Jesús García - Fedepalma

Investigador, Cenipalma Colombian Oil Palm Research Centre, Cenipalma, Bogotá, Colombia -Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

Evolución de las plantas de beneficio transformadas en biorrefinerías

Jesús García

Evolution of Palm Oil Mills into biorefineries

Colombia

EVOLUTION OF PALM OIL MILLS INTO BIOREFINERIES

Jesús Alberto García Núñez1,2 -‐ Manuel Garcia-‐Perez1, Deisy Ta>ana Rodríguez2, Nidia Elizabeth Ramirez2, Carlos Fontanilla2, Claudio Stockle1, James AmoneIe3, Craig Frear1 and Electo Silva4

1Department of Biological System Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-‐6120 2Colombian Oil Palm Research Center, Process and Uses Division, Bogotá, Colombia, South America

3 4Pacific Northwest Na>onal Laboratory, PO Box 999, Richland, Washington 99352 4Universidad Federal de Itajubá, BRASIL, South America

Two approaches to biorefinery implementation

b) Revamping of exis>ng facili>es.

Existing Agroindustries

New Technologies

Residual biomass

Administrative burden

Mass and energy exchange

New Biorefinery

- Conventional products

- New products

Conventional feedstock

New Biorefinery New Products

Energy crops

Residual biomass

Wastes

a) Completely new facili>es

Hurdles on biorefinery selection •   A major scien>fic issue is how to generate and select the

best biorefinery op>on among those that can be

implemented for a given situa>on.

•   The selec>on requires a deep understanding of the poten>al technologies, a thorough analysis of the impact

of the alterna>ves on sustainability, societal and

economic indicators.

•   Different methodologies have been published for selec>ng

biorefinery op>ons.

General Objective

To propose a new methodology for the evalua>on

of paths to convert of an exis>ng industry into a

biorefinery and the implementa>on of this

methodology for the conversion of a Colombian

palm oil mill.

Oil palm sector and palm oil mills (POMs)

•   Oil palm agroindustry has been recognized as one of the

agricultural businesses where biorefinery concepts can be

implemented*.

•   Crude palm oil (CPO), the main product of this agribusiness,

is the most consumed vegetable oil in the world.**

•   The biomass generated by this agro-‐industry is almost twice

the CPO produced, is produced permanently during 25 year,

and is located in a single point (POM). *B. Vijayendran, Bio products from biorefineries -‐ trends, challenges and opportuni>es, J. Bus. Chem. 7 (2010) 109–115. **Fedepalma, Sta>s>cal Yearbook 2014-‐The Oil Palm Agroindustry in Colombia and the World 2009 -‐ 2013, Javegraf, Bogotá. D.C.-‐ Colombia, 2014.

General Selection Methodology

Requirements specifications

Data acquisition for base-line scenarios

Technical models of new technologies

Development of biorefinery concepts (BC)

LCA model

Results generation and decision matrix

Best biorefinery concepts!!!

Tech. models & Baseline scenarios (BS)

Review of biomass uses can be applied at POMs

Technology readiness ≥ 6

No Technology is not considered

Yes

Yes No Is the BC technically feasible? The BC is not

considered

Economic model Social aspects

Were the

expectations meet?

No

Yes

Excel Program

Input variables Output variables Func2ons

2,600 1,450 500

V2: To migrate the Excel version to a web platform.


Data acquisition for base-line scenarios



LCA model



Tech. models & Base-line scenarios (BS)




Yes


considered


Were the

expectations meet?

No

Yes

Requirement Specifications

AT THE OIL PALM PLANTATION AT THE MILL •   POM Capacity: 30 t FFB h −1. •   Working >me: 5000 hours year −1. •   The POM is not connected to the electrical grid. •   The electricity is generated by low pressure boiler and steam

turbine. •   It is required a complementary Diesel fuel to run the POM. •   EFB is disposed in a pit near to the POM


Data acquisition for baseline scenarios



LCA model







Yes


considered


Were the

expectations meet?

No

Yes

Data acquisi2on for baseline scenarios

-‐   At the field -‐   Amount of fer>lizers -‐   Fuels at the field -‐   LUC

-‐   At the POM -‐   Available biomass -‐   Opera>onal condi>ons -‐   Water requirements -‐   Biomass characteris>cs





LCA model







Yes


considered


Were the

expectations meet?

