Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AEP Tech Assessment - H2 From Biomass
AEP Tech Assessment - H2 From Biomass
Advanced Energy Pathways (AEP) Project Task 4.1 Technology Assessments of Vehicle Fuels and Technologies Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program California Energy Commission July 2007 Prepared by: UC Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS-Davis) One Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616 Authors: Rob Williams, Nathan Parker, Christopher Yang, Joan Ogden and Bryan Jenkins 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................1 2. Technical Description..................................................................................................................3 3. Performance Metrics..................................................................................................................14 4. Penetration issues.......................................................................................................................23 5. Conclusions................................................................................................................................28 6. References:................................................................................................................................30
1.
INTRODUCTION
There are several potential pathways for hydrogen production from biomass.1 These include thermochemical routes (gasification, pyrolysis, supercritical water or hydrothermal) and biochemical routes (anaerobic digestion, dark- and photo-fermentation, and direct/indirect biophotolysis) [1]. Other than anaerobic digestion to produce methane for reforming, essentially all biomass and biochemical routes to hydrogen are developmental with demonstrations at lab or pilot scale only. Direct hydrogen production via anaerobic digestion is also developmental. There are several examples of the use of biogas from anaerobic digestion (AD) to fuel stationary fuel cells.
Biomass is living or recently living material. The definition in Federal statute (7 USC 7624 303) is: Any organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis, including agricultural crops and trees, wood and wood wastes and residues, plants (including aquatic plants), grasses, residues, fibers, and animal wastes, municipal wastes, and other waste materials.
Thermochemical conversion Direct gasification Pyrolysis Indirect gasification Biomass Supercritical water gasification Hydrogen Methane Dark fermentation Reforming, Uprading, & Separation
Anaerobic digestion
Photo fermentation
Separation
Figure 1
Regarding thermochemical routes, there are several principal candidate gasifier types as well as feedstock modification scenarios for hydrogen production from biomass. Candidate gasifier types are oxygen-blown direct fired entrained flow or circulating fluidized bed (pressurized or atmospheric), and indirectly heated air blown, atmospheric fluidized bed designs. Scenarios for feedstock modification or pre-treatment include pyrolysis or torrefaction to transform biomass into something more easily handled, transported, and/or fed to a gasifier. Supercritical water gasification (sometimes called hydrothermal treatment) occurs at relatively low temperature (500 700 C) and in water at high pressure (near or above the critical point, 221 bar or 3200 psi). Biochemical routes to hydrogen include steam methane reforming of biogas from anaerobic digestion (including landfill gas), as well as direct hydrogen production from AD by inhibiting the methane forming bacteria. Dark and photo-fermentative and two stage dark/photo fermentative production of hydrogen is theoretically possible with anaerobic hydrogen producing enzymes as well as bio-photolysis of water by algae. Estimates of commercial hydrogen production capacity for biomass and biochemical routes are shown in 1 (adapted with modifications from [1] ). Because AD and steam methane reforming (SMR) are commercial technologies now and extensive development needed to commercialize the dark/photo-fermentation and biophotolysis routes, AD with SMR is expected to remain the best commercial choice for small scale biomass to hydrogen route [1, 2].
The remainder of this report discusses issues related to large scale (at least in terms of biomass) hydrogen production from biomass gasification.
Gasification / Pyrolysis Supercritical Water Gasfication Biophotolysis Dark&Photo Fermentation Anaerobic Digestion 1 10 100 Hygrogen Production Capacity (1000 kg/day 1,000
)
Figure 2
2.
TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
at low pressure. This process requires electricity input for the compression power, and hydrogen purities of 99.999% can be achieved [1].
Steam electricity Product Hydrogen PSA Reject Heat Combustor
Gasifier
Gas Cleanup
Re former
PSA
Feedstock Processing
Ash
Figure 3
Biomass gasification for the production of hydrogen is not practiced commercially at present. Gasification technology of a type suitable for H2 synthesis has been demonstrated for electricity production using biomass feedstocks. The technology has been used extensively for liquid hydrocarbon production from coal and petroleum coke. The steam reformer, water-gas shift reactors, and PSA are components of the mature steam methane reformation (SMR) technologies, though they may require adjustment for optimal use with syngas. There is uncertainty as to the best gasification technology for producing hydrogen from biomass feedstocks especially in feedstock handling and gas cleanup. 2.1.1 Types of Gasifiers Gasifier types include the fixed bed (updraft or downdraft), fluidized or bubbling bed, circulating fluidized bed, and entrained flow (2.1.1-8). The units can operate at atmospheric or higher pressure. The gasification medium is generally either air (air-blown), oxygen (oxygenblown), steam, or a combinations of these. With direct gasification, heat for the process is supplied within the reactor by partial combustion of the feedstock. Indirect gasification refers to systems that use external heating to drive the gasification reactions (heat must be transferred into the reactor by some mechanism; for best efficiency, the source of the external heat should be from combustion of the unreacted char (fixed carbon) from the indirect gasification reactor). Examples of indirect gasifiers include the Fast Internal Circulating Fluidized Bed (FICFB) gasifier, currently operating at Gssing, Austria and the Battelle Columbus Laboratory (BCL) design which was demonstrated in Burlington, Vermont (Figures 9 and 10).2 For high quality (high energy content) synthesis gas, direct gasification needs to be oxygenblown in order to avoid nitrogen dilution from air. Indirect gasification can produce a suitable synthesis gas using air as oxidant.
