Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2nd Michigan Forest Bioeconomy Conference
Sustainable Futures
Institute
Understanding Sustainability of the Circular EconomyThrough Systems Analysis
David R. Shonnard, Ph.D.
Feb. 13, 2019The H Hotel, Midland, MI
Professor and Robbins Chair in Sustainable Use of MaterialsDepartment of Chemical EngineeringDirector, Sustainable Futures Institute
Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA
Comparing Linear to Circular Economy
A Systems Analysis Framework
Case Studies:
Summary and Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
2
Overview
3
Linear Economy (Material Flow Diagram)
VirginFeedstock
Production and Use
Collected for Recycle
Closed-LoopRecycling
Recycle ProcessLosses
Open-LoopRecycling
Incineration /Energy Recovery
Wastes Landfilled
Leakage(Litter)
Linear Dominant Economy
4
Circular Economy (Material Flow Diagram)
Production and Use
Collected and Processed for
Recycle/Reman.
Closed-LoopRecycling
Energy Recovery
Circular Dominant Economy
LandfilledVirginFeedstock
Wastes
5
Systems Analysis Framework and Tools
MaterialsRecoveryProcesses
LCA (SimaPro)
TEA model,Regional Economics
Process simulation-optimization (Aspen
Plus, INL Model)
Mechanical RecyclingProcesses
ChemicalRecyclingProcesses
Environmental
Social
Economic
Sustainability Indicators
NPV, IRR, MSP,GHG Emissions, Fossil Energy Demand,Direct JobsRegional EconomicsToxic Materials
M/E Balance Databases
Simulations (Software tools)
Impact Assessment NPV = net present value.
IRR = internal rate of return MSP = minimum selling price
Research questions,New policies,trigger new analyses
Framework
Simulation ToolsProcess simulation, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Social LCA (SLCA), TEA, Regional Economics
6
MI Forest Biomass Supply Chain
Feedstock Growth /
Cultivation
Feedstock Harvesting
Feedstock Transport
FeedstockConversion
ProductTransport
ProductUse
FuelChemicalsEquipment
FuelChemicalsEquipment
System BoundaryFunctional Unit: one green tonne of biomass
delivered to factory gate
Re-plantingLand-use change
Maintenance
Heat/PowerChemicalsEquipment
FuelChemicalsEquipment
Research Methods: Surveys of loggers and haulers
MI Economic Development CorporationUS Department of Energy
7
MI Forest Biomass Harvesting ResultsGreenhouse gas emissions Fossil Energy Demand
kg CO2 eqgreen tonnea
kg CO2 eqdry tonne
MJ green tonne
MJdry tonne
A: Full Processor / Forwarder30% Cut (Selective) 14.7 29.4 197.2 394.470% Cut (shelterwood) 12.3 24.6 165.9 331.7Clearcutting 9.9 19.8 135.2 270.4B: Feller-buncher / Skidder / Slasher30% Cut (Selective) 26.3 52.6 337.0 674.070% Cut (shelterwood) 19.1 38.3 248.1 496.3Clearcutting 13.6 27.2 179.0 358.0C: Chainsaws / Skidder30% Cut (Selective) 24.3 48.6 304.2 608.570% Cut (shelterwood) 23.3 46.6 291.9 583.7Clearcutting 22.0 44.0 275.5 551.1
All 30% selective cut harvesting 20.9 41.8 270.8 541.6All 70% shelterwood harvesting 16.3 32.5 213.3 426.6All Clearcut harvesting 10.3 20.6 139.6 279.2All harvesting activity 17.8 35.7 233.1 466.1
a – ‘tonne’ refers to metric tonne
More intensive = more efficientBestMid-input, high productivity
High input, high productivity
Low input, low productivity
Aggregated harvesting/forwarding
8
Process diagram of the IH2® process
26 wt. % biofuel
yieldSolid feed
hopper
Hydroconversion reactor
Fluid bed hydropyrolysis
reactor
SteamReformer
Sour water
stripper
H2S scrubber Oxidation
Char Ash Steam
Steam Water
Gasoline/Diesel blend
Biomass Liquid
hydrocarbons
CO2
H2O
C1-C3 hydrocarbons
H2
Ammonium sulfate
Water
Char boiler
SteamElectricity
(used internally)
Cyclone
Compressor
Separator
Wastewater
NH3-Water
Biomass Processing
Case 1
9
Process diagram of the IH2® Plus process
38 wt. % biofuel
yieldSolid feed hopper
Hydroconversion reactor
Fluid bed hydropyrolysis
reactor
SteamReformer
Separator
Sour water stripper
H2S scrubber Oxidation
Char Ash Steam
Steam Water
Gasoline/Diesel blend
Biomass Liquid hydrocarbons
CO2
H2OC1-C3
hydrocarbons
CH4
H2
Ammonium sulfate
Water
Char boiler
SteamElectricity
(used internally)
Dry Reformer
Fischer-Tropsch
Liquid hydrocarbons
Cyclone
Compressor
Syngas
