presentation 1999, entree conference, title environmental impact of different power production...
TRANSCRIPT
Environmental ImpactEnvironmental Impact
of different Power Production Techniques using Biomassof different Power Production Techniques using Biomass
P.P.A.J. van Schijndel, J. Huisman,
J.M.N. van Kasteren and F.J.J.G. Janssen
Eindhoven University of Technology
12
Entrée’99Entrée’99
ContentsContents• Introduction
• Biomass Conversion Technologies
• Technical / Economical Ranking
• Environmental Life Cycle Assessment, LCA
• Results and Discussion
• Conclusions
2.
12
3.
IntroductionIntroductionNeed for Renewable Energy Sources:
• Gravitational Force– Tidal energy / Hydropower
• Sun (Nuclear Fission)– Wind / Solar / Hydropower– Energy from biomass waste or energy crops
• Radioactive Decay Earth Core– Geothermal energy
2.
12
• Wastes:– Organic sludge, garden/agricultural
waste, thinning wood, waste wood
• Energy crops:– Poplar, miscanthus, rapeseed etc.
Possibilities in The Netherlands:– Biomass waste: 150 P(1015) J– Equals 4% of total NL power production
Biomass Biomass SourcesSources
4.
12
Waste:
• Municipal solid waste
• Sewage sludge
• Industrial waste
• Scrap wood
• Plastic waste
• Paper sludge
• Shredder waste
Most important (bio)fuelsMost important (bio)fuels12
Biomass:
• Forestry Thinning
• Cutting from parks and
gardens
• Residues from wood
processing
• Agricultural residues
• Energy crops
Novem, 19954a.
Biomass Conversion TechnologiesBiomass Conversion Technologies
5.
12
Fuel gasCharcoal
Pyrolysis-oil
Heat
SynthesisGasturbineGas engine
Steam turbineSlurry production
Upgradingetc.
Primary product Process technology Secondary productConversion technology
Gasoline, dieselMethanol
ElectricityHeat
Slurry-fueletc.
GasificationPyrolysis
Combustion
Related Technologies:
•Co-combustion and co-gasification
•Hydro Thermal Upgrading, HTU
Technical and Economical RankingTechnical and Economical Ranking
Criteria:
• Technique proven (Pilot Plant);
• Economical feasible within 5 years;
• Feasible in The Netherlands: different
wastes like wood, 5-30 MWe
Sub criteria: Price, Efficiency, Flexibility
6.
12
Final Ranking,Final Ranking,
7.
12
Of most promising biomass conversion techniques
Table based on Huisman (1999)
Rank Technique / routePrice electricityEURO / kWh
ElectricalEfficiency
1 Co-combustion in a powder coal powerplant with steam cycle
0,02 – 0,06 32 – 44 %
2 Co-combustion of gasifier gas in a normalgas/coal power plant with steam cycle
0,04 – 0,08 30 %
3 Co-combustion of gasifier gas in a gaspower plant (STEG) Combined cycle
0,045 – 0,10 35 %
4 stand alone gasification (atmospheric) influidised circulating bed with combinedcycle, cold gas cleanup, system
0,055 – 0,12 40 %
5 Stand alone combustion in a circulatingfluidised bed reactor with steam cycle
0,055 – 0,09 22 – 28 %
Fossil Electricity NL 1997: 0,03 EURO/kWh
Structure of LCAStructure of LCA
8.
12
1. Goal and scopedefinition
2. Inventarisation
3. Classification andnormalisation
4. Evaluation Weighting effects
Environmental effects
Environmental impacts
Product/ technique Functional unit
Impact table
Environmental profile
Eco-indicator
LCA of Biomass TechniquesLCA of Biomass Techniques
9.
12
Comparison of techniques:• Combustion stand alone
• Gasification stand alone
• Co-combustion in coal power plant
• co-combustion in municipal waste incinerator
LCA Method, Goal and Functional Unit
LCA: Goal + Functional UnitLCA: Goal + Functional Unit
10.
12
Goal:• Power production from clean waste
biomass (wood)
Functional Unit:
• 425 TJ electrical power from biomass
equal to 966 TJ calorific value (LHV)
1 TJ = 1012J
LCA: Functional UnitLCA: Functional Unit12
11.
Co-combustionCoal Power Plant
η = 44%
Coal Power Plantη = 44%
Waste incinerationno biomass
η = 21%
Waste incinerationwith biomass
η = 21%
NL Electricity Prod.(c+e)-(f+g) MWh
a kton Coal
b kton Biomass
c MWh d ktonwaste
e MWh
a kton Coal f MWh
d ktonwaste
b kton
Biomass
A. Biomass co-combustionA. Biomass co-combustion
+
B. Biomass incineration in MSW B. Biomass incineration in MSW
g MWh
LCA: LCA: Choice of system bordersChoice of system borders12
12.
Biomass formation
Collection and transport
Conversion:Co-combustion, combustion in MSW, gasification, combustion
Electricity supply
System border
Pre-treatment:Drying, size reduction, pelletise
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Green
hous
e
Ozone
Acid.
Eutro
ph.
H.met
als
Carcin
.
W.s
mog
S.sm
og
Pestic
id
Energ
ySoli
d
MSW incineration Co-combustion Combustion Gasification
LCA results LCA results NormalisationNormalisation
13.
