Evaluation of co-gasification of black liquor and pyrolysis liquids - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
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
Fossil free road transport sector
15-20 TWh
SOU 2013:84 Fossilfrihet på väg 2
Biofuel alternatives
3
Fossil Fuels
Gasification feedstock
- Black liquor
– Limited availability – Low energy content – Catalytic effect
- (good for gasification)
- Pyrolysis liquid
– Fast pyrolysis process – High energy content
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
Mill RB BL Mill products Pulpwood
Chem. steam El
6
Black liquor gasification
Mill BFP BL Mill products Pulpwood
Chem. steam El
Biofuel (MeOH) Biomass BB
7
Co-gasification of BL and PL
Mill BFP BL Mill products Pulpwood
Chem. steam El
Biofuel (MeOH) Biomass PL BB
8
Fast pyrolysis
9
Pre- treatment Pyrolysis ~500°C Quench Char combustor Feedstock Heat Heat Heat Char Non-condensable gases Pyrolysis Liquid
Fast pyrolysis localisation
- Close to biomass
10
- Heat integration
- Biomass infrastructure
- Boiler available
- Heat integration
- Biomass infrastructure
- PL feed from sawmill
waste Stand alone CHP Sawmill
Supply chain configurations
11
Large-scale biofuel plants where…?
Transports Areas Distances Geographic aspects Biomass feedstock Supply Demand Competition Production facilities Plant sizes Integration Biorefineries Environmental goals International markets
Policies
Sustainability
Biofuels
BeWhere Sweden
Supply Use Biofuel demand Industries GAMS/CPLEX New plants Biomass Biofuel Transport network Biomass
13
Black liquor gasification
14
5 10 15 20 RB: all RB > 25 y Biofuel [TWh/a]
20 mills 11 mills
Biofuel production 9 TWh/a, old boilers
15
0,5 1 1,5 2 1 2 3 4 5 BLG BLG + BL/PLG
- Spec. biomass [biomass/fuel]
- Spec. investment [MEUR/GW]
Inv.: Biofuel plant (spec.) Inv.: Pyrolysis plant (spec.) Biomass usage (spec.)
11 mills 2 mills
Biofuel production 9 TWh/a, old boilers
16
Biofuel production 19 TWh/a
17
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 1 2 3 4 5 RB: All RB: All RB > 25 y BLG BLG + BL/PLG
- Spec. biomass [biomass/fuel]
- Spec. investment [MEUR/GW]
Inv.: Biofuel plant (spec.) Inv.: Pyrolysis plant (spec.) Biomass usage (spec.)
20 mills 5 mills 5 mills
Result summary
18
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 1 2 3 4 5 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
- Spec. biomass [biomass/fuel]
- Spec. investment [MEUR/GW]
Inv.: Biofuel plant (spec.) Inv.: Pyrolysis plant (spec.) Biomass usage (spec.)
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