No

Yes

Baseline at the POM

205.01000.0 42.0700.0 215.0

1.00 35.622.0 13.9

89.4 46.1 880.0 6.0667.0

500.0 5.71.00

500.0 361.530.6 492.3

26.2

5.5 14.11.0

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

PALM OIL MILLFFB (kg)

- Low pressure boiler- Steam Turbine

Electric Generator

Wastewater treatment

Water (kg)

Fiber (kg) POME (kg)

CPO (kg)Kernel (kg)

EFB

Fiber (kg)Shell (kg)

losses & Impur. (kg)Evap. water (kg)

Treated POME (kg)

Electricity (kWh)

Electricity (kWh)

Electricity (kWh)

Electricity (kWh)Shell (kg)

Diesel (kg)

Water (kg) Evap. - Infilt.(kg)

Sludge (kg)

Ashes (kg)Steam (kg)





LCA model







Yes


considered


Were the

expectations meet?

No

Yes

TRL Descrip2on

TRL 1. Basic principles observed

TRL 2. CONCEPT: technology concept formulated

TRL 3. CONCEPT: experimental proof of concept

TRL 4. VALIDATION: in laboratory

TRL 5. VALIDATION: in industrial environment

TRL 6. DEMONSTRATION: in industrial environment

TRL 7. DEMONSTRATION: prototype in opera>onal context

TRL 8. SYSTEM: complete and qualified

TRL 9. SYSTEM: proven and economically compe>>ve

Technology readiness level (TRL) descrip2on (Overend 2014)

Products from “new” technologies TRL Products from “new” technologies TRL

Phenol from POME TRL 3 Bio-‐composites TRL 5

Chemical via cataly>c technologies TRL 3 Biochar from slow pyrolysis TRL 6

Enzymes produc>on TRL 3 Bio-‐oil from fast pyrolysis TRL 6

Cellulosic Ethanol TRL 4 Ac>vated carbon TRL 8

Bio-‐coal from torrefac>on TRL 4 Pellets and briqueZes TRL 8

Food for ruminants TRL 4 Compost TRL 9

Cellulose pulp and paper TRL 4 Biogas produc2on and use TRL 9

Hydrogen and synthesis gases TRL 4 Electricity genera2on (CHP) TRL 9

Bio-‐plas>cs TRL 4 Pretreatment TRL 9

TRL for the new products according with the previous literature review.





LCA model







Yes


considered


Were the

expectations meet?

No

Yes

C1: Biogas ) Produc>on of biogas from the anaerobic treatment of the POME and its u>liza>on for electricity genera>on. C2: Compost) Compos>ng of empty fruit bunches (EFB), fiber with POME and electricity genera>on from biogas. C3: CHP) CHP unit for the u>liza>on of 100% of the biomass to produce electric energy surplus in addi>on to electricity from the biogas. C4: Pellets) Pellets produc>on, including biomass drying and biogas uses. C5: Biochar) Biochar produc>on and biogas use. C6: Bio-‐oil) Bio-‐oil and biochar produc>on plus biogas and syngas burning.

Proposed Biorefinery Concepts

Concept 1. Biogas production

205.01000.0 42.0700.0 215.0

42.822.0 880.0 17.7

82.2 42.3 6.028.3 667.0

500.0 5.2

500.0 12.46.1 867.6

30.6 60.652.7

361.51.0 5.5 13.8

492.3

POME (kg)

PALM OIL MILL


Electric Generator

Covered anaerobic lagoons & gas recovery

Shell (kg)

Evap. water (kg)

Treated POME (kg)

Electricity (kWh)

Facultative lagoons

Dig. POME (kg)Sludge (kg)


Generator

Biogas (m3)

Elec. (kWh)

Elec. (kWh)

Evap. - Infilt.(kg)

Fiber (kg) Shell (kg)

Electricity (kWh)

Electricity (kWh)

Steam (kg)Electricity (kWh)

EFB (kg)

CPO (kg)Kernel (kg)

Fiber (kg)

losses & Impur. (kg)

Sludge (kg)

FFB

Water (kg)

Diesel (kg)

Water (kg)

Ashes (kg)

