Shell is investigating biomass energy technologies that could provide hydrogen, liquid fuels, and chemicals from lignocellulosic biomass. This document analyzes the logistics and economics of collecting, transporting, and converting various biomass feedstocks in the US, Canada, and Brazil into energy. Key findings include that centralized residues have the lowest delivery costs currently, while agricultural waste has the highest. Transport costs significantly impact the optimal conversion facility scale. Infrastructure is the main barrier to widespread biomass energy adoption.

1. Upstream Biomass Energy
Michael Weatherl

2. Background
 Shell is investigating several unproven
lignocellulosic biomass-derived fuel and
energy technologies
 These could provide sources of
Hydrogen, liquid fuels, and other
valuable chemicals
 The logistical and economic aspects of
the processes are not yet fully
understood

3. Advantages of Biomass
Energy
 Clean, renewable source of energy
 Does not release additional CO2 into the
atmosphere
 Utilizes waste material
 Creates local jobs and decreases
foreign imports
 Several areas of high biomass
availability near areas of high demand
for the end product

4. Project Description
 Identify key parameters governing bio-energy
economics, especially in the USA, Canada, and
Brazil
 Quantification of costs for upstream biomass
collection and handling
 Review several biomass conversion processes
to establish economic baselines for comparison
 Document the energy balance of the process
 Develop a simple economic model to help
guide decision making

5. The Bio-Energy Process
 Collection & Densification
 Handling/Storage
 Transportation
 Conversion
 Distribution of End-Product
‘upstream’

6. Feedstock Resources - USA
 Corn Stover (non-food portion): 100+ million
tons
 Forest Thinnings: 40+ million tons
 Primary Mill Residues: 40+ million tons
 Urban Wood Wastes: 35+ million tons
 Other Agricultural Waste: 50+ million tons
Estimated Sustainable Annual Supply

7. U.S. Biomass Resource Map

8. Feedstock Resources -
Canada
 Wheat Straw: 20+ million tons
 Forest Residues: 90+ million tons
 Mill Residues: 10+ million tons
Estimated Sustainable Annual Supply

9. Canadian Forestry Biomass

10. Canadian Agricultural
Biomass

11. Feedstock Resources - Brazil
 Bagasse: 60+ million tons annually
 Highly developed sugarcane-to-ethanol
program

12. Brazilian Agriculture

13. A Note on Feedstocks…
 These numbers are conservative, and
take into account the main parameters
of sustainable collection
 Less than 10% of all agricultural residue
is used
 Pre-collected residues (bagasse &
mills) tend to be used for inefficient
boiler firing, but are still very low cost

14. What if? ‘Efficient Energy
Crops of the Future’
 Technology will yield more and more
appealing products as time progresses.
Agriculture is no different.
 ORNL estimates that ‘Dedicated Energy
Crops’ could provide nearly 200 million
tons of biomass in the U.S. annually.

15. Feedstock Productivity
 Corn Stover: 1.5
 Wheat Straw: 1.2
 Forestry Waste: 5
 Energy Crops: >10
Annual tons of Biomass per acre:

16. The Bio-Energy Process
 Collection & Densification
 Handling/Storage
 Transportation
 Conversion

17. Biomass Collection: Case
Studies
Agricultural Residue: Harvest & Collection Costs
($/ton)
Approximate Farm-Gate Cost: $27/ton
Mowing Baling Stacking Total
Source 1: Rice Straw 6 14 7 27
Source 2: Wheat Straw 7 8 11 26
Source 3: Corn Stover 10 12 5 27

18. Biomass Collection: Case
Studies
Collect/Bundle Foreward/Load Chipping Total
Source 1 16 5 3 24
Source 2 7 8 11 26
Source 3 10 12 5 27
Forestry Waste: Collection Costs ($/ton)
Approximate Roadside Cost: $26/ton

19. Biomass Collection: Conclusions
 One-Pass harvest of both grain and
waste biomass would eliminate several
steps.
 Sustainable collection is important
 Agricultural Residue: $27/ton
 Forestry Residue: $26/ton
 For centrally located feedstocks,
purchase cost is $5-$15/ton (based on
LHV, alternate uses)

20. The Bio-Energy Process
 Collection & Densification
 Storage/Handling
 Transportation
 Conversion

21. Biomass Storage
 Agricultural waste that is only harvested once
or twice annually requires storage
 Large bales stored field side and covered by a
tarp will resist damage. This costs about
$5/ton.
 Forestry waste is generated year-round, and
does not require storage
 Mill residues and bagasse are stored at the
site where they are generated.