2
The FICFB gasifier in Austria has been operating since 2002 and produces about 2 MW of electricity and 4.5 MW of heat [3]. The BCL gasifier successfully demonstrated syngas production from wood chips. The scale was 200 tons/day of wood fuel. It was co-located with an existing wood fired power plant (steam cycle). The syngas was fired in the adjacent steam boiler. Funding for addition of a gas turbine (for the syngas) did not develop [4].
of
fixed-bed
2.1.1.1 Fixed Bed Gasifiers In the fixed-bed updraft configuration, air (oxidant) flows countercurrent to the fuel. It is suitable for relatively high moisture fuels (<60% wet basis) but produces a large amount of tar requiring post-reactor catalytic cracking or dual stage air injection. It produces a low carbon ash. Cigarettes are an example of updraft (or counterflow) gasification. Air and fuel flow cocurrently in the fixed bed downdraft gasifier (though the fuel moves much slower than the air). It produces less tar than the updraft configuration but is limited to fuel with about 30% moisture or less. The residual char has relatively high carbon content. This type of gasifier was used to fuel thousands of wood gas vehicles during WWII. The updraft & downdraft gasifiers are usually small batch operated devices in which the fuel bed is held stationary while the reaction front passes through it, or the bed can move through reaction or mechanical displacement. Often, they are suction type gasifiers attached to an engine. These gasifier types would not likely be the preferred choice for hydrogen or liquid fuels production from biomass, although parallel trains of such gasifiers have been used with coal for this purpose.
Product Gas
Freeboard
Fluid Bed
Ash Biomass
Fuel
Air/Steam
Plenum
Figure 6
2.1.1.2 Fluidized Beds Fluidized bed reactors contain a bed of relatively small particles of inorganic material (often sand or small diameter ceramic beads or gravel). The bed is fluidized by blowing hot oxidant up from the bottom (individual particles are lifted by aerodynamic drag, and become suspended or entrained on the gas stream at velocities for which the drag force becomes equal to or exceeds the gravitational force or weight). When fluidized, the bed behaves much like a liquid. When the bed media is hot enough, biomass is injected either into the bed or onto the surface (bubbling beds) and can begin to combust or gasify depending on the amount of oxygen available. Bubbling fluidized bed reactors have relatively slow velocity air, oxygen, or steam flow and therefore have lower particle entrainment in the gas leaving the reactor. The bed material is concentrated in the lower dense-bed region because the freeboard section above the bed has a larger diameter and lower gas velocity. The gas velocity in the freeboard section is too low to continue to suspend bed particles, which fall back into the bed region. The design is simple but has lower capacity and potentially less uniform reactor temperature distribution than circulating fluidized beds. The circulating fluidized bed uses higher gas velocities but offers higher conversion rates and efficiencies. Instead of a freeboard section, the reactor diameter remains essentially constant, which keeps bed and fuel particles suspended. The bed material flows up with the fluidizing gas and is carried over into a cyclone which separates most of the particles from the gas stream which are re-injected (recirculate) into the lower part of the bed. Ideally, the fuel particles are small enough to completely react before carried over into the cyclone, but in practice large fuel particles recirculate with bed media until small and light enough to be carried out with the
product gas exiting the cyclone or other separation device. Oxygen fired circulating fluidized bed gasifiers are candidates for the production of hydrogen and liquid fuels.
Figure 8
2.1.1.3 Entrained Flow Entrained flow gasifiers are used extensively by the petroleum to convert petroleum residues (e.g., petroleum coke) to useful products and energy. Most coal gasification is done with entrained flow systems. Entrained flow gasifiers have high gas velocities and high material throughput. Consequently, time for reaction (residence time) is short which requires the feedstock to be of very small particle size, a liquid or liquid slurry. The systems are generally oxygen blown and can be pressurized or atmospheric. High temperature (>1250 C) is generated from combustion in oxygen which melts the ash (sometimes called slagging gasifier) and requires reactor cooling. Little to no tar is formed as the feedstock is essentially completely converted to H 2, CO, CO2, and H2O. 2.1.1.4 Raw Syngas Characteristics Air-blown gasifiers produce a low energy gas (~ 150 Btu ft-3) composed of CO, H2, CO2, CH4, higher light hydrocarbons, H2O, PM, alkali vapors, nitrogen and sulfur compounds, and 40-50% N2. The N2 is a diluent and is from the air gasification medium.
