SECTOR Specials: Value Chains, Economics and Sustainability

Transcription

1 SECTOR Specials: Value Chains, Economics and Sustainability Michiel Carbo (ECN), Stefan Majer (DBFZ), Fabian Schipfer (TU Wien) Brussels, 17th June Bioboost SECTOR Workshop 1

2 Main Questions What are the production costs of torrefied biomass pellets, and how can these be lowered by intregation in existing wood handling & conversion plants? What is the purchasing power of torrefied wood pellets versus white wood pellets? How could illustrative, possibly relevant biomass-to-end-use chains based on torrefaction look like? How could torrefaction deployment develop up to 2030 with regard to economic, social and environmental criteria? How big are the GHG emissions associated with the production, supply and use of torrefied biomass? What are the main drivers for GHG emissions? 2

3 Torrefied wood pellets production costs Harmonised mass and energy balances (with belt dryer) presented in flow sheets of ECN, Topell and CENER processes Three main integration options: Saw mill, CHP, P&P mill Black box mass and energy balance data for calculations about integrated torrefaction Both feedstock and energy integration was explored The energy production of integrated torrefaction plants was based on biomass use (no energy use of natural gas or oil based products) The main advantages of integration: front end: wood acquisition, logistics, wood handling and pretreatment more efficient energy use compared to stand-alone plants favorable power and heat prices lower the production price of TOP-pellets (bigger boiler in integrated concepts, scale-up and efficiency benefits) 3

4 Torrefied wood pellets production costs: alternatives Base Case: Stand-alone plant (50 MW th torrefied wood pellets) Alternative 1: New sawmill and torrefaction integrated (158 MW th ) Alternative 2: Existing sawmill and new torrefaction plant (72 MW th ) Alternative 3: Existing CHP-plant (5 000 h/a) and new torrefaction plant (50 MW th ) Alternative 4: Existing CHP-plant (3 500 h/a) and new torrefaction plant (50 MW th ) Alternative 5: Existing pulp mill and new torrefaction plant (279 MW th ) Alternative 6: Existing pulp and paper mill and new torrefaction plant (70 MW th ) Alternative 7: Existing pulp and paper mill and new torrefaction plant (140 MW th ) Alternative 8 & 9: Stand-alone plant in Nordic region and SE USA (343 MW th ) 4

5 Torrefied wood pellets production costs: results New sawmill Existing sawmill Existing pulp mill Standalone Nordic Standalone USA Base Case Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 5 Alternative 8 Alternative 9 Plant capacity, t torrefied pellets/a Production costs of pellets, M /a Production costs of pellets, /t Production costs of pellets, /MWh Market price of wood pellets, /MWh (PIX Pellet Nordic Index, 2012) Price compared to base case, % Price compared to market price, % Stand- alone plants Integrates Image from Andritz 5

6 Production costs, /MWh Brussels, 17th June 2015 Torrefied wood pellets production costs: build-up Breakdown of production costs of alternatives, /MWh 50,0 45,0 Base Case t/a Saw mill integrates Pulp mill integrate Big stand-alone plants 40, t/a 35, t/a t/a t/a 30,0 25,0 20,0 15,0 Overseas transport costs Fixed operating costs Capital costs Other variable operating costs Raw material costs 10,0 5,0 0,0 Image from Andritz 6

7 Purchasing power white wood vs. torrefied wood pellets 10 and 30% co-firing in 400 MW e coal-fired power station Efficiency kept at 40% for all cases (for simplicity s sake) Image from Andritz 7

8 Torrefaction process optimisation/integration Purchasing power white wood vs. torrefied wood pellets 10% co-firing 30% co-firing Cost difference between white wood and torrefied wood pellets M /y Amount of biomass of pellets used PJ Price difference /GJ ( /MWh) 0.86 (3.10) 1.59 (5.72) Case 1: price difference at higher rate of return (12% 15%) /GJ ( /MWh) 1.08 (3.89) 2.02 (7.27) Case 2: price difference at reduction of economic lifetime from 10 to 5 years /GJ ( /MWh) 1.24 (4.46) 2.34 (8.42) Image from Andritz 8

9 Main Questions What are the production costs of torrefied biomass pellets, and how can these be lowered by intregation in existing wood handling & conversion plants? What is the purchasing power of torrefied wood pellets versus white wood pellets? How could illustrative, possibly relevant biomass-to-end-use chains based on torrefaction look like? How could torrefaction deployment develop up to 2030 with regard to economic, social and environmental criteria? How big are the GHG emissions associated with the production, supply and use of torrefied biomass? What are the main drivers for GHG emissions? 9

10 Value chain assessment the BioChainS Tool Tool BioChainS was adapted to research questions, feedstocks and pretreatment technologies to generate large set of probable relevant biomass-to-end-use chains. Image from Andritz 10

11 Selected results economic value chain assessment 11

12 Deviation from average for white and torrefied (swith sign) pellets [Euro2013/MWh] Brussels, 17th June 2015 Differences between white and torrefied pellets for similar chains related to their avarage deployment costs Torrefaction economic effective Average total deployment costs for chain pairs [Euro2013/MWh] 12

13 Selected results GHG pathways & system boundaries 3 feedstocks and 4 different locations Feedstock Straw Logging residues Short rotation coppice torrefied pellets and white pellets Collected/ cultivated in USA Canada Tanzania Spain Preparation in each case transport to Europe (Rotterdam) Processing (Torrefaction) Densification different end uses Distribution Lorry Train Vessel Barge End use Electricity Heat Methanol 13

14 Selected results GHG - torrefied pellet production and distr. source: own Sector calculations & BioGrace II 14

15 Selected results - GHG results end use I GHG-emissions from electricity production (co-firing) GHG-mitigation potential of 72% - 86% Source: own Sector calculations & Ecoinvent 16

16 Selected results GHG results end use II GHG-emissions from heat production GHG-mitigation potential of 71% - 80% Source: own Sector calculations & Ecoinvent 17

17 Selected results - GHG results end use III GHG-emissions from MeOH production Source: own Sector calculations & Ecoinvent 18

18 Conclusions Considerable cost savings in scenarios with higher pellet deployment High GHG mitigation potential type of feedstock, process energy carrier and emission factor for electricity are the main influencing factors Mass and energy balances from Sector WPs 3 & 4 might help to update and improve existing LCI & LCA datasets and calculators (e.g. BioGrace, Ecoinvent). 19