22. Biomass Handling
 Agricultural waste is transported to a
local pickup/storage point.
 Forestry waste is forwarded to the side of
the road to await transport
 Mill residues and bagasse are loaded
directly onto trucks and sent to the
conversion center

23. The Bio-Energy Process
 Collection & Densification
 Storage/Handling
 Transportation
 Conversion

24. Biomass Transport
 Truck
 Train
 Barge
 Pipeline?
Main Options:

25. North American Rail System

26. Transport Cost: Agricultural Waste
Fixed Cost ($/ton) Variable Cost ($/ton-mile)
Source 1: Rice Straw Bales 5.5 0.09
Source 2: Wheat Straw Bales 4.5 0.19
Assumed Trucking Cost 5 0.14
Source 3: Freight by Rail 11 0.03
Agricultural Waste Transport
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 50 100 150 200
Distance (miles)
TransportCost($)
Trucking
Rail

27. Delivered Cost: Agricultural Waste
Delivered Cost of Agricultural Feedstock
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 50 100 150 200
Distance
Cost($/ton)
Cost After Storage
Delivered Cost (Trucks)
Delivered Cost (Rail)

28. Transport Cost: Forestry Waste
Fixed Cost ($/ton) Variable Cost ($/ton-mile)
Truck Transport 4 0.2
Barge Transport (if possible) 15 0.02

29. Delivered Cost: Forestry Waste
Delivered Cost of Forestry Residue
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 50 100 150 200
Distance
Cost($/ton)
Flat Costs
Delivered Cost
Barge (w here available)

30. Pipeline Transport

31. Pipeline Transport?
 Short term: probably not
 Long term: more likely
 Allows for economies of scale and
integrated processes

32. Biomass Transport: Conclusions
 Agricultural Waste: <$50/ton
 Forestry Waste: <$42/ton
 Centralized Feedstocks: <$30/ton
Delivered Price:

33. The Bio-Energy Process
 Collection & Densification
 Storage/Handling
 Transportation
 Conversion

34. Conversion Technologies
 Combustion (gasification)
 Fermentation (MixAlco)
 Scale is everything!

35. Gasification into Hydrogen
Plant Scale (tons of bioimass/day) Cost of Hydrogen ($/GJ)
345 17.08
1150 15.39
1730 14.29
Gasification
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Plant Scale (tons of biomass/day)
CostofHydrogen($/GJ)
Predicted Plant-Gate
Hydrogen Selling Price
Current Wholesale
Hydrogen Price

36. MixAlco
 MixAlco is a fermentation process which
utilizes cellulosic feedstocks (non-food
sources such as waste from agriculture
and forests)
 Yields chemicals that can be made into
acids, alcohols, and hydrogen
 Developed by Dr. Mark Holtzapple of
Texas A&M University

37. Primary Alcohol Selling Price per Capacity, for
different Feedstock costs
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Tons of Biomass per Day
SellingPrice($/gal)
$11/ton
$22/ton
$33/ton
$44/ton
$55/ton
Today
MixAlco Costs

38. A healthy skepticism…
 15% ROI may not be high enough for
such a high-risk investment
 Feedstock quantity and quality are
inconsistent
 These numbers are educated guesses
and may overlook some unseen costs

39. Energy Balance
 Lignocellulosic-derived ethanol
has a higher NEV (Net Energy
Balance - an estimated 60,000
Btu) because of a less energy-
intensive conversion process,
when compared to traditional
ethanol sources like corn
 Hydrogen will have even higher
NEV because it does not require
a fuel-grade liquid

40. Conclusions:
 Centralized residues appear to be the
most viable option presently
 Forestry waste also appears feasible,
but not as cost-effective
 Agricultural waste appears to be the
least economical feedstock presently
 Transport costs have the greatest
impact on optimal scale
 Infrastructure is the only showstopper

41. Acknowledgements:
I’d like to thank the members of Shell Gamechanger
for giving me the opportunity to take part in this
project and learn so much this summer.
Special thanks to Jerry Morris, Jack Hirsch, Scott
Wellington, Brendan Murray, Ron Reinsfelder,
Jingyu Cui, Rebecca Hubbard, Russ Conser, Don
Maynard, Tim O’Gorman, Jochen Marwede, Lori
Glassgold, Jair Guarda, Jaison Thomas, and the rest
of the Gamechanger team.
It’s truly been a pleasure!