Oxygen-blown gasifiers produce a medium energy gas (~ 350 Btu ft-3) composed of similar compounds but much less nitrogen. An air separation plant is needed to create a pure or enriched oxygen stream to use for the gasification medium. Properly designed and operated air-blown indirect gasifiers produce a medium Btu gas because the combustion reactor is separate from the gas producing reactor. The products of combustion and the air borne nitrogen are therefore separate from the synthesis gas stream. Table 1. Approximate composition of raw syngas from gasified biomass Air-blown Oxygen-blown Indirect-fired-steam Producer Gas Synthesis Gas gasification Synthesis (vol. %) (vol. %) Gas (vol. %) [3, 7] CO 22 38 19 H2 14 20 20 CH4 5 15 8 C2H2 and low 5 3 higher H20 2 4 38 CO2 11 18 11 N2 46 trace trace Plus tars, PM, and other
Figure 9 Schematic of the Fast Internal Figure 10 Schematic of the Battelle/FERCO Circulating Fluidized Bed (FICFB) gasifier gasifier, Gssing, Austria [8]
2.1.2 Co-production of Electricity Co-production of electricity is possible with many biorefinery configurations, including thermochemical hydrogen production from biomass. The economics of producing hydrogen can be improved by co-producing some quantity of electricity from the PSA purge gas and a portion of the synthesis gas.
2.2.1 Biomass Sizing, Collection and Transport Some feedstocks will need to be cut, chipped or milled to smaller size. The required final form of biomass feedstock will depend on the reactor, characteristics of the biomass, transportation, storage, and handling/feeding logistics. Feedstocks such as grasses and bagasse can be densified, reducing transportation costs and simplifying handling and reactor feeding. Densification incurs costs and energy penalties so its costs should be offset by transportation and handling savings. With other situations or feedstocks, it may make sense to transform the biomass before transportation or conversion to improve logistics, handling, or feeding and/or reduce transportation costs. One example is to utilize regional pyrolysis facilities to convert biomass feedstocks into a relatively energy-dense liquid, which would then be more efficiently transported to a central facility for upgrading or hydrogen production (2.2.1). Another might be to employ a process similar to pyrolysis called torrefaction which removes moisture and some of the volatile material from biomass leaving a char that is easily ground up and behaves in a manner physically similar to coal in a gasifier.
Regional Pyrolysis Facility RP Central Refinery Resource Region or Waste Shed RP Pyrolysis oil transport RP
Figure 11 Concept of regional pyrolysis facilities with transport of bio-oils to a central refinery. (adapted from [9]) Amount of Energy in a Truckload of Biomass The maximum allowable gross vehicle weight (GVW) in California is 80,000 lbs. but is higher in some western states [10] [11]. Empty tractor-trailer combinations weigh approximately 25,000 30,000 lbs. which allows for payloads from 50,000 - 55,000 lbs [12] [13]. The net energy per truckload of several types of biomass and pyrolysis oil (bio-oil) are shown in Table 2. A truck load of woodchips contains about 250 GJ (237 MM Btu), while a load of baled switchgrass might reach 347 GJ (329 MM Btu). A load of pyrolysis oil is approximately 386 GJ (366 MM Btu). The table assumes payload for each biomass type is set at 25 tons (22.7 metric tonnes). Baled material typically has a moisture content of 15% or less to prevent excessive microbial activity that could lead to internal heating creating a combustion hazard. Woodchips or sawdust are typically 45 - 50% moisture. Energy content ranges from 16 20 MJ/kg (HHV, dry basis) for herbaceous and woody biomass, while pyrolysis oils average about 17 MJ/kg (HHV, wet basis) [14, 15]. However, whereas trucks transporting wood chips are typically weight limited, even for dried feedstock, trucks hauling bales may be volume limited and handle reduced payloads.