NH3-Water
Wastewater
Biomass Processing
Case 2
10
Methodology – LCA System boundary IH2® Plus
Hydropyrolysis Hydroconversion Separator
Fischer-Tropsch
Sour water stripper
Ammonium sulfate
Biofuel
Wastewater
Biomass Processing
Dry Reformer
H2SScrubber
Steam Reformer
WaterInputs
Natural Gas
Energy
Electricity
Outputs
CO2
H2C1-C3
hydrocarbons
Syngas
System Boundary
11
Results – GHG emissions for IH2® vs IH2® Plus
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
Case 1 Case 1(FC) Case 2 Case 2(FC)
gCO
2eq/
MJ f
uel b
lend
94.94 94.69
41.52
12.42
60% reduction in GHG emissions relative to fossil gasoline
)
Fuel use
Fuel Transport
Waste treatment
Ammonia credit
H2 Production
Fuel Production
Feedstock
Case 1: IH2®, wood residueCase 2: IH2® Plus, woody residue
12
Pyrolysis-Based Hydrocarbon Biofuel Pathway
13
Process Flowsheet with Three Co-Product Options
• Modeled in Aspen Plus
• Design basis of 1,000 metric tons/day of dry feed to the pyrolysis unit
Burn to Displace Coal
Soil Amendment
Activated Carbon
$49.60 per ton (US EIA)
$352 per ton (Pacific Biochar)$111 per ton (del Campo 2015)
14
Techno-Economic Inputs to aDiscounted Cash Flow Analysis
15
LCA System Boundary
System Boundary
16
Economic and Environmental Results
Trade-off plot showing the effect of different co-products for all heat integration scenarios with displacement allocation
(120)
(80)
(40)
0
40
80
120
$2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $6.00 $6.50
GHG
emis
sion
s, g
CO
2 eq
uiv p
er M
J of f
uel
MSP, $/gal
1 step 2 step sc 1Burn CharSoil AmendmentActivated Carbon
17
Summary and Conclusions
• A systems analysis framework is useful for evaluating sustainability of a circular forest bioeconomy
• A systems analysis framework • Based on a set of predictive models• Driven by research questions and policy/process alternatives• Inclusive of several sustainability indicators
• Forest-based biofuels achieve large GHG savings compared to fossil fuels, but
• Minimum selling prices are higher than fossil fuels for current market conditions.
18
Acknowledgements• Funding Sponsors
• Richard and Bonnie Robbins Endowment at Michigan Tech• Michigan (MEDC-DOE) Center of Energy Excellence• National Science Foundation grant MSP/CHE-ENG/ECCS-1230803
• Students-Postdocs-Faculty• Robert Handler• Olumide Winjobi• Daniel Kulas• Bethany Klemetsrud• Wen Zhou
19
References• Shonnard, D.R., Tipaldo, E., Thompson, V., Pearce, J., Caneba, G., Handler, R.M., 2019,
Systems analysis for PET and olefin polymers in a circular economy, Procedia CIRP, 26th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference.
• Handler, R.M., Shonnard, D.R., Lautala, P., Abbas, D., Srivastava, A., (2014), Environmental impacts of roundwood supply chain options in Michigan: Life-cycle assessment of harvest and transport stages, Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 1 August, Pages 64–73.
• Winjobi, O., Tavakoli, H., Klemetsrud, B., Handler, R.M., Marker, T., Roberts, M., Shonnard, D.R., 2018, Carbon Footprint Analysis of Gasoline and Diesel from Forest Residues and Algae using Integrated Hydroyrolysis and Hydroconversion Plus Fisher Tropsch (IH2® Plus Cool GTL™), ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering, DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b02091.
• Kulas, D. Winjobi, O., Zhou, W., Shonnard, D.R., 2018, Effects of Co-product Uses on Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Hydrocarbon Biofuel from One- and Two-Step Pyrolysis of Poplar, ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 6 (5), pp 5969–5980, DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b04390
• del Campo, B. G. Production of activated carbon from fast pyrolysis biochar and the detoxification of pyrolytic sugars for ethanol fermentation. PhD Dissertation, Iowa State University, 2015
2nd Michigan Forest Bioeconomy Conference
Sustainable Futures
Institute
Sustainable Forest BioeconomyRe
new
able
Biod
iver
sity
Carb
on N
eutr
al
Zero
Was
te
Eart
h Sy
stem
s
Syst
ems A
naly
sis
Entr
epre
neur
ial
Circ
ular
Eco
nom
y• Contact Information:
• David R. Shonnard: • [email protected]
Thank you for your attention!