Jesse Daystar, Richard Venditti, Hasan Jameel, Mike Jett

North Carolina State University

Forest Biomaterials Department

Forest Products Society’s 65th International Convention on June 19-21, 2011 in Portland, Oregon.

CORRIM Biofuels Research

• Gasification

• Pyrolysis

• Bioconversion

Ethanol

Pyrolysis Oil

Outline Introduction

Research Objective and Goal

LCA Approach

Goal and Scope

Boundaries

Data collection

Results

Conclusions

Thermochemical Conversion: Biomass to Biofuels

Gasification: conversion of organic or fossil materials at high temperature without combustion to produce high energy synthetic gas

The synthetic gas can be

burned for energy

reacted to produce liquid fuels

Advantage: feedstock flexibility (SW, HW, agric resid, wastes)

Gasification Flow Sheet

Research Objective and Goal

6

Fuel Mandates

7

Lifecycle GHG Thresholds Specified in EISA (percent reduction from 2005 baseline)

Renewable fuela 20%

Advanced biofuel 50%

Biomass-based diesel 50%

Cellulosic biofuel 60%

EISA Renewable Fuel Volume Requirements (billion gallons)

YearCellulosic

biofuel requirement

Biomass-based diesel

requirement

Advanced biofuel

requirement

Total renewable fuel requirement

2008 n/a n/a n/a 9.0

2009 n/a 0.5 0.6 11.1

2010 0.1 0.65 0.95 12.95

2011 0.25 0.80 1.35 13.95

2012 0.5 1.0 2.0 15.2

2013 1.0 a 2.75 16.55

2014 1.75 a 3.75 18.15

2015 3.0 a 5.5 20.5

2016 4.25 a 7.25 22.25

2017 5.5 a 9.0 24.0

2018 7.0 a 11.0 26.0

2019 8.5 a 13.0 28.0

2020 10.5 a 15.0 30.0

2021 13.5 a 18.0 33.0

2022 16.0 a 21.0 36.0

2023+ b b b b

Energy Independence and Security Act, 2007

Research Objectives Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) on forest residuals/thinnings to

ethanol using a thermochemical conversion process (TC bioethanol)

Determine the GHG savings versus gasoline

Determine the energy produced per unit of fossil fuel energy input for the TC bioethanol process

Logging slash: Fs.fed.us

LCA Goal: To estimate if a thermochemical conversion process of pine

residuals to ethanol would meet the Renewable Fuel Standards (60% reduction)

Requires GHG data and energy data

Basis of Calculation required: Comparison of the production of 1 MJ of energy from gasoline and from ethanol

LCA Approach

10

Conversion Process

Biomass Gasification

Process Chemicals

Olivine

MgO

Molydbenum

Waste Treatment

Non-organic effluent

Landfill

Inorganic Ash

Feedstocks

Production

Transportation

Sequestered Carbon

Distribution/Use

Fuel transportation

Combustion emissions

System Boundary

LCA Boundary: Cradle to Grave

Key Assumptions:

Forests/plantations sustainably managed

Forest residue was a minor co-product and not assigned any burdens for growing timber

Residue decomposition alternate scenario not considered

Land use change not studied

Equipment manufacture not considered

Methane (25X) and N2O (298x) GHG potency wrt CO2 (IPCC, 2006)

Methods: Aspen Gasification Model (Mass and Energy Balances)

Developed by NREL: S. Phillips, A. Aden, J. Jechura, and D. Dayton (2007)

Published technical report

Thermochemical Ethanol Via Indirect Gasification and Mixed Alcohol Synthesis of Lignocellulosic Biomass

Facility size 772,000 dry tonnes of wood fed/year About 60 gallons per Ton of OD wood About 100 million gallons/year facility

Aspen Model Overview:

