Williams Brisbane Talk (Revised) 27 July 2011

7/28/2019 Williams Brisbane Talk (Revised) 27 July 2011

1/24

Biomass Energy

with CO2 Capture and Storage

(BECCS)Presented at

Future Fuels for Australia

Brisbane, Australia

20 July 2011

By

Robert H. Williams

Princeton Environmental Institute

Princeton University


2/24

OUTLINE

BECCS introduction

Alternative approaches to BECCS

Strategic importance of BECCS via gasification: Biomass only systems to make liquid fuels or electricity

Coal and biomass coprocessing

Electricity generation as major coproduct of liquid fuels production

Comparing alternative BECCS options via the metrics: GHG emissions index (GHGI)

GHG emissions avoided (GHGA)

Biomass input index (BII)

Zero emissions fuels index (ZEFI)

Levelized cost of fuel (LCOE) Internal rate of return on equity (IRRE)

Thought experiment: Toward zero GHG emissions for globaltransportation by mid-century

A way forward


3/24

BECCS: Definition, Key Attribute, & Alternative Approaches

BECCS: Energy system involving biomass energy conversion thatcaptures as CO2 some of C in biomass feedstock that is not in final

energy productfor storage in deep geological formations (CCS).

Key attribute: Conversion of sustainably grown biomass from C-neutral status to C-negative status.

Alternative Approaches: CO2 can be captured from:

Flue gases via post-combustion or oxy-combustion processes for combustion-based energy conversion systems

Fermenter in fuels production via biochemical conversion Syngas via pre-combustion processes for gasification-based energy systems

Focus is on last two approaches for lignocellulosic biomass feed-

stocks that do not require cropland use for productionspecifically: Cellulosic ethanol (EtOH-CCS) productionfor which 1 molecule of CO2 from

fermenter is captured per molecule of EtOH (C2H5OH) generated

Production of liquid fuels, electricity, or liquid fuels + electricity via gasification Biomass only & coal + biomass approaches to BECCS


4/24

WHY BECCS?

Because CCS technologies will be developed to enable energy futurefor fossil energy conversion in C-constrained world, CCS should be

considered for biomass as wellpiggybacking on fossil-fuel effort. Under C-mitigation policy, BECCS enables greater energy roles for

biomassa scarce resource [biomass is scarce because of land-use

constraints (arising from inherently low efficiency of photosynthesis),

conflicts with food production, & indirect land-use impacts)].

Negative GHG emissions feature provides opportunity to offset GHGemissions from difficult-to-decarbonize supplies (e.g., crude-oil-

derived products that provide nearly all transportation energy).

Under C-mitigation policy, BECCS would enable energy productionfrom biomass at lower cost than with CO2 vented.

BECCS could enable deeper reductions in global GHG emissions & at

lower cost than without exploiting BECCS opportunity.


5/24

SCIENTIFIC/INTERNATIONAL BODIES ON BECCS:

IPCCs 4th Assessment Reportidentified BECCS as key technology forreaching low CO2 atmospheric concentration targets (IPCC, 2007).

Potential negative emissions via BECCS has been estimated by UKsRoyal Society as equivalent to 50-150 ppm decrease in globalatmospheric CO2 concentration (Royal Society, 2009).

US National Research Council has identified BECCS via coal-biomass

coprocessing as major option for making low-C fuels (NRC, 2009).

International Energy Agency (IEA, 2009a) has estimated a major rolefor BECCS in Blue Map global energy scenario aimed at stabilizingatmospheric GHG concentrations at 450 ppmv (CO2eq) : in this

scenario, 10 Gt CO2 is stored annually in 2050: 3.6 Gt/y via coal power,

2.4 Gt/y via natural gas power,

2.4 Gt/y via BECCS,

1.5 Gt/y via other.


6/24

CURRENT BECCS PROJECTS & FUTURE DIRECTIONS

8 out of 12 BECCS projects going forward worldwide are based on

capturing CO2 from ethanol production units (Karlsson and Bystrm,2011).

BECCS outlook could be improved enormously via including as well:

BECCS for biomass gasification energy systems;

BECCS gasification systems that coprocess coal & biomass;

BECSS gasification systems that coproduce electricity withtransportation fuels.