10
Moisture (%) HHV (MJ/kg, dry basis)[14] HHV (MJ/kg, wet basis) Payload (tons, wet) Payload (tons, dry) Payload (Mg, wet) Payload (Mg, dry) Feedstock energy/truck load (GJ) Feedstock energy/truck load (MM Btu) Payload Energy Ratio (bio-oil/biomass)
2.2.2 Moisture Content For gasification, the biomass should have a moisture content in the range of 10-20%. Moisture contents above 30% hinder the combustion of char that fuels the gasification process. Higher moisture contents also reduce the temperatures that are achieved, causing incomplete cracking of the tars released from pyrolysis. Some moisture is required for the water gas shift reaction converting carbon and water to CO and H2, although water is formed from carbohydrate in the reaction process [16]. Facilities for processing and drying biomass feedstock would likely be included in large-scale biomass conversion plants. 2.2.3 Ash Content Ash is the inorganic material (or mineral content) in biomass. It ranges from less than 1% (dry basis) in mature bole wood to above 20% in some herbaceous crops (e.g., rice straw), and higher in some animal manures for which collection processes entrain large amounts of soil. Handling, removal, storage, and disposition of ash from large biomass conversion facilities must be considered in when designing and citing the facility. Ash compositions are also important in addition to ash concentrations. Feedstocks with low ash melting points can be difficult to gasify in some reactors. In a fluidize bed gasifier, ash slagging (ash melting) can cause the bed particles to adhere (agglomerate) and cause the bed to freeze requiring shut-down and clean-out or major overhaul of the reactor. Some gasifiers, such as oxygen-blown entrained flow types, are designed to handle melting ash which actually flows down surfaces in the reactor where its cooled into glass-like granules for easy removal from the system. Ash viscosity is of critical importance to the design of such reactors, and changes in ash compositions can lead to changes in slag removal rates and reactor performance. Alkali metals in ash (e.g., Na, K) can volatilize at temperatures reached in gasifiers depending on the compounds with which they are associated (e.g. salts vs. alkali-silicates). The alkali vapors
11
can deposit downstream on cool surfaces or particles and impede flow or heat transfer over time. They can also inhibit catalyst performance. Designing gas cleaning systems to remove alkali vapor and potential catalyst poisons is critical with biomass derived synthesis gas. Leaching of the feedstock with water can improve ash chemistry by removing many of the offending elements [17-21]. This adds expense and moisture that will need to be dealt with.
12
2.4.2 Gas Cleaning Cold gas cleaning has been proven in coal to liquids facilities and coal IGCC. There is less experience with hot gas cleaning, especially for stringent requirement for syngas for H 2 or fuels feedstock. For best thermal efficiency, gas handling and cleaning should occur without intermediate cooling stages and near final product H2 pressures. PM, NOx, SO, alkali, H2S, and NH3 can be removed from hot gas systems. Lead, zinc, and HCN removal are more difficult at these temperatures and need further investigation [23]. 2.4.3 Gas Conditioning Syngas from biomass gasification can contain methane and higher hydrocarbons in amounts large enough that reforming to CO and H2 is required. Steam methane reforming (SMR) and autothermal reforming (ATR) are available reforming methods. SMR may be subject to carbon deposition (coking) on its catalyst because of the large amount of CO and light hydrocarbons in biomass syngas. ATR is not susceptible to coking problems but may be more expensive. More experience is needed in reforming biomass syngas. 2.4.4 Hydrogen Separation Although pressure swing absorption (PSA) is currently used to separate very high purity hydrogen from the gas stream, it is capital and energy intensive and requires a cool inlet gas. Ceramic membrane gas separation technology is promising for hot-gas systems because cooling is not necessary and it is simpler and potentially less expensive compared to PSA. The membrane can also catalyze the water gas shift reaction (in the direction of hydrogen production) so configurations where shift and separation occur in the same reactor are conceivable.[24]
13
Cost estimates for the production of hydrogen from biomass range from less than $1 per kilogram of hydrogen to about $5 per kilogram of hydrogen depending on the size of the facility, the processing technology used and the cost of the feedstock.
3.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
14
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Hydrogen Efficiency (--) 0.1 0.0 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 Hydrogen Capacity (kg/day) Figure 12 Energy efficiency (HHV) of biomass-to-H2 vs. production capacity
Katofsky,1993 Hamelinck,2000 Spath,et al.,2003 NAS,2004 Spath,et al.,2005 Larson,2006
3.2 Emissions
Emissions will be dependent on the design of the gasifier, the feedstock used and the source of process energy. In systems with all process energy derived from the biomass input, the net greenhouse gas emissions will be near zero. Direct oxygen-blown systems could have onsite air emissions associated with combustion of a portion of the syngas and the PSA reject gas to provide process heat, steam and/or electricity. The PSA reject gas has recoverable energy that is about 1/3 as much as the energy in the delivered H2 project (or about 20% of the energy in biomass input). PSA reject gas would contain about 18% H2, 5% CO, 2% CH4, 10% H2O, and 65% CO2 . Nitrogen and sulfur compounds would likely be reformed or removed in the gas processing [25]. The PSA reject gas is a low energy fuel (about 150 Btu ft-3 based on the composition mentioned above, or 15% of natural gas) and would have lower combustion temperatures than natural gas if burned in similar equipment (boilers or gas turbines). Indirect fired gasification systems would also use PSA reject gas for process energy. However, there would be significant criteria pollutant emissions from combustion of char that supplies the heat for the gasification reactions (the indirect gasification process). They will depend on biomass feedstock, char combustor design and the degree of pollution control applied to the exhaust stream.
