1 / 45

Life Cycle Assessment of BTL-fuels, Conversion Concepts and Comparison with Fossil Fuels

Life Cycle Assessment of BTL-fuels, Conversion Concepts and Comparison with Fossil Fuels. 16 th European Biomass Conference + Exhibition 2-6 June 2008 Valencia. Overview. Life cycle assessment of conversion concepts for BTL production LCA of BTL-fuel use and comparison with fossil diesel

kristian
Download Presentation

Life Cycle Assessment of BTL-fuels, Conversion Concepts and Comparison with Fossil Fuels

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Life Cycle Assessment of BTL-fuels, Conversion Concepts and Comparison with Fossil Fuels 16th European Biomass Conference + Exhibition 2-6 June 2008 Valencia

  2. Overview • Life cycle assessment of conversion concepts for BTL production • LCA of BTL-fuel use and comparison with fossil diesel • Conclusions www.esu-services.ch

  3. Questions addressed for BTL production • Which production route developed within the RENEW project is the one with the lowest environmental impacts for a certain impact category ? • Improvement options of production routes, e.g. biomass inputs • Priorities for process development • Scenarios for technology development for BtL-production plants and influence on results www.esu-services.ch

  4. Total system boundaries www.esu-services.ch

  5. System boundaries • No modelling of intermediate flows between conversion stages • Emissions of power plant are allocated to heat and electricity based on exergy production • No allocation of biomass input to by-products, like electricity • No agreement on assessment of pesticides and heavy metals in the project www.esu-services.ch

  6. General assumptions necessary • Data provided had to be completed with general assumptions • Emission profile of conversion based mainly on gas or wood power plants • Waste and effluent composition available only from model calculation • Catalyst use assessed based on literature www.esu-services.ch

  7. Key data of modelling for the year 2020 www.esu-services.ch

  8. 100% refinery treatment, FT-raw liquid 90% 80% BTL-fuel synthesis, wood UET 70% gas conditioning, wood UET 60% 50% gas cleaning, wood UET 40% 30% Carbo-V-gasifier, wood UET 20% 10% biomass storage and preparation, 0% Wood UET water use acidification process specific emissions, conversion eutrophication land occupation abiotic depletion plant global warming (GWP100) cumulative energy demand photochemical oxidation, non-b Refinery gas, burned in flare fuel synthesis plant infrastructure Contribution of sub-processes www.esu-services.ch

  9. Well to tank comparisonStarting Point www.esu-services.ch

  10. Interpretation - Wood • BLEF-DME lower than cEF-D for CED, abiotic depletion, global warming, eutrophication, acidification, water and land use • BLEF-DME higher impacts than cEF-D for photochemical oxidation • CFB-D 3rd rank for all category indicators • ICFB-D has highest impacts in all categories because of low conversion efficiency to fuel (but by-product electricity) www.esu-services.ch

  11. Interpretation - Straw • cEF-D lowest impacts for the conversion of straw followed by the dEF-D and the CFB-D process • No clear recommendation comparing wood and straw • Only one conversion process using miscanthus (ICFB-D) www.esu-services.ch

  12. General improvement options • Increase of FT-fuel yield • Reduce emissions (CH4, NMVOC, NOx, particles) with off-gases and from the power plant • Improve biomass provision and production • Recycling of nutrients in slag and ashes www.esu-services.ch

  13. Life cycle assessment of using BTL • What are the environmental impacts of using BTL-fuels compared to fossil diesel? • Importance of fuel combustion for total environmental impacts? • GWP reduction potential • Comparison of BTL with first generation biofuels? • Yields per hectare compared to first generation? •  Follow-up study commissioned by Swiss authorities www.esu-services.ch

  14. Importance of process stages(Eco-indicator 99) • The environmental impacts of roads and cars are assumed to be the same for all fuels www.esu-services.ch

  15. Global warming potential • GWP reduction between 28% and 69% is lower than what has been assumed so far

  16. Comparison with other biofuels • No clear advantage nor disadvantage compared to other biofuels • Type of biomass resource is most important for each type of fuel www.esu-services.ch

  17. Mileage per hectare

  18. Main observations • Low emissions of GHG during combustion outweigh the higher impacts of fuel production for GWP • Reduction potential for GWP and non-renewable energy is about 30%-69% if the full life cycle is taken into account • Other environmental impacts of BTL-fuel from agricultural biomass are higher than using fossil fuels • Comparison with first generation fuels and evaluation of fuel yields show no general better performance • Type of biomass and conversion efficiency important www.esu-services.ch

