Assessment of Conversion Technologies for Bioalcohol Fuel ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

total life cycle assessment (LCA) or systems analysis compared to current production technologies. A summary of environmental assessment ratings is as follows: Excellent Minimal or no environmental impact is anticipated. Good There will be a modest increase in emissions, which will be within the limits of the current EPA and other required environmental permits. Fair There will be a moderate increase in emissions. However, this increase will be acceptable to applicable regulatory agencies (such as EPA or state/local air quality districts) after approval of the required environmental permits. Not Acceptable There will be a significant increase in emissions at levels that are not acceptable to the EPA and local community. Securing required environmental permits will be difficult to impossible. Economic Viability (E4) E4 determines the cost of fuel production ($/gallon or $/MMBTU), electricity production ($/kWh or $/MMBTU) and amortized costs ($/Yr) for the candidate technologies. This fuel and energy production cost can be compared to the current, average wholesale rate of fuel and electricity production from conventional processes. Subsidies are not considered in these economic assessments. These cost estimates can also be used to predict the Return on Investment (ROI) for a production plant. Such ROI estimates can be compared with past, current and projected market data for ethanol produced from current production processes. The criteria for ROI ratings are summarized as follows: Excellent: >30% Good: 18% to 30% Fair: 10% to 18% Not Acceptable:
concerns. This evaluation determines if the deployment of the technology will be acceptable to al interested parties such as government regulatory groups, NGO’s, environmental groups, local and regional communities and other relevant organizations. SECTION 7 - 5E ASSESSMENT OF THERMOCHEMICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL CONVERSION PROCESSES This section summarizes some general results and conclusions from the 5E assessments of thermochemical and biochemical processes for the conversion of renewable biomass to alcohol fuels, with electricity as a secondary product. Although this “5E”assessment process is described in qualitative and quantitative terms, it is beyond the scope of this paper to apply this process for comparatively ranking individual biomass conversion technology developers. Instead, this approach was used to generally evaluate and compare some of the principal bioalcohol production technologies under development using information compiled from developers and from publicly available reports and publications. The completeness of available data varies among the technology categories, depending on the extent of actual development progress and the willingness of developers to disclose information. Thus, a fairly complete assessment is possible for some technologies, whereas more definitive data would be necessary to adequately assess other technologies. For example, enough information was gathered from several developers of a promising thermochemical technology (e.g. pyrolysis/steam reforming) that it was possible to design a prototype plant and develop “5E” data for a future 500 ton/day plant sited in Northern California.In contrast, detailed data for biochemical technology involving acid hydrolysis was found to be less accessible, despite the long history of development of this approach. With further refinement and application, and as more complete technology data becomes available, the 5E approach can be routinely used as a tool by government, private and academic organizations to evaluate the potential viability of all under-development and emerging thermochemical and biochemical conversion processes. This type of assessment methodology also has the value of identifying potential problems with candidate technologies, and it will help point the way to solving those problems. Table 5 is a summary comparison of three different bioenergy technology applications, applying some of the key parameters of the 5E assessment. The three technologies compared are: (A) a thermochemical (pyrolysis/steam reforming) facility producing mixed alcohol fuel and electricity; (B) a biochemical (enzymatic hydrolysis) facility producing ethanol fuel and electricity and (C) for 39
Page 1 and 2: Northern California Rice field Asse
Page 3 and 4: APPENDIX 1. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPER PR
Page 5 and 6: LIST OF TABLES Table 1-Categories o
Page 7 and 8: INTRODUCTION The State of Californi
Page 9 and 10: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provi
Page 11 and 12: distributed production of bioalcoho
Page 13 and 14: from corn, sugarcane and other suga
Page 15 and 16: Table 1-Categories of Biomass Conve
Page 17 and 18: SECTION 2 - PAST CALIFORNIA BIOMASS
Page 19 and 20: the technological approach was too
Page 21 and 22: conversion technology at NREL, prep
Page 23 and 24: will use matching funds from the U.
Page 25 and 26: Report: Feasibility Study for Rice
Page 27 and 28: Environmental issues Market issues
Page 29 and 30: Presentation: Collins Pine Cogenera
Page 31 and 32: Syngas Production The thermochemica
Page 33 and 34: Alcohol Synthesis The direct synthe
Page 35 and 36: SECTION 4 - BIOCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIE
Page 37 and 38: Feedstock Pretreatment There are a
Page 39 and 40: Achieving such cost reductions woul
Page 41 and 42: Another novel approach to bioalcoho
Page 43: have been run for a sufficient time
Page 47 and 48: The data in Table 5 are based upon
Page 49 and 50: Thermochemical System (Electricity)
Page 51 and 52: SECTION 8 - OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALL
Page 53 and 54: For all of the biomass resource cat
Page 55 and 56: The above CEC and CBC inventories o
Page 57 and 58: Economic and Institutional Challeng
Page 59 and 60: SECTION 9 - GOVERNMENT ROLES AND IN
Page 61 and 62: SECTION 10 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMM
Page 63 and 64: initial attractive application may
Page 65 and 66: SECTION 11 - REFERENCES Barrett, J.
Page 67 and 68: Collaborative, California Energy Co
Page 69 and 70: CATEGORY 1-THERMOCHEMICAL PROCESSES
Page 71 and 72: and CO at the compression stage. Th
Page 73 and 74: Range Fuels, Inc., Denver, Colorado
Page 75 and 76: CATEGORY II-THERMOCHEMICAL PROCESSE
Page 77 and 78: Figure A4. Enerkem Process Diagram
Page 79 and 80: The slag leaves the gasifier and is
Page 81 and 82: Figure A6. Thermogenics, Inc., Tech
Page 83 and 84: CATEGORY VIII-BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES
Page 85 and 86: Figure A8. BlueFire Arkenol Technol
Page 87 and 88: Figure A9. BEI Process Celunol Corp
Page 89 and 90: support systems and using the conve
Page 91 and 92: several years ago, HFTA has been wi
Page 93 and 94: Figure A11. Losonoco Wood-to-Ethano
Page 95 and 96:
OxyNol process. TVA is decommission
Page 97 and 98:
Technology Characteristics-The biom
Page 99 and 100:
Figure A14. PEC Biomass-to-Ethanol
Page 101 and 102:
CATEGORY IX - BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES
Page 103 and 104:
Richland Washington, with U.S. DOE
Page 105 and 106:
construction of which could begin i
Page 107 and 108:
Figure A16. Iogen Biomass-to-Ethano
Page 109 and 110:
commercialize a biomass-to-ethanol
Page 111 and 112:
developed by CBE, is used to separa
Page 113 and 114:
Figure A19. DuPont Process BioGasol
Page 115 and 116:
Technology Characteristics-The Swan
Page 117 and 118:
CATEGORY X-OTHER BIOLOGICAL PROCESS
Page 119 and 120:
CATEGORY XI-INTEGRATED BIOREFINERY
Page 121 and 122:
CATEGORY XII-FERMENTATION OF SYNGAS
Page 123 and 124:
APPENDIX 2. CALIFORNIA ETHANOL PROD
Page 125:
Proposed Advanced Technology (Cellu
show all

Assessment of Conversion Technologies for Bioalcohol Fuel ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?