Concept 2. Compost and Biogas

205.01000.0 42.0700.0 0.0

0.022.0 880.0 17.7

82.2 42.3 54.528.3 667.0

2.9500.0

500.0 384.030.6 6.1

60.652.7

5.51.4 1.0 173.2

210.9

0.1 496.02.4

0.4215.0 42.8

207.3107.5

498.0

CompostingEFB (kg)

Ash (kg)

Dig. POME (kg)

Compost, (35% Moisture)

water (kg)

Elec. (kWh)

PALM OIL MILL


Electric Generator

Covered anaerobic lagoons and gas recovery

POME (kg)

Treated POME (kg)

Electricity (kWh)

Facultative lagoons

Dig. POME (kg)

Generator

Biogas (m3)

Elec. (kWh)

Elec. (kWh)

Evap. - Infilt.(kg)

Fiber (kg) Shell (kg)

Electricity (kWh)

Electricity (kWh)

Steam (kg)

Electricity (kWh)

Diesel

FFB (kg)Water (kg)

Diesel (kg)

Water (kg)

Shell (kg)

Evap. water (kg)

EFB (kg)

CPO (kg)Kernel (kg)

Fiber (kg)



Fiber (kg)

Ashes (kg)

EFB press

Concept 3. Cogeneration and Biogas

205.01000.0 42.0700.0 0.0

0.022.0 880.0 0.0

400.0 6.028.3 667.0

25.512.4

255.2 500.0 6.1252.7 252.7 124.5

361.5500.0 752.7 52.7 13.8

120.0 492.316.8

1.0 5.5

PALM OIL MILLT

- High pressure boiler- CET Turbine

Electric Generator

Covered anaerobic

lagoons and

POME (kg)

Electricity (kWh)

Generator

Biogas (m3)

Elec. (kWh)

Elec. (kWh)

EFB, Fiber and shell (kg)

Electricity (kWh)

Electricity (kWh)

Steam (kg)

Elect. (kWh)

Condenser

Facultative lagoons

Evap. - Infilt.(kg)

Treated POME (kg)Sludge (kg)

INPUT PROCESS

FFB (kg)Water (kg)

Diesel (kg)

Water (kg)

Sludge (kg)

Shell (kg)

EFB (kg)

CPO (kg)Kernel (kg)

Fiber (kg)


Pretreatment

Dry biomass (kg)

Elect. (kWh)

OUTPUTUT

Evap. water (kg)

Ashes (kg)

Concept 4. Pellets and Biogas

205.01000.0 42.0700.0 0.0

0.042.3 22.0 880.0 0.0

82.2 6.0500.0 28.1 667.0

5.2

500.0 6.1 12.430.6

22.552.7 361.5

5.5 13.81.0 492.3

18.819.3 505.5

42.817.7 142.2

215.0 8.4124.8

124.8Pellets (kg)

Dust (kg)

Elec. (kWh)

PALM OIL MILL


Electric Generator


POME (kg)

Electricity (kWh)

Facultative lagoons

Generator

Biogas (m3)

Elec. (kWh)

Elec. (kWh)

Evap. - Infilt.(kg)

Fiber Shell

Electricity (kWh)

Electricity (kWh)

Steam (kg)

Electricity (kWh)

Moisture + oil (kg)

Sludge (kg)

Pretreatment, drying

Shell Fiber

EFB

Pellets plant

Dry biomass (kg)

Thermal ener.


FFB (kg)Water (kg)

Diesel (kg)

Water (kg)


Shell (kg)

Evap. water (kg)

EFB (kg)

CPO (kg)Kernel (kg)

Fiber (kg)


Ashes (kg)

Concept 5. Biochar and Biogas

205.01000.0 42.0700.0 0.00.0 0.0

0.0 22.0 880.0 0.0500.0 6.0

117.0 28.1 667.04.9

6.1 12.4654.9 654.9

154.936.4

24.8 52.7 361.513.8

1.0 492.35.5

405250 13.9 4.49 377.5

70.3 8.060.0 134.8

215.0 8.8139.4

64.6 43.930.9

304.3

Pretreatment, drying Shell (kg)Fiber (kg)

Char (kg)Bio-oil (kg)

PALM OIL MILL


Electric Generator


POME (kg)

Electricity (kWh)

Facultative lagoons

Generator

Biogas (m3)

Elec. (kWh)

Elec. (kWh)

Evap. - Infilt.(kg)