12
Simapro 3.0 Eco Indicator ‘95/ Europe g / normalisation
14.
12
Simapro 3.0 Eco Indicator ‘95/ Europe g / indicator
LCA results LCA results Eco indicator ‘95Eco indicator ‘95
0,00
20000,00
40000,00
60000,00
80000,00
100000,00
120000,00
140000,00
MSW incineration Co-combustion Combustion Gasification
Solid
Energy
Pesticid
S.smog
W.smog
Carcin.
H.metals
Eutroph.
Acid.
Ozone
Greenhouse
12LCA results energy cropsLCA results energy crops
15.
Simapro 3.0 Eco Indicator ‘95/ Europe g / normalisation
-1000
1000
3000
5000
7000
9000
11000
Green
hous
e
Ozo
neAcid
.
Eutrop
h.
H.met
als
Carcin
.
W.sm
og
S.sm
og
Pestic
id
Energ
ySoli
d
Gasification Gasification poplar as energy crop
12LCA results energy cropsLCA results energy crops
Simapro 3.0 Eco Indicator ‘95/ Europe g / indicator
16.
-50000,00
0,00
50000,00
100000,00
150000,00
200000,00
250000,00
300000,00
350000,00
Gasif ication Gasif ication poplar as energy crop
Solid
Energy
Pesticid
S.smog
W.smog
Carcin.
H.metals
Eutroph.
Acid.
Ozone
Greenhouse
• Co-combustion gives best score due to highest power production efficiency;
• Efficiency of process plays major role;
• Global warming, acidification and heavy metals most important impact scores;
• Choice of functional unit does not influence ranking;
• Biomass wastes score better than energy crops (pesticide/eutrophication).
12LCA ConclusionsLCA Conclusions
17.
LCA DiscussionLCA Discussion12
• Advantages LCA:– Fully quantitative
– Detailed study
• Disadvantages LCA:– Detailed: data collection– Long-winded– Not taken into account: depletion, solid emissions,
local environmental aspects– Non specified substances– Normalisation and evaluation are subjective
17a.
• Techno. / economic ranking gives same outcome as LCA study;
• Co-combustion: sustainable and economical feasible power source;
• LCA method lacks impact category Abiotic Depletion (exergy analysis);
• Co-generation to be investigated.
General ConclusionsGeneral Conclusions12
18.
LCA inventarisatie
Proces1.
Proces2.
grondstoffen transport
productGebruik
emissies emissies
elektra elektra elektra
Afvalfase
recycling recycling
Emissies ook bij:recycling
Afvalfase
emissies
transport
13.
Milieu effecten bij een LCAMilieu effecten bij een LCA Eco-Indicator ‘95
•Broeikaseffect
•Ozonlaagaantasting
•Pesticiden en Carcinogenen
•Zware metalen in lucht en water
•Zomersmog
•Wintersmog
•Verzuring
•Vermesting
CML (1992)
•Abiotische en Biotische uitputting
•Broeikaseffect
•Ozonlaagaantasting
•Humane toxiciteit
•Ecotoxiciteit
•Fotochemische Oxydantvorming
•Verzuring en Vermesting
•Water warmte en Stank
•Lawaai
•Aantasting landschap / versnippering
•Slachtoffers14.
Milieu effecten bij een LCA Nadelen Eco Indicator:
• Uitputting grondstoffen en brandstoffen
wordt niet meegenomen
• Idem voor andere milieu effecten
• Subjectieve weging van de effectscores
• Milieuthema’s anders geformuleerd
15.
Verschil CML en Eco indicator• CML methode:
∑kg eq. X classif. = effectscore
effectscore / Tot. Nl evaluatie
• Eco indicator
∑ kg eq. X classif. = effectscore
effectscore / Tot. Nl weging evaluatie
16.
• Afweging resultaten met bekende milieu-impact data:– Op Wereldschaal– Op Europese schaal– Op Landelijke schaal
• Milieu equivalenten normaliseren op de gekozen schaal equivalenten.
Normalisatie Stap
22.
Milieuthema Eenheid Wereld Nederland
Broeikaseffect kg/jr 1012 37,7 0,377
Smog kg/jr 109 3,74 0,0374
Verzuring kg/jr 109 286 2,86
Vermesting kg/jr 109 74,8 0,748
Normalisatie Stap, Normalisatie Stap, 22
Guinée, 1993Normalisatie = Effect / Bijdrage (kg/jr)
23.
• Vergelijken van de scores.
• Gevoeligheids analyse van de data, controle op geldigheid resultaten.
• Aanpak van de studie; peer review.
• Verdere stap:– Optellen milieu effecten tot 1 waarde– vergelijk op basis totaal milieu impact
Evaluatie resultaten
25.
• Wordt vaak niet uitgevoerd!
• Belangrijk voor productie en product ontwerpers (ingenieurs)
• Richten op plaatsen waar belangrijke milieu impacts optreden
• Inkoop beleid aanpassen
• Productie en product aanpassing
De verbeter analyseDe verbeter analyse
29.
ConclusiesConclusies
LCA is een potentieel goede methode,
echter:
• Niet iedereen weet goed wat wel en niet met een LCA kan.
• Onvoldoende gecertificeerde databases (kennis blijft geheim)
• Gevoeligheidsanalyses ontbreken
34.