Murphy parker cost of air pollution control for biofuel

369 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
369
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 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

    1. 1. INFORMS 2012, Phoenix AZColin Murphy, Nathan Parker
    2. 2.  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),
    3. 3.  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?
    4. 4. 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
    5. 5.  Forest Resources  Unused mill residue  Slash and thinnings  Pulpwood MSW – 50-75% of organic fraction Energy Crops – Non-Irrigated Switchgrass Agriculture residue – Corn Stover
    6. 6.  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.
    7. 7.  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
    8. 8. Ozone Nonattainment Areas Areas PM 2.5 Non-Attainment
    9. 9.  PM Control Dry Electrostatic Precipitator  NOx Control Selective Catalytic Reduction  Includes 60% Indirect costs.All values in 000’s of 2002 US Dollars.
    10. 10.  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.
    11. 11.  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%
    12. 12.  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.
    13. 13.  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
    14. 14.  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
    15. 15. cwmurphy@ucdavis.eduncparker@ucdavis.edu
    16. 16. No federal landsAll lands
    17. 17.  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
    18. 18.  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%
    19. 19. Projected yields Projected yields*land area

    ×