7/24


8/24

TYPICAL CONDITIONS

P = 20-35 atm.T = 180-350oC

Liquid Phase Reactor

Liquid-Phase Synfuels Synthesis via Gasification

Basic overall reaction for Fischer-Tropsch liquids (FTL):

over Fe- or Co- based catalyst222

H O- C2HCO ++ H -222

H O- C2HCO ++ H -

Syngas (fuel gas) having

appropriate H2/CO ratio is

bubbled up through column

of inert oil in which synthesis

catalyst particles are suspended.

CO and H2 react at surface of

catalyst to form the targeted

synthetic fuels.

High single-pass C conversion, scale economies, and thermodynamic advantages

of co-production often most favorable economics are for configurations thatprovide electricity as major coproductbetter than for configurations

generating very little (if any) net electricity.


9/24

FOUR GASIFICATION-BASED BECCS OPTIONS

(Synfuels = FTL)

COAL/BIOMASS COPROCESSING

BIOMASS ONLY


10/24

Alternative Energy Options for 0.5 x 106 t/y of Switchgrass

Technologya % bio-mass

(HHVbasis)

Output Capacities CO2stored,

106

t/y

% ofC in

feed-stockstored

asCO2

TPCb,

$106Fuels,

103liters/hour

gasolineequivalent

Electricity,

MWe(% of

energyoutput)

EtOH-V

100 12.9 2.0 (1.8) 0 0 156EtOH-CCS 100 12.9 0.62 (0.6) 0.11 15 158

BTL-V 100 14.8 19.3 (13) 0 0 408

BTL-CCS 100 14.8 14.2 (9.8) 0.44 56 416

BIGCC-CCS 100 0 118 (100) 1.56 90 398CBTL-CCS 45 32.3 24.3 (7.9) 0.91 54 733

CBTLE-CCS 29 35.7 131 (30) 1.70 65 939

a Based on LIU et al. (2011). EtOH-V output capacities & TPC based on NRC (2009).

bTPC (total plant cost) values are for NOAK plants & construction as of 2007.


11/24

GHG Emissions Index (GHGI)

for Alternative Energy Systems

It is assumed that fossil energy displaced = (equivalent crude-oil-derived products)

+ (electricity from a new supercritical coal steam-electric plant venting CO2).

-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2

EtOH-V

CBTLE-CCS

BTL-V

CBTL-CCS

EtOH-CCS

BIGCC-CCS

BTL-CCS

GHGI


12/24

GHG Emissions Avoided Index (GHGA)

for Alternative Energy Systems

GHGA ( 1 GHGI)*(Fuel-cycle-wide GHG emissions for displaced fossil energy)

Liquid fuel emissions avoided are comparable for CBTL-CCS, CBTLE-CCS, and BTL-CCS,

but total emissions avoided are almost 2X as large for CBTLE-CCS

Total emissions avoided are comparable for CBTLE-CCS and BIGCC-CCS

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

CBTLE-CCS

BIGCC-CCS

CBTL-CCS

BTL-CCS

BTL-V

EtOH-CCS

EtOH-V

Tonnes of CO2eq per Tonne of Biom ass

Liquid fuel

Electricity


13/24

All primary energy is allocated to liquid fuel even though electricity is also produced.

CBTLE-CCS &CBTL-CCS REQUIRE ~ 1 GJ OF BIOMASS FOR 1 GJ OF LOW-C LIQUID FUEL

Biomass Input Index (BII): Primary Energy Consumed

per Unit of Low-C Liquid Fuel Produced

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

EtOH-V EtOH-CCS BTL-V BTL-CCS CBTL-CCS CBTLE-CCS

Coal

Biomass

GJofprimaryenergy

perGJofliquidfuel(LHV)


14/24

Zero-emissions fuels index (ZEFI): Zero Net GHG-Emitting

Fuel Produced & Crude Oil-Derived Products for Which GHG

Emissions Are Offsetper Unit of Biomass Input

For each of last 4 BECCS options ~ 1 GJ of net zero-emitting liquid fuel

is provided via production and/or offset per GJ of biomass

(~ 2X rate for each of first 3 options)

Emissions offset potential for BTL-CCS = 6.6 X that for EtOH-CCS

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1

BTL-CCS

BIGCC-CCS

CBTL-CCS

CBTLE-CCS

EtOH-CCS

BTL-V

EtOH-V

GJ of net zero GHG-emitt ing liquid fuel per GJ of biomass input

Produced liquid fuel

Crude oil-derived liquid fuel offset


15/24

Levelized Cost of Fuel (LCOF) and Fuel Value

vs GHG Emissions Price for Alternative Low-C Technologies

Fuel prices (HHV basis): $2.0/GJ coal; $5.0/GJ switchgrass.

