The role of biomass resources in a 100 percent renewable energy system in Denmark

The role of biomass resources

in a 100 percent renewable energy system in Denmark

Henrik WenzelUniversity of Southern Denmark

Seminar at Center for Environmental StrategyUniversity of Surrey, UK

January 19th, 2012

How do we create a structure that will last a thousand years?

The Cathedral in Seville - built 1402 – 1506- still as good as new

How do we create a structure that will last a thousand years?

Keystone

Overview

Det Tekniske Fakultet, Institut for Kemi-, Bio- og Miljøteknologi

1. What characterizes Denmark?

2. Sustainability criteria

3. Framework conditions of the fossil free society: constraints on land, biomass and carbon The global view Some key issues of the fossil free system The Danish case

4. Closing the carbon gap by upgrading biomass and recycling carbon

• Hydrogenation and CCR• Five-doubling the benefit of biomass• A back-of-the-envelope look at cost

5. Discussion

What characterizes Denmark- in a renewable energy supply context?


What characterizes Denmark- in a renewable energy supply context?


1. High wind power potential: 300% of DK energy consumption

2. High agricultural production: 3-5 times more manure and straw than average

3. Low forest area/set-aside/natural land area: 15 % of DK

4. Low solar radiation input

5. Share electricity grid with Norway and Sweden: hydropower buffer

6. High CHP and extended district heating systems: 400 DH grids

7. Full implementation of waste incineration with CHP and district heating grid connection

8. An extended natural gas grid

Sustainability criteria Sustainability = long term viability/survival Assess the long term viability/survival (of e.g. an energy technology) in multiple

dimensions:• Technical: functionality, credibility, robustness, sufficiency, flexibility, safety, etc. • Economic• Environmental: climate, nature preservation, biodiversity, acid rain, waste, etc.• Resource supply: energy, food, area, water, protein, phosphorus, metals, carbon• Social/ethical: health, nutrition, education, human rights, etc.

Any sustainability assessment is comparative. There is always an alternative and always a prioritization and trade-off

Which criteria will dominate will be determined by future framework conditions The fossil free society may run into severe sustainability problems – even more

severe than the fossil society? What are the sustainability issues of the fossil-based and the bio-based society

respectively?


Sustainability criteriaNow

Fossil-based society Bio-based society

Technical Economic Environmental: climate Resource supply: energy Social/ethical

Technical Economic Environmental: climate, nature

preservation, biodiversity Resource supply:

energy, food, water, protein, phosphorus, land, biomass, carbon metals

Social/ethical

Global land constraints

13 Gha land area on Earth 4.88 Gha used for agriculture:

1.52 Gha used for crops (arable land and permanent crops)3.36 Gha used for permanent meadows and pasture

8 Gha still “nature”4.0 Gha is still wooded (forest)2.5 Gha is ice, tundra & dessert1.5 Gha natural grassland, savannah, etc.

(FAOSTAT. Retrieved in 2011)

The carbon, biomass and land constraints- the global view

Comparison of food and energyWorld average food intake: 2700 kcal/pers/day ≈ 25 EJ/yearAgricultural biomass today ≈ 100-150 EJ/yearFossil energy consumption today ≈ 450 EJ/yearBiomass for full fossil substitution today ≈ 500-600 EJ/year→ we need ≈ 5 times more biomass on top of today’s agricultural output for full fossil substitution

Can agricultural yield increases reduce the gap?Yield increase in agriculture ≈ 1% per year → 0.8 %Consumption growth (GDP/capita) ≈ 3% per year → ?? %Land use increase from trend towards more meat on the menu

≈ ??% per year


How much new land can be cultivated?

New cultivable land: Biophysical maximum ≈ 2,3 Gha more– most of which is in South America and Africa (Ramancutty et al., 2002).

BUT: cultivating new land can imply a 2-9 times higher release of CO2 than energy crops can save over 30 years by substitution of fossil fuels (Righelato and Spracklen, Science 2007) – meaning pay back of 60 – 300 years.

Sustainable new land cultivation30-40% more (Danish Ministry for Food and Agriculture, 2008)


The carbon, biomass and land constraints- the global view

StudyGeogr. scope Temporal scope

Resource focused

Demand driven Sce-nario Biomass potential (EJ/y)

Biomass req. for full fossil fuel subst.

Fossil fuel subst.