Input Stream lb/hr Ouput Stream lb/hr

Clear water chemicals 8.16E-01 Catalyst purge 1.07E+00

Make up catalyst 1.07E+00 Vent to atmosphere 1.90E+00

MgO 6.97E+00 Solid waste 7.94E+01

Char combustor water 2.43E+02 Sulfur storage 1.13E+02

Lo-Cat oxidizer air 2.72E+02 Air to atmosphere 2.80E+02

Make up olivine 5.38E+02 Water to treatment plant 1.21E+03

Steam make up water 3.25E+04 Sand fly ash 2.43E+03

Cooling make up water 8.60E+04 Windage to atmosphere 8.16E+03

Combustion air 2.63E+05 Higher alcohols 9.14E+03

Feedstock 3.34E+05 Blow turbine blow down 1.70E+04

Combustion air 4.30E+05 Ethanol product 5.07E+04

Condensor water 4.08E+06 CO2 vent 5.47E+04

Flue gas stack 9.35E+05

Evaporated to atmosphere 4.23E+06

Total in 5.22E+06 Total out 5.31E+06

% System closure 98.5%

Material Balance

Energy Balance

Boiler temperature adjusted such that the overall system purchased energy set to zero

Process Simulation Feedstock Data

Alcohol Products

Energy +/-

Adjust Boiler Temp Alcohol Products

Boiler Temp

GHG Data

Economic data

Environmental and Economic Analysis

Emissions Data Sources

Aspen model

Material and energy balance

US LCI database emission factors

Process chemicals

Waste water treatment

Waste transportation

Inorganic landfill

GREET emission factors

Fuel combustion

Results

18

GHG Emission Sources

-86.95%

62.23%

35.90%

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

MJ Ethanol from Loblolly Pine

Pe

rce

nt

of

To

tal

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

Fuel Combustion

Fuel Transport

Fuel Production

Raw Materials

Raw Materail Transport

Sequestured Carbon

Global Warming Potential Cradle-to-grave

8.66E-02

4.57E-03 7.24E-03 1.58E-04

7.45E-02

2.71E-02

-1.80E-01

3.07E-04

3.46E-03

1.29E-01

1.58E-04

7.45E-02

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Total SequesturedCarbon

Raw MaterailTransport

Raw Materials FuelProduction

FuelTransport

FuelCombustion

kg

CO

2 E

qu

iva

len

ts p

er

MJ

Fu

el

Axis Title

Gasoline

Ethanol From Pine

Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass to Ethanol: 69% reduction in GHG

100%

31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Global Warming Potential

Gasoline

Ethanol

Lifecycle GHG Thresholds Specified in EISA (percent reduction from 2005 baseline)

Renewable fuela

20%

Advanced biofuel

50%

Biomass-based diesel

50%

Cellulosic biofuel

60%

Sensitivity Analysis Evaluated raw material characteristics effects with ASPEN

model simulations:

Δ (kg CO2)/Δ(% Moisture Content )= 1.0 45% MC is 69% reduction

50% MC is 62% reduction

55% MC is 54% reduction

Δ (kg CO2)/Δ(% Ash Content )= 0.8

MC and Ash (and not chemical composition) correlated with model results within the set of hybrid poplar, hardwoods, pine, eucalyptus, corn stover, switchgrass, miscanthus

Fossil Fuel Depletion: 4 units of energy produced/1 unit of fossil fuel input

0.24

1.26

Biomass Gasification for Electricity: 16 units of energy produced/1 unit of fossil fuel input

Life Cycle Assessment of a Biomass Gasification Combined-Cycle System,

Margaret K. Mann, Pamela L. Spath, NREL, 1997

Conclusions Biomass growth and emissions during thermochemical

conversion dominate the GHG balance for biothenol production

Production and use of TC bioethanol reduces GHG emissions by 69% relative to gasoline, qualifies as cellulosic biofuel

The production of TC bioethanol produces 4 units of energy per 1 unit of fossil fuel consumed, lower yield than biomass gasification to electricity

Acknowledgements Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials

Department of Energy

Maureen Puettmann – SimaPro assistance

Introduction

27

CO2 and Temperature

0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 Time (ybp)

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

CO

2 (

pp

mv)

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

Tem

per

atu

re

Rohling et al. 2009. Antarctic temperature and global sea level closely coupled over the last five glacial cycles. Nature Geoscience 2:500.