GHG EMISSIONS PRICE REQUIRED TO MAKE CBTLE-CCS COMPETITIVE:

~ PRICE REQUIRED TO MAKE EtOH-CCS COMPETITIVE

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0 20 40 60 80 100

GHG emissions price, $ per tonne of CO2eq

EtOH-V

EtOH-CCS

BTL-V

BTL-CCS

CBTL-CCS

CBTLE-CCS

Gasoline value for $90/barrel crude oil

FTL value for $90/barrel crude oilLCOFor

fuelvalue,

$perliterofgasolineequivalen

t


16/24

Levelized Cost of Fuel (LCOF) and Fuel Value

vs GHG Emissions Price for Alternative Low-C Technologies

Fuel prices (HHV basis): $2.0/GJ coal; $5.0/GJ switchgrass.

BTL-CCS WILL BE COMPETITIVE IN BIOMASS-RICH, COAL POOR

REGIONS AT LOWER GHG EMISSIONS PRICE THAN FOR EtOH-CCS

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0 20 40 60 80 100

GHG emissions price, $ per tonne of CO2eq

EtOH-V

EtOH-CCS

BTL-V

BTL-CCS

CBTL-CCS

CBTLE-CCS

Gasoline value for $90/barrel crude oil

FTL value for $90/barrel crude oilLCOFor

fuelvalue,

$perliterofgasolineequivalen

t


17/24

Internal Rate of Return on Equity (IRRE) vs GHG Emissions

Price for Alternative Gasification-Based BECCS Options

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 20 40 60 80 100

GHG Emissions Price, $ per tonne of CO2eq

BIGCC-CCS

BTL-CCS @ $90/barrel

CBTL-CCS, $90/barrel

CBTLE-CCS @ $90/barrel

IRRE,%

pe

ryear

For assumed oil price, CBTLE-CCS most profitable BECCS option for GHG emissions prices < $75/t

At higher emissions prices, BIGCC-CCS is more profitable at this oil price.


18/24

Summary of Findings for BECCS Options

Considering 6 biomass use indices simultaneously, winning BECCSoptions considered are CBTLE-CCS, BIGCC-CCS, and BTL-CCS:

All 3 offer comparable C-mitigation benefits; CBTLE-CCS offers the greatest energy security enhancement benefits;

For $90/barrel oil & GHG emissions price < $75/t CO2eq, CBTLE-CCS is mostprofitable option;

For $90/barrel oil & GHG emissions price > $75/t, BIGCC-CCS is most profitableoptionbut this option offers no energy security benefit;

For $90/barrel oil & GHG emissions price > $65/t, BTL-CCS would be cost-competitive in coal-poor but biomass-rich regions.

Early deployment of CBTLE-CCS technologies in coal-rich regions withadequate biomass supplies would facilitate transition later (when

GHG emissions prices are higher) to BTL-CCS technologies in coal-

poor, biomass-rich regions


19/24

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: TOWARD ZERO GHG EMISSIONS

FOR GLOBAL TRANSPORTATION IN 2050 (Larson et al. , 2011)

Adopt modified Blue Map (energy-efficient) IEA (2009b) scenario

for global transportation energy on demand side Assumed modification of IEA (2009b) Blue Map scenario:

No electrification, no fuel cells for light-duty vehicle fleet in period to 2050

Average LDV fuel use rate: 12.6 4.07 lge/100 km, 2005-2050

Assumed biomass supply (no dedicated energy crops on cropland): 4.2 x 109 t/y: agricultural and forest residues from IEA (2008)

1.8 x 109 t/y: grasses grown on abandoned cropland (Campbell et al. 2008)

Deploy CBTLE-CCS & BTL-CCS systems based on available biomass:

1 x 109

t/y for zero GHG-emitting CBTLE-CCS in coal-rich countries(mainly US, China, Australia)

5 x 109 t/y for negative GHG-emitting BTL-CCS in biomass-rich but coal-poorcountries (mainly in developing world)

Exploit negative emissions of BTL-CCS to offset GHG emissions from crude oil-

derived products and FTL via CBTLE-CCS


20/24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

2005 2050 IEA

Baseline

2050 IEA

Blue Map (modified)

