Resource efficient bioenergy for BC
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Resource efficient bioenergy for BC



Fischer Tropsch Liquid Fuels from biomass including hybrid approaches using coal with CCS to gain economies of scale.

Fischer Tropsch Liquid Fuels from biomass including hybrid approaches using coal with CCS to gain economies of scale.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

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

Resource efficient bioenergy for BC Resource efficient bioenergy for BC Presentation Transcript

  • Resource EfficientApplication of Biofuels in British ColumbiaPart 1: Fischer-Tropsch Drop-in Fuels Thomas Cheney
  • Bioenergy is limited BCs Bioenergy Resources are limited Efficient utilization is required
  • Using bioenergy rightThe Right Process• Energy Efficiency• Cost effective The Right Fuel• Allows use of non-food • Compatible with the infrastructure feedstock• Scalable • Cost effective • Clean-burning • Distribution • RangeCo-Benefits: Carbon Capture, improved soil
  • Why Resource Efficiency Matters BC Biomass resources are limited • Equivalent to 40% of BC fossil fuel use • Mountain Pine Bettle fibre supply spike • 300 PJ sustainable potential
  • Not all biofuels are created equal• Some biofuels produce far more fuelhectare than others
  • BC Energy Use
  • BC Energy Use breakdownSector PJ PJ Biomass can meet 25-Transportation 404 30% of ProvincialIndustry 362 energy demandAgriculture 18Residential 136Comm., Instit. & Public Admin 105Power Generation 35Total 1060Biomass Capacity 250-300
  • An American Perspective • Biomass is not a panacea“If all biomass were used in CBTL-CCS systemsdesigned to maximize liquids output, 5.9 millionbbl/day transport fuels could be produced. ≈ U.S.domestic crude oil production. ≈ ½ of U.S. oilimports” This assumes that the process with drivenwith coal with biomass providing the carbon atoms!
  • BC’s GHG emision Of totalMarine 3.96%Off-Road 5.40%Rail 0.72%Air 2.52%Passenger Vehicles 14.04%Heavy Duty Vehicle 9.36%
  • BC Transportation• 300 Petajoules of energy use• Assuming conversion efficiency rate of 40%, 120 PJ of fuel could be realized. This however leave very limited bioenergy resources available for sectors other than transportation fuel
  • Electric vs. Biofuel • Vast electric • Limited liquid fuel supplies supplies • Limited Range • Long range with simple refuelling
  • We need both Apply the right technology in the right place The “Algaeus” biofuel plug-in• Electricity should be seen as the dominant prime mover in B.C• Biofuels hydrogen for range extension
  • How do we get biofuels?• Thermochemical Pathway o Fischer-Troposch o Di-Methyl ether (DME) and Methanol  Green Gasoline o Biomass Synthetic Natural Gas o Hydrogen• Biochemical Pathways o Ethanol o Others based on proprietary organisms (LanzaTech)
  • Thermochemical Process canproduce many energy products
  • Thermochemical Fuel Cycles• Gasification, Gas Cleaning, Chemical
  • One Option is FT-BiofuelsCHOREN Biofuels Plant in Germany
  • FT FUEL• CO + H 2  CH2 + H2O• Used for coal since 1930s
  • Biomass-Based FTFuels • Clean syngas is essential • Entrianed flow gasifiers are considered to be the most mature technology • Biomass feeding is a challenge • Similar technologies used in Coal to Liquids
  • FT Advantages • 40% efficiency • Drop-in fuel! • Established for coal and gas to liquids • Biomass specific technology pre-Coal to Liquids Plant in South Africa commercial
  • FT Compared to the Cellulosicethanol<2.5 units of biomass are required per unit offuel.
  • Economics of FT b Competitive with oil at $115 per barrel gasoline withoug carbon price
  • Biomass injectionParticular challenges to BtL o Use of coal based systems have energy use challenges  biomass grinding to 100 um uses 8% of energy in biomass o Coal-based systems use a lock hopper o Biomass based systems using screw injection leads to greater energy efficiency  Less pressurisation needed  Less dilution
  • Piston Feeding of Biomass• Biomass specific feeding system appear best rather than the systems adapted for coal. o Greater efficiency o Van der Drift et al. 2004 covers these issues in detail o “ENTRAINED FLOW GASIFICATION OF BIOMASS: Ash behaviour, feeding issues, and system analyses”
  • Van der Drift Syngas PreparationPreliminary gasification (option D) offers highestefficiency approach.
  • Choren• Low temperature gasification followed by high- temperature gasification to clean gas.• Pre-treatment low-temperature gasification to resolve challenges with biomass gasification of woody biomass
  • Solar Assisted Fuels • Uses solar energy to drive endothermic reaction for biofuels. • Hydrogen created from solar energy avoiding loss of carbon through reverse gas shiftHertwich, E. G. and Zhang, X (2010) “Concentrating-Solar biomass gasification process fora 3rd generation biofuel
  • Solar fuels• Solar cogeneration for electrolysis and gasification heat to increase process carbon efficiency
  • Cost Analysis for solar fuelanalysis• 7.5$ per GJ of fuel produced (2001 $) Input costs $2.5 per GJ• 60% Less land total• 67% less land for biofuels• Assumes a $100 /tC Indicators Solar- Bomass Coal Biomass Fuel Fuel Productivity 121.0 39.9 62.2 (kg fuel/100 kg resource) Cost ($2001/GJ) $7.5 $8.9 $10.8 Efficiency 60.9% 42.0% 36.5%
  • Coal Biomass FT Fuels • Coal with carbon capture and storage can leverage the biomass 1.5 units of coal + 1 unit biomass = 1 unit fuel + 1.5 units sequestered CO2 565 liters gasoline equivalent with coal +CCS versus 25l lge!
  • Remember This:• Coal with CCS allows for low- mitigation cost very low CO2 fuels
  • Carbon-Neutral Coal Based biofuel • 38% biomass + CCS leads to carbon neutral biofuel. • Coal cheaper than biomass, reduces fuel production costs even with CCS costs included
  • Economics CBTL with CCS costs less than BTL without CCS!
  • Conclusions• Look at combining biomass and coal or biomass with solar to maximize carbon utilization• Ethanol is a distraction!• Electrify has much as possible• Next SNG fuels using compressed biomethane and liquified biomethane
  • THANK YOU!://