15
Criteria pollutant emissions estimates taken from LEM and GREET models appear in Table 3. The assumptions used for biomass gasifier emissions in the LEM are uncertain. The values from the GREET model appear to use solid fuel boiler emission factors. Emissions were estimated independently for two gasifier classes; indirect fired gasifiers which use char combustion to supply reaction heat, and directly fired (oxygen blown) gasifiers (Table 4). For both classes, PSA reject gas is assumed to be fired with a small amount of natural gas to provide steam and reformer heat. In the case of direct fired gasifiers, the only source of air emissions are from the PSA/natural gas combustion. For indirect gasifiers, there are two significant emissions sources, the PSA/natural gas combustion and the char combustor. PSA off gas combustion emission factors are based on US EPA AP-42 emission factors for natural gas scaled by relative energy content [27]. Char combustor emissions are based on a lifecycle assessment of synthetic natural gas production from biomass gasification in the FICFB gasifier in Gssing, Austria [28]. Land use changes for growing of biomass energy crops can lead to emissions of N2O. Table 4. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and Criteria Pollutants (g/kg H2) Biomass (Wood) Gasification LEM GREET GHG (CO2eq) 1246 1017 CO 15 2 NOx 9 5 VOCs 6 2 PM 0.3 35 Table 5. Criteria pollutant emissions for indirect and direct fired gasifiers (g/kg H2)
Indirect Gasifiers (w/ char combustion) PSA reject Char w/ SNCR Total combustion combustion NOx control 4.2 5.39 9.5 7.2 2.5 9.36 12 0.3 1.03 1.4 0.2 0.15 0.4 Direct Fired Gasifiers PSA reject w/ SNCR combustion NOx control 3 4.2 2.5 0.3 0.2
NOx CO VOC PM
16
Feed preparation, handling, injection The generally low bulk density and fibrous nature of biomass presents challenges in transporting, handling, and storing large quantities of biomass. While preparation and feeding systems for woody biomass in atmospheric gasifiers are developed, much work remains to develop reliable handling and feed systems for pressurized gasifiers especially when using low density fibrous and herbaceous biomass. Conversion (gasifiers) Most biomass gasification experience is with atmospheric pressure air-blown systems that produce a gas suitable for heat and power production. More understanding and experience is needed with biomass fired in oxygen-blown high pressure gasifiers. The influence of catalytic bed additives, reactor design and operating conditions on hydrogen yield in the syngas needs to be done. Low-cost and reliable high temperature heat transfer materials and strategies are needed to improve performance of indirect gasifiers. Lower cost small scale air separation/oxygen enrichment systems are needed to improve economics of biomass syngas production. Gas clean-up Significant progress has been made with hot-gas cleaning systems for biomass integrated gasifier combined cycle (BIGCC) power systems. More gas clean-up work is needed to meet the more stringent syngas requirements for H2, chemicals, and liquid fuels production. For best thermal efficiency, gas handling and cleaning should occur without intermediate cooling stages and near final product H2 pressures. Catalysts Depending on the effectiveness of gas cleaning stages, catalysts that are less susceptible to deactivation (or poisoning) from trace compounds typical to biomass (e.g., alkali metals, chlorine and sometimes sulfur) need development. Robust and effective catalysts that can be economically produced are critical to biomass syngas production and conversion.
17
3.4 Costs
Plant-gate hydrogen production costs are expected to range from about $1- $5 per kg H2 ($7-$35 GJ-1) for mature biomass to hydrogen gasification systems (Figure 12) [32-39]. Depending on design and capacity, the capital, O&M, feedstock costs, and power co-product or purchase, would contribute between 40-64%, 14-22%, 30-50%, and -33 - +9% of total hydrogen production costs respectively (3.4).
6.0
Katofsky,1993
5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 Hydrogen LCOE ($/kg) 1.0 0.0 0 200,000 400,000 600,000
Hamelinck, 2000 Spath, etal., 2003 NAS, 2004 Spath, etal., 2005 Larson, 2006
800,000
1,000,000
Hydrogen Capacity (kg/day) Figure 13 Levelized cost of biomass-to-H2 vs. production capacity
150 125 100 75 50 25 0
1 2 3
18
Figure 14 Distribution of Capital, O&M, Feedstock, Co-product portion of H2 production cost [23, 25]
3.4.1 Capital Costs There is a wide range of capital cost estimates in the literature due to the different designs and cost assumptions. 3.4.1 shows capital cost estimates versus hydrogen production capacity from seven studies of biomass to hydrogen [32-39]. 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 C, Capital Cost ($ Millions) 100 0 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 C = 0.0208M0.7768 R2 = 0.7792
Katofsky,1993 Hamelinck,2000 Spath,et al.,2003 NA 2004 S, Spath,et al.,2005 Larson,2006 Lau, etal., 2003
800,000
1,000,000
M, Hydrogen Capacity (kg/day) Figure 15 Estimated Capital Cost for Biomass-to-hydrogen Gasification Facilities
19
Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood
72.9% 67.0% 75.8% 78.6% 60.4% 60.4% 60.4% 60.4% 70.8% 70.8% 70.8% 70.8% 34.5% 34.5% 34.5% 34.5%
10%
20
Study - Gasifier Spath et al (2003) - BCL - BCL - BCL - IGT - IGT - IGT NAS (2004) - Shell - Advanced Spath et al (2005) - BCL current - BCL future Larson et al (2006) - IGT H2 - IGT H2 - IGT H2 CCS - IGT H2 CCS
Facility Size (MWth) 72.7 242.1 363.2 72 239.6 359.5 95 61.5 466.9 466.9 983 983 983 983
Hydrogen Capacity (kg H2/day) 22,737 75,790 113,685 22,737 75,790 113,685 24,000 24,000 140,800 151,400 172,800 378,720 179,280 380,160
Feedstock
H2 Eff.
