Evaluation of co-gasification of black liquor and pyrolysis liquids - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Evaluation of co-gasification of black liquor and pyrolysis liquids from a national systems perspective Zetterholm J., Wetterlund E., Pettersson K., Lundgren J., jonas.zetterholm@ltu.se

Fossil free road transport sector 15-20 TWh SOU 2013:84 Fossilfrihet på väg 2

Biofuel alternatives Fossil Fuels 3

Gasification feedstock • Black liquor • Pyrolysis liquid – Limited availability – Fast pyrolysis process – Low energy content – High energy content – Catalytic effect • (good for gasification) 4

Scope • Is BL/PL gasification favourable from the national systems perspective? – Entire value chain – Biomass availability – Industry localisation • Does economy of scale outweigh increased specific biomass usage? 5

Black liquor Pulpwood Mill products Mill steam Chem. El BL RB 6

Black liquor gasification Pulpwood Mill products Mill steam Chem. BL BFP Biofuel (MeOH) El BB Biomass 7

Co-gasification of BL and PL Pulpwood Mill products Mill steam Chem. BL BFP Biofuel (MeOH) El BB PL Biomass 8

Fast pyrolysis Heat Feedstock Pyrolysis Liquid Pre- Pyrolysis Quench treatment ~500°C Heat Char Non-condensable gases Char combustor Heat 9

Fast pyrolysis localisation • Close to biomass Stand alone • Heat integration • Biomass infrastructure • Boiler available CHP • Heat integration • Biomass infrastructure • PL feed from sawmill waste Sawmill 10

Supply chain configurations 11

Large- scale biofuel plants where…? Geographic aspects Biorefineries Plant sizes Distances Integration Transports Areas Biofuels Production facilities Environmental goals Policies Biomass feedstock Sustainability International Demand markets Supply Competition

BeWhere Sweden Biomass Supply Use Biofuel demand Industries Transport network GAMS/CPLEX New plants Biomass Biofuel 13

Black liquor gasification 20 11 mills 20 mills 15 Biofuel [TWh/a] 10 5 0 RB: all RB > 25 y 14

Biofuel production 9 TWh/a, old boilers Inv.: Biofuel plant (spec.) Inv.: Pyrolysis plant (spec.) Biomass usage (spec.) 5 2 11 mills 2 mills Spec. investment [MEUR/GW] Spec. biomass [biomass/fuel] 4 1,5 3 1 2 0,5 1 0 0 BLG BLG + BL/PLG 15

Biofuel production 9 TWh/a, old boilers 16

Biofuel production 19 TWh/a Inv.: Biofuel plant (spec.) Inv.: Pyrolysis plant (spec.) Biomass usage (spec.) 5 2,5 5 mills 20 mills 5 mills Spec. investment [MEUR/GW] Spec. biomass [biomass/fuel] 4 2 3 1,5 2 1 1 0,5 0 0 RB: All RB: All RB > 25 y BLG BLG + BL/PLG 17

Result summary Inv.: Biofuel plant (spec.) Inv.: Pyrolysis plant (spec.) Biomass usage (spec.) 5 2,5 Spec. investment [MEUR/GW] Spec. biomass [biomass/fuel] 4 2,0 3 1,5 2 1,0 1 0,5 0 0,0 RB > 25 y RB > 25 y RB: All RB: All RB > 25 y BLG BLG + BL/PLG BLG BLG + BL/PLG 9 Twh/a 19 TWh/a 18

Conclusions • BL/PLG leads to lower cost for a specific biofuel demand • Co gasification results in – Higher specific biomass demand – Lower specific investment requirement • Fewer mills needs to be converted – BLG: 11 mills, BLG + BL/PLG: 2 mills 19

Acknowledgements The work has been carried out under the auspices of “ Forskarskola Energisystem ” financed by the Swedish Energy Agency. Bio4Energy. The Swedish Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transportation Fuels (f3) and the Swedish Research Council Formas are also acknowledged for financial support. 20