ResiduesEnergy crops Total EJ/y %

i) EU25 2030 X 6.7 5.2 11.9 79-90 16-18%ii) EU27 2015-2025 X 2.8 1.8 4.6 89-102 4-5%

EU27 2025-2045 X Low 2.9 5.6 8.5 89-102 8-9%EU27 2025-2045 X High 3.5 7.2 10.7 89-102 10-12%EU27 >2040 X Low 2.5 15.4 17.9 89-102 17-19%EU27 >2040 X High 3.1 19.9 23 89-102 21-25%

iii) Global 2030 X Low 96 219 315 631-716 42-48%Global X High 96 315 411 631-716 55-62%

iv) Global 2030 X 87 151 238 631-716 32-36%v) Global 2025-2050 X 31 267 298 631-716 40-45%vi) Global 2020 X 15 112 127 631-716 17-19%vii) Global 2025 X 74 631-716 10-11%viii) Global 2025 n.d. n.d. 85 631-716 11-13%ix) Global 2025 X X BI 56 17 74 631-716 10-11%x) Global 2030 X 91 631-716 12-14%xi) Global 2025 X X RIGES 65 80 145 631-716 19-22%xii) Global 2050 X 100 400 500 631-716 69-79%

Ref.: Hedegaard K, K Thyø and H Wenzel, Env Sci Tech, 2008

Biomass constraints - a global view on potentials

Land demand increase

Demand included Comment Reference

0.47 to 1.16 Gha

Food: [300-600] Mha Based on 4 studies. Kampman et al. (2008) and E-4-Tech (2008)Wood (solid fuel and

timber)*: [100-300] MhaDemand: 1.49 to 2.47 Gt.

Biofuels: [56.3-246.6] Mha 4 scenarios. Use of biofuels: 3.9 to 11 EJ. Credit for by-product accounted for.

Others products: [11.2 – 15.2] Mha

Including rubber, cotton, chemicals

0.416 Gha Food production alone 1990 – 2050 IPCC (2001)

0.20 to 0.70 Gha

Not specified. Only specified that this is without the impact of obligatory biofuel targets.

Extra land needed to fulfill “increasing demands” from 2000 to 2020.

Bindraban et al. (2009)

0.26 to 0.67 Gha

Food: [200-500] Mha Values based on Kampman et al. (2008) and E-4-Tech (2008) above. For biofuels, this is the total requirement for land if all major countries were to reach their targets to 2020.

RFA (2008)

Biofuels: [56-166] Mha

*About 40 % of the total wood removals from forests are due to the demand for fuel, either as fuelwood or charcoal (Kampman et al., 2008)

Land constraints – predictions of developments towards 2020

Reference 1 2 3 4Land demand 0.47 to 1.16 Gha 0.42 Gha 0.20 to 0.70 Gha 0.26 to 0.67 Gha

• Potential for new cultivable land, based on geographical modelling:• 2.3 Gha (Ramankutty et al., 2002)• 0.79 – 1.215 Gha (model from IIASA; in RFA, 2008)

Half of the biophysical maximal land potential to be used by 2020 ????

...and with only a few percent coverage of energy demand by bio-energy?

Land constraints – predictions of land demand increase towards 2020

Some key issues of the fossil free society

• Balancing supply and demand of electricity, storable fuels• Energy dense fuels for mobility purposes• Carbon feedstock

=> Constraints on carbon, biomass and land?


The carbon/biomass bottleneck- a breakdown of the global view (projected to 2030)

Demand type Energy demand (EJ/year)

Biomass demand (EJ/year)

Jetfuels 25 50*

Chemicals 30 60*

Long distance road (20% of road) 20 40

Heat & electricity fuel buffer (20%) 90 90

Short distance road (80% of road) 80 160

Heat & electricity bulk (80%) + other 350 350

≈ 600 ≈ 750

Supply type Demand driven(EJ/year)

Supply driven(EJ/year)

Residues (non-area demanding) 56-65 15-100

Crops (area demanding) 17-80 112-400

* With present conversion technology


15.12.2011 17Alternative drivmidler og

www.energinet.dk

January 2008 Januar 2008 + 3,000 MW wind

El demand & Wind power supply

From 20 % to 50 % wind share – within 10-15 years. DK west.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Wind power Demand

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Wind power Demand

Balancing supply and demand

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

1 61 121 181 241 301 361 421 481 541 601 661 721 781 841 901 961 1021 1081 1141 1201 1261 1321

El (M

W)

Classic el use Wind- Wave-Solar

15.12.2011 18

60 days Jan-Feb

Need to supplement at min. production

Need to integrate (store) at max production

Wind, solar & wave

Balancing supply and demand

Alternative drivmidler og www.energinet.dk

Study Needed bio Available bio residues

Needed crops or import or ??

Danish Climate Commission 310 PJ 200 PJ 110 PJ

Danish TSO, Energinet.dk 450 PJ 230 PJ 220 PJ

CEESA research program (DK university consensus)

340 PJ 240 PJ 100 PJ

The carbon/biomass bottleneck - the Danish case (2050 projection), 3 different studies

The Danish case

The Danish case- how do we close the carbon gap?


Electrification

El-driventransport

Heat pumps

Biomass

El-buffer

Industry

Transport: - Long distance

road- Air- Sea

Chemicals & materials



Electrification

El-driventransport

Heat pumps

Biomass

El-buffer

Industry


road- Air- Sea

Chemicals & materialsWhere do we get

the keystone?