Overall Eff. NA NA NA NA NA NA 38.9% 61.3% 51.0% 53.3% 57.5% 67.5% 52.2% 64.6%
Capital Cost (million) $53.80 $128.80 $172.30 $72.00 $169.40 $227.20 $125.84 $61.36 $162.80 $153.10 $480.50 $462.80 $535.60 $491.90
Capital per kg H2 Cap. $2,366 $1,699 $1,516 $3,167 $2,235 $1,999 $5,243 $2,557 $1,156 $1,011 $2,781 $1,222 $2,988 $1,294
Feedstock Cost $0.89/GJ $2.49/GJ $2.49/GJ $0.89/GJ $2.49/GJ $2.49/GJ $2.94/GJ $1.97/GJ $1.58/GJ $1.58/GJ $3.12/GJ $3.12/GJ $3.12/GJ $3.12/GJ
Levelized Cost of H2 $2.62 $2.36 $2.19 $3.17 $2.70 $2.49 $4.82 $2.30 $1.46 $1.31
IRR 15%
Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Poplar Poplar Switchgrass Switchgrass Switchgrass Switchgrass
51.4% 51.4% 51.4% 52.0% 52.0% 52.0% 41.5% 64.1% 49.6% 53.3% 28.8% 63.2% 29.9% 63.4%
21
3.4.2 Operating Costs Non-feedstock O&M costs can range between 14-22% of the hydrogen production cost. Feedstock procurement, storage, handling, and preparation costs can range from 30 to 50% of final production costs. The cost of biomass feedstock will vary greatly due to a number of factors, mainly type of biomass, harvest methods, delivery distances, preparation requirements and market factors. Whether the feedstock is a purpose grown energy crop, forest or agricultural residue or a waste stream will greatly impact the cost structure of procurement. Waste streams may be available at negative costs where a biorefinery could collect a tipping fee similar to a landfill. Forest and field residues could be made available at the full cost of harvest, this includes nutrient replacement, fire reduction benefits and other costs or benefits of the harvest. Purpose grown crops will need to receive a price that would make them an attractive agricultural commodity as they will need to compete for agricultural resources (land, water, labor).
Figure 16 Estimated biomass resource cost curve based on California resource estimates (excludes storage and onsite processing and handling costs) [40, 41] Large facilities will need to draw feedstock from increasingly large areas and competition for feedstock will be a concern. Feedstock costs may well be higher than $36/BDT ($2/GJ) with a developed liquid biofuels industry competing for purpose grown energy crops and existing resources. The harvest, transport and storage costs will depend on the feedstock, the terrain, and the geographic density of the resource. Low yielding feedstock or difficult terrain lead to high harvest costs. Transportation distances are critical for the delivered cost of biomass feedstock. For example, 3.4.2 shows how delivery distance affects the delivered cost of rice straw in
22
California. The road type that the biomass trucks must drive will also effect the cost of delivery. The delivered biomass must be prepared to meet the requirements of the gasifier (size, moisture content, etc.). Costs for size reduction, drying, and other processing operations will need to be added to the delivered cost of the feedstock.
$4.00
DelivrdCostfRiceSraw($/GJ)
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
Distance (km)
Figure 17 Delivered cost of rice straw as a function of delivery distance Other uses of biomass and the scarcity of the resource are important market factors in determining the cost of biomass feedstock. If biomass can be utilized profitably in another industry, the cost of biomass for hydrogen will reflect this opportunity cost. There is a limited supply of biomass resources and as they become more and more exploited, the scarcity of the resource will impact the cost through market interactions. This will also be important on a seasonal and yearly timeframe as fluctuations in biomass production will cause market shortages and surpluses possibly leading to volatility in biomass prices. 3.4.3 Lifecycle/levelized The levelized plant-gate hydrogen production costs are expected to range from about $1- $5 per kg H2 ($7-$35 GJ-1). The cost of hydrogen is sensitive to feedstock cost and type as well as the size of the plant.