Fiber (kg)

Shell

Electricity (kWh)

Electricity (kWh)

Steam (kg) Electricity (kWh)

EFB (kg)Moisture + oil (kg)

pyrolysis plant

Dry biomass (kg)

Dust (kg)

Gas (kg)

Elec. Ther. ener. (MJ)

Ther. ener. (MJ)



FFB (kg)Water (kg)

Diesel (kg)

Water (kg) Sludge (kg)

Shell (kg)

Evap. water (kg)

EFB (kg)

CPO (kg)Kernel (kg)

Fiber (kg)


Fiber (kg)

Steam (kg) Steam (kg)

Burner

Gas & Tar

Ther. ener. (MJ)(Boiler Gases)

Ashes (kg)

Concept 6. Bio-oil, Biochar, and Biogas

205.01000.0 42.0700.0 0.0

0.09.9 22 880.0 0.0

500.0 29.3125.0 28.3 667.0

5.712.4

500.0 500.0 6.10

37.430.6 52.7 361.5

13.81.0 5.50 492.3

4.9 229 (m3)18.4

0.0 344.250.1 132.3

215.0 7.9124.9

29.0 9.430 63.2

20.6

Pretreatment, drying

Shell (kg)Fiber (kg)

Biochar (kg)Bio-oil (kg)

Elec. (kWh)

PALM OIL MILL


Electric Generator


POME (kg)

Electricity (kWh)

Facultative lagoons

Generator

Biogas (m3)

Elec. (kWh)

Elec. (kWh)

Evap. - Infilt.(kg)

Fiber (kg)

Shell (kg)

Electricity (kWh)

Electricity (kWh)

Electricity (kWh)

EFB (kg)Moisture + oil (kg)

pyrolysis plant

Dry biomass (kg)Dust (kg)

Gas (kg)

Ther. ener. (MJ) (Boiler



Sludge (kg)

Shell (kg)

Evap. water (kg)

EFB (kg)

CPO (kg)Kernel (kg)

Fiber (kg)


FFB (kg)Water (kg)

Diesel (kg)

Water (kg)Steam (kg)

Steam (kg)

Burner

Ther. ener. (MJ)

Gas flux for fluidization

Biochar (kg)Gas flux for fluidization

Ashes

Steam

Summary products

215 215

36 43 14 18

18

207 125

44

9

63

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Baseline C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

Prod

ucts (k

g/ t FFB)

Biooil Biochar

Pellets Compost

Shell Fiber

EFB

Biogas Compost CHP Pellets Biochar Bio-‐oil

Biorefinery Concepts

Summary products

14

61 61

125

23 36 37

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Surplus E

lectric

ity (kW

h/t F

FB)

Biorefinery Concepts Biogas Compost CHP Pellets Biochar Bio-‐oil





LCA model







Yes


considered


Were the

expectations meet?

No

Yes

Boundary conditions for LCA (Cradle to Gate)

p

Ss

p

FFB production

and transportation

POM with conventional POME treatment, and

CHP internal generation

New Technology

X

New Technology

Y

POM Biorefinery Conventional Products •   CPO •   Kernel

New products Avoided products

Bio-oil

Biochar

Compost

Electricity from grid

Natural gas

Fossil fuels

Pellets

Surplus Electricity

Fertilizer production

CO2 captured, N2O reduction

System boundary

Reduction between 30 and 99% compared with the baseline scenario

-‐438 -‐586 -‐664 -‐569 -‐593

-‐873

-‐584

-‐1.300

-‐800

-‐300

200

700


CFP (kg CO

2 / t F

FB)

Total CO2 emisions Total CO2 captured in FFB Carbon Footprint

Carbon footprint


LCA Eutrophication Potential

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4


EP kg PO

43-‐ eq/ T FFB

Dump-‐EFB/ compost POME Mill Field

Eutrophication Potential can be reduced up to 30% in C2


NER

18,1 18,5 17,7 19,0

22,9

18,3

21,3

0

5

10

15

20

25


NER

NER Biofuels + EE

Is improved up to 26% in C4






LCA model







Yes


considered


Were the

expectations meet?

