. price
estimate)
Financial assumptions (U.S. conditions)
28Some numbers potential yields from sugarcane
biomass
Liquid Fuels Production From 50 of bagasse
trash (0.14 tonnes dry biomass total per tc)
29Mauritius potential electricity, fuels,
fertilizer from sugarcane
30Summary 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.
31Past BIG-GT commercialization efforts
32Challenges to commercializing biomass gasification
- Engineering
- Efficient biomass drying, e.g. using
low-temperature waste heat - Gasifier feeding of bagasse/trash (more for
pressurized gasification) - Tar cracking/gas cleaning
- Operational reliability and availability
- Financial
- Finding the money
- Demonstrating the competitiveness
- Investment cost
- OM cost
- Fuel cost
- Energy or product price
- Institutional
- Getting support from the right partners
(engineering, finance, institutional) - Getting the right institutional and
organizational arrangement to carry forward the
demonstration and continue on to commercial
deployment.
33Some considerations for ISBUC
- Past work (e.g., Arbre, Varnamo, and other
projects) provides information needed to design a
commercial-scale gasification installation. - A minimum scale is needed to be convincing as a
commercial demonstration and to achieve
acceptable economics. What should be the scale? - What should be produced? Power? Fuel? Power and
Fuel? - How about co-processing biomass and coal in an
already-commercial coal gasifier? - What are ISBUCs long-term objectives beyond a
demonstration project?
34 35Scale of Sugarcane Processing Plants in Southeast
Brazil
4000
3000
2000
Approximate dry t/day recoverable biomass
1000
0
Source UNICA, Ranking de Produção,www.unica.com.b
r/referencia/estatisticas.jsp
36Fischer-Tropsch liquids (FTL) from coal w/ or w/o
CCS.
37Fischer-Tropsch liquids (FTL) from biomass w/ or
w/o CCS
38GHG Emissions of Alternative Biomass-Based Liquid
Fuels
39Trajectory of GHG emissions price (in 2007
/tCO2eq) that translates to a levelized GHG
emissions price of 50/tCO2eq
Levelized GHG Emissions Price, 2016-2035