• Save
Murphy parker cost of air pollution control for biofuel
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Murphy parker cost of air pollution control for biofuel






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • 1) Profit (+ energy coproducts, elec, gas) 2) Cost Procurement incl delivery, linearized fixed annual and cap dep annual cost, transport. 3) Feedstock supply constraint 4) Feedstock in = refinery capacity
  • How much land is this?

Murphy parker cost of air pollution control for biofuel Murphy parker cost of air pollution control for biofuel Presentation Transcript

  • INFORMS 2012, Phoenix AZColin Murphy, Nathan Parker
  •  Air pollution compliance costs often cited as an obstacle in construction or operation of biorefineries. Costs of compliance with air pollution regulation are added to the Geospatial Bioenergy Systems Model (GBSM). Parker, N., Tittmann, P., Hart, Q., Nelson, R., Skog, K., Schmidt, A., Gray, E., et al. (2010). Development of a biorefinery optimized biofuel supply curve for the Western United States. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(11),
  •  Existing work has focused on technoeconomic assessments, resource assessments and spatial modeling. Spatially explicit models developing steadily Concern over sustainability, need for further study High computational burdens How to integrate environmental concerns with cost-based modeling?
  • Previous GBSM Work Engineering/Economic Models of Biorefineries Spatially Explicit Resource Assessment Supply Chain Optimization Model GIS-based Transportation Cost Model Air Pollution Cost Data Nonattainment Zone Maps
  •  Forest Resources  Unused mill residue  Slash and thinnings  Pulpwood MSW – 50-75% of organic fraction Energy Crops – Non-Irrigated Switchgrass Agriculture residue – Corn Stover
  •  Biochemical Lignocellulosic Ethanol NREL 2011 Process Design (Humbird et al, 2011) Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Swanson et al. (2010) FAME Biodiesel Haas et al. (2006) Corn Ethanol Parker et al. (2010) based on ANTARES 2009 model.
  •  Dominant regulation is Clean Air Act, which sets standards for maximum allowed air pollution levels and requires state/local compliance. Areas exceeding maximum are in “non-attainment” Main pollutants of interest:  PM2.5 – Combustion byproduct, responsible for cancer, heart disease, lung disease  Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) – Ground-level Ozone precursor
  • Ozone Nonattainment Areas Areas PM 2.5 Non-Attainment
  •  PM Control Dry Electrostatic Precipitator  NOx Control Selective Catalytic Reduction  Includes 60% Indirect costs.All values in 000’s of 2002 US Dollars.
  •  Air pollution control costs added to fixed and capacity dependent costs (ai and bi respectively), if the facility is sited in a relevant nonattainment area.
  •  Corn ethanol limited to 15 Billion gal/yr (RFS2 Max) Switchgrass is planted on 50% of both cropland idle and cropland pasture acres Forest from federal lands is not allowed Fuel demand constraint requires each terminal receive its fair share of each biofuel. Blend wall raised to 15%
  •  Small reduction in productionvolume & system profit. Bio-refineries in non-attainmentareas reduce capacity slightly, thoseoutside increase slightly. In one instance (Phoenix, AZ) a newbio-refinery opens outside of anonattainment area, where none wasunder baseline conditions.
  •  Air pollution control costs appear to have a relatively small effect on net biofuel system production, price and spatial distribution. 0.3% Reduction in total volume produced at $3.10 ethanol selling price. MSW is the most affected feedstock. Monetizeable environmental considerations can be incorporated into profit-maximizing optimization modeling
  •  AHB-PNW Study of biofuel production from hybrid poplar in OR, WA, ID, CA Add agent choice at feedstock producer and biorefinery operation level BCAM feedstock modeling Generate nationwide spatial air pollutant emissions inventory
  • cwmurphy@ucdavis.eduncparker@ucdavis.edu
  • No federal landsAll lands
  •  50% of paper currently landfilled can be separated for fuel production 75% of wood currently landfilled can be separated for fuel production 75% of yard wastes currently landfilled can be separated 50% of food wastes currently landfilled can be transitioned to a source separated collection method 75% of the remainder of of the organic fraction of MSW (including plastic, etc) can be used for fuel production  Only biogenic fraction is reported in the results
  •  Only consider non-irrigated switchgrass Yields from ORNL study  We use upland yields  The study predicts the 95 percentile of switchgrass yields based on field trials. Land base assigned based on NASS statistics  Cropland (Idle) – 25% or 50%  Cropland (Pasture) – 25% or 50%  Pastureland – 0% or 5%
  • Projected yields Projected yields*land area