Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Non-thermal production of pure hydrogen from biomass
EU FP6-SES Integrated Project
HYVOLUTION
Pieternel Claassen on behalf of partners in HYVOLUTION: www.hyvolution.nl
Partners in HYVOLUTION
22 partners 13 countries Jan 2006 – Dec 2010 14 M€ budget 10 M€ EC grant www.hyvolution.nl
Aim: Blue print for a bioprocess for decentral hydrogen production from biomass
Objectives in workpackages-Critical parameters in biomass procurement-Pretreatment technologies for optimal degradation of energy crops and bioresidues-Equipment for mobilization of fermentable feedstock
Objectives in workpackages
3-Maximum efficiency in conversion of biomass to hydrogen -Reactors for thermophilic and photo-heterotrophic hydrogen production
Objectives in workpackages
-Assessment of installations for optimal gas cleaning -Devices for monitoring and control -Equipment for optimal gas cleaning
Objectives in workpackages
-Increase of public awareness and societal acceptance-Identification of market opportunities and future stakeholders
The core of HYVOLUTION
C6H12O6 + 6 H2O → 6 CO2 + 12 H2 ΔGo’ = + 3 kJ
C6H12O6 + 2H2O 2CO2 + 2CH3COOH + 4H2 ΔGo’ = - 206 kJ(hyper)thermophilic bacteria
CH3COOH + 2H2O 2CO2 + 4H2 ΔGo’ = +104 kJphotosynthetic bacteria
photons
Advantages of thermophilic fermentation
• Equilibrium towards hydrogen production • High yield as compared to mesophilic fermentation• Natural selection pressure• Decrease of size for subsequent photofermentation
Caldicellulosiruptor sp., Thermotoga sp., co-cultures and new isolates.
WP 1 BIOMASS; some highlights
Agro-industrial residues and energy cropsBiomass critical parameters:
– Composition– Regional availability in EU-27– Cost– Sustainability– Co-products utilization
• Socio-economic desk studies• Experimental practices
Biomass mappingTotal cost and technical suitability
Tota
l cos
t €/G
J(p
rodu
ctio
n/op
portu
nity
, tra
nspo
rt/ha
ndlin
g, re
finin
g)
10
11
TSI (yield, mobilization, fermentability, co-products)
Sugar beetjuice
Potato steam peels(low starch)
Brewers grain wet
Wheat grainPotato steam peels(high starch)
Wheatmiddlings
Miscanthus
Sugar beet pulp wet
Reed Canary grass
Carrot press cake
5
6
7
8
9
0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1
High Cost High Cost High TSIHigh TSI
High Cost High Cost Low TSILow TSI
Low Cost Low Cost High TSIHigh TSI
Low Cost Low Cost Low TSILow TSI
●: 5 t/h ◍◍: 2 t/h ○: 1 t/h
Biomass selection
• Selected biomass for HYVOLUTION:
Sugar beet:sucrose
Wheat bran:starch and lignocellulose
Potato steam peels:starch
Barley straw:lignocellulose
Biomass pretreatment
High solids, conical screw reactor
Experimental parameters: -acid/ alkaline -temperature(s) -duration -enzymes
Fermentability test: production of acids
% o
f con
trol10 15 20 30 10 15 20 3010 15 20 30
10 15 20 30 10 10Barley straw
1010 15 20 30 10
Caldicellulosiruptor owensensis
Caldicellulosiruptor saccharolyticus 50
100
150
% o
f con
trol
10 15 20 3010 15 20 30 10 15 20 3010 15 20 3010 15 20 3010 15 20 30
50
[sugar] (g/L)
Thermotoga neapolitana
% o
f con
trol
10 15 20 3010 15 20 30 10 10
Barley straw hydrolysateWheat bran hydrolysate
Sugar beet juice
50
100
150
1010 15 20 3010 15 20 30 1010
10 15 20 30
10 15 20 30
10 15 20 3010 15 20 30
10 10
10
WP 4 GAS UPGRADING; some highlights
• Gas upgrading critical parameters– Low concentrations and quantities of hydrogen:
60 kg H2 /h (2 MWth)– Fluctuating concentrations – Energy demand – Sustainability– Security and risk analysis– Process control
Membrane contactor separation
Advantages of MC separation:• No loss of liquid carrier • Compression of gas not required• Low energy demand• Flexible in application• Recirculation possible
Sweep gas
absorbent
H2/CO2H2
loadedabsorbent
Desorption
Sweep+CO2
Pump
AbsorptionCO2
CO2
Active, dense membrane(0.5 mm);Driving force; selective absorption
CO2 removal at T=293 K. Influent gas is He=87%, CO2=13%(v/v) at flow rate 200 mL/min.
Membrane contactor prototype
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Liquid flow rate (mL/min)
Rel
ativ
e C
O2
-con
cent
ratio
n at
gas
out
let
cou
t/c
in
deion.water + 1 M MEA (co-current)
deion. water + 1 M MEA (counter-current)
deion. water (counter-current)
Liquid MembraneSpacers
Gas
Energy demand for gas upgrading
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Mole fraction CO2 in raw gas [mol-%]
Rel
ativ
e Po
wer
Los
s [-]
Membrane contactor Experiment (MEA)
Membrane Contactor (K2CO3 + Piperazine)
VSA without drying
Gas analysis
• Use of electrochemical H2-sensors (measuring range: 0-5%; ~ € 500 / sensor );
• Inclusion of state-of-the-art sensors (CO2, CH4, O2, H2S) in separate channels
• Development and construction of a dilution device
Hydrogen sensor Automated dilution device
Future scenario’s and state of the art
1: CFTB Thick juice; 2: CSTR Molasses; 3: Hup- mutant; 4: Wild type
Scenario’s Current HYVOLUTION data
Thermophilic fermentation
Substrate (g glucose /L)
Yield (% of maximum)
Productivity (mmol H2/L.h)
Stripping
Photofermentation
Substrate (mM acetate)
Yield (% of maximum)
Productivity (mmol H2/L.h)
Base case Longterm case: >2030
Glucose Biomass Biomass 1 Biomass 2
13 40 7.5 10
67 85 88 60
5.4 53 29 17
CO2 - ~N2 N2
Acetate DFE DFE3 DFE4
40 120 40 40
50 85 67 34 - 45
0.33 3.3 1.5 0.3 - 0.5
Future hydrogen production costsCost breakdown into process steps.
Base case Long term caseCost (€/kg) Cost(€/kg)
Raw material (PSP) 1.19 0.70Pretreatment 1.74 1.23Thermophilic fermentation 6.07 1.47Photofermentation 8.78 1.37Gas up-grading 2.15 1.37Total production cost 19.93 6.14
Critical parameters from cost-point of view:-raw material and pretreatment lignocellulosics-thermophilic fermentation substrate concentration and yield-photofermentation productivity-gas upgrading energy demand