23
4.
PENETRATION ISSUES
biogas from waste water treatment facilities and animal manure digesters) [41]. Biomass gasifiers currently operating in power and/or heat applications worldwide include a circulating fluidized bed gasifier in Lahti, Finland (Foster Wheeler) which co-fires the gas in a coal boiler, the indirect fluidized bed gasifier in Gssing, Austria which fires reciprocating engines to produce about 2 MWe electricity and recovers water and exhaust heat for another 6 MW of thermal energy, a fluidized bed unit in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Energy Products of Idaho), where the gas fires a boiler and steam turbine producing about 6 MW. New plants include the fixed bed updraft at Kokemaki, Finland (Condens Oy) and the 5 MWe fluidized bed unit in Skive, Denmark (Carbona) which is under construction [42]. There are several small systems in India (100 250 kWe range) firing gas engines and sometimes dual fuel diesel engines. There are many (perhaps 2000) very small systems in India and Asia that operate 5-6 hours per day for village electricity or cooking needs [42]. While coal gasification is commercially utilized for producing liquid fuels in South Africa, there are no commercial biomass gasification systems producing high quality syngas necessary for hydrogen production or liquid fuels synthesis. The technology is in an early stage of development. European biomass-to-liquids (BTL) investigations, such as those of Choren in collaboration with Shell Global Solutions [43, 44], ECN [45], Karlsruhe [46], the Sdra Cell, Chemrec, and Chrisgas projects in Sweden [47, 48], Abengoa in Spain, and the project at Gssing, Austria, are now examining biomass gasification and catalytic synthesis for making renewable diesels and gasolines [49]. The same level of effort for biomass fuels does not yet exist in the US. Several programs address liquid fuels production via thermochemical routes, such as those of GTI and Georgia Tech, and Iowa State University, but outside of the NREL Thermochemical Users Facility [50] few integrated research and demonstration facilities exist and none are currently available in California.
24
along with possible future increases in dedicated crops, might result in annual generation of more than 100 million tons of biomass by 2050. Developments in plant biology might also markedly increase the resource potential [29].
Agriculture
Potential Feedstock
Gross Biomass
60
80
100
Figure 18 California biomass resource distribution and amount [29] Potential contributions to future electricity, heat, biofuels, and hydrogen supplies are significant. The current technical biomass resource in California represents 2.5 million tons per year of hydrogen potential (4.2). Although biomass will be used for multiple purposes, maximum energy potentials within any one product category based on full use of the resources presently available are of the order of 10 percent of statewide demand in each of electricity and transportation sectors [29].
25
Table 7.
Total energy potentials for available California biomass feedstock by energy category
(adapted from [29]) Biomass (Million BDT/year) 32 32 32 27 5+
Landfill gas and WWTP
Category Electricity CHP Heat Heat Biochemical Biofuel Thermochemical Biofuel Biomethane Hydrogen (bio + thermal)
Energy in Product (Trillion Btu/year) 118 (35 TWh) 230 350 188 250 106 305
Total Capacity 4,650 MWe 9,050 MWt 11,700 MWt 2.3 BGY ethanol equivalent 1.7 BGY diesel equivalent 106 BCF/y methane 2.5 Million tons/y
32
BDT = bone dry ton. BCF = billion cubic feet. BGY = billion gallons per year. MWe = megawatt electric. MWt = megawatt thermal (heat). TWh = terawatt-hour (billion kWh). WWTP = wastewater treatment plant. 1 ton = 2000 lbs. Biochemical conversion is based on fermentation to ethanol. Thermochemical is based on gasification followed by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Biomethane is methane derived from anaerobic digestion of biomass. Biofuel capacities shown are based on assumed low yields for dedicated crops (see [29] for more detail). Tonnage for thermochemical biofuel assumed to be constrained by moisture content.
Existing biopower facilities consume about 5 million BDT/year of biomass. About half the amount comes from forestry and forest product residues and about 1/3 is from urban wood residues [41]. Another 6 8 million BDT per year is processed in compost and mulch facilities [51]. We consider residual biomass as a near to mid term source for hydrogen production in California. The technically available resource rules out biomass that is impractical to collect such as manure from range cattle or a portion of the forest thinnings in steep terrain or far from roads. Also excluded are a fraction of agricultural residues that must be left in the fields for erosion control and soil health and biomass in protected forest and riparian zones and wetlands. With the exception of mill residues and some urban wood and green waste, most of this resource is currently not being used. Hydrogen production from much of this diverse resource base can be accomplished with two technologies, gasification and biogas reforming. Gasification produces hydrogen from dry biomass feedstocks through the process described earlier. Most estimates place gasification conversion efficiency between 51% and 65% (the full range of estimates is 30-80%, Figure 12). Biogas, a methane-rich gas, can be produced from the wet biomass feedstocks through anaerobic digestion. Biogas, including landfill gas, can be converted to hydrogen through steam methane reformation. Current-practice steam methane reformers achieve 70% efficiency [NAS]. Biogas reformers may be less efficient.