No

Yes

CAPEX and OPEX for the biorefinery concepts

Produc>on Costs Biorefinery Concepts


CAPEX (USD t−1 FFB) 0.71 0.87 2.85 1.19 2.45 2.38

OPEX (USD t−1 FFB) 1.62 6.77 6.72 3.39 5.69 7.33

Main Economic Indicators among the biorefinery concepts

Economic Indicators Biorefinery Concepts


NPV (Thousands USD) 2,503 3,420 −4,819 13,953 −9,344 6,821

IRR (%) 24 27 3 56 -‐-‐-‐ 20

Payback period (years) 6 5 -‐-‐-‐ 3 -‐-‐-‐ 8

Extra incomes USD t−1 FFB 3.3 4.5 1.9 12.8 −2.1 9.6

Minimum sale prices to achieve economic feasibility of the biorefinery concepts

Biorefinery Concepts

Products from the biorefinery concepts

Electricity (USD kWh−1)

Compost (USD t−1)

Pellets (USD t−1)

Biochar (USD t−1)

Bio-‐oil (USD t−1)

C1 0.062

C2 0.092 19.46

C3 0.121

C4 0.092 40.75

C5 0.092 216.30

C6 0.092 60.00 162.72

Social Aspects Total labor per shift per each biorefinery concepts


Technicians 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1

Operators 1 5 4 6 6 7

Total 1.5 6 4.5 7 7 8





LCA model







Yes


considered


Were the

expectations meet?

No

Yes

Results Generation (Summarized Results)

Cs

LCA Economic Assessment Social CO2 eq. (kg CO2 t−1 FFB)

EP (kg PO4

3-‐ eq t−1 FFB)

NER (MJ MJ−1)

Extra Inc. (USD t−1 FFB)

NPV (USD) (x1000)

P-‐back period (years)

New Jobs (#)

Skills (#)

Biogas −585.6 1.23 18.5 3.3 2,503 6 1.5 0.5

Compost −663.7 0.86 17.7 4.5 3,420 5 6.0 1.0

CHP −569.4 0.98 19 1.9 −4,819 -‐-‐-‐ 4.5 0.5

Pellets −593.3 0.98 22.9 12.8 13,953 3 7.0 1.0

Biochar −872.6 0.98 18.3 −2.1 −9,344 -‐-‐-‐ 7.0 1.0

Bio-‐oil −584.4 0.98 21.3 9.6 6,821 8 8.0 1.0

Results Generation (Normalization Process)

00% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LCA CO2 emissions

LCA EP

LCA NER

Economic assesment Extra Incomes

Economic assesment NPV

Economic assesment Payback period

Social New workers

Social Skilled workers

Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 5 Concept 6

Choosing weighting factors

Categories Equilibrated Scenario

Environmental Scenario

Economic Scenario

Social Scenario

Main Categories LCA (A) 33.3 80 10 10 Economic Ass. (B) 33.3 10 80 10 Social (C) 33.3 10 10 80 LCA GHG emissions (D) 33.3 60 60 60 EP (E) 33.3 20 20 20 NER (F) 33.3 20 20 20 Economic Ass. Extra Incomes (G) 33.3 60 60 60 NPV (H) 33.3 20 20 20 Payback Period (I) 33.3 20 20 20 Social New jobs (J) 50 60 60 60 Skills (K) 50 40 40 40





LCA model







Yes


considered


Were the

expectations meet?

No

Yes

Best Biorefinery Concepts!!!

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

Equilibrated

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

Environmental

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

Economic

Biogas Comp. CHP Pell. Bioc. Bio-‐oil

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

Social

Biogas Comp. CHP Pell. Bioc. Bio-‐oil

Biogas Comp. CHP Pell. Bioc. Bio-‐oil Biogas Comp. CHP Pell. Bioc. Bio-‐oil

Conclusions

1.   The implementa>on of biorefinery concepts improves the

environmental impacts on Carbon Footprint, Eutrophica>on

Poten>al, and the Net Energy Ra>o.

2.   The decision matrix tool helps the stakeholders, the decision-‐

makers and the policy-‐makers to choose different biorefinery

op>ons, taking into considera>ons specific site condi>ons by

weighing values on environmental, economic and social

impacts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

WSU, Cenipalma, Oil Palm Promo>on Fund (FFP),

administrated by Fedepalma, POMs (Entrepalmas,

Agroince, Morichal, Tequendama, Manuelita)

Thank you ! Questions?

46

Documents

Jesús García - Fedepalma