EISA Renewable Fuel Volume Requirements (billion gallons)

Year Cellulosic

biofuel requirement

Biomass-based diesel

requirement

Advanced biofuel

requirement

Total renewable fuel requirement

2008 n/a n/a n/a 9.0

2009 n/a 0.5 0.6 11.1

2010 0.1 0.65 0.95 12.95

2011 0.25 0.80 1.35 13.95

2012 0.5 1.0 2.0 15.2

2013 1.0 a 2.75 16.55

2014 1.75 a 3.75 18.15

2015 3.0 a 5.5 20.5

2016 4.25 a 7.25 22.25

2017 5.5 a 9.0 24.0

2018 7.0 a 11.0 26.0

2019 8.5 a 13.0 28.0

2020 10.5 a 15.0 30.0

2021 13.5 a 18.0 33.0

2022 16.0 a 21.0 36.0

2023+ b b b b

Predicted GHG Reductions

30

• 138 million metric tons CO2e/year by 2022

• Equivalent to removing 27 million vehicles off the road.

• 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the US, 2007 DOT

Feedstock

GHG

Displacement % S Feedstock

GHG

Displacement % S

Switchgrass -114 1 Corn -86 9

Switchgrass combustion

compared with coal

combustion -109 2 Corn-soy -38 10

Miscanthus (gasification) -98 3 Corn (starch) -25 11

Switchgrass -93 4 Corn (starch) -24 12

Switchgrass -73 5 Corn -3 13

Switchgrass -11 6 Corn (starch) 66 14

Switchgrass 43 7 Corn (starch) 93 15

Switchgrass 50 8

Biofuel GHG Studies

Sources: 1(Adler, Grosso et al. 2007), 2(Ney and Schnoor 2002), 3(Lettens, Muys et al. 2003), 4(Schmer, Vogel et al. 2008), 5(Wu, Wu et al. 2006), 6(Lemus and Lal 2005), 7(Delucchi 2006), 8(Searchinger, Heimlich et al. 2008), 9(Delucchi, 2006), 10(Adler, Grosso et al. 2007) 11(DiPardo 2004), 12(Wu, Wu et al. 2006), 13(Niven 2005), 14(Delucchi, 2006), 15(Searchinger, Heimlich et al. 2008) (Table modified from Davis et al 2009)

Feedstock

GHG

Displacement % S Feedstock

GHG

Displacement % S

Switchgrass -114 1 Corn -86 9

Switchgrass combustion

compared with coal

combustion -109 2 Corn-soy -38 10

Miscanthus (gasification) -98 3 Corn (starch) -25 11

Switchgrass -93 4 Corn (starch) -24 12

Switchgrass -73 5 Corn -3 13

Switchgrass -11 6 Corn (starch) 66 14

Switchgrass 43 7 Corn (starch) 93 15

Switchgrass 50 8

Previous GHG Studies

Average GHG reductions

Cellulosic: 59%

Corn: 2.2%

Sources: 1(Adler, Grosso et al. 2007), 2(Ney and Schnoor 2002), 3(Lettens, Muys et al. 2003), 4(Schmer, Vogel et al. 2008), 5(Wu, Wu et al. 2006), 6(Lemus and Lal 2005), 7(Delucchi 2006), 8(Searchinger, Heimlich et al. 2008), 9(Delucchi, 2006), 10(Adler, Grosso et al. 2007) 11(DiPardo 2004), 12(Wu, Wu et al. 2006), 13(Niven 2005), 14(Delucchi, 2006), 15(Searchinger, Heimlich et al. 2008) (Table modified from Davis et al 2009)

LCA Boundary: Cradle to Grave: Residue Collection and Chipping

Feedstock Transportation

Thermochemical Conversion Process

Ethanol Distribution

Combustion Logging slash:ysc.nb.ca

Upstream and Waste Emissions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MgO Olivine Molydbenum Wastetreatment

Landfill Landfilltransportation

Kg

CO

2 e

q /

ho

ur

Global Warming Potential: 2005 Study

Life cycle assessment (LCA) of an integrated biomass gasification combined cycle (IBGCC)

with CO2 removal. Matteo Carpentieri *, Andrea Corti, Lidia Lombardi, Energy Conversion

and Management 46 (2005) 1790–1808

Global Warming Potential: 1997 Study

Life Cycle Assessment of a Biomass Gasification Combined-Cycle System,

Margaret K. Mann, Pamela L. Spath, NREL, 1997