  19. AnnexeLCA of BTL-production

  20. Data quality description www.esu-services.ch

  21. System boundaries conversion www.esu-services.ch

  22. Key data biomass • Straw, short-rotation wood and miscanthus per kg dry substance (DS) www.esu-services.ch

  23. Intermediate StorageKey assumptions www.esu-services.ch

  24. Biomass, at intermediate storage(per MJ biomass energy) www.esu-services.ch

  25. Interpretation • Main factors are fertilizer and diesel use and emissions due to use of fertilizers • Small variations in scenarios • General uncertainty in agricultural data is higher than the differences between scenarios • Straw has lower impacts due to economic allocation, wood has higher or about the same impacts as miscanthus except for eutrophication www.esu-services.ch

  26. dimethylether, black liquor, Chemrec BTL-fuel, wood, UET BTL-fuel, wood, TUV BTL-fuel, wood, CUTEC BTL-fuel, straw, UET BTL-fuel, straw, FZK BTL-fuel, straw, CUTEC BTL-fuel, miscanthus, TUV 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Remaining flows Dimethyl ether Sulfur dioxide Carbon monoxide, biogenic Pentane Butane Hexane Analysis of individual pollutants, i.e. Photochemical Oxidation www.esu-services.ch

  27. Scenarios • Starting point scenario provides a good basis for comparison of different conversion concepts • Scenario 1 shows what would be possible if fuel yield should be maximized at a certain place. Hydrogen produced with wind power is used to maximize the fuel production www.esu-services.ch

  28. Key data scenario 1 www.esu-services.ch

  29. Well to tank comparisonScenario 1 www.esu-services.ch

  30. Interpretation, Scenario 1 • Only preferable if electricity supplied by wind power, but in this case high demand for capacity and supply security or flexibility • Higher impacts in case of external hydrogen production with European electricity mix • No clear ranking because of different advantages and disadvantages www.esu-services.ch

  31. Change of resultsStarting point -> Sc1, European electricity mix www.esu-services.ch

  32. Change of resultsStarting point -> Sc1, wind electricity www.esu-services.ch

  33. UncertaintiesStraw, FZK against Wood, UET www.esu-services.ch

  34. Fuel yields www.esu-services.ch

  35. Share capital goods(starting point, MJ fuel) www.esu-services.ch

  36. Capital goods • Share up to 40% • Exclusion would give wrong picture • Article published in the Int.J.LCA that gives further details and recommendations Frischknecht R, Althaus H-J, Bauer C, Doka G, et al., The environmental relevance of capital goods in life cycle assessments of products and services. Int. J. LCA, 2007. Online first. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.02.309. www.esu-services.ch

  37. Limitations of the study • Pesticides, heavy metals and impacts of land occupation for biomass production not considered in the assessment • No agreement on reliability of assessment methodologies of toxicity impacts www.esu-services.ch

  38. Peer ReviewLCA of BTL-fuel production • Peer review according to ISO14040 in general quite positive: • Requirements are fulfilled • Data structure and results are exemplary • Main critics are • No impact assessment for toxicological effects • No full cradle-to-grave LCA • No comparison to fossil fuel • Reports have been finalized and published on the RENEW homepage together with full review comment www.esu-services.ch

  39. Questions to be answered • Using BTL reduces the GWP by X% compared to fossil fuel • Using a specific amount (e.g. 1 MJ or 1 kg) of BTL reduces the GWP by Y kg (or another appropriate unit) compared to fossil fuel

  40. 100% 38% 20% 15% 12% Calculations of potential reduction www.esu-services.ch

  41. 52% 65% Example GWP of BTL-Diesel • Neglecting parts of the life cycle leads to different conclusions concerning reduction potentials expressed as a percentage (Jungbluth et al. 2008: LCA of biomass-to-liquid fuels)

  42. And again: How much better are biofuels? • If we want an answer like „the use of biofuel has ???% lower GWP than fossil fuels“ than we have to include the all parts of the life cycle, e.g. for transports also cars and streets • Neglecting certain parts of the life cycle, even if the same for both options, will bias the results • System boundaries must be stated correctly if comparing reduction figures, e.g. well-to-wheel should include the wheel • See www.esu-services.ch/btl/ for background paper

  43. Concawe compared to RENEW results (fuel production) Range RENEW 27-65 www.esu-services.ch

  44. Differences with Concawe study • Higher nitrogen input in RENEW study (5-6 vs. 2.5 g g/kg DS)  ca. +50% N2O • Low emissions (CH4 and N2O) because no data for conversion in Concawe study  ca. +10-20% in RENEW • No infrastructure in Concawe study  +10-20% • Credits for electricity production with biomass power plant - mainly relevant for TUV www.esu-services.ch

  45. BTL from short-rotation wood(IFEU study) www.esu-services.ch

More Related