-Assessing carbon mitigation Erik Sandberg 2 What is this about? - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Implementing biomass in the Swedish industry

• Assessing carbon mitigation

Erik Sandberg

What is this about?

How much biomass is required in different industrial carbon mitigation options?

– Bio based fuel substitution might not be the best use of biomass – CCS might be the most efficient use of biomass 2

Workflow

Mapping the energy use of the industry Identify fuel substitution possibilities and alternative technologies Scenario creation and analysis

3

Mapped energy use 2013

Statistic data – Final consumption 2013 – Eurostat & Statistic Sweden

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

IIS NMM CHE PPI MAQ OI FAT NFM

TWh Biomass Electricity Gas Solid fossil fuels Total petroleum products Waste

4

Mapped energy use 2013

Energy intensive industries

– Energy use allocated to industrial activities

Non energy intensive industries

– Energy use allocated to industrial heat demands 5

Mapped CO2 emissions

– Calculated values based on energy use

10 20 30 40 50 60

IIS NMM CHE PPI MAQ OI FAT NFM

100 kton Gas Process emissions Solid fossil fuels Total petroleum products Waste

6

The Options

Fuel substitution or… …alternative technologies

7

Bio based fuel substitution

– Biomass

Default substitution for low and medium heat demands Used for high heat demands if proven possible

– Biofuel (SNG)

Used as substitute for natural gas, fuel oil and LPG (if natural gas is listed as a fuel option in current technologies)

– Biofuel (Charcoal/torrefied)

Used as substitute for solid fossil fuels where proven possible

8

Bio based fuel substitution

Industrial sector Application area/industry Potential biomass substitution IIS

Blast furnace: Coke, PCI 20% Biofuels, 100% Biofuels Heating ovens 100% Biofuels

MAQ

Pelletization process 100% Biomass/Biofuels

NFM

Copper and lead etc. 100% Biofuels/Biomass Primary aluminium 0% Secondary aluminium 100% Biofuels Foundries 100% Biofuels

NMM

Cement 100% Biofuels Lime 100% Biomass /Biofuels Glass & mineral wool 100% Biofuels Ceramics 100% Biofuels

PPI

Limekiln 100% Biomass

FAT

Heating purposes 100% Biomass

OI

Heating purposes 100% Biomass

CHE

n/a n/a

Large possibility of fuel substitution Not in IIS and NFM

9

Alternative technologies

Alternative technologies

– Alternative technologies using biomass – CCS

Electrical alternatives

– The electrical alternatives proven available

Uncertain alternatives

– Technologies that are not proven available

10

Alternative technologies

Indust rial sector Application area/industry Alternative technologies Electrical alternatives Uncertain alternatives IIS

Blast furnace: Coke, PCI PCC CCS, Bio-DRI Hydrogen-DRI Electro winning Heating ovens n/a Possible n/a

MAQ

Pelletization process n/a n/a Electro thermal

NFM

Copper and lead etc. n/a n/a n/a Primary aluminium CCS n/a Inert anodes Secondary aluminium n/a Possible n/a Foundries n/a Possible n/a

NMM Cement

CCS n/a Electro thermal, Oxyfuel CCS Lime CCS n/a Electro thermal, Oxyfuel CCS Glass & mineral wool n/a Possible n/a Ceramics n/a Possible n/a

PPI

Limekiln n/a n/a Electro thermal

FAT

Heating purposes n/a Heat pumps Heat pumps

OI

Heating purposes n/a Heat pumps Heat pumps

CHE

n/a Change of input, new base chemicals etc. n/a n/a

11

Scenario analysis

Answer to the question… …with different technology setups.

12

Scenario analysis

Bio substitution +/- CCS Bio sub. + Alternative technologies +/- CCS Bio sub. + Electrical alternatives +/- CCS Bio sub. + Uncertain alternatives +/- CCS

13

Scenario results

14

20 40 60 80 100 120 140

• Tot. Elec.+CCS
• Tot. Elec.
• El. Sub.+CCS
• El. Sub.
• Alt. Tech.+CCS
• Alt. Tech.
• Bio. Sub.+CCS
• Bio. Sub.

Present consumption

• Tot. Elec.+CCS
• Tot. Elec.
• El. Sub.+CCS
• El. Sub.
• Alt. Tech.+CCS
• Alt. Tech.
• Bio. Sub.+CCS
• Bio. Sub.

Present consumption Energy use CO2 emissions Energy(TWh) / CO2 emissions(100 kton) Biofuel(l/g) Biofuel(s) Biofuel(trans) Biomass Electricity Gas Process emissions Solid fossil fuels Total petroleum products Waste

Scenario results

15

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

• Tot. Elec.+CCS
• Tot. Elec.
• El. Sub.+CCS
• El. Sub.
• Alt. Tech.+CCS
• Alt. Tech.
• Bio. Sub.+CCS
• Bio. Sub.
• Tot. Elec.+CCS
• Tot. Elec.
• El. Sub.+CCS
• El. Sub.
• Alt. Tech.+CCS
• Alt. Tech.
• Bio. Sub.+CCS
• Bio. Sub.
• Alt. Feedstock (high)
• Alt. Feedstock (medium)
• Alt. Feedstock (low)
• Add. Electricity
• Add. Prim. Biomass

Energy(TWh) Biofuel(l/g) Biofuel(s) Biofuel(trans) Biomass Electricity

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

• Tot. Elec.+CCS
• Tot. Elec.
• El. Sub.+CCS
• El. Sub.
• Alt. Tech.+CCS
• Alt. Tech.
• Bio. Sub.+CCS
• Bio. Sub.
• Tot. Elec.+CCS
• Tot. Elec.
• El. Sub.+CCS
• El. Sub.
• Alt. Tech.+CCS
• Alt. Tech.
• Bio. Sub.+CCS
• Bio. Sub.
• Alt. Feedstock (high)
• Alt. Feedstock (medium)
• Alt. Feedstock (low)
• Add. Electricity
• Add. Prim. Biomass

Energy(TWh) Biofuel(l/g) Biofuel(s) Biofuel(trans) Biomass Electricity

Scenario results

16

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

• Tot. Elec.+CCS
• Tot. Elec.
• El. Sub.+CCS
• El. Sub.
• Alt. Tech.+CCS
• Alt. Tech.
• Bio. Sub.+CCS
• Bio. Sub.
• Tot. Elec.+CCS
• Tot. Elec.
• El. Sub.+CCS
• El. Sub.
• Alt. Tech.+CCS
• Alt. Tech.
• Bio. Sub.+CCS
• Bio. Sub.
• Alt. Feedstock (high)
• Alt. Feedstock (medium)
• Alt. Feedstock (low)
• Add. Electricity
• Add. Prim. Biomass

Energy(TWh) Biofuel(l/g) Biofuel(s) Biofuel(trans) Biomass Electricity

Scenario results

17

Scenario performance

18

• 2
• 1

1 2 3 4 5 6

• 20
• 10

10 20 30 40 50 60

• Bio. Sub.

Bio. Sub.+CCS

• Alt. Tech.

Alt. Tech.+CCS

• El. Sub.

El. Sub.+CCS

• Tot. Elec.

Tot. Elec.+CCS

• Add. Biomass
• Add. Electricity.

Biomass Electricity Total energy

Conclusions

• 12-34 TWh of biomass required to achive

carbon neutrality

• CCS the most efficient way of utilizing biomass

for emission reduction purposes, bio based fuel substitution most innefficient if used as the only option

• CCS required to reach carbon neutrality

19

Thank you!

20