26
The statewide biomass hydrogen production potential from the technically available waste biomass resource is calculated with assumed conversion efficiencies of 55% for gasification and 65% for biogas reforming. Waste biomass resources in California could provide 6,500 tonnes of hydrogen per day for transportation fuel. As seen in Figure 19, the biomass in municipal solid waste (MSW) represents the single largest resource available for exploitation. Waste products from various forestry operations, including forest and chaparral thinning operations for fire prevention, are the four next largest resources. Other important resources are the residues from orchards and field crops and landfill gas. On an energy basis, the biomass hydrogen production potential represents 16% of the gasoline consumed in California in 2004. Additionally, the greater efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle should be taken into account when comparing hydrogen and gasoline energy. A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is expected to achieve fuel economies up to 2.5 times that of conventional gasoline internal combustion engine powered vehicle with the same level of performance (Weiss et al. 2003, NRC 2004). We estimate that 8.1 million vehicles could be fueled by Californias biomass hydrogen potential. This assumes hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are driven 15,000 per year with a fuel economy of 51.5 miles per gasoline gallon equivalent (current fleet fuel economy is 20.6 mpg). For reference, there are currently over 25 million light duty vehicles in California. It is not likely that all the technically available biomass will be economically viable for hydrogen production. Despite these limitations, the result found here points toward significant contributions possible from biomass hydrogen.
7,000
2
Waste Water Biogas Landfill Gas Food Processing Wastes Orchard Prunnings Field Crop Residues Manures Chaparral Forest Thinnings Logging Slash Mill Residue Biomass in MSW
27
28
5.
CONCLUSIONS
Hydrogen from biomass would be considered renewable and have low lifecycle greenhouse gas
5
Though in August, 2006, the National Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee recommended new federal effort in the thermochemical biofuels platform. The status of the Choren facility in Germany (demonstration of biomass to Fischer-Tropsch diesel) is uncertain.
emissions. Biomass derived hydrogen pathways include thermochemical routes (gasification, pyrolysis, supercritical water) and biochemical routes (anaerobic digestion, dark and photo fermentation, and direct/indirect biophotolysis). With the exception of stationary fuel cells operating on biogas from anaerobic digestion and methane reforming, essentially all biomass to hydrogen routes are developmental with demonstrations at lab or pilot scale only. The thermochemical pathways, gasification and pyrolysis followed by gasification, are best suited for larger scale biomass to hydrogen production (20 200 tonnes H 2 per day). Candidate gasifier types are oxygen-blown direct fired entrained flow or circulating fluidized bed (pressurized or atmospheric), and indirectly heated, air blown, atmospheric fluidized bed designs. Conversion efficiencies for hydrogen from biomass gasification are predicted to be between 3080% (based on HHV of input biomass) depending on gasifier type, amount of coproduct electricity, feedstock characteristics, and future technology improvements. With potential technical biomass resource in California approaching 35 to 40 million dry tons per year, biomass derived H2 production potential is 2.5 million tons annually (assuming use of all available biomass). Plant-gate hydrogen production costs are expected to range from about $1- $5 per kg H2 ($7-$35 GJ-1) for mature biomass to hydrogen gasification systems. The price range depends on scale, feedstock costs, and conversion system design, among others. Biomass can be difficult to gather, handle, store, and prepare. The conversion technology for hydrogen generation is in an early stage of development. There are no commercial biomass gasification systems producing the high quality syngas necessary for hydrogen production or liquid fuels synthesis. Components needing RD&D include reactor design and operation, gas cleaning, catalyst durability and selectivity, and feedstock cost and availability, preparation, handling, and feeding, Pilot and commercial scale systems need demonstrating with a variety of feedstocks. At projected costs, biomass is likely to be the lowest cost resource for the production of renewable hydrogen, at least in the nearer term. Depending upon whether the technical and political issues surrounding nuclear energy and carbon capture and sequestration are resolved, it may also be the lowest cost low-carbon H2 production resource. While biomass is not expected to provide enough primary energy to supply a majority of H2 for light-duty transportation, biohydrogen is likely to be an important contributor to near-to-medium term hydrogen supplies, especially if renewable H2 standards are widely enacted. Biomass-to-hydrdogen via the gasification/syngas route will benefit from the research and development efforts directed at the thermochemical production of liquid biofuels. By the time hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure are widely deployed, advanced biofuels will have been commercialized and much of the needed component R&D needed for biomass-toH2 systems completed. With sustained emphasis on basic research and pilot- and larger-scale facility demonstration, biomass will likely prove an early contributor to renewable and sustainable hydrogen production.
29
6.
REFERENCES:
30