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
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%