2050 Supply

Blue Map (modified)

Biomass Input

Transportation Energy Demand and Supply

Lightduty

vehicles

Trucks

Passen-gerair

MarineFreight

Crudeoil-

derivedpro-

ducts

BTL-

CCS

CBTLE

-CCS

Grasses on

abandoned

cropland

Other

Global Transportation Energy Demand Liquid

FuelSupplies

Required

Biomass

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT FOR

GLOBAL TRANSPORTATION ENERGY & GHG EMISSIONS

#s at tops of energy demand bars are GHG emissions (in 109t CO2eq/y)

LDV fuel use rate

(liters ge/100 km) 12.6 8.76 3.78

7.3 0.0

14.2

Energyin

EJperyear


21/24

CONCLUSIONS

In principle, BECCS enables solution to climate challenge fortransportation to mid-centurywithout growing dedicated energy

crops on cropland, without abandoning oil, and with only a modestincrease in coal use, while helping to decarbonize electricity:

Crude oil-derived products (2050) for transportation in TE ~ of 2005 level

Low-C electricity via coproduction (2050) in TE ~ of 2005 coal generation

Coal use (2050) in Modified Blue Map scenario with TE = 1.2 X coal use (2005)

CO2 storage rate (2050) for TE = 8.5 Gt CO2/y

Shift to gasification approach to biomass conversion is key:

First for CBTLE-CCS; later for BTL-CCS

Commercial-scale demonstrations of CBTLE-CCS needed ASAP:

Early applications will involve < 10% biomass (near-commercial conversion technology) In US, early projects will involve using CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (proven storage option)

CO2 storage assessments needed for biomass-rich, coal-poor regions.

Institutional challenges to CBTLE-CCS must be overcome.

US/China/Australia collaboration for CBTLE-CCS market launch?

f


22/24

References Campbell, J. E., D. B. Lobell, R. C. Genova and C. B. Field, 2008: The global potential of

bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Environmental science and technology.,42(15): 5791-5794.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Issues related to mitigation in thelong term context, in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation, contribution of Working GroupIII to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report.

International Energy Agency (IEA), 2008: Energy Technology Perspectives to 2050, Paris,France.

IEA, 2009a: Technology Roadmap - Carbon Capture and Storage, Paris, France IEA, 2009b: Transport, energy and CO2: Moving toward sustainability, Paris, France. Karlsson, H., and Bystrm (Biorecro AB) : Global Status of BECCS Projects, a report

prepared for the Global CCS Institute, Canberra, Australia, March 2011.

Larson, E.D., and LI, Zheng (Co-Convening Lead Authors), Fleisch, Theo, LIU, Guangjian,Nicolaides, G., REN Xiangkun, and Williams, R.H.: Knowledge Module 12: Fossil EnergySystems, The Global Energy Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,2011 (forthcoming).

Liu, Guangjian, Eric. D. Larson, Robert H. Williams, Thomas. G. Kreutz and Xiangbo GUO,2011: Making Fischer-Tropsch Fuels and Electricity from Coal and Biomass:Performance and Cost Analysis, Energy and Fuels25, 415-437.

National Research Council (NRC), 2009: Panel on Alternative Liquid TransportationFuels, 2009. Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass: Technological Status,Costs, and Environmental Impacts. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press.

Royal Society, 2009: Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance, and Uncertainty.


23/24

Extra slides


24/24

C Balances and GHG Emission Flows for CBTLE-CCS

C Balance (Bars 2, 3) & GHG Emissions (Bars 4, 5)

for CBTLE-CCS Plant (GHGI = 0.085)with Comparison to GHG Emiss ions for Crude Oil Produc ts Displaced (Bar 1)

-30

-10

10

30

50

70

90

Crude oilproducts

displaced

C input toplant

C output ofplant

Ceqemissions by

component

Net Ceqemissions

Net GHG emissions for CBTLE-CCS

C extracted from atmosphere via photsynthesis

Ceq credit for emissions alllocated to electricity coproduct

Ceq emissions upstream and downstream of plant

C in char (to landfill)

C captured as CO2 and stored

C as CO2 in flue gases

C in FTL

C in coal to plant

C in biomass to plant

Inputs for Graph, 55.26424084

kg

Ceq

/GJofSynfu

el

Documents

Williams Brisbane Talk (Revised) 27 July 2011