Electrification

El-driventransport

Heat pumps

Biomass

El-buffer

Industry


road- Air- Sea

Chemicals & materialsImport?



Electrification

El-driventransport

Heat pumps

Biomass

El-buffer

Industry


road- Air- Sea

Chemicals & materialsDanish

agriculture?



Electrification

El-driventransport

Heat pumps

Biomass

El-buffer

Industry


road- Air- Sea

Chemicals & materialsDanish nature?



Electrification

El-driventransport

Heat pumps

Biomass

El-buffer

Industry


road- Air- Sea

Chemicals & materialsHydrogenation

and CCR?

Closing the carbon gap- upgrading biomass and recycling carbon

Hydrogenation to methane: biomass hydrogen methane water

C6(H2O)5 + 12 H2 6 CH4 + 5 H2O 2,8 MJ 2,9 MJ 4,8 MJ


CCR to methane:carbon dioxide hydrogen methane water

6 CO2 + 24 H2 6 CH4 + 12 H2O 0 MJ 5,8 MJ 4,8 MJ

Wind or solar power

Electrolysis

H2

O2

Power plant

Biomass or CH4 from biomass hydrogenation

CO2 +

El

El

Chemical synthesis

Ashes

Upgrading FertilizerFuels: methanol, methane, etc., Chemicals

El


Closing the carbon gap- the CCR vision, carbon capture and recycling


Conversion process Inputs (PJ) Outputs (PJ)

biomass hydrogen solid fuel liquid fuel road

liquid fuel road and air

methane

FermentationInbicon 2G ethanol

100 50 22Gasification and hydrogenation to methane 100 100 170CCR to methane

100 200 100 170Hydrogenation & CCR to methane

100 300 340

Closing the carbon gap- five-doubling the benefit og biomass by upgrading and recycling bio-C

Off-shore wind turbines with a yearly

production of 100 PJ can save 5000 km2 agricultural land with a crop production equivalent to the yearly calorific intake of 10 million world average citizens


Closing the carbon gap - letting wind power replace land use by upgrading and recycling bio-C


Biomass-gasification

CatalysisMethanol

DME

Upgrading to Methane

Biofuel

Peak elGas-turbine,fuelcell, CC

El-transmission

Biomass & waste

Electro-lysis

H2

DH

El at ’low price’ El ’high price/peak load’

DH

District heating

District heating

District heating

Gas-transmission

Gas-system/storage

Closing the carbon gap- the RE gas vision of Energinet.dk, the Danish TSO

www.energinet.dk

O2

www.ceesa.dk, Brian Vad Mathiesen

The ceesa 2050 scenario

The Danish case

http://www.ceesa.dk/

15.12.2011 32

Electricity storage – example 2035+

Seasonal-storage

=100 GWh

Storage as methane (exist. Gas storage)Investment costs in storage

0.5 - 1 €/kWh

0,07 €/kWh (methane)

Batteries: 30-80 €/kWh

Storage capacity (as input el)

Seconds

BEVs

Indiv. HP

Heatpump (HP) in DH

Minutes Hours Days Weeks Months

Alternative drivmidler og www.energinet.dk

Storage as hydrogen (exist. Gas storage)

Based on the following assumptions: • Off-shore wind power: 10 eurocents/kWh• Energy efficiency of electrolysis: 75 %, i.e. 44 kWh/kg H2 • Operation cost of hydrogen: 4.4 €/kg = 1.5 €/kg oil equivalent = 215 €/barrel oil

equivalents• Total cost of hydrogen including amortized investment: 250 – 300 €/ barrel oil equivalents• Total cost of methane: max 350 €/barrel oil equivalents• Petrol reference: 75 €/barrel oil equivalent

we find an extra cost of CCR fuel = 350 – 75 = 275 €/barrel oil equivalent.

At 100 PJ CCR fuel/year this would imply and extra cost of 4.2 billion €/year, being equal to 2 % of Danish GDP today. Or 1% of Danish GDP in 2050?

Kattegat bridge: 15 billion €.


Closing the carbon gap- a back-of-the-envelope look at the cost of recycling bio-C

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2020 2030 2040 2050

Reference CEESA

MDK

K/ye

ar

Socio-economic costs

Investments, energy O&M, energy

Extra infrastructure inv., transport Investments, vehicles

O&M, vehicles Fuel

CO2-costs

• Transport pose a very high portion of the costs compared to other energy services

• Direct economic advantages in transition

• In addition:• More stable costs• More jobs• More export• Lower health

costs

www.ceesa.dk, Brian Vad Mathiesen

http://www.ceesa.dk/

Road map diskussion


Fossil

CCS LUC

CCR

Fermentation

BioGasification

You are here

FutureDiscussion

Documents

The role of biomass resources in a 100 percent renewable energy system in Denmark